Friday, February 23, 2007

Israel, Apartheid, and Lawyerly Fools (Or: Pettitfoggery)

About once every couple of months I receive an email from a long-time antagonist and reader of my work, Chris Pettit. He used to have a significant presence in the comment boards over at Rebunk, but does not often grace us with his presence at dcat. Our loss is, well, actually we're talking all gain.


This morning the pattern repeated itself. It is always the same thing -- Chris sends along an article, and adds a little blurb basically telling me I am wrong about just about everything largely because I am not an international lawyer, which Chris is, as he'll happily tell you like a two-year-old prattling on in the only five words she knows.


But rather than describe, why not just use the evidence before me. (Note: If you send me an email that consists pretty much of ad hominem attacks geared toward me, and if that is the first email I open when I get up in the morning, my rule is that your email is fair game for public airing.)


He sent me the text to this story. The essentials are that the respected South African legal scholar John Dugard who is also the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories has compared Israel to Apartheid South Africa. I disagree, and will go into much greater detail below.


But here is what Chris added, exactly as it appeared in my inbox:

would love to see you try and spin this...you know who Dugard is...and I was one of his students...we both know he is one of the preeminent international legal minds in the world..even if you don't listen to my valid critiques you have to accept his as coming from an expert in a field you have no authority in...isn't it about time you came in from the cold?

Ahh, yes. Note the arrogance! The self importance! The name dropping! The syntax! Naturally I responded. Here is what I wrote:
Chris --
I know well who John Dugard is. And respect him very much. But when you say that I have "no authority in" the field in question, what are you talking about? I have a PhD in history, and this is a historical question. I have written extensively about South African history and I have written enough about Israel to have a pretty good sense of the realities on the ground. I have as much "authority" as Dugard does inasmuch as we both know, or ought to know, that "argument by authority" is one of the basic logical fallacies they teach you in any logic class.

You are exhibit A for why people hate lawyers. Out of the blue you email me a provocative and, yes, in its way worthwhile article, and then use your self-asserted authority to tell me, a professional historian, that a lawyer has more standing on a historical analogy than I do, indeed that I have no authority at all on this issue. The world is not a courtroom, Chris. And you are not its prosecutor. And even the most well respected legal minds can be wrong, especially when they overstep their boundaries.

I'll gladly debate this issue with you, with John Dugard, with Jimmy Carter and with anyone else who tosses out the Israel-as-Apartheid analogy. I'll gladly do it publicly. I'll gladly grant historians equal validity with lawyers on this question (I'd privilege historians, except I prefer to keep my onanism behind closed doors. Try it sometime.). But you are not into honest debate. You would rather snipe from the corners, hectoring those who disagree with you by hiding behind the judicial robes of your mentors and in the logical fallacies that allow you to assert supremacy where you have not earned it. I make no claims to authority on this matter. I make claims to have an argument that I feel comfortable defending. The very fact that Dugard wants to engage in international prosecution of Israel proves what I have argued all along: That those who toss out the Israel-as-Apartheid analogy do so not to shed light, but as an accusation. It is an argument loaded from the outset, and it is an argument I reject.
dc"

Now on to the content of the article. I'll parse paragraph by paragraph. I will place the article in quotation marks and will precede my comments with ***:


"A UN human rights investigator has likened Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories to apartheid South Africa and says there should be "serious consideration" over bringing the occupation to the international court of justice."


*** So as I said, this is not an attempt at inquiry. This human rights investigator represents a body with a long and distinct history of siding against Israel. And he comes as a law professor advocating prosecution. He has an agenda. That is fine. But let's not pretend that it makes him a disinterested broker seeking truth.


"The report by John Dugard, a South African law professor who is the UN's special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, represents some of the most forceful criticism yet of Israel's 40-year occupation."


** I assume we are talking less forceful than, say, Nasser's assertion that the Arabs were going to drive the Jews to the sea prior to the Six Day War and less forceful than Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist? Hamas wields a bit of power in the current Palestinian configuration by the way. But yes, the criticism coming from Dugard is forceful. And he does come to criticize. He also is a law professor, which, as we've learned from Chris Pettit, is the highest form of life, with international law professors at the top of the food chain.


