When he decided for rhetorical purposes to attribute the plurality's wrongness to Stevens' unfamiliarity with the realities of war, though, he laid claim to a superior status -- that he was more knowledgable and realistic about war because the outcome he advocated was more ruthless (after all, if he were making a purely legal point, where do the realities of war come into it at all?)
Tellingly, you do not cite anything to support this claim. That's because it is unsupportable. Thomas's statement about the justices in the plurality related to their ignoring the point that warfare normally--indeed, almost always--precedes a formal declaration of war. A combat veteran has no particular claim to expertise on this issue, and pointing it out has nothing to do with how "belligerent" one might find Justice Thomas's views.
Not really on topic, but about the war - I don't ever watch the nightly news when I'm on my own but my parents do so I've been catching it while I've been home. On Monday's NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams said that they felt Iraq was officially in a state of civil war. And this wasn't a "some say" equally weighing both sides, either.
Probably not ranking up there with Cronkite saying Vietnam was in a quagmire but, considering how deferential the networks have been to the administration, I thought that was pretty surprising.
I have little to add, LB, but that's a brilliant analysis of the rhetorical slide these arguments are taking. Because one makes a pro-war statement, one assumes oneself more knowledgeable about war than someone who argues for peace. These are the same people whose brains exploded at the thought that a Vietnam Vet might come home and protest the war. How could that be? This rhetoric among pro-war conservatives has become so powerful that it has actually tricked certain folks into thinking they know about war.
Can this have something to do with the lack of rhetorical study in the education of boomers? As a rhetorician, I say yes!
warfare normally--indeed, almost always--precedes a formal declaration of war
I don't believe that at all. Restricting our view to the US, haven't we pointedly not declared war since WWII?
If that was the limit of his claim, then he's a liar. It is obviously true that Stevens (and any other reasonably educated person in the US) knows that hostilities can precede a formal declaration of war. Stevens knows that there was no formal declaration of war for most of the wars in his lifetime. If Thomas meant to attribute the plurality's failure to agree with him on their 'unfamiliarity' with that fact, he's a liar or an idiot -- all five of them are familiar with that fact and Thomas knows they are. They just didn't draw the same conclusions from it that Thomas did.
4: I think Idealist is saying "Warfare starts before a formal declaration [which sometimes never comes]," not "Warfare is generally followed by a formal declaration." (And, as I said in the other thread, having participated in WWII Stevens does not need to be told this.)
(Continuing 5): Which supports my thesis that Thomas's point was rhetorical rather than substantive; because substantively it's nonsense. (When I said 'liar', above, I don't mean to say that Thomas is a bad person -- just that your reading renders his words literally and obviously untrue. People say untrue things for rhetorical effect all the time, and it's often okay to do so.)
They just didn't draw the same conclusions from it that Thomas did.
Indeed, they drew conclusions which ignored the realities of which Justice Thomas wrote, hence his comment.
Come one, if you want to post about this, post the plurality opinion and what Thomas actually wrote. I know its more fun to go off on a rant about dishonest conservative chickenhawks, but then let's not pretend that we are actually discussing the Hamdan opinion.
I don't want to retype paragraphs from a pdf -- if you've got a cut&pastable link, point me to it.
But the Thomas quote is "unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare". That's not an assertion that your interlocutor is reasoning improperly from facts, or is ignoring necessary facts, it's a claim that they are unfamiliar with or ignorant of those necessary facts, and that's nonsense in this context.
Whether or not it's correct in this case (guess what I still haven't done?), let me agree that the only time it's appropriate to use chickenhawk rhetoric is when someone falsely identifies themselves with the military in the course of their argument.
let me agree that the only time it's appropriate to use chickenhawk rhetoric is when someone falsely identifies themselves with the military in the course of their argument
That's wrong. It's appropriate whenever it upsets the Reds, or moves someone from their side. It's a rhetorical trick with precisely that purpose.
11, is this the causal mechanism you have in mind:
Jonah Goldberg: If U.S. soldiers would just kill the shit out of more Iraqis, indiscriminately, democracy would flower in the middle east.*
Me, in comments on some liberal blog: Jonah Goldberg wants the military to take on more and more dangerous tasks, but he's of age and has never served.
Some Republican, reading liberal blog comments: OMG! I have seen teh light! Goldberg is a tool and I should vote for Democrats or not vote at all!
