9/11 storm at CU

[ckramer]

Regents call special meeting to discuss professor's views

By John C. Ensslin, Rocky Mountain News
January 31, 2005

The University of Colorado Board of Regents has called a special meeting Thursday to discuss the views of Ward Churchill, a professor who says people killed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were not innocent victims.

The move comes as controversy continues to build over Churchill's writings and comments. The regents will meet the same day that Churchill, chairman of the Ethnic Studies Department at CU, is scheduled to be part of a panel discussion at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y.

His appearance there has generated protests from faculty, students and relatives of people killed in the 9/11 attacks.

In an essay titled "Some People Push Back - On the Justice of Roosting Chickens," Churchill argued the attacks were retaliation for a 1991 bombing raid on Iraq and U.S. support of economic sanctions against Iraq following the Persian Gulf War.

He referred to the people killed at the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers," referring to Adolf Eichmann, who carried out Adolf Hitler's systematic extermination of the Jews during World War II.

rmn

[cthrumatrix]

2. this is a "sham distraction"...... simple BS

[Swamp Rat]

33. Right on!

TOTAL BS!

It seems as though Americans will fall for every bit of hyped news. Now, folks will be bad mouthing 'librul' professors and demanding an end to tenure, etc. - get rid of the educated and replace them with BushBots. It's all part of "The Plan."

[Just Me]

83. Although scattered, he basically advocates "reason" for retaliation.

:shrug:

Maybe, the right-winger fascists pulled him out to advance a "rule of the jungle" addiction they can NOT get beyond. If those neofascists are USING this fellow's perspective as means to KILL "free thinkers", as all fascist dictators do, well,...THEY SHOULD BE CONVICTED OF TREASON *LOL* .

Actually, if you read his whole delivery, the concept underlying his conclusions are pretty accurate,...notwithstanding his "facts" are quite confused. He is operating from "a people" perspective, the Muslim/Islam adherents, having been abused by those outside their world-perspective for quite some time over the last century or so.

He is simply explaining a "defense" (via "rebellion" for independence from "western" oppression eg violence/warring against their existence) that was waged, with "PRECISION", against "targets" associated with the corporatists that have waged death and destruction upon his people.

:shrug:

If we were all being "real",...if any of us were willing to actually TRY to walk in the shoes of another,...we wouldn't be freakin out.

Then, again,....we are of the attitude that others' shoes, stink,...and ours smell so much better that,...we turn off, totally, being some member of a race that fails to fall within our race,...whether it be skin or kin or some other bullshit excuse we forward to separate one race,...the human race.

Maybe, when we face our weakness in being self-serving,...we will actually become all-serving.

All I can say is,...we may pretend like there are "pedestals" in our short time here,...but, how much are those "pedestals" really worth in terms of both our short lives and anything thereafter?

:shrug:

[ckramer]

3. This gets the college republicans all fired up!

Quote:

Members of the College Republicans chapter at CU's Boulder campus also announced Sunday they will begin collecting signatures Tuesday on petitions "to have Ward Churchill fired for his inflammatory speech that perversely represents CU."

The group also plans to go to Churchill's class Tuesday to distribute fliers to his students, telling them "how their professor is defaming CU."

[JLucas4092]

15. Ah crap........

We had almost gone a week on this campus (yes, I'm a CU student) without the damn campus Republicans causing trouble. Now they get an excuse to thrust themselves in the media spotlight even more.

Most Republicans here even hate the campus repubs. They're that bad.

[Damien]

62. don't worry

its just taking some heat off the idiotic republicans over here at UNC...ours have spent a good week in the news.

[JLucas4092]

90. Wow

I spent 3 years at UNC and I didn't know they had a campus repubs.

Sorry to hear about it.

[JLucas4092]

170. **UPDATE**

Apparently a bunch of CU students that are republican are tired of the "Campus Republicans" (who are extremists in every way possible)and are trying to start a new campus republicans -- one that follows sane beliefs.

The guy that's trying to start the new group, when asked what he thought of the professor said, "It's his problem. He has freedom of speech....I believe in that."

[LiberalFighter]

73. How about compiling what they have done?

And keep an eye on what they do elsewhere

[legin]

194. My condolences JLucas4092

I'm in britain and even I know them.

Brad Jones (I had to look him up this time still)

Flux Neo and new wife ?? (remembered off the top of my head)

I think this is the third time they have come up here.

[RedCloud]

55. this is a disruption of class

The repugs do NOT have the right to interfere with a class. How will CU respond? Don't get buffaloed CU!

[jdj]

64. why?

this links Iraq with 9/11. You'd think they'd be grateful.

[LiberalFighter]

72. There should be a petition...

"to have all College Republican members castrated or other similar procedure"

[struggle4progress]

85. The wingnuts have all hated him ever since he wrote

The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret War Against Domestic Dissent (South End 1991)

He's written extensively for Z Magazine
http://www.zmag.org/bios/homepage.cfm?authorID=62

Here's an article of the sort the wingnuts hate:
"Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens
http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html

Personally, I think this is well worth reading and thinking about, whether or not one ultimately agrees. And independent of whether one likes Churchill or not, it is essential to be willing to stand up for him in this assault on the first amendment, which assault is part of a rightwing corporatist attack intended to strip away all of our organizing rights.

<edit: grammar, spelling>

[hasbro]

197. Irony is

that the College Republicans (Virgins) have been bitching and moaing about a secret black list to get rid of professors yet they want the same method employed up one they hate.

For all of their snooping around and bias hunts someone else outed this prof.

[pokercat999]

155. Can't let a professor provoke thought huh.

I forgot repugs can't think just march in lock-step.

[davidinalameda]

4. isn't free speech a horrible thing

granted, I think what's he saying is garbage but this is still America, and he has the right to say it

[OldVlad]

10. He has the right to say it, not a right to a paycheck

No one is saying he can't say these things, but he can't expect to get a taxpayer paycheck spouting this antiSemetic hate. Personally I think its rock stupid for anyone here to appear in any way defensive of this extremist. All this accomplishes is firing up the other side, which in case you haven't been following the news the past couple days, is a bad strategy.

[Dhalgren]

16. I'll tell you what is "rock stupid";

it is to force all academics to toe a party line. The reason tenure is granted to academics is so that they have the freedom to say and discuss unpopular ideas. And we need them now more than ever. What's stupid is thinking that anything we say or do is going to make us look better in establishment or conservative eyes.

[TX-RAT]

17. Have always held tenure to be a joke.

Nobody's above getting their ass fired.

[Old and In the Way]

24. The whole idea behind tenuring is to insulate the academia from

politics. Yes, I think this guy's a wacko and maybe he's part of some candestine effort to discredit the left. But if we start picking off professors who we don't like, it sets a precedent to make all professors subject to a government approved line of thinking.

If you don't what Mr. Churchill's has to say, don't attend his lectures or take his courses. That's a good way to discredit his viws, IMHO. Stifling anyone's freedom of speech, particularly in academics, is a very bad idea.

The time for doing due diligence is before offering tenure. In most cases, problems are weeded out at this point.

[mudderfudder77]

35. So...

Does that same logic apply to the gentleman at Harvard that questioned whether woman were inferior in the areas of Math and Science. Whats good for the goose...

[tishaLA]

38. That gentleman wasn't a tenured professor

He was the President of the university, which is a highly politicized position. Apples and oranges.

[LiberalFighter]

74. And can be fired a lot easier

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

43. Nice inability to distinguish...one is in charge of policy at a major

institution and his hiring reflects his inquiry...the other is a professor

[mudderfudder77]

58. I disagree.

While the President does indeed have far more students under his "watch" The professor in question is also charged with guiding and shaping the minds of those who sit in his class. So it's okay so long as the person saying it only interacts with a couple of hundred staudents?

[LiberalFighter]

76. The professor(s) offer differing views for the students to experience

When I attended college back in the early 70's I was not influenced by any of the professors via their politics.

Their ability to teach was more important and made more of a difference.

The only classes that were political in nature were poli-sci and even that wasn't one side or the other. My history classes were pretty much neutral regarding political views.

Despite that, I had already had my mind imprinted with the views that I followed before attending college. My first roommate was definitely a Republican. Other than him I didn't have any known contact with others with strong political views. In 1973 I bought a calendar that had the number of days left before Nixon would no longer be president.

Back then I would be classified as an introvert which would be the type that would be more likely to be easily persuaded. Not one to challenge authority or make waves about issues.

Some students, especially opinionated bastards like these college republicans think classes should be taught a particular way and the views that they think are appropriate. If they think they know it all then why bother attending a college? If they think they know how the course should be taught then they should get the appropriate credentials to teach in a college

James Madison and Thomas Jefferson did not rely on just knowing the views of a few select great minds. Madison researched every known type of government to help the Convention Delegates produce the type of government we live under.

[struggle4progress]

159. Employment contracts nominally pass before the University President ...

... so if he's expressing an "opinion" that women are incapable of performing certain types of jobs, he's sending a clear signal to Deans and Department Heads that he's not sympathetic to offering continuing employment to women in some fields. That sounds prejudicial to me, given his power, and it raises the question whether he has the objectivity necessary to perform the job fairly.

And, incidently, the President of Harvard doesn't seem to be the target of death threats ...

[struggle4progress]

131. What's wacko about him? His book on COINTELPRO is a classic.

His latest book, "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality" (AK Press, 2003), based on the essay the Wingnuts are yammering about, is apparently excellent.

[DulceDecorum]

31. Tell that to the Supreme Court

[RedCloud]

56. Other rats at work , means we need tenure!

What about those rats who try to ruin the programs by saying we won't fund you if you keep teaching them how to think...

Just turn the students into mere mindless automatons of the system and "we" will finance you.

Those rats never say "we" is money they scammed from the consumer in the form of ridiculous profit.

[OldVlad]

19. I'm all for a party line of not excusing mass murder

The reason tenure is granted to academics is so that they have the freedom to say and discuss unpopular ideas.

I love unpopular ideas, it sparks thoughts and creativity. You profane such Socratic methods by your rationalizations for this Genocidal ramblings. "Collective" guilt was used by Hitler, Stalin, Milosovech, Pol Pot, and any serial killer and Klansmen ever researched. This is not liberalism, this is insanity, and don't ever use the word "we" when discussing this hatemonger again.

[Dhalgren]

48. The point is does the people we're at "war" with adhere to

the concept of "collective guilt"? Do they? Could that have been a cause of the 9/11 attacks? Hey, it could have...

[OldVlad]

60. yes

In fact I would go one better, the scattershot hate and contempt of the innocents murdered in the twin towers of Ward Churchill is strikingly similar to Bin Ladin and his people.

One thing is for sure, they are both wrong, and all sane peoples should agree on that of all colors and nations.

The girl I knew that died there was not part of the military industrial complex he hates.

[librechik]

20. exactly--it should be left to the "free market of ideas" to rebut this

but he must feel free to utter it. Let's engage Ward, not fire him. There are plenty of professors (and administrators) at "Coors University" with conservative views which I find are hard to tolerate, yet as an American I respect their rights. It has to go both ways.

[OldVlad]

27. It did, he's going to be fired

If you can find me one example of a conservative exposing this kind rationalizations for murder I would be overjoyed because we could harp on them endlessly. You won't, because that wouldn't be conservative, that would be extreme Right Wing, just as this is not liberal, it is extreme Left Wing.

I would no sooner respect a Klansmen's ability to teach at a state school to talk about collective guilt of someone they hate then this conflicted individual's, I would expect everyone here to call for Klansmen's scalp, and am ashamed that so many here don't ask for Ward's, it certainly makes us look bad.

[funnymanpants]

39. Okay

Sorry, but I can't give you a specific example, but I know the conservatives were saying that the people in Falluja got what was coming to them. I know, because even some posters on this board argued the same thing.

Should we shut down the DU because some posters were allowed to express those opinions?

[OldVlad]

41. This isn't expressing opinions, this is employment

He can talk about the firemen and people in the towers deserving death til the cows come home, that is not the issue, it is his employment by a state University. You seem to think that any nutjob has a right to be employed by the taxpayer. I wonder if you would feel so empathetic if Ward was a member of the Klan and convincing classrooms that blacks deserved slavery, or that blacks were responsible for all the student's problems, as Klanmen do. You would want that person to stop offending other black students with his presence, and certainly not filling students with such extremist positions. So is it with Ward, convincing students that all the world's problems are caused by the faceless American boogeyman. They're two sides to the same coin.

Now as for Falluja, I wasn't aware the US military was targeting civilians in that city, so if anyone was celebrating, it was the insurgents that they were targeting. If you think the US was trying to kill innocents, its precisely the stupid, America hating nonsense that people like Ward fill peoples' heads with that irrationaly causes them to dislike other Americans.

You obviouly don't even realize you are doing it, but others can hear it crystal clear, unfortunately the more people here this implicit blame of America or its military, the more they will vote against us. Next time the GOP will run a deaf-mute and win the Presidency, just to show they can.

[funnymanpants]

42. No

>>So is it with Ward, convincing students that all the world's problems are caused by the faceless American boogeyman. They're two sides to the same coin.

No it's not. Nowhere did the professor express racism.

>>Now as for Falluja, I wasn't aware the US military was targeting civilians in that city, so if anyone was celebrating, it was the insurgents that they were targeting. If you think the US was trying to kill innocents, its precisely the stupid, America hating nonsense that people like Ward fill peoples' heads with that irrationaly causes them to dislike other Americans.

You need to read more. Now you are sounding ignorant. The article that was debbatted portrayed US servicemen glorifying the killing in Falluja. The soldiers were celebrating. It was all over the press. We had American soldiers celebrating the killing in an illegal invasion. It was gross behaviour. (There are man such incidents, by the way.)


Several posters on this board argued that since the people in Falluja supported Saddam (they acutally didn't), he had no sympathy for them. The argument put fourth on this board--and also in the press, and probably in the classroom though I have no proof--is that the people in Falluja deserved what they got. That is an identical argument to the professor's.

*Yet no one thought these posters should be denied access to DU!*

Who exactly defines what is acceptable free speech? Many Americans would view what Noam Chomsky says or what is said on these boards as unccaptable. Should we deny Chomksy a job?

>>You obviouly don't even realize you are doing it, but others can hear it crystal clear, unfortunately the more people here this implicit blame of America or its military, the more they will vote against us. Next time the GOP will run a deaf-mute and win the Presidency, just to show they can.

This is a weak argument. America's foreign policy and its military deservs much blame. But this is besides the point. We are arguing about freedom of speech, which you obviously don't believe in.

[OldVlad]

44. "man" do not agree

No it's not. Nowhere did the professor express racism.

