November 26, 2006

A Challenge to Libertarian "Reason"

Hatched by Dafydd

Here is the fact situation of this gedankenexperiment:

  • A seemingly wealthy man named Achmed Khalid Mohammed Abu Fatwa lives in a high rise in Green City, surrounded by other high rises. He lives on the 15th floor -- he owns the entire floor -- of a 60-story building that houses 4,000 people. Similar high rise condo complexes surround this one.
  • Abu Fatwa tells everyone he meets that he hates and despises Jews, infidels, and especially Americans. He wishes they were all dead. He would be overjoyed if Allah would stretch forth His hand and crush them all, insh'allah.
  • He talks often about how his religion teaches that the most holy and righteous act a man can undertake is to die as a martyr killing the unclean. He prays that someday, he will be given that opportunity.
  • The owner of the local hardware store says that Abu Fatwa has ordered many tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer over the last three years; but you know as well as anyone that Abu Fatwa has no farmland, no fields, not even a window flowerpot.
  • The manager of a local camping store tells you that Abu Fatwa has likewise spent the last three years stocking up on massive quantities of kerosine, saying he likes to go camping and barbecue shish-kabob.
  • Abu Fatwa is known to have an extensive background in mining back in Saudi Arabia, whence he came. He might have knowledge of explosives, but nobody knows for sure.
  • He has not left his apartments for the last month; everything he needs he orders.
  • He can dimly be heard to be praying almost constantly, day and night;
  • But nobody can honestly recall ever hearing him explicitly threaten anyone or say that he is going to do anything to anyone. He has only talked in a general, philosophical way about his terrible hatreds and his love of martyrdom. He owns the 15th floor; he has no criminal background; he has no known contact with unsavory characters. He does have a high-speed internet connection.

Now, Mr. Libertarian... what do you believe should be done?

  1. The cops should raid Abu Fatwa's apartments, secure him, and search the place for explosives;
  2. The cops should surveil him as best they can, tapping his phone and trying to read his internet connection, hoping that before he does anything he will talk openly about it over some electronic instrument;
  3. Nothing! Regardless of what our anti-Moslem, anti-Arab prejudices may lead us to think, he has not made any overt threat to anyone; hence, the State has no moral right to invade his home or interrogate him. It is no crime to buy fertilizer; it is no crime to buy fuel oil; and it certainly is no crime to believe in an extreme form of Islamism.

Please answer in the comments -- and argue whether your answer conforms to your philosophy (and how so), or whether it violates it (and what principle allows you to do so).

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, November 26, 2006, at the time of 5:04 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/1512

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Challenge to Libertarian "Reason":

» The Times - Are They a-Changin'? Not Really. from Big Lizards
The Atlanta Journal Constitution has a new story up: the informant who was said to have bought drugs at the Atlanta house that was later raided by cops, resulting in the death of 88 year old (not 92) Kathryn Johnston,... [Read More]

Tracked on November 28, 2006 2:18 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin

It was not included - though I think implied - where the fertilizer and kerosine were delivered. If they had information that the ammonium nitrate and kerosine were delivered to the 15th floor (information the suppliers would have been able to provide) then the only acceptable answer is 1. Do a full no knock raid on the 15th floor.

If the materials were delivered elsewhere get warrants to search those locations and begin aggressive surveillance. If the materials cannot be located and determined to have been used innocently, execute option 1 immediately.

Abu Fatwa's actions are sufficient to raise suspicion and would do so if you substituted the name John Smith.

Maximizing the state of liberty does not have to mean ignoring any possible danger and doing nothing until after something blows up.

The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 5:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: gsbaker

The authorities should immediately do all possible to locate the explosives. This would include #1 searches and delivery investigations.

Philosophy: The state has no right to require us to act as idiots.

The above hissed in response by: gsbaker [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 6:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Number 1.

But if I got the jest of the comments right in your last post there should be a number 4 for our Libertarian freinds.

4. Abu Fatwa has every right to hate America because it is an oppressive police state, he should be allowed to act upon that hate just so long as none of the victims are me and in fact if any police officer does attempt a search of the Fatwa's residence he has not only the right but the moral obligation to kill the cop, because the police are the real enemy.

I know because I was a victim of said police state myself or my cousin was.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 6:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I should have said the jest of the comments to your last post. Not in.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 7:17 AM

The following hissed in response by: socialism_is_error

Beyond that, Terrye, you should have typed "gist", instead of "jest". ;}

The above hissed in response by: socialism_is_error [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 7:23 AM

The following hissed in response by: socialism_is_error

...although, truly, Dafydd is given to jests, as well.

The above hissed in response by: socialism_is_error [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 7:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: Walter in Denver

I don't see how this has anything to do with Ms. Johnston's case, which is how this all started. Unless you're worried about someone using crack cocaine to blow up buildings, ...err... something.

The above hissed in response by: Walter in Denver [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 7:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: Beerme

An interesting gedankenexperiment, but one which presupposes such behavior would be acceptable had the subject been an American named John Smith. This behavior would easily be considered suspicious. My son was questioned by the police in our small town after inquiring at a local nursery about a high nitrogen fertilizer.

Of course, the philosophy of libertarianism does not preclude judicial exercise of the intellect...

The above hissed in response by: Beerme [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 8:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: Texas Jack

I must agree with Mr. Macklin. Double check the avalable facts as quickly as possible, encluding delivery destination, then if no mitigating factors can be found, go in. The situation Dafydd has described is not a minor drug bust, and as with everything else in real life, the situation must control the response.
All of my weapons are loaded (2 rifles, 2 shotguns, 1 handgun and considering a second) so I might not survive a no-knock raid, but the police down here are a little more careful than in some of the anti-gun states. No-knock is used, but carefully, because home invasion has become a severe problem in Houston and the surrounding areas. LEOs here know many homeowners are well armed (and frightened), even if they don't have a concealed carry permit. Perhaps the situation here will change if/when we regain control of our borders.

The above hissed in response by: Texas Jack [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 8:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Achmed grows some great marijuana...lots of it. At first, he tried using just the electric on his 15th floor, but he kept blowing main breakers, circuit breakers, and the transformers that fed the entire building. After the third complaint about blowing the building’s transformers, Achmed contacted humble me for some advise.

