Given an opportunity to disavow her violent criminal past as a member of the Weather Underground via a challenge in The Daily Northwestern, she instead appears to justify her actions based on the fact that she believes that she was engaged in a fight against "the illegal, immoral war against Vietnam and the organized terrorism of my government." She also appears to claim that any attempt to question her current views about her past activities constitutes "McCarthyism," as if questioning an ex-terrorist regarding whether she still believes in terrorism is somehow beyond the pale. (H/T: Overlawyered.)
UPDATE: The exchange at issue took place in April 2005, not this year as I initially thought. Still, it's somewhat newsworthy given the recent controversy over Dohrn's husband, partner in crime, and fellow academic, Bill Ayers.
Why she and her hubby were elevated to such exalted positions, instead of spending the rest of their criminal lives behind bars, is something I'll never understand.
I know absolutely nothing about Dohrn, but I don't see that in her letter. Here's what she says:
The ellipses that you put in, suggesting that it's calling the violent acts she support(ed?) terrorism that's the McCarthyism, ignores the fact that the ellipses edit out two sentences and a paragraph break, though I suppose it's at least possible that's what she meant. If so, I'd just change my post to "she seems to suggest that anyone who, in questioning her past support for and participation in violence, suggests that she engaged in 'terrorism', is a McCarthyist because they don't accept her narrow definition of the term."
Am I wrong in reading this as her offering a personal definition of terrorism -"the use of violence to intimidate or coerce a civilian (or any other) population"?
And so something that she did or "endorsed" that fell outside this definition- perhaps, a violent act in "resistance" to same- would be justified?
How do these people get faculty jobs at such excellent universities?
<<<<
Thanks.
I'm saving this, just in case I ever have to provide an example of the definition of the word "pettifog".
Sorry if the difference between tone and substance -- and between saying something is true in one case vs. always true -- is something that you find unusually tricky.
Well, I think all writing has a tone. Sometimes a tone is sarcastic and bitter, sometimes it is generous and open. I think tone is really important. But perhaps I am quirky in those beliefs.
What interests me is how this seems to keep cropping up as some kind of natural human mistake in reasoning. Think "you are either with us or against us."
Anyway, I still don't see how these people can be treated legitimate members of society, much less politically connected, when they don't even see how wrong they were.
I don't know what Dohrn is referring to with the "New McCarthyism", but the plague of conservative students who are loud, abrasive, ignorant, and narrow-minded is becoming worse and worse as they are able to describe their "victimization" at the hands of "liberal" academia in more and more conservative fora.
My sense is that since McCarthy asked people about their ties to objectionable groups, and Dohrn is being asked about her ties to objectionable groups, she is making an objection based on substance. Her word choice is as sloppy as her group's bombs used to be.
But to answer your question, no, I don't think a liberal college student ever confronted William F Buckley. Of course, despite the fact that it never ever came up in discussions of him, not once between the 50s and Steve's comment here, Buckley did apologize for it some time ago.
Also, neither Buckley nor Libby ever tried to kill anybody. But that is the kind of thing Steve would call 'irrelevant'.
There I go, being a McCarthyist.
But he was pretty good at ruining innocent people.
Good call; self-reflection is a real strong point for you, I see.
Two snarks making a right, let's move on to the substance. Crashing a plane full of civilians into the Pentagon IS terrorism. Not because of the target, but because of the weapon. But if Russia dropped a nuke on the Pentagon, only a fool would describe that as "terrorism". Military weapon, military target.
Here's the first paragraph:
The only outright statement she makes is that the column is "poorly researched," though she doesn't say how. "Assistant" and "husband" are in scare quotes, and the comments are "alleged." She basically refuses to confirm or deny any of the assertions that Guy Benson makes, including that Bill Ayers is actually her husband, that he made any comments, or that the NYTimes quoted him accurately.
The two paragraphs following are basically: (1) I'm not a recluse and I don't hide my views (whatever they are), and (2) I oppose terrorism as I define it.
I disagree with Prof. Bernstein's characterization of the exchange, and I think that Prof. Dohrn is just telling a sophomore to buzz off, no more and no less.
Not that I think that Dohrn is presently a threat, but it's interesting how unevenly "zero tolerance" policies are appied.
I'd never heard of Dohrn until this post, and I'm too young to remember the Weather Underground, but I'm immediately suspicious of a post that slides from "her violent criminal past" to "as a member of the Weather Underground." If she herself had done something violent in the past, I'd expect the post to say what that was. To say that she has a violent past because she was a member of a group in which other members did violent things just looks to me like an admission that she herself didn't do anything.
audio
video
swine, the pair.
true- amazingly, after 2005 Ayers and Dorhn both took vows as Carmelite nuns, Ayers having a full-op sex change prior to marrying Christ.
Wise up.
That would be me, see above.
