"Just the facts, ma'am"

Just the facts, ma'am.

Although the television show Dragnet is rather hokey for modern audiences weened on Friends and American Idol, Sgt. Joe Friday's epistemologically-inclined signature line is still worthy of attention.

Yesterday I was critical of fellow Madison blogger Jenna Pryor for accusing Stop the War!, an anti-war organization, of having committed an act of terrorism. The act in question is the throwing of a brick through the window of the Army recruiting station at University Square Mall on Monday afternoon. In her post, Ms. Pryor points to this piece at the Daily Cardinal webpage. Here's the important bit:

Authorities do not yet know who is to blame for the broken window.

While, as I type, the perpetrator may be in custody - I honestly don't know - but, at the time the post was written, authorities admitted that the identity of the person who committed this crime was unknown. Then Steven Stehling of Standards and Grudges chimed in saying that the crime was "obviously politically motivated" and gave a definition of terrorism:

the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Being denotative, we can see that motive plays a role here - intention. And so, although the identity of the brick-thrower was unknown, Ms. Pryor knew the person's intentions. While it seems likely to me that the brick-thrower had the intention of making an anti-war statement, she didn't just say that she thought that someone against the war threw the brick. Instead she accused a very specific organization - Stop the War!. Let us return to the dictionary:

lie n. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression

Look at the accusation Ms. Pryor makes in the title of her post: "Terrorism from Stop the War!". And so, if the authorities don't know who threw the brick, how does she? Surely, if she knew the criminal she would respect the Rule of Law and turn him or her in to the police. So either she knows who did it and isn't telling the police or she doesn't know who threw the brick and is lying when she says that Stop the War! is responsible.

As for Mr. Stehling's definition, I cannot deny it. But it's disingenous to just say, "Look! It's denotatively correct!" Just as he tried to sidestep incorporation, now he now tries to sidestep connotation. Read what I wrote again:

Conflating this act of vandalism and terrorism - the real stuff that kills - is ridiculous.

I am not disputing that the brick-throwing is an act of terrorism in a literal, denotative sense. He even concedes as much in his comment at Jenna's blog: "Palmer at Fearful Symmetries thinks you calling this an act terrorism is an exaggeration." Notice he uses the word "exaggeration" and that he doesn't say that I deny that it was a "terrorist act". My point was that the word "terrorism" is loaded. It is loaded in this post-9/11 era just as the word "Nazi" is. Perhaps a new rhetorical term is in order. How about Argumentum ad terrorism? The definition of the word "terrorism" is not in dispute here. It is the connotations that are. I argue that the connotations involved here are the WTC Towers afire and people strapping bombs to their person & detonating them in a room full of children.

My point is twofold:

1) To state that Stop the War! was responsible for the shattered window despite having no knowledge of who committed the crime is to lie.

2) The use of a loaded term advances no argument and serves to distract from it. Using "terrorism" in this case conflates throwing a brick through a window and hurting no one to flying planes into the WTC Towers and the Pentagon in which thousands were killed and I find this to be ridiculous.