"Prof Dugard said although Israel and apartheid South Africa were different regimes, "Israel's laws and practices in the OPT [occupied Palestinian territories] certainly resemble aspects of apartheid." His comments are in an advance version of a report on the UN Human Rights Council's website ahead of its session next month."


*** How kind of him to pause to recognize that Israel and apartheid South Africa were different regimes. Next: John Dugard acknowledges that water is made of two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. But don't you believe it until he brings that truth. In any case, note that word "resemble." If I may play litcrit theorist for a moment, what does it signify? OK, enough litcrit jargon. In this context "resemble" is a sloppy word used sloppily. Lots of things resemble others. Kansas resembles Colorado. Peter Gammons resembles Andrew Jackson. Kiwis resemble muddy golf balls. But only a fool would travel to Kansas for a ski weekend. Only a fool would want Andrew Jackson's opinion on Curt Schilling's contract status. And only a fool would try to use a sandwedge on a kiwi. I'm no lawyer, but the burden of proof might require something a bit stronger than a resemblance proferred by someone arguing that the resemblance warrants prosecution.


"After describing the situation for Palestinians in the West Bank, with closed zones, demolitions and preference given to settlers on roads, with building rights and by the army, he said: 'Can it seriously be denied that the purpose of such action is to establish and maintain domination by one racial group (Jews) over another racial group (Palestinians) and systematically oppressing them? Israel denies that this is its intention or purpose. But such an intention or purpose may be inferred from the actions described in this report.'"


** Here's the thing. Dugard's entire argument hinges on the following words: "Can it seriously be denied . . .". Everything that follows his attempt to bully through language requires that one buy the assertion that there is only one serious side of this argument. In fact the "racial group" argument tends to fall flat on its face because, and here is the kicker: Jews are not a race. Well, other than for those who want to see them eradicated. And I'm not certain whether Palestinians qualify as a race in any meaningful way. Furthermore, yes, it can be seriously doubted that this is merely a racial matter in light of the well more than one thousand dead Israeli civilians from suicide bombers coming from the territories since the September 2000 declaration of the second intifada. Ignoring the political realities on the ground makes me, well, question your seriousness. We'll ignore the horribly turgid final sentence in that last paragraph. Actually I change my mind -- that is a horribly turgid final sentence in that last paragraph.


"He dismissed Israel's argument that the sole purpose of the vast concrete and steel West Bank barrier is for security. 'It has become abundantly clear that the wall and checkpoints are principally aimed at advancing the safety, convenience and comfort of settlers,' he said."


*** Well, he dismissed the argument. That's it then. Discussion over. Oh, hold on -- we still have those dead Israelis. Vexing, they. Because the timing -- the chronology, the sequences of events (though though I'm no authority, no lawyer, on such things) matters. And in that sequence of events we have many years of Israeli governments pushing for, negotiating for, peace. We also have many years of Israeli governments trying the iron fist approach. All of this antedated the building of the Wall. So to assert that the wall has no relation to security is to claim that there are no security issues for Israelis to worry about. Let me tell you about a wonderful beach front bar in Tel Aviv called Mike's Place . . .


"Gaza remained under occupation despite the withdrawal of settlers in 2005. 'In effect, following Israel's withdrawal, Gaza became a sealed-off, imprisoned and occupied territory,' he said."


*** More lawyerly verbiage: "In effect." Beyond the disputable nature of the assertion, let us keep in mind more of the realities on the ground -- Hamas is in charge in Gaza. Hamas has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. In the intervening months since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza (for which Israel was criticized for acting "unilaterally," just as they were criticized for staying in the territories. No win.) missiles have regularly come across the Gaza border aimed at Israeli citizens in Israel. These missiles did not have as their intended target Israelis in Gaza. Nor have suicide bombers from Gaza had as their targets Israeli settlers. They have had as their targets people living in Israel proper, which even the UN continues to recognize, at least for the time being, even if Hamas will not. Maybe, just maybe Dugard's prosecutorial zeal makes him look at the issue with a jaundiced eye. A lawyer selectively use evidence? I'm aghast too. But this is what it has come to. I guess we'll never be innocent again.


"Prof Dugard said his mandate was solely to report on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories and he described as a violation of international humanitarian law the firing of rockets by Palestinians from Gaza into Israel. 'Such actions cannot be condoned and clearly constitute a war crime,' he said. 'Nevertheless, Israel's response has been grossly disproportionate and indiscriminate and resulted in the commission of multiple war crimes.'"