Achmed was using hundreds of 400 watt, hundreds of 600 watt, and hundreds of 1000 watt grow lights – PLUS – hundreds of thousands of more watts for heating, cooling, humidity controllers, water pumps, etc.

Achmed now uses the building’s provided electric in just his 15th floor living quarters, and MICRO - TURBINE ELECTRIC GENERATOR SYSTEM/s (converted to kerosine) for his marijuana growing operation.

Yes, Achmed has bought kerosine and ammonium nitrate, but he has also bought lots of grow lights, lots of potassium sulfate, lots of superphosphate, lots of triple superphosphate, and lots of other items that he uses to grow marijuana. Yes, it is illegal, but so is many other activities; however, Achmed is not a terrorist plotting to blow up his building, his valuable plants, and/or himself.

;-)

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 8:37 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

socialism in error:

You are absolutely correct. That is what I get for not using preview. I am a law unto myself. Preview, I don't need no stinkin preview.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 8:49 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Busting down the door of an apartment/home of a person suspected of possible terrorist activities is just gonna get the building blown up. Remember booby-traps?

So the guy has broadband? Fine. Get a warrant, prove your fears are grounded, watch what he says online. If it's innocuous, dump the file, if it's damning, see if you can lure him out so you can get in there without sacrificing the whole building.

Essentially, if you think there is a significant enough possibility of him blowing up the building, don't force him to do so on your schedule. ;)

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 9:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

I never claimed to be Libertarian. If the evidence says there's a strong possibility Abu's turned the 15th floor into a bomb I'd pump it full of sleeping gas and bust through a wall to enter. Of course if it was just me without having to convince anyone to help I'd get the "sleeping" gas from the Russians.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 12:42 PM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I want to know why you know all of this about my good friend Achmed. How do you know that he buys fertilizer and kerosene, and why were you even looking? Do you know how much fertilizer I buy? That my neighbors buy?

If you can show me that you had reason, other than religion or national origin, to become suspicious of Achmed and THEN checked his purchase history, you have the basis of a search warrant, and probable cause to execute same on his dwelling. At that point I don't care whether he is a member of the Swedish Bikini Team, he needs to be investigated, questioned, surveilled.

I would also allow that Ahmed's country of origin, immigration status, and religion might make him a "person of interest" to authorities completely independent of any other marker. This is consistent with my principles because I believe we must follow the law and protect civil rights UP TO the point where we have substantial conflicts with common sense and self-preservation. There's a war on, you know.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 1:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

snochasr:

Every since Tim McVeigh decided to declare war on the federal government, authorities do keep track of that sort of thing.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 2:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: L'Supreemo

There's never a deconstructionist when you need one, but context is everything, in this case location, location, location.

Achmed's actions have much less importance on a ranch than in a high-rise. A slow, measured response is appropriate in a rural setting, but not with 45 foors of citizens above.

My own civil rights are useful only if I'm alive to enjoy them. Possible threats to my life are therefore to be acted upon, like that lump in my armpit.

BTW KarmiCommi, a 100Kw turbine generator in a high-rise is a threat, per se, to the rest of the building, as is the "special" wiring to the grow-lites.

The above hissed in response by: L'Supreemo [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 2:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Say, this is interesting... whatever happened to DrMalaka, Nick, and SkyWatch? Walter in Denver at least showed up -- but he refused to answer the question.

Maybe they're not aware there are other posts on Big Lizards. I'll leave a note in the other post.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 3:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Martin Hague

Libertarians, and I am one of those, have descended into self-parody on the subject of security. They talk like anarchists.

It is possible to believe in the presumptive rights of the individual over those of the state, without believing that any action on the part of law enforcement represents a mortal threat to civil liberties.

In fact, their absolutist construct is a good reason why the party doesn't get much traction in elections. They appear kooky.

The above hissed in response by: Martin Hague [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 3:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

I'm here dafydd, just taking a break. Folks were starting to take things personaly in the last post so I was going to chill for a bit but you asked here you go.

In the case described I would say #2 after they got a warrant. It doesn't go against my believes because I think I may have been mistaken for someone I am not and tagged with a label.

I am not Liberal - I like to say they are socialists but as they are against anything a American reguardles of if it's a socialist idea or not I would have to say the current crop are anti-American more then socialist.

I am not a Republican- They seem to think that the people shouldn't question authority and that as long as something is good for business then it's good.

I am not a Libertarian- I flurted with them back when Harry Brown was running but the more I learned of them like they don't mind if a neighbor builds a nuke in thier basement or that Bill Gates should be able to by a aircraft carrier and go all over doing God knows what the more I got turned off. After 9/11 I gave up on the party since they didn't want to do about the only thing a government should do. Protect the nation from outside forces.


I do believe in checking things out that don't seem right. such is the case above. However, it shouldn't be on a informants info that gave the info to stay out of prison.

I do believe in a super strongh military. However, it should never be used unless we go ALL in. Meaning we don't care what the weasels say. When we find a bad guy we kill him or he surrenders. I am also against torcher but believe in using truth serum on the head honchos. If it screws up thier brains ...ooh well.

I do believe there must be a government program to feed and help the old folks stay in thier homes. However, I would also let anyone who is able to work but chooses not to starve.

I'm not sure I fit any party. I'm just chalk full of contradictions.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 4:22 PM

The following hissed in response by: Walter in Denver

I didn't refuse, exactly. I just didn't think the question was relevant to our previous discussion.

Anyway, there's a false dichotomy between options two and three. #2 is the way I'd go, but I'd put a lot more effort into it than just wiretaps. And my bias would probably be to jump to conclusions and ask for a warrant on the flimsiest of evidence.

The above hissed in response by: Walter in Denver [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 5:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas

My answer is the same as that of any other sane libertarian: abu Fatwa's actions constitute more than sufficient probable cause to obtain a search warrant seeking evidence of intention to commit mayhem. And would even if his name were John Smith. And would even if only Bullet Points #4 and #5 were true. The other bullet points would justify going all Mt. Carmel on his ass... as Mt. Carmel itself did not.

