"Unfairenheit 9/11"

[Darth Wong]

IIRC, he was saying something about how we're forgetting that even OBL is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or something along those lines and his point was that we should treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue.

I believe I read it in one of his books, but I wouldn't swear to it.

That's not an unreasonable viewpoint, you know. Why shouldn't we consider terrorism a crime rather than pretending it's a nation-state?

[Glocksman]

There's a difference between libel and criticism. Moore hasn't threatened Hitchens specifically with a suit, so I don't see what you're going off and getting a boner about here.

Shafer's piece is an explanation of why Moore's lawsuit threats against those who either libel him (it's damned hard to prove in the US for a public figure) or 'anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation' are simply more self-serving bullshit from Michael Moore.

Yeah? So? Who gives a rat's ass?

In other words, unless a critic really goes off the deep end and claims that MM eats dead babies for lunch, Moore's threats are empty and he knows it and are either an attempt to scare off some of the less well informed would be critics or (most likely) an attempt to generate more free publicity for the upcoming release of the film.

Again, who gives a shit? What does Moore's threat to sue anyone who libels him for, well, libeling him, have to do with anything?

Do I have to explain the relevance of Shafer's invitation to Moore to file suit over Hitchens's commentary?

You know, the same commentary that happens to be the subject of the opening post?

[Glocksman]

IIRC, he was saying something about how we're forgetting that even OBL is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or something along those lines and his point was that we should treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue.

I believe I read it in one of his books, but I wouldn't swear to it.

That's not an unreasonable viewpoint, you know. Why shouldn't we consider terrorism a crime rather than pretending it's a nation-state?

Agreed.

One I may disagree with depending on the circumstances, but not unreasonable.

I disagree with Moore far more than I agree with him, but let's not condemn him for things he plainly didn't say or intend to imply.

[Darth Wong]

Do I have to explain the relevance of Shafer's invitation to Moore to file suit over Hitchens's commentary?

Can you file suit over someone who's really, really insulting toward you? I don't recall Hitchens actually attributed any false statements to Moore, so I don't think there would be grounds for a suit. He does bullshit about a few things relating to Iraq (some of them are whoppers), but that's not libel directly against Moore.

[Glocksman]

Do I have to explain the relevance of Shafer's invitation to Moore to file suit over Hitchens's commentary?

Can you file suit over someone who's really, really insulting toward you? I don't recall Hitchens actually attributed any false statements to Moore, so I don't think there would be grounds for a suit. He does bullshit about a few things relating to Iraq (some of them are whoppers), but that's not libel directly against Moore.

You *can*, but the odds are really stacked against you, especially if you are a public figure.

Shafer's piece had a link to Findlaw's refresher on US libel laws.

Summing it up, Moore can file suit but he's almost guaranteed to lose.

[Durandal]

Moore's attempt to defend Osama bin Laden as the unfair victim of U.S. finger-pointing just after September 11, 2001 is well known.

When and where did he say this? This is the first I've heard of it.

That's not quite what Moore said.

IIRC, he was saying something about how we're forgetting that even OBL is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law or something along those lines and his point was that we should treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue rather than a military issue.

I believe I read it in one of his books, but I wouldn't swear to it.

You know, I had no idea what Axis was talking about, yet I was sure he was misrepresenting the truth in some way. This would seem to fit with my instinct. Thank you for the information. That's a far cry from saying it's unfair to blame bin Laden for the attacks.

Do I have to explain the relevance of Shafer's invitation to Moore to file suit over Hitchens's commentary?

Yes, you do, because Hitchen's commentary is not libelous, as far as I can tell. It's critical and loaded with bullshit, but not libelous. Moore said that anyone making libelous comments about him or his movie would be sued. He's blowing hot air. Big deal. Shafer is inviting Moore to sue someone who wrote a critical, non-libelous article about his film. Moore's not the only one blowing hot air and beating his chest, here.