*Not an actual quote, though I'd eat my non-existent hat if he hasn't said something similar.
12: Possibly, though I would think more like this:
Goldberg: [Whatever.]
Dem: "Goldberg's a chickenhawk. In both senses of the word."
Republican reader: "That makes me so fucking angry I'm having heart palpitations." (RR then keels over and dies, leaving us one voter up.)
or
Dem reader: "Yeah! I now hate Republicans more than I used to."
2: "I don't ever watch the nightly news when I'm on my own...."
"...but, considering how deferential the networks have been to the administration, I thought that was pretty surprising."
?
There needs to be a more accurate term than chickenhawk for this kind of statement: ""We're pragmatists, Deb. I think if push came to shove, we'd rather just shoot you."
While I'm no fan of JG, that quote is taken way out of context. In response to Frisch opining that the world would be a better place if Goldstein and all his commenters committed suicide, he responded: "We’re pragmatists, Deb. I think if push came to shove, we’d rather just shoot you, then watch a '700 Club' marathon and enjoy some honeybaked ham."
That's not so different from the sort of thing anybody here might say in a similar exchange.
Akh! I feel like a pawn of the liberal Tuscon media!
if people with belligerent views will stop laying claim to superior personal knowlege, or valor, or military realism on the sole basis of those views, I'll stop making fun of them for it.
That’s big of you. Maybe I can suggest generalizing the point:
1. People who hold right-wing positions are evil people who argue in bad faith
2. Their bad faith manifests in, among other things, implying that those who hold right-wing positions ipso facto possess personal virtues that holders of left-wing positions do not
3. Thus, we should excoriate holders of right-wing views for this false implication, even when they don’t express it directly, and indeed, when the context of what they said appears to explicitly contradict this interpretation of their comments.
This approach seems like it would cover the Clarence Thomas/Justice Stevens case nicely, and be useful on many other occassions besides.
I thought baa was one of the good ones, until that evil, bad faith spelling of "occasions". Fool me once, shame on you...
See, baa gets it. baa, I think what LB's talking about is part and parcel of the Green Lantern Foreign Policy. It's hard to believe that you can't identify that strain of right-wing thought (though you probably wouldn't characterize it that way), and as specifically right wing. Whether or not the GL's are arguing in bad faith doesn't much matter, no?
(Yes, it's disjointed, no I don't care.)
Baa, I thought I banned you. Also, if you keep posting I'll reveal that you're really Jeff Goldstein.
This may no longer be relevant, but here's a cut&pasteable link to the decision.
Incorporating by reference my own views from 9, and noting that the "thing I still haven't done" is read the damn opinion, let's go to the videotext.
Justice Thomas:
As an initial matter, the plurality relies upon the date of the AUMF's enactment to determine the beginning point for the "period of the war," Winthrop 836, thereby suggesting that petitioner's commission does not have jurisdiction to try him for offenses committed prior to the AUMF's enactment. Ante, at 34 36, 48. But this suggestion betrays the plurality's unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare and its willful blindness to our precedents. The starting point of the present conflict (or indeed any conflict) is not determined by congressional enactment, but rather by the initiation of hostilities....
The plurality opinion was written by someone. This someone is named John Paul Stevens. Why say that "this suggestion betrays the plurality's unfamiliarity with the realities of warfare" even in this context, unless one is going for a rhetorical jab at their opponent (the willful blindness to precedent point being entirely distinct)? That rhetorical jab does not seem to me, on the facts viz. actual military experience, to be justified.
Instead, it seems to incorporate a view which many liberals, including myself, see more conservatives than one like expressing. This is the view that simply by being a conservative they gain some extra qualification in pronouncing about military affairs. Perhaps I am wrong to percieve this tendency in conservatives who have not, in fact, served in the military.
I'll reveal that you're really Jeff Goldstein.
Are you accusing baa of being a turkey slapper, Labs? Because that's just beyond the pale.
I'm kind of with Idealist on this one. While I agree with the larger point LB is making and would raise her a "101st Fighting Keyboardists? Break me a fucking give and put your cock back in your shorts.", I'm not seeing it in Thomas' dissent.
It's rude, maybe, to suggest that the other justices are blind to the realities of warfare; I'm reading it as saying "The plurality has its head up its collective ass if it thinks it has a clue about how wars normally start and are declared."
