>Having agreed with almost everything that Nathan says about
>the nature of the law, legal realism, and the law's relationship with
>justice,
>nevertheless, I still would agree with Charles that left lawyers
>should not willingly surrender the "illegal war" approach
>without a fight.
First, when an argument is theoretically and factually bankrupt, making the argument is a bad idea-- it taints the credibility of the left in far broader arenas. Truth is the most important weapon and we should stick to arguments that conform with our beliefs and reality, not make propagandistic nice-sounding statements that ring hollow to most intelligent listeners.
Secondly, why should anyone take the Left seriously when we denounce something purely because it is illegal, when we are the first to break the law when we think morality trumps legality. Jim Crow was legal, but we supported civil disobediance and defiance against it. Same with a host of legal wrongs in the world. Selective respect for the law is hypocrisy of the worst sort.
This is all linked to my broad frustration with the current antiwar movement and much of the left in general-- because there is a bankruptcy in articulating a postive pro-active moral vision, it retreats to legalism and negative opposition. The cant of legalism reflects a hollowing out of the soul of the left, an abdication of moral vision.
Children have died in Afghanistan for no good reason but to replace one set of butchers with a slightly less repugnant version of them, all with the dangerous likelihood that the whole operation will just inspire a whole new wave of militants bent on murderous retaliation.
Who cares about legality in such a case? The issues are moral and practical and substantive. There is a failure of courage not to argue on that basis.
-- Nathan Newman