Refusing to Honor Helms
I was never much of a fan of the hypocritical tendency to honor hateful people when they die. I can understand not going out of your way to put them down, refusing to pile on while loved ones are grieving, etc. But I don’t understand the need some people have to say nice things that are pretty clearly not true. This man in North Carolina apparently feels the same way I do, and is my hero for the day (HT TPM):
RALEIGH – L.F. Eason III gave up the only job he’d ever had rather than lower a flag to honor former U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms. Eason, a 29-year veteran of the state Department of Agriculture, instructed his staff at a small Raleigh lab not to fly the U.S. or North Carolina flags at half-staff Monday, as called for in a directive to all state agencies by Gov. Mike Easley. When a superior ordered the lab to follow the directive, Eason decided to retire rather than pay tribute to Helms. After several hours’ delay, one of Eason’s employees hung the flags at half-staff.The brouhaha began late Sunday night, when Eason e-mailed eight of his employees in the state standards lab, which calibrates measuring equipment used on things as widely varied as gasoline and hamburgers. “Regardless of any executive proclamation, I do not want the flags at the North Carolina Standards Laboratory flown at half staff to honor Jesse Helms any time this week,” Eason wrote just after midnight, according to e-mail messages released in response to a public records request.
He told his staff that he did not think it was appropriate to honor Helms because of his “doctrine of negativity, hate, and prejudice” and his opposition to civil rights bills and the federal Martin Luther King Jr. holiday.
Mr Eason deserves a medal for his courage. Jesse Helms should be mourned by his family but for the rest of us,,,,my thoughts are sinfuld
Sr. Eason es un hombre con cojones mas grandes!
Jesse Helms might not have been a racist, but he knew how to get racists to the polls.
I have lived in NC since 1981. The first campaign of which I had interest before I could vote was the 1984 Senate race against Jim Hunt. That was a bloody campaign. The 1990 and 1996 campaigns against Harvey Gantt were even worse. When I hear any politician claim to desire to run a positive campaign, I fear a sudden turn into “Jesse mode” if a few percentage points need to be picked up at the polls.
I have called many friends since July 4 who have said since high school and/or college that they would drink on the day Jesse died. It was scary to discover how many of them held true to their word. (I drank my drink when Strom Thurmond’s family announced that years before he fathered an illegitimate child with a woman on color. I mean, death happens to everyone, but such hypocrisy does not happen on a regular basis.) I hope and pray that all this talk about positive campaigns really occurs because I want the days of negative campaigning to be buried with Jesse Helms. Pray for an end to “politics as usual”.
I fear that both GOP and Dem folks will revert to old ways if they consider it necessary. They should always consider it unnecessary.
Sometime in the 1980s I had a lay-over at an airport in North Carolina. I went to buy a candy bar and when the young woman told me the price, I asked if there was a “state tax” on it. She said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Never mind. I’m not giving you a single penny until you people stop electing Helms!”
I’m sure he had some redeeming factors in his life, as we all do. I make no predictions how long he will sit in the holding cell as the angels comb through his record to find them.
Father Shawn said,
I hope and pray that all this talk about positive campaigns really occurs because I want the days of negative campaigning to be buried with Jesse Helms. Pray for an end to “politics as usual”.
Well, by golly, we’ve certainly made a good start in getting away from negativity here today. Incidentally, have you heard the one about Jesse Jackson cutting off Obama’s, er, cojones? So refreshing, and Jackson’s apology was so lacking in hypocrisy…
I wonder if he would have been so courageous if he didn’t have a vested retirement.
Quoting Mark Twain, last week Senator Obama said a patriot is someone who loves his country always and his government when it is right. He should hope that if he is elected that his fellow citizens, particularly the thousands of goverment officials and military members, don’t share his view. Attitudes like his Mr Eason’s are dangerous. It is all well and good to cheer on this behavior when we agree with it, but will the commenters think an official from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is “courageous” if he does the same thing when our senior senator passes because of his votes on abortion and his questionable personal conduct?
