The paper is a rhetorical criticism of reactions to statements made in partial response to a June 2, 2008 terror bombing against the Danish Embassy in Pakistan.

Comments of a politician and a CEO drew heavy criticism. The politician was accused of “giving in” to terror and displaying inadequate loyalty to Denmark by inviting discussion of Danish foreign policy. The CEO was all but accused of being a traitor for cautioning against a continuation of the current policy.

I examine the controversy from the perspective of rhetorical citizenship using primarily theory on rhetorical agency and public deliberation. I argue that the case illustrates implicit norms of rhetorical citizenship: the statements were interpreted not “merely” as discursive acts but also as manifestations of proper civic responsibility (or lack thereof). The case thus constitutes a debate over what and how a citizen may properly act rhetorically in public.