But you fail to see the parrallels between this stereotyping of the twin tower dead by someone who would never actually kill them, but give cover to those that would, and a Klansmen who would not murder a random black person, but would give cover to those that would.

You need to read more. Now you are sounding ignorant. The article that was debbatted portrayed US servicemen glorifying the killing in Falluja. The soldiers were celebrating. It was all over the press. We had American soldiers celebrating the killing in an illegal invasion. It was gross behaviour. (There are man such incidents, by the way.)

Sorry about being so ignorant of you and the Professor's brilliance, but until such time as a General states they are targeting civilians in Falluja rather then insurgent fighters, there is ABSOLUTELY NO PARRALLEL. Speaking of reading more, why don't you link me to where the Americans have said they have a policy of targetting all in a group because they are all guilty, rather than those who are trying to kill them. I feel bad for the kids there, having crazies shooting at them when they are there against their will, I would celebrate if I killed someone shooting at me before they succeeded.

Who exactly defines what is acceptable free speech? Many Americans would view what Noam Chomsky says or what is said on these boards as unccaptable. Should we deny Chomksy a job?

Only if we want the kids not to be bored by endless prose, I would support an effort to fire Chomsky if he made the same points as Ward, without hesitation. As a civilized society, we should have 0 tolerance for this kind of hatefilled, xenophobic "collective" guilt rationalizing.

This is a weak argument. America's foreign policy and its military deservs much blame.

Yeah, it was real weak when a moron got 3 million more votes then a superior candidate a few months ago, keep blaming America for the hate of others, brilliant.

We are arguing about freedom of speech, which you obviously don't believe in.

No, you are beating a strawman that this has something to do with Free Speech. I am attempting to reason with you that Ward is perfectly able to speak this hate, but not on my dime.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldVlad]

49. Don't call me names because you don't understand

Just because you don't see how stereotyping xenophobia of Ward and a Klansmen are two peas in a pod, don't blame me, I think I already addressed that nicely.

You haven't even addressed my argument, which was that the DU posters made an identical argument to that of the professor. Do you advocate censoring them?

If I didn't address it, it was because it was so obviously off topic. Let me be very clear and go slow; I would not want anyone on DU banned for saying that, I also would not want anyone saying that funded by taxpayer dollars? Comprende?

And that is my fault for advocating free speech? You are making a typical weak argument; you don't agree with me, so you blame me for the election of George Bush.

But only you are the one who thinks this is free speech, I think this taxpayer endorsement of hate-speech, and yes there are crimes for such things. As to whether you are responsible, lets just say if swing voters heard you argue for this guy, the answer is "yessssss".

Who made you the judge of what is acceptable? Don't you realize that free speech is rather absolute? What you think is acceptable, freepers think is not.

Good, then you understand why I think that this kind of rationalizing of "collective" guilt is so wrong. You may agree with this extremist on this point, but if you take his points to their logical ends, you will get the justification for Hitler's murder, Pol Pot, etc. That's why the condemnation of this indiscriminat murder must be absolute. Would you call it a free speech violation if the Prof was saying the Holocaust was justified?

Go to townhall.com and look at what was being said about Falluja. There were calls to flatten it because of the behaviour of some individuals.

I will take your word for it and universally condemn them.

Yes, and that makes you as bad as the professor, who you called a nut job. You would celebrate killing another human being?

Without batting an eyelash. What some young people fail to understand is there is a collasal difference between INNOCENT and GUILTY. The people in the twin towers weren't trying to kill anyone, they were putting out a fire or surfing the internet like you, the insurgents in Falluja were trying to kill Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, they're GUILTY of that, you can say the Americans are guilty of killing as well, but in that case they are both combatants so neither is INNOCENT or being murdered, the Iraqis on the street, or the people in the towers are not combatants.

The difference between these 2 types of death are patently obvious, there must be something in America's educational system that is corrupting this basic civility, perhaps it is the championing of nutjobs like your Professor and yet another reason to stop him from poisoning minds with bigotry and hate.

[funnymanpants]

59. You are evading the topic

You are evading the topic by a name calling and juvenille sarcasm ("comprende" and "let me go real slow").


>>If I didn't address it, it was because it was so obviously off topic. Let me be very clear and go slow; I would not want anyone on DU banned for saying that, I also would not want anyone saying that funded by taxpayer dollars? Comprende?

As I pointed out, this is advocating censorship. The supreme court agrees with me. Not wanting your taxdollar to pay for something is an argument the supreme court does not accept. Many fundementalists don't want evolution taught in school on their tax dollar. Should their wish be granted?

>>But only you are the one who thinks this is free speech, I think this taxpayer endorsement of hate-speech, and yes there are crimes for such things. As to whether you are responsible, lets just say if swing voters heard you argue for this guy, the answer is "yessssss".

No. Not only me. Good grief! Read what other posters say. The supreme court also agrees with me. As far as hate speech goes, I could say the same for you in your opinions about the soldier's actions in Falluja.

>>Good, then you understand why I think that this kind of rationalizing of "collective" guilt is so wrong. You may agree with this extremist on this point, but if you take his points to their logical ends, you will get the justification for Hitler's murder, Pol Pot, etc. That's why the condemnation of this indiscriminat murder must be absolute. Would you call it a free speech violation if the Prof was saying the Holocaust was justified?

That is an illogical conclusion. If I took your logic to its ends, I could say that you justfiy Vietnam and killing 4-5 million people in the region. By the way, I don't agree with the professor, no more than I agree with the posters on DU who argued Fallujans are guilty.

>>Without batting an eyelash. What some young people fail to understand is there is a collasal difference between INNOCENT and GUILTY. The people in the twin towers weren't trying to kill anyone, they were putting out a fire or surfing the internet like you, the insurgents in Falluja were trying to kill Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, they're GUILTY of that, you can say the Americans are guilty of killing as well, but in that case they are both combatants so neither is INNOCENT or being murdered, the Iraqis on the street, or the people in the towers are not combatants.

I am 40 years old, not a young person. You seem to be making some silly assumptions. Your argument is furhter absurd. On the one hand, you make a lot of factual errors. The insurgents in Falluja were trying to kill innoncent civilians? There is not way you can know this; you are simply making this up. No one even knows who the insurgents were. As far as trying to kill American soldiers, how does this make them guilty? It is the right of occupied people to resist occupation. I'm sorry that I can't further comment on your argument, but your wrote in one long run-on sentence, so I can't decipher who you think is guilty.

But I don't need to. Because the logic is ridiculous. We are arguing about the right to express an opinion. We can argue if the insurgents are freedom fighters are thugs--but we *can* argue this. You seem to be saying that you can decide ahead of time who is guilty and innocent. And if someone doesn't agree with your point of view, they can be fired from their job. That is a type of circular reasoning. You determine ahead of time what is acceptable according to your standards, and if someone doesn't agree, he is advocating hate and murder, he is a defender of genoicide, he is a racist, so fire him from his job.

The problem with that position is that anyone could use it to shut down any type of free speech. I could argue that by defending the military, you are advocating violence, and therefore you should be fired. It doesn't matter how sound my argument it.

Once again, I call you a hypocrite. Because apparently you think freedom of speech is okay, but only if you agree with it. If you don't, you try to say it is hate speech or racist.

PS

>>The difference between these 2 types of death are patently obvious, there must be something in America's educational system that is corrupting this basic civility, perhaps it is the championing of nutjobs like your Professor and yet another reason to stop him from poisoning minds with bigotry and hate.

This is a rant full of insults of cliches. When someone says something is patently obvious, that is another way of saying I ca't prove it. Calling someone a nutjob is just namecalling rather than argumentation. It is the same arguments the right-wing uses to smear people they don't agree with.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[funnymanpants]

47. One more thing

>>But you fail to see the parrallels between this stereotyping of the twin tower dead by someone who would never actually kill them, but give cover to those that would, and a Klansmen who would not murder a random black person, but would give cover to those that would.

Let me re-phrase this:

"But you fail to see the parrallels between this stereotyping of the of the insurgents in Iraq by someone who would never actually kill them, but give cover to those that would, and a military spokesperson who would not murder a random Iraqi person, but would give cover to those that would."

In other words, your parallel is bogus. You are playing the race card, tyring to portray the professor as a racist when he is not. I could further make the argument that because you defend the actions of the military, you are giving them cover. You are racist against the Iraqis. You don't care that the American military killed most likey 100,000 of them, so you are a "nutjob." If you were a professor at a university, you deserved to be fired.

As I said before, who made you the judge of free speech? How can you possibly decide what is acceptable? Don't you realize that that is completley subjective, that what I thought was outrageous at age 10 (such as claiming American was not for freedom) now seems true to me now?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ckramer]

84. I agree with you and disagree with OldVlad

Like the CU chancellor (Phil DiStefano) said in a statement:

"While I may personally find his views offensive, I also must support his right as an American citizen to hold and express his views, no matter how repugnant."

[struggle4progress]

132. What, exactly, did he say that you find so offensive?

[struggle4progress]

127. Exactly what did he say that qualifies as "Anti-Semitic"?

[Hissyspit]

167. Academic Freedom is a given at any true institution of higher learning

That's part of why he gets the paycheck. Some of our greatest scholars where considered 'extremists' at one point in their careers.

[wtbymark]

5. so, wasn't it the consensus of the commision

that Iraq (Saddam) was not involved in 9/11?

This guy's really out to lunch- give me his fricken job!!

[Dhalgren]

7. You really should read his essay before making judgments.

What he says in his essay is not as outlandish as people are making out. He is viewing (for the sake of his essay) that Radical Islam is essentially borderless. That Arabs share a certain sense of kinship and that Americans are guilty as a group of the "crimes" committed against Arabs and Islam over the past (just as the Afghans were all punished for group crimes when we invaded their country). I am not saying that he is right, but I am saying that it is a topic that needs to be discussed. Only hysterical jingoists will refuse to even consider that the US, as a group, may be guilty of crimes predating 9/11.

[Sterling]

9. "may be guilty of crimes predating 9/11" Hell I am still worried about

crimes that happened on 9-11.

[deutsey]

11. Link to the essay

http://www.uvm.edu/~wmiller/roostingchickens.htm

The essay at the previous link appears to have been edited.

[norml]

40. Thanks for posting a link to the full text. If the FWeepers read this part

"Were the opportunity acted upon in some reasonably good faith fashion -- a sufficiently large number of Americans rising up and doing whatever is necessary to force an immediate lifting of the sanctions on Iraq, for instance, or maybe hanging a few of America's abundant supply of major war criminals (Henry Kissinger comes quickly to mind, as do Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, Bill Clinton and George the Elder) -- there is every reason to expect that military operations against the US on its domestic front would be immediately suspended."
If the FWeepers read this part, about hanging Bill Clinton for war crimes, they'd be saying this guy has a point worth being heard.

[RedCloud]

63. Another thanks and time for his pay raise!

A mind that actually works on many levels.

It is unethical to ask that he be fired.

[OldVlad]

13. I did, "collective" guilt is a justification for genocide

In case you need to reread that, this is the kind of mentality that all the worst tyrants throughout human history have employed. There is no comparison between that and the US targeting Taliban fighters, they never targetted innocent Afgans that I have seen a shred of proof of. This rank extremist hate, couched in academic pontification, and I don't care if its on my side, it will only lead to further marginalization.

[Dhalgren]

52. Any time you attack an entire country for some real or

imagined crime, you are acting on "collective guilt". Try some other avenue, that one won't work. The acceptance of "collateral damage" is a brand of acceptance of "collective guilt". Genocide does not stem from "collective guilt" in all circumstances, but in some instances can be a cause. It isn't as absolute as you say, but nice try...

[ckramer]

144. How do you explain 100,000 Iraqis got killed since the Bush war?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Is there an explanation for the 'little Eichmanns' remark?

For the head of Ethnic Studies to say such a thing seems amazingly incompetent, unless there's a whole different context that comes across in the essay.

[Jim__]

23. Here's some of what he says that I think isthe connection to Eichmann

Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire – the "mighty engine of profit" to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved – and they did so both willingly and knowingly. Recourse to "ignorance" – a derivative, after all, of the word "ignore" – counts as less than an excuse among this relatively well-educated elite. To the extent that any of them were unaware of the costs and consequences to others of what they were involved in – and in many cases excelling at – it was because of their absolute refusal to see. More likely, it was because they were too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones, arranging power lunches and stock transactions, each of which translated, conveniently out of sight, mind and smelling distance, into the starved and rotting flesh of infants. If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it.

I disagreewith him Eicmann was much more directly and knowingly involved in the extermination of Jews than people in the WTC were in US policies. However, read some of what he says about Iraq prior to 9/11:

The Iraqi youngsters, all of them under 12, died as a predictable – in fact, widely predicted – result of the 1991 US "surgical" bombing of their country's water purification and sewage facilities, as well as other "infrastructural" targets upon which Iraq's civilian population depends for its very survival.

...


All told, Iraq has a population of about 18 million. The 500,000 kids lost to date thus represent something on the order of 25 percent of their age group. Indisputably, the rest have suffered – are still suffering – a combination of physical debilitation and psychological trauma severe enough to prevent their ever fully recovering. In effect, an entire generation has been obliterated.

...

If the principle was valid then, it remains so now, as applicable to Good Americans as it was the Good Germans. And the price exacted from the Germans for the faultiness of their moral fiber was truly ghastly. Returning now to the children, and to the effects of the post-Gulf War embargo – continued bull force by Bush the Elder's successors in the Clinton administration as a gesture of its "resolve" to finalize what George himself had dubbed the "New World Order" of American military/economic domination – it should be noted that not one but two high United Nations officials attempting to coordinate delivery of humanitarian aid to Iraq resigned in succession as protests against US policy.

I think he's wrong. I've not heard that 9/11 was directly related to our policies in Iraq. But read his essay and see if he has anything valuable to contribute to any discussion of American policy and our condemnation of "evil" in the world. I think he does.

[The Sad Little Pony]

25. It sounds as though...

Not only is he calling them "little Eichmans"....
...he seems to think that they DESERVED their fate:

"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."

[reorg]

162. maybe you should read up on Eichmann?

see msg 161

[American Tragedy]

29. I did indeed read it.

I'm glad to see him unveiling his ideas publicly, because I think they're wrong, and others will recognize that.

I agree that American foreign policy has strongly motivated international terrorism. However, to suggest that the men and women in the World Trade Center deserved to be murdered is reprehensible. Furthermore, the idea of collective guilt of a nation's citizens and children for the crimes of its government is plainly fallacious, little better than the arguments that are posed on Stormfront. To accept such a justification is to endorse thousands of atrocities throughout history.

