home

Ward Churchill Under Fire Again

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Jun 30, 2005 at 08:28:38 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ward Churchill is back in the spotlight, this time with controversial comments about the "fragging" of military officers.

First, his comments:

"Conscientious objection removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray," he said. "Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect."

Churchill denies advocating fragging and defends his remarks:

Reached at his home in Boulder County on Wednesday night, Churchill said the comments were made merely to spark discussion and not to take a position on fragging, which is the killing or injuring of an officer in combat by a subordinate.

He said that his remarks were being taken out of context and sensationalized in an effort to drive him from his job as a CU professor. "I neither advocated nor suggested to anyone, anything," Churchill said. "I asked them to think about where they stood on things."

Update: Ian at the Political Teen has some audio of Churchill's speech.

< Analysis of Supreme Court Decisions | 52 House Member File FOIA Request for DSM Minutes >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Ward Churchill Under Fire Again | 29 comments (29 topical)
    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    why would it be a surprise if he advocated it? It would fit his personality and past statements. If the folks in the WTC were little Eichmanns, why not kill the army of those LE's. Controversial would be him saying something which could be interpreted as pro-US.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    "Imprisoning liberals removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray," he said. "Killing them has a much more impactful effect." -- Fake But True Anonymous Quote The above just to spark discussion and dialogue, of course. I'm sure if the quote were real, say by a prominent Republican, the Left would still understand and respect it as "provoking discussion," and not as a coded message sanctioning such actions.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jack on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    "Imprisoning liberals removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray," he said. "Killing them has a much more impactful effect." --- You forgot to sign that - ann coulter. ...or any number of "conservative" commentators who make a living on just such quotes. Making up such quotes robs them of their livelihood. They should sue you for stealing their intellectual property.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#4)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Ward just loves the spotlight, don't he? OK, exactly how many soldiers do we think are going to say to themselves: "Hey, Ward Churchill says it's OK to frag an officer, so I think I will"? Churchill isn't so much shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre as he is shouting it down a well.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#5)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Rightie blogs won't get any traction on this. It sounds like he was speaking outside his professional capacity, so fretting about it won't produce action. It's also less directly (if at all) advocating anything than what he said before, so if he kept his job before he'll keep it after this. Besides, Churchill's question is actually kind of interesting. Anybody who generally supports conscientious objectors care to answer?

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#6)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Jack, I'd be interested in seeing an example of a prominent conservative commentator openly advocating the killing of liberals. Would you mind posting your link to it? Thx. Roy, Given that joining the US military is a voluntary enlistment, Concientous Objectors need not face the q you pose. They simply shouldn't enlist, and I presume, they don't. Quaker, You make a good pt: It's not very interesting to speculate on how many soldiers will actually follow Churchill's thinly-veiled sugg'n cuz the number is indeed prob zero. But it is interesting, however, to see who defends Churchill, say by trying to portray him as an embattled truth-teller or some such thing. [cue Arte Johnson]

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#7)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    ras,
    Given that joining the US military is a voluntary enlistment, Concientous Objectors need not face the q you pose. They simply shouldn't enlist, and I presume, they don't.
    Does Perry O'Brien exist? To meet the definition one must oppose *all* war, so maybe you're right that they shouldn't join the military. But some people become objectors after joining, perhaps because being in the military provides a new perspective on war. And some are willing to serve, but not in the way they're ordered to, perhaps in a support role.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#8)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Well, ras, Churchill puts us lefties in a tough spot. Let's start with the obvious: he's a crackpot. He has crackpot ideas and communicates them in the most inflammatory way he can manage. If he wasn't a college professor, we'd all agree he was a harmless crank with a bad attitude. However, what would be true if he wasn't a college professor isn't relevant because that's what he is. Churchill said something the right-wing shouters--like Bill O'Reilly--don't like, so they're demanding the university fire him first and then maybe hang him, just for good measure. That's where we lefties have to ignore the fact that Churchill is a loon and insist that we not make up the rules as we go along. We don't fire college professors because we don't like something they said.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#9)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Roy: Churchill's question (at least the part that's quoted)is based on a phony assumption.
    "Conscientious objection removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray," he said. "Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect."
    "Effect" is not the goal of conscientious objection. An objector refuses participation in war, based on personal moral conviction. The object is not to hurt the war effort or to advance the cause of resistance. The object is to live in accordance with personal principles. Now if one holds a moral objection to participation in war, how on earth can you live that conviction by fragging an officer?

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    If the CO is as you say, Quaker, then you're right. However, I do recall the fragging reports from the Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos GENOCIDE, and they, reportedly, stemmed from the military's practice of swapping out battle-tested STUPID- ORDERS -RESISTING unit commanders for green ideologues with no experience who gave the Brass's orders with a salute. At the point where there is breakdown in the logic of the mission, ordinary soldiers may frag a fresh commander they have not bonded with, who holds a rigid Pentagon line that the line soldiers believe will get them killed FOR NOTHING. Ordering troops out in unarmored Humvees may qualify for that kind of 'You Bleed, We'll Salute' ordering. There were many, many Hamburger Hills in Vietnam with numbers instead of names. Asking men to die for impossible or arbitrary 'accomplishments' is what primarily causes fragging, not 'conscientious objection.' What WC is saying is a contradiction as you say, Q, but mainly, taken out of context, it is a conflation of CO morality with a concept of moral duty to stop war by direct violent action that isn't the main cause of the action described by fragging. WC wants little revolutionaries in khaki, and that misunderstands both COs and the main reason for fragging, which is a series of cannon fodder orders from the Brass.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#11)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    I think you've got it right, Paul. Conscientious objection isn't the same thing as direct (and violent0 resistance to orders. In a situation where a fragging takes place, I can only see two possibilities: 1) A soldier carries out an attack against an officer because he seeks to hamper the mission of the officer's unit. This is, in effect, joining the other side. 2) A soldier carries out an attack against an officer because the officer has become a greater threat to the soldier's safety than the enemy. This doesn't go quite so far as joining the other side. Neither of these is conscientious objection or anything like it.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#12)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Ras' "fake but true" anonymous quote:
    "Imprisoning liberals removes a given piece of the cannon fodder from the fray," he said. "Killing them has a much more impactful effect."
    Actual Ann Coulter quote:
    "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too,"
    You were saying?