*** Finally. At least he recognizes the "war crimes" of the Palestinians. Yet I'm not so certain that Israel's response has been "disproportionate" and I believe this is an area in which honest people can engage in honest debate. But on this issue John Dugard, like Chris Pettit, is not an honest broker. Putting on a prosecutor's robes does not make one an impartial observer -- it does quite the opposite. Favoring some evidence over others is a lawyer's job, to be sure. But knowing as much, I think we are entitled to question whether or not we should privilege lawyers on such matters.


The article I have excerpted is, in its entirety, what Chris sent me, which allowed him to assert that I have no "authority" on such matters. But what I am seeking is not authority. Authority may be the least interesting facet of all of this. Instead I seek something far more important. I seek truth. Among the many differences is that I understand my own fallibility. I also don't cower behind someone else's reputation, which blinds me to their problematic assertions, and I don't claim "authority" where I have none and where "authority" is not at all the issue.

17 comments:

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I can't figure out why the little guy (not knowing a thing about his physical self, but pettit does mean "little" in French, no?) keeps pestering you this way other than for reasons of gaining notoriety, which is what someone with so little talent as to engage in name-dropping might also likely have to do in order to achieve the only thing remotely comparable to a sense of self-worth when it comes to his standing in his own calling.

He's also on record at HNN as calling for effective judicial dictatorships. Multiple times.

The article, for what it's worth, is about as flat and ineffectual in its own argument as it can be articulated. I'm frankly amazed at the number of unsupported assertions and lack of any reasoning offered whatsoever in declaring its foregone conclusions. (I guess this is a clever way to avoid critiquing opposing claims, as - in all fairness - it doesn't even critically address its own claims, even if in a purely positive way). In any event, the wall is a way to advance the interest of settlers? Including the many settlers who clamored against it after it was clear that they'd be left on the Palestinian side of it?

What a bunch of bunk.

Unknown said...

Spoken like true ignorant ideologues convinced of their own expertise in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary...

When you a) get over your political biases b) have any grasp of international law and its workings (like, say, a law degree)c) learn to respect recognized legal authorities instead of pandering to your own ideological supporters d) learn anything about jurisprudence and the authority of law (montana...the idea of a judicial dictatorship is idiocy on your part...have you ever seen a judiciary with enforcement powers? me either...get your head out of wherever it is buried...all I call for is for law to retain its inherent authority, that we institute systems that ensure impartial and knowledgeable judges unlike the ideological hack we have in this country, and that we recognize legal authorities while having legal scholars, not biased political hacks like Derek, critically analyze their arguments to prevent any tyranny) then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion about these issues.

Until that time you will remain ideologically biased pseudo-scholars with no authority nor educational foundation with which to critique a subject you know little about and simply can't intellectually tackle.

CP

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Chris, you might be the first lawyer (or so you claim) who is incapable of providing a definition for the following term: Evidence. Even arguments require them. Your article provides none.

And while a tribunal might be a judiciary with enforcement powers, even if such examples didn't exist, simply asserting that they don't exist would not be evidence - let alone proof - of your not calling for one. So your post is another example of not understanding how evidence works.

Is your inferiority/superiority complex a cry for compensating for being named "little"? Maybe there's a part of your anatomy that is very "little" and you feel upset about that. Professionals do not carry on the way you do. Your ability to restrain your own self is certainly as little as I've seen those abilities come - at least to anyone over 25 and not yet in jail.

Unknown said...

just to clear something up...since I realize the you can (and probably will) take it the wrong way...

What I am stating is not that you cannot analyze this politically within your own biased ideological position (you do...in fact, given your lack of legal understanding, that is the ONLY way you can analyze it)...you simply cannot claim any authority on how the international law and rights based legal theory applies to the situation. A legal authority takes the facts of the case and then applies the relevant legal principles to them. If you disagree with the legal principles: a) fine, but you would do better to actually understand them first, which you do not, b) you disagree with them within your own narrow ideological position, but like it or not, they are the universal laws we have agreed on internationally...so get over yourself.