As a military officer, I took an oath to defend the Constitution – to obey the orders of officers and officials (military and civilian) duly appointed over me. We are not all free agents who get to decide which orders to follow. We live in a republic, and sometimes the government and its officials are people we don’t think are “right.” Believe me, there were many military officers, including very high ranking ones, who were less than thrilled with Bill Clinton’s policies, but implemented them nonetheless. I understand there are instances where obligations of obedience can conflict with more fundamental moral and even overarching legal obligations, but flying the flag at half-staff for a politician?
Courageous? Hogwash. Petty and self-indulgent.
“Well, by golly, we’ve certainly made a good start in getting away from negativity here today. Incidentally, have you heard the one about Jesse Jackson cutting off Obama’s, er, cojones? So refreshing, and Jackson’s apology was so lacking in hypocrisy…”
We can’t of course know whether Jesse Jackson feels repentance or if he does, what he feels repentance for. But as Christians we should never allow cynicism to trump charity and that seems to be Father Shawn’s point.
As for Senator Helms, he never publicly repented of anything that we know of. Since he put himself up (and has been put up) as some sort of model of conservatism we are entirely justified in asking two questions. As a leader, did Senator Helms bring out the best or the worst in his followers? As a senator, did he represent all of his constituents fairly, equally, and impartially? If the answer to either of these is no, anyone who venerates him as a conservative figure is by default taking on some of his values.
As a poor dead soul, Senator Helms deserves our mercy. But cynicism also does not trump justice. Senator Helms deserves no honor.
I can feel the love.
“I can feel the love.”
I’m very glad to hear that. But the fact still remains that Helms dying somehow does not wash away what he was as a leader.
Was it something like Barack Obama leading the fight to deny medical care to infants surviving an abortion attempt? Did he repent? Does he support the right to kill unborn children? Should we honor him for that? What is it about all this that stinks to high heaven?
Sean, it is important to understand a certain distinction — and that is, the official in question (here Eason) was not asking his superiors to live with or condone what he did. He retired when they refused to excuse him from his duty. He didn’t assert a right to be disobedient and he isn’t going to be bringing any lawsuits about his right to express himself on the job. In other words, he was willing to live with the consequences of his act of conscience, unlike many others, who simply want the right to exercise their conscience at a cost to be borne by others.
The parallel would be someone who resigns from the military rather than carry out illegal or immoral orders. That’s a very big difference from the normal form of disobedience and I wish people would stop lumping the two together as if there were none.
I lived in NC and voted in the same election that was Father Shawn’s first, and as a transplanted northerner the overt racism of Helms made me sick to my stomach. The name I use for him is unprintable: Senator A_________. Bono’s love affair with this man is one of the reasons I have never bought U2 recording in my life. The double sycophancy of that relationship allowed Helms to simultaneously discount the welfare of African Americans while claiming glory as a humanitarian. I never wish for anyone’s death, but I do wish Helms had retired a lot earlier.
“Was it something like Barack Obama leading the fight to deny medical care to infants surviving an abortion attempt? Did he repent? Does he support the right to kill unborn children? Should we honor him for that? What is it about all this that stinks to high heaven?”
I guess I’m missing something. What you seem to be saying is that because Obama is not a model of ethical rectitude it is somehow hypocritical for people to criticize Helms. Is that what you are saying?
If you are, you seem to me to be dangerously close to some kind of moral relativism, wherein you would be saying that “they do it, so we are going to do it too”.
No, what I’m seeking is the same kind of condemnation of Obama as is visited upon the late Sen. Helms.
“No, what I’m seeking is the same kind of condemnation of Obama as is visited upon the late Sen. Helms.”
In the context of the event described in the OP (since we have no idea whether this civil service employee supports Obama or not) or even in the context of these comments, what exactly would this condemnation you are seeking show?
Barbara,
I agree with your point that it is easier to repect someone who will resign over a matter of principal than one who claims a right to express dissent. Two points in this case, however.