To anyone who believes Terrye's proposed #4 is a "libertarian" view, I say that you seem to have confused us with liberals. My answer conforms to my philosophy in that the state has no duty to ignore probable cause to believe a crime is in the making. Rather, my philosophy would argue that the state compensate abu Fatwa for any harm he sustains should the raid prove unjustified.

As you may have noticed, many libertarians utterly fail to draw a significant distinction between the rights of an individual versus the rights of the state. Libertarians believe in the sanctity of private property; we do not believe that this means that a passerby can't burst down your door if he hears somebody scream "HELP! HE'S TRYING TO KILL ME!" from behind it. If the passerby turns out to have been in error, he owes you a new door.

To Martin Hague: this is precisely why I call myself a libertarian and not a Libertarian, because the capitalized word has been usurped by a bunch of cast iron idiots. The Libertarian Party is full of complete morons from top to bottom. This is why, if I must self-apply a capitalized label, I call myself a Neolibertarian.

By the way, Dadydd, the name you choose to represent this hypothetical Arab-American is very nearly racist, akin to describing a hypothetical African-American as Coony McWatermelon.

The above hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 5:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: kes

I hit the wrong button before I finished. I think I submitted the first half of this.
I don't understand the "Tag" thing.

To continue
Option 2 should begin anytime our defense forces have any suspicion about someone who fits this profile.
If they gather enough evidence, then the raid becomes appropriate.
This is a War. The islamic warriors made that decission.

The above hissed in response by: kes [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 7:09 PM

The following hissed in response by: kes

Ok, the first part dissapeared. Here it is again.

For over 1300 years Islam has been generating warriors whose purpose is to kill or subjegate non-believers.
When they only had swords and guns, and could not transport or communicate over great distances, we could ignor them or if they encroached to far towards us we could defeat them.
Now that they have access to large sums of money to create or buy big weapons and have the ability to travel far or comunicate anywhere, we cannot wait until we see the massed army on the horizon to react.
If we see the war that this is, the answer is easy for me. See post above.

The above hissed in response by: kes [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 7:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jonathan Haas:

By the way, Dadydd, the name you choose to represent this hypothetical Arab-American is very nearly racist, akin to describing a hypothetical African-American as Coony McWatermelon.

Really? What race does it demean?

The difference between the name I used and the one you used above is that each of the names I used -- including the nickname "Abu Fatwa" -- is a real name I have seen used by a terrorist.

Nobody is actually named either Coony or McWatermelon.

The point of this post is not to trash libertarians, of which I still (reluctantly) consider myself one, but to smoke out the particular libertarians who responded to the post about the 92 year old woman who was shot in Atlanta by asserting that police were so immoral in raiding her house that her death is tantamount to murder.

Two of them have now finally responded; but each decided to temporize, going for choice 2: "The cops should surveil him as best they can, tapping his phone and trying to read his internet connection, hoping that before he does anything he will talk openly about it over some electronic instrument."

Walter In Denver and SkyWatch:

The plot thickens: you surveil Abu Fatwa, but he says nothing over the phone or the internet that you can positively identify as a discussion of a terrorist act. He says some things that sound like they could be code, but you can't break it.

He calls numbers in Saudi Arabia, but the numbers don't correspond with any specific terrorists or terrorist-affiliated organizations. He views websites that are very militant Islamist, but he never posts anything on the known terrorist bulletin boards. He also doesn't read Big Lizards.

In other words, none of your surveillance either confirms or disproves the hypothesis that Abu Fatwa may be about to blow up the building in a "martyrdom operation."

So now what?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 8:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

I am done with that game. I fail to see how anyone can think when a 92 year old woman gets killed. "Yea, that's a bad thing." then have the attitude load up boys we have another house to raid.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 9:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

As you can probably guess, I consider that there is already plenty of probable cause to go in hard and fast in any way that a paramilitary team considers the safest for the building, seize Abu Fatwa, arrest him for attempted (or actual) possession of an explosive device with the intent to use it for a terrorist act, and of course thoroughly search the entire floor (after evacuating the building) and seize anything that looks like it could be bomb-making materials.

In addition, Abu Fatwa should be taken by DHS to a place where he can be interrogated by the military: Guantanamo Bay, for example. And all of his contacts should be surveilled.

The fact situation, as I set it up, would almost certainly be enough for any federal judge or magistrate to issue a search and arrest warrant as is, without any additional surveillance; the proof of purchase of that much AN and FO alone would do it, especially when the person has no legitimate reason to possess such.

Choice 3 is obviously ridiculous; its purpose was drive the ultra-libertarians to choice 2... which is, of course, a shuck.

Rather than deciding, they decided not to decide... but instead, just keep gathering evidence (or non-evidence), gathering and gathering, and they would still be gathering when the building when up in a cataclysmic explosion, killing everyone inside plus lots of people in the surrounding condo complexes.

It seems to have had the desired effect. Perhaps those who responded -- and those who chose not to respond -- will stop and think a bit about this not so incredible hypothetical case:

Is the right of Achmed Khalid Mohammed Abu Fatwa to be free of unreasonable search and seizure more important than the thousands of lives that could be lost if he is indeed plotting a massive suicide bombing?

Is it even unreasonable to search and seize, given the facts as they were presented?

And what do you think would be reaction of the country if there were no search because the cops couldn't get a warrant (or they thought they couldn't, so they didn't even try), and it turned out he was doing exactly what it appeared he was doing... and he succeeded?

Would the American people respond by congratulating the judge for standing up for civil liberties and not yielding to prejudice? Or would they demand such severe restrictions on civil liberties in the future that even the libertarians would long for the days of the Patriot Act?

Think about it: how do people react when they believe their lives and their children's lives are in imminent peril?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 9:15 PM

The following hissed in response by: Walter in Denver

Obviously you don't have to wait for a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard to ask for a warrant. And life's not perfect - you might invade an innocent's residence or you might fail to stop a terrorist attack.

As realistic libertarians say, utopia is not an option.

The above hissed in response by: Walter in Denver [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 9:16 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Well, Dafydd, since you gave the answer I now feel free to comment since I am not a Libertarian (but possibly have a small "l" libertarian streak).

