Loyola To A Fault

by Belle Waring on November 12, 2006

Mario Loyola is quickly emerging as a hack to be reckoned with at The Corner. Here’s something that I find so wrong that I fear I must have completely misunderstood him:

I asked one of Michael’s guests at the AEI event whether anyone in Lebanon talks about the crimes Hezbollah committed against the laws of Lebanon. His response (this was a Lebanese moderate) really brought home for me the vast gulf in political consciousness between the Islamic World and the West. He said, in essence, that if we resolve the issue of the Sebbah Farms, then Hezbollah will not have an excuse to continue armed resistance, because of course everyone has a fundamental right to resist the occupation of their land.

This response seemed to me so strange. Imagine that the Canadians went berserk and occupied Minnesota. Then imagine that a militia formed to “resist the occupation” but the Federal Government ordered it to disband. Would any American say that the right of resistance trumped obedience for the rule of law? No, of course not. Nothing trumps obedience for the rule of law in this country, not even religion.

What now? Seriously, what? Is Loyola one of these cut-rate Canadian or British pundits we keep getting saddled with? Because I am quite certain that every single damn person in America disagrees with him. A foreign country invades a US state and the quisling Feds tell the local militia to stand down? And Loyola thinks people would say, ‘oh well, rule of law and all that. Let’s go turn in our guns at the occupation depot’? This may be the single most wrong-headed thing I have ever read about politics on the internet, and I think we all know that’s saying a lot. Live free or die, baby. Live free or die.

{ 1 trackback }

Sadly, No! » Not So Snappy Answers To Simple Questions
11.21.06 at 9:53 am

{ 59 comments }

1

B.r.i.a.n 11.12.06 at 10:07 pm

I concur. I think every American is waiting for “Red Dawn” to actually happen.

2

"Q" the Enchanter 11.12.06 at 10:21 pm

Loyola’s *right on*. Reminds me of we felt about that scofflaw Martin Luther King. If he’d just, you know, obeyed the law.

3

Jackmormon 11.12.06 at 10:30 pm

I gawped at that one too. Is the rule-of-law-obeying version of Red Dawn coming out on DVD soon?

4

bob mcmanus 11.12.06 at 11:36 pm

The right of resistance always trumps obedience to [for] the rule of law.

Just trying to match in wrongheadedness while kinda remaining in character.

I agree with Belle that direct action and the propaganda of the deed are expressive of the American character, from Tea Parties to John Brown to well, getting more recent might generate unnecessary controversy.

5

Sebastian Holsclaw 11.12.06 at 11:43 pm

The support for the militia would be a bit complicated if they started the war I would hope.

6

Jim Johnson 11.12.06 at 11:55 pm

This fellow is a knucklehead – Bush and Company have spent lots and lots of energy trying (with way too much success) to redefine “the rule of law” to exclude, say, habeas corpus and so forth. So, not every single American meets his criterion – Bush, Gonzalas, Cheny, Rumsfeld, Yoo, and probably many underlings (to say nothing of minions like Richard Perle whom I heard spouting absolute nonesense on npr this morning) are plenty enough counterexamples to his claim. Is he living in another country?

7

BruceR 11.13.06 at 12:05 am

Well, NR did get the fellow straight from the DoD PR shop, so there it is.

Sometimes, just occasionally, you get to see through to what the current power-elite really thinks. The fact that every last Founding Father would have approved of shooting this fellow in the head is irrelevant.

If the powers that be hadn’t had such success the last six years in redefining Americanism, a lot of the rights-based abuses of these years could not have happened. America is not what it used to be, let alone claimed to be.

8

ogged 11.13.06 at 12:18 am

>Imagine that the Canadians went berserk and occupied Minnesota.

How would we know?

9

Belle Waring 11.13.06 at 12:52 am

sebastian: this isn’t my hypothetical. loyola is the one who stipulates that beserk canadians invade the US. I’m happy to grant that if the canadians were invading because minnesotan irregulars were firing artillery at them the situation might be more nuanced. and even in that case I bet that general US sentiment would favor the militia defending US territory from invasion.

10

Samael 11.13.06 at 1:12 am

I have to give him credit for raising a hypothetical that gives us the opportunity to talk about a Minnesota-Canada conflict. “minnesotan irregulars”–hah!.