[Glocksman]

From the NYT article Shafer linked to:

And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

Hitchens certainly maligns the film in his piece and attacks Moore's truthfulness.

Where's the defamation suit?

[Darth Wong]

From the NYT article Shafer linked to:

And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

Hitchens certainly maligns the film in his piece and attacks Moore's truthfulness.

Where's the defamation suit?

I doubt that this paraphrasing is accurate, since malignment is not defamation.

[Glocksman]

Shafer is inviting Moore to sue someone who wrote a critical, non-libelous article about his film. Moore's not the only one blowing hot air and beating his chest, here.

Sure, Shafer's blowing hot air as he knows damned well that despite Moore's blustering about suing people who 'malign' the film, Moore has no legal grounds to do so and, even if he did come up with a lawyer who'd take the case, despite being a multimillionaire, he doesn't have the resources to take on Microsoft (Slate being owned by MSN).

The question is Shafer deliberately blowing hot air as satire to make a point about Moore and his 'war room'? I think that's exactly the case here.

I doubt that this paraphrasing is accurate, since malignment is not defamation.

True to an extent.

From Dictionary.com:

To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of.

Synonyms: malign, defame, traduce, vilify, asperse, slander, calumniate, libel

These verbs mean to make evil, harmful, often untrue statements about another. Malign stresses malicious intent: “Have I not taken your part when you were maligned?” (Thackeray). Defame suggests damage to reputation through misrepresentation: The plaintiff had been defamed and had legitimate grounds for a lawsuit. Traduce connotes the resulting humiliation or disgrace: “My character was traduced by Captain Hawkins... even the ship's company cried out shame” (Frederick Marryat). Vilify pertains to open, deliberate, vicious defamation: “One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution” (Felix Frankfurter). To asperse is to spread unfavorable charges or insinuations against: “Who could be so base as to asperse the character of a family so harmless as ours?” (Oliver Goldsmith). Slander and calumniate apply to oral expression: He slandered his political opponent. She calumniated and ridiculed her former employer. Libel involves the communication of written or pictorial material: The celebrity sued the tabloid that libeled her. See also synonyms at sinister

I can't find 'malign' in the online legal dictionary I it up in, so my guess (I'm no lawyer) that any suit Moore would file for maligning his movie would have to be a defamation or libel suit.

[Darth Wong]

The dictionary definition of libel and slander includes statements which are vile or negative or "may be untrue". The legal definition of libel and slander is narrower, and REQUIRES that they be untrue.

[Durandal]

Sure, Shafer's blowing hot air as he knows damned well that despite Moore's blustering about suing people who 'malign' the film, Moore has no legal grounds to do so and, even if he did come up with a lawyer who'd take the case, despite being a multimillionaire, he doesn't have the resources to take on Microsoft (Slate being owned by MSN).

And again, I ask: Who gives a piss?

[Elfdart]

Glocksman, you forget that Hitchens left The Nation two years ago. He'd been staggering right long before that. From his single-minded obsession with Clinton's cock, pimping the pseudo-history written by Holocaust denier David Irving and trying to pass off a story he claimed he got from Jeremiah Denton (that fellow POW John McCain used to beat off in his cell in Vietnam), which Denton denied, Hitchens has become a second-rate Paul Johnson. So calling him a right-winger is fair comment. Calling him a "bozo"? Well, there's no accounting for taste.

For a good essay about Hitchens, go to normanfinkelstein.com .

[Howedar]

Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones

Ah, you mean the no-fly zones that were supposedly established by a resolution that *affirmed* Iraqi sovereignty and was not enacted under Ch VII of the UN Charter, and were therefore totally illegal- and everyone knew it- including the US (hence the reason why they never dragged it out as a war justification).

Oh, almost forgot: the above translates to: Iraq was a threat to America because it shot at American planes over Iraqi territory. Right.

Moreover the statement itself is simply flat-out fucking wrong, we got shot at by Iraqis no more than every few weeks or something.

