Interesting People mailing list archives
more on The Slipperiest of Slopes
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:53:45 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Ken Kousky <kkousky () ip3inc com> Date: January 26, 2006 10:21:39 PM EST To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com Subject: RE: [IP] more on The Slipperiest of SlopesMark, my point is that it is frightening to see the WSJ editorials freely
call radical environmentalists terrorists.Even if they are breaking laws and destroying property, at a time when the White House suggests that the President has executive authority to do, well, whatever is necessary to save us from terrorists, I don't think that my own
rhetoric approaches that of the Journals editorial.Does the president have exceptional powers to defend us against terrorists?
If yes, is their a working operational definition of what constitutes a terrorist derived separately or outside our legal system?Maybe I've missed something and shouldn't be horrified by the folks right next door - is your point that they're the ones who get to make the call. Thumbs up - citizen with legal rights. Thumbs down - terrorist. Could make a
great reality show.So, my point is really quite fundamental and I use the WSJ only to make the point. If, as current public policy is suggesting, those who are designated terrorists fall outside our traditional legal framework we might want to be extremely guarded about using the term. Indeed, the use of the term is the
most profound rhetorical hysteria we should fear. KWK -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:06 AM To: ip () v2 listbox com Subject: [IP] more on The Slipperiest of Slopes Begin forwarded message: From: Mark Terwilliger <mark () clayhills com> Date: January 25, 2006 10:50:24 AM EST To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] The Slipperiest of Slopes Hi Dave, I suppose one over-the-top rhetorical flourish deserves another, but I do get weary of hysteria. Does Mr. Kousky have any evidence, or even any indications (beyond his own rhetorical devices), that anyone has ever suggested treating "Eco-terrorists" in a manner different from, say, the Ku Klux Klan? On the face of it, I would say the "terrorist" label fits moderately well with any non-state group engaging in spectacular acts of violence for the purpose of frightening (or worse) the group(s) they hate. (I exclude states, simply because they have long since established and continue to assert an absolute monopoly on the "legitimate" use of organized violence (spectacular or otherwise), and a near monopoly on the use of force of any kind. We can argue later about whether states *should* hold such a monopoly, but none can deny they claim it and vigorously defend it.) Whether the non-state organizers of violence are acting to purify "Mother Earth" or "the Aryan race" makes no real difference to me. I think the state is required to defend its people, its laws, and its monopoly on the use of organized violence in any case. Does Mr. Kousky disagree? I would think not. Setting up straw men so you can knock them down while screaming "Monsters!" is lots of fun, I will admit. But it really gets tedious after awhile. How many more years must we pretend the world is coming to an end? How many more years before we can resume our civil conversation about how best to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity? We're over here, Mr. Kousky, living right beside you. And we're just the same as you. cheers mark At 8:05:17 1/25/2006 -0500, Ken Kousky wrote:
From: Ken Kousky <kkousky () ip3inc com> Date: January 25, 2006 8:05:17 AM EST To: dave () farber net Cc: Carolyn_Kousky () ksgphd harvard edu Subject: The Slipperiest of Slopes Today's Wall Street Journal's editorial should make clear that terrorism is not a slippery slope at all. It's a cliff that conservatives have already jumped off. Today's WSJ editorial states that extremist environmentalists who attack property are terrorists. This makes clear that there is no difference between domestic law enforcement engaged in protecting property and the broad range of Homeland Security issues. I guess this means that Eco-terrorists, as the WSJ labels them, should be considered for kidnapping to foreign bases for interrogation, certainly wiretapped and they merit the use of our limited DHS resources. I'm certainly glad we have the FBI on this. I understand that once we all realize they're terrorists, they should not be excluded for civil liberty protections since an assault on property can also harm people and harming people is a terrorist tactic. Didn't the Secretary of Education suggest that the NEA were terrorists too? Come to think of it, I find some rock music frighteningly bad.... ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as mark () clayhills com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as kkousky () ip3inc com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ipArchives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on The Slipperiest of Slopes David Farber (Jan 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- more on The Slipperiest of Slopes David Farber (Jan 29)