Steve and Virginia Pearcy have effigy vandalized

I am very much disturbed by how many people support the vandals who tore down an effigy of a U.S. soldier hung up by Steve and Virginia Pearcy as some sort of anti-war protest. See this post and this post for examples.

People who regularly read my blog know that I'm pro-war, but I don't condone lawlessness, especially vandalizing other people's property.

The Sacramento city authorities determined that the display didn't violate any laws. I hope the lawbreakers are arrested and prosecuted. They shouldn't be given an exemption from paying for their crimes just because the vandalized party isn't popular.

Comments

[Apesnake]

I am of two minds on this.

On the one hand, if the laws of the land don't protect everyone, including the scum sucking low-life types among us then there will be a cut off line with regards to who gets protected and it will be left to human judgement as to where that line is drawn. Depending on human judgement is never a wise bet.

That being said, if people go out of their way to provoke others to violence, maybe they should pay part of the burden of their own protection. When they pulled this stunt, did they bother to put up video cameras and alarms to protect their property or did they just think, "Lets piss off the world and let the cops deal with the fall out."?

[Aaron G.]

I'm trying to understand how someone can be simultaneously pro-war and against lawlessness and vandalism. I mean, are you saying it's not okay for me to tear down an effigy, but it IS okay for the U.S. Army to rocket this man's house? That looks like some pretty bad vandalism to me. Or what about tresspass? Or murder? Are these crimes or not? If not, why?

[Outlaw3]

Aaron, did you actually look at your own pictures?

In reverse order, the car did not stop at a checkpoint, knowing the procedures in place for 2 years. There is not an Iraqi around that is not aware of what will happen.

Trespass assumes that is private property. If so, it was built on the deaths and robbery of the Iraqi people by government officials for their own personal use. And the traditional use is temporary until returned to legal authorities of the nation (that would be the elected government, not Saddam Hussein) after the war. Government buildings abandoned by the government... would they be covered by anyone's trespass law?

Rocket the house, ummm, you do know the only ones using rockets in Iraq are the terrorist insurgents who mostly are an invading force from surrounding Middle Eastern nations, right? The U.S. ground forces only have 1 artillery rocket type in theater, and it isn't used for that type of target. Now if you mean a missile, there are several types, but none are that destructive. So maybe you mean artillery from a cannon or a tank cannon, except a tank cannon might be a little small - hard to tell with that picture framed just so it appears the structure was utterly devastated.

By the way, stop trying to apply civilian civil law definitions to conflicts between nations or non-state political groups. They don't hold.

LG said maybe the effigy wasn't a good idea, but it didn't permit lawlessness. Good grief, Aaron, read what she wrote and don't color it with your own beliefs.

[Brad Warbiany]

Some could make the case that this falls under the "Fighting Words" doctrine mentioned at:

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

I personally think, although their display is utterly sick and wrong, that there is not enough there to consider it inciting violence. I would look at this one of two ways. If they are in an area governed by a home-owners association, I would look for ways in the rules of the HOA to take care of this. Barring that, I would look into ways of protest that countered their speech with a neighborhood show of speech condemning these idiots.

People who do that sort of thing make me *want* to get violent, but that's their goal. They want to be able to protest and then make us look like the bad guys when we respond. I am upset that these vandals gave them the satisfaction.

[Apesnake]

Re: Argon G.

What are you smoking? The only houses that get rocketed by the U.S. military are either enemy targets or accidents that happen in war (remember the carpet bombing that went on in Germany during WWII).

As far as the Iraq war being "lawless", when has the U.N. or any body nation or organization declared war to be illegal? The U.N. has lots of rules and regulations about what is allowable during war, hardly needed if war is illegal. They them selves have authorized war (Gulf War version 1.0)

I checked on your murder link (the first image description was enough to discredit this as relevant). If you can not see a difference between fireing at a car that tries to blow through a military check point in a war zone where cars that do this tend to blow up and kill people, and a case of cold blooded murder then there is no use in trying to explain anything to you and you are a perfect example of why they should teach reasoning skills in schools.

http://apesnake.blogspot.com/2005/02/government-mandated-stupidity.html

"Rocket the house, ummm, you do know the only ones using rockets in Iraq are the terrorist insurgents who mostly are an invading force from surrounding Middle Eastern nations, right?"

So sorry, next time I'll just use the non-descript "splody-thing", as if that changes the central argument one iota.

"By the way, stop trying to apply civilian civil law definitions to conflicts between nations or non-state political groups. They don't hold."

That's one belief, but it's not a libertarian one. Try some Rand on for size:

"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."

LG said maybe the effigy wasn't a good idea, but it didn't permit lawlessness.

And I'm saying that it's not very consistent of her to be pro-war and antilawlessness.

