|
NEWS News in Brief Beyond the Burg Police Beat Street Beat Under the Microscope OPINIONS Letters to the Editor Staff Editorial VARIETY That Guy – That Girl Horoscopes Comics Confusion Corner Behind Closed Doors SPORTS From the Sidelines Home Field Advantage REVIEWS Film Music Dining Arts On Campus Critical Condition ABOUT US Subscribe Advertise Archive |
Attorney General causes controversy at B.C.Twenty-two faculty members of Boston College Law School signed a petition asking U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey to rescind his decision to speak at the school’s 2008 commencement ceremony, according to the March 23 edition of The Boston Globe. Faculty members expressed their displeasure concerning his role as speaker in a March 11 letter, citing the controversy surrounding his unwillingness to publicly declare waterboarding a form of torture. In the letter, the faculty told Mukasey: “Your role in the current controversy regarding the legality of waterboarding has made you a symbol of administration policies that conflict with basic principles of international and domestic law, the ideals of Boston College Law School, and the Jesuit principles that underlie Boston College’s educational mission.” When the school first made the announcement that Mukasey had been chosen as speaker in late January, the idea was well received, but as time passed, the general opinion toward Mukasey’s presence began to sour. By Feb. 1, the Facebook group, “Waterboarding IS torture,” had formed. Founder Dan Roth wrote: “Our Mission Statement reads: ‘We encourage our students to develop their own individual commitment to others and to explore those themes which are central to the Jesuit tradition … How these high principles can be reconciled with calling him the ultimate role model for the Class of 2008 is beyond comprehension.” After the initial student movement, the faculty joined the protest, citing many of the same concerns as the students, as well as the fact that students and faculty were not consulted in the process of choosing a commencement speaker. Nate Kenyon, the school’s director of marketing and communications, explained that the mere opportunity to have the Attorney General speak made input from the student body unnecessary in the decision-making process. While many students and faculty oppose having Mukasey as speaker, a significant number of others are in support of his appearance. Guillaume Buell, president of the school’s chapter of the Federalist Society, said that he was “ashamed that some students and faculty are actively organizing against his appearance.” The school’s dean, John Garvey, has recently made efforts to speak with the class of 2008 in response to the controversy, and the school’s Law Students Association held an open forum to discuss the matter. These actions, however, have done little to satisfy student and faculty concerns. It is unclear at this time whether or not Mukasey will speak as planned at the school’s commencement ceremony in May. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
The Federalist Society needs to be targeted as a propaganda tool of the fascists running this country and law schools should not allow such partisan groups to operate.
This country will be paying the price for the blind ideological devotion to right-wing politics for generations to come and Federalist Society members will be in the vanguard of lawyers and judges who aim to thwart the intentions of the Founding Fathers every step of the way.
Mr. Buell should be ashamed of his membership in a fascist group rather than in his fellow students who aren’t blinded by ambition.
— james Mar 25, 01:06 PM #
don’t be ridiculous, james. the federalist society is as important to the legal community as the ACLU is. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with what it seems like their stance is on waterboarding (as well as there stance on loads of other issues), I think that holding a conservative legal position is hardly tantamount to fascism.
What would be scary is if our law schools applied the kind of ideological litmus test that you suggest. We need to encourage pluralism and tolerate the occasional obnoxious conservative (and obnoxious liberal… Nichol comes to mind) in our law schools. Otherwise American jurisprudence will truly be in jeopardy.
— d kuehn Mar 25, 02:38 PM #
Let the Attorney General deliver his address to the BC chapter of the Federalist Society. That way he won’t be offending anyone with a soul or a brain.
— orangutan Mar 25, 02:47 PM #
James,
If fascists were running the country, would there be a facebook group called “Waterboarding IS Torture”? Would you still be free after calling them ‘facists’? I am no fan of the AG, but to call the US government fascist is well beyond common sense.
Fascists tend to limit speech and stifle debate. Thank you for helping identify who the ‘fascists’ might be.
— Mike '92 Mar 25, 03:17 PM #
Fascists try to suppress speech, and that is what they have done through their takeover of the main media channels. Fascism is the collusion of state and economic powers against the interests of the citizens, and they are using their economic power to consolidate political power through “Good Germans” like Mukasey who do not have the moral fiber to repudiate the egregious abuses of power used by those who sponsor them. Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil” at Eichmann’s trial because as Eichmann presented it, he was only serving the orders of his superiors. Is Mukasey any less banal or less evil?