SO continue analyzing and disagreeing within your narrow political and ideological realm. Just do me a favor and admit that you are doing so. Say...this is my ideological opinion...I have no background in law, do not have any authority in the area...Dugard (and Pettit) are highly trained in human rights law and know much more about the application of international law and rights based legal theory to the situation than I ever could or will, because my expertise is in history and my own ideologically bised theory...not law or legal theory...therefore this is my biased political oopinion based on my biased reading of the situation and cannot be based in any legal analysis because I do not have proper background in it. Dugard and Pettit have never claimed expertise in my area...they claim authority in the legal realm...it is I who am trying to tread on their area of authority where I have no background and simply have my own biased ideology. Do me a favor and do that...and you are entitled to feel as though you are right in your own biased arena...the morlocks that choose to follow your side of things will continue to follow you without critical thought...think of it as democratic. Just never claim to have any authority in legal or rights based analysis.

CP

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

So in other words, you refuse to (or are unable to) cite evidence for how and why these "relevant legal principles" apply, let alone how they are allegedly violated, or if so, are superior to counter-claims.

Do you actually stoop to making arguments in court or in filing your claims and petitions or is it just sufficient - with no more than a wave of a hand - to state your credentials, your opinion, your superiority to the hopelessly stupid, ideologically-warped, democratic masses, and your dismissal of opposing counsel and claims? I've seen lawyers like you in courts before (although never with the same degree of pompous authoritarianism - guess that's necessary for arguing away the rights of "others" and the masses) - and I love it when the judge tells you to sit down and shut your whiny ignorant mouth.

Your not getting your way is the only favor you'll get from me or from anyone else, and it's a response as deserved as the argument by authority of a swift smack to the back of the head that you illustrate yourself to be so deserving of, were this noisy attempt at "conversation" on your part being held in any other kind of forum. You can't argue with that! You lack the "expertise" for doing so.

You will never get your way with your approach and that's what you can't stand: your own sense of impotence. You don't even realize how much it bothers you.

Unknown said...

the other thing we need to note here...

DEREK DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE FREAKING REPORT!!!

The Guardian story that the venerable Dr. Catsam references has a link to the 24 page report filed by Dugard at the bottom of the page. Derek could have used his intelligence to open the report and read it in full...and then try to rebut that. Did he? No...he pulled the old bait and switch tactic, trying to excoriate Dr. Dugard by pointing out qualms with the way the article was written! This is because Derek is completely unqualified to address anything written in Dugard's actual report. It is a joke that Derek thinks that he can get away with supposedly debunking a report by actually debunking a periodical piece. I will actually grant him that the periodical piece is not the greatest...YOU HAVE A JOURNALIST TRYING TO REPORT ON SOMETHING HE HAS NO FRAME OF REFERENCE TO!! (a detailed legal analysis of an international situation)...now if only Derek could realize that he has no frame of reference to the same legal situation...which is why I suspect he will not be brave enough to address the actual report...which is readily available to him.

dcat said...

As usual, I’ll just parse what I see. Since Chris did not bother actually to address any of my substantive arguments, that is what I have at my disposal. As always, I’ll place his words in quotation marks and will precede my responses with ***. For now this comes from Chris’ first comments.:

“just to clear something up...since I realize the you can (and probably will) take it the wrong way...”

** Clearing up is fine. I doubt we take things “the wrong way” here, but we do take them as they are presented to us.

”What I am stating is not that you cannot analyze this politically within your own biased ideological position (you do...in fact, given your lack of legal understanding, that is the ONLY way you can analyze it)...you simply cannot claim any authority on how the international law and rights based legal theory applies to the situation.”

*** Wow. Lots for us to deal with here. First off, since we are having a discussion about politics, anyone participating comes at it from their “own biased ideological position.” You have never yet shown how we are ideological and biased but you are not. As for my “lack of legal understanding,” I’m not certain one must be a lawyer to understand aspects of the law, and you always assert this without ever actually showing where my legal understanding is flawed. And I have no idea what gives you the right or the authority to declare that the only way (sorry, the ONLY way) I can understand this is through legalities. In fact I’d say that in a discussion about a historical analogy, the legal understandings might be among the worst ways to understand these matters. You can privilege the law all you want. That does not make it true. This is not a legal issue in my mind. Either make an actual argument explaining why it is or else stop asserting it without any substantiation. Hell, ever since Brandeis even the legal community has understood that historical, sociological, and other evidence is not only useful but essential in many, many legal cases. Thus the Brandeis brief. And thus the fact that John Hope Franklin and C. Vann Woodward, as well as Kenneth Clark, played such a huge role in building the case for the Brown decision. The idea that law exists independent of the context, political and historical, within which that law functions reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of law in the world.