[Outlaw3]

Aaron, at least use terms correctly and use that as evidence you are speaking with authority. It means so much more than just emotion filled statements blaring out items that have the opposite meaning when checked out thoroughly (see Dan Rather et al).

I never said I was libertarian. I am one of those people who finds enough not to like in all the prevalent political parties that I would not want to be in any of them. But I am pleased that many people associate themselves in such a manner, it gives them something to do.

[Walter E. Wallis]

Isn't this just a physical extension of free speech?

[dadahead]

when has the U.N. or any body nation or organization declared war to be illegal?

Well, the charter of the International Military Tribunal, established at the Nuremberg Trials, says:

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing

The whole thing is here.

[dadahead]

People who regularly read my blog know that I'm pro-war

Pro-war in general? As in, who's up for some war?!!

Or just pro this war?

[Tom Hanna]

Who's up for some war!?

I know I find myself asking that at least every year or two during times of peace. That's why I liked Bill Clinton so much. Every time he got caught with his pants down we'd get the excitement of bombing the hell out of an aspirin factory.

[David]

Eh, who the hell cares? As a cop, I can tell you there are some crimes you just don't give a shit about solving. Oops, did I say that? Nevermind.

[Apesnake]

"The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:"

Just above the paragraph about "within the jurisdiction of the tribunal" the said jurisdiction is spelled out:

"The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes."

At which point it spells out what the document decides are crimes. Nowhere does it state that this definition has been adopted by law outside the tribunal and neither the tribunal members nor the U.N. has adopted laws enshrining them as law. The whole document is a charter for a military tribunal, not a document of international law.

Do you really think that just after fighting a war against fascism and while trying to look tough in the face of Soviet expansion, America would help draw up and sign a document that would make all war illegal?

Also, since the document is governing the power to try "the major war criminals of the European Axis countries" for "planning, waging" etc., a "war of aggression" is pre implied. The document gives no means of distinguishing a war of aggression from one of liberation, experimentation or lamination. This document is not a law against war. It is a law against being a Nazi or fascist war criminal as defined by this military tribunal.

If you want a law against war you had better start lobbying because none exists that I have ever heard of.

[Some strange guy]

Even if the stress and rage he causes his neighbors is considered a crime, vandalism must be considered a more serious one then venomous expressions. Alowing people to escalate their disputes however they see fit never ends well. As this guy becomes motivated to put up other more offensive displays in response to the violation of his territory, the chances of him or someone else getting shot increase. On his part, while many left-wingers don't own guns that could change when the inevetable phone calls threatening him and his wife start rolling in. It won't matter who shoots who or who started it, the whole community will suffer emotionaly and economicaly. All because one offensive act was not dealt with properly. Both sides will blame each other and both sides will be right.

[Eric]

AaronG wrote: "That's one belief, but it's not a libertarian one. Try some Rand on for size:"

Rand is not the only definition out there of libertarian. Let's try real Liberal values (and no, I don't mean socialist/left.). Try reading Heinlein, Schulmann, Jefferson, Madison, et. al. Just because Badnarik and co are pacifists doesn't mean everyone who holds Liberal and individualistic values is. Many of us happen to believe that sometimes you have to choose violence as the lesser of two evils, you apparently do not, which makes you a pacifist, and the only thing worse than a pacifist, in my book, is a socialist.

Consider this. Is it acceptable for the individual to defend his or her rights by force? If you answer yes, is it acceptable for a group of individuals to defend their rights by force? If you answer no, provide clear reasoning why. If you answer yes, explain the difference between a war and a group of individuals defending their rights by force.

Anyhow, on to the subject of the effigy. I live in Sacramento County, about 6 or 7 miles from this neighborhood. It is an older neighborhood and does not have an HOA. In my opinion, although I don't agree with their method, the Pearcy's were right and the folks who tore down the effigy were wrong. In fact, I posted about this yesterday, including an idea for a counter-protest, one that I think would have been quite effective. See this post for details.

By the way Aaron, Heinlein's Rational Anarchy is a much better explanation of reality than Rand's Every Man is an Island. Broaden your Liberal/Libertarian horizons, if you haven't already, you might learn something.

[Eric]

Apesnake, you might as well point out that the Nuremberg Tribunals only said it was illegal to plan a war of aggression, they didn't say that war, in general, was illegal. I'm sure that many on the Left/Pacifist side of the house are firmly convinced that Iraq is a war of aggression. From a purely legal perspective they are absolutely wrong. The United States could, and did, base the legal justification for their actions on more than 10 UN resolutions that Saddam Hussein was in violation of. So, if you're going to try the legal argument guys, make sure you've got all the facts. :-)

[austroblogger]

I just LOVED this comment over at Crooked Timber yesterday. (warning, this is NOT to be taken seriously). A wonderful swipe at the tone of debate in the US currently, it manages to spread the jam evenly :)

"The United States of America,

48% traitors
51% idiots"

[Brad Warbiany]

Eric,
Bear in mind, if you *really* want to look at the legal argument, it's a lot easier.