But it doesn't follow that Thomas is thereby asserting that he himself must have served in the military and that he has more experience. Nor should it be a general liberal position that one can only criticize a soldier's view of war if one has been a soldier. And it doesn't follow that Stevens' military experience means he knows how war is declared and pursued. I'm not a legal scholar, but the case isn't about the realities of the battlefield, it's about what the government is allowed to do during wars and what it has to do to get the Conventions to apply.
I'm fine with mocking someone for pretending to know What It's Like Out There when the closest they got was Warlord Difficulty on Civilization. But I don't think that's anywhere near Thomas' claim.
The article meta-linked in 26 refers to two Australians named Michael "Ashley" Cox and Michael "John" Bric. WTF? Isn't "Bruce" good enough for them?
Also, the story is creepy, and it is unfortunate that one of the guys involved is named Cox.
That must be the most delayed double post in the history of this blog.
It's rude, maybe, to suggest that the other justices are blind to the realities of warfare; I'm reading it as saying "The plurality has its head up its collective ass if it thinks it has a clue about how wars normally start and are declared."
I see it because Thomas is accusing Stevens of unfamiliarity with a fact -- that wars sometimes begin before they are formally declared and sometimes are never formally declared -- that not only does Stevens know, but every reasonably educated American knows. Thomas doesn't believe that Stevens actually is unfamiliar with that fact (unless he's insane, which I think is unlikely). He knows that what's going on is not Stevens' unfamiliarity with military realities, but that Stevens disagrees with him about the legal implications of those military realities.
Once you've got Thomas misrepresenting the facts in order to make a rhetorical point (and again, I don't mean to make the misrepresentation a big deal. He's not trying to literally deceive anyone about anything. I'm just saying that it's not a neutral way of stating disagreement; he's worded his disagreement in a way that is literally false in order to make a rhetorical point) that rhetoric has to have some purpose, and it appears to me to be a claim that his more ruthless approach to the rights of prisoners in the GWOWhatever is justified by a superior understanding of "What It's Like Out There".
I have to concede that I'm persuaded by Cala's concurrence with Idealist.
Although I still think that Thomas is wrong, even on those grounds. Because what would be the purpose of a formal declaration of war if he were right? And there's some good evidence that the founders thought formal declarations of war pretty damned important.
I really hate that everytime I decide to comment, I end up trying to look up some other comment and I get sucked into the googley hoohole and by the time I say "fuck it" and get back, it's no longer relevant.
This debate comes down to whether you think Thomas meant, "those, and only those, realities of warfare which I think are relevant to this point" or "realities of warfare more generally, even if not all realities of warfare." Here's why:
Imagine that I say that I am right about topic X, and you wrong, because I am more familiar with the underlying facts that are relevant to one's view of topic X. It is a complete refutation if you are more, or even as, familiar with those underlying facts than I am. If Thomas meant the first translation I provide, he could really be claiming to be more familiar with those facts and making an argument about them; perhaps he has researched them, though not experiened them while Stevens has neither researched nor experienced these particular realites of warfare. If he meant the second, he is making a rhetorical attack, and the attack has false premises
I've finally read the dissent, but must admit, something along the lines of "Rhetorically-unpleasant-just-reminds-us-what-a-piece-of-work-he-is " is all I had expected to see from LB's original post, and that's just what I saw. I know where the idea — that LB must be wrong unless the place where Thomas formally accused Stevens can be shown — came from, but I never thought that spoke to what I took her point to be.
For nasty Justices, there are plenty of precedents, but MacReynolds leaves the most unpleasant memory for most people. Another gift from Woodrow Wilson, the president who has gone from good to evil in my estimation since I grew up.
I also think Cala has basically the right take on Thomas. But even though I'm convinced that Thomas isn't a very good example of the chickenhawk phenomenon, LB's post is masterful as a general statement of the issue and the appropriate response to a non-trivial portion of the pro-war right.
I have argued in 5 and 31 that the 'reality' Thomas is referring to is the fact that hostilities can and often do begin before a formal declaration of war, and that entire wars can take place in the absence of a formal declaration of war. Given that it is absurd for Thomas to actually assert superior knowledge on that point, what remains is the rhetorical attack.
I'm not too good at reading dissents, but I read it, and Thomas goes on for a while about common law, and the need for evolving laws, implying pretty strongly that terrorism can't be fought properly with the old laws, so we have to be flexible. And he sees Stevens as ignoring that so-called fact in his opinion.
