Port 80

The latest dispatch from the Flyer News is most disheartening. Apparently, a vocally anti-war graduate student found his door vandalized after he spent a weekend off-campus working with the homeless:

… Standing with my homelessness handouts and sleeping bag at my door I read a note that said, “we protect your ass and my buddies die and all you can be is an ungreatful [sic] bi*** f*** you! U.S.M.C. cause you will never know US Marine CORPS!!!”

In addition, other derogatory words were written across my door covering my St. Francis prayer for peace, Safe Place sign, and an image of Iraqi children who have lost arms and legs from bombings. The text on this image was rendered to contrast the original message.

I could nitpick other elements of the article, but I’m not going to. Frankly, dissecting the author’s reasoning serves no possible purpose: If nothing else, the author’s entirely justifiable anger means that this piece will not be a paragon of clear and rational argument. Instead, I’m only going to say two things.

First, although the author suggests that the perpetrators may have been members of the UD ROTC program, I very much doubt that this is the case. I have known a number of ROTC students and a few ROTC instructors, and all have struck me as being disciplined and professional. Furthermore, I very much doubt that members of an Army ROTC program would be writing the praises of the Marine Corps on the door of a graduate student. In fact, it would greatly surprise me if the perpetrators of this act were members of the military at all.

Secondly, to whoever did this: Although I have been a vocal critic of the stance of UD Campus Ministry on the war in Iraq, don’t even think of trying to cite anything I’ve written in some halfhearted defense of your actions. My goal in criticizing Campus Ministry has been to increase debate - the goal of your actions was to stifle it. Those who resort to intimidation to win an argument have had many names throughout history. In Germany, they were called the Sturm Abteilung, or SA, or simply the brownshirts. In Iraq, they now being called Al-Tawhid wal Jihad. Presumably, you would consider yourselves allies of democracy. Consider that you are adopting the tactics of its bitterest enemies.

Why am I so focused on this point? There are two reasons. First of all, the last incident of door vandalism on this campus led to the establishment of an anti-bias program at UD. This incident, as public as it now is, is sure to spark some form of official reaction and quite a bit of unofficial ire.

This brings me to my other reason: I am the most recent, most visible, and most vocal critic of UD Campus Ministry at the moment. (Which is a somewhat surprising thing given the traffic, or lack thereof, that this site gets.) If someone should decide to make this act of vandalism worse with an intemperate response, I am the low-hanging fruit on the tree. Let me say, therefore, that my ire at being tied to this incident by supporters of Campus Ministry will hardly be less than my ire at being cited by the vandals. My opinions have been blatantly misrepresented before by supporters of Campus Ministry who did not take the trouble to respond to my central arguments, read my work correctly, quote me accurately, or represent their status as authors honestly. I did not respond to this misrepresentation because I did not feel it was necessary. However, I will forcefully respond to any attempts to tie my criticism to the actions of these thugs. They are no compatriots of mine. My arguments derive from the classical desire for rational debate, while their actions stem from a different historical inspiration.

All opposition must be stamped into the ground. — Slogan of the Sturm Abteilung

In addition to the University of Dayton, one of the other schools I considered attending was Marquette. From what Michelle Malkin has posted today, it doesn’t look like my issues with campus ministry would be any different there. Marquette just shut down a College Republican fundraiser for the Adopt-A-Sniper campaign.

Upon Marquette’s statement on the incident, two things quickly become evident. First, it is clear that Marquette’s reaction was little more than a panicked response to a student group which pushed at the university’s comfort zone. The sole item at the table Marquette cites as specifically objectionable, “a bracelet with the motto ‘1 Shot 1 Kill No Remorse I Decide,’” does not exist. Although the Adopt-A-Sniper campaign sells dogtags with that logo, their bracelets are engraved with a completely different phrase. This sort of easily-checked factual error bespeaks a press release drafted with great haste and without much proofreading.

Secondly, Marquette’s response gives a frightening look into the academic left’s take on freedom of speech.