The terms of the cease-fire included the enforcement of no-fly zones. Saddam regularly shot at the planes enforcing the no-fly zone. Therefore, Saddam *broke* the terms of the cease-fire.

[Apesnake]

The main point still stands though, that even if some international standard for defining a "war of agression" existed, it would only be against the law if it was planned (or prepared, initiated or waged) by a "the major war criminals of the European Axis countries".

What could possibly be keeping them alive and employed in the pentagon for all this time? Ginsing? Green tea?

[Eric]

Brad, I agree with you, as I do with Apesnake, that the "illegal war" argument that the Left is trying to make is silly and unfounded in any facts. If you want to make the "legal" argument you need to get your legal facts straight, which the left has not done.

I could easily argue against the Iraq war on ethical and/or national security grounds and my arguments would be difficult to counter. I don't do so because I happen to think that we are engaged in a massive war of civilizations and that we need to win. I'm not sure that Iraq was the right choice for the next campaign in that war, but now that we are there we need to see it through to victory.

But that's me, others may choose to disagree.

[Aaron G.]

I agree with apesnake, Rand isn't the only kind of libertarian out there, but the quote is a good one, that's why I used it. I'm not opposed to violent defense of one's own property, or voluntary militias for defense of a political area, as long as it stays voluntarily staffed and funded (no taxes). However, the U.S. military is funded through theft, and staffed by men who have surrendered themselves to well paid slavery. Their aggression on the private property of other countries and their citizens is a violation of the libertarian concept of natural law, and the justifications of spreading democracy and freedom reflect the idealistic lineage of the French Revolution, rather than the American one. Here is a list of all the countries that we station troops in. Read it and ask yourself why on earth we post people who are paid to kill in so many areas of the world. If you can find no other motive than altruism, you have a much greater faith in the state than I, and you are most definitely not a libertarian.

[Eric]

*laughs* Aaron, not once did I say that I find no other motive than altruism, nor do I lay any claim to the US being an altruistic or Liberal state. But that doesn't make your pacifist view of things accurate either. Men like Jefferson and Madison, the ideological forerunners of what we call Libertarian today, would find your position abhorrent as well. As would other "Libertarians", Heinlein and Schulman being two of note, as was Konkin. Interesting that while you mention there are other kinds of libertarians you don't bother to mention any.

I take serious objection to your categorization of those who voluntarily serve in the military as "men who have men who have surrendered themselves to well paid slavery" and "people who are paid to kill". I will point out to that even the most radically Liberal of the Founding Fathers came to the realization that the famed Minutemen would never enable the colonies to win their freedom from Great Britain and determined that a standing professional Army (the Continental Army) was necessary to achieve that goal. If Jefferson can take that position then certainly we can too. It is, in fact, a position rooted in complete unreality to believe that a military (as opposed to volunteer militias) will not be necessary, although certainly the US military for many years has been much larger than is appropriate for a free state.

As to your belief that a man (or woman) who joins the military is a slave, I refer you, again, to Heinlein's philosophy of Rational Anarchy. I wouldn't really expect that you would understand it, based on your current set of posts, but it is worth a try.

I would highly recommend reading Schulman, and I seriously doubt that you have, given the position you appear to be taking. The World According to J. Neil Schulman.

[Eric]

Oh, and you clearly are disregarding ESR as well.

[Ray Ray]

What if the Pearcy's didn't agree with affirmative action or the NAACP? Would it be legal to put a noose around a simulated black man and have it prominently displayed? Maybe, but most (even the Main Stream Media) would consider this outrageous and quite likely hate-speech. The Pearcy's went that extra mile to get their point across. Rather than trespassing or vandalism, find something legal to do. I would prominently display virtually everything public about their lives, their names, address, phone number, place of business, who their parents are, what organizations they belong to, etc.

Like I said, they went the extra mile. The Pearcy's have the freedom of speech, not the freedom from (legal) consequences that result from that speech.

[Eric]

Ray Ray wrote: "Would it be legal to put a noose around a simulated black man and have it prominently displayed?"

That would be what is termed, in legal circles, "protected hate speech". I would classify their display as hate speech myself, actually. But still protected. You can, for example, legally burn a cross, as long as it is on your own property, while wearing white sheets, in the middle of the night. It is protected by the First Amendment. And it should be.

I absolutely agree with your counter protest tactics Ray, which is why I posted this in response to the original story.