Speaking Freely in a Time of War

Hello All,
I posted a short article to DU in March called "Speaking Freely in a Time of War." Since then I have expanded it to about five times the length. It is currently under submission at a journal so I have deleted references to my name and affiliation in the article. Please let me know which areas you find compelling and not so compelling.
The article is available here: http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~bmauer/Free-speech.htm
Thank you!
Barry Mauer
Assitant Professor of English
University of Central Florida

Thank you for taking the time to address these serious issues. I would hope to use some of the very important research you've done to amass this work to refute the many arguments I encounter on bulletin boards all over the web daily. Countering arguments about these issues is a necessity and I know that these arguments are getting through to people as I've seen the neocons back down quite a bit.

But enough about me. Here's what I have to say about the paper. My comments in bold.

"Many of these anti-speech arguments are enthymemes. If the purpose of these rhetors is to deceive others into accepting a weak claim, then enthymemes are ideal forms because they hide the weakest parts of the argument. By exposing their hidden premises, the parts that are implicit but left unstated, I demonstrate that the anti-speech arguments used against critics of the war are not sound. In this essay, I address the logos, ethos, and pathos in these anti-speech arguments."

This is redundant. You mentioned this at the opening of the paper and then again not that much later.

As for the argument accusing you of being un-American, you say it is an enthymeme and give definitions and examples but you don’t delve into and refute the actual accusation.


found the argument on the Effectiveness of Soldiers hard to follow. To say the argument is false because it presumes that the primary purpose of soldiers' activities is to defend free speech is not compelling.

You said that since soldiers defend our "right to speak"...anything that weakens their effectiveness undermines free speech and therefore such actions must be vilified and isolated.

I recall the argument being that speaking out placed troops in danger because we were sympathizing with the enemy and therefore the enemy was strengthened thereby placing our troops at greater risk. The hole in the argument to me is that what the average person or protestor says against the war does nothing to strengthen the enemy. In fact much of the antiwar sentiment was voiced before the war began and was well known to all.

This was very effective:

"The minor premise is false because there are many cases in which there is no causal relation between criticism of the military or critics of the administration and any weakening of military effectiveness. Some criticism may even improve military effectiveness..."

Also very compelling:

"The greatest threat to military effectiveness has not come from critics of the war but from the Bush administration '...the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats...'"

Compelling:

"...It is rare to hear anyone state the conclusion to this argument--that critics of the military or the administration must be isolated, vilified, and intimidated because they undermine our free speech--because it is clearly contradictory; one cannot intimidate critics and claim to uphold free speech at the same time.

The following argument on the enemies of Free Speech was extremely effective in demonstrating the absence of a threat to free speech by the enemy.

I find the argument that "If the war itself is needless, then the war itself certainly endangers the troops needlessly" hard to follow in the context of endangerment. How do you jump from needless to endangerment? There's a disconnect in the logic of this argument. Not very compelling.

"George W. Bush is like the person without evidence of a fire yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. For example, Bush said that Iraq was an imminent threat to the United States because the Iraqi regime was acquiring enriched uranium, a key component in the development of nuclear weapons. The "evidence" for this claim was a forged document. It appears that the Bush administration knew their claims were phony. (Wilson, 2003, Waxman, 2003) Also, both Bush and Colin Powell have stated that the Iraqi regime was allied with al-Qaeda, a claim made without evidence and one that most American intelligence agencies did not support. (Risen, 2003, Kristoff, 2003) Falsifying and exaggerating threats in order to take a country into war qualifies as an unjustified use of speech, analogous to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The Iraq war endangered U.S. troops, Iraqi citizens, (Jeffery, 2003) and American citizens who now face greater risk of terrorist reprisals as a result of the war."

I love the "fire" argument. Very compelling. I want to use it as a quote.


"This kind of ethical argument appeals to secrets as a way to support a claim of expertise. Since the speaker claims to know of someone who has secret knowledge that justifies his argument, then all other arguments not based on this secret knowledge are necessarily invalid. The glaring flaw in this argument is that any evidence that remains secret cannot be independently verified. The Bush administration has resorted to defending secrets on the basis of "protecting national security." It is impossible to prove or disprove such claims and it is rather obvious that such claims are convenient ways to construct a false appearance of credibility. One should be suspicious of claims to credibility built on secrets."


You lost me here. It's true that verification is necessary but it's also true that there are actually secrets that the administration, any administration, must keep in the interests of national security. Although it is obvious, as you say, that such claims are a convenient way to construct a false appearance of credibility, that does not mean that the administration does not have credible information.


The argument on patriotism is one of the many that needs to be addressed and your defining patriotism as duty is a good start. It's one way of providing alternatives to flag waving. However, the dialogue as an example seems pointless and adds nothing to the argument and neither does ending statement about being Canadian. Maybe if you expanded your definition of patriotism to include the love you express for the US, then the ending might be more fitting.


The military credential argument is also compelling. Specifying the various issues relating to the war makes it obvious that any one had/has a right to speak about war.


Your argument regarding academic freedom is not one I'm familiar with. If your audience for this paper is largely academic I'd leave it in, but if not, I would not put it in as it does not really add to the value of the work.