In the context of the university’s Jesuit, Catholic mission, we could not allow fundraising in the student union for a group whose rhetoric regarding “snipers” could be widely misinterpreted as having a cavalier attitude toward the taking of a human life.

Is this all that is required to suppress free speech by a private organization - the expectation that the words of that organization could be widely misinterpreted by those who didn’t do the necessary research? This statement brings back memories niggardly incident in Washington DC. Has a Catholic university decided that the limits on free speech should be decided by the misinterpretations of the ignorant? How is it possible to conduct academic discourse if speech can be forbidden without even considering the intent or meaning of the speaker? Certainly, if Marquette had examined the Adopt-A-Sniper campaign for more than a few minutes, they would know that “One shot, one kill” is not “rhetoric” but the long-standing motto of the sniper community.

The most damning admission, however, comes at the end of Marquette’s press release:

Marquette University strongly supports and honors the men and women of our Armed Forces and has sponsored many activities to support our troops. In addition, every branch of the United States military is represented on our campus though the university’s ROTC program.

Clearly, Marquette isn’t blocking the College Republicans because of some higher commitment to the ideals of pacifism and nonviolence. Marquette appears perfectly comfortable with supporting the troops when the ugly reality of war is held at a safe distance, and all they have to do is wave yellow ribbons and watch the ROTC corps hoist a flag every morning. However, Marquette’s administration just can’t stomach the idea that our troops might actually be called upon to bring death to the enemy.

Supporting the troops as long as you aren’t bothered with the ugly details of what they do isn’t a “proud tradition.” It’s the basest sort of moral cowardice.

[L]egal participation in war gives the soldier the right of life and death over strangers – and I had exercised it legally. If you don’t like the result, don’t send kids to war with guns. — John Rotundo, Charlie Rangers

Today, I submitted a lengthy editorial to the Flyer News for publication. This is the post I mentioned I was working on in my last entry.

I could just link to the online version of the piece when it’s published - and I probably will eventually - but I’m going to try to use a few of the advantages that weblogging offers over print media. The most important of these is the lack of length restrictions - I’m almost certain that this piece will be trimmed for publication, but what I’m submitting here is the original work. The other advantage that posting online offers me is the ability to provide my sources - just work your way through the hyperlinks in the article.

This won’t be the last from me on this topic - I plan to blog any responses I get to the editorial. I will be detailing a little bit more of the connection between International ANSWER and the Workers World Party in future postings. In researching this editorial, I’ve come across many small tidbits which haven’t been linked together. With any luck, I can save someone else a little research.

It amuses me to no end that, if printed, this editorial will be the closest thing to investigative journalism that’s shown up in the Flyer News in several years. Even University papers now get to worry about the pajamaheddin.

Update: As of 14 January, the Flyer News has posted the editorial on their website. I’ve also started receiving some mail on the piece - some negative, some positive, all thoughful. Most interestingly, the Flyer News has made their online opinion poll question of the week “Do you agree with the actions of the Center for Social Concern in regards to the protest at Ft. Benning?” It will be interesting to see the results as students weigh in.

Full Editorial Text

In the final December issue of the Flyer News, the arrests of Brian DeRouen and Megan Doty at Ft. Benning were given lengthy and highly favorable coverage. While this reporting dealt with the consequences of these arrests in Georgia, it did not discuss the issues raised by these arrests here in Dayton. These arrests are the current high-water mark in a long stream of events supported by the Center for Social Concern (CSC) which have been at best questionable, and at worst criminal.

By design, the CSC is an organization meant to unabashedly embrace and promote Catholic social teachings. It is unsurprising that some of these teachings will be controversial. What is surprising and unsettling, however, is the CSC’s tendency to jump to conclusions and engage in actions that appear to be ideologically, rather than religiously, motivated.

