New at Reason

Michael C. Moynihan reviews a film about France's lawyer-to-the-beastly.

Comments

matthew hogan | November 1, 2007, 4:00pm | #

That the Nazis and Communists recruited from each others' ranks in the 1920s-1940s is well-observed. Alot of kinship between hard right and hard left in Europe.

Marcvs | November 1, 2007, 4:22pm | #

Usually when someone is referred to as "complex" it is basically a dismissal of all of the evil things he has done because the writer agrees with something else about the person; and this case is no different. You saw the same sort of "on the other hand.." style of articles from the Right when Pinochet died. Personally, it makes me sick no matter where it comes from, but since there have been more leftist revolutionaries than rightists over the past half-century, you tend to see it more on the Left (cf. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Che, Castro). It's amazing how dehumanizing even the nicest person can become when discussing their favorite revolutionary ("You've got to break some eggs to make an omelet.."). This guy is just another in a long line of people that take Hitler's comment to heart: "Who remembers the Armenians?"

Tuck | November 1, 2007, 4:34pm | #

Haven't seen the movie and am not familiar with this man. However, holding revolutionary/genocidal beliefs is not the same as acting on those beliefs and assisting the accused in securing their right to due process, it would seem to me, would be a greater service than mark against him.

Put another way, if Jonny Cochran were a virulent racist, it might affect my respect for the man, but would not lower my opinion of his accomplishments.

Episiarch | November 1, 2007, 5:02pm | #

As I've said before, if you spout the correct buzzwords, the left will forgive you virtually any sin. Useful idiots are beyond stupid--for them, actions mean nothing, only words.

One of the few seeming distinctions between the left and the right is that the right seems to demand more proof of action before they fellate someone.

Shawn | November 1, 2007, 5:13pm | #

"Alot of kinship between hard right and hard left in Europe."

There's a lot of kinship between hard right and hard left everywhere. Neither one is a big fan of individual rights.

The last time I heard the "complex personality" euphemism being used it was describing Bobby Knight. I interpreted it to mean that he's an asshole, but he's successful. I don't know about Bobby Knight, but it's definitely true in this case.

J sub D | November 1, 2007, 6:22pm | #

I don't know about Bobby Knight, but it's definitely true in this case.

Oh yes, Bobby Knight is a grade A, bona fide, complete asshole.

Brandybuck | November 1, 2007, 6:40pm | #

There's a lot of kinship between hard right and hard left everywhere. Neither one is a big fan of individual rights.

No, there's a lot of kinship between the totalitarian left and the totalitarian right. The commonality is the totalitarianism. You'll notice that there is very little kinship between the totalitarian left and libertarian left, or the totalitarian right and libertarian right.

Ben Rushing | November 1, 2007, 9:42pm | #

How exactly does Europe's Far Right and Far Left play out on the advocates' political map?

Is it the Statist right/left? If that is the case how long do we have to wait to see mass ammounts of European's becoming Libertarians?

John C. Randolph | November 1, 2007, 11:59pm | #

Anyone who can be in the same room with a monster like Pol Pot and not try to strangle the son of a bitch is a coward or a traitor to mankind.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | November 2, 2007, 12:00am | #

"how long do we have to wait to see mass ammounts of European's becoming Libertarians?"

There's quite a lot of Libertarians in the former Soviet colonies of Europe.

-jcr

CSS | November 2, 2007, 2:53am | #

This shows that any political philosophy, no matter how sound, must be applied with compassion and pragmatism or risk morphing into something very ugly. As unlikely as it seems, didn't Communism evolve from a branch of 19th century Anarchism?

dbust1 | November 2, 2007, 9:20am | #

Tuck,

While everyone deserves representation and due process, there's one thing I don't understand. It seems to me that every person Verges represented wound up convicted and in prison. How did these people allow themselves to be represented by this guy? Didn't they check his track record? Surely there was at least one other attorney willing to take their cases.

Tuck | November 2, 2007, 11:25am | #

"How did these people allow themselves to be represented by this guy? Didn't they check his track record? Surely there was at least one other attorney willing to take their cases."

