Doublespeak and the War on Terrorism

Five years have passed since the catastrophic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Those attacks ushered in the war on terror. Since some high-ranking government officials and pundits are now referring to the war on terror as the "Long War" or "World War III," because its duration is not clear, now is an appropriate time to take a few steps back and examine the disturbing new vocabulary that has emerged from this conflict. One of the central insights of George Orwell's classic novel Nineteen Eighty-Four concerned the manipulative use of language, which he called "newspeak" and "doublethink," and which we now call "doublespeak" and "Orwellian." Orwell was alarmed by government propaganda and the seemingly rampant use of euphemisms and halftruths -- and he conveyed his discomfort with such tactics to generations of readers by using vivid examples in his novel. Despite our general awareness of the tactic, government officials routinely use doublespeak to expand, or at least maintain, their power. The purpose of this paper is not to criticize any particular policy initiative. Reasonable people can honestly disagree about what needs to be done to combat the terrorists who are bent on killing Americans. 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. The aim here is to enhance the understanding of both policymakers and the interested lay public by exposing doublespeak

"We Own the Night:" Amadou Diallo's Deadly Encounter with New York City's Street Crimes Unit

Amadou Diallo died in a hail of police bullets in February 1999. The police thought Diallo was a serial rapist who was drawing a pistol against them, but Diallo was an innocent man who was unarmed. The incident has sparked a heated debate over the crime-fighting policies of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and the New York City Police Department. To understand what has been happening in New York City in recent years, one must examine the relationship between a police officer's authority to search suspects and the legal doctrine of false imprisonment. The legal shield of false imprisonment has been sharply curtailed in recent years by Supreme Court rulings that have expanded the circumstances under which police officers can "stop and frisk" persons. In 1994 Mayor Giuliani and Police Commissioner William Bratton ordered their elite Street Crimes Unit to start confiscating illegal weapons from pedestrians. The plainclothes outfit embarked upon an aggressive campaign of stopping and frisking city residents, often illegally. Wealthy and middle-class residents were not affected by the crackdown because the police chose to exercise their search powers in the poorer neighborhoods where the crime rates were higher. Minorities bore the brunt of the crackdown, and their cries of police harassment were largely written off. The killing of Amadou Diallo was neither an act of racist violence nor some fluke accident. It was the worst-case scenario of a dangerous and reckless style of policing. Policymakers should dispense with confrontational stop-and-frisk tactics before more innocent people are injured or killed

Golden Opportunities: Vacancies and Representation in the U.S. Senate

This dissertation examines how vacancies in the United States Senate are filled. Despite the ability of states to set the institution for naming replacements, gubernatorial appointment continues to be the dominant method of selecting successors. The popularity of gubernatorial appointment - which empowers a single individual to substitute his/her judgment for the decision of the state electorate - is curious given that one goal of the Seventeenth Amendment was to democratize the selection of senators. However, appointments provide a notable benefit over elections by creating shorter vacancies. Drawing on biographies of governors and appointees, and primary-source accounts of appointments, ambition is found to constrain governors\u27 selections and encourage uncontroversial appointments. The goal of avoiding negative attention is reflected in the legislative careers of appointees who provide more moderate roll-call records than elected senators. Further, appointees are not systematically advantaged in elections if they seek to retain their seat. In fact, the characteristics associated with appointee electoral success are the same as those rewarded in elections featuring non-appointees. Thus, in general, the selection, legislative behavior, and electoral careers of Senate appointees do not provide the impetus for reform. While most appointments are uncontroversial, some draw negative attention and calls to strip governors of their power to appoint. Reform attempts face major hurdles to enactment including considerations of partisan advantage and undesirable aspects of proposed alternatives. Ultimately, the lack of controversy surrounding most selections and the difficulties faced in reforming the method of naming replacements leads to the persistence of Senate appointments