Consider the “Week of Student Action Against the War” hosted by the CSC in March 2003 during the buildup to the war in Iraq. Although the US Council of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) had stated, “people of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases,” this was not the message promoted by the CSC. The political overtones of this “Week of Action” were strong enough that a student band pulled out of a CSC-planned concert on the grounds that they had been misinformed about the purpose of the event. The CSC website also briefly advertised a student walkout from classes: an odd protest tactic for an official arm of the University. The student walkout was pulled from the website once CSC’s director was notified of its presence, but the tendency of some elements of the CSC to embrace poorly considered tactics had been established.

The CSC’s tactics were even more ill-considered later that year, when they advertised an October 27th protest in Washington DC against the use of depleted uranium in Iraq. What the CSC did not advertise is that their attendance was only part of a much larger anti-war and anti-administration protest co-sponsored by International ANSWER. International ANSWER is not a garden-variety peace group: in fact, it is widely considered to be little more than a front for the Workers World Party (WWP). [Recommended: Tracking Down a Fifth Column Front, Edward Immler. Alternate sources: FrontPage Magazine (Right Wing), Boston IndyMedia (Left Wing/Mixed), Infoshop.org (Anarchist), International Socialist Review (Marxist)] The WWP has, among other things, publicly defended the Chinese government’s actions in the Tiananmen Square massacre, compared the Dalai Lama to Southern slave owners, and expressed fawning adulation for Kim Jong-Il’s rule in North Korea.

The problems with ANSWER are not limited to their connections to the WWP: ANSWER itself has not ruled out violence as a means of opposition to US actions in Iraq. In May 2003, ANSWER published a brochure declaring that “the anti-war movement … must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance.” Even after such gruesome events as the assassination of aid worker Margaret Hassan, countless beheadings of civilians, and the car-bombing of a high school in Samarra, ANSWER has not retracted this statement. To an outside observer, the CSC’s attendance at an ANSWER protest implies tacit support of ANSWER’s positions. The CSC’s failure – to this day – to publicly disclose the sponsors of the October protest lends further credence to such a belief. Does the CSC wish to tacitly condone the car-bombing of high schools?

In the CSC’s recent protest at Ft. Benning, their tactics moved from the morally and ethically questionable to the flatly illegal. Mr. DeRouen and Ms. Doty have stated that their arrest and upcoming trial is the “whole reason” they went to Ft. Benning. Were any of the staffers or students at the CSC who supported this trip aware of Mr. DeRouen or Ms. Doty’s reasons for going to Ft. Benning? If so, did they consider that they could easily be prosecuted under conspiracy charges? Did any member of the CSC staff make more than a token effort to establish the possible legal consequences of this protest for the University?

How was the Ft. Benning trip funded? The Flyer News stated that 70 students participated in the trip to Ft. Benning. Such a large group requires substantial logistical support – hotel reservations, transportation arrangements, and the like. Were any university funds – especially funds derived from student fees – used to support this protest? Were any of the paid staffers of the CSC “on the clock” when they organized this protest? There is no requirement that tuition only be used for programs that students like, but surely the line can be drawn at using student fees to fund violations of federal law. Civil disobedience may be a worthwhile tactic for some causes, but should the University be sponsoring these actions?

I bring up these issues in such a public forum only because I have raised them before, privately, with the CSC. Since I have discussed my concerns with them, the CSC has moved from supporting protests that are unethical to supporting protests that are illegal. Clearly, back-channel discussions of the CSC’s tactics are not productive. The time has come for the University as a whole to take a long, hard, look of the behavior of the CSC. Does a university with strong relations with the local Air Force base want to fund the arrest of its students on an Army base? Does the University want an official arm of Campus Ministry lending support to groups that see no problem with the slaughter of aid workers and civilians?

If so, then let the status quo continue. If not, then it is time for a full and public accounting of the funds, activities, and external ties of the Center for Social Concern. The students of this University should learn of the CSC’s activities from the Flyer News, not from a court transcript.

