Originally posted at In Harmonium
Yesterday, Friday August 14th, was to have seen a talk given by Lynndie England at the Library of Congress on her new biography Tortured: Lynndie England, Abu Ghraib and the Photographs That Shocked the World. The talk, however, sparked a very strong reaction from Morris Davis, a veteran and employee of the Library of Congress that was posted at the SWJ Blog here.
The post itself is in the genre of "Shocked and Appalled" style, letter to the Editor. Davis notes that:
Thousands and thousands of honorable men and women have and are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. They don't get book deals and invited to lecture at the Library of Congress. Most of them would be happy with a thank you and a chance at an education or a decent job when the mission is over. It's a disgrace that the dishonorable profit and that we use government property and resources to glorify the gutless. If you attend the lecture on Friday, don't save me a seat.
Now, regardless of what one thinks about England's actions, this letter to the editor is now being credited with instigating a series of "threats" to the organizers that have resulted in the cancellation of this talk and several future ones (source). In particular, David Moore, another employee at the LoC and a veteran as well, notes:
David Moore, a Vietnam War veteran and German acquisitions specialist at the library who organized the event, said he received several e-mails threatening violence and shared them with police and the library's inspector general.He said he was disappointed by the cancellation but supports the decision because of safety concerns. "We can't have an event here that's going to develop into a brawl like a town hall meeting," he said.
He added, "Free speech in America is pretty well dead."
He blamed an essay decrying the event on the Small Wars Journal blog for stirring up much of the opposition. The site focuses on war politics and strategy.
In a response to this, Dave Dilegge posted a notification of the cancellation here which has sparked a s*** storm of reactions that truly bother me. Anyone who takes the time to get to know Dave knows that he is one of those people who supports free speech even if he disagrees with what is being said. The line for him, and for the Small wars Council as a whole, is whether or not the process of discussion / debate remains "civilized" in the sense that people can agree to disagree and are (relatively) polite -- the ROE is "Attack the message, not the messenger".
One of the more interesting, and ominous, references in the AP article was Moore's comment that "[w]e can't have an event here that's going to develop into a brawl like a town hall meeting". What I find ominous about it is that this lack of "civilized" behaviour is permeating the US town hall meetings on health care reform and spilling over into all sorts of other issues and destroying the habit of reasoned debate and disagreement, replacing that with yelling matches and the threat of "direct action". As Bill Nagle, publisher of the Small Wars Journal noted
I would not join David Moore in saying that free speech is dead. Yet I believe I can speak for many of us here in saying that, as much as we oppose the event, we are appalled the outcome is the result of safety concerns arising from threats of violence. Thuggery is unacceptable — over there, and especially over here. Small Wars Journal, and I am confident Moe Davis, a man of great principle, do not stand for that.
And that is the word for it -- Thuggery.
Comments
Kory, I share your frustration with both the process and with the specific here. I would have liked to have heard her speak, even though I'm not in DC.
On the process, it's something that I have noticed is happening more frequently than it used to. Years ago when I was doing my MA, I spent a lot of time studying it in its relationship to Witch Crazes (or Witch Hunts), which is still the term I use for it.
In addition to the Lynndie England case, which isn't a full blown, public Witch Hunt now, I've found other examples relating to the <a href="http://marctyrrell.com/2008/08/19/the-night-battles-in-the-21st-century… Terrain System</a> and <a href="http://marctyrrell.com/2009/07/10/rule-of-law/">Ward Churchill</a>.
The process operates without regard to content or political stance and, IMO, has been picked up as a useful tactic by many different political players as a simple and easy to use tool to bludgeon their opponents.
You make some good points, Marct. Maybe I'm just irritated that the public swells up in some cases and has a mob reaction that shuts up differing points of view. However it happens -- and I don't claim to understand every aspect of this phenomenon -- I don't really enjoy being presented only the "nice" points of view in media... particularly in blogs, which should be where information junkies can turn to get differing points of view.
What I think would be most interesting in this case, if it ever actually happens, is to see Lynndie England discuss candidly what her experiences were and what happened while she was at Abu Ghraib. I'm not sure that will ever happen because it seems that every interview I've seen in the media focuses on trying to re-convict her and Lynndie England basically just trying to justify herself. Neither people trying to convict others nor people trying to defend themselves from being convicted will speak objectively because both will have overriding agendas. And all the factual info we can get out of that basically was presented in the media the first few weeks after the scandal broke.
So I guess it's hard to get the full picture of any of this... but from my experience I do know that the idea that the situation was orchestrated and sustained over time by junior personnel is ridiculous.
Junior guys could probably manage a conspiracy somewhere remote and out of view of senior officers -- but by the very nature of the situation at Abu Ghraib senior personnel from all branches of service AND various government agencies would have had a daily interest in the prisoners and their interrogations. Are we to believe that the interrogations of those prisoners or their treatment was of such a low priority that no one was paying attention? This is a subject that the Secretary of Defense issued a memo on and Abu Ghraib was one of the greatest concentrations of prisoners in Iraq, if not the greatest...
On an emotional level this scapegoating has always bothered me. Whatever punishment Lynndie England or her peers deserved, it was not the punishment due to the "mastermind" of the situation.
Anyway, I think I strayed off topic a bit...
Kory
kueijin1@yahoo.com
Kory, thank you for your comment. I'd like to address what I see as the key issue you raised, and it is an important one: when does free speech stifle free speech?