— Phil Graves Mar 25, 04:10 PM #
If the Federalist Society were analagous to the ACLU, it would be impossible to get a member confirmed to the Supreme Court. Wonderful thought! Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the Justices from the FS have tipped the court so far to the right that it’s become neo royalist in its deference to the Executive.
— Con Roche Mar 25, 05:11 PM #
Impeach. Prosecute. Save America. Krashkopf, S.U. College of Law 1985
— Krashkopf Mar 25, 05:26 PM #
Thanks, Phil, for helping me understand that the AG (in office less than a year) is the equal of a monster who helped murder 6 million people in an attempt to exterminate an entire people.
I think anyone who went to the College could answer your question; yes, Mukasey is ‘less evil’, if evil at all.
One of the rhetorical achievements of the fascists was to exaggerate their claims about the emnity of others. Congratulations, again, on helping us identify who they might be.
Con Roche,
A ‘Neo-Royalist’ court? If the conservatives have managed to move the court so far to the right, how is abortion still legal in all 50 states? Aren’t there still resonable restrictions on handguns?
Get a grip, folks.
— Mike '92 Mar 25, 10:53 PM #
Mike:
You don’t seem to understand, a Fascist state doesn’t happen overnight. The German people didn’t recognize what was happening until it was too late… We must recognize what groups like the “Federalist Society” and “Project for the New American Century” have a Fascist agenda. Their influence on the current administration and the GOP is moving the US toward a Fascist state where the President has supreme power and Corporate America sets the agenda. Witness the President’s use of signing statements to nullify duly passed legislation of Congress. This administration is also packing the Federal courts with ideologs who will ultimately enforce the Fascist agenda by ruling against civil liberties and suppressing dissent. The courts are being used to target political enemies such as Don Siegelman and possibly Eliot Spitzer. If we don’t pay attention to the little steps these people are taking our country we will wake up one day and find it’s too late for us….
— JR Mar 26, 09:39 AM #
With all respect, JR, I think this is the same sort of hysteria employed by the right when Pres. Clinton nominated an equal number of Justices to SCOTUS who were as liberal as Roberts and Alito are conservative. To say that they set up Spitzer is a canard. Gov. Spitzer chose to spend more on prostitutes than most people make in a year, and he did so on his own. He has not been prosecuted (yet), but he would hardly be the first famous person to be prosecuted under the Mann Act. Many politicians could have survived in office, but Gov. Spitzer’s past actions and grandiose promises of pristine ethics are what burried him. If his tumble from power was part of a fascist plot, Gov. Spitzer was the primary player.
The one are in which I agree with you are the signing statements. They are an overreach, but they will also be checked by both the other branches of government. I am sure many suspect that SCOTUS will not interfere with Bush signing statements; I disagree. Even if they do not, congress can act or, in the alternative, we would live with the signing statements of Democratic presidents. The system works, and it has survived far, far worse than any situation we have today.
Real fascism is when we start demanding that groups who freely associate be broken up. If the FS had suggested that the ACLU be disposed of in the same manner folks in here have recommended for the FS, I think you would have a stronger point.
— Mike '92 Mar 26, 10:32 AM #
“We must recognize what groups like the ‘Federalist Society’ and ‘Project for the New American Century’ have a Fascist agenda.” – JR
That’s gotta be that little ankle-biting dog again. That comment make about as much sense as accusing the ACLU of being essentially an arm of the communist party. No, wait…he may have a point.
— owens Mar 26, 10:50 AM #
Mike and d kuehn, in my opinion you both have a poor grasp of the facts re: ACLU, FS, Mukasey and fascism.
You’re either members of FS, or have avoided any due diligence on the subject. To claim that FS and the ACLU are simply two sides of the same much-needed coin demonstrates ignorance at best and outright deception at worst (FYI, the FS HAS “suggested that the ACLU be disposed of in the same manner folks in here have recommended”).
The ACLU’s primary focus, easily ascertained by examining the causes and cases it’s tackled over decades, is to return power from its top-heavy concentration downward to the common man.
