The Bush administration has been engaging in an Orwellian tactic known as doublespeak in its justification for the global war on terrorism, according to a paper published by the Cato Institute last week.
Doublespeak is the art of saying one thing and conveying one meaning, while having another meaning actually in mind. It derives from the words “Newspeak” and “doublethink” used in George Orwell’s classic cautionary tale 1984.
“Doublespeak perverts the basic function of language, which is to facilitate a common understanding between human beings,” writes Timothy Lynch, director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice, in the paper’s introduction.
“Reasonable people can honestly disagree about what needs to be done to combat the terrorists who are bent on killing Americans,” Lynch writes in the paper. “However, a conscientious discussion of our policy options must begin with a clear understanding of what our government is actually doing and what it is really proposing to do next.”
Among the examples of doublespeak that Lynch cites are Bush’s claim of fighting the war in Iraq with a “volunteer” army and saying that he will not support a draft, while at the same time issuing stop-loss orders which prevent people who have fulfilled all of their military obligations from leaving the service. Members of the military have called this a “back-door draft.”
Another is the term “imperative security internee,” which seems to be the replacement for “enemy combatant,” now that the Supreme Court has said that enemy combatants must have Geneva Convention protections.
Read the full paper for a nice sample of the doublespeak the administration has used and is still using to confuse and mislead the public.
“We’ll never be able to stop the government from engaging in doublespeak because the government is constantly engaging in mischief,” Lynch wrote. “But if we’re vigilant about it, we can keep the government in check.”
The price of liberty, after all, is eternal vigilance.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Tropical WeatherLast week, in the wake of another uptick in the official unemployment rate, the administration continued to claim that their economic policies were working, just not fast enough. Not only does the administration have a funny way of ending a war, but now they claim their economic policies are successful. For whom, I wonder?
Gardner Goldsmith teams up with Brett Veinotte, of the excellent School Sucks Project and the School Sucks podcast. Gard and Brett discuss the impetus of the series and project, and why public education must be stopped.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Ken Scott
Sep 22, 2006
Last May I retired from the U.S. Army after serving for 22 years. After returning from Iraq I was diagnosed with Turretts so I decided to Retire. I went on terminal leave, sold my home near Ft. Hood Texas and then moved to a new community where I found a job and purchased another home. This is the reason for terminal leave. In August I was then notified I had been stop lossed. Which means quit your job and return back to the Army. I applied for an exception to policy since I have been diagnosed with Turretts Syndrome. I even had a retired US Army Brigadier General doctor who was an Army sergon general examine me and write a letter stating I’m not fit for duty. I then submitted a copy of my medical records with the exception to policy packet. This request was then denied, and I was told to return to Ft. Hood Texas. I tried to explain to the Army I had Turretts and also that I couldn’t afford to maintain multiple households. I was told to return any way. Upon returning I decided to go ahead and do the right thing and deploy then retire again after returning. Besides I had to quit my job already and need the free room and board. I got issued all my gear and then shipped a portion of my gear as required. I then went through a Brigade screening process that checkes shots, wills ect.. This is to ensure we are personally ready to deploy. Then I went through a Divison level screening process. At one of the stations I was told to sit down with a doctor and he screened my medical records. While doing this he stopped, looked at me and then explained I’m not medically fit for duty. I imediately told him to just sign the paper so I could deploy. I explained to him that I had already notified my chain of command of these issues and they didn’t care and I was brought back. He told me he could not do it and then made me an appointment to see a neuroligist. Here is my interpertation of what is happening to me. In a round about way the Army is telling me, yes you served 22 years honorably, yes you told us that you have medical problems, but we need to make you quit your job and bankrupt you first and then maybe we’ll let you retire anyway because you can’t deploy with us. OOPS, our bad. Better luck next time.