[Dhalgren]

54. But the point he was making was that punishment for

"collective guilt" was meted out to Iraqi children in the tune of 800,000 deaths. All because they were "guilty" of being Iraqis. If the US can justify what it did to the Iraqi innocents, then why cannot the 9/11 attackers justify their actions? That is the point being made. We get short of breath and let the spittle fly in red-faced indignation over the very idea that the people in the WTC were in any way not innocents, but then we shrug and say it couldn't be helped when the same is said for the children of Iraq. That-is-the-point.

[aquart]

65. We murdered 800,000 children? How?

[Dhalgren]

82. It was in Churchill's article, from memory I may have gotten

the number wrong, but it was a huge number. The deaths have been attributed to the sanctions imposed on Iraq after the Gulf War and maintained by the US and NATO up until this current dose of punishment we've dolled out to Iraqi citizens for being Iraqis. Churchill is pointing out that Arabs and Muslims may hold the whole Western world (the US mostly) accountable for all of this death and misery).

[intheflow]

97. In addition to the ways we killed Iraqi children listed in the post above,

many Iraqi children died from diseases from contaminated water from the original Gulf War bombings, as well as from numerous forms of cancer caused by spent munitions we just left lying around, such as depleted uranium.

[ckramer]

145. Read this link

Genocidal Sanctions against Iraq

[struggle4progress]

133. Let's see your publication record and list of awards before ...

... there's any talk of you replacing this excellent scholar.

[Astrocytoma3]

6. I think this idiot is going down!!!

9/11 families were outraged. I know they formed a group with a bunch of parents who have chidren going to CU. They're planning an all out attack to get rid of this professor, pulling student's out of the university.

[Dhalgren]

8. So this guy cannot hold an opinion that is not popular?

Why should he "go down" simply for looking at the attacks as acts of war? Isn't that what Bush and Kerry and Clinton and Rice have all said - that 9/11 was an act of war? Well, why did the attackers attack? It isn't because they are "evil doers", it isn't because they hate us for our "freedoms"; they attacked for specific reasons and because they felt the need to. He is writing to say, this is why they attacked. Jesus! Where the fuck are we? Let's destroy someone because they say things we don't like?! How very Republican...

[The Sad Little Pony]

21. Calling 911 victims "little Eichman's"...

...goes a bit beyond "unpopular".

There is no intellectual merit to such a comparison.
It is simply inflamatory for its own sake.
It is the intellectual equivalent of using the word, "n*gger".

[DulceDecorum]

36. Read Huckleberry Finn,

and you will soon see that the n-word is considered literature.
Now try getting anyone to remove it
from being MANDATORY reading material for the youth of America.

I am not defending anyone or anything,
I am simply pointing out the fact that certain books which are very highly regarded in the US are not exactly polititcally correct.
And at the risk of getting myself into very hot water,
I am also going to point out that Cantor Fitzgerald,
the firm that say that it lost almost 700 employees
has a long reputation as being a VERY Tough place to work.

June 29, 2003
Last year Cantor shot into the headlines when the firm was accused in the High Court of bullying staff and encouraging them to “go whoring” in City lap-dancing clubs.
In the aftermath of the terror attacks of September 11, Cantor had the sympathy of the world. The firm was one of the biggest casualties, losing 658 employees in the attack, and Howard Lutnick, Cantor’s chief executive, wept publicly on television, saying: “I don’t have any money to pay their salaries.”
Lutnick worked hard to rebuild the company, but the sympathy has long gone. Cantor has since been embroiled in high-profile litigation, which has damaged its image and raised questions about the way senior staff run the business.
Just last December one of its teams threw a bash for staff and clients at Attica, the Soho nightclub, where some guests ended up being led away in handcuffs or admitted to a local hospital.
The latest instalment of what makes Michael Lewis’s Liar’s Poker read like a children’s book emerged in court last week.
It was alleged Amaitis was so angry with Michael Spencer, head of Icap, a rival firm, that Admiral William Flannigan, a Cantor adviser, offered to find a hitman to “take care” of Spencer. The allegation was denied by Amaitis as “totally ridiculous”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2095-728487,00.html

Flying into rages, screaming obscenities, dictatorial management style? This kind of behaviour could cost employers dear. In Cantor Fitzgerald's case, the High Court awarded one victim damages of almost £1million as a result of a manager's (Lee Amaitis), foul language, constant criticism and bullying.
The manager's behaviour amounted to a fundamental breach of the employer's implied duty of trust and confidence. This caused Steven Horkulak to resign from Cantor Fitzgerald and successfully claim that he had been constructively and wrongfully dismissed. According to the Court, employers have "obligations in connection with the self-esteem and dignity" of employees.
http://lawzone.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=112204&d=204&h=24&f=259

http://www.personneltoday.co.uk/Articles/2003/08/14/20076/Legal+Q++A+Bullying+at+work.htm

In 1994, Mark Anderson went to work in the Los Angeles branch of Cantor Fitzgerald, a prestigious securities trading firm. Like other young stock traders, he relished the chance to make up to $3 million a year, and worked hard to complete the firm's rigorous training program. But when rumors spread through the office that Anderson was gay, he became the brunt of a series of degrading slurs and pranks, including a gay-sex photo doctored to include his face, a deli sandwich stuffed with a rubber vagina, and an incident where he was urinated upon in the bathroom. To make matters worse, Anderson couldn't complain to Human Resources, since the pranksters were the branch's top partners. Still, he kept working. After completing his training and serving a stint in the firm's New York office, he was sent to a sales convention in Dallas, where he saw himself mocked in a "training" video on "serving the homosexual community," and saw his Alfa Romeo repainted as a police "cruiser" embellished with gay slurs like "Butt Pirate" and "Rump Ranger." After Mark returned to Los Angeles, his senior partner called him in to tell him "It's not working out." Anderson ultimately quit and sued for sexual harassment and wrongful termination, only to discover he had unwittingly signed away his right to sue when he took his Series 7 stockholders' exam before joining the firm. In 1998, Anderson settled with Cantor Fitzgerald; the terms remain confidential.
http://www.rotten.com/library/crime/corporate/canter-fitzgerland/

But Anderson stuck through it all. He says he suffered through a phony resume posted in the lunchroom citing his earlier work as "a fluff guy" for the porn producer of Diesel Dicks; the recommended tonsillectomy to make room for more "leading men"; his job as a "boy Friday" for a surfboard tycoon "polishing sticks." Anderson says he even suffered through the job after a senior partner urinated on him through the cracks of a closed toilet stall. "Actually, the worst of it was all the spitballs and snot balls they'd shoot at me all day," he says. "It got to a point where my shirt was soaking wet, but if I got up and complained, I'd be fired."
<snip>
Cantor Fitzgerald, for its part, acknowledges that the Los Angeles office was out of control. But no one has lost their job over their role in Anderson's abuse. "It's hugely embarrassing to Cantor Fitzgerald," admits managing director Debra Walton-Collings, "because it has all the elements of a soap opera. But the incident is in no way indicative to our culture. The behavior was inappropriate and sophomoric, but it was not malicious attack at all. Obviously, we think this is an opportunistic claim without merit and that will be revealed in the appropriate legal forum. We have a very excellent recruiting program at top universities and black colleges. The media has characterized it as a hazing situation, similar to the Tailhook scandal, and that's absolutely absurd."
http://www.thestreet.com/pf/comment/easymoney/29867.html

One of the few people who was decent to Mark Anderson was a fellow who had had an arm amputated above the elbow in childhood. One of the Cantor Fitzgerald bosses used to greet this man by asking him if he had stump f*cked anyone lately.
Tough crowd.
Very tough crowd.

[The Sad Little Pony]

79. One of my best friends...

Worked there, and died on 911.

I don't appreciate your attempted broad brush, of those who worked there -and died there.
It ois gratuitous and not pertinent to the discussion at hand, unless YOU, like Mr. Churchill, also engage in such unsavory bigotry.

[DulceDecorum]

81. Cantor Fitzgerald was a TOUGH PLACE to work

and your friend must have told you that.

Bigotry be damned.

Those cases have gone to court
and JUDGES on TWO CONTINENTS
have ruled AGAINST Cantor Fitzgerald
BECAUSE it was a VERY TOUGH PLACE TO WORK.

Incidentally,
tell us all,
once and for all,
HOW EXACTLY YOU FELT
when Howard Lutnick stiffed the families of the employees
who he himself claimed had DIED on September 11, 2001.

Who is Howard Lutnick and what is his greater purpose? These questions are part of our public need, both empathetic and voyeuristic, to plumb the depths of his company's tragedy. For Lutnick embodies much about New Yorkers on September 11. He started that day a Wall Street buccaneer, a hugely successful, legendarily aggressive striver who was personally worth as much as a half-billion dollars. By the 13th, he'd become the accidental survivor who was crying on Connie Chung about how it felt to lose so many people and to run for his life. By the 15th, he was the Dickensian villain who'd cut off the widow's mite, the paychecks of the dead, to assure the bankers of his sangfroid. By October 10, he had announced a munificent and detailed financial plan for the families. By then, not many people knew what to believe about Howard Lutnick.
The usually shrewd CEO seems unable to fathom the public-relations disaster of the discontinued paychecks. He still insists that he had no choice but to stanch a payroll of more than $500,000 a day, even if it was cruel to families still hoping beyond hope that their loved ones were alive. "I needed my bankers to know that I was in control," Lutnick says. "That I wasn't sentimental and that I was no less motivated or driven to make my business survive."
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/sept11/features/5486/

Go on,
tell us what you think of the man who is known on Wall Street as
The Grim Weeper.

[The Sad Little Pony]

100. Who cares?

Honestly, what's your point?

Hundreds from that firm died on that day.
What is your point?
Are you suggesting that they somehow deserved it, as some sort of "group punishment"?
What does this have to do with anything?

I KNOW why you're saying this.
But Please, tells us.
Be straight forward.

[DulceDecorum]

102. You did not answer my question

about your friend and the way his family was treated by Howard Lutnick.
And since you already "KNOW" why I posted about Cantor Fitzgerald in the first place, why the heck do you need to hear it again from me?
Better you should go to Google
and check out the links between Cantor Fitzgerald and the mess we are in.

Arthur Cebrowski
who appears to be a Cantor employee,
has been moonlighting at the Office of Force Transformation in the Pentagon. You know the Office of Force Transformation, they are the ones who came up with the Shock and Awe campaign.
Thomas Barnett
is another interesting Cantor employee.
His Gap and Core theories
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2004/040510_mfe_barnett_1.html
are responsible for having literally DESTROYED the US military and causing the generals over in Iraq to complain about a "broken force."

In other words,
these two employees of Cantor Fitzgerald,
have, almost single-handedly,
brought back the draft.
Kudos.
Not bad for a tiny little firm
that sells one quarter of all available US Treasury bills
and not bad for a CEO
who wrested control of the company from his mentor when he fell ill.

[The Sad Little Pony]

112. "single-handedly brought back the draft"??

What draft?

You bad mouth the dead because it furthers your agenda.

You have no honor.

You SHOULD be ashamed, but alas...

..you aren't capable.
You are blinded by your agenda.
And your hatred.

I pity you.

[DulceDecorum]

142. And I, you.

I pity anyone who cannot accept the truth.
You must really have hated the immediate family
of your friend who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald.

But then again, maybe you work there yourself.
And if you don't,
you really ought to think of applying for a high position within their ranks.
You would fit right in.

On Edit:
I wish you to know that it has not escaped my notice
that you have yet to declare ANYTHING that I have posted as being untrue.
All you have done is to attack me BECAUSE I have pointed out the TRUTH and have STRONGLY ENCOURAGED others to go look up Cantor Fitzgerald. Here is a smattering of CF's latest headlines.

Wednesday, February 2, 2005
Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
Cantor Fitzgerald's push into the Australian market has met with fierce resistance from rival money market brokers, with legal battles breaking out over the firm's aggressive poaching.
More than 20 staff have defected from global heavyweight ICAP to join Cantor's money broking arm, BGC, which is planning to open an office in Sydney with more than 65 staff. Brokers from another firm, Prebon Yamane, have also been approached.
Cantor received global publicity in 2001 after losing 658 or two-thirds of its employees in the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre. Last October, it outlined plans to expand its BGC arm aggressively through Asia, Europe and the US.
<snip>
"Cantor Fitzgerald have attempted similar tactics in places like Tokyo and in many instances have failed and closed their operations shortly afterwards."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Cantors-poaching-tactics-end-up-in-court/2005/02/01/1107228697544.html?oneclick=true

IN OTHER NEWS
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, criticized for comparing victims of the September 2001 attack on the World Trade Center to Nazis, resigned Monday as chair of the school's ethnic-studies department.
Todd Gleeson, dean of CU-Boulder's College of Arts and Sciences, accepted the resignation. Churchill will continue to teach in the department of ethnic studies.
"I believe it is in the best interests of both the university and professor Churchill that he step away from his administrative role in the department at this time," Gleeson said. Churchill's term as department chair was to expire in June.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2685148,00.html
Cantor Fitzgerald, naturally has much to say against Churchill.
Read the article for yourself.

Cantor Fitzgerald frequently finds itself in DESPERATE NEED of positive spin and it's agents are very good at manipulating and massaging the media.

PainePR is recognized for its highly creative and sophisticated external and internal communication services. We help companies improve their image, launch new products and build strong bonds with customers and employees through our HumanLinkTM cause-related marketing and organizational communication programs.
http://www.painepr.com/page.asp?nav=about&content=40

Leading 9/11 Groups Unified in Support
Rallying in support of the non-profit One Day's Pay initiative were leaders from the Cantor Fitzgerald Relief Fund, Coalition of 9/11 Families, Doyle 9/11 Support Group, Families of September 11, September's Mission, September Space, Skyscraper Safety Campaign, Tuesday's Children, Voices of September 11th, Where To Turn, Windows of Hope Family Relief Fund, World Trade Center United Family Group, and WTC Survivors Network. Together, they issued a joint statement calling upon the nation to consider permanently setting aside 9/11 as a day for voluntary acts of unity, service and compassion.
http://www.painepr.com/press_releases.asp?content=47A1025&nav=about

January 27, 2005
Word about her campaign soon went far beyond Long Island. Instrumental in spreading it was Bill Doyle of Staten Island, who said he came across the Herald article online. Doyle - whose son, Joey, was a Cantor Fitzgerald employee who died at the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001 - sent out e-mails to 7,000 people nationwide who are involved with his organization, the W. Doyle 9/11 Support Group.
"I just sent out a few e-mails about what the Marines would like and needed, and also what the children over there could use," Doyle explained. "I said, no matter if you believe in the war or not, are our boys, they're Americans. And the 9/11 families came through once again."
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1601&dept_id=479857&newsid=13835519&PAG=461&rfi=9

January 30, 2005
JEMIMA KHAN is to wind up a charity for Afghan refugees that has been “named and shamed” by the Charity Commission. Her charity, launched in April 2001 as an appeal for 80,000 people who had fled the Taliban, has failed to file any annual returns or accounts.
The Charity Commission has made an example of it by placing it on a list of defaulters as part of a drive to embarrass the sector into improving its accountability.
“A charity that has persistently failed to submit its accounts is unlikely to be a well managed, efficient organisation worthy of continued support,” the commission says. “People and organisations should think carefully before providing it with funding or supporting it as volunteers.”
<snip>
Other charities on the list include the Royal Society of Portrait Painters, the Tim Henman Charitable Foundation and the Cantor Fitzgerald UK Charitable Relief Fund, set up by the brokerage that lost more than 650 staff in the September 11 attacks of 2001. They, too, have failed to file adequate returns.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1462227,00.html
Wot? These bigots named Cantor Fitzgerald UK Charitable Relief Fund?
Damn those anti-Semites to high hell
and call my lawyers at once.

