Mr. Ponnuru Says

Julian's excellent article on the Patriot Act yesterday provoked this reaction from National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru:

It would also be nice if someone at Reason were to acknowledge the magazine's own repeated errors of fact in describing the Patriot Act, which I have mentioned in NR.

I wasn't aware that Ponnuru had written such a piece, so I went looking for it. If Lexis-Nexis has steered me correctly, he's referring to an article from NR's print edition (what -- he wants us to respond to things that aren't on the Web?), in the June 2 issue. It doesn't mention any "repeated" errors on our part, but it does cite two alleged misstatements in Reason, one from Nick Gillespie and one from me.

I'll let Nick respond to his half of the attack. My purported mistake is described here:

Also in Reason, Jesse Walker writes that Patriot "expands the definition of terrorist to include such non-lethal acts as computer hacking." That's misleading. Pre-Patriot, an al-Qaeda member who hacked the electric company's computers to take out the grid could not be judged guilty of terrorism, even if he would be so judged if he accomplished the same result with a bomb. Hacking per se isn't terrorism, and Patriot doesn't treat it as such.

If anyone's being misleading here, it's Ponnuru. For the Patriot Act's definition of "cyberterrorism," turn to the law itself:

(i) loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at least $5,000 in value;
(ii) the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals;
(iii) physical injury to any person;
(iv) a threat to public health or safety; or
(v) damage affecting a computer system used by or for a government entity in furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security

I submit that the first and fifth items on that list include activities far less substantial than taking out an electric grid and far afield from anything any rational observer would call terror. It's true that they don't define "hacking per se" as terrorism, but then, I never claimed that they did.

Update: Well, not quite. Details here.

Comments

[Kevin Carson]

Does anyone else's skin crawl every time they hear Ponnuru talk? The first time I heard him on a talking head show, I thought it was Bea Arthur.

[joe]

Conservatives aren't like liberals or libertarians; they lie without compunction and make false accusations knowingly, as long as it moves the ball down the field. I've watched my team gets its ass kicked trying to play fair with these people. National Review sucks, and their website is only useful for anthropological purposes and occasional schadenfreude.

[fyodor]

Once again, I submit that prosecuting a crime for its ulterior motives is simply wrong in and of itself, whether we calling something an act of terrorism or a hate crime or what have you. You murder people, it's wrong. You injure private property, it's wrong. Why you did it (in the sense of motivation) should have no formal bearing on whether it's a crime or how bad a crime it is. (Although I have no gripe with a judge considering whatever factors he likes in sentencing within the statutory limits.)

[matt]

Nice generalization about conservatives joe based on one lousy magazine. Liars don't just belong to one political ideology. I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant and not make generalizations about people?

[Phil]

matt,

Apparently, you're new here. joe is a left-wing ignoramus with a penchant for ad hominem and straw man arguments.

[Brad S]

National Review can kiss my ass. Of course, National Review won't be able to kiss my ass until it pulls its nose directly out of the collective ass of the Bush Administration.

[Ray]

Boy, do I feel enlightened.

[Clay]

When I read the relevant sections of title 18 as ammended, I'm not seeing where "cyberterrorism" is defined as such. Ponnuru's explanation for the change in the text seems much more plausible. A definition is a precise term in the context of a legal statute, and while the change in the law was made within the context of anti-terrorism enforcement, it does not define "cyberterrorism" in the manner you describe. In fact, the way the law was ammended seems to make the definition of a computer crime more restrictive, since it actually adds the definition you use as an additional necessary condition of a computer crime, whereas the prior definition would have included even "crimes" which did not meet this condition.

[Bill]

Ah yes, the Straussian canard. Haven't seen that one in a while. I suppose all the libertarians posting at NRO are now also "Struassians." I also see people from Reason and Cato on Fox. But they are all monolithic evil people, unlike the diverse and tolerlent opinions on the Left. Quite a bit of criticism from the left indeed!

[joe]

matt, of course there are fair and honest conservatives, as there are dishonest liberals and libertarians. My point is that lying through your teeth to the public and fudging your logic to make your side look more right violates the fundamental beliefs of liberals and libertarians, in a way that it does not violate the fundamental beliefs of the Straussians, like those at NRO or Fox or the Weekly Standard, who have come to dominate conservative discourse.

I saw Jeanne Kirkpatrick on MSNBC a few weeks ago. Not one of my favorite people. The host asked her, to paraphrase, "How come no one on the left ever criticizes Fidel Castro? Why are they always praising him?" She answered that the host was being unfair, that Castro has gotten quite a bit of criticism from the left, and that those few who have praised him represent a small segment of leftists and liberals in America. That is how conservatives used to be. Can you imagine anyone from NRO, the Murdoch Empire, or the Heritage Foundation handling the question that way?

[joe]

Watching Bill O'Really? tell a libertoid to shut up doesn't, or Alan Colmes say "Thank you sir, may I have another?" doesn't cut it in the fairness department.