sad and stupid

“Right now, it’s just a mass shooting.”

Those are the words of ‘a federal official who spoke on the condition of anonymity,’ quoted in The Washington Post. Just a mass shooting. Jeebus on a fucking cracker. Just another mass shooting.

Some jamoke strolls into a Sikh temple and opens fire. Six people dead. Seven, counting the shooter himself. And we’ve become so inured to this routine madness that federal officials can say “it’s just a mass shooting.” In other words, it’s nothing out of the ordinary; it’s not an extraordinary massacre — just your usual, normal, everyday sort of massacre.

And how is the right wing responding to this latest ‘just a mass shooting’? Some of them are assuming it’s a ploy by President Obama to create conditions that will help him get re-elected and take away their guns. Here are a few choice comments from freerepublic.com:

   [T]he timing seems suspicious as well, given the upcoming elections and Democrats’ attempst to scale back conceal carry?

After Aurora is this the next asset being ‘activated’ by his handlers. The more BHO fears November the more of these events are going to occur and they will escalate in level of violence and number of casualties.

Sounds like Liberal black ops operation to influence the election

Adolph Hitler: socialist. Obama: socialist. And the parallels don’t stop there by any means. The parallels are eerily similar, except instead of Jews, it’s Christians that are now ok to persecute. I know in this case it wasn’t but that’s where the trend is going. I’m still wondering when 0bama’s Reichstag Fire moment will happen.

Wow the lefties are really shooting up the country right before the election. No doubt to prop up their Obama God as only he can save us from those evil right wingers.

So it’s either just another ordinary mass killing or it’s a liberal plot to disarm conservatives. Both viewpoints are sad and stupid. Stupid, stupid, and so terribly sad.

how did we get here?

Two things fuel the current idiotic state of gun laws in the United States: the romantic tradition of the Old West and contemporary paranoia and fear. It began with the glorification of the gunfight, in which a pair of steely-eyed men — one good and one wicked, of course — faced each other on dusty streets at high noon and settled their differences. There’s a limited but semi-factual basis for that tradition. Those sorts of gunfights actually did, on rare occasion, take place. In fact today is the anniversary of the first recognized ‘high noon’ style gunfight. It didn’t take place at noon, though, and neither of the participants could be said to be entirely ‘good’ people, and there was nothing particularly romantic about it. But this is where the tradition was born.

On this day in 1865, in the market square of Springfield, Missouri, a cowboy named Davis Tutt, who a few months earlier had been serving in the Confederate Army, faced off against James Butler Hickock, a professional gambler who’d served in the Union Army, first as a Jayhawker and later as a scout (if you’ve seen the movie The Outlaw Josey Wales, you’ve seen Jayhawkers — they were the ‘Red Legs’ who killed Clint Eastwood’s wife and child, and later massacred his companions as they were surrendering). Because of his prominent nose, Hickock’s fellow Jayhawkers called him Duckbill. By the end of the war, they’d begun calling him Wild Bill.

Wild Bill Hickock

The gunfight was primarily over a gambling debt; secondarily, it involved disputes over women (Tutt had been paying ‘undue attention’ to Hickock’s girlfriend; Hickock, on the other hand, was believed to have impregnated Tutt’s sister). They met in the town’s square, stood somewhere between 50 and 75 yards apart, took up a sideways duelist’s stance, and drew and fired at about the same time. Tutt, who was generally accounted the better shot, missed. Hickock didn’t. A year and a half later, an account of the gunfight was published in Harper’s Magazine. It propelled Hickock from his status as “a desperado, a drunken, swaggering fellow” to that of a dime-novel hero.

There is, let’s face it, something perversely attractive about the Old West mythos of the straight-talking and straight-shooting lawman. In reality, straight-talking was significantly less important than straight-shooting. It was the notion of straight-shooting that sparked the creation of the National Rifle Association.

At the end of every war there’s always a group of people who say “Well, that’s done — now, how do we fight the next one?” At the end of the American Civil War, one of those people was former Union Army General George Wingate. He was appalled by the inability of city-raised Union soldiers to hit a target; it was estimated that for every 1000 rounds fired by Union soldiers, only one Confederate soldier was hit. Confederate troops, having a more rural background, were far more accurate. In 1871 Wingate and a few others created the National Rifle Association to rectify that situation.