I’ve been working to research a post discussing the recent arrest of two University of Dayton Students at Ft. Benning while they were protesting the SoA/WHINSEC. The full post will be coming over the next few days, but I’ve discovered something that merits comment during my research. I’ve been re-reading some of the statements of the USCCB prior to the war in Iraq, and have stumbled across this line:

[A previous letter] raised serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any preemptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq.

I can understand the concerns raised by the Bishops about a preemptive use of force, or about any use of force at all. But why exactly was the word “unilateral” included in this statement? If an action is immoral, then it will never become moral, no matter how many people support it. Likewise, a moral action cannot become immoral if not enough people wish to undertake that action. “Consensus morality” doesn’t hold together any better than does “consensus science.” Have the Bishops forgotten principles of morality that are taught in second-grade religious education classes?

The other option is simply that “unilateral” is included because, alongside “preemptive” it was one of the major political charges leveled against the Bush Administration’s push to war in 2002. However, this possibility is hardly less disquieting. Why is morally irrelevant political terminology being inserted into what should be a statement wholly derived from the teaching and tradition of the Catholic Church? Did the Bishops simply decide to play politics for a change?

I am forced to hope for a third alternative, that the statement was sloppily written, and the word “unilateral” was inserted without careful consideration. However, it is a dark day indeed when my fondest hope is that the USCCB has not thought through what they are saying. One should never assume malice when incompetence will suffice for an explanation - in this case, those are my only two options.

A Catholic moral framework does not easily fit the ideologies of “right” or “left,” nor the platforms of any party. Our values are often not “politically correct.” Believers are called to be a community of conscience within the larger society and to test public life by the values of Scripture and the principles of Catholic social teaching. — USCCB Administrative Committee, Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility

It’s official: The FBI thinks that there is an elevated risk of terrorist attacks this summer.

In the words of Gomer Pyle: Surprise, surprise, surprise.

This is the precise reason that many were so dismayed at the actions of the Spanish electorate after the Madrid railway bombings: By supporting Zapatero as the Prime Minister, the Spanish taught al Qaeda that a mass-casualty attack immediately prior to an election could influence the result of that election to benefit al Qaeda. The ousted Anzar had committed troops to Iraq, the incoming Zapatero immediately withdrew all Spanish forces from the region, causing the withdrawal of the Honduran contingent as well.

Now, with US elections coming up in November, is it any shock that al Qaeda might try the same tactic again? They have learned that it is costly to engage US troops on the battlefield, but by attempting to influence the American elections, they may succeed in having the American forces in Iraq withdrawn quickly (or at least ahead of schedule) for a far lower cost. If the new Iraqi government can be collapsed after a US withdrawal, al Qaeda will not only have removed a major American base of operations in the Middle East, they will have created a new base of operations for themselves.

(more…)

There isn’t nearly enough reporting in the Western media on the current political situation in Iran, but what reporting exists is either very frightening or very encouraging, depending on one’s point of view. For some time, there has been debate between the Iranian Guardian Council and reformists in the government over the blacklisting of several thousand electoral candidates by the Guardian Council. Now, the New York Times is reporting that the standoff has heated up: The interior minister of Iran is arguing for canceling or postponing elections, stating that “There is no possibility of holding free and competitive elections, and we don’t consider this election legitimate.” Furthermore, 124 of the 290 parliamentarians in the Majlis have tendered their resignations. All the pieces are in place for a major political showdown between the reformists and the hardliners.

At least, that’s the common analysis. And it is correct, as far as it goes: It is simply that it doesn’t go far enough. What is happening in Iran is a breakdown of the ostensibly democratic system created to provide peaceful expression for the will of the people. Historically, democracy and negotiation have acted as a safety valve for social tensions — as long as people think they can negotiate and get what they want, they tend not to take up arms. Unfortunately, the Guardian Council’s actions have just taken that safety valve and wired it shut.