[The Sad Little Pony]

153. Classless.

" wish you to know that it has not escaped my notice
that you have yet to declare ANYTHING that I have posted as being untrue."


You are attempting to broad brush and bash ALL of those who worked there, INCLUDING the dead. You do this by citing negative stories about SOME of the staff.
Is it true?
I don't know, I don't really care.

Look back at this thread, and see how out of context your comments are.
It gives one pause, and makes me wonder WHY.
Is Cantor Fitzgerald some sort of OCD thing with you?
Do you bring it up constatly with friends?
Do they give you that, "he we go again..." look?

Honestly, give it a rest.

[DulceDecorum]

166. Conclusion: Cantor Fitzgerald is ABOVE criticism

and I think that some of their sympathizers
also think that Cantor Fitzgerald is above the law.

If the Cantor Fitzgerald senior partner
who went out of his way to DELIBERATELY URINATE on Mark Anderson
perished on September 11,
why should we got to war in his memory?

One of the Cantor Fitzgerald bosses
kept asking a subordinate employee who was also an amputee
whether he was stump f*cking anyone, and
if that boss was knocked into outer space
on September 11
or ON ANY OTHER DAY,
why should we mourn?

YOU got right ahead and defend Cantor Fitzgerald all you want.
You who claimed that his best friend died there.
You who has openly stated that you do not care about the truth.
The Sad Little Pony
is a fitting name for you,
and your sad little attempts to avoid ponying up to the facts.
Now you can call me names,
and you can go right ahead trying to pretend
that the people who are alleged to have been Cantor Fitzgerald employees
were and are all angels,
but we know what they REALLY are,
and we know what they REALLY have been doing,
and Karma awaits us all.

As for the rest of you,
go Google THOMAS BARNETT
and see what the House of Pain
has in store for you and your children.

[The Sad Little Pony]

173. Are you insane?

Listen to you....

"YOU got right ahead and defend Cantor Fitzgerald all you want.
You who claimed that his best friend died there.
You who has openly stated that you do not care about the truth.
The Sad Little Pony
is a fitting name for you,
and your sad little attempts to avoid ponying up to the facts.
Now you can call me names,
and you can go right ahead trying to pretend
that the people who are alleged to have been Cantor Fitzgerald employees
were and are all angels,
but we know what they REALLY are,
and we know what they REALLY have been doing,
and Karma awaits us all."

Listen to that pathetic rant.
I don't defend any of the actions you allege. Nor do I claim that they were "all angels".
YOUR claim that I do so is a lie. Anyone can read my words here, and see that what you claim I've said, I have in fact NOT said.

All I am saying is this:
One of my friends died that day. He was an Employee of CF.
HE was NONE of the things that you allege. YOU are broad brushing ALL of them.
THAT is classless.

So that's YOU.
YOU bad mouth the dead.
YOU lie.
That's apparently who YOU are.

Whether it's true or not about SOME of them is none of my concern.
They're dead.

If, as you allege, tacky behavior and dishonesty means that you don't rate mourners when you die....

You're going to have a very quiet wake.
(Hopefully in the very distant future.)

...and Karma hasn't much sympathy for those who bad mouth the dead.

[DulceDecorum]

174. Do us all a favor

and take a chill pill.
Else I will simply start up a thread
dedicated solely to the exploits of the employees of Cantor Fitzgerald.

Canto Fitzgerald was, and is, a TOUGH PLACE TO WORK.
So sue me.

[The Sad Little Pony]

175. Honestly, what's your point?

Please stop bad mouthing my dead friend.

It's okay to say that SOME of them were like this, but I can assure you, that HE was not.
He was a gentle, sweet young man. All they found was his thumb bone, and that was year later.
His mom is still not the same.

It's fine that you wish to point out the wrongs done by SOME of them.
BUT please stop your broad brush.

Stop bad mouthing my friend, a person you never met.
A person who is not in any of your articles.

Have you no shame?

[DulceDecorum]

177. That does it.

Now we are really going to get to the bottom of Cantor Fitzgerald.

I have not said ANYTHING about your friend
I have merely pointed out that
Cantor Fitzgerald WAS AND IS a VERY TOUGH PLACE TO WORK.

Some of the employees of Cantor Fitzgerald are routinely brutalized and terrorized by other employees of Cantor Fitzgerald
and that is a FACT.

Now I do not know,
nor much care,
which group your friend fell under,
but I maintain that
CANTOR FITZGERALD IS A TOUGH PLACE TO WORK.

You are not defending your friend.
You are defending the company that he worked for.
What has Howard Lutnick ever done
for that mother who is left with only a thumb?

You have abandoned the woman who gave birth to your friend
in order to support
The Grim Weeper of Wall Street.
And you DARE call ME classless!!

If he truly was,
as you claim
"a gentle, sweet young man"
then he might ALSO have had the dubious honor
of having a senior partner URINATE UPON HIM
through the crack of a toilet stall.

You say that his thumb was recovered.
Then his death WAS reported
to the Social Security Administration
AFTER his death certificate was filed.
HUNDREDS of employees of Cantor Fitzgerald
do not show up on the Social Security Death Index,
which means
that their deaths have NEVER BEEN REPORTED TO the Social Service Adminstration.
If you had sat back down in your seat instead of going for my throat, half the people looking at this thread would have remained in ignorance of that FACT.
Now that you have pissed me off,
I am going to post a whole lot of FACTS about Cantor Fitzgerald,
here and elsewhere.
Enjoy.

Chew on this.

Take the name.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index.html
EMPLOYER: Cantor Fitzgerald
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/lists/by-employer/page12.html
Cross with SSDI results for 2001.

(V)=(Verified) Report verified with a family member or someone acting on behalf of a family member.
(P)=(Proof) Death Certificate Observed

Andrew Anthony Abate Nothing found
Vincent Abate VINCENT P ABATE 23 May 1961-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Laurence Abel LAURENCE C ABEL 28 Oct 1963-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Paul Andrew Acquaviva Nothing found
Donald L. Adams Nothing found
Shannon Lewis Adams Nothing found
Lee Adler Nothing found
Daniel Thomas Afflitto DANIEL AFFLITTO 04 May 1969-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Alok Agarwal ALOK AGARWAL 03 May 1965-11 Sep 2001 (V)
David Agnes DAVID AGNES 10 Sep 1955-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Joanne Ahladiotis JOANNE M AHLADIOTIS 10 Jun 1974-11 Sep 2001 (P)
Andrew Alameno Nothing found
Edward L. Allegretto Nothing found
Joseph Ryan Allen JOSEPH R ALLEN 06 Feb 1962-11 Sep 2001 (P)
Christopher Edward Allingham Nothing found
Michael Rourke Andrews Nothing found
Laura Angilletta Nothing found
Lorraine D. Antigua Nothing found
Peter Paul Apollo Nothing found
Frank Thomas Aquilino Nothing found
Michael J. Armstrong Nothing found
Joshua Aron Nothing found
Michael Edward Asher Nothing found


John James Badagliacca Nothing found
Jane Ellen Baeszler Nothing found
Paul V. Barbaro Nothing found
Ivan Kyrillos Fairbanks Barbosa Nothing found
Colleen Ann Barkow Nothing found
Renee Barrett-Arjune Nothing found
Carlton W. Bartels Nothing found
Guy Barzvi GUY BARZVI 23 Feb 1972-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Inna Basina Nothing found
Alysia Basmajian Nothing found
W. David Bauer WALTER D BAUER 07 Mar 1956-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Larry I. Beck Nothing found
Maria Behr Nothing found
Debbie S. Bellows Nothing found
Bryan Craig Bennett Nothing found
Dominick J. Berardi DOMINICK BERARDI 07 Feb 1976-11 Sep 2001
Alvin Bergsohn ALVIN BERGSOHN 13 Jun 1953-11 Sep 2001 (P)
William Bernstein WILLIAM H BERNSTEIN 28 Dec 1958-11 Sep 2001
Timothy D. Betterly Nothing found
Bella Bhukhan Nothing found
Joshua David Birnbaum Nothing found
Balewa Albert Blackman Nothing found
Craig Michael Blass Nothing found
John Paul Bocchi Nothing found
Bruce Douglas (Chappy) Boehm Nothing found
Martin Boryczewski Nothing found
Thomas H. Bowden Jr Nothing found
Kimberly S. Bowers Nothing found
Shawn Edward Bowman Jr. Nothing found
Alfred Braca Nothing found
Michelle Renee Bratton MICHELLE R BRATTON 26 Apr 1978-11 Sep 2001 (P)
Edward A. Brennan III Nothing found
Frank H. Brennan Nothing found
Mark Francis Broderick Nothing found
Lloyd Brown Nothing found
Brandon J. Buchanan BRANDON J BUCHANAN 09 Apr 1977-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Dennis Buckley Nothing found
Patrick Joseph Buhse Nothing found
John E. Bulaga Jr. Nothing found
Stephen Bunin Nothing found
Matthew J. Burke Nothing found
Thomas Daniel Burke Nothing found
Keith James Burns KEITH BURNS 09 Feb 1962-11 Sep 2001 (V)
Milton Bustillo Nothing found

And that is just the first two letters of the alphabet.
My, how can it be
that ALL THOSE DEATHS HAVE NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE SSA?

Remind me please,
Mr The Sad Little Pony,
just much money did Cantor Fitzgerald collect from the feds
for every employee they claimed had died?

We know they were paid per head,
and we know they have claimed about 700.
How much was each dead employee worth to Cantor Fitzgerald?

Save your answer for the next thread, The Sad Little Pony.
And keep up your attacks.
They only serve to fuel my research.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DulceDecorum]

181. As you wish

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3052703&mesg_id=3053615

[struggle4progress]

135. Have you read the book that the essay became?

[brentspeak]

114. I'm fairly certain this guy is not a Democrat

We're a bit smarter and saner than that.

[Mizmoon]

12. I can understand their outrage

but they are wrong. This man has a right to put forth controversial opinions.

I see Horowitz isn't jumping to defend academic freedom in this particular case. How shocking.

[The Sad Little Pony]

22. Yet some opinions...

...we don't have the "right" to express on campus.

His "Little Eichmans" comment is beyond "opinion".

Just imagine if a professor started referring to women as "bitches", or using other derogatory terms, or racists expressions.
Would anyone defend his right to such "opinions"?

No.
Do that and you'll be fired.

Sometimes, ignorance is just ignorance. Universities have an obligation to shun ignorance.

[American Tragedy]

26. Well, if you object to it, as I do

you are just as free to express your own contempt, just like we tore to pieces the Holocaust revisionists on our campus. That's the lovely thing about freedom of speech.

[The Sad Little Pony]

30. The point is...

THIS is tolerated speech.

Yet other speech on campus is NOT tolerated.

Why?

[funnymanpants]

37. Agree

Ignorant speech should not be tolerated.

And what could be more ignorant than undermining our president who is at war to protect America? Calling a woman a bitch is nothing compared to undermining our president, who is fighting for the freedom of the freest nation on earth.

And since the DU is engaged in attacking our great president, I think this forum should be shut down.

(This is sarcastic in case it didn't come though.)

[The Sad Little Pony]

78. I'm not surprised.

No.
Not at all, that you missed my point, or ignored it.

I guess that's what you do.
Good luck with that.

[Coloradan4Truth]

188. But if you are a Football Coach...

you can make derogatory public comments about women who have made legal accusations about your team and NOT get Fired!

http://www.readingpost.com/ugly_scandal.html

These comments were offensive to myself, and many other women, but apparently Coach Barnett was above being fired for them, and in essence the University did accept, if not defend, his right to say them.

[struggle4progress]

134. Why the sudden outrage? He wrote the essay three years ago.

He then expanded it into an acclaimed book. If you want to know where the essay was headed, read the book.

[LiberallyInclined]

18. it's a way to get people to mentally tie 9/11 to Iraq-

getting this story out there and onthe freeper email chain will help cement he mental connection they want.

[RandomKoolzip]

28. Isn't this the same place that David Horowitz has used as

a test ground for his "Fire all liberal professors" group?

[Swamp Rat]

34. Yep. It's all part of their plan to get rid of the educated and replace

them with BushBots. Watch all the right wingers and ignorant folks, who don't understand a goddamn thing about higher education and the structure and mission of "the university," demand an end to tenure.

[Dhalgren]

86. You mean like the folks here on this "enlightened" board?

[struggle4progress]

136. Bingo.

[Garbo]

32. What an ass.....

....he made his bed, now he can lie in it.

[deacon2]

45. "Well," he said, peeking up from the foxhole

I had a prof who claimed in an African Studies course that Ancient Egyptians (who were Black wizards, of course) could fly. Granted, this claim in itself was harmless enough - if totally without scientific merit - and did little more than cause snickers and derision among those destined to a poor grade like yours truly. However, this same prof was also given to long winded discourse on "blue-eyed devils" such as yours truly being created by Satan, our rightful punishment in eternal hell fire, the Zionist threat to the Black Man and on and on. Black Muslim doctrine for the uninitiated. Was this utter crap? I believe so, but the sister sitting next to me took to it like water and animatedly sneered at me whenever a particular idea really took root. From her perspective the prof was stating obvious and important truths. Should this prof have been sanctioned or fired or whatever? I don't believe so. Being wrong is one of the privileges of being a professor. Anyone else ever had a professor who was simply wrong? That this gentleman is an ill-informed, moronic gas bag is without question. That the university should provide an alternate path for anyone requiring the course(s) taught by this idiot also appears obvious. If no one takes the class, Professor Trashmouth doesn't have the forum to dispense this odious "wisdom." But if he is fired for stating an opinion, albeit one muffled by his head being stuck inside his own ass, then we uphold the wisdom of Pol Pot and others who banished any idea they didn't like to the killing fields. That's my opinion, and in America we all get to have one - for at least a little while longer.