For a century or so, that’s what the NRA did — they taught firearm safety, they taught marksmanship, and they lobbied for sensible gun laws. That’s right, sensible gun laws in response to contemporary social circumstances. In the 1920s and 30s, for example, the NRA acted in response to the rise of gangsterism. This was the era of Bonnie and Clyde, of Machine Gun Kelly, of John Dillinger. The NRA helped craft legislation to restrict the buying and carrying of guns; laws requiring a person to obtain a permit from local law enforcement in order to carry a concealed weapon, laws limiting those permits to people who had a valid cause to be armed, laws requiring gun dealers to report every gun sale to law enforcement, and laws imposing a waiting period on the purchase of weapons. They supported laws restricting the sale and ownership of automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns, which were considered ‘gangster’ guns. Even as late as 1963, after the assassination of President Kennedy, the NRA supported a ban on mail-order gun sales.

John Dillinger

By the middle of the 1960s, the NRA had essentially become an organization devoted to supporting the interests of hunters and sportsmen. Then in May of 1967, something unexpected happened. The wrong people started buying, owning and carrying guns. A year earlier, in response to incidents of police violence, Huey Newton and Bobby Seale formed the Black Panther Party to protect their neighborhoods. They began to openly carry firearms — mostly shotguns and handguns — while patrolling the streets. They also began to stockpile weapons.

In response, a conservative Republican state assemblyman, Don Mulford, proposed a law that would prohibit the carrying of a loaded weapon in any California city. The governor of California, Ronald Reagan, supported the restriction, saying there was “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons” and telling reporters the legislation “would work no hardship on the honest citizen.” The new legislation was presented to the public as sensible gun control, but everybody knew it was directed at one segment of the population. As one Black Panther said at the time, the law wasn’t about controlling guns; it was about controlling black people.

The law passed. Of course it did. And on the day the legislation was debated, the Black Panthers marched, fully armed, to the state capitol.

The Black Panther Party on the steps of the California legislature – May, 1967

The following month began what has come to be called ‘the Long Hot Summer.” In June of 1967 there were race riots in Tampa,  Atlanta, Buffalo, Boston, and Cincinnati. In July the riots spread to Detroit, Newark, Birmingham, Chicago, New York City, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis. The rioting continued through August. In the three months of summer, there were 159 race riots in the United States. Police and National Guardsmen who attempted to maintain order during the riots often became the targets of sniper fire.

A couple of noteworthy things happened as a result of the riots. The Kerner Commission, established by President Johnson to determine why the riots took place and how future riots could be avoided, noted one reason for the level of violence was the easy access to firearms. That led to more very specific gun control legislation. People who’d been convicted of a felony or of drug possession weren’t allowed to buy a gun. In addition, small inexpensive handguns — known as ‘Saturday Night specials’ — were banned. Those laws received bipartisan support. Those laws, it should also be noted, primarily affected poor, urban, African-American communities.

While this was taking place, the NRA began to splinter. One branch continued to remain primarily a sportsman’s support group; the other branch began to believe it was important for good people to arm themselves against the possible collapse of civilization. That branch actively worked to rescind some of the legislation the NRA originally supported, in order to make it easier to acquire firearms.

The existence of the Black Panther party helped fuel the paranoid wing of the NRA, which eventually seized control of the group, turning it into the extremist political organization it is now. It didn’t matter that the Black Panthers self-destructed in a welter of drug abuse and criminality. Another terrifying enemy has always presented itself to the NRA. Communists, Muslims, the US government itself — there’s always somebody out to get them.

Any attempt to place even the smallest restriction on firearms is now condemned by the NRA as part of some shadowy plot to seize all the firearms in the U.S. As a result, restrictions on gun sales, gun ownership and the ability to carry a firearm have been relaxed or eliminated altogether.

