<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d12988030\x26blogName\x3dDon\x27t+Trust+Snakes\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://donttrustsnakes.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://donttrustsnakes.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-4673447362931781663', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe", messageHandlersFilter: gapi.iframes.CROSS_ORIGIN_IFRAMES_FILTER, messageHandlers: { 'blogger-ping': function() {} } }); } }); </script>


DON’T

TRUST

SNAKES

“I know where I'm headed.”
ROGER THORNHILL


« Home »


Wednesday, October 25, 2006

The intellectually dishonest Garrison Keillor

I've decided I really don't like Garrison Keillor. Sure, he was the best advice columnist Salon ever had, but as far as I'm concerned that was his best work. I've never cared for his radio show, and I really, really dislike his smug, sanctimonious and intellectually dishonest commentaries in Salon these days. Most recently, he writes:
But now the federal government is extending the frontiers of terror with the Military Commissions Act, legalizing torture and suspending habeas corpus and constructing a loose web of law by which you and I could be hung by our ankles in a meat locker for as long as somebody deems necessary. "Any person is punishable . . ." the law states, "who knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States" and when it comes to deciding what "knowingly and intentionally" might mean or who is the enemy, that's for a military commission to decide in secret, with or without you present. No Fifth Amendment, hearsay evidence admissible, no judicial review.

People came to America to escape this sort of justice. The midnight knock on the door, incarceration at the whim of men in shiny boots, confessions obtained with a section of hose, secret trial by star chamber. One is reminded of Germany, 1933, when the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act to give the Chancellor the power of summary arrest and imprisonment, a necessary tool for the defense of the homeland against traitors, Jew-lovers, terrorists.
Now, in my opinion anyone who "is reminded" of Hitler's seizure of power hasn't got a clue about what is going on in this country and even less about what was going on in Germany in 1933. Come on, Garrison, play fair. Have you been dragged from your home recently? Kept off the radio? Kept from publishing your work?

I took the trouble to actually read the part of the Military Commissions Act that Keillor attempts to quote. As I knew I would find, it is very far from "constructing a loose web of law by which you and I could be hung by our ankles in a meat locker for as long as somebody deems necessary."

Here is Keillor's quote: "Any person is punishable . . . who knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States . . . ."

Here is the actual text (emphasis mine):
"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who--

`(1) commits an offense punishable by this chapter . . . . [skipping to item 26 in the list of offenses]

"Any person subject to this chapter who, in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States, knowingly and intentionally aids an enemy of the United States . . . "
I cut and pasted the text Keillor passes over with his first ellipsis into Word and did a word count. Those three dots take the place of 2,800 words (give or take, because he messed up a little in what he did with the "who"). Convention and accepted journalistic practice dictate that he should have used at least one more ellipsis dot.

Now, it's hard to take 2,800 words out of the middle of a "sentence" and preserve the original meaning. But that butchery is almost incidental here. I include it to show the dishonest spirit that seems operative.

Here are the main problems with Keillor's rendering of the statute and claims about what it means:
  1. "Any person" is only punishable (as a principal) insofar as that person "commits an offense punishable by this chapter [i.e., the Military Commissions Act]." Thus, "any person" doesn't really mean "any person" because . . .

  2. As stated in the first portion I emphasized above (omitted by Keillor), the offense he quotes (item 26 in a list), like all the offenses specified in the statute, applies only to persons "subject to this chapter." And guess what? The whole fucking chapter only applies to alien unlawful enemy combatants! Or, as Garrison Keillor calls them, "you and I." Not me, bud. Not you either.

  3. As stated in the second portion I emphasized above (also omitted by Keillor), the actor, in aiding an enemy of the United States, must be acting "in breach of an allegiance or duty to the United States." So Joe Herdsman in uttermost Waziristan who helps Ayman al-Zawahiri with a flat hasn't committed this offense. He had no allegiance or duty to the United States. Kind of an important point, don't you think? I'd be interested in knowing the legislative history of that bit—I mean, how many alien unlawful enemy combatants did they suppose would have an "alliegence or duty to the United States"? (If I've misread this bit, don't be bashful in commenting.)
It's late, too late to do justice to Keillor's bit about "No Fifth Amendment, hearsay evidence admissible, no judicial review." Suffice it to say that the statute only mentions the Fifth Amendment once in an unrelated context, that hearsay evidence is admissible in plenty of cases under regular rules of evidence, and, as every child knows (Marbury v. Madison), "no judicial review" is a fanciful thought and will remain so unless our political arrangements change greatly.

I hate intellectual dishonesty wherever it appears on the political spectrum, but it's true I'm more bothered to see it in liberals. As I've said before, when you go to the fair, you expect to smell certain things in the livestock barns. You don't expect to smell them in the scone area.

(Oh, almost forgot to mention that I have it on very good authority that Garrison Keillor is a nasty piece of work as a person.)


posted at 12:38 AM

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home