[Old and In the Way]

53. Exactly....if Education is the free market of ideas,

why does the RW want to regulate them? I can't defend this guy's thinking, but I do support the right of everyone to have their own opinion. I can choose whose opinions I value and whose I think are a waste of time. I do that everyday.


I have no idea whether this professor really believes this stuff or if he has a lower purpose (ie "I'm a Democrat and I think the Bush family devolved from lizards"), but let the market (ie the students) decide if he has anything of value to impart. If he does, it will show up as class demand.

Sort of like teaching evolution vs. creatonism. Most serious science students won't waste their time or credit $ taking a course that adds no value to their major. Divinity students might, but not science majors.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

75. Yes, he should have been fired

I'm all for an open market of ideas until they become pure lunacy.

If it's a private college, then that's their choice. If it's taxpayer money, then it's OUR choice.

[Merope215]

77. I have!

Last year I was at a lecture being given by an extremely prominent Yale professor and well-known conservative who was talking about how history, as a discipline, was chugging along just fine until the 1970s, when all the "oppressed" groups (he made air quotes when he said that word) "like women and minorities" started "crawling out of the woodwork and attacking what they called dead white men, which up to then had been known as the great works of the western mind." Do I think this professor's an idiot? Yes. Was I offended? Yes. Is Yale ever going to fire him? Definitely not. Of course, he's famous. But even if he weren't, the school still wouldn't have fired him, and I wouldn't have supported it if they had.

Granted, this wasn't quite as offensive as what this guy said. But it sounds to me - I haven't read his whole article - that he may just be one of those really liberal professors, the ones who are so liberal as to be anti-liberal in the classical sense and so perhaps also anti-capitalist, anti-militarist, and what have you. And maybe I'll get flamed for this, but if you're coming at this situation from that perspective and not a nationalist one, his position could make perfect sense. If you are truly concerned about the Iraqi children and the people all over the world who are deeply, lastingly hurt by the results of the kinds of activities conducted by multinational finance firms, it might not seem to you like calling the people responsible for those things "little Eichmanns" is so out of line. I can see how it would be possible to think that many of the people who worked in the towers might be responsible for small atrocities of their own, if you remove the morally irrelevant factors of distance and ignorance. I don't agree with him - I knew people who died on 9/11 - but if you were coming at it from that perspective, it might not even occur to you how incredibly offensive you would sound to people who didn't share your own particular frame of reference.

I don't know that the public/private distinction holds up either, to be perfectly honest; in fact, it seems to me that the public university, as an arm of the government, has less right to restrict free speech than a private college or university would.

Anyway, just some thoughts. I hope I haven't offended anyone too much.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

80. Taxpayers

I appreciate that you tried to view this reasonably. However, since this is a public university, he is a taxpayer-supported employee. I'm not willing to pay him for his "little Eichmanns" comment.

Not now, not ever.

[Merope215]

87. Fair enough.

If I were paying taxes in Colorado, I'd probably be pissed myself.

[Dorian Gray]

103. I had a professor at the Jesuit University

that I attended who hated women. (It was my Intro to Philosophy course, and the Professor was a very strict adherent to Islam.) Instead of studying Socrates, Plato, and the like, we spent the whole year on Islamic philosophy. (Who knew in 1989/1990 that would be useful at all to me, someday?)

Anyhow, in class he would rant and rave about the American educational system and how women should not be allowed in university. When we took our final exam, I studied with three friends. (They were all men.) We took the exam. We had all written similar ideas for the essays. They all got As and I got a C. (ANd I was a straight A student.)

I was so angry, and I complained about the professor to the Philosophy dept. They bumped my grade up after reading my exam, but it really shows that there are professors out there who are unfair.

Oh, by the way, he's still teaching at the University, and he's tenured. And it still makes me angry.

He has said that women SHOULD NOT BE GETTING AN EDUCATION in our classes. His belief, I believe, affected his grade-giving.

I believe that he's totally entitled to his beliefs, but I'm also entitled to complain about him. He's still there, and I hope that others learned to stand up for themselves when getting the short end of the stick from this man.

He's definitely a gas bag. (Like your professor!) I do think it's totally unfair, though, when professors grade you unfairly for the same work that others are handing in. And if they do so because of their prejudices, then they may have to be reprimanded/fired.

[Rockerdem]

50. Hes gonna get canned

He was on solid ground talking about blowback from previous Middle East mistakes. That is the responsibility of an educator. But he went beyond academic bounds when he called names. The "Eichmann" stuff was uncalled for, and insulted many people, not just the people in the Twin Towers.

[Rockerdem]

91. It didnt take long for my prediction to come true. That was fast.

He either got the word or saw it coming.

[RedCloud]

57. Hold on! Professor not directly quoted...

On whose words shall we rely? Were his comments paraphrased by vindictive pseudo students who get easily distracted and pretend they heard it that way?

Let's let the professor explain before we agree to hang him? We are going to hang him, aren't we? I mean, what would be the purpose of listening to him if we did not know our outcome ahead of time?

Why he might just have a valid point or two to make!

Imagine a professor using shock to wake up a class of poorly prepared spectators disguised as students!

[il_lilac]

88. People have known

for years how our sanctions and military actions have caused the death of so many innocents. It takes a strong statement to wake everyone up. Face it, it's not easy to suddenly realize we're not always the good guy. For once we were victims instead of victimizers and we act indignant for having that shown to us. I'd rather have the power of knowledge (and responsibility) than the comfort of ignorance.

[raggedcompany]

61. I support Ward Churchill unequivocally. Free speech for all.

Even people who say things you don't like.

[Name removed]

160. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[semillama]

67. Read his "A Little Matter of Genocide"

and you'll get an idea of where he's coming from.

Btw. Churchill is a Native American. wonder if that changes anyone's perspective of him?

[intheflow]

96. Little Matter of Genocide is brilliant.

I think it's most telling that he's not mentioned as a Native American in the article. That might give his perspective some legitimacy. Whereas if he was advocating for justice in the welfare system in America they'd be sure to mention it to reinforce a "lazy Indian" stereotype.

Sometimes Americans make me ill--and I am one, with my caucasian roots going back to 1632 in this country. :(

[semillama]

113. Ha! I go back to 1620!!

heh heh.

true, though. My best friend traces lineage back to William Bradford.

Anyway, Churchill, yeah. He's an eye opener for sure.

[truthisfreedom]

69. how peculiarly unhelpful to anyone.

[Democrats_win]

89. Local CO newscasts resembling McCarthy witch trials.

People in CO need to get a grip.

[cadmus]

92. Churchill resigns.

Ward Churchill has resigned as ethnic studies chair, but not his professorship.

http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3512151,00.html

[intheflow]

93. Controversial CU prof resigns as department chair (over 9-11 essay)

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2684392,00.html

Controversial CU prof resigns as department chair
By Howard Pankratz
Denver Post Staff Writer

University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill, under fire for comparing victims of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center attack to Nazis, resigned today as chairman of CU's ethnic studies department but will continue on as a teacher.

(snip)

"I have never characterized all the Sept. 11 victims as Nazis. What I said was that the 'technocrats of empire' working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of 'little Eichmanns.' Thus it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack," Churchill said.

Churchill said he isn't a "defender" of the Sept. 11 attacks, but meant to point out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, "we cannot feign innocence when some of the destruction is returned."

In Churchill's essay, he said the Pentagon was a military target, "pure and simple."

"As to those in the World Trade Center ... Well, really. Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire - the 'mighty engine of profit' to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved."

(snip)

---------------------------

External links/more information

Churchill's essay in question: "Some People Push Back" On the Justice of Roosting Chickens

Churchill, a Native American, has compared the oppression, enslavement, torture, relocation and extermination of Native Americans in America to the genocide Jews experienced at the hands of the Nazi's in his book "A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present."

Churchill's ZNet HomePage

[bloom]

We had quite a discussion about his articles

and the controversy that was starting to brew... on DU the other day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x30995



I'm sorry to hear this.


I appreciate his point of view ( though the write-up seemed rather inflammatory).

[Cats Against Frist]

What's with all you knee-jerking freepers?????

Anytime someone posts anything about how al Qaida might have had a valid gripe, people start throwing out things like "fecal matter," and what not. If this is for the benefit of the freeper media, I won't stand for it. They don't want political correctness, so they're not going to get it.

Of course, on some level, I believe that both Iraqi civilians and WTC/Pentagon casualties were "innocent," symbolically, WE ARE ALL responsible for the reign of terror that our nation has perpetrated on the developing world -- from the very moment they slaughtered at least 70 million indigenous people, right up to today, and their "retalliation" for some Saudis attacking us, by KILLING IRAQI KIDS.

Symbolically. We use terms like this, because we're intelligent. Because we can have a rational fucking discussion without going off the deep end.

Symbolically, they weren't innocents. I don't consider myself an innocent, as I sit here in my lighted and heated home, type type typing on my computer, with blood powering my home.

It's the fucking 9-11 Sentimental Knee-Jerk Society that crucified this man, and it plays right into the right-wing's fucking hands. "Oh, oh, we can't say that 9-11 was caused by our policies." This is their crazy ass new Nazi political correctness, and it has to stop.

Maybe this guy didn't pick his word choice out the best he could have, but firing him is just SYMBOLIC. A symbol of how we're so scared of the right wing that we refuse to speak the truth.

[intheflow]

95. Right on, C.A.F.

I think that everyday, about living in this lap of luxury called the US of A. Who among us does not have blood on our hands from burning oil in our cars, drinking from petroleum-based plastic Nalgene bottles, wearing some item of clothing made by people being paid $1 a day, eating veggies picked by migrant farmworkers or tuna that was over-fished and transported to the most remote inland locations by more fossil fuel burning machines.

The state of willful denial the American people live in is shameless.

[Swamp Rat]

99. And the backlash is coming... n/t

[intheflow]

101. I know!

It's says so in my profile! LOL!

(Not really funny. The shit is going to hit the fan big time, and it ain't gona be pretty.)

[bloom]

104. thanks for that...

[Rockerdem]

Why do these guys shoot themselves in the foot?

Had he just written a tome with the same content without the inflammatory name calling, he would still have a job. Now hes canned, and gives OReilly another feather in his cap.

We need these people to challenge those in the power structure. I wish that they would stop self-inflicting fatal wounds.

[OldVlad]

Ward only needs himself

This windbag is not needed by us in any power structure, he is an embarrassment and a shame for all that consider recent American foreign policy misguided by taking ranks with the stereotyping, bigoted, hypocritical hate speech of Al Qaeda.

You are absolutely right about OReilly, won't he have a big ol southern grin tomorrow. Oh well, broken clock is right twice a day.

[shawcomm]

But at least most broken clocks aren't made of

fecal matter...

[DalvaThree]

94. I wonder how much this guy makes a year

80k? 100k?

I read that he's considered a hack and a phony in many Native American circles.

Has the guy done anything worthwhile? Cuz that 911 essay was a joke.

[candy]

It wasn't a joke,it was a disgrace.

[rayofreason]

98. worthwhile

I don't know if Ward Churchill has done anything worthwhile or what his standing is in the Native American community, but it is kind of ironic that someone who is waving the free speech flag doesn't seem to always respect the rights of others to have their say.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2673375,00.html

[ElectroPrincess]

106. I don't get your point and how Churchill is against

free speech in this regard. Please explain?

[rayofreason]

110. free speech

The folks having their Columbus day parade had permits and a right to hold that event. The fact that contact between the hemispheres was an unparalled catastrophe for native people (see the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel") does not mean that the right to commerorate a historic day can be blocked. And that is what Churchill and his group did. It is one thing to get your own permit and express yourself, reminding folks what contact between eastern and western hemispheres meant for indigenous peoples, and another to decide that you are going to prevent a legal expression of speech in the form of a Columbus day parade.

[ElectroPrincess]

105. Please provide sources to back your strong negative character statements?

Links please? Hearsay is inappropriate given such harsh statements.

[ckramer]

107. Backup your accusation with links

[DalvaThree]

108. huh? what are you talking about?

back up my accusations with links? WTF?????

[struggle4progress]

129. Several posts ago you wrote:

"I read that he's considered a hack and a phony in many Native American circles."

Can you back up these claims with evidence?

[The Sad Little Pony]

176. Here you go....

http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410295


ALL of the tribes in which he has claimed membership, say NO.
He's a fraud.

"At various times, according to press reports, Churchill has described himself as Cherokee, Keetoowah Cherokee, Muskogee, Creek and most recently Meti. In a note in the online magazine Socialism and Democracy he wrote, ''Although I'm best known by my colonial name, Ward Churchill, the name I prefer is Kenis, an Ojibwe name bestowed by my wife's uncle.'' In biographical blurbs, he is identified as an enrolled member of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokees. But a senior member of the band with access to tribal enrollment records told Indian Country Today that Churchill is not listed. George Mauldin, tribal clerk in Tahlequah, Okla., told the Rocky Mountain News, ''He's not in the data base at all.''

According to Jodi Rave, a well-known Native journalist and member of the Mandan-Hidatsa-Arikara Three Affiliated Tribes, Churchill was enrolled as an ''associate member'' of the Keetoowah by a former chairman who was later impeached. The one other known member of the same program, since discontinued, was President Bill Clinton. Rave said that she made this discovery as a student in a journalism class at the University of Colorado. She was also in a class taught by Churchill. When her article came out, she said, he dropped her grade from an A to a C minus.

Suzan Shown Harjo, a columnist for ICT who has tracked Churchill's career, said that aside from the in-laws of his late Indian wife, he has not been able to produce any relatives from any Indian tribe."

[struggle4progress]

182. Fascinating! Several such links just popped up today!

I don't have a dog in this particular fight, but the slightest bit of poking around seems to raise some interesting questions.

The most interesting attack so far has been in the Denver Post story:

... One of the skeptics is Vernon Bellecourt, director of the Council on Foreign Relations for the American Indian Movement. Bellecourt says he believes Churchill worked counter-intelligence in Vietnam while also claiming to be an "information specialist" there. "According to research by one of our people, he has had two military records. There is something very strange which we have not been able to get into," Bellecourt said ...
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2689334,00.html


Frankly, movement schismatics isn't my particular area of expertise, but the lack of love here may have a history.

