Unethical Post of the Month: Jonah Goldberg

In his latest post on the National Review website, conservative blogger Jonah Goldberg wonders why the CIA hasn’t had the sense to assassinate WikiLeaks founder and current renegade leaker Julian Assange. That’s right: Goldberg believes that in the national interest (for Assange has gathered and leaked massive amounts of classified information relating to U.S. military operations), the U.S. government should murder an Australian citizen without due process, a trial, or anything approaching regard for law, ethics, and human rights.

I make it a rule, in the interest of civility and respect, to control the urge to sink to pure name-calling, but really: what an idiot. And a dangerous one.

Balancing American values and core democratic principles with the military’s and government’s legitimate need for secrecy under certain conditions is an ongoing, and probably never to be resolved, problem. I am no fan of Assange or the Assange of an earlier generation, Daniel Ellsberg. Still, messianic, arrogant, reckless and irresponsible though I think they may be, such whistleblowers and practitioners of civil disobedience have rights. Even if it was to be determined that they engaged in treason, or espionage, or other serious crimes, they still have the right to be tried for those crimes. I do not believe that Richard Nixon, at his most paranoid and ethically compromised, would have ever considered having Daniel Ellsberg killed. Nor, obviously, should he have considered it.

Murder, outside of the context of self-defense, capital punishment and declared warfare is indefensible. I am not naive; I know that America has and still does engage in covert activities that our Constitution and the strictures of human decency forbid.  I know that there may be powerful reasons for doing so. I also know that every time our nation performs such an act, for whatever reason, our integrity as a nation, our credibility as force for good in the world, and our character as a people and a culture, are weakened, wounded and scarred. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were such acts. So was the torture of terrorist suspects during the Bush administration. There have been others, undoubtedly more than we know. I don’t have the answer for how a nation balances the need to prevail in the amoral jungle of international conflict with the danger of forfeiting the worthiness to prevail by defiling its own principles in the process. I do know that once the public and the media cease to push our government to always place our special values first, America, as an idea and an ideal, is doomed.

Jonah Goldberg, and many others, I am sure, do not understand this. They are the equivalent of the devil whispering in our nation’s ear.

[Appreciation and indebtedness to Ezra at Pope Hat for flagging Goldberg’s post.]

UPDATE: Goldberg now says that he wasn’t calling for an assassination, consistent with the comment by Ken, of Pope Hat.com, below. Assuming this is true, the post is unethical for a different reason: it’s incompetent and irresponsible. If one is going to advocate assassination by the U.S. government with tongue in cheek, you have an obligation to make it crystal clear that this is what your are doing. Goldberg, heaven knows why, is regarded as an important blogger and commentator, and his posts get widely circulated. He has an obligation to be clear when he is talking about the virtues of murder.

5 thoughts on “Unethical Post of the Month: Jonah Goldberg

  1. I share your belief that we generally have no business assassinating people.

    However, as I said on Ezra’s post, I think Goldberg’s playing a slightly different game. I read his post as ostensibly satire/comment upon the notion that America reliably assassinates people — suggesting that if we did so, more people would be dead.

    I do think Goldberg was deliberately making his comment somewhat obscure. I suspect he was doing that for several reasons: (1) so he can engage in the typical trollish “ha ha, you took me seriously, stupid liberals can’t read/have no sense of humor, while (2) using dog-whistle language to his base that does, in fact, support the U.S. having a fairly free hand in assassination, at least of mouthy brown people.

    I’ve said for a while that modern Rightist “satire” is not like traditional satire. Traditional satire involves saying the opposite of, or something dramatically different than, what you mean. If you look at the Goldbergs and Coulters and Becks and so on of the world, they appear to think “satire” means “say what you think, just punch it up a bit.” Hence Jonathan Swift, in the Rightist mind, really did think England should just let the Irish die off; he was just exaggerating slightly in suggesting that they be eaten.

    • That’s an interesting interpretation, Ken. I guess based on many years of reading Goldberg, I don’t find an endorsement of assassination out of character at all. Still, you may be right. I’m not sure obscure satire is good satire, however.

      • Assassination is a tool that has a wide perspective and it’s use can cover a wide context. Simply put, everytime a trigger is pulled and a bomb is set off, one could call it assassination? My perspective is that assassinations are an expedient tool by which an uncivilized activity can be brought under control, where all other means are unachievable. There are no votes and there are no courts for remedial consideration. It is the irrational act of civilized people against persons that are free to spread mayhem and slaughter but for the well placed bullet. Assassination is the ultimate tool to selectively and effectively stop ongoing horrendous acts of inhumanity. Fairness is not at issue, nor is due process. Stopping the carnage is.

  2. I would add David Broder to the list, with his assertion that “as tensions rise [with Iran] and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.” Even though the implication is that we will “spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs” and then shut it down once the economy improves, I find his notion of toying with foreign policy despicable, especially in light of our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.