McCullagh's Law: When politicians invoke the do-this-or-Americans-will-die argument
Republicans are so eager to sink a wiretapping bill that includes some privacy safeguards that they're invoking what amounts to a do-this-or-Americans-will-die argument.
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., said after an Intelligence Committee vote on the Restore Act on Wednesday that the bill "puts our nation and troops at risk." A few minutes earlier, responding to a Judiciary Committee vote, Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said the bill protects "terrorists, spies and other enemies."
Politicians of both major parties wield this as the ultimate political threat. Its invocation typically predicts that if a certain piece of legislation is passed (or not passed) Americans will die. Variations may warn that children will die or troops will die. Any version is difficult for the target to combat.
This leads me to propose McCullagh's Law of Politics:
As the certainty that legislation violates the U.S. Constitution increases, so does the probability of predictions that severe harm or death will come to Americans if the proposal is not swiftly enacted.
McCullagh's Law describes a promise of political violence. It goes like this: "If you, my esteemed political adversary, are insufficiently wise as to heed my advice, I will direct my staff and members of my political apparatus to unearth examples of dead {Americans|women|children|troops} so I can later accuse you of responsibility for their deaths."
Rep. Lamar Smith, who only invoked some of the Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse
This threat is perpetual, meaning it may last the duration of the targeted politicians' career. Adversarial television advertisements may appear during the targeted politician's next campaign for re-election. They may display images of corpses if available, or stock photography if they're not, and blame the target for their deaths. It's a more serious example of the soft-on-terror accusation, which is behind the Democrats' unseemly haste in August to approve a wiretapping bill that even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi believed "does violence to the Constitution of the United States."
A variant of McCullagh's Law was demonstrated, as I wrote about in August, by National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. He agreed that "Americans are going to die" because of disclosure of President Bush's secret and probably unconstitutional surveillance program and the ensuing congressional debate.
While Republicans are more likely to invoke the threat, Democrats are not immune from the temptation. When he was justifying an attempt to expand the War On Some Politically Incorrect Drugs, President Clinton claimed that over "100,000 Americans will die."
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who invoked Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse: Terrorists, drug cartels, kidnappers and child pornographers
One of the better examples of McCullagh's Law in action was former FBI Director Louis Freeh during the encryption wars of the Clinton administration a decade ago. He told Congress that unless backdoors are mandated in encryption products, "the effect will be so profound that I believe law enforcement will be unable to recover."
In 1995, Freeh warned that drug cartels, terrorists and kidnappers would run amok unless programs like PGP were banned. Two years later, the categories of child pornographers, spies and violent gangs had supplanted kidnappers in the FBI's list of horrors: "Uncrackable encryption will allow drug lords, spies, terrorists and even violent gangs to communicate about their crimes and their conspiracies with impunity...A subject in a child pornography case used encryption in transmitting obscene and pornographic images of children over the Internet."
I should point out that McCullagh's Law is not, of course, triggered by all "Americans will die" warnings. This is a logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent (if A then B does not mean that B implies A). The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs' warning, which as far as I know is accurate, that "more than 10,000 Americans will die of skin cancer" in one year falls into that category.
Paul Wolfowitz, who assured the public that "Americans will die" unless Iraq is invaded
There are probably many examples of McCullagh's Law, but I'll leave you with one more, this time from the Bush administration. It came from Deputy U.S. Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz in October 2002, about half a year before the United States' invasion of Iraq.
Wolfowitz claimed--he was was entirely wrong, we know now--that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be used to kill Americans.
An attack by Saddam Hussein, Wolfowitz predicted, would mean that "tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of Americans will die in some catastrophic attack with a biological weapon, or if we wait long enough, a nuclear weapon." Of course, no such weapons were found in Iraq and at least 3,816 Americans actually have died as a result.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
So freedom is not free? Okay, I agree with you.
We can have a healthy debate about freedom being paid in "the blood of our soldiers", (frankly, I think we all have to pitch in).
But the second part makes no sense at all. It equates to: Freedom is not free, it costs us "some of our individual freedoms"? Wow, I think that might have been found in a rough draft of "1984".
I have greater pride in my nation than to think a bunch of barbarians can destroy us. They can kill some of us, but they cannot conquer us. Freedom is not taken away, it is surrendered. I for one will not yield that final inch of who I am to stay alive, there are fates worse than death.
Conservatives aren't what they used to be. What ever happened to, "They'll get my gun when they pry it out of my cold, dead hand"? While a gun can get your liberty back, it's better not to surrender it in the first place.
I did not serve [b]this[/b] country for four years. I served a country that was freer and protected its citizens at home and abroad.