11

dsquared 11.13.06 at 1:25 am

Very revealing indeed that he thinks “rule of law” means “obey the government whatever they say”.

12

Peter 11.13.06 at 1:53 am

I think every American is waiting for “Red Dawn” to actually happen.

A silly comment on this is that my apartment was broken into on Halloween, and among some other things, all but 4 of my DVDs were stolen. Of those 4 remaining DVDs, one is Red Dawn.

Would any American say that the right of resistance trumped obedience for the rule of law? No, of course not.

Has Mr Hack already forgotten Ruby Ridge, Waco, The Minutemen and the rest of the militia movement? The president has really pushed a number of hot buttons with the militia movement with the recent martial law bill that effectively abolishes the Posse Comitatus Act.

13

mijnheer 11.13.06 at 3:08 am

The “live free or die” rhetoric is licensed by Waring’s invention of a “quisling” federal government. But Mario Loyola’s piece talks of “the constitutions of [the Enlightenment’s] disciple democracies”. So Loyola is imagining a sovereign democratic government in Washington refusing to let a bunch of out-of-control yahoos hijack whatever course of action it has decided upon for dealing with the crisis.

(No doubt the berserk Canadians would try to force universal health care upon Minnesotans. The horror, the horror!)

14

bad Jim 11.13.06 at 3:19 am

Perhaps if it was just the Northwest Angle of Minnesota, it would be no big whoop. How hard would France fight to hold onto St. Pierre & Miquelon? Cartographers make mistakes.

If instead Mexico had mounted a reconquista of Alta California, and that every taquería from San Ysidro to Santa Ana was a nest of AK-47’s and RPG launchers, would we take that lying down, like just another sunny day at the beach?

15

bad Jim 11.13.06 at 3:34 am

Links: Northwest Angle and Saint-Pierre and Miquelon. And, actually, it was another sunny day at the beach.

16

Bruce Baugh 11.13.06 at 3:53 am

No doubt someone so committed to the rule of law has written extensively on matters like the need to impeach Pres. Bush for his violations, yes? No?

17

Belle Waring 11.13.06 at 4:16 am

sorry, mijnheer. America is all about a bunch of out-of-control yahoos. from sea to shining sea, people would be saying, “hijack away, my fellow out-of-control yahoos!” you may not know this because you’re from the netherlands or some other made-up country, so take it from me. further, it is impossible to imagine a federal government which is too timid to confront canadian invaders as anything but weak and quisling-esque. weeeeaaaak.

ogged: haha.

18

abb1 11.13.06 at 4:37 am

…Canadians went berserk and occupied Minnesota. Then imagine that a militia formed to “resist the occupation”…

Interesting use of scare quotes here. It appears that in the current version of newspeak the word ‘occupation’ (and most certainly ‘resisting the occupation’) has no serious meaning. ‘Occupation’ is merely an excuse for bad people to kill good people.

19

chris y 11.13.06 at 4:37 am

America is all about a bunch of out-of-control yahoos. from sea to shining sea, people would be saying, “hijack away, my fellow out-of-control yahoos!”

I don’t really have a view on the substantive question here, but this has to be the best thing written on the internets this year.

20

elliottg 11.13.06 at 4:47 am

Ok. I’m really, really dense because it seems to me that if the government of the US told its citizens that it had ceded territory to another country then any US citizen should obey. Obviously, Belle is wrong in at least part of her post, because though I disagree with Loyola on almost everything; this is one thing I don’t disagree with him about. BTW, I don’t have any respect for Israeli settlers who have to be evicted by the Israeli army. For what it’s worth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_areas_disputed_by_Canada_and_the_United_States

21

dearieme 11.13.06 at 4:48 am

“Tea Parties to John Brown”: why so proud of a demented terrorist and of a bunch of tea-smugglers protesting about the cut in import duties that would finish their cosy cartel?

22

ajay 11.13.06 at 5:15 am

Ok. I’m really, really dense because it seems to me that if the government of the US told its citizens that it had ceded territory to another country then any US citizen should obey.

A better example would be: suppose the US federal government had agreed to surrender the Panama Canal Zone to Panamanian sovereignty. Would it not be justifiable for people who disagreed with this decision, both in the Zone and in the US proper, to resist this with armed force?

