An Article by:
Russell Cole

Mukasey – the United States Attorney General – stated on March 28th that pirating of digital copy righted materials was funding terrorism. The statement by the Attorney General was made after he met privately with executives from the entertainment industry as well as software vendors, such as Adobe.

I do not have much to say about this announcement other than the fact that it appears to be another fabrication that has been injected into the Discourse of Terror: a type of speech that serves as a justificatory device lending support to public initiatives that might otherwise appear undesirable if not absurd. This rhetoric that has been developed by the Bush Administration consists of a linguistic operation in which a policy position – that if viewed independently, might be unpopular - declares the policy to be a subsidiary of the larger War on Terror, even if the connections establishing such a relationship are lacking in evidential support; after all, there is always a black box, States Secrets, to reference if an Administration representative is pressed for empirical substantiation for an alleged scenario in which terror and its prosecution are invoked.

We can observe this same speech pattern in the latest canard; this time attempting to offer credence for increased resources being devoted by the Department of Justice for the investigation of individuals and syndicates engaging in IP, (intellectual property crimes). Under normal speech conditions – since we are, after all, presently fighting a war against terror – such a proposition might be difficult to sell to the public. IP - although not victimless – is certainly not violent, and IP surely does not qualify as publicly harmful. It is damaging to major software vendors and movie industry moguls, not the ordinary public. Therefore, the initiative by the Justice Department against IP might appear, if not cloaked in the prototypical terror-inciting garb, as an allocation of resources that is directed to protect the interests of the few, and the wealthy, and it might seem as though it is a distraction from more pressing matters, such as the actual War on Terrorism.

Therefore, how better alter the public’s opinion of such a policy announcement than to reconstitute its semiology, so that the increased expenditures against IP are subsequently understood as an extension of the War on Terror.

Tags: economics, foreign policy, government, homeland security, justice department, political rhetoric, politics, Terrorism, War on Terror
Categories: Commentary, Economics, government, Politics, Homeland Security, Terrorism, Foreign Policy, War on Terror
No Comments »