“ A legal authority takes the facts of the case and then applies the relevant legal principles to them.”

** A legal authority takes a selective rendering of the facts that suits their case. This is why we have an advocacy system in the law and it is why we have an adversarial system.

“If you disagree with the legal principles: a) fine, but you would do better to actually understand them first, which you do not,”

** Another assertion without evidence. What principles am I not understanding? More to the point, if I can find a single international lawyer that agrees with your position, it will show the utter vacuity of your argument. You accuse me of being ideological and yet you clearly reveal that it is your ideology that blinds you to difference.

“) you disagree with them within your own narrow ideological position, but like it or not, they are the universal laws we have agreed on internationally”

*** Not to put too fine a point on it, but bullshit. As I said, there are lots of legal authorities who agree with me (Andrew McCarthy is every bit the legal giant as John Dugard, and probably moreso.) We both have “ideological” positions, though I think of mine as political positions. But don’t give me this crap about universal laws that have been agreed on internationally when I can cite international lawyers who disagree with you.

“...so get over yourself.”

*** what the fuck does this even mean? Talk to the hand cuz the head isn’t listening? Don’t go there? You go girl? You need to watch some new reruns that weren’t written in the mid-1990s, because “get over yourself” actually does not have a damned thing to do with this discussion. It is an idiotic nonsequiter.

”SO continue analyzing and disagreeing within your narrow political and ideological realm.”

*** This is actually not a complete sentence.

“Just do me a favor and admit that you are doing so.”

*** I admit that both of us come from our own position. Admit that you are doing so as well.

“ Say...this is my ideological opinion...I have no background in law, do not have any authority in the area...”

*** This is not just a legal question. This is not just a legal question. This is not just a legal question. Oh – and in my work, two chapters of one of my manuscripts is about legal questions. My work in South Africa has covered the TRC and another project has dealt extensively with the Kennemeyer Commission. I am not a lawyer. Nor is someone like Bill Leuchtenburg. That does not mean those of us without a JD are utterly ignorant of the law. But again, this is not a legal question. And it is not about “authority”


“Dugard (and Pettit) are highly trained in human rights law and know much more about the application of international law and rights based legal theory to the situation than I ever could or will, because my expertise is in history and my own ideologically bised theory...not law or legal theory...therefore this is my biased political oopinion based on my biased reading of the situation and cannot be based in any legal analysis because I do not have proper background in it.”

*** What a clusterfuck of a sentence. I know more about history and the application of historical analogy than Pettit ever will. But way to link yourself with Dugard. And again, could you for a minute stop asserting authority? Authority is only useful inasmuch as it provides you information and the capacity to develop arguments. It is not in and of itself sufficient to assert. You can say all you want what I do and do not have. But I bet almost anyone reading this believes that I am kicking the crap out of you in this argument. Believe it or not, most of the world does not sit in genuflection toward someone with a law degree.

“Dugard and Pettit have never claimed expertise in my area...”

*** I cannot speak for Dugard. Chris Pettit has constantly claimed authority, even if only by disparaging my authority and then claiming. You mkeep claiming this as your area. It is not. This is not just a legal question. It is not even mostly a legal question. It is a question of history.

“they claim authority in the legal realm...”

*** No fucking shit. Again and again and again. Assertion of authority without evidence. Or argument.

“it is I who am trying to tread on their area of authority where I have no background”

** This is not “your area of authority.” It’s not. No matter how often you claim the history of the apartheid era or of Israel, this is not “your area.” But I’m sure that those black South Africans who participated in the struggle appreciate you claiming their struggle as your own.

“and simply have my own biased ideology.”

*** . . . as you “simply” have yours. Your record is skipping, Mr. dj.

“Do me a favor and do that...”

*** No.


“and you are entitled to feel as though you are right in your own biased arena...”

*** Do you actually believe this? Have you no actual arguments about the substance of this, because so far you have not made a single one.
“the morlocks that choose to follow your side of things will continue to follow you without critical thought...”