I am severely opposed to removing Yoo from his tenured professorship solely on the basis of his work in the OLC, but, come a Democratic administration, if he is charged with some criminal offense for his OLC activities, and convicted, I would think that conservatives who support booting out Dohrn would have to do the same for Yoo.
http://www.chron.org/tools/viewart.php?artid=298
apparently her career has been boosted by her father-in-law who ran Commonwealth Edison- she was hired as an associate at Sidley Austin until they realized that being unable to be admitted to the bar due to character would stunt her career, then she was hired at Northwestern, where her father-in-law had been chair of the board of trustees. I guess he must not've been one of the "bad" capitalist pigs; surely that is why they never tried to kill him as part of their glorious resistance plan. Then-prof Daniel Posby has a good quote about hiring her- he called it the "laundering of evil."
Your conclusion doesn't follow at all. Governments engage in terrorism all the time (that's how the word originated). And they use the military to do it. Hell, a great deal of Stalinist Russia and Hitler's Germany involved just that behavior. And Trotsky wrote a whole book trying to justify it after the October Revolution.
Whether any particular act by US forces in Vietnam constituted terrorism, or whether certain overall policies were fairly described as "terrorist" depends on the exact facts and the goals one attributes to US forces. Dohrn is wrong to characterize the whole war as "terrorist", but that doesn't mean she's lying. There certainly were things we did there which probably were fairly described as "terrorist", but few of them constituted official policy.
Might be. Merely identifying the group responsible doesn't answer the question. We need to judge the purpose and reasonably anticipated effect of bombing as well. If it was to generate fear in the US population, or would reasonably do so, then yes. If it was to destroy a military target as part of a perceived (though Quixotic) "revolution", then no.
Kids' emotional development tends to be stunted. Teens generally believe their elders to be annoying and stupid, with a corresponding belief in their own omniscience. They tend to grow out of this phase, although not completely by college years, and some slower than others. Dohrn was one of these.
Rebelling against parents/elders is a tradition from the beginnings of time. The difference this time was that the excesses of the sixties were seen and popularized on T.V. - with the result that this rebellion was seen to be accepted by adults.
Casual sex and drug use was now the social norm, forcing the Dohrns of the world to push the envelope. Violence "for a cause" was the next available outlet. Children are always prone to romanticism, and groups such as the Weathermen supplied the context which allowed them their self-justification.
This has not gone away either, consider the ELF and PETA.
****************
"The plague of conservative students who are loud, abrasive, ignorant, and narrow-minded is becoming worse and worse..."
This statement is completely correct. What you are ignoring is that * all * students are loud and narrow minded. It's just that you don't see liberal students in this light because you generally agree with their positions and therefore approve of their actions.
S'OK, you'll grow out of it too :<)
yeah, that makes sense...
For the commenter who thought comparisons to al Qaeda are outlandish because, hey, it's not like the Weathermen declared war on the US: yes, they did. Here's a taste.
Hello. This is Bernardine Dohrn.
I'm going to read A DECLARATION OF A STATE OF WAR.
This is the first communication from the Weatherman underground.
...
Tens of thousands have learned that protest and marches don't do it. Revolutionary violence is the only way.
Now we are adapting the classic guerrilla strategy of the Viet Cong and the urban guerrilla strategy of the Tupamaros to our own situation here in the most technically advanced country in the world.
It was a criminal enterprise, populated by criminals, many of whom - including Dohrn - have been convicted of committing violent crimes. Why are any of you defending them?
Not saying you're wrong, by the way. Just partisan.
Which reminds me: Brian Leiter and David Bernstein were all hammer and tongs a while back about whether the academy is too intolerant of conservatives (or, as Leiter seems to believe, of leftists). Well, can Leiter name a top-20 law school that hired a right-wing equivalent of Dohrn? An abortion clinic bomber, for example.
That just shows how the legal academy is so skewed to the left. It would be unthinkable for such a radical right-winger to get hired at a top 20 school, because none of the liberals and leftists would put up with it, and the few moderates and conservatives would be too embarrassed. Whereas there are enough guilty liberals in law schools -- who secretly admire the courage of radical leftists -- that someone like Dohrn can find a home.
For that matter, what was 'abrasive'? He described Dohrn's child advocacy as 'laudable'; you suggest he is part of a 'plague'. Who is abrasive here?
Wiki (yeah, I know, but it's consistent with my memory) says "Apart from an apparently accidental premature detonation of a bomb in the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion which claimed the lives of three of their own members, no one was ever harmed in their extensive bombing campaign, as they were always careful to issue warnings in advance to ensure a safe evacuation of the area prior to detonation."
This is a joke, right?? How about assaulting conservative speakers...or trashing campus newspapers that have the temerity to publish conservative writers...or destroying and defacing advertisements for conservative events...