It seems to me that God not only gave us life but He also said that "It is very good". So that if we defend our lives or the lives of other innocents, we are morally justified. That we ourselves do not sully our souls with the very same sin we are trying to prevent is why He gave us sense and sensibility. You don't advocate shooting Mr. Fatwa out of hand and neither do I. I won't go on. Like I said, you gave the answer to your question.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 9:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

Dafydd, I am here, just had a busy day running through about five years of work expenses and contracts. I really like your blog. My favorites on Firefox just got deleted and when I redid my home pages I added your page and deleted a couple of the supposed libertarian pages I used to read.

In the case above, the authorities would have been notified of the large purchase of amonium nitrate and should investigate it. A non farmer living in an apartment building raises suspicion with this purchase and the state has a duty to protect its citizens, that is why dangerous chemicals or exlosives are not available at the 7/11. I believe that citizens should not be allowed to harm other citizens, so when flags are raised by a situation then the authorities should investigate in order to protect us.

The key here is investigate. I am not advocating burrying our heads in the sand, I just want to see a little common sense used in police work. Get a search warrant and monitor the premises. You're the darn (look at that, no cursing) police, you should be able to do this. Use a listening device, get an apartment in an adjacent tower to get a visual. Then when you have more information use that to make an informed decision on how to proceed from there.

Jumping to conclusions and busting down the door in this case could lead to a catastrophy. What if he has the place rigged to explode in the event of forced entry?

My point on the other post as in this one, and I made it clear, was that common sense must be used. Using SWAT teams to invade a non-violent person's home is not the way police should behave. Busting down a 92 year old woman's door to find a pot dealer is stupid. Nothing good comes of acting like this, and the case at hand proved that perfectly, we ended up with three cops shot and a dead old lady. Is that what we want to happen here?

Be smart, this could be a volatile situation, so do your work quickly, but get informed. I don't understand what is so hard to comprehend about this concept. Of course a guy like Terrye can't see this becuase he loves police so much he must be a cop, he loves the concept of going in with guns blazing. Dude, chill out, grab a donut and educate yourself about a situation before you react.

But don't blame me for stating the obvious, that people do not trust police in general. Instead of getting upset at me for stating it, why not try to figure out why people don't trust the police. I am a law abiding citizen, well educated, white, male. If I don't trust the cops then who will? And I believe that the drug war and traffic stops (revenue generation) are two of the main reasons citizens do not trust cops.

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 9:38 PM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

Daffyd, one more thing, can you get a favorite icon for the site so that it shows up as a little image in front of the web address instead of a blank white page, it makes your site more identifiable in bookmarking and in Firefox tabs.

Thanks
Dr.M

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 26, 2006 9:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

DrMalaka:

There is already plenty enough reasonable cause for a warrant to raid the place, just on the basis of what we already know. We don't need further surveillance.

Jumping to conclusions and busting down the door in this case could lead to a catastrophe. What if he has the place rigged to explode in the event of forced entry?

The longer you wait -- and the more cause for suspicion you give, such as moving an agent into the floor immediately above or below Abu Fatwa -- the greater the likelihood that he will booby-trap that door.

If you act immediately, there's a very good chance he won't realize he's been made and won't have prepared traps or dead-man switches. Speed is of the essence!

But don't blame me for stating the obvious, that people do not trust police in general.

One reason they don't is that cops are so often pulling over ordinary citizens in traffic stops instead of raiding obvious threats like Abu Fatwa. If the cops took him down, it would go a long way towards restoring some of the faith people used to have in the bulls... especially if they found explosives.

Look, I've had a number of interactions with the police: most were neutral, but those few that were not were uniformly negative and unpleasant. I have never had a good interaction with a copper, in the sense of being protected by one or having him restore something stolen from me.

I used to live in the Rampart District of the LAPD, where the cops literally did not come when called -- not until long after the incident was over. I ran some gang off of my block. I once had to break up a knife fight between a couple of drunken Mexican immigrants on my front "lawn;" I couldn't stop them any other way, so I pumped a shotgun shell into the dirt at their feet. That got their attention, and they ran off.

I lived through the LA riots; buildings were burnt to the ground all around my place, as close as two blocks. I saw the cops run off and leave us all in the lurch. The neighbors and I set up barricades and patrolled our small stretch of street... and there was no looting or burning in our "territory."

I have as much reason as anyone to hate and distrust cops. But I don't: I realize that the kind of guy who becomes a policeman is exactly the kind of guy you'd expect to become a policeman.

Someone like Harry Browne (or Stephen Yagman) would never even apply to the police academy; to paraphrase what is rapidly becoming my second favorite politician quotation of my adult lifetime, you go to the streets with the cops you have, not the angels in uniform you wish you would have.

It's hard for me to believe that Granny had no idea her grandson/tenant/whatever was dealing dope; more likely, she knew but denied it to herself and hoped the cops would never find out.

When guys burst through your door and yell "police!", and you know that people in your household have been committing felonies, the rational conclusion is that they really are the police.

And the rational response is to submit, not try to shoot it out with a handful of mean-looking men.

In the vast majority of cases, if you immediately submit, the cops will neither beat you nor shoot you. There are exceptions, but that's still the way to bet it.

Dafydd, one more thing, can you get a favorite icon for the site so that it shows up as a little image in front of the web address instead of a blank white page, it makes your site more identifiable in bookmarking and in Firefox tabs.

Sounds cool. How do I do it?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 12:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I think any reasonable person would treat this crime beforehand the same as we ought to treat crime after the fact-- as an exercise in reasonable judgement that, at this point, has fallen out of favor with our courts. Too much law, not enough justice, I say.

The solution is simple: When a criminal case is presented, either for a search warrant or during trial, the first consideration must be the truth. If the person is guilty of the charges, the appropriate penalty is applied. There is no such thing as "escaping on a technicality." AFTER that, we can have another trial if conditions warrant, the charges being that the police failed to follow proper procedures (an administrative police matter) or that they actively violated the (now properly jailed) criminal's civil rights by singling him out unfairly, without probable cause, beat him, whatever, and the police might face criminal charges as well. This "fruit of the poison tree" thing just makes everybody sicker.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 2:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Well I live in a small town, so the cops here are people we all know and I have never heard anyone say they think it is ok to shoot at them. It is not exactly Mayberry but it is not some crime infested urban cesspool either. I think where people live has something to do with how they feel about cops.