The FS manifesto, also obvious by detailing its caseload over the years, demonstrates the opposite, i.e., the movement of power away from the citizenry upwards to concentration at the top. And with the ever-increasing number of FS appointees, etc, at all levels of the judiciary, the checks and balances you allude to become verbal window dressing, with no real corrective effect on the system.
About Mukasey- Whatever his position on waterboarding, his instructions to Meirs and Bolton to defy Congress is one good reason (among many) to boot him from the podium, and gives futher lie to your ‘checks and balances’ claims.
Fascist? You compare our use of the term with the most egregious example of it. 6 million+ dead and a major world war were the end RESULTS of fascism, not merely symptoms that it was occurring. And many, many Germans made the same accusations of that government as students have here, and were just as soundly mocked by their peers.
— Punky '86 Mar 26, 01:07 PM #
punky 86 –
I was left incredibly confused by your response.
1. I never said Mukasey should speak at B.C.. I disagree strongly with his positions, and think the students have every right to boot him.
2. While I appreciate some of what both organizations have done, I probably fall in line more closely with the ACLU than the FS. I’m not a proponent of the FS at all, I’m just saying that (1.) conservative is a far cry from fascism, and (2.) even if FS advocated fascist positions, they should not be shut out of our pluralist society, the courtroom, or anywhere else. I advocate free speech. I advocate free association. That’s all I’m saying. And even if you’re right and the FS is ten times as dangerous as the ACLU, I’d still support their right to do what they do.
3. FS is the FEDERALIST society… they pattern themselves off the position of james madison. Obviously, they have a conservative bent that is to militaristic/law and order/invasion of privacy for me… but they nevertheless value individual rights and freedoms in lots of other cases as well. They’ve come out in strong support of (1.) individual gun rights, (2.) student speech, and (3.) against national ID cards required for voting. As their name implies, they also come out very strongly in support of the separation of powers and appropriate limits on the powers of the president and congress. These are hardly the positions advocated by someone who supports “the movement of power away from the citizenry upwards to concentration at the top” as you say.
I don’t deny that there are fascist trends in this country… and George Bush and his administration rank high among those trends. And maybe in certain arenas the FS contributes to that. But even if they do, that’s no reason to question their right to exist. The KKK, the Communist Party, and the Nazi Party all have a right to exist in this country despite the horror that those organization have wrought. I’m just saying that the Federalist Society – which is far nobler than any of those three organizations – should be given the benefit of the doubt and the right to exist, despite the fact that you, punky 86, and I both feel that some of their positions are terribly wrong.
So lets not overdramatize things. Of course there’s a lot wrong with this country, and I’d certainly agree with you that one of the biggest things wrong with this country is the neocon movement which is POTENTIALLY pushing is into fascism. But I’m not going to EMBRACE fascist tactics vis-a-vis the FS in order to do something about it!!!!! That’s no solution at all!!!!!
— d kuehn Mar 26, 02:32 PM #
This is an amazingly bad discussion. Most of you apparently know little about fascism, if you think that is our problem. There are no people in this administration or others who even approach the real fascists and Nazis. It isn’t even close. Once Hitler became Chancellor, partly by appealing to the wounded national pride of Germany after the ignominy of Versailles, he was able to change the nature of German politics to ensure that the Nazis could never lose. Mussolini was no better. Bush, whatever you think of him, has not dismantled the government, nor has he silenced his critics in any way, let alone the way that Hitler did, by murdering them or intimidating them into silence, and by blaming all Germany’s ills on the Jews. I believe that the anti-Bush folks are able to speak their minds quite freely, and Bush will leave office in an orderly fashion and return to being a private citizen. The Democrats, if they win, had better have a plan, just in case Bush’s departure doesn’t make the world all better.
It is an odd claim to make that the ACLU’s goal is to return power downward to the “common man.” You guys are smoking something. The “common man,” whoever he may be, is not focused on removing crosses and Christmas trees or on ensuring the Nazis can march in Skokie. The ACLU relies on lawsuits, and on fear of lawsuits, not on appealing to the “common man.” If the common man found the ACLU’s agenda appealing, then the common man’s elected representatives in Congress would have long ago reflected that agenda in the law. No Senator or Congressman in his or her right mind would even PROPOSE a bill that removed all crosses and Christmas trees, let alone VOTE for one. The only venue available to the ACLU is the courts, especially those with activist judges who believe in legislating from the bench. I believe Congress should legislate, not judges, but then I am old-fashioned. And as one of the common men, I am happy to continue to toil along without the ACLU looking out for me.