Let's start with the assumption that undergraduate students at a university are fully justified in attempting to publicly shame and interrogate any professor (at a graduate school at which this student is not even enrolled) for some past conduct with which they (or even a vast majority of society) disagree. Where does this take us?
Let's imagine another fellow undergrad who discovers that a business school professor at his university used to work in upper management at Union Carbide during the Bhopal disaster in the 1980s. Would this student be fully justified and not "myopic" or "ignorant" or "abrasive" in publishing an open letter to this professor inquiring into his culpability in the disaster? Of course, the student has the right to so inquire, but that doesn't immunize him from judgment for his actions.
Let's make another one even easier. Suppose there's a medical school professor who was sued for medical malpractice for the death of one of her patients and a judgment was entered against her. Would an undergraduate student be exercising non-myopic, non-ignorant, and non-abrasive judgment in attempting to publicly shame and interrogate her for her conduct in the school newspaper?
Please enlighten me.
Dohrn was part of an anti-war group that practiced and preached violent resistance to the government, mostly through bombings. The group generally voiced adaptations of communist thought. Here's an interesting link, with some first hand quotes and rhetoric from Dohrn and the Weather Underground.
Contemporaneous with the Weatherman (and Dohrn), various black militant groups and native Americans were also resorting to violence. There was absolutely nothing from that era to compare with the attacks of 9-11, unless of course, you were related to one of the people murdered in this era by one or another of the groups exercising violence. But, to be fair, I don't think any of the groups ever contemplated anything on the scale of 9-11. They didn't go in for random homicide of civilians, although they did definitely target some functionaries for murder. Cops were a favored target.
I believe that Dohrn, while holding a law degree and a position as a law professor, cannot actually practice law because she's a convicted felon. That may no longer be true.
"...the crude, misplaced analogies..."
I don't know about that, but perhaps a better example might be the current view of the Iraq war by the public - mostly opposed, yes?. Now imagine people rioting in the streets and setting off bombs, killing police from ambush, robbing banks - all in the name of resistance to the war. Granted, Viet Nam was causing significantly more casualties - both military and civilian - there wasn't much room for talk between proponents and opponents to the war. Kinda' like now.
A big difference - nowadays, the idea seems to be we should elect a President and Congress that will view the war in the same way as the voting majority.
While I don't suspect the 60-ish Dohrn and Ayers would again personally resort to violence, they sound unrepentant that they once did, and they seem to justify what happened as a combination of youthful exuberance and absolute necessity. If the quotes above are accurate, Dohrn is careful to define terrorism as something she didn't do. Which, of course, is a complete fantasy. Their tactics of the time were to commit terror attacks, forcing the authorities to overreact and clamp down on the people, raising awareness among the oppressed of the true state of their miserable existence (their words, not mine). Presumably, Dohrn saw herself as one of the highly educated elite who would make all of the important decisions for the rest of us bovine-like worker class.
I do not think, however, than Dohrn was ever personally linked or charged with any attack that resulted in the loss of human life, although certainly her fellow Weathermen did commit murders. (And blew up several of their membership when a bomb detonated prematurely in a fancy NY townhouse.)
One last word...want to know what it sounded like back in the late '60's. Go here and watch the video.
Just one opinion. But I was there.
Groups with revolutionary rhetoric were a dime a dozen in the 1960's. My point still stands - saying that someone "has a violent past" because of their membership is a group is another way of admitting you can't cite anything that person actually did himself or herself.
Sounds of the '60's
This sounds like the 60's
and this is quotes from Dohrn and the WU
HERE
I would be interested in hearing from someone who did come of age in the Vietnam War era (or who has studied it) and who could place Dohrn's conduct during that time in some sort of context.
At one time I was sympathetic to the SDS and the far left, but after having listened to too many of the SDS and the far left, I came to the conclusion that they were sectarian, dogmatic. And not just a little bit arrogant.
Example of the dogmatism and sectarianism. I was a hippie dropout in Berkeley, selling “underground” newspapers on the street to survive. I sold both the Berkeley Barb and the Berkeley Tribe. The Tribe was an offshoot from the Barb- basically because the owner of the Barb didn’t pay his staff a sufficient wage. I sold both. I needed the money. Once a driver took a copy of the Barb, and drove off without paying me: “it’s a pig paper.” Of such small incidents come political opinions.
I recall a protest moment when a SDS activist/leader at my school- not Berkeley- said in a semi private conversation that Lenin should be studied in school, be made a focal study point. Forget Plato and Einstein! Forget Piaget and Freud! Lenin uber alles! Even at the time, I found her adulation of Lenin to be disconcerting. I was a freshman, she was a senior, so we didn’t know each other personally, but I will never forget her remark and her name. She went on to become a state legislator, and I assume she did not take the violent road that some in the SDS later took.