Or, to put it another way: when the Texas Republican Party come to lynch Jimmy Carter, which side will you be on?

23

stostosto 11.13.06 at 7:51 am

The lesson is: Never use analogies. The thing is, Lebanon is like Pearl Harbor, and anyone who disagrees is a bonafide Neville Chamberlain appeaser. The question you should always ask yourself is: What would Churchill do?

24

John Emerson 11.13.06 at 8:11 am

The state of Minnesota would welcome its new Canadian masters. We’d give Norman Coleman 24 hours to return to the candidate-farm he was sent to us from.

25

greensmile 11.13.06 at 8:33 am

As if such crises, real or imagined, unfolded according to anyone’s political theories. People act for their personal perceived benefit or against threats they think directly do or indirectly will impact themselves. An appearance of organization can be layered over the collection of these unthinking movements and the hindsight of historians devine a pattern. But any sensible talk of defusing violent situations would have to include the several viewpoints [Hezbollah, Israeli…] and the actual stimuli each fighter is responding to. Peace is always so much harder to manufacture than it is to praise or hope for.

26

The Modesto Kid 11.13.06 at 8:58 am

8 — less posting from Emerson.

27

Craigers 11.13.06 at 9:14 am

Shit, everybody makes fun about how we Canadians talk already. The last thing we need is to conquer Minnesota.

On the plus side, they all have toques already.

28

paul 11.13.06 at 9:27 am

Let me get this right: Canadian Berzerkers have invaded Minnesota and are occupying it — but not being welcomed with what flowers might grow that far north — and the US federal government is ordering citizens of Minnesota not to resist the Canadian occupation.

To make any sense of Loyola’s idea you would have to assume that Canada was making no claim of sovereignty over the land it had just invaded and occupied, and that the civil organs of the US federal government were still operating normally — albeit under the supervision of our boreal overlords. In short, that although the Canadians might have been seen to invade they were effectively there at the invitation or with the (for the time being) agreement of the US federal government.

The country whose invasion and occupation most closely resembles that scenario, as far as I can tell, would be Afghanistan under the USSR. Rule of law clearly should have called for the Mujahideen to stand down, and I’m sure Mario would say likewise. Oh, wait.

29

Barry 11.13.06 at 9:39 am

Peter: “The president has really pushed a number of hot buttons with the militia movement with the recent martial law bill that effectively abolishes the Posse Comitatus Act.”

That’s odd – I’ve heard nothing like what was going on in the 1990’s. One might be led to think that the ‘live free or die’ militia members were actually just trying to foment a rebellion against a president from the other party.

30

abb1 11.13.06 at 9:45 am

Canadians have the right to defend themselves.

31

norbizness 11.13.06 at 9:52 am

If I could scientifically prove that nobody approvingly links to National Review articles/blog posts apart from other National Review columnists, could we agree to stop talking about that den of authoritarian halfwits forever and ever?

32

Belle Waring 11.13.06 at 10:34 am

don’t be a spoilsport, The Left.

33

sparafucilli 11.13.06 at 10:43 am

I disagree. The Canadian scenario did not go far enough in its initial premise. First off Canadians would not go “berserk”. They would “occupy” parts south only after some sort of provocation. Like, for example, after a rogue band of cattle rustlers committed nefarious deeds north in Alberta and nothing was being done about it. Imagine also that peaceful resolutions were at hand but a well meaning Chippewa band were upset with the progress and decided to take matters into their own hands. Most certainly a cease and desist order by the central government would require compliance.

34

Richard 11.13.06 at 10:56 am

“one of these cut-rate Canadian or British pundits we keep getting saddled with” …
“the netherlands or some other made-up country”

Belle, I know the provocation, content and intent of this post are nothing but antic comedy, but really, can we cool it with the jingoistic free-fire insults? If foreign pundits are more ‘cut-rate’ that Limbaugh, Hannity et al, it’s only literally: they aren’t paid as highly. If the Netherlands (note cap) is made-up, it is not more so than the US or any other nation (cf. Hobsbawm, Anderson).

…and where are those reparations for Mexico, by the way?

35

The Left 11.13.06 at 11:26 am

It’s OK, Belle, I flunked science. I can’t prove nuthin’.