And I never said that I thought it was ok for a 92 year old woman to get shot by cops, but that situation did not just pop out of nowhere. What was that neighborhood like? How many violent crimes took place there in a week or 2? People say the cops have no right to kick in a door when they have a warrant? Well then maybe some of these people need to do a better job of policing these neighborhoods themselves. If they did that warrant might never have been issued. That is the point.

And in a case like Dafydd mentioned here, it should be remembered that the Millenium bomber was stopped by an observant customs agent at the Canada/U.S. border and if she had not had the authority to stop that terrorist and pop that trunk thousands could have died.

So rather than call all cops murderers for returning fire when they are shot at when serving a warrant... perhaps people should attack the process rather than the cops.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 4:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: SkyWatch

Some of you seem to be wanting a one size fits all policy. Some of the most stupid policies we have are the one size fits all instead of using some common sence.

Here is your little thought exercise Dafydd (tho I know you are more educated then I so can come up with a good sounding answer.)


In the local highschool, two boys go into the restroom. One of them starts showing off the new pocket knife he just got. A third little boy sees this and runs to tell the school cop that kids are exchanging weapons in the bathroom. This one size fits all mentality says that the cop should draw his weapon, call for backup and go running into the restroom prepared to kill kids on the say so of one little misinformed boys info.

In another school, One girl is having menstrual pain so her friend gives her an tylenal. A third girl sees this and tells the school cop that girls are exchanging drugs. The one size fits all mentality says the cop drawls his gun,call for backup and goes to get them prepared to kill them.

You may think this is silly but it is no different then you saying the cops should not treat the drug dealer(Johnston case) any differently then your bomb maker question.


As for shooting cops, words are being attributed to me that I never said. Do I think we should go around shooting cops. Of course not. Do I think it is ok to shoot anyone who comes at me with intent to harm. Yes (cop or not).

I believe we shouldn't hold are civil servants to a lower standard then civilians but that we should hold them to a higher standard. If in the line of my work I do something that is irresponsible a gross violation of responsibility and someone gets killed there is a good chance I will be charged with some form of manslaughter. When is the last time you heard of a cop getting charged with manslaughter or a judge or a DA. It doesn't happen. We hold them to a lower standard then the rest of us.

Hold them to at least the same standard as us. What a wild concept. I must be a nutjob. Next thing you know I will be wanting congress and the senate to live by the same laws as me. A radical I tell you. A radical.

The above hissed in response by: SkyWatch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 5:13 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

SkyWatch:

Why did the police use a dynamic entry in the Atlanta case?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 7:19 AM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Dafydd:

From your last comment to Dr. Malaka. My experiences with the police have been uniformly good. My best: Two detectives who spent a whole day with me to recover a child who had been childnapped by her father in a bitter divorce procceeding, going from house to house and even kicking down a door. A few weeks later I met the same detectives in court in a drug case I was defending. They were there to testify in another case. We sat together in the witness gallery and bellyached about how slowly the judge was moving his call. We were men first, cogs in the machinery of justice second, and no hint of professional rancor that we were on opposite sides. There are also a dozen or so less dramatic instances as well where the police did "serve and protect" me.

While still in law school, I was taught to interact with the police as I would with a judge in court. Firmly but politely. Using my knowledge and education, speaking skills and professional appearance to get them to do what the law requires. So far, it has worked.

I have a four and half-year old daughter and I tell her that the police are her friends. That they protect us from bad guys. One time, "Officer Friendly" stopped by the playground. The kids and parents gathered around and he showed off his handcuffs, baton and taser cartridge. One of the mommies wanted him to say that he arrested kids who don't eat their dinner. He ignored her so she said it again. He again ignored her so she said it one more time. I told her, quietly and politely, that we don't want our kids to be afraid of the police. She understood.

I confess that I have always lived in good neighborhoods and there is nothing about my deportment to alarm a policeman except in the sense that I may be his captain's brother-in- law. I have been told by a policewoman that I "have the look".

If there is a point for this rambling it's related to a comment I made here in a previous thread that "we want to live in America, not Bangladesh". Policemen whose guns and badges are in our service are as much a part of it as four-lane highways and 1,000 foot skyscrapers.

A minor quibble, if that, with your comment about Kathryn Johnston. I prefer to imagine that for a woman of her moxie the "grandson/tenant/whatever" was actually her 25-year old lover. She was not only defending her home, she was defending her man. Extra cool.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 7:32 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas

Dafydd:

Really? What race does it demean?

As I said, Arabs... or, in this case, Arab-Americans.

The difference between the name I used and the one you used above is that each of the names I used -- including the nickname "Abu Fatwa" -- is a real name I have seen used by a terrorist.

Do tell. A Google search for "abu fatwa" reveals a scant four unique results. Two of them are placements of "abu" and "fatwa" next to each other in keyword lists, one was an assumed name by a Halo player, and one was from a Scrappleface-style parody. What real terrorists have used the name "abu Fatwa", and how have they managed such perfect anonymity as to avoid Google's piercing gaze?

The point of this post is not to trash libertarians, of which I still (reluctantly) consider myself one, but to smoke out the particular libertarians who responded to the post about the 92 year old woman who was shot in Atlanta by asserting that police were so immoral in raiding her house that her death is tantamount to murder.

I'm not terribly familiar with the case, but it involved a drug raid, did it not? Since this post posits a hypothetical, let me lay another one on you:

A fascist government ruthlessly and brutally controls its own citizens in a way which would make IngSoc blush. Naturally, literature which is critical of the state and which advocates freedom and democracy is strictly forbidden. Contrary to this injunction, an underground group of freedom-loving citizens runs a clandestine press. When the state becomes aware of this, armed goon squads are sent in, and a gun battle ensues. How many tears do you shed for the agents of the state who lose their lives in this operation?