There were massive protests against the Vietnam War, most of them peaceful. They had an effect, and to have Dohrn and others claim that the nonviolent protests had no effect, and that violence was necessary, is a total fabrication of history. At the same time, I was a Conscientious Objector, so I did have a certain ideological bias.
Also consider the considerable effect that nonviolent protest had in the passage of the Civil Rights Bill and Voting Rights Bill in the mid 1960s. Those who claimed that nonviolent protest didn’t work had an ideological bias- overthrow the system. The Weathermen, which later constituted the violent branch of the SDS, were crazy leftists. No more and no less.
Ex Weathermen who have not repented, such as Ayers and Dohrn, when they have violent political acts in their past, deserve no sympathy whatsoever. Perhaps there were too many refugees from Communism in my hometown for me to have fallen in step with self-professed Marxists preaching and acting on violent revolution, especially upper –class Marxists like Ayers, whose father was Chairman and CEO of Com Edison.
You mention "assaulting conservative speakers" (e.g., Columbia, Concordia in Montreal, etc), but do not say that those who offend "liberal" sensibilities have been denied the opportunity to speak on campuses, even when invitations were extended by groups who wanted to hear them. Can Diggity Steve, who has asked to be "enlightened," cite examples of those conservative campus groups he finds so offensive and obnoxious denying others the right to hear invited speakers? (No, picketing does not count, that is an acceptable form of protest.)
"trashing campus newspapers that have the temerity to publish conservative writers," that refers to stealing those papers to keep them from being read by others? Again, maybe Diggity Steve has some examples of conservative campus groups doing that to cite.
You didn't mention instances of real intimidation by the "anti-colonial" Left, especially the so-called anti-Zionists of those who would support Israel on campus, e.g., San Diego State, San Francisco State, etc.
Should we bring up Duke, where the International Solidarity Movement, a supporter of terrorists, was welcomed by the campus Left; where a virulently anti-semitic piece (Philip Kurian) was published by the student newspaper in the wake of the ISM convocation; and where the Left was so intent upon visiting their own version of "justice" on the school's lacrosse team and others viewed as "privileged" or non-PC?
In Diggity Steve's eyes it is offensive and obnoxious for conservative students to object to that sort of things or seek to embarrass respected faculty like Dohrn and Ayers. And neither you, nor I can "enlighten" him.
Possibly, but it's not what she said. She denied endorsing terrorism:
Within the narrow confines of this statement, she's probably accurate, She practiced terrorism with the express aim of causing the government to overreact and violently subjugate the masses. Classic Marx
"one of Marx’s profound propositions: revolution progresses by giving rise to a strong and united counter-revolution, i.e., it compels the enemy to resort to more and more extreme measures of defence and in this way devises ever more powerful means of attack."
And, like them, I was firmly convinced that The War was driven by the simple profit motive for the military-industrial complex that had taken control of our government when their stooges, Nixon and Agnew, pulled their illegal coup.
Damn, we were stupid.
I've since done enough research, spoken to enough informed people, and paid enough attention to Vietnamese sources, North and South, to know now that I, and most of my generation, were just completely wrong. America really was fighting on the side of truth and justice and beauty and freedom. Even worse, my generation took actions that eventually directly drove America out of that conflict far too early.
In our profound self-centeredness and arrogance, we directly caused the needless deaths of millions of innocent people. Had we taken the time to learn what was involved, the information that would have set us straight was out there, available to us readily. We could have educated ourselves, and THEN acted.
But we were young, and stupid, and I remain convinced now that our goal had nothing to do with saving Viet Nam, and everything to do with telling our parents to go screw.
Too bad we couldn't have just stuck to the drugs and sex and music, and left that pesky "causing the deaths of millions" part out of it.
Ahh, to be young and so righteous.
You challenge me to name obnoxious activities by liberal groups. The fact that you ask tells me you misunderstood my point. There is an unending supply of obnoxious campus incidents perpetrated by both liberals and conservatives.
That you see the current conservative crop as particularly offensive amuses me greatly. It tells me you are lacking in historical perspective. Good news is, you will someday realize that the vast majority of campus activists are neither good nor bad, merely pathetic.
Bottom line is, you dislike that people with whom you disagree express themselves in ways you find offensive. Welcome to the real world.
From the same article, some more detail on the Greenwich bomb:
The bomb was filled with nails, and was intended to kill. Fortunately it killed its makers rather than its targets. And Dohrn's fellow weather underground people hardly forsook violence and murder, though its true they took a temporary hiatus from the killing after their botched attempt. It was only temporary though, and Dohrn was went to jail to avoid testifying against her friend Susan Rosenberg, who drove the getaway car in the deadly Brinks Robbery.
Amazing what you can find on Wikipedia these days.