Because we’ve perpetuated this romantic myth of gun play, and because a relatively small, paranoid, powerful gun lobby devotes a tremendous amount of money and effort to keep folks frightened, those of us who live in the US find ourselves in a nation in which a 24 year old kid can buy a full suit of tactical ballistic body armor, load up on weapons with high capacity magazines, and stroll into a movie theater and shoot 90 people.

It’s worth noting, though, that even Wild Bill Hickock believed in gun control. When he was the marshal of Abilene, Kansas he required cowboys to surrender their weapons when they came into town. A man named Phil Coe, drunk and belligerent, encouraged by his buddies, refused to surrender his gun. When Hickock insisted, Coe drew his gun and fired. Hickock drew his own weapon and shot Coe twice in the abdomen, killing him.

There’s a lesson to be learned there. Two lessons, in fact. Immediately after he shot Coe, Hickcock, out of the corner of his eye, saw somebody approaching him in a hurry. He turned and fired again, thinking it was one of Coe’s friends. It was, in fact, his own friend and deputy, coming to his aid. The man died on the spot.

We need to remember that. There’s nothing romantic about a gunfight, and the gun doesn’t care who gets killed.

the stupidest fucking people on the planet

Let me begin by saying this: I’m a liberal who likes guns. Guns are incredibly efficient technology, and I like efficiency. They make a terrific noise, and there are times when I enjoy a loud noise. I like the fact that you can point them at an object and a hole will appear in that object, and I like that it takes some skill to make that hole appear where you want it to appear. If you shoot a handgun at night, flame comes out of the barrel — and that’s pretty. Even prettier is tracer fire at night. So yes, I like guns.

I just don’t trust anybody to own one.

The fetishization of firearms reveals the very worst of American culture. It makes already paranoid people even more paranoid and already stupid people even more stupid. Witness Representative Louis Gohmert, a Republican from Texas (and I don’t want to cast aspersions on Texas, but lawdy folks, what the fuck is wrong with you people?). Gohmert has proven himself capable of superhuman feats of stupidity in the past (he once argued that the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline was good for the environment because it gave caribou a place to have sex), but in an interview this morning he took stupid to a new level. Gohmert claimed last night’s mass murder at the premier of the new Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado was a result of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.” That’s not just stupid, it’s delusional. He also wondered why nobody in the audience didn’t pull a firearm and return fire — I guess because one person shooting in a dark movie theater just isn’t enough. But hey, returning fire — that’s the Christian thing to do. (Gohmert, by the way, teaches Sunday School at the Green Acres Baptist Church in Tyler, Texas; it’s unknown how many of the children who attend his lectures are packing heat.)

Louis Gohmert

Some people on far right websites like FreeRepublic are even asserting the mass murder is part of a plan by the Obama administration — either to seize all the weapons in the US before the election in November or as part of a Muslim Brotherhood plot to seize control of the US. Or both. Others are claiming the shooting was part of an Occupy Wall Street plan to…well, nobody seems to know why OWS would shoot innocent strangers in a movie theater, but fucking hippie faggot communists dammit they’re capable of anything — I mean, what sort of people play drums in a circle? And then, of course, there were the people who assumed that since the shooting took place on the first night of Ramadan, it had to be a jihadist attack. Stupid, stupid fucking people.

There are three things we can be certain of. First, there will be calls from a few liberals for reasonable gun control legislation. Second, there will be claims from conservatives that existing gun control laws are already too strict. And finally, nothing will change.

Right now in the United States it’s almost as easy to buy a firearm as it is to buy a toaster. Sure, if you go to a licensed gun dealer, you’ll have to fill out a form and show some identification–but you’d have to be stupider than Louis Gohmert if you can’t figure out an easy way to get around that. Even if you are that stupid, you can still go to a gun show this weekend and buy any number of weapons without filling out any forms or showing any identification at all. Or you can go to an estate sale, or an auction, or a garage sale and buy weapons. Or if it’s too hot to go outside, you buy weapons through mail-order sportsman catalogs or on the internet and have them delivered right to your door.

This didn’t change after the Columbine School shootings, it didn’t change after the Virginia Tech school shootings, it didn’t change after the shooting at the Gabrielle Giffords event, it hasn’t changed despite all the mass murders that take place in the US every year — and sad to say, it’s not going to change now.