1. A lot

2. A few

3. None

The above hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 8:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Sheesh, I stop reading for a couple of days and look what happens.

The obvious answer to the original question is surveillance. You want to determine that a crime is being planned/committed. Plus you want to nab any co-conspirators.

Race is illrelevent to the issue. I'd watch the guy if he were named John Smith. Or Tim McVeigh.

And to Mr. Haas - well duh. If we live in a police state and are fighting for freedom then, yeah, defend yourself from the police. No tears.

But if you don't live in a police state, and you aren't involved in criminal activity, then if the cops bust down your door by mistake, don't start shooting up the place. Someone might get hurt.

A little common sense solves most of these dilemmas

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 9:16 AM

The following hissed in response by: DrMalaka

This seems a little strange, everyone posts comments and they are taken as these black and white views with no middle ground. I don't think that is the case. It seems if I read between the lines that most of us are of a somewhat agreeable mindset but we get backed into a corner of defending what we wrote as if all the facts and opinions are set forth in a three paragraph rant.

I want the police to protect me from violent people.

I want the police to protect my mother when she is driving in rush hour in FLA and some idiot is weaving in and out of traffic at 90 mph running up on her bumper.

I want police to arrest anyone smoking or dealing pot in public and around kids.

I want the police to stop violent meth dealers and producers.

I don't want the police to pull over someone doing 80mph on an empty four lane highway at 1am. This of course is our government's fault as they can not tax us any more than they already do so they need to use the cops on the street as roving tax collectors.

I don't want police using SWAT teams to break down doors of the local pot dealer who has never done anything violent in his life. How about you watch him for two days, make sure he is non violent and then knock on his door, he's a pot dealer, not a psycho with a death wish.

I don't want police acting on anonymous informant tips without doing any research and then busting down doors and killing innocent civilians becuase they had the wrong house.

Police have a job to do, but they need to do their job the same way I do mine, as best as I can. I wish I could close every potential deal, but I don't have the time, so I choose the best ones.

There are more people breaking laws every minute than the police can apprehend, so they must choose which ones are the biggest threat and they must protect our safety as innocent bystanders.

All I am asking for is a little common sense, that will go a long way. If in the above case they have a day to do a little snooping then do it. If they don't then yes, they have to go in, the facts are too suspicious.

However, I do think it is sad that ACLU members like Mr. Haas do not understand that we must give up some of our rights to protect our safety. It appears in his world an individual's civil rights trump the civil rights of every other individual to live safely. What is really unfortunate is that people who think like him now are running Congress and have four seats on the Supreme Court.

So Mr. Haas, since you don't support the government infringing on our civil rights in any case I assume you are a very strong supporter of gun rights and that everyone should have a right to carry a concealed weapon.

Dafydd: I will get back to you on the icon, I want to change mine on my site and once I do the work on it I can probably give you a real quick answer.

Terrye: You need to understand and accept that some of us who are law abiding citizens have had bad experiences with cops and our distrust of them is very well founded. We all don't live in small towns where we know all the police. Most of this distrust comes from two main things, the over-zealous drug war and traffic enforcement. Fix those things and watch our attitudes change.

The above hissed in response by: DrMalaka [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 10:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas

It's rather ironic that DrMalaka first castigates people for seeing things in black and white, and then leaps to the conclusion that I'm an ACLU member who refuses to see any balance between civil liberties and public safety. For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the ACLU. Nor would I join the ACLU; whatever noble purpose it may have once served is long gone, and the organization has been completely hijacked by radical leftists, along with the media, the academy, and many other once-respectable institutions.

Assumptions can be tricky things, but DrMalaka's assumption is quite correct; I'm a strong supporter of the right to keep and bear arms, including the right to carry concealed weapons without needing a permission slip from the government. This is a position I share with, I'd wager, a vast majority of libertarians.

I'm not happy that these men are dead. But I'm willing to examine the cause of their deaths, and lay the blame where it belongs. These police officers died enforcing a law that should never have been enacted and which is of highly questionable constitutionality. Their blood was just part of the price we pay to fight the ridiculous War on Drugs... and a rather small portion of the gallons of blood spilled annually in this civil war. When was the last time officers were gunned down raiding a brewery or a tobacco farm or a coffee roaster?

The above hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 12:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Mr. Michael

Dafydd, one more thing, can you get a favorite icon for the site so that it shows up as a little image in front of the web address instead of a blank white page, it makes your site more identifiable in bookmarking and in Firefox tabs.
Sounds cool. How do I do it?

I'm not sure, but I think the RSS readers look for it automatically. For examples:
Captain's Quarters
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/favicon.ico
Powerline:
http://powerlineblog.com/favicon.ico
Michelle Malkin:
http://michellemalkin.com/favicon.ico
LGF:
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/favicon.ico

Each of these are 16x16 pixels, and are URL/favicon.ico

It may not be that easy... but it's worth a shot. ;)

The above hissed in response by: Mr. Michael [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 12:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

to paraphrase what is rapidly becoming my second favorite politician quotation of my adult lifetime, you go to the streets with the cops you have, not the angels in uniform you wish you would have.

i like this one (though i forget who said it): "The problem with picking Police Officers, is that the only place you can choose from is the human race."

A *TOUGH* job...at best.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 2:49 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jonathan Haas:

Really? What race does it demean?

As I said, Arabs... or, in this case, Arab-Americans.

First, "Arabs" are not a race, let alone "Arab-Americans."

Second, none of those names is peculiar to Arab Moslems; they can also be found among Persians, Paks, Pashtun, and Indonesians. They are Moslem names, not specifically Arabic.

Finally, it is inherently absurd to argue that the most common names among Moslems -- Mohammed, Khalid, etc. -- cannot be used for a Moslem character because they're too associated with Moslems!

(I don't recall where I heard the name "Abu Fatwa," but I have seen or heard it before. It may have been a Black Muslim, but I specifically noted it as an interesting name.)

In your hypothetical, I shed no tears for the Fascist goons who raid a group of free-speechers. But I didn't ask whether anyone shed any tears for my terrorist if he were raided... I asked what they would be willing to do. Specifically, were they willing to put theory aside in the face of an urgent threat, a clear and present danger.