<blockquote>And I also understand that your forum is a form of free speech, as well... I just wish that such forums were used to present ideas, more than having the effect -- again, intentional or not -- of stifling the public presentation of ideas.</blockquote>
I'm not aware of any culture or society that allows totally free, unrestrained, speech; there are always "conventions" that impose some type of limits. The classic that has shown up in this particular debate is the "freedom" to yell "Fire!" in a crowded building when a fire doesn't exist. In effect, there is always some form of responsibility that goes along with the right to express oneself. A lot of the time, these conventions are sub-conscious - we aren't aware of them, but when they are breached by someone we'll think "Hang on, that's just not right!"
These conventions arose for a pretty good reason: all discussion of ideas is actually dealing with symbols - abstractions of reality - that are emotionally charged, sometimes really heavily charged. The more we want to talk about heavily charged ideas, the harder it is to <b>not</b> have our emotions flare up and get in the way of our actual discussions. This has a couple of implications...
First, when we deal with really heavily charged issues, we need to develop and use fairly "tight" conventions that require us to control our emotions. This lets us talk with people who we totally disagree with a gut level and, who knows, we may change our perceptions of them.
Second, and this is really more relevant to your point, because these discussions are so emotionally charged, they can have an inhibiting effect on some people. This is the (un)intentional "stifling" effect you mention. Sometimes, letting the emotional charge loose during the act of "debate" is used as a tactic to overwhelm opponents - literally by putting them into an emotional turmoil in which they can't think clearly (BTW, this is one of the "classic" tactics in rhetoric). Other times, the effect can still happen when it isn't intended.
That unintended effect of stifling free speech, however, whether intentional or not, is co-produced between the person who is "speaking" and the person(s) who are "listening". This gets us back to the balance between the "right" of free speech, within a convention, and the "responsibilities" of free speech, and one of those responsibilities is to control your emotional reactions when you hear something that makes you mad.
Of course, how you control your emotions is totally up to you: it could be by saying "Hey, I'm not going to listen to that sierra" and walking away. It could be by listening, not blowing your stack, but not changing your mind. It could be by actively engaging them in discussion..... All sorts of possibilities.
The key point, however, is that there is a grey zone as to who bears responsibility for the emotional reactions caused by an act of free speech: the speaker or the listener. If the "line" is drawn too closely towards the speaker, then the listener is seen as passive, a subject for manipulation, a "victim" to be "protected" by those who have the power and ability.
Personally, and I know that this comes from my cultural conditioning, I find that position to be unacceptable or "just wrong".
You presented this as an alternative choice: "why are they bringing this person instead of this (more worthy) person?" That helped convince people that getting the England talk canceled was a way to get the (more worthy) people into the Library of Congress. Thus, the condemnation and threats.
In reality, those are two separate issues. That the LOC should bring in more and different voices is surely true. That they shouldn't bring in England does not seem to be.
You screwed up.
In fairness to all who believe they - and us - were slighted by a missed opportunity to hear Lynndie England's insights, observations, and lessons learned concerning the events at the Abu Ghraib prison - we offer up <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8199168.stm">this link to last week's BBC interview</a> with England.
The real tragedy here is how a few individuals more concerned with their own ideals than hearing ALL sides of what really happened ruined it for the rest of us. How are we supposed to intelligently piece those tragic events together if we can't hear from the people who actually participated???
Why is retired Air Force Officer Davis going after a Private from Abu Ghraib when his real contention is against his own command in Gitmo for torture??? If he's so outraged against this issue, wouldn't his efforts best be served in going after what he's actually witnessed instead of emotional responses to subjects he's only heard about from second hand sources???
This is a perfect example of going after something easy instead of taking on the real hard issues because they require time and effort to accomplish something really meaningful. Fast food is not the only thing cheap and easy in our society, so is our work ethic it would seem.
I appreciate the points you make in this posting, but it makes me feel very uncomfortable to see pressure brought to bear that -- intentionally or not -- stifles free speech. I don't think it really matters whether or not you agree with Lynndie England. She is in a unique position to comment on certain events in recent U.S. history. Of course her point of view would have its own biases, but that's to be expected.
And I also understand that your forum is a form of free speech, as well... I just wish that such forums were used to present ideas, more than having the effect -- again, intentional or not -- of stifling the public presentation of ideas. The whole ideosphere would be served better by a discussion of counterpoints or alternate ideas, rather than basically shutting Lynndie England up. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree with her or not -- she owes no further debt to society and should be allowed to speak. People should take her comments within the context they're offered.
And, of course, I understand that you didn't cancel her speaking engagement. However, that line of reasoning is somewhat disingenuous. Lobbyists don't pass laws, either.
Not that it really matters, but these opinions come from a 16+ army careerist who is a veteran of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan... one of those guys "who don't have book deals," that you seem to be so concerned about.
Really, my point here is -- PLEASE -- present your own point of view, but don't shut dissenting voices up. That serves no one. I want the opportunity to be exposed to every side I can be and to make my own decisions. Whether I agreed with your point of view or not, I think that the best approach is to encourage the public discussion.
Regards,
Kory
kueijin1@yahoo.com
While Miss England has a sensational story to
share, so do other troops. I am an
International Poet. I have met General &
Mrs. Graham here at Fort Carson. Their
story is changing lives. They are trying to find ways for suicide intervention. Perhaps
Miss England could be an effective speaker
if she shares how she is working to improve
the lives of our troops. I am more interested
in speakers who are making a difference.