First, this guy didn’t resign rather than follow a directive. He refused to follow a lawful directive – basically using his public position to make a political point, and then asked to resign or was forced to. In doing so, he imposed his views on his subordinates, and he thumbed his nose at the citizens of the state, and not just the ones who disagreed with him. Flying the flag at half-staff is addressed in your state’s laws – NC G.S. § 144‑3 – and if you don’t like it you can change the law, but unelected officials shouldn’t be empowered to ignore the law when they don’t like the outcome. As I said, this is not a conservative/liberal issue. I live in a state where the situation is the opposite. We have senators that the minority conservative citizen’s of the state find contemptable. Behavior going the other way would be just as objectionable. It is about respecting the form of government we have and the rights of the citizens to make law and expect their officials to follow it.
Second, this isn’t even remotely like a military member resigning rather than following an unlawful order. This is a bureaucrat refusing to follow a perfectly lawful directive because he didn’t like it. This wasn’t a matter of principle, it was a smug temper tantrum. I have know people who have resigned over matters of principle, and to equate this clown with them does them a disservice.
Sean, Let’s say that I think Eason was silly because flying the flag at half mast is basically an automatic requirement based on someone’s rank in office. He wasn’t being asked to *personally* support or eulogize Helms, so in that respect I agree with you. However, lots of people retire or resign rather than carry out policies or laws they disagree with. Peter Edelman resigned from the Clinton administration rather than continuing in his position after Welfare reform was passed in 1996.
So I disagree when you say that the order has to be unlawful for the act of resigning or retiring to be honorable, though I think in this case, the law is really just a matter of symbolism rather than substance.
Sean,
You’re out of line calling him a clown. I can’t figure out what has you so agitated. Is it that the man quit at 51 and had too large a retirement plan? Or you don’t like that he refused–on moral grounds, not, as you say “political” grounds–a “lawful order” and as a state employee he ought to do what his bosses say come hell or high? Or is it, as I suspect, you don’t agree with his principle–that Helms was a negative force in American politics and culture and not deserving of such honor? I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about when you mention “unelected officials” (does that include toll-booth operators?) “empowered to ignore the law.” The man quit. His right.
Barbara
I don’t disagree. One can respect a person who takes a poisition on principle even if they are not opposing an illegal action.
That being said, public officials, particularly unelected ones, don’t have a right to frustrate lawful policies and orders just because they disagree with them.
I think progressives have been playing with fire when it comes to things like this, and they may find when and if they take power that being able to rely on a neutral government bureaucracy is essential to a functioning republic. For almost eight years we have had the media and academics lauding the “courage” of officals in the CIA, State Dept., etc. for bucking the system and “whistleblowing” on policies which they disagree with, but aren’t illegal. How will they feel if officials in the DoD, or Homeland Security, or the FBI do the same thing to a President Obama?
Grant,
First, he didn’t “just quit.” If he “just quit” we would never have known. He specifically told his subordinates he was going to disobey his instructions and then quit when he was called on it. If I read the sequence of events correctly, his superiors didn’t even know until one of the employees told them. He had no intention to quit until he was forced to – and rightfully so. He was posturing – putting on a performance to make a point.
I have real problems with my senators for what I believe are profound moral reasons, but guess what, they were elected. I didn’t vote for them, but my fellow citizens did. I will be just as outraged if some day some petty state official decides to refuse to lower the flag for my senior senator and says it was “for Mary Jo.” Do I agree with the sentiment? Sure, but it’s not his call. I don’t give a hoot about Jessie Helms. He’s a US senator who, according to law or tradition is entitled to such honor whether I like it or not.
Eason doesn’t get to make this decision, and when he took it upon himself to do so, he wasn’t being a hero – he was arrogant. If I am agitated it is because after a life in public service, I have seen too many people like this (on both the right and left), who believe their personal opinions and political positions entitle them to ignore the rules and rightful authority because they are “right.”
I remember drafting a reprimand for an officer who had made somewhat public, written statements about then President Clinton, regarding his indiscretions. He was morally outraged too, and I agreed with every word he wrote, but I also knew that it wasn’t his right to say them, except in private. His subordinates and the public had right to expect him to not impose his views in his position. Like I said – arrogance.
This is not a chain-of-command issue.
I have to agree with Sean that there was certainly some arrogance on Eason’s part, and I say that as someone who had little respect for Jesse Helm when he was in the U.S. Senate.