The 'willfully blind' is a rhetorical flourish, but the basic underlying idea is simply that Stevens ignoring the so-called facts of modern in favor of quibbling over strict interpretations of the law. Stevens doesn't - unless I missed it - argue that the differences don't matter. Again, I'm not at all an expert on these things, so I'll defer to your reading of the opinion, but I didn't see it. So I read Thomas as saying, 'Come on. You know this isn't a normal war situation, that's what we're arguing about, so quit pretending in your opinion that it is.'
He should leave the rhetorical flourishes to Scalia, who is much better at it. (Favorite: "This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so." I hate the decision, but it's kind of like applauding headbutts.)
Geez, I'd forgotten that the claim was "unfamiliarity." I'd mentally rewritten it as "the majority is ignorant of," which I'd mentally elided as "the majority ignores." "Unfamiliarity" is extra-special annoying; aren't SC Justices only supposed to refer to law and evidence presented in the court?
Also, Imma gonna take a shower now cause I was very happy about the decision and I don't like defending Thomas.
Thomas goes on for a while about common law, and the need for evolving laws
Doesn't Thomas go on a lot about strict construction and originalism, or am I thinking of someone else?
Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, which should make it difficult for him to perform a slow, evolving common law type analysis.
Albeit, that is the type of analysis a conservative jurist should do.
But from what I hear Thomas sees very little of his opinions, so maybe consistency over time is an unrealistic expectation.
I almost noted that.. wait, so it's evolving when it's about war powers and not when it's about privacy? I dunno. I leave that to the poor schmoes who went through law school. I wouldn't make a good lawyer.
38: It's kind of nasty and kind of clumsy, but isn't it just Thomas trying to be Scalia and failing? It's not that the line isn't on the offensive side, it's just offensive in a different way than the typical chickenhawk is offensive.
41, 41, 46: Oh, you're all being perfectly reasonable in your desire to talk about the substance of the opinion, which is a more important topic than 'when is it reasonable to make cracks about someone's lack of military service'. I'm just hammering on the form of the rhetorical flourish (which is all the 'unfamiliarity' point is) in order to back up my thesis that cracks about Thomas's military service can be made here because they're responsive, rather than unprovoked.
Basically Thomas says that the plurality makes a mistake in reasoning because it doesn't "understand the nature of warfare." Maybe they don't. They are all very old, after all.
But Thomas doesn't understand warfare any better. And because he has less experience, probably understands it less. So he looks as foolish as anyone would who implied a background knowledge that he didn't have.
But it's worse, because Thomas wants to show that the "nature of warfare" requires us to go outside the bounds of normal legal protection. From an experience point of zero, he draws that conclusion, and tries to impugn the experience of those who disagree with him. It looks mildly disengenuous.
LB, I think we're disagreeing on the rhetoric, too. You're reading Thomas as impugning Stevens experience as a soldier; I just think he's saying the plurality has its head up its ass and doesn't bring in whether the plurality served at all. (Is it common knowledge? I don't know who served and who didn't. It's just not in the opinion.)
To the extent that we don't want to give legitimacy to the idea that serving makes you an expert on warfare, that's the wrong grounds on which to attack Thomas, especially as he's not impugning Stevens' military service (unless you already believe that Stevens' military service gives him a better idea about the nuances of wartime habeas corpus.)
I think w/d nails it in #24: This is the view that simply by being a conservative they gain some extra qualification in pronouncing about military affairs. And I think that sort of presumption, as a response to someone who actually served, is precisely the sort of thing I take LB to be talking about in the post.
Most people think their own views are superior and not belligerent. You may be right, LB, that those with belligerent views are more likely to challenge the authority of those who disagree with them. Questioning authority is a also a general phenomenon. To do so in the case of military expertise is not exclusive to the pro-war or right wing. Besides, as I argued earlier, relevant authority about warfare is not a given for any and all military service.
I don't really like the term chickenhawk, because it raises the bar too high for public service in an old fashioned and unrealistic way. If we are to have fewer wars, fewer politicians will have military experience. And there may be a president without such experience who is legitimately called upon to defend the country in case of attack. That's assuming that chickenhawk means what I always thought it meant, a term for politicians who are too ready to send others to a war for unjust cause when they have not served themselves and are unwilling to send their own friends and family to war.
So, basically, I think Thomas' instance of ad hominem was just that.