What this country needs to do to make many of its citizens / voters / taxpayers happy, is return to an economy where most Americans can graduate high school and obtain a job that pays middle-class income until retirement, a government limited in its ability to spy on and control the lives of the residents of this land, and a foreign policy that states that if any citizen of this country is harmed at home or abroad the iron fist of the greatest military power on this planet will slam down on your head so fast you won?t have time to see it coming.
That is all.
While you are quoting all of the other isms of the right, let me quote one from a book:
"Fear is the mindkiller." Frank Herbert (Dune)
After the very terrible results seen in the last six years of following your line of thinking, a new and truly more American line is emerging. It goes something like this: we enjoy the fruits of liberty because we take the risks of liberty.
I do understand the issues of trying to wrestle down the genie that Berners-Lee let out of the bottle witlessly. On the other hand, I don't think we have to forge our own chains to protect ourselves from the wishes of others.
1. Use the laws on the books. Understand that police actions are more effective at fighting cartels of bad guys than invading and destroying countries.
2. Come to understand fully that the war on terrorism like the war on drugs is creating its own market.
Quit being afraid. Start acting like Americans instead of soccer moms.
Lord Acton said it best
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_corrupts
?And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.?
?The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.?
If you put someone like Mr. 'gut feeling' in charge of a newly created department to help further your illegal activities, you can use all kinds of moronic excuses to try to instill fear.
This administration has a bad history of lies, deceptions, secret coverups and blatant use of fear mongering as well as a bad habit of breaking all kinds of laws, not to mention the fact that numerous persons have become extremely wealthy at the cost and blood of others.
Terrorism is a threat, but the mismanaged 'war on terror' has become more of an oxymoron than anything else.
Leftist, right-wing, yada yada yada...all a bunch of bs backed by ignorant thinking and guilty-as-hell actions which often times speak louder than words. It's time to wake up and make this atrocity and the incompetent corrupt leaders pay the price for what they've done. (Nice article too).
I am responding to your statement that it is difficult to have an intelligent discussion about terrorism with "right-wingers". I would like you to better define your idea that those of the right have corrupted political discourse (compare that idea to the demagogues of Clinton and Obama on the left). I am quite 'intelligent' on the subject of political discourse and would welcome a discussion with you to show that we (those of the right) aren't as bad as you think we are. As a starting talking point, I will say that I agree with you that 99% of the "do or die" rhetoric comes from the right, but I would take that whole heartedly over the "lets do nothing" rhetoric of the left. I welcome your comments.
Your law does not prove evil consequences will not follow, only that they don't always follow.
In the case of our invasion of Iraq, it was not the argument that was wrong, only the facts were because the CIA screwed up. In the case of Nancy Pelosi, its just politics since both the president and Nancy want to provide medical care for the poor who cannot afford it.
Keep your personal bias in check.
Leon
--mark d., CMSgt, USAF, Retired
- It is hardly one sided.
- by IndySmith October 23, 2007 9:29 AM PDT
- The article makes a valid point. I do agree with his "Law of Politcs". But, he is showing a bias in his "comes mostly from the right" slant he puts in the article. Perhaps he hasn't heard the urgent cries to stop global warming... or socialize/expand government control
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- Article Made That Point
- by markdoiron February 15, 2008 6:47 AM PST
- The article made your point--that both sides do this. But your examples are insulting to the discussion. To compare the insidious nature of transgressing constitutional freedoms of individual citizens (speech, privacy, etc) with global warming or S-Chip entirely misses the point. At least on global warming and S-Chip there are discussions between both sides, and there seems to be some amount of compromise.
-
-
(22 Comments)of health care. And, he offers as fact that Paul Wolfowitz was wrong about weapons of mass destruction being a threat in Iraq, when we know
they did have them, they did use them, and were only waiting for the pressure to be off before recreating them.
The "left" does not want a debate. They either declare the debate over (global warming). Or, they bring out victims for spokespeople (Michael J. Fox, S-Chip kid). Then the left doesn't debate the facts, they attack people for not knowing the settled science, or for attacking victims. They certainly aren't debating the issues. And, they certainly are claiming they are saving all of our lives.
However, in the fight on terrorism, the conservatives are constantly running out the "soft on terrorism" card, while attempting to lend it validity in the form of some number of Americans will die. They are unbending in their argument to defend their unconstitutional positions (just look at the threatened vetoes of bills they want because a certain provision is missing). And, to provide protection for those unconstitutional positions, they try to wrap up into law that any inquiry by the judicial system (such as through lawsuits) is threatening to additional American lives. This is not a two-way conversation. It's scare-mongering of the worst sort. Nothing in your examples comes close to it.
mark d.
CMSgt, USAF, Retired