Law Schools
Ex-Weatherman Decries ‘Demonization’ in Georgetown Law Talk
Posted Nov 19, 2008 12:12 PM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss
The founder of the Weather Underground decried his “demonization” in speeches yesterday at Georgetown University Law Center and a Washington D.C. church.
Bill Ayers complained that he had become a “cartoon and a caricature” after accusations surfaced during the presidential campaign that he was a terrorist who palled around with Barack Obama, the Washington Post reports.
"The demonization of me, the creation of me as a fearsome person, somebody to worry about, is false," Ayers said. The Post story says Ayers “seemed delighted and oh-so-ready” when a Georgetown student stood and told the University of Illinois education professor that he was going to the Navy after graduation, and he wondered if Ayers wished him harm.
The article notes that several members of the Weather Underground have been tied to attacks that killed people, but several bombs planted by the group itself caused no injuries. Ayers responded to the student by talking about the lack of injuries, the story says.
"Not only did I never kill or injure another person, but the Weather Underground in its six-year existence never killed or injured another person," he said. Ayers said the group’s actions could be “not only extreme but kind of nuts,” but it was not terrorism.
Ayers is married to Northwestern law professor Bernardine Dohrn, another former leader of Weather Underground.
Two students protested the speech by turning their backs during Ayers' comments, WJLA.com reports. "There are people who are disgusted that he's at Georgetown University," one student told the ABC station.

Comments
J.D.
Nov 19, 2008 2:30 PM CST
Yeah. Put another way: * I’m nobody to worry about! I only throw bombs at judge’s homes when their families are sleeping! *
Once a terrorist, always a terrorist.
Flag this comment
HH
Nov 21, 2008 10:22 AM CST
Ayers shouldn’t be permitted to get away with that argument. The object of a terrorist isn’t to kill, necessarily, but to spread terror through the threat of killing, maiming, and destroying property. He may have been incompetent as a killer but he was very successful at spreading terror via violence; ergo, he is an admitted terrorist. His sophistry fails.
Moreover, Ayers continues to believe that what he did was morally right, and that he wishes he did more of it. He also dodges the question of whether he intended to kill, and merely missed. An astounding level of evasiveness for someone who claims to be the good guy.
His current freedom was based on the conclusion of the justice system that he had paid his debt to society and repented. Apparently that conclusion wasn’t correct. Too late to re-incarcerate Ayers, perhaps, but it’s worth keeping in mind that if even an old terrorist like Ayers is unrepentant, why would we expect the new crop of terrorists to ever be worthy of having their freedom restored?
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Nov 21, 2008 7:12 PM CST
I suppose I can’t well avoid weighing in, if posters are going to throw that word around. Let me make clear, preliminarily, that I do not believe random acts of violence are a good way to resolve problems of any sort.
However, I would submit that if you are going to get on a moral high horse over “terrorism,” you need to be consistent. If a person who hijacks and destroys an airliner is a “terrorist,” a person who blows up the King David Hotel is also a “terrorist.” If the test is initiation of violent action with near certainty that disinterested persons (i.e., persons not taking sides in the conflict) will be maimed, disabled or killed, a head of state that launches a highly mechanised war, based on lies, is a “terrorist.” If ripping civilians and even children apart with high explosives is wrong in Oklahoma City and in Belfast, it is also wrong in Hanoi, in Kabul and in the West Bank. It is equally wrong whether it is done with IEDs or with cluster bombs dropped from 15,000 feet.
Instead of ever acknowledging these points, typically we find that our lot causes “collateral damage,” while the murdering pigs on the other side of the issue are “terrorists.”
Flag this comment
WW
Nov 23, 2008 11:12 AM CST
The Ayers saga is only the most recent example of this supposedly “Christian Nation”
refusing to forgive the repentant person who did something in the past that all would
agree was wrong, was punished, rehabilitated, and has offset the bad with more
recent good many times over. Hooray for scarlet letters and fire and brimstone!! We
haven’t come very far in 300 years.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Nov 23, 2008 1:21 PM CST
Perhaps for want of effort.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.