Where I work, there is a department head who doesn't like to be disagreed with. When you write something, no matter how bland or respectful, that he disagrees with but lacks a good argument against, he rejects it for 'tone'. I've watched individuals who I know to write in a very clean, very neutral way, get this same rejection when they advance ideas this guy doesn't like.
He uses 'tone' when he can't come up with a response against substance. He's not the only person I've ever see do this. The reason they do this is that often, upper management only wants to deal with substance. When someone claims 'tone' or 'attitude' or a few other terms, management very quickly don't want to deal with it. If an individual is already in a position of authority, it usually leads to management taking their word that they've been offended or disrespected, and therefor they almost always can ignore the substance.
In a case like this, it's impossible to prove whether this Dohrn person is doing this or not. However, it would be easy to disprove if someone could show a situation where Dohrn felt this line of questioning was appropriate. I couldn't find even one. To me, it seems like she's using the 'tone' argument to escape the substance of the questions.
Bobby,
What's really sad, and scary, is that so many of the early Boomer generation (mine) are still that stupid. They haven't learned a thing in 40 years. What's scary is that one of their younger acolytes is running for President and has a serious shot at actually getting there.
I saw a great quote elsewhere that describes these characters. "You couldn't get a clue if you were covered in clue musk and set in a field full of horny clues during clue mating season."
LM, I take what Dohrn has said to be a frank admission of her endorsement of terrorism, though she may fancy it a denial. Understand her words for what they are, namely just another version of that "one man's 'terrorist' is another's 'freedom fighter'" bullshit.
I went to college (University of Kansas) during that time, went to Vietnam as a Navy airman, and returned to college. After I returned, there were local anti-war riots where a couple of people were killed, someone burned down the student union building, and someone (SDS? Weathermen?) planted a bomb in the computer center which injured several computer operators (civilians), at least one permanently. They also kept trying to burn down the ROTC building, but the darned thing wouldn't ignite, which was amusing.
It was a time of chaos among college youth, with all sorts of wacko movements and causes, all mixed up with the sexual revolution and widespread use of drugs - mostly marijuana and LSD. Most of the energy energy went into anti-war movements, because people were afraid of being drafted and sent to Vietnam (this is shown by the dramatic collapse of all but the most radical movements when the draft was reformed). Also, it was fun to go to demonstrations - a picnic with fun people, good drugs, nice looking chicks, and a feeling that you were doing something good or part of some amazing phenomenon.
Even in the context of those times, the SDS was out there... way out there. They were Marxist and revolutionaries, advocating overthrow of the democratically elected government of the US. At my University, 5 of the 7 founding members were also members of the Communist Party, USA - which provided support to many of these movements with money furnished by the KGB.
SDS, not just the more radical Weather factions, was into violence. I saw them use it to take over an anti-war demonstration from more pacifist organizers.
In spite of all this, very few people practiced any form of terrorism or belonged to terrorist groups. There was lots of anger (and a lot of narcissism), but little violence. Thus Dohrn and Ayers represent an extremely small minority.
Put another way, almost everyone avoided violence - 99.99%, so the excuse that SDS'ers were young is just that - an excuse. The rest of us were young too, and we didn't hurt anyone or blow anything up.
Another factor many may not realize is that a lot of the leaders or ideologists of these movements were not as young. They were of the '50s, not '60s generation. They were committed leftists taking advantage of the ignorance and adolescent angst of the 60'ers to push far left causes.
Dohrn and Ayers shouldn't be professors or be in any position of respect or authority. Only the modern, corrupt and highly leftist education establishment would honor these cowards. They betrayed their fellow citizens, endangered many, and caused death and destruction. They don't deserve much more than to be shunned by society.
Ayers joined the Weatherman domestic terror group in 1969, and took part in bombings of several police stations and the Pentagon. He became a fugitive after a bomb he and his associates were planning to place in the Fort Dix officers' club exploded prematurely, killing three. While on the run, Ayers married fellow terrorist Bernadine Dohrn. They turned themselves in 1981, but charges against them were dropped because of alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
On the day before 9/11 Ayers said he was not sorry for his terrorist acts, and wishes he had done more. Now do you know something about these two, Mr. Kerr? Now do you know something a little more important than your silly argument over what in hell Dohrn's most recent stinking lie happens to be?
They were lucky. The won the injustice lottery. It's a disgrace that they are both on an academic faculty. But then, most academic faculties are a disgrace these days.
[OK comments: News flash, Flash: I'm not defending these two scoundrels. Sorry if what interests me isn't what interests you, or if the concept of two different people having different interests is hard for you to understand or somehow offensive to you.]
But MW127, shame on you for this guilt by association stuff. Don't you know it's the New McCarthyism?