I’m assuming that the linked article relates the essentials of the story. Maybe the story is complete, and maybe it isn’t, but from what we know from the four corners of the linked article, it appears that Eason had mixed motives behind his actions. The reporter states that Eason “felt a strong sense of ownership” of the state lab. In Eason’s own words, “I designed and built that lab…even though technically the bricks and mortar belong to the State of North Carolina. I feel very strongly that everything that comes out of that lab is my responsibility.”
“Ownership” of the lab? At a minimum, that’s an unhealthy attitude, one that is further evidenced by his comment that “technically” the lab belongs to the state. He was one of several state employees in a state facility, not the head of a lab that belonged to him. In addition, though he felt strongly about “everything” that came out of the lab, should that include anything more than overseeing the quality of the work that was done? Does “everything” extend to a unilateral decision about whether the flags should be flown at half mast? I think that there is at least some selfishness on Eason’s part in his executive decision not to fly the flags at half-mast.
The story also relates that Eason “did not typically lower the flags, but that, as head of the lab, he supervised the technician who did.” He also emailed his staff during the evening before the work day that he did not want the flags flown at half-mast for the entire week. If he was trying to make a point about Helms, why didn’t he relieve the technician of the flag task and take the burden on himself, making clear to the employees he supervised that this was his personal decision and that he would assume full responsibility for whatever adverse consequences that might flow from his decision. It appears from the story that Eason was imposing his personal choice on his employees, thereby possibly exposing them to adverse actions, too.
Finally, though Eason did ultimately resign, the reporter states that he “pleaded several times to be allowed to stay at the lab.” That hardly seems like someone ready to accept the full consequences of his actions.
As I said, I was never a fan of Jesse Helms, but I don’t think Eason deserves to be put on a pedestal for what many believe were acts on his part that reflect the moral high ground.
Sean Hannaway:
As a former military office, as was I, you knew very well under what conditions you were free to disobey orders that your informed conscience told you to be unlawful. You stated this above: “We are not all free agents who get to decide which orders to follow.”
Under the Nuremberg Principles, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles ) , “defense of superior orders” is not a defense for war crimes, although it might influence a sentencing authority to lessen the penalty.
Principle IV: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”
The United States military adjusted the Uniform Code of Military Justice after World War II. They included a rule nullifying this defense, essentially stating that American military personnel are allowed to refuse unlawful orders. This defense is still used often, however, reasoning that an unlawful order presents a dilemma from which there is no legal escape. One who refuses an unlawful order will still probably be jailed for refusing orders (and in some countries probably killed and then his superior officer will simply carry out the order for him or order another soldier to do it), and one who accepts one will probably be jailed for committing unlawful acts, in a Catch-22 dilemma.
Yes, there is indeed a cost to following one’s conscience.
All US military personnel are supposed to receive annual training in the Law of Armed Conflict, which delineates lawful and unlawful behaviors during armed conflicts, and is derived from the Geneva Conventions, a subset of international law. This training is designed to ensure that US military personnel are familiar with their military, ethical and legal obligations during wartime.
I agree with Sean H because it was not a suggestion; rather, it compliance with a statute and a directive.
In another example, out of respect to a bishop or pope, I will follow directives as they should be followed in regard to showing honor to the dead. I need not place my opinions in the way of protocol.
Considering that U2 had been performing and recording for some 20 years before Bono’s “love affair” with Helms, I’m betting that you were never a U2 fan in the first place. Anyway, stories like the below do seem to complicate the Manichean self-righteousness on display here, in which Helms is evil, pure evil:
Yeah, Helms was a nasty guy at many earlier points. but Christians believe in the possibility of redemption, right?
Eason was interviewed on NPR’s All things considered last night -worth a listen.
Jimmy,
The standard you are stating is incorrect. As a military member you may not “disobey orders that your informed conscience told you to be unlawful.” The standard is not subjective.