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Actual, complete, Coulter:
    ... intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.
    She was advocating killing liberals who become outright traitors. That's not an unusual notion. But, lest I paint her as a misunderstood pragmatist, this is her clarification:
    And when I said we should "execute" John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was "We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV".
    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#14)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    She was advocating killing liberals who become outright traitors.
    Sounds to me more like she was advocating killing liberals before they become traitors. Anyway, the similarity between ras' "fake but true" and the real deal is, well, similar.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jack on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building." - Ann Coulter in a New York Observer interview, 8/20/2002 "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors." - Ann Coulter "I'm calling [police] to send over some officers to 'Cap' these guys ;-)" "If I had one dirty bomb and I could eliminate all the liberals in Fresno at once." - Fresno City Council Member Jerry Duncan (a Coulter fan?) Those whacky "conservatives." Ras, do your own research from now on. It will be good for you.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    He's a side show operating for someone's personal benefit (including, but not restricted to, his own personal desire for wealth). What he is not is a principled ideological thinker and/or leader trying to start a movement or create a message that will resonate. That is a more frank, dismissive assessment that you'll hear any Conservative give in reference to any of their disgusting pundits/loudmouths.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#17)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Roy et al, Not particularly apt, is it, to compare attitudes to a known traitor vs those to military members serving honorably? But never mind, we can proceed anyway to step 2: Now see if the major conservative blogs tried to defend or excuse such statements. And there's my point, along with my thanks for helping me make it.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    I agree with everything Quaker said, nicely done.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    et al - From the article:
    When one of the forum's attendees said that the impact such a fragging might have on the officer's family should be considered, Churchill replied, "How do you feel about Adolf Eichmann's family?"
    Fool me once, same on you. Fool me twice, same on me. Looks the leadership of CU is pretty well covered by tha old saying.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    Quaker, there are some causes neither of us mentioned, among them personal grievance with the officers involved, such as the case early in the illegal invasion when the Muslim soldier rolled grenades into the command tent. Apparently he had been harrased and name-called, and who knows what else. In the service, it is not uncommon for scapegoating to occur -- indeed, in deployments with intense racist rhetoric, like the kind Colter damages the nation with, that kind of fragging is probably more likely. Lots of privates are 'fragged' by command. That's the part often ignored. Ann Coulter is herself quite the little traitor. She gives aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution, the supporters of racism, and with her consistent statements involving 'baseball bats' and other weapons to attack judges and political opponents, she is just another ILsa of the SS -- another tart for corporate treason.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#21)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    ...there are some causes neither of us mentioned, among them personal grievance with the officers involved...
    Well that's not CO. Heck, that's not even war. You said the key word: personal. That's just plain ol' garden variety murder.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#22)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    Now see if the major conservative blogs tried to defend or excuse such statements.
    Are we still talking about Coulter here, ras? Godamighty. Forget the right wing blogs. Coulter makes her comments on cable news channels, in major magazines, in major daily newspapers. And gets paid to do so. The only reason anybody ever hears what Churchill has to say is when O'Reilly or his clones give him free publicity.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#23)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    Ras, learn to quit while you're behind.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#24)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    Meanwhile WC is back in the news and sure to make more money of this. Wingers should just ignore his inane statements and he'll go back to being a silent minority of one. No book deals, no speaking engagements, no money rolling in.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#25)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    CU has to keep this guy. I hope he finds a way to avoid retirement and remains active and noisy until he's eighty, at least.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    I would pay good money to watch Churchill and Coulter fistfight.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#27)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    I would pay good money to watch Churchill and Coulter fistfight.
    Churchill has more experience, but Coulter has those freakishly long legs. Might be a good fight.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    Or maybe just a yelling match.

    Re: Ward Churchill Under Fire Again (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:46 PM EST
    Quaker: "Well that's not CO. Heck, that's not even war." My point, our point, exactly. Conflating CO with fragging is a radical view. Some CO is related to an illegal mission, such as in this genocide of Iraqi moderates (in order to kill the evildoers who are the mirror-reflection of the evildoers who want to install airbases). But the idea that it is an extension of a personal ideal of revenge or a desire to stop a war by direct opposition -- never heard of a case of that. Tim McVey wasn't a CO. He 'fragged' the federal government for its lies and for sending him to an unrighteous war, and who knows what other reasons. WC is probably opposed to TM's racism and political views, but, it sounds, applauds the direct action. That's some of the same reason why I don't highly regard Howard Zinn. The actions of individuals don't always have the reasoning of ideologues behind them.

    Ward Churchill Under Fire Again | 29 comments (29 topical)