Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Doublespeak in the War on Terror

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Doublespeak in the War on Terror by Timothy Lynch Chicago Sun-Times September 10, 2006. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6699 Editor s note:
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 1, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Doublespeak in the War on Terror
      by Timothy Lynch
      Chicago Sun-Times
      September 10, 2006.
      http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6699


      Editor's note: Following is an excerpt from a Cato Institute white
      paper on the Bush administration's use of propaganda to advance its
      anti-terror agenda. Timothy Lynch, an analyst at the Libertarian
      think-tank, wrote the paper, presented here in an edited form.

      Five years have passed since the catastrophic terrorist attacks of
      Sept. 11, 2001. Those attacks ushered in the war on terror. Since some
      high-ranking government officials and pundits are now referring to the
      war on terror as the "Long War" or "World War III," because its
      duration is not clear, now is an appropriate time to take a few steps
      back and examine the disturbing new vocabulary that has emerged from
      this conflict.

      One of the central insights of George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen
      Eighty-Four concerned the manipulative use of language, which he
      called "newspeak" and "doublethink," and which we now call
      "doublespeak" and "Orwellian."

      That novel tells the story of a totalitarian state in which government
      agents monitor all aspects of citizens' lives. The three doublespeak
      slogans of the state are seen on posters everywhere: 1. War Is Peace;
      2. Freedom Is Slavery; 3. Ignorance Is Strength.

      By corrupting the language, the people who wield power are able to
      fool the others about their activities and evade responsibility and
      accountability. Professor William Lutz, author of The New Doublespeak,
      notes: "Doublespeak is language that pretends to communicate but
      really doesn't. It is language that makes the bad seem good, the
      negative appear positive, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least
      tolerable. Doublespeak is language that avoids or shifts
      responsibility, language that is at variance with its real or
      purported meaning. It is language that conceals or prevents thought;
      rather than extending thought, doublespeak limits it."

      It is true, of course, that dishonesty has always been a part of the
      human experience, but doublespeak is a pernicious variation of
      dishonesty. Doublespeak perverts the basic function of language, which
      is to facilitate a common understanding between human beings.

      Homeland security

      After 9/11, lobbyists and politicians quickly recognized that the best
      way to secure legislative approval for a spending proposal is to
      package the idea as a "homeland security" measure even if the
      expenditure has nothing to do with our national defense. Here are few
      examples of "homeland security" spending:

      $250,000 will be spent by city officials in Newark, N.J., for
      air-conditioned garbage trucks.
      $557,400 will be spent on communications equipment by town officials
      in North Pole, Alaska.
      $100,000 will be spent by the city government of the District of
      Columbia to send sanitation workers to Dale Carnegie classes.
      According to government officials, the classes will help sanitation
      workers develop the skills that will be necessary to deal with panicky
      customers in the aftermath of a disaster.
      $900,000 will be spent on the Steamship Authority in Massachusetts,
      which runs ferries to Martha's Vineyard. When asked about the hefty
      expenditure, the local harbormaster confessed, "Quite honestly, I
      don't know what we're going to do, but you don't turn down grant money."
      Not conscription

      During the 2004 presidential election debate, President Bush told a
      nationwide TV audience to "forget about all this talk about a draft.
      We're not going to have a draft so long as I am the president."

      To evaluate the accuracy of that statement, one must pay careful
      attention to the word "draft," for, as the economist Thomas Sowell
      once observed, "All statements are true, if you are free to redefine
      their terms."

      Shortly after 9/11, President Bush declared a "national emergency" and
      simultaneously authorized Pentagon officials to issue "stop-loss" orders.

      A stop-loss order means that members of the military may not leave the
      service, even if they have fulfilled the terms of their enlistment
      contract. Once a stop-loss order is issued, an individual's duty
      status changes from voluntary service to involuntary service. Although
      the legality of the stop-loss orders has been upheld by the judiciary,
      those orders have clearly changed the nature of military service for
      many soldiers.

      National security letters

      Government officials cannot deny the fact that the U.S. Constitution
      places limits on the power to search and seize private property. To
      bypass those limits, the government argues that the Constitution
      limits only the way in which "warrants" can be issued and executed. If
      the government uses another document and gives it an official-sounding
      name like, say, "national security letter," voila, the constitutional
      limitations on the search powers of the government no longer apply.

      The Fourth Amendment provides, "The right of the people to be secure
      in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable
      searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall
      issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
      particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
      things to be seized." It is important to note that the Fourth
      Amendment does not ban all governmental efforts to search and seize
      private property, but it does limit the power of the police to seize
      whatever they want, whenever they want.

      Asymmetrical warfare

      The American prison facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been a
      frequent target of criticism because of Bush administration policies
      concerning the detention and treatment of prisoners. Whatever one may
      think about those detention and treatment policies, it is clear that
      the U.S. military has employed doublespeak to describe events at
      Guantanamo.

      "Self-injurious behavior incidents" is the Pentagon's phrase for
      suicide attempts by prisoners, for example.

      And when three men hanged themselves in their cells, the camp
      commander, Rear Adm. Harry Harris, went so far as to say that the
      suicides were "an act of asymmetrical warfare" against the American
      military.

      Warfare? A terrorist engages in asymmetrical warfare when he straps
      explosives to his body and then detonates the bomb when he gets close
      to his human targets.

      But if "warfare" is stretched so far as to include an enemy's taking
      his own life, it is difficult to identify what actions a prisoner
      might engage in that would not constitute warfare.

      Material witness

      Before 9/11, few people were familiar with an obscure federal statute
      that pertains to material witnesses. That law was designed to allow
      the police to secure a potential witness' testimony in situations
      where the individual witness seems likely to ignore a summons and flee
      the jurisdiction.

      The material witness law allows the police to incarcerate such
      witnesses without charging them with a crime. After 9/11, the
      government abused the material witness law by locking up persons whom
      it suspected of wrongdoing but for whom it lacked probable cause to
      charge them with a crime.

      By "evading the requirement of probable cause of criminal conduct, the
      government bypassed checks on the reasonableness of its suspicion."

      National security

      Since the war on terrorism began, government officials have invoked
      "national security" to justify countless actions. Most of those
      invocations were probably appropriate, but others were a stretch, and
      some were plainly bogus. When the American Civil Liberties Union
      brought a legal challenge to a certain section of the Patriot Act, the
      U.S. Justice Department claimed the litigation was so sensitive that
      government censors had to be able to redact portions of all the legal
      papers, including the ACLU's legal briefs, so that "national security"
      would not be jeopardized. That sounded plausible, but the censors
      blacked out material that had nothing to do with
      intelligence-gathering "sources and methods." The censors went so far
      as to try to black out a quotation from a previously published U.S.
      Supreme Court ruling.

      Fortunately, a federal judge rejected that move by the censors.
      Critics properly lambasted the government for having the chutzpah to
      try to suppress a quote about the "danger of abuse" from a court
      document, as if the mere expression of that idea posed some sort of
      "threat" to the country. When asked to explain the government's
      actions, Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller declined to comment.

      Americans must recognize these odious tactics for what they are and
      remain vigilant about our constitution and individual liberty. Too
      many people seem to think that the Constitution will automatically
      check the government from overstepping its authority and running amok.
      That simply is not true. The Constitution is incapable of enforcing
      itself. The ultimate limit on the power of government has always been
      the patience of the people. As Judge Learned Hand warned many years
      ago, "Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; [if] it dies there,
      no constitution, no law, no court can save it."


      Timothy Lynch is director of the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal
      Justice and coauthor of "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of
      George W. Bush,".

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.