(Note: Obama and his people accuse the Clinton camp of being the pot that calls the kettle black because they bring up Ayers, but say nothing of Rosenberg and another former 60's terrorist pardoned by her husband. And yes, all puns, ironies, and the like are fully intended here.)
so in essence her argument was "I was against our government killing people I thought were innocent, so in response I went out and killed / orchestrated the killings of innocent civilians"
Another wrote:
It was a criminal enterprise, populated by criminals, many of whom - including Dohrn - have been convicted of committing violent crimes. Why are any of you defending them?
As far as I know, the only innocent civilians killed by the Weatherman or its successor, the Weather Underground, were the three Weathermen killed in the New York townhouse explosion when one of them accidentally set off a bomb and a graduate student at, I believe, the University of Wisconsin, killed in an explosion when he unexpectedly stayed at work all night. Bernardine Dohrn was never convicted of a crime of violence against any poerson; she was convicted for her participation in the Days of Rage, in which she and others ran rampant through the streets of Chicago, smashing store windows. She was never connected with a bombing or other event that killed or injured any person. The same is true of Bill Ayers.
Attempt to brand them as terrorists are absurd. The real terrorist of the time were Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, J. Edgar Hoover and the like. The Weatherman and Weather Underground may have talked a good game, but when it came down to it did very little.
I knew Bernardine Dohrn slightly, I was a Leftist during this time (and still am), and I represented persons connected with the Weather Underground and the Black Panther Party during the late Sixties and early to mid- Seventies.
I don't think anyone who did not live through the time can understand the passions it evoked. Practically every leader young people admired was assassinated during the Sixties. Those under 21 did not have the vote, although men over 18 were among those subject to the draft. Racism was rampant and our cities were in flames every summer. The FBI and big city police forces waged war against black protesters who dared to speak out and the Left in general. The War in Viet Nam was a horror. Violence was the order of the day, or so it seemed.
Are you angling for sainthood? Here's what was written:
She's using the term 'McCarthyism' to describe what she views as 'poor research'. Here the 'McCarthyism' is an action; the type of research given. Actions don't have 'tones', speech patterns do. A reasonable person, aware of the political realities of the day (especially withing the academic setting), knows exactly what a loaded word 'McCarthyism' is, and that it is certainly not trotted out to rebuke a 'tone'. It's a term brought out to stigmatize the questioner when the interviewee wishes to avoid even the slightest hint of a reasonable answer. If you wish to know why she choose to use the qualifier 'tone', my guess would be a heady mix of 'CYA' in case someone reasonably points out the cheapness of using 'McCarthyism', and also from her past activities and current speeches/explanations I'd infer she's not exactly one of the universes brightest stars.
(Note: I erred when I said Clinton "pardoned" Rosenberg. He commuted her lengthy prison sentence for her part in that Brinks robbery.)
And FWIW, I was a student during those turbulent times, and don't have the same exactly the same view of went down then, as you do Visitor Again.
As far as I know, the only innocent civilians killed by the Weatherman or its successor, the Weather Underground, were the three Weathermen killed in the New York townhouse explosion when one of them accidentally set off a bomb ...
A nail bomb. Intended for a dance. With civilians present.
... and a graduate student at, I believe, the University of Wisconsin, killed in an explosion when he unexpectedly stayed at work all night.
Robert Fassnacht. A human being worth more than twenty "Distinguished Professors of Education," in my humble opinion.
Attempt to brand them as terrorists are absurd. The real terrorist of the time were Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, J. Edgar Hoover and the like. The Weatherman and Weather Underground may have talked a good game, but when it came down to it did very little.
Interesting that he doesn't mention Ho Chi Minh, Vo Nguyen Giap, Le Duc Tho, and the like. I guess they were innocent pacifist agrarian reformers.
[OK comments: Greg, neurodoc was obnoxious and rude to me, and kept it up: I don't think there is some rule that I have to let him do that on my blog. I gather understand that you disagree. I'll delete the rest of your comment disagreeing, as I don't think its relevant to anything in the thread. If you want to discuss this with me, please call me directly and I would be happy to discuss this one on one.]
While here, let me suggest a book for those who want to know more about the Weather Underground (WU):
DIANA: THE MAKING OF A TERRORIST by Thomas Powers, published in 1971.
Powers was a UPI reporter who covered the WU, well enough to win the 1971 Pulitzer Prize for it. He turned his reporting into this book. The book describes Diana Oughton, one of the three WU's who were killed in the explosion, but it has material on Dohrn and William Ayers. Still well wroth reading. It isn't in print, but a biggish public/academic library should have it, or use the joys of Amazon's used book market.
Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster
It is very dismaying to see that even today people still get starry-eyed over 60s radicals. I'd suspect that such sympathizers are incredibly, incredibly stupid, charmed into a vision of a romantic life of daring, resistance, men against society, saving the world, and etc. If not that, then it's worse - a smiling look of approval on people willing to bomb others in order to satisfy their own inflated egos and to play war games against their own government - a government they have no hope of defeating. It's all a game to them. Then they quit the game and retire and go lecture others to try it.