36

Rich B. 11.13.06 at 11:34 am

Isn’t the better analogy:

1. Canada invades and takes over Alaska.

2. Russians invade Alaska based on its pre-1867 ownership of the land?

While “true” ownership of Shebaa Farms is obviously in dispute, the facts are that Israel took it from Syria in the 1967 war in which Lebanon was not involved. It is also true that, prior to the 1967 war in which the land was taken from Syria, the Lebanese were not fighting to liberate it from the Syrians.

37

Belle Waring 11.13.06 at 11:36 am

I stand by my complaint that domestic protectionism for our corn-fed pundits would spare us from ever having to read Mark Steyn again. also, I was joking about the netherlands. I’ve been there and they have tulips and windmills and hash and everything.

Mexico’s check is in the mail.

38

elliottg 11.13.06 at 12:16 pm

I don’t know why we need all these analogies when we have the Minutemen diligently working to protect our southern borders. (Unfortunately, they haven’t been deployed in the North yet so they won’t be able to prevent an invasion of Minnesota by rabid Canucks.) I hadn’t noticed a lot of uniformity in Americans’ opinions about this. I wonder what Belle thinks; I wonder what Loyola thinks.

39

chris y 11.13.06 at 12:23 pm

What if Minnesota invites the Canadians in?

40

Colin Danby 11.13.06 at 12:28 pm

Richard it’s called satire. Thanks Belle for a highly entertaining post.

41

neil 11.13.06 at 12:50 pm

It seems like any number of alarms should have gone off in his head while composing those paragraphs. Faulty wiring, perhaps?

42

BruceR 11.13.06 at 1:03 pm

Just goes to show that a foreign policy that would work perfectly well against berserk Canadians, just like the policy I’ve designed to optimize our societal advantages against any invasion of space aliens made entirely out of yogurt, may not be as useful in other realms as one might have hoped.

43

MQ 11.13.06 at 1:41 pm

Sebastian (#5): Hezbollah did not start the original war with Israel. Study up.

44

Phoenician in a time of Romans 11.13.06 at 2:19 pm

Obviously, in Loyola’s world, the Vichy government of WWII are heroes to be emulated…

45

Fred Beloit 11.13.06 at 2:21 pm

Either I am much too unhip for you folks or my copy of these comments is too degraded for me to get much meaning from it, but here is what would happen if Canada should suddenly invade Minnesota: (Nota bene, invasion is an essential action prior to an occupation.) Our much beloved fellow citizens from the Left would begin theorizing about wrongs we commited that forced the Maples to take such a drastic step. The NYT and Wapo would feature numerous editorials about the danger of awakening the furies of the Canadian street. International watchdog organizations would warn us to avoid collateral damage. With our new Congress on the job, we would drop a small, conventional bomb somewhere near but not too close to the frozen forrests of Red Lake, Ontario, assuming we could find an ibuprophin works there. We would be called upon by Marvin Kalb to negotiate one-on-one with Ottawa. Shortly thereafter, peace would return, until North Dakota would soon be invaded. In the public outcry that ensues we would elect a pacifist retired Army general as President in 2008. And so it would go. I write this in the full knowledge that we and our goverment have not allowed us to win a war since 1945.

46

John Emerson 11.13.06 at 2:38 pm

The “made-up country” is Belgium, not the Netherlands.

Belgium does not exist.

Belgium really does not exist

47

Ben Regenspan 11.13.06 at 3:01 pm

I don’t know why we need all these analogies when we have the Minutemen diligently working to protect our southern borders. (Unfortunately, they haven’t been deployed in the North yet so they won’t be able to prevent an invasion of Minnesota by rabid Canucks.)

Funnily enough…

48

KH 11.13.06 at 3:37 pm

This & other things makes me think the time’s overdue for a clarifying discussion of the meaning of rule of law. Who here knows what it means?

49

Dan 11.13.06 at 6:25 pm

Loyola will not, I feel, be long for NRO. He has here already committed the cardinal sin of Wingnutism, which is to suggest that there is some kind of equivalency between what ‘they’ do to ‘us’ and what ‘we’ do to ‘them’.

Any proper-thinking nutter – IE, Jonah Goldberg – would hold the view that were Canada ever to invade we’d kick their maple-chomping behinds back to Nova Scotia, same as we’re gonna kick the stuffing out of those Lebanese for not taking our colonialism and liking it, because USA! USA! USA!