*** Agree with Chris Pettit or acknowledge that you have no capacity for critical thought. I have no idea what a Morlock is, mostly because I sometimes like to have sex and stuff, but I am assuming they are a type of person, in which case it ought to be “the morlocks who choose.”

“think of it as democratic.”

** I would love to, but you are asserting that you are the only one with the right to vote.

“Just never claim to have any authority in legal or rights based analysis.”

*** I don’t. I claim historical knowledge and understanding. And rights are not the realm of lawyers. They simply are not. Neither is analysis, and in fact from reading your tripe, I’m beginning to conclude that you talking about analysis is about as big a farce as farce can be.

More later.

dcat

Unknown said...

I am amused...

Derek...you are a joke...you really have me laughing out loud at your flailings...

1) the only way I connect Dugard and myself is a) mentor and student and b) both legal authorities (in terms of degrees and experience) whereas you are an ideologue with a history degree (in certain areas...and a decent historian in others...whcih can be demonstrated...this just happens to be an area where you are an ideologue). I can only hope to come halfway close to the expertise that Dugard has in the legal realm...which is why it is a joke that you are even trying this nonsense...you accuse me of trying to latch on to him...and then refuse to give him any credibility when it doesn't fit your ideological bias...

2) I don't feel like giving you a lesson in jurisprudence (maybe you would like to take my class on the topic?), but your definition of law fits with the way you approach history. Maybe you are confusing your definition of law with your definition of history? I know that history, the way you practice it in certain ideologically based cases, is arranging facts to fit your own ideological bias...not too much different than the way many blatantly biased (say, Benny Morris and Ward Churchill...maybe Niall Ferguson?) historians have throughout the years. By the way...I at least have degrees in history and comparative religion (BA New College of Florida) whereas you have NO background in law whatsoever. I will concede that there are corrupt and ideologically biased lawyers (Dershowitz, Yoo, Gonzales) who do treat law the way you describe it...and the majority of lawyers who are programmed in US law schools approach their daily legal practice the same way...make the facts fit your clients interest...but that is not law, jurisprudence, or anything other than manipulation of rules (the essence of legal positivism). Unfortunately for you, legal positivism is just a power based political system...it does not constitute law, the way law operates, or anything else, except in (which fits your position perfectly) a very narrow ideological analysis.

When I have more time to waste on you I will get back with a bit of a critique on your primary school understanding of legal theory.

Again...the challenge is there...take on the actual report...why don't you get a real legal theorist as a guest commentator...I would be perfectly happy to debate this with someone who actually knows what they are talking about. Anthony D'Amato up at Northwestern might have some free time. I suggest him because a) I don't agree with his positions, b) I am actually utilizing his text in my current class on jurisprudence, and c) he is a hell of a lot more brilliant and accomplished than I am. He might actually teach you to respect Dugard and what he is demonstrating in the report.

Thunderstick said...

Seriously, what does everyone think of my idea that the Hamburgler should have his own TV show?

dcat said...

I'll tackle Chris's blog comments later. Here is an email he sent to me only after he commented on the blog. I find it instructive. As usual, his comments are in quotation marks, mine follow ***:

"Nice try..."

*** It is the effort that counts. And my readers can guess what follows.

"Showing your ideological colors by trying to take advantage of the relatively impressionable and non-critical readers of the blog..."

*** Yes. My dumb readers. I have about a hundred a day or so (actually more today, but that is of no moment). Here is who I know read today -- at least ten PhD's. (Chris does not have a PhD). Cliff May, President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. (Andrew McCarthy, an international lawyer of much greater reknown than Chris Pettit is a senior fellow with FDD.) At least four lawyers. (Actual practicing lawyers.) No one as smart as Chris Pettit, of course, but, you know, smart folks. And those are just the ones I know. But if you are reading this, Chris says you are : "the relatively impressionable and non-critical readers of the blog." Quiz: Any of you know who the fuck Chris Pettit is? Beyond, I mean, him attacking me on my blog?

"why don't you show some fortitude and actually tackle the report itself instead of the (admittedly weak) periodical article?"

***But wait. You did not even bother to send me the link to the, if I may quote, "(admittedly weak) periodical article." You just sent me the text. I actually had to go to the Guardian site myself and look for the article to link it in my blog. But we agree -- it was admittedly weak. The article, the only thing you sent me, was fucktarded. But I dealt with the source material I had.