Under the UCMJ, disobeying an order can be a serious offense, and orders are presumed to be legal unless that are manifestly illegal as judged by a reasonable person in the recipient’s position. The Nuremberg Principle is often misunderstood. In point of fact, obedience to orders is one of the only good defenses to a war crime. What Nuremberg stood for was that it was not an absolute defense – which previously some believed. That is that following the order relieved the subordinate of culpability absolutely if it came from pometent authority – only the decision maker was culpable. It is only if the individual knows or should have known that the act was illegal the the Nuremberg Principle applies. In fact, many German and Japanese soldiers were aquitted or never charged for acts that were, in fact, war crimes because they were following orders. For example, a military policeman who executed several prisoners would be aquitted if he did not know or have reason to know that the executions were illegal.
Anyway – this guy didn’t want to lower a flag. Not exactly a profound moral dillema.
To Sean and Jimmy Mac (and anyone else who cares to comment):
The day before he was murdered, Archbishop Romero ended his homily at Sacred Heart Basilica with these words:
In your opinion, 1) did he, or did he not, have the right to say those words, and 2) would a Salvadoran soldier have had the right – citing the authority of his archbishop — to refuse what he regarded as an immoral order to kill?
I wonder: might Archbishop Romero have called this a matter not of rights but of duty, saying “I had to say those words; if I hadn’t said them, I would have been failing in my duty to uphold church teaching”?
When individuals enlist in the US military, active duty or reserve, they take the following oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.Art.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the “lawful command of his superior officer,” 891.Art.91 (2), the “lawful order of a warrant officer”, 892.Art.92 (1) the “lawful general order”, 892.Art.92 (2) “lawful order”. In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.
It’s clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of “obeying orders,” and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here’s the problem: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it’s not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it’s whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful. Is the deck stacked a bit? You bet!
That being said, an order which is unlawful not only does not need to be obeyed, but obeying such an order can result in criminal prosecution of the one who obeys it. Military courts have long held that military members are accountable for their actions even while following orders — if the order was illegal. Prosecutions for activities at Abu Ghraib are a perfect example.
So, to obey, or not to obey? It depends on the order. Military members disobey orders at their own risk. They also obey orders at their own risk. An order to commit a crime is unlawful. An order to perform a military duty, no matter how dangerous is lawful, so long as it doesn’t involve commission of a crime.
Jimmy,
Sorry, but this is just dead wrong -
“Ultimately, it’s not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it’s whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful. Is the deck stacked a bit? You bet!”
Example – An officer transmits orders for an artilley attack on coordinates he knows are a hospital, and he has no lawful justification. The crew targets and fires at the location knowing only the coordinates. The act itself is illegal, but only the officer giving the order is culpable.
Also, to be punished for following an illegal order the order must be patently – obviously on its face – illegal. Any doubt innures to the benefit of the subordinate.
Abu Ghraib is not a good example. Those prosecuted only claimed that they were following orders. Even though such orders would have been illegal, I think that defense failed because there was no evidence that any orders were given. That case was failure of leadership – not in giving illegal orders, but in giving no orders at all – failing to exercise proper control.
Do military members fail to obey orders at their own risk? Yes, but as I said, under military law the rules protect a subordinate if he acts reasonably. His only theoretical risk is if he fails to follow a legal order that he believes is illegal. I can think of not a single example where a military member was punished for failing to follow an order that he reasonably believed to be illegal but that was determined not to be, and I have read and taught this stuff using dozens of actual case studies. There are quite a few examples of airmen as a matter of fact who waived off attacks because they thought the target might be unlawful who were wrong – none were ever punished.
Gene,
Of course he had a right. A soldier, I think, would be obligated to heed his words not because his bishop uttered them, but because he had an obligation to act that way in the first place.
Way off topic but an interesting discussion.
If Eason hated Helms’ public record–millions of us did–then he certainly had the right to make his own gesture, perhaps refusing to enter any buildings while flags were at half-staff to mark the senator’s death. He certainly had the right to try to persuade others to boycott buildings in the same way.
Whether he had the right to speak for all the lab workers in attempting to defy the state directive by issuing his own, and in my view, equally unilateral directive, is another matter.
Sometimes when you turn the tables it makes the situation clearer. The State of Massachusetts will likely order the flags lowered if Sen. Ted Kennedy dies. Kennedy is another long-serving senator and has long espoused a social agenda who millions feel has damaged the country. Would it be right for state departmental directors who disagreed with Kennedy’s political stands to refuse to lower their flags?