Three of the four specific ultra-libertarians whose opinion I wanted to see responded (eventually); and not one of the three suggested we should raid his condo immediately, despite the fact that I believe there is ample probable cause to do so.

Each would go only as far as saying that was enough to tap his phone.

I think they made themselves perfectly clear, and I doubt anything he might have said on the phone -- unless he actually monologued like a supervillain about how he was going to destroy the city next Thursday after afternoon prayers -- would have been enough for them to agree to break into his house and grab him.

Which was exactly my point.

I notice, by the way, that you had no difficulty saying there was plenty of PC to raid his condo. Doesn't it give you pause that none of the big four (one of whom still refuses to respond) thinks so?

Finally, do you honestly mean to argue that a Moslem with a jihadi worldview is no more of a danger than anyone else? That such a philosophy is not itself further probable cause? That there is no relation between believing as, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (or Mahmud Ahmadijejad) does and actually being willing to engage in a martyrdom operation to kill innocent people?

If you say that -- and you came perilously close in an earlier comment -- then I think you're struggling so hard to avoid being what you appear to consider "racist" that you have blinded yourself to the very real cultural madness of jihadis.

Their fundamentalist Islamist religion leads them towards tribalism, away from seeing people of other cultures as fully human, and often towards terrorism... just as contemporary Christianity and Judaism lead people towards respecting the rights of individuals and rejecting tribalism, racism, and violence.

This doesn't mean that all Islamists are terrorists; Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani isn't. Nor does it mean that every Christian or Jew is a nonviolent individualist. But the vast majority of international terrorists and supporters of terrorism come from one, single, very narrow subculture... and that should certainly tell us something profound.

Dafydd

P.S. I do not believe the three police officers who were shot died; I had heard that they survived their shootings. Have you more recent information?

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 2:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman

Yes, Achmed has bought kerosine and ammonium nitrate, but he has also bought lots of grow lights, lots of potassium sulfate, lots of superphosphate, lots of triple superphosphate, and lots of other items that he uses to grow marijuana. Yes, it is illegal, but so is many other activities; however, Achmed is not a terrorist plotting to blow up his building, his valuable plants, and/or himself.

;-)

at November 26, 2006 08:37 AM

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Untrue Achmed has merely set up to plea to a lesser offensive if caught before he has a chance to blow up the building.

The above hissed in response by: Dan Kauffman [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 3:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: nk

Regarding, the three police officers in Atlanta: They were apparently only lightly wounded because they were all three released from the hospital the next day. The same story in the Atlanta Journal Constitution has the snitch denying that he ever purchased drugs at Kathryn Johnston's house and claiming that the police told him to lie.

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 4:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: SDN

On the naming of names:

There IS a gentleman working for my company in the US whose name is: SHAHID SHAH

I would guess that anyone who calls himself Lord Martyr / Lord Jihadi is probably on every watch list in sight.

When Muslims stop being 90%+ of the actual terrorists, let alone the positions of many sects, I'll stop worrying about them.

The above hissed in response by: SDN [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 4:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: Phil Smith

I dunno, but you used "whence" properly, so I'm bookmarking you.

The above hissed in response by: Phil Smith [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 5:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

;-)

Untrue Achmed has merely set up to plea to a lesser offensive if caught before he has a chance to blow up the building.

Sorta true. Actually, Achmed plans on killing a lot more people than are just in his meager building, so he needs to cover his bases, and i can't say much more...since he is my client.

:-)))

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 6:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

On the naming of names:

Speaking of Naming Names...dig that video.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 27, 2006 7:01 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas

(whoops... wasn't aware that this site eats tags and prefers ... the lack of emphasis in certain places makes the above a little harder to read. I apologize)

The above hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 28, 2006 8:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

One thing that surprised me was that no one brought up the Libertarian position of favoring drug legalization. Perhaps that is because most people consider that a lunatic fringe position which more mainstream Libertarians would like to keep quiet, though prudence and discretion have not been an established trademark of Libertarians, in my experience.

I think you have to draw a line here which says that, regardless of the law underlying the situation, you have to insist that the laws be followed and violators be prosecuted, WITHIN the law and including their "civil rights." Again, my complaint is when these so-called civil rights are used to corrupt the finding of truth and dispensing of justice. Like the Atlanta case, if there WERE drugs in the house, somebody should go to jail. If the police "attacked" this house for some other (unknown) purpose, then they are ALSO (not instead of!) criminally liable.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 28, 2006 12:12 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

One post deleted for being little but a long and offensive personal attack on the host.

I hestitated for a bit, because there were some reasonable points buried within it. But in the end, I decided I cannot allow such personal attacks on any of the hosts or on any commenter.

If the poster wishes to fish through his comment and pluck out the points that do not relate to calling me a fool and a racist, he can post them; I certainly haven't banned him or anything like that.

But I will not allow personal attacks on this site; it's point number 2 in the Reptilian Comment Policy, which I just linked a few days ago. So there is no excuse.

(I think the point at which I said "all right, this one goes into the bit bucket" is when I was informed that one piece of evidence of my racism was that I write "Moslem" instead of "Muslim," and that this was the same as calling black people "colored." This is as asinine as anything from CAIR.)

I will tell you all right now: I love free speech; but this is a privately owned forum, and I will ruthlessly enforce the rules.

To avoid discussions spinning out of control into full-fledged flamewars, I do not allow personal attacks.

If you want to think something Sachi or Dafydd, or any commenter, writes is racist, sexist, homophobic, ethnocentric, or sizeist, go right ahead. Just don't say it in a comment here.

Post it your own blog. We don't engage in blogfeuds, either; so you won't even have to defend it (unless you cross legal lines). But not here.

Thanks, and sorry for the interruption.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 28, 2006 3:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas

You disappoint me, Dafydd.

The above hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 28, 2006 3:45 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jonathan Haas:

You disappoint me, Dafydd.

You should read the comment policy. It's quite explicit, and it dates from the day after this site was founded, more than year ago.

