This page was last updated on February 12, 2010.
Scare tactics; Editorial; Beaver County Times; February 12, 2010.
Just over a week ago I noted, “Except for itself, the Times has a history of referring to anyone who believes we’re at risk of being cowards or accuses them of fear mongering.” As if on cue, the Times gave us another example.
In this case, though, the editorial didn’t actually present any examples of alleged “scare tactics.” Nearly the whole editorial is about Newt Gingrich’s opinion that “the White House was sending the wrong message to terrorists by handling Abdulmutallab’s case through the U.S. criminal court system instead of treating him as enemy combatant, which would have meant he would have been tried by a military tribunal.” How is that employing “scare tactics?” It was also an opinion expressed by people on both the left and right, not just evil Republicans.
Keep in mind the Times told us the attempted bombing was a “minor act of terrorism.” To compare the treatment of the “shoe bomber” with the “underwear bomber” is not as straightforward as the Times would like us to believe. At the time of the “shoe bomber” (12/22/01), barely three months had passed since 9/11 and we still didn’t have all the legal procedures and tools in place we have today.
The only actual example of using “scare tactics” was the editorial itself when it claimed “many Republicans, and, sadly, Americans are willing to … jettison basic constitutional rights and the rule of law.” (On a side note, I don’t know if it’s just a poorly written sentence or a reflection of a core Times belief, but aren’t Republicans also Americans?) To the best of my knowledge, no one of any credibility has claimed we should violate the Constitution or “jettison … the rule of law” to prosecute alleged terrorists.
© 2004-2010 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.