I would guess there were many other attorneys who would take the cases. However, openly committing atrocities generally leaves little defense, especially when hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals stand ready to testify against you.

It seems usually your only defense in these cases concerns the ability to construct a fair tribunal amidst intense political pressure to convict, as was the defense in the Saddam trial.

joe | November 2, 2007, 11:34pm | #

Moynihan's statement how easy it is in advancing a cause to become morally corrupted by anger and Brandybuck's statement No, there's a lot of kinship between the totalitarian left and the totalitarian right. The commonality is the totalitarianism. say the same thing.

Totalitarianism isn't written into the DNA of any political philosophy, but is an expression of a personal anger or hatred that transcends ideology. Orwell noted that Soviet-style Communism only gained a following in England after the stories about Moscow's atrocities became known. Alger Hiss never got over "the horrible old women of Baltimore." It is the personality of the totalitarian or terrorist that makes him such, not his belief system.

No particular line of political thought is going to make one totalitarian; the flip side of this is that no particular line of political thought is going to prevent one from becoming totalitarian. People who think they don't have to worry about that sort of thing tend to end up shedding blood with a clear conscience.

Doesn't the most popular libertarian work of fiction end with the bombing of a building? I can easily imagine some revolutionary, totalitarian libertarians lining up unionists, communalists, the wrong sort of college professors, and other Enemies of the People. Heck, Robbespierre walked around with a copy of The Rights of Man.

Bulbman | November 4, 2007, 2:33am | #

Jacques Verges is an extreme case, but he has many American parallels. Noam Chomsky, the “peace” movement, the Palestinian flag wavers, name your favorites. The union of the left and the far right is a fact of political life in the USA today. They share a de facto, and sometimes explicit support of Islamofascism and a hatred of Israel amounting to a poorly disguised anti-Semitism. They consider the US, and not Al Qaeda and the Ba’athist holdouts as the bad guys in Iraq.

The Democratic leaders in Congress pander to these people by doing everything they can to bring about the defeat of the US and the victory of Al Qaeda, not only by undermining our forces in Iraq but also through demanding that suspected terrorists be given all the rights of US citizens.

The Democrats hope that US setbacks in the struggle against Islamofascist terrorism will work to their political benefit. There is a name for that sort of behavior. It is called "treason".

joe | November 4, 2007, 12:45pm | #

Treason is a crime punishable by death by firing squad, and Bulbman things the term is properly applied to people who speak out against government policies.

Thanks for demonstrating my point about totalitarianism issuing from personality flaws, Bulbman.

You probably consider your call to jail your political opponents a blow AGAINST totalitariansim, don't you?

Bulbman | November 4, 2007, 2:30pm | #

Joe, I am not advocating executing or even prosecuting anybody. Supporting Islamofascism is not treason in the legal sense. I am using the word "treason" in the moral sense, to mean making common cause with people who are trying to destroy this country and everything it stands for.

The alliance of the radical left and some on the extreme left with radical Islam is well documented. Just read what the radicals have said.

Criticizing government policy is the right of every citizen and it is a good thing when it is done in a thoughtful and responsible manner. As a libertarian conservative I have found a lot to object to in the last seven years.

Reasonable people can believe that it was a bad idea to invade Iraq. Maybe it was a bad idea. But now that we are there and finally starting to make some progress toward defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq it is both unpatriotic and immoral to advocate that the US cut and run.

The US is not at present occupying Iraq. We are there with the permission of the legally elected government, which is recognized by the UN and by most countries. We should and will leave when that government asks us to leave.

I withdraw the term "treason". Let me just say that the radical leftists and rightists who make common cause with Islamofascism are unpatriotic and immoral.

Bulbman | November 4, 2007, 11:27pm | #

Correction: Make that "The alliance of the radical left and the extreme right with radical Islam is well documented". My point is that both extremes are anti-American as well as anti-Semitic.

A group of German leftists went to the West Bank to volunteer to fight for the Palestinian cause. When they arrived they were shocked to find that a bunch of German Nazis had preceded them. Hello! As any libertarian should know, the totalitarian left and the radical right are sisters under the skin.