Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Terwilliger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: January 25, 2006 10:50:24 AM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: January 25, 2006 8:05:17 AM EST
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 [email protected]
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