Here is a true thing: it’s too goddamn easy to buy firearms in the U.S. Don’t give me that shit about ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people.’ If you actually think that’s true, then you’re just as fucking stupid as Louis Gohmert. Guns make it easier to kill people, and to kill people in larger numbers. You tell me that this guy in Colorado could have have killed as many people if he’d used a bomb? Fine, I’m all for making it more difficult to make bombs too. But it takes some skill and patience to build a bomb, whereas any nitwit can walk into a gun show and buy as many guns as his credit card will allow. You tell me that Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms? I’m with you there, but brother that was written in the last half of the 18th century when a good marksman might have been able to fire four rounds per minute in a fucking musket. I’d be willing to allow you to own all the muskets you want. I guarantee you if the Aurora gunman had been armed with a musket, Colorado families wouldn’t be burying a dozen kids this week.

Here’s one of the problems we face. Right now liberals are saying “This isn’t a time for politics; we should be thinking about the families” and conservatives are saying “This is a tragedy, but you can’t punish honest law-abiding gun owners because of the actions of one crazy person.” And I’ll say “This IS a time for politics, because that’s the only way we can reduce the incidence of these sorts of mass murders.” And I’ll say “Placing reasonable limits on the types of firearms a person can own and the size of the magazines for those firearms isn’t punishing anybody but people who intend to shoot a whole lot of people in a short amount of time.”

What happened in Aurora is a community tragedy. The national tragedy is that the firearm debate in the US is controlled by the stupidest fucking people on the planet.

NOTE: I have to confess to an error. I suggested nothing had changed as a result of the shooting at the Gabrielle Giffords political event. I was wrong. Four months after the shootings, the State of Arizona passed legislation making the Colt single-action army revolver the State’s official sidearm.

pointing fingers at dicks

Okay, let’s get this bit out of the way quickly. Yes, Daniel Tosh is a dick. Yes, he has the absolute right to express his dickishness. Yes, comedians are allowed to make fun of anything, including terrible things like rape. And even yes, it’s possible — and sometimes even healthy — to make fun of terrible things, including rape.

BUT…. And I’ll come back to this ‘but’ in a bit.

If you’re not aware of Tosh or this incident, here’s a brief synopsis. Tosh is a comedian of the Fart and Puke School. He’s a proponent of the notion that it’s okay to say any offensive thing you want so long as you say it with a boyish grin. During a recent stand-up routine, according to a woman who attended the set, he began “making some very generalizing, declarative statements about rape jokes always being funny, how can a rape joke not be funny.” The woman, understandably offended, shouted out “Actually, rape jokes are never funny!” Tosh then started telling the audience how hilarious it would be if that woman was gang-raped. The woman wrote about the experience in her blog, which received a lot of attention — and rightly so.

Tosh has since issued a standard non-apology apology on Twitter, saying: “All the out of context misquotes aside, i’d like to sincerely apologize” and “The point i was making before i was heckled is there are awful things in the world but you can still make jokes about them.”

And that brings me back to that BUT….

But an apology is meaningful only if you recognize you’ve done something wrong or that the person to whom you’re apologizing has a legitimate reason to be offended. Neither of those conditions apply here. Tosh seems to think the issue isn’t that he behaved like a complete asshole, but that the people who were (and still are) offended don’t understand his position on rape jokes. He doesn’t acknowledge that it’s just fundamentally, unconditionally, and totally fucking wrong to suggest anybody ought to be raped.

Any ‘joke’ that suggests rape is funny isn’t a joke. Any ‘joke’ that suggests somebody should be raped isn’t a joke. That’s just so blatantly obvious it shouldn’t need to be pointed out to anybody.

That said, the woman was wrong when she claimed ‘rape jokes are never funny.’  I understand her point, and I completely agreed with her until I heard comedian Elayne Boosler defend the claim that anything can be the subject of humor. Sometimes humor comes out of righteous anger. Boosler spoke about a news report of a man who was acquited of rape because his victim wasn’t wearing any panties. The defense was the woman ‘was asking for it.’ Boosler then said “Now when I go out, I wear two pairs of underwear so that they know, not only am I not asking for it, I’m not even thinking about it.”