... Fractures in the former AIM leadership have resulted in mutual rhetorical attacks, with Russell Means, living in the west, making allegations in a book against Minneapolis AIM leaders Clyde and Vernon Bellecourt. Many chapters operate independently, and some under an incorporated umbrella organization run by the Bellecourts ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Movement


... The eight defendants acquitted were Ward Churchill, chairman of the ethnic studies department at Colorado University in Boulder and member of Colorado AIM; Glenn Morris, Shawnee, Colorado AIM; Troylynn Yellow Wood, Cheyenne/Lakota, Colorado AIM; Nita Gonzales, Escuela Tlatelolco; Rev. Reginald Holmes, Greater Denver Ministerial Alliance; Glenn Spagnuola, Italian-American activist; Prof. Natsu Saito, Georgia State Law School and LeRoy Lemos, community activist ...
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410265


Colorado AIM doesn't seem to have gotten along particularly well with AIMGGC, to judge from this post on their website:

FINAL OPINION AND STATEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL PANEL
AUTONOMOUS CHAPTERS OF AIM v.
VERNON AND CLYDE BELLECQURT
November 4, 1994 Rapid City, South Dakota

WE, THE INTERNATIONAL PANEL OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES. HAVE BEEN REQUESTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF AUTONOMOUS CHAPTERS OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT TO REVIEW EVIDENCE, BOTH WRITTEN AND ORAL, AGAINST TWO SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, VERNON AND CLYDE BELLECOURT.
AIM TRIBUNAL VERDICIT AND OPINION FOR VERNON BELLECOURT

Charge I. We, the Tribunal, find the defendant, Vernon Bellecourt, guilty of subverting the American Indian Movement (AIM), its principles and activities. <snip>
Charge III. We, the Tribunal, find the defendant, Vernon Bellecourt, guilty of collaborating with the United States government and with other enemies of American Indian people.
Charge IV. We, the Tribunal, find the defendant, Vernon Bellecourt, guilty of espionage against the Miskito, Sumu, and Rama Nations, as well as the Creole and Garifuno peoples of the Nicaragwan Atlantic Coast region.<snip>
http://www.coloradoaim.org/history/19941104Finalverdictissuedinrapidcity.htm


AIMGGC seems to have fired back, in little piece citing Jodi Rave (who appears in your post):

Re: United States Government War Against the American Indian Movement
For Immediate Release: November 3, 1999
To All News Outlets Worldwide

Following a lengthy twenty five (25) year investigation of Ward Churchill, Glen Morris and their Indian and non-Indian co-conspirators, collaborators, dupes and unwitting pawns, the American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council’s Council on Security and Intelligence is releasing this lengthy report.<snip>

http://www.aics.org/AIMGGC/press110399.html


Meanwhile, Vern and Co. seem not to have been entirely above suspicion in other matters, as indicated by this earlier Indian Country link:

Native America Calling
A program of Native American Public Telecommunications
Program Aired Thursday, November 4th, 1999
... Joining us right now from Cleveland, Ohio is Vernon Bellecourt, he is Anishinabe and a national representative for the American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council and he along with his brother Clyde have been accused of ordering the execution of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, not once but twice, welcome back to the show, Vernon ...
http://www.indiancountrynews.com/Nativecalling3.cfm


It's probably a really good time for us all to remember exactly how COINTELPRO-type movement disruption tactics work ...

[gottaB]

193. Yes, we should think about cointelpro-type movement disruption tactics

But first let's consider the evidence you've presented and how it relates to the story in Indian Country Today by Jim Adams.

I had noticed your challenge and was prompted to do some googling, and I also discovered the history of acrimony between Vernon Bellecourt and Ward Churchill. Well, movement schismatics isn't my cup of tea either. I decided, being neither Native American nor particularly knowledgable about the American Indian Movement, to let it go. Jim Ward's article, however, cited criticisms from a number of sources that do not at first glance appear to be in bed with Bellencourt.

You noted that Bellencourt's group cited Jodi Rave in one of its missives. I assume that their source was an article called "Native Expert's Claims Blemished" which appeared in the Lincoln Journal Star on March 27th, 2001. I cannot be sure of this. At this point, I can safely say that I don't have any reason to believe that Rave wrote that piece on behalf of Bellencourt's group. She is a respected journalist (which is not say that she is without biases): Former NAJA Scholarship Recipient, Jodi Rave, Featured in Women's Enews.

On the matter of disruptive tactics, I have to admit that the cause of Ward Churchill raises some concerns in my mind. While I applaud your devotion to academic freedom, freedom of expression, and your vigilant opposition to David Horowitz and his agenda, I cannot join you in your assessment of Churchill's ideas or scholarship. I suggest that this difference between our respective viewpoints is well understood by our common adversaries, that they view it as a weak link in the liberal left's defenses against them, and that exploiting this perceived weakness is precisely the reason they lend their energies to attacks on public intellectuals like Churchill. They often do so explicitly. They may also be operating indirectly and covertly, through formal organizations and informally, in attempts to exacerbate the difference between our points of view, and obfuscate our shared interests and values.

I would not for an instant suggest that you change your opinions or excercise circumspection on internet message boards--far be it from me. However, your obvious commitment to the cause of academic freedom leads me to recommend that you consider devoting your talents to the problem of crafting a more effective opposition to the Horowitz agenda. On principle I'd suggest being flexible where agreement is weak, and reinforcing those points where agreement is strong. I am sure such considerations have occured to you many times before, so I say this with all due respect.

Peace,

gB

[struggle4progress]

195. Yes, I already said that I don't have a dog in that fight, for ...

... exactly the same reasons you give: I lack the cultural sensitivity to contribute productively to that particular argument, even if I thought I knew (the details (which, not being an insider, I actually cannot pretend to know).

It is rather easy in such discussions to become blind to the critical issues, compared to non-critical ones.

Whether Churchill is really a good scholar or not is, to my mind, an example of a non-critical issue for the purposes of the present discussion: it is to be resolved by his peers. He has, of course, the sort of publication record that university administrators usually admire, and he was not only granted tenure but made chair of his department, both of which mean something about qualifications at any school with academic integrity. You are certainly welcome to disagree with this view, but then I will say that I think it is a non-critical issue.

You further say that "Jim Ward's article, however, cited criticisms from a number of sources that do not at first glance appear to be in bed with Bellencourt." Perhaps your assessment of Jodi Rave is completely correct; I really have no basis for an opinion one way or another. Ward's article also cites Harjo (who has been affiliated with the Morningstar Institute); here is a selection from a letter to The Chronicle of Higher Education (a piece, incidently, quite critical of Ward):

... Russell Means (who has been very well known from the time of the Wounded Knee seige) and Ward Churchill, who has clearly claimed an important role in autonomous AIM, are the great "satans" of AIM. Churchill and AIM have hurled mutual denunciations. Among the charges, apparenly, both sides claim that the other side is infested with FBI agents who seek to destroy them and their movement ... There is an notable active connection of AIM leaders with the Morningstar Institute. Further, there is at least one Web document from Ms. Harjo (on institute stationary) where she provided seemingly derogatory information on Mr. Churchill. ("Note for Paul Demain," from Susan Shown Harjo, stamped " Indian Country.Comm. Fax NC 17158343243.") ...
http://chronicle.com/colloquy/2001/logo/109.htm

The point is not that I believe anything in particular about Rave or Harjo, but rather that nothing occurs in a historical vacuum and that historical knowledge should color interpretation. Both Rave and Harjo may be right; I simply do not know; but I do see that there is some history here, of which I am ignorant, and of which I ought not be ignorant if I wished to have an opinion on this particular topic. But I suspect that this question has gathered coverage suddenly only because it serves nicely as rightwing Huff-n-Puff. And again, at the present moment, I consider the question of whether Churchill has native ancestry a non-critical issue.

The issue raised by the first part of the Chronicle quote begins to get rather nearer to topics of real interest. These accusations and counter-accusations of being government agents seem to me the obvious legacy of movement infiltration by provocateurs; I take no stand whether neither side is right today, or one side, or both sides, since I cannot tell which of the many possibilities holds: whether the provocateurs long ago withdrew, or have connections to both sides, or ... or ... well, insert your favorite scenario here. Individuals interested in some tools used previously, here, in America, for movement disruption might want to think carefully about this -- and they might want to look at Churchill's writings on COINTELPRO.

But the critical real and immediate issue, from which I think everything is a distraction at this instant, are the swastika-spraying death-threat-making thugs who are being called out of the woodwork. In the face of that particular challenge, I wonder whether any of our little intellectual disputes should matter much.


Friday, February 04, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 A.M.
Threat to Gregoire brings arrest; state guarding Rossi, too

OLYMPIA — A Yakima County man was arrested on suspicion of making a death threat against Gov. Christine Gregoire and her family last month. Gregoire said she had received threats in the wake of her hotly contested election victory, and that's why her office has declined to release details of her schedule. <snip>

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002170430_threats04m.html


Posted on Tue, Feb. 01, 2005
Judge Suing Paper Tells of Death Threats
Associated Press

BOSTON - The judge suing the Boston Herald for libel said Tuesday that he got piles of hate mail, including death threats that prompted him to buy a gun, after the paper ran articles depicting him as lenient on criminals.

Judge Ernest Murphy sued the Herald and four of its reporters after the newspaper published a series of critical stories, including one in which Murphy is quoted as saying, "Tell her to get over it," in reference to a 14-year-old rape victim.

Murphy, 61, insists he never made the comment. <snip>

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/consumer_news/10789889.htm


Incidently, you are welcome at any time to suggest that I should change my opinions or "exercise circumspection on internet message boards." I'll consider such comments, although I won't promise to agree with them.

[gottaB]

196. I was in a paranoid mood before. Now I'm in a self-critical paranoid mood

I suspect that some would exploit this episode to lure internet cranks such as myself to rush to defend the free speech rights of Churchill for the purpose of representing "liberals" (reportedly Fox News' label of Churchill) as, how shall I put it, out of touch with the average Joe. But when the topic came up in GD, I couldn't resist.

My fear is that Churchill's academic credentials will become an issue. Actually, I'm rather certain that they already have, though I agree with the position of defering to his peers. I see some public debate centering on the tenure system, and the PR implications of that concern me somewhat. The death threats and such, which I deplore, I'm able to file under "clear and present danger" kinds of arguments. But I see that the current increase in the level of thuggery is not unrelated to the functions of the media, particularly certain media channels well known for their irresponsibility. It is an unhappy confluence of negative political forces. If the Horowitz agenda is allowed to pass through these gates, the consequences could be dire.

Gotta run. Hungry and exhausted.

[ckramer]

148. Let me guess

He's considered a hack and a phony by some freeper Native Americans, right?

[bush_is_wacko]

109. this is a travesty of justice as far as I'm concerned

The man may have poorly worded his remarks but his remarks are, nonetheless, right on the money. He discusses how the Arabs view us and they DO view our political policies as hitleresque and nazi-like!

This man NEVER condoned what happened, he only warned that it would happen again and again and again if we didn't change our disastrous international policies.

I was even more appalled that apparently CU, the college my daughter wants to attend, is apparently GUTLESS and is bending over for the thug propaganda machine over this!

If these friggin' thugs weren't so close-minded and apparently completely uneducated they would understand EXACTLY what was ACTUALLY said. Instead they have gone on yet another Salem style witch hunt to burn a VERY intelligent and VERY accurate tenured college professor because he had the audacity to say OUR policies led up to 911!

Guess what they DID lead up to 911 and since they have only gotten worse we are probably in store for an even more deadly attack at some point and time. The only saving grace at this point is that American citizens have made it clear THEY do NOT support those policies and maybe some of these Arab nations will take pity on us when they realize WE have NO control over our DELUSIONAL president and his equally delusional administration!

[greendeerslayer]

111. Churchill's Statement

URL: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3512084,
00.html

Churchill's statement

January 31, 2005

The following is a statement from Ward Churchill:

In the last few days there has been widespread and grossly inaccurate media coverage concerning my analysis of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, coverage that has resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life. What I actually said has been lost, indeed turned into the opposite of itself, and I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been.

* The piece circulating on the internet was developed into a book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens. Most of the book is a detailed chronology of U.S. military interventions since 1776 and U.S. violations of international law since World War II. My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences.

* I am not a "defender"of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned. I have never said that people "should" engage in armed attacks on the United States, but that such attacks are a natural and unavoidable consequence of unlawful U.S. policy. As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy, said, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable."

* This is not to say that I advocate violence; as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see. What I am saying is that if we want an end to violence, especially that perpetrated against civilians, we must take the responsibility for halting the slaughter perpetrated by the United States around the world. My feelings are reflected in Dr. King's April 1967 Riverside speech, where, when asked about the wave of urban rebellions in U.S. cities, he said, "I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed . . . without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today — my own government."

* In 1996 Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State, did not dispute that 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of economic sanctions, but stated on national television that "we" had decided it was "worth the cost." I mourn the victims of the September 11 attacks, just as I mourn the deaths of those Iraqi children, the more than 3 million people killed in the war in Indochina, those who died in the U.S. invasions of Grenada, Panama and elsewhere in Central America, the victims of the transatlantic slave trade, and the indigenous peoples still subjected to genocidal policies. If we respond with callous disregard to the deaths of others, we can only expect equal callousness to American deaths.

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire" working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were legitimately targeted by the Allies.

* It is not disputed that the Pentagon was a military target, or that a CIA office was situated in the World Trade Center. Following the logic by which U.S. Defense Department spokespersons have consistently sought to justify target selection in places like Baghdad, this placement of an element of the American "command and control infrastructure" in an ostensibly civilian facility converted the Trade Center itself into a "legitimate" target. Again following U.S. military doctrine, as announced in briefing after briefing, those who did not work for the CIA but were nonetheless killed in the attack amounted to no more than "collateral damage." If the U.S. public is prepared to accept these "standards" when the are routinely applied to other people, they should be not be surprised when the same standards are applied to them.

* It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack. According to Pentagon logic, were simply part of the collateral damage. Ugly? Yes. Hurtful? Yes. And that's my point. It's no less ugly, painful or dehumanizing a description when applied to Iraqis, Palestinians, or anyone else. If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name.

* The bottom line of my argument is that the best and perhaps only way to prevent 9-1-1-style attacks on the U.S. is for American citizens to compel their government to comply with the rule of law. The lesson of Nuremberg is that this is not only our right, but our obligation. To the extent we shirk this responsibility, we, like the "Good Germans" of the 1930s and '40s, are complicit in its actions and have no legitimate basis for complaint when we suffer the consequences. This, of course, includes me, personally, as well as my family, no less than anyone else.

