In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, issues of terrorism and national security have become central in public debate in many countries. This chapter focuses on a brief public controversy over reactions by two public figures in Denmark to a terrorist attack on the Danish embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, June 2008. By means of argumentation analysis and rhetorical criticism focusing on the concept of rhetorical agency, the argument is made that common norms of public deliberation were cast aside in the debate following two statements interpreted as critical of the official Danish foreign policy. Rather than being considered legitimate democratic discursive acts, these dissenting voices were treated as manifestations of civic irresponsibility. It is argued that what to the participants was a heated debate over the acceptability of certain views on the nation’s foreign policy, was also a showcase for differing views on norms of rhetorical engagement in public debate. In an atmosphere of fear and confusion, the tolerance for public political dissent is diminished, and conditions for democratic deliberation similarly constrained. The case illustrates how conceptions of rhetorical agency, defined as the way rhetors are both made and makers of rhetoric, are profoundly tied to ideological assumptions that are highly contextual in nature: while all parties involved would ordinarily salute principles of free speech and public exchange of opinions as the basis of democratic government, it appears that at times of crisis, such behaviour is more likely to be deemed dangerous and even treacherous when it questions official policy.