People who look up to terrorists like Dohrn and Ayers need to be put into a mental institution. They're either too stupid, or too depraved, for normal society.
I assume you're referring mainly to the Cambodian genocide. Putting aside the uncertain number of deaths, I realize that blaming the genocide on the anti-war left has become an article of faith in the right-wing narrative, but that doesn't make it more than tendentious speculation. Even if you assume our troop withdrawal from Viet Nam was pre-mature; our withdrawal of aid to Lon Nol speeded the Khmer Rouge victory; and responsibility for both belongs to the anti-war left (and that's a lot of conjectural stipulation), it still ignores all the other factors, including our policies and actions in Viet Nam and Cambodia in years prior, that paved the way for Pol Pot's ascension.
The instability that drove Norodom Sihanouk from power into Pol Pot's arms, and popular sympathy for the Khmer insurgency, both fueled by years of our carpet bombing, are a couple of examples. There were also countless factors we had nothing to do with. The shifting alliances and machinations of China and Vietnam come to mind. And don't forget the wild card of our very presence in Vietnam. To blame the genocide on our leaving when we have no idea what would have transpired in Cambodia if we had never arrived is the most selective kind of speculation. Saying the anti-war movement "directly caused the needless deaths of millions of innocent people" is at best a scurrilous distortion.
Neurodoc, to be clear, I have no idea what she took part in, so my comment pertained only to her words, not her behavior. Suffice it to say, I have no sympathy for what she did, whatever you call it. But I think distinctions like those between targeting property and people, and between soldiers and civilians, are meaningful, both definitionally and morally. At least I've always treated them so regarding behavior of the Haganah, the Irgun and Israel. So I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and make myself a hypocrite to boot.
Again, you may think her intentions were more sinister than she admits, and you may be right. I have no way of knowing, which is why I only address her words.
This is too bad for BHO. His failure to absolutely condemn in no uncertain terms the likes of Ayers and Dohrn makes him unfit to hold any elective office let alone the presidency of the United States. His willingness to have any associations with such people disqualify him period.
There are two consecutive words that don't belong in this quote.
Myoptic? The Weather Underground was considered a terrorist organization "back in the day". As for Buckley's racism how about some info to back that up. All I remember about his views on race is that he broke away from a group for it's antisemitism to form his own organization. That was back when antisemitism was prevalent throughout society.
As for Scooter Libby, didn't they get him on "lying to federal investigators" when there wasn't any underlying fundamental charge? That is, there was no crime but he's in jail anyway. Hardly equivalent to murdering people with bombs. Wasn't quite clear on how they proved that he had lied either. Seemed more like a difference of recollection than intent to deceive. In any case it wasn't important.
Well, except for DB's writing, which is tone-deaf.
<i>"I would be interested in hearing from someone who did come of age in the Vietnam War era (or who has studied it) and who could place Dohrn's conduct during that time in some sort of context."</i>
No you wouldn't. I was around then and she was a leader of a terrorist organization that was planting bombs and also killing people. She wasn't some girlfriend of a terrorist. She was the terrorist. The Weather Underground weren't liked by anyone except the crazies. Even the peace and love crowd didn't like them.
As far as I know, the only innocent civilians killed by the Weatherman or its successor, the Weather Underground,….
Fortunately, there is a difference between competence and intent. Do we praise the Weatherman for not always being competent, in the same way that we are glad that a two year old in the midst of a temper tantrum does not have a finger on The Bomb? As others have pointed out, you ignore those killed in the Brinks robbery, or is it that you do not consider them civilians? Guardians of the Evil Empire and all that?
I don't think anyone who did not live through the time can understand the passions it evoked.
I was there, and here is my take on the Weathermen: arrogant sectarian dogmatic self-righteous SOBS. Let me repeat in the event that it did not register the first time: arrogant sectarian dogmatic self-righteous SOBS. Did that register with you, Mr. Pettifogging Visitor Again ?
She was never connected with a bombing or other event that killed or injured any person. The same is true of Bill Ayers.
She was jailed for refusing to testify about the people involved in the Brinks robbery. While it is possible or even probable she knew nothing about the robbery, her refusal to testify removed the possibility of her proving that she knew nothing about the robbery.
Bill Ayers: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
"Guilty as sin, free as a bird, America is a great country."
Once again, Visitor Again, pettifoggery on your part. I wish you had had the opportunity to represent those killed in the Brinks robbery.
The War in Viet Nam was a horror
Many on the left have been strangely silent about the genocide in Cambodia. There will be no bloodbath in Vietnam after the US leaves, many of the left shouted out. Doesn’t leave the left with a lot of credibility, especially considering WHO committed the genocide in Cambodia. Hint: it wasn’t the right wing thugs from the FBI. Perhaps you regret not having had the opportunity to represent Pol Pot and his buddies. After all, you defend Marxists. Just wondering.
