Political quiz

[unixronin]

This quiz has just one question:

Q:  When does an Emeritus Professor of Jurisprudence, highly regarded Constitutional scholar, retired Marine Colonel with 24 years of service, decorated for heroism in Korea, become an enemy of the State?

A:  When, in the course of a lecture on Constitutional law, he criticizes the President for violating the Constitution.

Professor Murphy (or, alternately, Col. Murphy) had this to say:

"I confess to having been furious that any American citizen would be singled out for governmental harassment because he or she criticized any elected official, Democrat or Republican.  That harassment is, in and of itself, a flagrant violation not only of the First Amendment but also of our entire scheme of constitutional government.  This effort to punish a critic states my lecture's argument far more eloquently and forcefully than I ever could.  Further, that an administration headed by two men who had "had other priorities" than to risk their own lives when their turn to fight for their country came up, should brand as a threat to the United States a person who did not run away but stood up and fought for his country and was wounded in battle, goes beyond the outrageous.  Although less lethal, it is of the same evil ilk as punishing Ambassador Joseph Wilson for criticizing Bush's false claims by "outing" his wife, Valerie Plaime, thereby putting at risk her life as well as the lives of many people with whom she had had contact as an agent of the CIA. ..."

One of many relevant quotations follows:

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants.  He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.  Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is as exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right.  Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.  To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.  Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else.  But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

And from whom does this quotation come?

None other than former President Theodore Roosevelt, he upon whose desk The Buck Stopped.

Comments

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a load of horse manure to me. For one thing, anybody who claims that flying a fighter jet isn't risking their lives has no credibility. Further, Plame and Wilson deliberately inserted themselves in politics, if anybody is to blame for her being 'outed', it's them. The fact that they then lied about their actions, when the documentation trail was fairly clear, is more proof of their stupidity. I suspect the professor might be closer to the truth if he checks for any Irish terrorists with a similar name...

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Flying a fighter jet in Texas isn't much of a risk.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Now, had it been a black helicopter ..... ;)

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

It is when the jet in question is the Convair F-102 Delta Dagger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-102_Delta_Dagger), which was a challenging aircraft to pilot.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

True. I believe the phrase "troubled development" has been applied.

I believe the intended point, though, was that there was only the vices of the aircraft itself to contend with, not hostile fire.

The Wikipedia article, BTW, contains numerous inaccuracies. Among other things, it says the prototype's maximum speed was a "dismal" 812 mph, and that the production F-102A was "more than twice as fast", which would imply a top speed over 1,600mph, which is firmly in F-15 territory. More authoritative sources list the F-102A's maximum speed in level flight as Mach 1.535 "at altitude" (presumably in the vicinity of its service ceiling of 54,000 feet; if we assume 50,000ft, this works out to around 1013mph) and 685mph/Mach 0.9 at sea level, with "cruise" speed of 825mph/Mach 1.25 at 36,000ft. Commentary on the prototype's top speed appears to be limited to that it was "far too underpowered to meet the supersonic maximum speed requirement".

(That "cruise" speed designation should probably be taken with a large grain of salt, as the F-102A's J57-23 did not have nearly a large enough engine core to maintain "supercruise", supersonic cruise without afterburner, and the added fuel consumption resulting from even partial afterburner was probably ... shall we say, significant.)

[lonewolf545.livejournal.com]

At the time GW Bush enlisted in the National Guard with the intent to become a pilot, his squadron had aircraft and pilots deployed in Vietnam. That the Air Force decide to cut back the program and not send a relatively new pilot in an aircraft that was ending it's service life over there is NOT a reflection on the courage of someone who signed up knowing his unit was deployed. It's just as bad as arguing that my dad is somehow inferior because, despite his having been commissioned during the Vietnam War, the Army chose to send him to Korea instead. How many of GW Bush's fellow students didn't survive flying the F-102? Quite a few. IIRC, several of his classmates augered in.

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Indeed. The biggest problem I have with Professor Murphy's account is that he accepts the opinion of an American Airlines clerk as proof that he was put on the list in retaliation for his earlier speech. He also appears to assert that Bush and Cheney personally had this done when, regardless of motive, it was most likely done at a much lower level.

Regarding the Plame affair, no crime was committed in disclosing her identity. You will note that Scooter Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice. You will also note that Richard Armitage, who admitted revealing her identity to Robert Novak, has not been charged with any crime at all.

His post is full of unsubstantiated and emotionally-driven accusations and ad hominem attacks. He may have a valid complaint but, for someone billed as "the most distinguished scholar of public law in political science," he put on a decidedly poor show.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem I have with Professor Murphy's account is that he accepts the opinion of an American Airlines clerk as proof that he was put on the list in retaliation for his earlier speech.

One must point out that the government offers only limited means for confirming whether you are in fact on the list or not, won't tell you why if you are on it, and provides no real way to get off of it if you're on it in error. So if the best source of information he can find is an American Airlines clerk, well, he can take it, or he can ask the Magic Eight Ball, because the TSA's not going to tell him, the FBI's not going to tell him, Homeland Security isn't going to tell him, and the White House isn't going to tell him.

[radarrider.livejournal.com]

Although the clerk may be the best source that still doesn't mean it's a good source. I will agree that the situation that results in said clerk being said best source is not a good one and should be changed.

[arasirsul.livejournal.com]

Except it was Harry Truman upon whose desk the buck stopped.

Or at least he was the one who put the sign up.

-JDF

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Did Truman not get it from Teddy Roosevelt?

[zaitcev.livejournal.com]

But you know that the story is completely bogus, right?
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_04_08-2007_04_14.shtml#1176311879

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That does add an interesting additional dimension. If he wasn't on the list, then why was he refused a boarding pass?

[zaitcev.livejournal.com]

That's a good question. I don't know, and that's not a good thing. The lack of oversight is most troubling here.

It is heartening that the long-time critic of the no-fly lists unambiguously stated that there's not a single incident in his database of no-fly list denials when anyone was denied boarding for excercising free speech rights. If Murphy wasn't wearing a tinfoil hat, he'd be the first. But in general, who is to guarantee that abuses won't happen?

As we can see in case of Ted Kennedy, even errors are tough to correct.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Uhhhh.... what is he citing as proof that no-one has been put on the no-fly list for expressing incorrect political views? This isn't the first case I've heard of where it appears that's what happened.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

(I agree fully with you, BTW, that the absence of oversight is troubling. At best.)