[Axis Kast]

So we can try to kill other heads of state and that's OK, but if they try to kill ours, it's evil and an act of war. Gotcha.

Let me put it this way. What if Fidel Castro financed a successful assassination of an American President and American intelligence services traced the contract back to Havana so that, without a doubt, we knew it was Fidel who signed the order, distributed the funds, and even contributed to the intelligence pool that the assassins used. You’d throw up your hands and say, “Well, we had it coming!”?! Are you a fucking moron?

No, but we don't sink twenty-odd years, hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of valuable troops and billion in military materiel, nearly a thousand soldier's lives, ten times that in wounded, and the deaths of innocent civilians on account of that, you no-limit moron.

Sometimes just bombing the enemy's intel centers, HQs, security centers, training camps, etc. is the correct and measured response.

When a foreign country attempts a decapitation strike on our nation’s highest executive, it is an act of war, regardless of our chosen response.

When and where did he say this? This is the first I've heard of it.

Read the fucking article, dimwit.

You know, I had no idea what Axis was talking about, yet I was sure he was misrepresenting the truth in some way. This would seem to fit with my instinct. Thank you for the information. That's a far cry from saying it's unfair to blame bin Laden for the attacks.

Bullshit. Moore cried about how poor Osama bin Laden was becoming the central figure in a witch-hunt, insisting that there wasn’t yet evidence by which to punish him. The fucking moron apparently forgot that Osama had claimed responsibility for numerous and significant attacks before then.

[Master of Ossus]

That's not an unreasonable viewpoint, you know. Why shouldn't we consider terrorism a crime rather than pretending it's a nation-state?

I agree he should be innocent until proven guilty, but is ANYONE seriously claiming that there's reasonable doubt that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the September 11 attacks? There's a fucking videotape of him DISCUSSING HIS ROLE IN PLANNING THEM! If his taped confessional isn't sufficient, then there's a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence that leads in the same direction.

[Gaidin]

Uh, I see no reason to tollerate Iraq's trying to kill an American President, no matter what we did.

So we can try to kill other heads of state and that's OK, but if they try to kill ours, it's evil and an act of war. Gotcha.

Point of view. I'm sure they hate us going after their leaders just as much as we're pissed about them killing ours.

[Axis Kast]

I agree he should be innocent until proven guilty, but is ANYONE seriously claiming that there's reasonable doubt that Osama bin Laden was not responsible for the September 11 attacks? There's a fucking videotape of him DISCUSSING HIS ROLE IN PLANNING THEM! If his taped confessional isn't sufficient, then there's a hell of a lot of circumstantial evidence that leads in the same direction.

To be fair, AFAIK, Moore was defending Osama's entitlement to considered innocent until proven guilty only in the immediate aftermath of September 11, when the evidence was still coming in. On the other hand, doing so still smacks of ignorance in light of the '98 African embassy and 2000 Cole bombings. To suggest that we needed yet another reason to hunt this man was to indulge in flights of rampant stupidity - which Moore proceeded to.

Point of view. I'm sure they hate us going after their leaders just as much as we're pissed about them killing ours.

Morality has nothing to do with this. We tried to kill Castro, yes, but if Castro killed an American President, we'd have invaded Cuba - and rightly so from the point of view of someone concerned with our national security, as our leadership must be above all else.

It's not about whether it's "okay" for the United States to try to kill Saddam or for Saddam to try to kill an American President; it's whether one doesn't respond with a heavy hand because Iraq's action could be rationalized in some sense.

[MKSheppard]

That's not an unreasonable viewpoint, you know. Why shouldn't we consider terrorism a crime rather than pretending it's a nation-state?

Because terrorism is pretty much what piracy was in the olden days.

[Axis Kast]

That's not an unreasonable viewpoint, you know. Why shouldn't we consider terrorism a crime rather than pretending it's a nation-state?

We don't consider terrorism a nation-state; we consider it to be made more deadly by nation-states, and hence view nation-states as the most important targets of a campaign meant to reduce and contain terrorism.