Jason Jack Bauer Bourne 007 defends his position...

Glenn defends himself here. Money quotes (or in Glenn's case, would they be money shots (triple puns intended)):

"Campos chose to devote an entire column (“The right’s Ward Churchill,” Feb. 20) to a blog entry of mine from last week, in which I wondered why the Bush administration wasn’t acting covertly to kill radical mullahs and atomic scientists, rather than preparing a major attack on Iran. (Silly me, I thought this was advocating a less warlike approach). According to Campos, this suggestion was both morally wrong — suggesting that we kill people this way made me a “fascist” and an “extremist” — and illegal."

While I'm not at all familiar with Campos' argument, I would like to say that what is morally wrong about Reynolds POV is that he claims, through omission, there are only two methods to settle this dispute. A) Full out war (intervention), or B) Covert operations (assassination). What ever happened to negotiation? Not enough guns? Of yeah I forgot, that's hippy peacenik talk. Words, what are they good for?

"Similarly, the September 1944 Allied bombing raids on the German rocket sites at Peenemunde regarded the death of scientists involved in research and development of that facility to have been as important as destruction of the missiles themselves. Attack of these individuals would not constitute assassination.”

International law is unlikely to be a problem either. The bombing attack on Moammar Qaddafi was legally justified, according to the State Department’s legal adviser, as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter because of Qaddafi’s terrorist activities."

...according to the State Department's legal adviser, umm...tell you what, how about we have the UN put Reagan on trial and we'll see how legal his actions were. Or let's try another scenario, say you have a child and you know he'll be drafted in the Iran war (coming to a city near you soon!), you assassinate the President in order to preserve your child's life. Would that be called an act of self-defense? Would that be permissible under your "approach?"

What Glenn doesn't get (and the whole AEI for that matter) is that this isn't a legal and historical intellectual exercise, but this are serious matters of life and death, and since the specter of death looms across the world rather than over their own homes and families they don't feel close moral connections between their philosophies and the implications of those philosophies. At least that my personal feeling. Any one who's that cold blooded, anyone who can casually call for death and destruction (yes Glenn even just a Navy Seal raid with night vision and silence laser guided hollow tipped bullets and all that other Q branch nonsense that you love) that easily must have a Vulcan-like ability for personal detachment that's creepy, if not a bit psychopathic.

Still Campos' calls to have Reynolds fired are unfair. No matter how vile his opinion, Glenn Jack Bond Bourne has the right to non-violently express his thoughts and no matter how much I disagree with him I agree with the freedom of speech more. And you know what--I even promise not to assassinate him. Now that's love.