A liberal only hates the concept of “packing a court” when the wrong party is in power. Once the correct party is in power, the packing can continue, because the courts are being packed with judges with the “right” views. Few presidents willingly appoint those whose views are known to be contrary to their own. So in that sense, every chance a conservative president gets a chance to nominate, he chooses a conservative. Every time a liberal gets to nominate, he chooses a liberal. What the heck is the difference? The difference lies in who’s packing the courts as to whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing.
With Nichol, we saw EXACTLY the same behavior we often see with Bush and which so infuriates the left. Decisions were made unilaterally, without consultation, regardless of whether people liked them or not. We saw behavior in Nichol that we saw in Nixon, hiding behind various exclusions and restricting information flow. We saw unilateral decisions being made without a care in the world for dissenting opinions. I have always said, and will say again, that the far left only resent this sort of behavior when the “wrong” person is engaging in it. It is laughable, because if one has a problem with Bush’s behavior, one should have had the same problem with Nichol’s behavior. But that is not what we have seen, is it? We saw, instead, slavish admiration. Had Nichol been a conservative, and the Sullivan e-mail came out, you would have seen calls from across the board for Nichol’s immediate resignation. And the reason why you did not is simple and clear. Nichol was perceived, because he was always saying so, as righting historical wrongs and helping the downtrodden at the expense of those who have “always had it good” and, by inference, who wish to keep everyone else down. Therefore, he must be supported. And that is exactly what we have seen. No conservative could have survived the release of the Sullivan e-mail. In the end, the Board didn’t even cite the serious integrity issues with Nichol as part of their rationale for non-renewal.
I don’t often disagree with D Kuehn, but in this case I do. I do NOT think there is a lot wrong with this country. What is wrong with this country is that a large number of the people in it think that EVERYTHING is wrong with it, and that everything wrong with it needs to be corrected NOW.
I am in many ways socially liberal. The main reason (besides my fear that the Democrats really do think that getting rid of Bush gets rid of all the world’s problems) that I’m not a Democrat is that it has become the party of screaming. Everything and everyone sucks. Nothing is good, everything is bad, and everything needs fixing NOW. It is no wonder we are depressed as a nation. The Democrats appear to be banking on public ignorance, pretending that once Bush is gone, all the problems in the world will right themselves, and the French will be able to work with us again. It is not that simple. There really IS an islamofascist movement worldwide. The world really DID change on September 11, 2001. Bush had the luck to be President just in time to get it dumped on his lap. He did not seek it. Bush’s actions at a time of ongoing national crisis have always been questioned; time will tell whether the things he did were right or wrong.
I actually think Obama MIGHT be able to bring a positive outlook on life to the country, but he is being beaten severely by his own party. If the Democrats are to be believed, neither Clinton nor Obama is at all fit to be President.
So we have an administration full of know-it-alls who think they have all the answers? Maybe so, but that is NOT the province of the right; every administration that was ever in office does it their way. I don’t recall the Clintons looking across the aisle for advice; it was their way or the highway.
I DO think Mukasey has the right to speak at BC’s commencement, and that the students do NOT have a “right” to veto the selection. They have the right only to express their unhappiness with the selection publicly, in a country where, unlike Iraq under Saddam, doing so doesn’t get you killed.
— Jim Jones Mar 28, 04:40 PM #
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Not much free time to comment on articles like this one; I lumped you and Mike ’92 together for a single response, since you were arguing similar points. My apologies for the unintended slight.
To be clear, I’ve not advocated for the disintegration of the FS, nor denied their right to exist—even though I feel that their extensive, insular networking capabilities don’t bode well for our battered democracy. My points are that the FS is not analogous to the ACLU, that it is not ‘merely conservative’ in ideology, and that groups like them are indeed fascistic in nature (but not by over-dramatic definition of fascism often touted, implied or assumed).