That’s a sad and angry sort of humor, but it’s a perfect example of the proper way to use humor to address a horrible subject. Boosler wasn’t making light of rape, the way Tosh did. She was pointing out how fucked up it is to have a legal system and a culture that teaches women “don’t get raped” instead of teaching men “don’t rape.” Tosh, intentionally or not, perpetuates the idea that rape is acceptable and that women who don’t find that amusing are ‘overly sensitive.’

Sad to say, I doubt this controversy will hurt Tosh, any more than Rush Limbaugh’s tirade against Sandra Fluke hurt Limbaugh. These people know their audience; they know they’re addressing a demographic that enjoys demeaning people. We can either choose to ignore them (which they won’t notice) or we can keep pointing out their dickish behavior. That might be equally futile, but sometimes — like woman who interrupted Tosh’s routine — it’s important to just get up, make a righteous noise and point your finger at assholes like Daniel Tosh.

you can’t make this shit up

Okay, imagine this: in the mid-1980s a woman named Cheryl Sullenger, an abortion opponent, attempted to blow up a Womens Health Clinic in San Diego. She was caught, and in 1988 she and five other co-conspirators were convicted in a federal court of conspiracy. She served time in prison. On her release, Sullenger was hired as a senior policy advisor by Operation Rescue–which leaves one to wonder what sort of policy advice the group was seeking.

In 2006 Sullenger filed a complaint with the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts against Ann Neuhaus, a doctor who offered a second opinion on a few late-term abortion cases. The law in Kansas requires a woman seeking a later-term abortion to obtain a second physician’s opinion. In eleven cases, Dr. Neuhaus found the patients had serious mental health issues and an abortion was advisable. Sullenger’s complaint claimed Dr. Neuhaus’ examinations weren’t thorough enough to merit that advice (though, of course, Sullenger believes a thorough examination would necessarily result in a decision against abortion). That complaint sat without a hearing until last week.

In the intervening years, though, Sullenger provided a guy named Scott Roeder with information regarding Dr. George Tiller, the doctor who provided the abortion services on which Dr. Neuhaus offered her second opinion. Roeder later murdered Dr. Tiller as he attended church. In Roeder’s car, the police found Sullenger’s Operation Rescue telephone number. He told authorities he’d spoken to Sullenger on several occasions about ‘justifiable homicide’ in regard to protecting the life of the unborn. Sullenger said she provided Roeder with the information about Dr. Tiller ‘to be polite.’ She wasn’t charged with any crime.

Several months ago the governor of Kansas–Sam Brownback, an abortion opponent–appointed a lawyer named Rick Macias to the State Board of Healing Arts. Macias had, at one time, represented Operation Rescue. And suddenly that complaint filed by Sullenger way back in 2006 got a hearing.

Can you guess what happened? Of course you can. On Friday the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts revoked the medical license of Dr. Ann Neuhaus.

Dr. Ann Neuhaus having her medical license revoked

Just to be clear, let me repeat this. A complaint filed six years ago by a woman convicted of attempting to bomb a medical clinic and who is an associate of a man convicted of assassinating a doctor who performed a legal medical procedure is heard by a committee appointed by a governor who is opposed to that legal medical procedure–a committee on which sits a lawyer who represented a group opposed to that legal medical procedure, and that committee decides to revoke the medical license of a doctor for the offense of offering a second opinion on eleven cases involving that same legal medical procedure.

That’s fucked up.

For the record, let me say I dislike the need for abortions. I wish nobody ever had to make that decision. But it’s a decision that belongs to a woman in consultation with her doctor. Let me also remind folks once again that this is a legal medical procedure. For now.

Let me also say there is something deeply un-American about people who are so intent on imposing their religious and moral values on everybody else.

dueling definitions of pornography

There is something profoundly wrong with the modern Republican party.

Last week the House Committee on Natural Resources held a hearing on the process of mountain-top removal (MTR) coal mining. If you’re not familiar with that practice, it’s been used for a couple decades now, all over Appalachia–Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky. The name is incredibly self-descriptive; MTR involves clearing timber from a mountaintop and then dynamiting the peak. The mountaintop is literally removed. The coal is excavated and all the waste gets dumped into into the nearby valleys. The valleys, of course, are where the streams and creeks and brooks are located.

Not surprisingly, depositing massive amounts of coal debris into streams turned out to be in violation of the Clean Water Act. However, in 2002 coal company lobbyists managed to get the Bush administration to ‘clarify’ the Clean Water Act so that MTR debris wasn’t considered ‘waste.’

Problem solved! Clean water was restored to the areas at the stroke of a pen. Everybody wins!

MTR is horrible, of course. The Republican support for the practice is appalling. But that’s old news. It’s hardly a surprise that they’ll shift laws to benefit corporations over people. What IS surprising, though, is how incredibly skewed their priorities are. At the hearing last week an opponent to MTR (Maria Gunnoe) was scheduled to testify about the devastating effects the practice has on the people who have to live with the consequences of filthy water. Part of her testimony–which was made available to committee members beforehand–involved a slideshow of photographs by photojournalist Katie Falkenberg, who documented the lives of some of the people living in the affected areas.

Before she could testify, however, Gunnoe was approached by staffers working for Representative Doug Lamborn–a Republican who sits on the committee and, by coincidence, has close ties to the American Coal Council (Lamborn gave the keynote speech at last year’s ACC conference, in which he accused President Obama of fighting ‘a war against coal’). Lamborn’s staffers informed Gunnoe she wouldn’t be allowed to use one of Falkenberg’s photographs. This photograph:

Why did she have to remove that photograph? Because Lamborn thought it was child pornography. And indeed, after she delivered her testimony (which was given without the photograph) Gunnoe was detained for an hour by Capitol Police and questioned about the alleged ‘child pornography’..

Lamborn and other Republicans see nothing at all wrong with blowing up mountaintops and dumping waste in the groundwater used by poor people–but when looking at this photograph they don’t see a child forced to live in heartbreaking conditions; they see something sexual.

Anybody who sees anything sexual in this photograph is twisted. Anybody who looks at this photograph and thinks in terms of sexuality instead of basic human rights and living conditions is depraved and morally corrupt.

So let me say it again. There is something profoundly wrong with the modern Republican party.

torture…pffft…let’s not get carried away

A couple weeks ago, while nobody was paying attention, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision permitting convicted terrorist José Padilla to sue John Yoo.

Padilla, you may recall, was arrested in May of 2002. The government claimed he was planning to build and detonate a ‘dirty bomb’ in the United States. He was held in a military prison without charge or due process for three and a half years, during which time he was subjected to ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques which included prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation, sensory overload (extreme variations in temperature, loud noises, long periods of absolute darkness or light, exposure to noxious smells), administration of psychotropic drugs, sleep deprivation, prolonged shackling, stress positions and threats to his family–all of which have long been considered either illegal or torture.

The Bush administration was eventually required to release Padilla from military custody. In 2007, he was tried and convicted in a civilian criminal court. He was sentenced to serve 17 years for conspiracy to kill or maim, and for providing support to a terrorist organization. The accusation about the ‘dirty bomb’ for which he was originally arrested? No charges involving such a bomb were ever filed.

José Padilla

After his conviction, Padilla sued John Yoo, asking for US$1.00 in damages. That’s right, one dollar. Padilla wasn’t looking for actual justice; he just wanted to make a point.

Yoo, of course, is the former member of the Office of Legal Counsel (the office tasked with assisting the U.S. Attorney General in giving legal advice to the President) who wrote the infamous ‘torture memos’ which stated President Bush had the legal authority to order ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ to be used on suspected terrorists. A subsequent review of Yoo’s memoranda by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility stated Yoo had committed ‘intentional professional misconduct’ when he claimed the president could authorize torture; they recommended he be referred to the his state Bar Association for possible disciplinary action (i.e., disbarred). That conclusion was overruled by a more senior Bush administration lawyer.

And now Padilla’s suit against Yoo has also been dismissed. Why? Because according to the Ninth Circuit Court, “There was at that time considerable debate, both in and out of government, over the definition of torture as applied to specific interrogation techniques.” In other words, although there was universal agreement in the international legal community about whether those practices constituted torture, disagreement about the definition of torture in the Bush administration means Yoo can’t be held accountable. The court stated they “cannot say that any reasonable official in 2001-03 would have known that the specific interrogation techniques allegedly employed against Padilla, however appalling, necessarily amounted to torture.”

John Yoo

By the way, those ‘torture memos’ are also referred to as the ‘Bybee memos’ because although Yoo wrote them, the memoranda were signed by his superior, Jay Bybee. Bybee left the Office of Legal Counsel in 2003 to become a judge on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals–the court that just dismissed the suit against John Yoo. While Bybee wasn’t on the panel of judges who heard the case, one can’t help but note the irony.

Yoo’s response to the dismissal of the suit? “For several years, Padilla and his attorneys have been harassing the government officials he believes to have been responsible for his detention and ultimately conviction as a terrorist. He has now lost before two separate courts of appeals, and will need to find a new hobby for his remaining time in prison.”

That’s right…John Yoo is finally free of the years of cruel harassment he’s had to endure at the hands of José Padilla.

limits of free speech

As I’ve said before, I’m pretty close to being a free speech absolutist. I’ve defended racist speech, hateful speech, misogynistic speech, ugly speech of every sort. I may not like it, but I defend a person’s right to say it. Most of my friends know this, so I routinely get email from folks with links to free speech issues.

Today I received a few emails referring to the Gary Stein case, one of which linked to a Gawker post that included this cartoon:

The case involves 26 year old Marine Corps Sergeant Gary Stein, a nine-year veteran. Stein made several disparaging remarks about President Obama on his Facebook page. He called the president “a coward,” he referred to him as an “economic and religious enemy,” he vowed he would never salute him and stated he wouldn’t follow his orders (which he later amended to say he wouldn’t follow “illegal orders”).

I completely support Stein’s right to have those opinions and to voice them as a private citizen. But here’s the problem. He’s not a private citizen. He’s a member of the United States Marines and however much he hates it, Barack Obama is his Commander in Chief. As a Marine, Sgt. Stein’s behavior is ruled by the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, not by the laws that pertain to ordinary citizens. Article 134 of the UCMJ says this:

[A]ll disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

Insulting the Commander in Chief has always been considered conduct that brings ‘discredit upon the armed forces’ and detrimental to the ‘good order and discipline of the armed forces.’ Sgt. Stein could have been subject to a court-martial and, if found guilty, given a dishonorable discharge. Instead, he was given an administrative hearing and a three judge panel recommended he be given an administrative discharge.

I think that’s appropriate. Stein had served long enough to be familiar with the rules of conduct. He should have known better. It’s not uncommon for military personnel to talk trash about their superiors (hell, it’s almost mandatory), but it’s one thing to talk trash with your buddies in private and it’s altogether another thing to post comments on public social media.

The Gawker piece concludes: “However outraged you would have been had an Iraq war veteran Marine been dismissed for saying something bad about George W. Bush on Facebook, that’s how outraged you should be now.” I agree with that completely. When Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Butler called President Bush “contemptible and sleazy” and suggested the invasion of Iraq took place because the “economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something on which to hang his presidency” (sentiments I happen to agree with), I believe the Air Force did the right thing in booting his ass out. Active duty military personnel DO NOT insult the Commander in Chief, no matter how passionately they may dislike him.

One of the reasons I always say I’m close to being a free speech absolutist is because there are situations like this. Being a member of the military carries some extra burdens, one of which is you can’t always speak your mind.

No–that’s not true. You can still speak your mind. You just have to accept the consequences. For Gary Stein, that meant being discharged from the Marine Corps.

But don’t feel too badly for him. His disrespect for the Commander in Chief may have ended his military career, but it’s kickstarted his career as a radio talk show host. Is anybody surprised to learn Citizen Gary Stein has been given a radio show?