* These points are clearly stated and documented in my book, On the Justice of Roosting Chickens, which recently won Honorary Mention for the Gustavus Myer Human Rights Award. for best writing on human rights. Some people will, of course, disagree with my analysis, but it presents questions that must be addressed in academic and public debate if we are to find a real solution to the violence that pervades today's world. The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country.

Ward Churchill
Boulder, Colorado
January 31, 2005

[struggle4progress]

115. College Cancels Event Amid Protests on Panelist's 9/11 Essay

By STEVE TWOMEY
Published: February 1, 2005

<snip> In a written statement, President Joan Hinde Stewart said that the college had done its best "to protect what we hold most dear, the right to speak, think and study freely," but that ensuring safety at the event scheduled for Thursday was "a higher responsibility."

Hamilton, a small liberal arts college in upstate New York, had been inundated with negative telephone calls and e-mail regarding the professor, Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado, who had been invited to participate in a campus discussion on dissent before, Hamilton officials said, the college learned of an essay he had written about the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. <snip>

In an interview on Monday with a Denver television station, Professor Churchill said his essay, intending to explain foreign animus toward the United States and the motives behind the 9/11 attacks, had been misconstrued.

"The overriding question that was being posed at the time was `Why did this happen, why did they hate us so much?' and my premise was when you do this to other people's families and children, that is going to be a natural response," he said, according to The Associated Press. <snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/national/01cnd-hamil.html


... Hamilton College spokesman Michael DeBraggio said multiple death threats were made against both college officials and guest speaker Ward Churchill, who resigned Monday as chairman of the ethnic studies department at the University of Colorado ...
http://www.kron4.com/Global/story.asp?S=2886751&nav=5D7lVqzp

[SpiralHawk]

116. They can't handle the truth

And neither can most of the USA. Sigh.

[brentspeak]

The truth? The truth about what?

This wacko's blame-the-victims-in-the-WTC rant?

[struggle4progress]

117. The panel discussion was called "Limits of Dissent" and ...

... the location had been changed to accommodate the large crowd expected, according to http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?ID=9019

Rightwing death threats! So familiar from the civil rights movement, the anti-VN-war movement, the anti-apartheid movement ...

According to a recent press release, "Sons of Italy" is PO'd about the recent verdicts in the Denver Columbus Day protest.

DENVER - The Denver City Attorney dropped charges against protesters who blocked the Columbus Day Parade, after eight organizers argued that the celebration of Columbus represents hate speech and encourages the theft of land and loss of language and culture in Indian country. ''Our acquittal last week and the dismissals today are a great victory for historical accuracy and for the power of our spiritual ways - both the pipe and the drum were present in the courtroom and I believe that our trial was the first time in history that the AIM song was sung in open court,'' co-organizer Glenn Morris told Indian Country Today on Jan. 23. <snip>
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410265

'Sons of Italy" complains "The protestors were led by Glenn Morris, chairman of the political science department at the University of Colorado (Denver) and Ward Churchill, a professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado (Boulder), who were later charged with loitering and disobeying a police order ... (The) Native American activists now are lobbying the state government to change Columbus Day to 'All Nations Day' ..." http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050201/dctu055_1.html


Between his expertise on COINTELPRO, his willingness to sound an alarm on the dangers facing dissenters, his Columbus Day protest, and his embarrassing moral objections to our foreign policy, Ward Churchill apparently terrifies the Bushistas.

[SaveAmerica]

118. Wouldn't the multiple death threats be considered terrorism? n/t

[struggle4progress]

121. Not in Bushista America, it wouldn't. eom

[Hobarticus]

119. This version seems rather sanitized...

Wasn't his language much stronger?

[donco6]

120. Here's the whole article that caused the uproar.

You decide:


http://www.darknightpress.org/index.php?i=news&c=recent&view=9&long=1

and his response to the uproar:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/education/article/0,1299,DRMN_957_3512084,00.html

[Hobarticus]

156. Thanks, that's what I thought....eom

[Swamp Rat]

122. How ironic, since it was called "Limits of Dissent." n/t

[Sleepless In NY]

1. He's no better than the Reverend Fred Phelps

and his "God hates Fags" rhetoric. Or Falwell & Robertson and their: "We deserved 9/11 because of feminists, gays and abortionists" Now Churchill wants to "clairfy" his statements? What he "meant" instead of what he "said": "9/11 Victims Like Nazis' "Little Eichmanns". I doubt this insensitive jerk knew anyone who died on 9/11 personally. What Churchill totally misses is that ordinary people don't make policies, our leaders do, whether we agree with them or not, and they always get away with it, while the rest of us pay. Taking it out on the victims is pathetic.

He has the right to say whatever he wants, but people also have the right to disagree & be offended& angry too. That's something he'll just have to deal with. Personally, he disgusts me. But that's just me. So much hate speech going around these days, I guess he doesn't make much of a difference, anyway.

[struggle4progress]

126. Really? The Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and ...

... and Human Rights has an annual book awards contest to "(commend) works published in a given year which extend our understanding of the root causes of bigotry and the range of options we as humans have in constructing alternative ways to share power." Churchill Ward's book, which grew out of the essay in question, was one of the books that won honorable mention in 2004.

From the homepage http://www.myerscenter.org/ click on "The annual Gustavus Myers Award" then "2004 Award Winners" then "2004 Honorable Mention List." The book is called "On the Justice of Roosting Chickens: Reflections on the Consequences of U.S. Imperial Arrogance and Criminality."

[Sleepless In NY]

138. struggle4progress Really? And The Gustavus Myers Center

can go shove it too. "Honorable Mention"???? For what? Attacking the dead? The victims didn't make policies, they just died for them. Never heard of this center either, so sorry, I'm not impressed.

[struggle4progress]

139. Did you read the book? Or are you just carrying water ...

... for the right wing by repeating their soundbites?

[Sleepless In NY]

152. struggle4progress yes I read it and speaking of carrying water

you're a right wingers dream standing up for this guy. I guess the Iraqis "deserve it" too, isn't that what the Freepers say? Churchill has his right of free speech and you know what? People have the right to disagree with him. And to be angry & to be offended. And its too bad if you don't understand that. I dont really care what you or Churchill think.

[struggle4progress]

157. What exactly in the book did you find offensive?

[BrklynLiberal]

123. Another nail in the coffin that is burying freedom of speech, along with

the other rights listed on the Bill of Rights....but the KKK has a right to proudly advertise that they sponsor the clean up of a portion of highway. I just don't get it. Why are these "terrorists" of the right allowed to get away with this intimidation? Why isn't the national guard being called out to protect the speakers and attendees at this speech?

[HockeyMom]

124. College DJ

My daughter is a college radio station DJ at an upstate NY school. She has made several negative comments about * and was told by the school to "quit it, even though only a very FEW students complained."

So much for free speech at universities, even in BLUE STATES.

[funnymanpants]

141. Sad

But apparently a lot of posters are contributing to the mentality that leads to censorship. If you start defining what is acceptable and shutting down those who don't fit your definition, be prepared for the other side to use the same tatic.

What is so difficult about letting someone speak with whom you disagree? Don't people on this board remember when they held completely different veiws than what they hold now?

[struggle4progress]

137. The only liberties we have are those that we stand up to defend.

The wingnuts deluged Hamilton College with threats. They'll win as long as our side is unwilling to organize against them.

[rayofreason]

125. Latest on Churchill

The news tonight is reporting that Churchill is getting death threats and that there is a move to strip him of tenure.

I disagree strongly with Ward Churchill and find his statements (like the "little Eichmanns" comment) reprehensible. However, no one should get death threats for peacefully expressing their views, no matter what those views are. And while I agree with Churchill's decision to step down as Chair of the department and Hamilton's decision to uninvite him, I am totally against moves to revoke his tenure and fire him. Academic freedom means that he can and should keep his tenure, but it doesn't mean that those who strongly disagree with him cannot shun him and deny him a megaphone for shouting his views.

[struggle4progress]

130. Why do you agree with Hamilton's decision to uninvite him?

The book that his 2001 essay grew into just won honorable mention in a human rights / antibigotry book contest. He's simply saying things that fanatics don't want to hear.

The story tonight shouldn't be what he said, it should be the death threats. This is the face of Fascism.

[rayofreason]

140. rights and priveleges

Freedom of speech also means the freedom not to have to listen. Churchill's invitation to Hamilton was a privilege, not a right, and as such can be revoked by the giver. His freedom to hold his views and to speak them without threat of death or loss of his tenure is a right that must be upheld, not a privilege that can be revoked.

That's my view, at least.

[tishaLA]

149. It was revoked because a bunch of bullies threatened Hamilton

with death threats, etc. They are just like the jack boot thugs employed by the Third Reich and Stalin to squelch dissent and to define the parameters of acceptable speech.

As an academic, I take these things quite seriously. What is to stop the jack-booted thugs from coming after someone who represents another opinion that doesn't jibe with the accepted hegemony? It places a chill in the halls of academia and stifles intellectual inquiry.

[rayofreason]

150. death or lost revenue?

I don't buy the death threat excuse for a minute. Hamilton revoked the invitation because they got a lot of heat from donors, not because of threats of violence. And it is a good thing too. Churchill should not be given a platform. But that does not mean that he should lose tenure. Like you, I am an academic and I value academic freedom.

Also, if Stalin or Hitler were involved, there would be no death threats, just death - Churchill, you, me (for defending his right to hold his views). The comparison to Stalin is a classic irony of the incomensurate. If this country was anything like Stalin's Russia, New England would be sealed off, all food there would be exported, millions would starve, and millions more would be shot or sent to gulags in Alaska. No hyperbole or exaggeration, because that is exactly what happened in the Ukraine.

By the way, in an interview Churchill said that the families of 9/11 victims who protested his invitation to Hamilton, and who had a lot to do with the revoking of the invitation, were equivalent to terrorists. He is free to say that, but if I were a donor to Hamilton I'd call them up and tell them that if they dared invite him to speak they would never see another dime. I call that my freedom of speech and my freedom from hate speech.

[tishaLA]

151. Hamilton said they received death threats

If you don't believe it, you don't believe what those who watch Bill O'Reilly and listen to RW radio are capable of doing. Indeed, some on the left have those amazing capabilities, too!

BTW, the Hitler and Stalin comments were meant to show how decentralized disciplinary mechanisms have become and how the threat of violence has displaced the need for real violence. Why do we need Hitler or Stalin when O'Reilly and Hannity can whip up their thugs? Murder has become passe as a weapon against academics when we can define the parameters of academic discourse with only threats. The strategies have the same effect by keeping intellectuals in their place.

[struggle4progress]

158. Could we have some links to support any of this?

What's your evidence that "Hamilton revoked the invitation because they got a lot of heat from donors, not because of threats of violence"?

And can you provide evidence that "Churchill said .. families of 9/11 victims .. were equivalent to terrorists"?

[rayofreason]

164. links

Hamilton is in the midst of a major campaign to raise $175 million.

http://www.hamilton.edu/excelsior/default.html

I have no doubt that they got threats, but I am also certain that potential donors must have been calling in outrage. I would have. Having had long experience with universities, I know that the number one pressure point is the wallet.

Regarding Churchill's statement about the families, I was flipping through cable channels, and there he was making this outrageous claim in response to the uninvite from Hamilton. I don't remember the channel. Since I cannot produce a link, let's call it hearsay. Doesn't matter. There is more than enough clearly documented evidence to show that he should be exposed as a grossly insensitive apologist for gay-stoning, anti-feminist, islamofacist murderers.

[struggle4progress]

168. Your single link is a page containing a bland quote from ...

... the college president: "The time has come to address the needs of our physical plant etc. etc."

This doesn't qualify as evidence for your earlier claim that concern about donors, rather than death threats, were responsible for this cancellation. In fact, the college itself has posted this assertion on its website:

Kirkland Project Panel Cancelled
Public Safety Cited
<snip> Cancellation of Panel Discussion on Limits of Dissent

We have done our best to protect what we hold most dear, the right to speak, think and study freely.

But there is a higher responsibility that this institution carries, and that is the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and the community in which we live.

Credible threats of violence have been directed at the College and members of the panel. These threats have been turned over to the police.

Based on the information available, I have made the decision to cancel this event in the interest of protecting those at risk.

Joan Hinde Stewart
President

http://www.hamilton.edu/news/more_news/display.cfm?ID=9020


Actually, as far as I can determine, O'Reilly is the likely source of your claim that college fundraising, rather than rightwing threats of violence, motivated the college; of course, he provided nothing to back up his assertion:

Character-Assassination 101
http://www.newshounds.us/2005/02/02/characterassassination_101.php


You conclude by saying "There is more than enough clearly documented evidence to show that (Churchill) should be exposed as a grossly insensitive apologist for gay-stoning, anti-feminist, islamofacist murderers." If this is indeed true, you should have no trouble providing such evidence. So why don't you?

[rayofreason]

172. evidence

I looked through the links of Hamilton fundraising campaign (what I included before in the frontpage). It is a major effort to raise a sum equal to almost 1/3 the total current endowment. This whole affair has been a disaster for Hamilton's image and you can be sure that many outraged donors have called the school. This is not to say that there were no death threats - there were. But my experience with universities is that $$ is critical. In fact, the main job of an university president is fundraising. If Hamilton's fundraising campaign went into the toilet over the Churchill invitation, how long would president Stewart last in her position?

Regarding my comments on Churchill, his article is linked to on this thread (#85), and reading it leaves no doubt that he is an apologist for the 9/11 terrorists, blaming the victims ("little Eichmannns"!!!!), and making grossly insensitive comments (the victims were "too busy braying, incessantly and self-importantly, into their cell phones").

The perpertrators of 9/11 were Salafist Jihadis who seek to restablish the Caliphate and impose the kind of theocratic rule that was seen in Afghanistan under the Taliban. So they qualify as "gay-stoning, anti-feminist, islamofacist murderers", and I forgot to mention Buddha-destroying (I was in India when the Taliban blew up the Bamian statues). Considerable information on Al Qaeda and writings of the principals (kind of like "Mein Kampf") can be found at

http://www.lib.ecu.edu/govdoc/terrorism.html

I am especially fond of the Al-Qaeda training manual found in Afghanistan (find it via the Fed. of Amer. Sci. link). It contains gems like -

"The most truthful saying is the book of Allah and the best guidance is that of Mohammed, God bless and keep him. the worst thing is to introduce something new, for every novelty is an act of heresy and each heresy is a deception. "

"Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils. They are established as they have been -- - by pen and gun by word and bullet by tongue and teeth "

"The member of the Organization must be Moslem. How can an unbeliever, someone from a revealed religion , a secular person, a communist, etc. protect Islam and Moslems and defend their goals and secrets when he does not believe in that religion ?....He has to be willing to do the work and undergo martyrdom for the purpose of achieving the goal and establishing the religion of majestic Allah on earth."

and

"The main mission for which the Military Organization is responsible is:
The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime. Other missions consist of the following:
1. Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors. 2. Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.
3. Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.
4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.
5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy.
6. Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.
7. Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.
8. Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the cities."