Wasn't the the Vietnam war finished well before 1981? Don't tell me they were just common thieves.
* From The Independent Lens.
So she has not endorsed terrorism against a "civilian" population. However, as others have pointed out, her group was busy constructing "nail bombs" to use at an NCO dance at Ft Dix when their bomb factory exploded. I guess you lose your civilian status when dating a soldier. By this logic, Debra Winger's character was an acceptable target in "An Officer and a Gentleman."
I suppose if she gets to re-define terrorism, then this is ok as well: The government does not endorse torture, the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish or coerce people we like.
"I challenge you to name me activities liberal campus groups have engaged in or staged that rival the offensiveness and obnoxiousness of those staged by conservative campus groups."
Oh, come on, you're not paying attention. Liberals go out of their way to be offensive. Ever hear of "Act up". Ever here of Yippies, Hippies and the like. You don't think it's offensive to throw pies at speakers, and disrupt talks by other groups?
Often times the "offensive" stuff that the conservatives do is to mock liberal policy. For instance a bake sale where whites are charged different prices than non-whites.
Look, objectively if you can, at the parallels in Iraq with its media coverage and objectors. The left is doing the same things and making the same statements 40 years later. They lied and distorted then, and they continue. And remember also that academia (then and now) provides a haven for the far left and its rhetoric. Where do you think students get those Marxist/Communist ideas in the first place? The idea of a "new world order" is a very old one, and it just gets shiny modern packaging in order to attract the current crop of ignorant and naive "idealists" who cannot, or will not, see the underlying fallacies.
No takers there. Anyone here care to comment?
If you followed the Duke non-rape case, you'd know about the Gang of 88, who, although not felons as far as we know, are not educators, except as bad examples.
Too many examples like this for higher ed to be more than an advanced voc ed venue.
They both need to answer for the destruction and death
they are still responsible for. They are both classic
examples of justice gone awry. The arguments that distract
from the main subject are foils so commonly used by those
who are having the light of truth shined on their wrongs.
Funny you don't address the substance of my post, Jmaie. I challenge you to name me activities liberal campus groups have engaged in or staged that rival the offensiveness and obnoxiousness of those staged by conservative campus groups.
Well, conservatives, and other "rightists", tend to have a much higher threshold for what they consider "offensive" or "obnoxious". We're adults and, frankly, you all tend to be whiny little b*tches. Oh, and you're confusing loud with obnoxious. I have seen leftists shout people down in class, both students and professors, for expression alternative viewpoints.
I have never seen that from rightists students or professors. Ever. You'll get feisty debate and sharp words but never attempts to actually silence people. Again, we're adults and tend to enjoy a good disagreement.
BTW, the bake sales you're talking about are legitimate satire regarding minority preferences and set-asides. Much of what we call affirmative action today is discrimination, pure and simple. Now that doesn't necessarily make it morally wrong but that is simply the facts of the matter. You may approve of this type of discrimination, I'm not completely opposed to them myself, but don't deny that it is what it is.
What's the height of being obnoxious is attempting to stifle discussion of obvious facts because they hurt people's feelings.
Grow up Steve, and stop trying to compare satire with attempts to silence dissent. They are worlds apart.
By the time of the Brinks robbery, Dohrn and Ayers had already turned themselves in and pleaded guilty. The chronology makes it a wee bit hard to hold them responsible for that.
As for the planned Fort Dix bombing, I've never yet seen any evidence that Dorhn or Ayers had any involvement in that whatsoever.
In order to keep this thread mostly on point, I'll skip the details and make you a deal: if John Yoo pleads guilty and serves out his sentence, then I, as a bleeding-heart liberal, will support his effort to rehabilitate himself when he applies for re-admission to the Boalt faculty.
I was going to mention things like disinviting conservative and libertarian speakers, refusing to public right leaning articles, trashing announcements for conservative events, but someone beat me to it.
The right produces satire. The left actively uses force suppress dissent. You think these are equivalents?
Heh.
Let's imagine another fellow undergrad who discovers that a business school professor at his university used to work in upper management at Union Carbide during the Bhopal disaster in the 1980s. Would this student be fully justified and not "myopic" or "ignorant" or "abrasive" in publishing an open letter to this professor inquiring into his culpability in the disaster? Of course, the student has the right to so inquire, but that doesn't immunize him from judgment for his actions.
You're comparing Union Carbide and the Weather Underground as organizations? Hilarious. The entire purpose of UC was to make money, provide jobs and give services to customers. The entire purpose of the WU was nihilistic violence. Yet, you equate the two.
Again, heh.
1. Terrence, you missed the money quote:
2. Mark field said in part...
What isn't noted there is that the Bomb was intended to be a record setter in terms of death and d