We have enforced them all along. This incident is not the first. The rules are the rules... and they protect you as well: if someone were to personally attack you in a comment, it too would go.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 28, 2006 4:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: Major Mike

Jonathan Haas: “Dafydd, you’re such a disappointment to me” is such a gratuitous remark. For the first point, who are you? Then, what are your standards? Followed by, are you or your standards worth caring about? And perhaps to the point, do you have difficulty expressing yourself without resort to personal insults? Since your remark came right after Dafydd’s about not posting a comment … Could be a coincidence, I avow, but it appears it wasn't.

I already know a lot about Dafydd through his posts on Big Lizards, and he invariably meets or exceeds my standards and expectations. So what? I could say the same of my comments as I just did of yours, and so could you. Suffice it to say, if you want to judge me and my standards, go to Strong As An Ox And Nearly As Smart and peruse some or all of my 300 predominantly long posts. Do it anyway, even if you don’t care about my standards.

Dafydd posed an interesting problem to his Libertarian lab rats, and he got the response he expected: do nothing but just continue to observe. That sort of non-action brings down twin towers.

On a slightly different tack, if Libertarians want to argue that laws against drug dealing are wrong, strive mightily to change the laws, but until you change them, enforce the laws on the books. Anything else is capricious and arbitrary, and shreds the fabric of our civilization by destroying respect for the law. Bad laws need to be changed, not ignored.

I have argued for the decriminalization of drug laws for almost fifty years, but not for drug use legalization. I've advocated treating hard drug use as a medical, rather than legal, procedure. But that's another story.

The above hissed in response by: Major Mike [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 28, 2006 6:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas

Dafydd:

You should read the comment policy. It's quite explicit, and it dates from the day after this site was founded, more than year ago.

Yes, and I suppose everybody else will just have to take your word for it that the post was "little but a long and offensive personal attack", right?

I plead guilty to long-windedness. I'm sorry if you took offense, but that's not really something within my control. I object in the strongest possible terms to the characterization of my post as a "personal attack."

Since you wouldn't let it go:

(I think the point at which I said "all right, this one goes into the bit bucket" is when I was informed that one piece of evidence of my racism was that I write "Moslem" instead of "Muslim," and that this was the same as calling black people "colored."

Have a few references:

Wikipedia: Until the late 1980s, the term Moslem was commonly used. Muslims do not recommend this spelling because it is often pronounced "mawzlem" /mɒzlɛm/ which sounds somewhat similar to an Arabic word for "oppressed"

A journalist's stylebook: The word "Muslim" refers to those who follow the Islamic religious faith. The preferred word to use is "Muslim" rather than "Moslem." In the same way as the word "Hindoo" was used by Britishers to refer to Hindus, the word "Moslem" was used by them for Muslims. It was often used as a slur and therefore many Muslims consider "Moslem" to be a derogatory term.

A stylebook for religious journalism: Moslem: An outdated term for Muslims. It should not be used unless it is part of a proper name.

The AP's stylebook (from 2000): Moslem(s) The preferred term to describe adherents of Islam is Muslim(s).

Google search for +muslim - moslem: 54,700,000 hits
Google search for +moslem -muslim: 1,380,000 hits
Ratio of former to latter: about 40 to 1

I didn't say that using the archaic term Moslem was "the same" as calling black people colored; my exact words were:

I would enquire why you use the archaic term Moslem rather than the much more common in modern usage Muslim. You may not even be aware of this, but this usage is typically considered disrespectful, see also colored.

Both Moslem and colored are terms that once were used to describe their respective groups with no derogatory overtones at all. But they became archaic and were supplanted by more modern terms. In both cases, the obsolete term is most often used with a derogatory connotation. As I said above, you may not even have been aware of this... and, as it turns out, you weren't. Now you are.

Is the above an example of what you consider to be a personal attack? If so, perhaps you should give me a precise definition of the term, so I don't waste my time crafting careful rebuttals to you when you're just going to delete them.

The above hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 28, 2006 7:21 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Jonathan Haas:

Is the above an example of what you consider to be a personal attack? If so, perhaps you should give me a precise definition of the term, so I don't waste my time crafting careful rebuttals to you when you're just going to delete them.

Yes it is. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any point made by this post or any commenter in it (other than you yourself). Its sole purpose is to further your charge against me that my example was "racist."

Calling someone a racist is a personal attack. In addition, this last comment of yours had so many links that it was bumped into the category of requiring monitoring, which is why there was a delay before it appeared.

This one time, I let the comment go through... because I want everybody here to see the sort of thing they missed when I deleted your last comment: endless pedantic bickering about whether it's demeaning to use the transliteration Moslem instead of the alternative transliteration Muslim.

Guess what -- I don't care. I will continue to use the transliteration I have used for many years. The difference is so slight, that it's clear to me the real purpose of demanding the other word is to keep all non-Moslems off balance, so they never quite feel secure in saying anything.

I don't play that game with blacks -- "African" becomes "colored" becomes "Negro" becomes "black" becomes "person of color" becomes "African American" -- and I won't play it with Moslems. Nobody actually cares if the British pronounced it funny; they pronounce everything funny, from Gre-nay-duh to al-you-min-ee-um to "Elephant and Castle."

And by the way, I am a Jew. You are welcome to call me a Jew. You don't have to say "Jewish person" or "person from the Jewish culture" or "Semitic American." Jew is fine; and I don't plan to begin demanding the word change every few years so I can make ordinary people feel like antisemites because they used yesterday's word instead of tomorrow's.

Future non-sequiturs on this same point -- my alleged racism and religious bigotry -- will disappear as soon as I see them. Turn your mighty logical faculties to aspects of the case that actually speak to the call of the question.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 28, 2006 7:56 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

One comment deleted for beating the same dead Mahometan.

And I bet it took me a lot less time to click the delete button than it took the author to write the comment.

If only he would use his reasoning prowess for goodness instead of badness...

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 29, 2006 2:59 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas

Where "goodness" is defined as "in agreement with Dafydd ab Hugh" and "badness" is defined as the opposite, is that correct?

Does anybody know anywhere I can go on the Internet to find good debate? With people who can take it as well as dish it out?

The above hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 29, 2006 8:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas

P.S. I win.

The above hissed in response by: Jonathan Haas [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 29, 2006 8:35 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved