Not familiar with the term 'bush league'?
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor and tv talking head, is obviously a smart guy, but as the state of the world continues to decline along with the moral authority of both Israel and the U.S., Dershowitz continues to find ways to embarass himself. He just penned a jingoistic article for the Baltimore Sun. He has made some extremely minor contributions to what could be a profitable debate, but his populistic/Bushy rhetoric diminishes any chance we have of actually catching onto what those minor contributions are. I felt compelled to write him:
I knew that when the topic was Israel you veered into the land of lunacy,I hate when I find all sorts of grammatical mistakes in my letters! Doh!
and while your current Bush propaganda speech is not entirely of that ilk, it is neither far from it. The descent of humanity continues to be marked by the world's leading moral authority 'going Sharon' on terrorism. Being a monster is easy. It requires
If I didn't have a very strong opinion of your Israel-influenced thinking,
I would be shocked by this article. It's unfortunate. You continue to diminish your reputation as a scholar by writing such reactionary dribble. Here, in brief, are issues I have with your content - I will not be as eloquent nor as convincing as the many on the side of humanity who will summarily show you the path of the righteous:
* Some of the language you use is horrificly Bush-like in that it is hateful and simple-minded. It goes with the general flow of your article and with my general critique of your Israel-based thought processes - totally reactionary. Outside the context of Israel - I find (or found) your thought process clear and provocative. Here's a sample of what we get when the security of the state of Israel is concerned: "THE GENEVA
Conventions are so outdated and are written so broadly that they have become a sword used by terrorists to kill civilians, rather than a shield to protect civilians from terrorists." Yes, Professor - absolutely, I agree 100%. You should be ashamed of yourself for this sentence alone. The terrorists are using those outdated Geneva Conventions to kill and maim innocents. Kinda like they're usingthe Constitution to do the same. I mean, if it weren't for that birdcage-liner, the Preznit could just go
off and nuke all of Mess-opotamia, right? Bravo. More! More! 1984, here we come! We're winning the war!
* "First, democracies must be legally empowered to attack terrorists who hide among civilians, so long as proportional force is employed." First, proportional force, as you
well know, is relative. Some argue that the United States used proportional force on Japan by dropping atomic bombs on almost-entirely civilian population centers - 99+%. Problem two, the United States, in particular, is given incredible leeway by world governments and even local populations *precisely because* of its once-strict adherence
to the Geneva Conventions. Recently, groups with and outside of the CPA have called on Sadr to leave his shrine-decorated battleground, which shows an obvious awareness of the culpability of the resistance in the destruction of civilian areas and people. For the Vietnamese resistance, I would hope I would not have to cite for you the facts and figures of collateral damage - with lasting effects through today. If you don't believe
that the U.S. is the leading terrorist state in the world, then you haven't been doing your homework. Ask any honest person in the world and they'll tell you that the CIA is the largest, best equipped, most well-funded, best organized terrorist organization in
the world. To argue otherwise is absurdity. The CIA boasts the toppling of more than a dozen governments! The CIA created the birthing solution that gave rise to the Taliban and al Qaeda. The CIA has tortured and executed hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians across the globe. This is not rocket science. The documents are available. Ask Colin Powell to detail his recent statement of regret about U.S. involvement in the toppling of the Chile government so many years ago. For anyone in the U.S. to even
talk about striking at terrorists requires an ample dose of ignorance and/or an extreme disinterest in the truth. As I said, the U.S. has incredible leeway to achieve its military objectives. I don't even want to go into our incredible ability to
propagandize our own citizenry - including leading scholars, like one A. Dershowitz.
* "Second, a new category of prisoner should be recognized for captured terrorists and those who support them." Sounds like a comic strip I read (Get Your War On); you have
to be *really sure* that the person is a suspected terrorist before you kill him. Quaint. Really. Coming from a law professor. Upside-downism is running rampant.
* "who fail to report imminent attacks of which they are aware". I agree, completely. Let's out the Mossad agents inside the FBI who stymied the investigations in the runup to 9/11. I'm sure you know the story of Ms. Sibel Edmonds. If not, look it up. You might just learn something. Alas, let's use the 'new category of prisoner' you spoke of to 'interrogate' the Israeli 'furniture movers' who were just caught trying to enter a military base in Jacksonville, Florida.
* "Fourth, the treaties against all forms of torture must begin to recognize differences in degree among varying forms of rough interrogation, ranging from trickery and humiliation, on the one hand, to lethal torture on the other." Anything outside of 'humane treatment' or 'cruel and unusual treatment' is not acceptable. It will very quickly lead us on the road to monsterville - something Bush, the neocons, and Israel-first supporters would love. Kill all the non-Christians. Great storyline, Professor.
You have become a true Sharon disciple.
You said one good thing: "For the law to work, it must be realistic and it must adapt to changing needs", but you left out it's necessary counterpart: "and let us not pass reactionary, non-thinking legislation". What you've recklessly transcribed in this article will now be part of your legacy. There are much more brave and effective ways to defend the State of Israel and humanity - and in my humble opinion, defending humanity should be your primary goal - *not* defending Israel.
I read your book 'Letters to a Young Lawyer'. In it, you say 'don't follow my path...create your own path...and don't treat me as a hero." I thought it was great advice. It saves me from severe depression when I read something like this from someone who I thought was honest and intelligent. I cannot accept willful ignorance on
your part. I'm once again very disappointed in someone who I thought was a rational, independent thinker.
Good luck hastening the our descent into Sharonism!