Concerning your statements such as “they also come out very strongly in support of the separation of powers and appropriate limits on the powers of the president and congress”, I respectfully submit that you are confusing the organization’s stated mission with the reality of its members’ judicial activism. The past 15 years have seen a dramatic increase in Federalist judges deciding, in almost lockstep fashion, on every aspect of US governance: backing pro-corporate, anti-consumer rulings at state and federal levels; rewriting US role/position in domestic and international criminal and environmental law; defending anti-American concepts such as torture and preventive (falsely labeled ‘pre-emptive’) war; hotly pursuing impeachment and other radical proceedings re: the Clinton administration, Democratic congress; strategically attacking precedent to subvert longstanding constitutional safeguards; denying the popular vote in 2000; greasing the legal skids for Bush/Cheney’s development of imperial presidency; defending illegal wiretapping and other surveillance, and protecting those who assist; providing legal cover for the invasion of Iraq, and the likely aggression against Iran; helping Halliburton, KBR, et al, to defraud US taxpayers without serious legal consequence; dismantling governmental, financial, judicial regulation and oversight, in favor of institutional power, etc. And even if they should be commended for things like upholding a rather narrow (or, perhaps more accurately, an overly broad) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, are they still faithful Madisonians if they do so in opposition to the stated will of the people?
Anyone having spent some serious time with the Federalist Papers soon understands that, in reality, the FS relationship with Madison ends shortly after use of his bust on their masthead. The fact that upwards of 40% of Bush cabinet/admin appointments have been active or former Federalists gives a pretty good snapshot, imo, of what they’re REALLY up to. Talk is one thing, but walk is king.
So, I agree with you that all speech is to be defended if any speech is to be defended. But that doesn’t make all speech equal in truth or principle.
Again, regarding fascism: The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under one ruler, stringent socio-economic controls, suppression of the opposition through intimidation and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism (and they add this note to the online version: ‘Today, the term fascist is used loosely to refer to military dictatorships, as well as governments or individuals that profess racism and that act in an arbitrary, high-handed manner’).” I propose that this very accurately describes our current political situation. Obviously we haven’t yet arrived at a horrible end of fascistic policy and governance (though 4000 Americans and perhaps a million Iraqi civilians might claim otherwise), but we are still seeing its progression toward such a possibility just as surely as did my grandparents, in Illesheim, Germany, in the mid 1930’s. The differences are that today we can see what’s happening, have terms with which to describe it, and can point to precedent when postulating the future of it. All of which we left-of-centers use, even when our peers chide us for doing so.
History of the past decade and a half shows the Federalists consistently building legal foundations for fascistic tendencies. I have to agree with others who the conclude they ARE fascist, and stringently deny that the use of the term is merely hyperbolic.
— Punky '86 Mar 28, 04:52 PM #
I suggest you all purchase and read “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg. It has been on the NY Times Best Seller list for the past ten weeks in spite of efforts by liberal fascists to hinder distribution. If you are a liberal and attempt to insult someone with a different point of view than yours by calling them a “Fascist”; it turns out that you have met the Fascist, and he is you.
Political Correctness is Fascism. PC attempts to deny people the right to free speech and freedom of expression. In addition, PC attitudes are often illogical to the point of absurdity. Liberals/Democrats worship political correctness; Conservatives/Republicans despise pc.
It is clearly fascistic to enforce a campus speech code such as the “Bias Reporting System” at W&M. Campus speech codes were rigorously enforced on German University campuses by the National Socialist [Nazi] party during the 1930s.
Political blackmail of an organization that chooses to use two letters and two feathers as part of a graphic design is fascism.
Intimidating people to your way of thinking is fascistic – if you now send “Holiday” cards instead of “Christmas” cards you have been intimidated by liberal fascism.
Read the book – you will be surprised and amazed.
As we know the US has three branches of government [Legislative, Executive, Judicial] which are supposed to balance one another somehow. The Federalist society is important in helping to maintain that balance by acting as a legal think tank on constitutional issues. This is necessary because higher education in this country [including Law Schools, who are mostly Liberal Arts graduates]is under the thumbs of the Liberal Fascists who do not promote diversity of opinion.
— Jeff '62 Mar 30, 11:48 AM #
“Intimidating people to your way of thinking is fascistic.” -Jeff ’62
But that isn’t why you’re posting on this forum, right Jeff? It seems to me you’ve fallen in your own trap.
— david Mar 31, 04:16 AM #