Criticism as a sign of untrustworthiness was set forth in clear terms. I would add to your contradictions the case of the right wing media which thrives on criticism of Bill Clinton. Is this media untrustworthy" (in the eyes of those who feed off the lies)?

Maybe it's me but I would remove this portion because it's too hard to follow.

"Analysis: War is far more "negative" than criticism, which can be understood as an alternative to physical conflict. Nietzsche claims that Socrates, by inventing the dialectic, "discovered a new kind of agon, that he became its first fencing master for the noble circles of Athens." (Nietzsche, 1895) In other words, Socrates envisioned the dialectic as a form of verbal combat in which the person with the best reasoning, rather than the person with the greatest strength, carried the day."


The "emotions" argument is compelling because you provided numerous examples of appropriate vs. inappropriate emotions. Although I could see them saying that the protestors displayed inappropriate emotions when they were loud or violent.

The majority argument is compelling because you demonstrate that being the the majority does not necessarily mean the majority is right.

The historic information you provide from about the US as a force is compelling. I think you detract from the argument when you attack Powell's credibility in this segment of the paper since the whole issue in this section is about US as a force for good. If you want to talk about Powell's credibility and integrity then it should go int he section where that is the topic.


Thank you again for your work.

I really appreciate the feedback. It will help me revise. And of course you may quote my article (for now, you can cite the URL-- hopefully it will be published soon).

The opening part that you found redundant is the abstract; journals want writers to condense the point of the essay up front so readers can decide if they want to go into it. I repeated the main points later because some readers skip the abstract and go straight to the piece.

I agree that I need to refute the "Anti-American" argument. I believe Chomsky has addressed it recently. I can quote him.

The argument about soldiers defending our right to speak I heard at many rallies where pro-war goons showed up carrying signs and yelling things to that effect. It's not a very articulate argument, but it is one nonetheless. The one you articulate, that anti-war protesters were "sympathizing with the enemy" and thus endangering the troops I address under the effectiveness of troops. Perhaps I could expand that part to include and refute the "sympathizing with the enemy" bit.

In your response, you write "I find the argument that 'If the war itself is needless, then the war itself certainly endangers the troops' needlessly hard to follow in the context of endangerment. How do you jump from needless to endangerment? There's a disconnect in the logic of this argument." Any suggestions for how can I improve this section? My goal was to argue that it's not criticism of the war that endangers the troops, it's the war itself, an unnecessary war at that.

The point about state secrets being sensitive in some cases is well-taken and it would be a long argument to get into, but the principle of "secret knowledge" being unverifiable to outsiders is nonetheless true. Do you think I need to go into a longer discussion (i.e. some state secrets might be real, while others are phony . . . )?

I included the dialogue about flags as an example of someone trying to evade my argument by calling my patriotism into question. Perhaps I could dispense with it and still make the same point.

How's this for a capper to the Canadian admission:
"Before anyone accuses me of a lack of patriotism, let me admit that I am a Canadian citizen, though I love the U.S. and therefore I don't want to see it hurt by false patriots."

Yes the audience for this paper is largely academic.

Your point about criticism being a sign of untrustworthiness cutting both ways is well taken. I might add that bit.

The part about Nietzsche and Socrates is aimed specifically at my intended readership, which is scholars of rhetoric.

Although some anti-war protesters perhaps did display inappropriate emotions at times, I would characterize the movement overall as very emotionally "appropriate" and the pro war movement overall as emotionally "inappropriate." Should I go into the exceptions?

My point at the end was not to attack Powell's credibility (though that would be a nice unintended effect). Rather I wanted to take apart his argument that Americans should feel pride everytime we invade another country. I was attacking his use of pathos, but to do so I had to attack the logical premises on which that pathetic argument (in both senses of the term) was based.

Please do add more comments or respond to mine as you see fit. I appreciate all of your comments and am very grateful you took the time to write.

Best,

Barry

My goal was to argue that it's not criticism of the war that endangers the troops, it's the war itself, an unnecessary war at that.

Your response, above, clarified this issue much more. You may want to use the above to summarize the issue.


Do you think I need to go into a longer discussion (i.e. some state secrets might be real, while others are phony . . . )?

Yes I think that might work.

How's this for a capper to the Canadian admission:
"Before anyone accuses me of a lack of patriotism, let me admit that I am a Canadian citizen, though I love the U.S. and therefore I don't want to see it hurt by false patriots."

I think this is more effective.

I would characterize the movement overall as very emotionally "appropriate" and the pro war movement overall as emotionally "inappropriate."

You provided and excellent explanation of appropriate vs. inappropriate emotions. Perhaps simply adding the sentence above as a summary might be effective.


I took the time to read and reply to you because I think this is an extremely important issue. I wanted to write something but hardly have the time which I know it must have taken you to put this paper together.

I think that you should do two versions--one for academia and then a simpler version for "us" in these forums who can use it as a reference to counter the utter nonsense that is being promulgated by the Bushistas.

I hope you will post the final version here so I can share it as well. Good luck.