The significance of what’s happening in Iran isn’t so much that there is a political showdown, rather, it’s that the mechanisms of politics are on the verge of collapse. How often does the Interior Minister of a country declare that the elections of his own nation are illegitimate and cannot be trusted, weeks in advance of the results? One or two parliamentarians may resign here or there in melodramatic protests, but to have over a third of the parliament decide that the current system is useless is something entirely out the ordinary. Combine that with the fact that the leading reform party may announce a boycott of the polls at the upcoming elections, and you have a large segment of the population that has decided that the current state institutions are not acceptable venues for problem solving.

Between now and the elections on February 20, something in this standoff will give. It is possible that the Guardian Council will revise their ruling, and effectively give up control of Iran. It is also possible that the reformists will give in, and accept the results of the elections. However, right now I’m worried about the third option: The state itself will give in, and the current standoff in Iran will become far less political and far more tactical in nature. Throughout history, when people with a grudge stop talking to each other, it means they’re about to start shooting at each other.

It’s a good thing that we still have a major presence in Iraq, and the logistical train to support forces in the region. With the Iraqi government destroyed, and the Iranian government teetering towards radical reform or possibly collapse, the US may find itself at the center of a major power vacuum. Let’s hope that our planners in Iraq are thinking through what might happen if the two largest powers in the region collapse within 12 months of each other.

Update - 4 February

It appears that Ayatollah Khamanei understands exactly what’s at stake here. The Washington Post is reporting that Khamanei is trying both to rein in the Guardian Council and discourage parliamentarians from resigning. With any luck and some good work by Khamanei, the Guardian Council will back down, and the government will remain intact. Although I am no fan of the hardliners, a slow and peaceful shift of power away from the Guardian Council is far preferable to an abrupt and violent one.

I’ve written before about the difficulties of being a pro-war Catholic, when the Church has shown itself to be anti-war almost to the point of blindness. Given that, the recent statements made by Cardinal Renato Martino don’t surprise me overly. (Particularly in light of his previous statements on the war.) To quote from Reuters:

Cardinal Renato Martino, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department and a former papal envoy to the United Nations, told a news conference on Tuesday it would be “illusory” to think the arrest of the former Iraqi president would heal all the damage caused by a war which the Holy See opposed.

“I felt pity to see this man destroyed, (the military) looking at his teeth as if he were a cow. They could have spared us these pictures,” he said.

“Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him,” he said in answer to questions about Saddam’s arrest.

Here, Cardinal Martino has presented us with an excellent example of compassion for all those who are imprisoned.

He has also provided us with one of the most repulsive examples I have seen in my entire life of moral relativism.

(more…)

Someone in the Bush administration’s public relations staff, who is clearly not am expert on the Middle East, has made a truly hilarious error on the White House web page describing operations in Iraq. The banner graphic proudly advertises “Renewal in Iraq,” and even features an image of Bush speaking before a banner that reads “Renewal in Iraq.”

This hapless staffer needs to be quietly taken aside, and someone has to explain to him or her exactly what the origin of the name “Arab Baath Socialist Party” is. I thought the goal was to get “Renewal” out of Iraq…

Last night, I got the chance to watch Tony Blair’s speech to Congress. (Dialup users may prefer to read Blair’s remarks.) As you watch, bear in mind that Blair is a member of the Labour party, a remarkable fact given his tendency to sound like Paul Wolfowitz in his statements on foreign policy. Beyond mere curiosity, it is worth a little time to see the advice of a British prime minister regarding the proper actions of a major world power.

The other reason to watch this speech is that the ritual quoting out of context has already begun less than twenty-four hours later.

Tony Blair last night used the rare opportunity of a historic address to the US Congress to declare that history would “forgive” him even if no weapons of mass destruction are uncovered in Iraq.

In a significant softening of Downing Street’s stance on Iraq’s banned weapons, the prime minister stood before hundreds of members of Congress to admit that he may eventually be proved wrong.

As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?

I just got done reading an editorial entitled “We went to war just to boost the whitemale ego.” The Onion? No. The Borowitz Report? No. The Lemon? No.

The Times Online? Oh, yes.

(more…)