more on The Slipperiest of Slopes

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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 Slopes

Mark, 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=ip

Archives 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/