Once you start getting funny ideas to your head about moral and logical consistency well, I can’t imagine it’s long until someone presses a straight-razor into the guy’s hands and tells him to do the right thing.

50

minneapolitan 11.13.06 at 6:40 pm

Comrades, to arms!

Actually, I’d really have to know more about this invasion before I could decide whether to resist or collaborate. If we did get free health care, an generous national film board and more West Indian and East Indian cultural influences, I might have to sell out my Minnesotan compatriots. Of course, if Canada really were invading, that would seem to indicate that a general and severe rightward shift had taken place in Canadian politics. It’s a toughy. Oh, ridiculous commentators of the far right, why can’t you make your bizarre analogies stand up to more rigorous scrutiny?

51

maidhc 11.13.06 at 7:10 pm

In 1916, Mexican forces associated with Pancho Villa raided into New Mexico, with the following results:

1. The federal government ordered Gen. Pershing to take 10000 troops into northern Mexico. Wikipedia entry.

2. The Texas Rangers and informal militia groups used it as an excuse to murder innocent Spanish-speaking American citizens and/or steal their land and property. Here and here and here.

52

Pooh 11.13.06 at 7:26 pm

This & other things makes me think the time’s overdue for a clarifying discussion of the meaning of rule of law. Who here knows what it means?

IOKIYAR?

53

Henry (not the famous one) 11.13.06 at 7:58 pm

The colossus to the north has already begun its plans for world domination: http://cwd.ptbcanadian.com/. It is probably too late to resist.

54

EWI 11.13.06 at 9:04 pm

The “made-up country” is Belgium, not the Netherlands.

Tell that to the Friesians!

55

Leonard 11.13.06 at 9:44 pm

Right on, Belle. I read that and my jaw dropped. I’d already resolved not to read Loyola as yet another boring right-wing hack on the Corner, but sometimes I read even the dumb ones there. I notice the deafening silence from his cobloggers. Doesn’t this guy know anything about America? Where’s he from, anyway?

56

thetruth 11.14.06 at 1:55 am

It is also true that, prior to the 1967 war in which the land was taken from Syria, the Lebanese were not fighting to liberate it from the Syrians.

Why would there be fighting over it? The Lebanese were farming the land, and paying property taxes on it to the Lebanese government. What about that situation do you think should have led to the Lebanese taking up violent action?

Contrast to the Israeli position of, “There is a technical dispute over whether this land belongs to Syria, or Lebanon, so quite obviously it is desired by a higher power that this land be settled by Israelis of the proper ethnic background for their exclusive use in perpetuity”.

I can see the second situation leading to some fighting. The first, not so much.

57

jkd 11.14.06 at 2:41 am

“I stand by my complaint that domestic protectionism for our corn-fed pundits would spare us from ever having to read Mark Steyn again.”

To say nothing of Adam Yoshida. But let’s not forget the slop our former colonial overlords have been sending us in recent years: Sebastian Mallaby. And Hitch. And Little Roy. And Tony Blankley.

They can take them all back, along with our crappy health care system.

58

abb1 11.14.06 at 4:54 am

The Lebanese were farming the land, and paying property taxes on it to the Lebanese government.

Well, occupation of Shebba farms is certainly a provocation, but let’s not forget that this current generation of Southern Lebanese Muslims (aka Hezbollah) grew up under Israeli occupation (1982-2000), terrorised and looted by the IDF and their SLA helpers. That’s 18 years of terrorising and plundering. There is a documented incident when topsoil was removed off Lebanese farmland and shipped to Israel; the UN had to intervene to stop it.

Yeah, and the next generation is going to grow up with millions of Israeli-American bomblets laying around their gardens and fields, ready to go off – so some time in the next decade we are bound to find out if that helped improve their attitude.

59

Antti Nannimus 11.14.06 at 4:47 pm

Hi,

If Canada invaded Minnesota, as long as it lasted anyway, I could consider myself finally freed from the tyranny. Not even to mention universal health insurance as a birthright!I live in Minnesota. Hell, the border should rightfully have gone up the Saint Louis River in the first place, leaving Duluth, the Iron Range, and the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area in Canada where they belong.

Have a nice day.

Antti

Comments on this entry are closed.