Churchill should be able say what he wants, set up a blog, whatever, and keep his tenure. He can write incredibly stupid things like 'Nor were they "fanatics" devoted to "Islamic fundamentalism."' in reference to the 9/11 hijackers and should suffer no more than the ridicule of informed readers. And the broader community should be able to see to it that colleges like Hamilton do not reward him (prestige, travel expenses, honorarium) for his outrageous and indefensible views.

[struggle4progress]

178. So the only support you can give your statement ...

... ("I don't buy the death threat excuse for a minute. Hamilton revoked the invitation because they got a lot of heat from donors, not because of threats of violence.") is that Hamilton is indisputably trying to raise money. In my experience, most colleges are fundraising most of the time ...

Churchill (elsewhere this thread) sounds rather different than in your portrayal: "I am not a 'defender' of the September 11 attacks, but simply pointing out that if U.S. foreign policy results in massive death and destruction abroad, we cannot feign innocence when some of that destruction is returned."

Do you simply object to being warned about blowback?

Note the date on the following article:

Frankenstein the CIA created
Mujahideen trained and funded by the US are among its deadliest foes, reports Jason Burke in Peshawar
Sunday January 17, 1999
<snip> American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up. Since the fall of the Soviet puppet government in 1992, another 2,500 are believed to have passed through the camps. They are now run by an assortment of Islamic extremists, including Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist. <snip>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/yemen/Story/0,2763,209260,00.html


Incidently, the "Al-Qaeda training manual found in Afghanistan," which you cite, is probably based on an earlier manual provided to the mujahideen by the CIA during the Reagan years. Enough such CIA manuals are known; for example:

... These documents, including an instructional guide on assassination found among the training files of the CIA's covert "Operation PBSUCCESS," were among several hundred records released by the Agency on May 23, 1997 on its involvement in the infamous 1954 coup in Guatemala ...
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/

CIA Textbook on Psychological Operations In Guerrilla Warfare
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/guerilla.htm

[rayofreason]

183. more on Churchill

1. While universities are always raising money, a major campaign is a horse of a different color. That Hamilton is in the midst of a HUGE campaign will certainly lead to special circustances. A president who causes such a campaign to flounder will be fired. And so I do not accept Hamilton's statement at face value.

2. The fact that the US used the Jihadis as allies against the USSR when it was convenient in no way affects the basic point that the 9/11 hijackers were Salafist Jihadis, and all that that implies. For more on the ideological premises of the Jihadi movement please see the following interview with Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/105/22.0.html

Reading this interview, how can any progressive align themselves in any way with these guys? Churchill say that he is not "...a 'defender' of the September 11 attacks", then turns around and gives justifications for the attack and praises the terrorists, while referring to them as "secular" and combatants in a war that "...has been waged more-or-less continuously by the "Christian West" – now proudly emblematized by the United States – against the "Islamic East" since the time of the First Crusade, about 1,000 years ago." What an ahistorical idiot. Egypt, Syria, Libya, Anatolia were all Christian for hundreds of years before the Islamic invasions. So who did what to whom and when? Shall irridentism run amok? Churchill spouts a nonsense argument that presupposes the correctness of the Jihadi view. He is an apologist for the Jihadis, pure and simple.

3. A while back on this thread, DalvaThree posted-

"I read that he's considered a hack and a phony in many Native American circles"

Two people, yourself included, questioned this accusation since there was no evidence provided. In my comment I said " I don't know... what his standing is in the Native American community", but I did comment on his seeming intolerance for speech with which he objects.

Well, a friend sent me something so that now I know how Churchill is viewed in the Native American community. HE IS A FRAUD. Harsh? Not nearly as harsh as the statement by The American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council. Check it out.

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

People like Churchill give all progressives a bad name and I am glad that AIM stepped forward to denounce him.

Despite it all, Churchill should not be fired for holding his screwed-up views. But he should be exposed for what he is, and all people who value human liberty should shun him.

[struggle4progress]

185. As far as I can tell, absolutely nobody on this thread has ...

... supported the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, your continuing insinuations to the contrary notwithstanding, and I am beginning to have some difficulty imagining pleasant explanations for what appears to be a selective deafness on your part.

In response to DalvaThree's inability to understand what sort of link was requested to support his views, I certainly did make an effort to clarify. DalvaThree never responded, but today several such news links did spring up. In my view, they raise fascinating questions about the schismatics between AIMGGC and COAIM and about the nature of ongoing government disruption of citizen movements, as I already have indicated in an earlier post. However, except as possible evidence of coordinated "Huff-n-puff," that issue seems irrelevant to the current controversy.

[rayofreason]

189. my point

...is not that people on this thread support Al Qaeda, but that Ward Churchill seems to, and that that is enough for me to reject him. In fact, most people on this thread have condemned Churchill's comments and seem to agree that shunning him is the best way to deal with him, but that to fire him would be wrong.

[Psephos]

163. You cut right to the heart of the matter, rayofreason n/t

[Name removed]

146. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

147. Which of his books did you actually read?

[Skeptic2]

143. Absolutely Agree.

Indeed so. Death threats against someone for expressing their views, no matter how reviled, and stripping people of tenure, should be absolutely condemned.

Today he gets stripped of tenure, tomorrow, anybody who doesn't vote for candidate X gets stripped of tenure. Today death threats for speaking outrageously, tomorrow, for speaking the truth.

That said, he should be shunned and simply ignored. Let him "explain" how the 9/11 victims in the twin towers had it coming to his following lunatic fringe folks, and let other folks shun him.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean anybody has to listen...

[Mr.Green93]

128. What does Kristin Breitweiser

have to say about this? Her backing could put a stop to this railroading.

[Dangerman]

154. I somehow agree with Ward Churchill.

In my view 9/11 was a retaliation for what we did in Iraq for the past fourteen years and our support to Israel's right-wing occupation of Palestine.

We bomb another person's house, he bombs ours.

[reorg]

161. Eichmann

There seems to be some confusion about the role, function and mindset of Adolf Eichmann -- in this article as well as in some of the responses in this thread.

Hannah Arendt observed the "banality of evil" in Eichmann, a trivial tool who in fact was just a "Hanswurst", a fool that carried out his administrative and planning tasks regardless of what their consequences were. Eichmann was in fact not literally a killer, he did not even see anything of the killings and he did not plan the killings as such.

"Eichmann, who carried out Adolf Hitler's systematic extermination of the Jews during World War II" ...

is therefore a completely misleading statement.

No, he planned the orderly execution of train timetables. He was organizing the MASS TRANSPORTS to Auschwitz. In this way, he definitely participated, and was definitely guilty. Yet he saw himself as just an efficient and reliable public servant and nothing else (and was proud how well he had carried out his task ...).

The professor, of course, refers to exactly this aspect of Eichmann's mindset in his essay.

You are not innocent, and may even be directly guilty of participating in death and destruction -- even if you "just do your job" under a fascist regime, however innocuous this job may appear to yourself.

[struggle4progress]

165. Professor Is Assailed by Legislature and Vandals

... Ward Churchill ... said yesterday that his truck had been painted with swastikas overnight as it sat in his driveway. The Boulder County Sheriff's Department said it was investigating ...

The Colorado governor, Bill Owens, has called for the university to fire Professor Churchill, but yesterday, Michael Carrigan, a newly elected member of the University of Colorado Board of Regents, said it was unlikely that any action would be taken when the board holds an emergency meeting today. "He can be fired, but not tomorrow," Mr. Carrigan said yesterday.

Professor Churchill said in an interview yesterday that he would sue if fired. "I am on firm legal ground," he said, adding that several lawyers who specialize in free speech have already contacted him. He said he had received more than 100 death threats ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/03/nyregion/03hamilton.html

[poe]

171. You are on the mark S4P-Those who criticize churchill

are either in denial of american history, haven't read any of his stuff, think sound byte politics and keyboard activism are effective, don't wish to see the bigger picture of what is happenig here...
I published an essay, "America and Islam: Seeking Parallels," in Counterpunch on December 29, 2004. A day later, I began to receive nasty and threatening emails, all at once. These were orchestrated by a www.littlegreenfootballs.com. Shortly thereafter, other right-wing websites got into act, posting excerpts from the essay; these included jihadwatch.org, campuswatch.org, frontpagemag.com, freerepublic.com, etc. The messages posted on these websites were equally vicious, and some of them, containing explicit death threats, were 'kindly' forwarded to me.It appears that Bill O'Reilly is doing a series on 'unAmerican' professors on US campuses. Last night, my wife tells me, he did a piece on Ward Churchill. Tonight will be my turn. I expect he will make all kinds of outlandish accusations that will resonate well with the left- and Muslim-hating members of his audience. This will generate calls and emails to Northeastern and to me ? containing threats, calls for firing me, and threats to withhold donations. I am not sure how well NU will stand up against this barrage.

It is now acceptable to threaten the lives of antiwar activists, as Tom Frank did recently at the New Republic. As I wrote in a email to the New Republic, “Mr. Frank’s remarks bring to mind Hitler’s Sturmabteilung, or brownshirts, paramilitary goons who not only talked about using physical violence against their opponents but engaged in it with frighteningly sadistic and, eventually, genocidal results. Is it possible the writers and editors of the New Republic wish to emulate the actions of the Nazis, responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people?”
All decent people, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, should denounce the views of Ward Churchill,” Bill Owens, the Republican governor of Colorado, writes in a letter he sent to Isaiah Lechowit, the president of the University of Colorado College Republicans, who will read it to a lynch mob demanding the resignation of Churchill, the latest victim of the Bushzarro world purge of academe. “Not only are his writings outrageous and insupportable, they are at odds with the facts of history.”

Are they really?
The Christian pastor Martin Niemoller is credited with saying, "In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph: Haile Selassie

All somnabulists arise!

[struggle4progress]

187. As extremists go about spray-painting swastikas while phoning in ...

... death threats, Colorado's politicians, rather than taking a courageous stand against mob rule, cynically stand back and point their fingers -- but not at the mob. It is simply disgusting, and I am afraid the Niemoller quote is apt.

I am very sorry to hear that you have received death threats. Please make sure that lots of real flesh-and-blood friends and acquaintances, people who live and work near you, are aware of each separate incident. And I hope you are talking, not only to the newspapers and police and politicians, but also to a lawyer.

[poe]

191. i botched my post- death threats were not levied at me they were...

levied at M. Shahid Alam a Muslim Professor at Northeastern U. in Boston. Please read his entire article with links to voice your support at /www.counterpunch.org/shahid02022005.html
O'Reilly's Fatwah on "Un-American" Professors

FoxNews Puts Me In Its Crosshairs

By M. SHAHID ALAM

I published an essay, "America and Islam: Seeking Parallels," in Counterpunch on December 29, 2004. A day later, I began to receive nasty and threatening emails, all at once. These were orchestrated by a www.littlegreenfootballs.com. Shortly thereafter, other right-wing websites got into act, posting excerpts from the essay; these included jihadwatch.org, campuswatch.org, frontpagemag.com, freerepublic.com, etc. The messages posted on these websites were equally vicious, and some of them, containing explicit death threats, were 'kindly' forwarded to me.
What else can we do?

The contact information for President Richard Freeland is available
at:

http://155.33.227.141/president/letters.nclk

Contact for Provots and Senior VP for Academic Affairs:

Ahmed Abdelal
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost
112 Hayden Hall
[phone]
[e-mail]

The contacts for the leading people in the President's office are
available here:

http://www.president.neu.edu/cabinet.html

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

James Stellar
100 Meserve Hall
Northeastern University
360 Huntington Ave.
Boston, MA 02115
[e-mail]
[phone]

M. Shahid Alam, professor of economics at Northeastern University, is a regular contributor to CounterPunch.org. Some of his CounterPunch essays are now available in a book, Is There An Islamic Problem (Kuala Lumpur: The Other Press, 2004). He may be reached at [e-mail].

[struggle4progress]

192. Thanks for clarifying that. eom

[Skeptic2]

169. Hamilton College didn't exactly cover itself in glory here...

It was faced with a dilemma.

Clearly, the man should never have been invited in the first place. But once he was, they faced a tough choice: either they stick with him and come off as insensitive to the suffering of the victims' families, or they cancel it and come off as cowards.

So what do these brain surgeons do? As long as the protests and outrage was just from the 9/11 victims and the public, they stuck with him... until they recieve a death threat, which caused them to disinvite him in a heartbeat.

This way, they managed to come off as BOTH insensitive to the suffering of the victims' families AND as cowards at the same time! Way to go, Hamilton College!

[struggle4progress]

180. Regents apologize, administrators begin dismissal process

By CATHERINE TSAI
Associated Press Writer

<snip> A 30 day review of Ward Churchill's speeches and writings would determine whether the American Indian Movement activist and tenured professor should be removed from his post, interim Chancellor Phil DiStefano said. <snip>

The regents said they would not take public comment because it was a special meeting, prompting an outcry from some of the 35 students who showed up to support Ward Churchill with signs that read ''protect academic freedom'' and ''witch hunt.'' <snip>

At the regents meeting, Steven Crow, a 64-year-old CU-Denver architecture student, told the students they had just prevented the regents from free speech, then called them ''fascist thugs.'' He later said Churchill has a right to free speech but not on the taxpayers' dollar. <snip>

Bintliff said the professors were there to support the principle of academic freedom. <snip>

http://www.casperstartribune.net/apdata/wire_detail.php?wire_num=205847

[rayofreason]

184. Churchill AIM fraud

Ward Churchill does not represent the AIM. Here is what the American Indian Movement Grand Governing Council has to say about Churchill, and it is devastating -

http://www.aimovement.org/moipr/churchill05.html

The more I learn about this guy, the worse it gets.

[struggle4progress]

186. See post #182. eom

[rayofreason]

190. Interesting.

Sorry I missed this earlier.

My opinion is that Churchill is sincere in his views and that he is not a deep cover agent whose mission is the make AIM look bad. I just think that he is an opportunist who grabbed a hold of this persona as a means to gain a platform for his views. To imagine that someone could be such a deep cover plant, over decades, through multiple administrations including Clinton, stretches credulity past the breaking point.