[iwar] [fc:Closing.Down.Debate:.Ashcroft's.Attack.on.Dissent]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-12-14 14:53:00
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Telecommuters.must.pay.extra.for.cable.VPNs]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:CodeRed-like.FTP.worm?]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200112142253.fBEMr0d25252@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 14:53:00 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Closing.Down.Debate:.Ashcroft's.Attack.on.Dissent]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Closing Down Debate: Ashcroft's Attack on Dissent

By Bryan Keefer (<a href="mailto:bryan@spinsanity.org?Subject=Re:%20(ai)%20Closing%20Down%20Debate:%20Ashcroft's%20Attack%20on%20Dissent%2526In-Reply-To=%2526lt;B83E9E56.1F7CF%25rforno@infowarrior.org">bryan@spinsanity.org</a>)
December 10, 2001

&lt;http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20011210.html

In his appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last  Thursday,
Attorney General John Ashcroft argued that critics of the  Bush
administration's domestic anti-terrorism measures "only aid
terrorists." The next day, Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy  Tucker
told journalists that they had mischaracterized Ashcroft's  statements
and, in doing so, "became a part of the exact problem he  was
describing." Such statements by a leading public official and a
prominent spokesperson for the administration constitute an attempt  to
shut down rational debate over the administration's policies by
associating almost all dissent with terrorism. Coming from  high-ranking
officials in the executive branch, these pronouncements  are especially
troubling.

Ashcroft's testimony

In his testimony last Thursday, Ashcroft made these widely publicized
and much-criticized comments in his opening statement:

We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit
Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to
those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my
message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode  our
national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to
America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage
people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

The "to those who" formulation explicitly equates critics of
administration actions with terrorists. In addition, as Jacob  Weisberg
argues in Slate, Ashcroft's comments makes unfair and  inflammatory
insinuations about the motives of critics: "To describe  genuine concern
about the loss of liberties as a scare 'tactic'  imputes ill motivation
without any evidence to Ashcroft's legitimate  critics on both the left
and the right."

Justice spokeswoman slams the media

Justice Department spokeswoman Mindy Tucker followed up on Ashcroft's
statement Friday with a similar attack:

Ashcroft was very clear that he wanted public debate about the  actions
of the Justice Department. What he does not think is helpful  to the
country is misstatements and the spread of misinformation  about the
actions of the Justice Department.

Anyone who reported this morning that he criticized anyone who  opposed
him was absolutely wrong and in doing so became a part of the  exact
problem he was describing.

Examined closely, Tucker is doing two things with this statement:
claiming Ashcroft was treated unfairly, then using that assertion to
attack those who criticized him. On the first count, Tucker is
attempting to spin a half-truth into a full defense. It is true that
Ashcroft did note that he wants "honest, reasoned debate" - yet in  his
very next sentence he attempted to shut down that debate by  equating
critics with terrorists.

Next, Tucker tells us that Ashcroft did not criticize "anyone who
opposed him." Yet, Ashcroft's condemnation of "those who scare
peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty" can be reasonably
read to condemn virtually all critics of the aministration's domestic
anti-terrorism policies. Tucker later told the Washington Post that
Ashcroft's statement was in fact a reference only to specific
"misstatements of fact" regarding Justice Department policies, but  its
implications are clearly far broader. Finally, by asserting that
criticism of Ashcroft's testimony validated Ashcroft's claims, Tucker
is attempting to shut down debate over both that testimony and recent
actions by the Justice Department.

Reinforcing a trend?

Ashcroft, Tucker and their supporters are employing a common strategy
to pre-empt criticism. Since September 11, a number of pundits have
equated criticism of the war with support for terrorism in an effort  to
pre-empt debate. For instance, Michael Kelly claimed in September  that
pacifists, by opposing military action in Afghanistan, are  "objectively
pro-terrorist", while Andrew Sullivan suggested that  anti-war dissent
somehow constitutes a "fifth column" and Ann Coulter  accused liberals
of "[t]wenty years of treason." Ashcroft's testimony  echoed these
charges and his endorsement thus threatens to give rise  to a resurgence
of such rhetoric.

Happily, while several pundits cheered Ashcroft's testimony, far more
have condemned it. One supporter is the Wall Street Journal, which
editorialized that "[Ashcroft] rightly noted that the over-the-top,
hysterical charges of many ('shredding the Constitution') 'only aids
terrorists ...'" Thankfully, however, the Washington Post, Los  Angeles
Times, New York Times and a number of pundits condemned the  Attorney
General in resounding terms, suggesting that such rhetoric  will come
under increased scrutiny going forward.


Conclusion

Since September 11, we have seen several serious attacks on anti-war
dissent and critics of the administration, but until last week, such
attacks were limited to media pundits. But with Ashcroft and Tucker
joining the fray, the danger of further harm to our dialogue over how
to best combat terrorism is substantial. Such high-ranking officials
have a responsibility to refrain from attempts to shut down debate on
government policies. Let's therefore hope that this effort continues  to
be met with the ringing criticism it deserves.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Unlimited PC-PC calling at Crystal Voice! - Only $1/Mo.
Download your free 30 day trial. Click here.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Gb1xVB/GxbDAA/ySSFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Telecommuters.must.pay.extra.for.cable.VPNs]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:CodeRed-like.FTP.worm?]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 21:00:00 PST