"It doesn't take much to rebut a journalistic piece these days..."

*** So why did you only send me the "journalistic piece?'"

"why don't you demonstrate your complete lack of authority and frame of reference by tackling the actual legal advance report and then the full report later this month."

*** Are you asking me why I do not step into the future? Because, if I get your tenses, you are asking me why I don't tackle the report that has not yet come out. I think you are dumb as a fence post, but I must admit, I cannot transcend the time-space continuum. Nonetheless, when it comes to time travel, I am intrigued by your ideas, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

"You have yet to prove to me that you have any sort of credibility or authority on this issue."

*** You do realize that in this entire discussion you have not raised so much as one fact, right? Not one response to an argument I have made? Everything you have written has been an assault on my credentials. Yet not so long ago you wrote me and asked me to consider an article of yours for a journal on which I sit on the board of editors. My credentials are a fickle thing, apparently. By the way -- I did not reject your article. Yet your article was rejected. Figure that out, legal hero.

"Maybe if you can attempt some rudimentary analysis and demonstrate you know anything about the legal context of the issues you might be something more than an ideologically biased tackling head."

*** I've no idea what a "tackling head" is. I assume it is what guys like me who played sports and got laid in high school and college hit. But I also assume that you actual think that the "legal context of issues" matter more, when discussing apartheid South Africa, (which happened in the past) than the historical issues.

"Then again, I know you have no legal background, don't understand international legal theory or jurisprudence, and can only analyze the report through your highly biased ideological historical framework."

*** Again, in the most important legal case in American history, two historians drew up some of the most significant documents. Oh -- and one of the senior researchers for the TRC, a legal body, was a historian by the name of John Daniels. In fact, several of the researchers were historians.

"the report is attached...good luck (so far you fail even the most basic of jurisprudence or intro to human rights law classes)"

*** Keep in mind, that I woke up this morning to your email to me. The one that lacked capital letters and punctuation. And that email did not even contain the link to the article, never mind to the report. I realize that you still think that this historical question is a legal matter. Fortunately, my words only respond to the, in your words, "relatively impressionable and non-critical readers of the blog." My readers are dumb. Your unwillingness even to link the article in question, never mind the report, and then to criticize me for not dealing with the report, shows your utter lack of intellectual integrity.

Suffice it to say, I welcome the readers of my blog to respond. I know you are all too dumb, as Chris asserts, but try if you can.

dcat

dcat said...

Oh, by the way. Chris says that I am, and I quote, "a joke."

I woke up this morning, had honestly not thought about Chris Pettit in three or four months -- since whenever it was that he last wrote me an email that consisted of nothing but a Guardian link and a handful of ad hominem phrases, poorly conveyed.

Then I read the email that he wrote to me this morning out of the absolute blue. So I responded.

In the last 24 hours Chris Pettit has written almost 1300 words on -- wait for it . . . wait for it . . . my fucking blog.

At least my jocularity is actually funny.

dcat

GingerM said...

I fucking love you!

Pettit cannot even compete.

dcat said...

Oh, Ginger, (sigh), I bet you say that to all the boys who reveal Chris Pettite to be a vacuous little pustule.
Alas, I fear, it's lust, not love, that you are feeling, and I assure you that at least a dozen of my readers, known or unknown to me, could press your buttons. Our mutual dislike of mediocre writing and wretched argumentation brought us together.
We'll always have Chris's lusty assertion that "I don't feel like giving you a lesson in jurisprudence (maybe you would like to take my class on the topic?)"
So very, very hot.

dcat

GingerM said...

I understand, I guess I will just have to move on and find a new love.

Thunderstick said...

Seriously, the Hamburgler show would be so great.

Anonymous said...

Wow. Miss a few days and all hell breaks loose.

Thunderstick said...

Anyone ever see that Justice League where some alien race thinks the Green Lantern destroyed their planet and they are going to kill him, but the Flash convinces them to have a trial.

The aliens say: We don't have trials anymore. We solved our legal problems long ago.

Flash: That's ridiculous. We're having a trial.

Aliens: Fine

Flash: And I'll be the Green Lantern's lawyer

Aliens: Fine, but as per our old laws, the lawyer shares in punishment if his client is found guilty.

Flash: What's?! That's ridiculous!!

Aliens: That's how we solved out legal problems.

They might be on to something