The article by Jonathan Farley did not say the Confederates should have been executed.  The article said the Confederates committed a capital crime, treason, and crimes against humanity, also capital crimes at Nuremberg.  The article stated that race relations in the United States would have been better had the Confederates been punished by the legal punishment for the crimes they committed.




If Scott McLarty disagrees with these statements, he can argue his position with the Green Party Black Caucus.



Executing a defeated army merely for having been defeated was, of course, not what the article called for, but it is exactly what the neo-Confederate Klan supporters claimed the article said.  In other words, Scott McLarty's opinion is exactly the same as the neo-Confederates.  If Scott McLarty can defend agreeing with the neo-Confederates, he can do so before the Green Party Black Caucus.


Executing innocent black men, women, and children---which DID happen and was NOT a hypothetical posed 100 years after the last Confederate soldier died peacefully---IS what occurred, and is what the statue Jonathan Farley was criticizing in his article commemorates.   These innocent blacks were murdered by the same Confederate soliders who were not punished at the close of the Civil War.



Incidentally, what Scott McLarty is saying is that no Nazi leader should have been executed.  Is this a position that can be defended by the Green Party?  


The Green Party is also a pacifist party.  Does Scott McLarty argue that the Civil War should not have been fought?  That Hitler should not have been fought?



If Scott McLarty agrees that the Confederates should have been punished, then what punishment does he propose?


This also begs the question of why Scott McLarty, Mike Feinstein, and Annie Goeke were not just writing in support of the statue honoring the founder of the Ku Klux Klan but *angry* that Jonathan Farley criticized that statue.  


The Green Party Media Coordinator had another option: "No comment".





-----Original Message-----
From: Scott McLarty [mailto:scottmclarty@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Henry; Diane F White
Cc: 'Deacon Alexander'; 'Duane Roberts'; 'California Green Press Czar'
Subject: Re: Fwd: PRESS RELEASE: Green Party Black Caucus (GPBC) Protest Odious Redemptionist-era rulings being invoked by the Department of Justice


The claims below are specious & dishonest.  What I said was that Jonathan's statement that the entire Confederate Army should have been executed after the Civil War could not be defended by the Green Party.


The GP categorically opposes capital punishment, regardless of the crime.  To advocate mass execution would destroy any credibility the GP has on our opposition to capital punishment, not to mention our key value of nonviolence.  Furthermore, executing an entire defeated army is condemned by international law as a war crime.


Nowhere did I assert that Confederate war criminals or any other kind of war criminals should not be punished.  Henry Duke has completely misrepresented what I wrote.  This is consistent with the kind of behavior that got Henry banned from at least one national GP discussion list and expelled from the Media Committee a few years ago.  I recommend extreme caution & skepticism about any accusation Henry makes regarding GP members.


Scott