As I've remarked previously, right-thinking folks know that it's just silly to talk about fascism in connection with the current developments in the United States, but for some reason a distinguished historian at the University of Michigan is doing just that. Jeez, it's not like a former high-ranking, and still high-profile, military officer suggested that military rule might supplant constitutional government in the wake of a devastating terrorist attack, or anything. Or is it? (Maybe I better delete this post...)
UPDATE: Well, now I'm reassured, since the liberal [sic] intelligentsia [sic] also thinks military rule is a dandy idea. (He writes: "it's indelicate to say so, but it seems to me that in the event of a large-scale nuclear strike on the Washington, DC area on a day when congress is in session, the move to military rule would probably be the correct thing to do.")
FURTHER UPDATE: I dislike updating to respond to every moronic comment in Cyberspace--these inter-blog disputes are basically just tiresome--but someone who pontificates as loudly as Stuart Buck about careful reading ought to read a lot better than he actually does. The article that Michigan Professor Cole actually cited begins as follows:
"Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government."
Then, after quoting excerpts of the interview with General Franks, the article offers the wholly reasonable interpretation of what Franks said: "He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government."
Contrary to Buck, I did not say that the good General was "advocating" military rule. He suggested it was likely under the circumstances described, which is an utterly irresponsible thing for a military figure to say, for the reasons Professor Cole gave. On Buck's eccentric reading, the General thought military rule is the "worst thing that could happen," though what he actually said is that "'the worst thing that could happen' is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties."
This is a case study in misreading through nitpicking, and a waste of my time and Mr. Buck's.
AND MORE: My God, Stuart Buck has a lot of time to kill. In classic blogosphere passive-aggressive mode, he expresses surprise at my irritation, perhaps thinking that I should have thanked him for accusing me of misreading something I read accurately. Let's make this as simple as possible: the article Juan Cole cited, which I cited, I read accurately, which now even the sanctimonious Mr. Buck does not dispute (how could he?). Mr. Buck produces parts of the actual interview with General Franks, claiming that the article misrepresented its meaning. Even from the excerpts produced by Mr. Buck, that is not at all clear, which someone without Mr. Buck's political agenda might have noticed. Most amusing, though, is that Mr. Buck thinks my line, above, about Yglesias thinking "military rule is dandy" shows that I think General Franks "advocated" military rule. I assure you, dear reader, that law school does not destroy everyone's ability to understand ironic uses of language, and that mindless literalism is not a requirement for being a lawyer. (NOTE: In Mr. Buck's further "response" [sic] the alert reader will note that he conveniently omits my last line. I wonder why?)
Recent Comments