The Volokh Conspiracy - O'Reilly Factor:

I'll be on this afternoon (some time between 5 to 6 Eastern, I'm told), defending Ward Churchill's constitutional right to urge that soldiers murder their officers. The transcript that I've been given of Churchill's speech says,

For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit? . . . (edit). . . Con[sci]entious objection removes a given piece of cannon fo[dd]er from the fray. Fragging and officer has a much more "impactful" effect.

Vile, but constitutionally protected under the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, and I think rightly so, for reasons I'll discuss on the show.

UPDATE: The transcript that I got also included this follow-up exchange with the audience:

Question: When you're getting into a discussion of violence and appropriate violence and self-defense, of starting to look at um, what you're trying to build or what you're trying to create. For example 'fragging' an officer, what you were talking about before at the beginning of your talk, the sort of trauma that inflicts on that officer's family, back home, I feel like, is an important thing to take into account when your action is trying to accomplish in the first place. I don't really feel like I can articulate it properly but that's the General direction I'm heading in with it.

Ward: How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?

Q: About, Who?

Ward: Eichmann was the bureaucrat who organized the logistics that allowed the holocaust to happen. He had a family; he was a good husband by all accounts and a loving father.

Q: I know I mean I think that we have to take into account the greater, I think we have to come at it from building a sense of place of being in your community, of not furthering trauma in the community. By 'fragging' that office you can create this you know . . . (Interrupted) How do I feel about a Nazi officer's family?

Ward: Should allow him to continue what he's doing or not?

Q: Absolutely not. But I think method is extremely important. It's important to have a long view . . . (Interrupted)

Ward: The Israelis hanged him.

This leads me to think that Churchill was urging the killing of officers, and not just abstractly speculating about what the moral status of such killing might be. I've tried getting an audio of the event, but couldn't -- this is the best I've got.

	[Eugene Volokh, June 29, 2005 at 4:29pm] Trackbacks O'Reilly Factor: I'll be on this afternoon (some time between 5 to 6 Eastern, I'm told), defending Ward Churchill's constitutional right to urge that soldiers murder their officers. The transcript that I've been given of Churchill's speech says, For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit? . . . (edit). . . Con[sci]entious objection removes a given piece of cannon fo[dd]er from the fray. Fragging and officer has a much more "impactful" effect. Vile, but constitutionally protected under the Supreme Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio, and I think rightly so, for reasons I'll discuss on the show. UPDATE: The transcript that I got also included this follow-up exchange with the audience: Question: When you're getting into a discussion of violence and appropriate violence and self-defense, of starting to look at um, what you're trying to build or what you're trying to create. For example 'fragging' an officer, what you were talking about before at the beginning of your talk, the sort of trauma that inflicts on that officer's family, back home, I feel like, is an important thing to take into account when your action is trying to accomplish in the first place. I don't really feel like I can articulate it properly but that's the General direction I'm heading in with it. Ward: How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family? Q: About, Who? Ward: Eichmann was the bureaucrat who organized the logistics that allowed the holocaust to happen. He had a family; he was a good husband by all accounts and a loving father. Q: I know I mean I think that we have to take into account the greater, I think we have to come at it from building a sense of place of being in your community, of not furthering trauma in the community. By 'fragging' that office you can create this you know . . . (Interrupted) How do I feel about a Nazi officer's family? Ward: Should allow him to continue what he's doing or not? Q: Absolutely not. But I think method is extremely important. It's important to have a long view . . . (Interrupted) Ward: The Israelis hanged him. This leads me to think that Churchill was urging the killing of officers, and not just abstractly speculating about what the moral status of such killing might be. I've tried getting an audio of the event, but couldn't -- this is the best I've got.