Bill Ayers Speaks (finally!)

2008 December 9
by Matt Deaton

In case you missed it, the notorious “domestic terrorist” finally defended himself Friday in an op-ed piece in the NY Times. For your convenience, here’s a stripped-down version of that confession/explanation, set in the format of an imaginary interview.

So, how many people did you kill, terrorist? “I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.

Oh… so you weren’t a terrorist, technically? “Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.”

Well, whatever you were, have you renounced your evil ways? “I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I’ve been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education.”

What was your connection to Mr. Obama? “President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.”

If you really aren’t a terrorist, and if you and Mr. Obama really weren’t that close, how did his enemies whip everyone into a frenzy? ”The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.”

So why the heck didn’t you speak out earlier?! “With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out.”

—Matt Deaton—

4 Comments leave one →
2008 December 10

Excellent post!

I really never did much digging on Ayers as a person once it seemed clear that there weren’t any credible ties between President-elect Obama and this “terrorist” that some folk on the opposing side were trying to link him to.

It’s interesting that he doesn’t characterize himself as a terrorist. It might be true that his group didn’t kill anyone (I have no idea) but that doesn’t mean that they weren’t terrorists. He seems to be working with a very limited notion of “terrorist.” Seems to me that he does not deny that his group was engaged in “a campaign to…[spread] fear… for political ends.”

Once you edit out the bits about killing and injuring you are left with a real definition of “terror-ism” as opposed to “terrorism-that-kills-or-injures-people.”

Do you have to kill people to terrorize them?

2008 December 10
Matt permalink

Great point, Matteson. I think you’re right, actually, that terrorism needn’t actually cause harm to persons.

But at the same time, I hate the fact that we don’t have another word to distinguish groups that intentionally harm people for political gain, from those that intentionally avoid harming people. ELF (Earth Liberation Front—a militant environmentalist organization) does stuff that could be considered terroristic (and I think the feds label them as such), and so too does PETA, but neither is on par with Al Qaeda.

Bin Laden is what people think of when they hear “terrorist,” so it’s a little misleading and unfair to associate groups that go out of their way to avoid casualties with the guys that go out of their way to maximize casualties.

—Matt—

2008 December 10

Yep. We really need another word. It can’t be the fact that that someone or some group uses terror as a tool which makes them objectionable. That’s a feature of every threat ever made by anyone and of basic military tactics. (Scary masks, body paint, sports team names, “shock and awe”…) Terrorism is a tactic and not really a legitimate classification of a fighting force.

Let’s come up with a word that allows for gradations so that we can fit bin Laden and ELF and PETA in the same category and yet distinguish them. All of them do violence to different things. PETA throws paint and slanders heros like Crocodile Steve and Elf (if they’re who I think they are) burns SUVs. We’ll be famous if we can precipitate a switch from the uninformative “terrorist” label to something else. FAMOUS.

2008 December 10
Matt permalink

Famous, lol.

Leave A Comment

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS