There is great power in the use of words: words create most of what we consider to be real and true. Framing our words and narratives is thus a tool of power – but a power that also comes with limitations.
This intriguing issue is the topic of Framing the Threat, an investigation of the relationship between language and security and of how discourse creates the scope of possibility for political action.
In particular, the book scrutinizes and compares the security narratives of the former US presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It shows how their framings of identity, i.e., of the American 'self' and the enemy 'other' facilitated a certain construction of threat that shaped the presidents' detention and interrogation policies. By defining what was necessary in the name of national security, Bush's narrative justified the operation of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and rendered the mistreatment of detainees possible – a situation that would have otherwise been illegal. Bush's framings therefore enabled legal limits to be pushed and made the violation of rules appear legitimate. Obama, in contrast, constructed a threat scenario that required an end to rule violations, and the closure of Guantanamo for security reasons. According to this narrative, a return to the rule of law was imperative if the American people were to be kept safe. However, Obama's framing was continually challenged, and it was never able to dominate public discourse. Consequently, Framing the Threat argues Obama was unable to implement the policy changes he had announced.
Frequently asked questions
Yes, you can cancel anytime from the Subscription tab in your account settings on the Perlego website. Your subscription will stay active until the end of your current billing period. Learn how to cancel your subscription.
No, books cannot be downloaded as external files, such as PDFs, for use outside of Perlego. However, you can download books within the Perlego app for offline reading on mobile or tablet. Learn more here.
Perlego offers two plans: Essential and Complete
Essential is ideal for learners and professionals who enjoy exploring a wide range of subjects. Access the Essential Library with 800,000+ trusted titles and best-sellers across business, personal growth, and the humanities. Includes unlimited reading time and Standard Read Aloud voice.
Complete: Perfect for advanced learners and researchers needing full, unrestricted access. Unlock 1.4M+ books across hundreds of subjects, including academic and specialized titles. The Complete Plan also includes advanced features like Premium Read Aloud and Research Assistant.
Both plans are available with monthly, semester, or annual billing cycles.
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Yes! You can use the Perlego app on both iOS or Android devices to read anytime, anywhere — even offline. Perfect for commutes or when you’re on the go. Please note we cannot support devices running on iOS 13 and Android 7 or earlier. Learn more about using the app.
Yes, you can access Framing the Threat by Imke Köhler in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Politica e relazioni internazionali & Governo americano. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
The aim of this book is to investigate the relationship between language and security and to examine how discourse creates the scope of possibility for political action. In particular, the study scrutinizes how the language use of the U.S. presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama created political latitude. Their security discourses are analyzed in order to show how their framings of identity, i.e., of the American ‘self’ and the enemy ‘other’ facilitated a certain threat construction that shaped the presidents’ detention and interrogation policies during the ‘War on Terror’.1 By defining what was necessary in the name of national security, Bush’s discourse justified the operation of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and rendered the mistreatment of detainees possible, which otherwise would have been prohibited. This book argues that Bush’s securitization enabled legal limits to be pushed and the violation of rules to appear legitimate. President Obama, in contrast, constructed a threat scenario that required an end to rule violations, and the closure of Guantanamo for security reasons. According to Obama’s narrative, a return to the rule of law was imperative to keeping the American people safe. Juxtaposing the presidents’ security narratives in this study allows for a direct comparison and thus illustrates in how far Obama altered framings and arguments, and in part, the policies of his predecessor.
1.1 The Research Question
The ‘War on Terror’ that was launched after the attacks of September 11, 2001 led to the implementation of security measures that were unprecedented in the history of the United States. “The great ideological struggle of our time” (Bush 2008/01/13) – as former U.S. President George W. Bush later called it – would be based on political and military action “unlike any other we have ever seen” (Bush 2001/09/20).2 Part of this action was an unparalleled detention policy that included the practice of illegal rendition. ‘Rendition’ refers to the capture of suspects from any place in the world “without the knowledge or participation of the host government and without any judicial process” (Margulies 2006: 3; cf. Steiger 2007).3 The detainees were then brought to secret CIA prisons, jails run by third countries, or to the detention facility located at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It is estimated that until 2009 between 150,000 and 200,000 people were affected by this policy of the Bush administration, and that it led to over 100 deaths (Bassiouni 2010: xi). Guantanamo is certainly the most visible and enduring embodiment of this policy. Captives brought there were completely deprived of their rights and left at the mercy of their interrogators. Since its installation in January 2002, Guantanamo has come to epitomize U.S. arbitrariness and human rights violations.4 The detention center’s beginnings were marked by the installation of a prison camp as an extra-territorial site at which U.S. legal code did not apply; at the same time, foreign and international jurisdiction was suspended by military order.5 As part of legal practice, military commissions were installed that resulted in the deprivation of the rights of detainees (Lutz 2011: 304). Hence, prisoners were kept indefinitely without charge and had no possibility of contesting their detention before a court, because even the writ of habeas corpus – the right guaranteed by the U.S. constitution to have the legality of imprisonment reviewed – had been suspended. In fact, detainees at Guantanamo did not even have the chance to seek legal advice. Moreover, although President Bush conceptualized the attacks of 9/11 and the countermeasures by the United States in terms of war, he referred to it as a ‘new kind of war’ – a war in which the Geneva Conventions were no longer applicable. Consequently, detainees were not given the status of ‘prisoners of war’ (POW) but instead were categorized as ‘illegal’ or ‘unlawful’ ‘enemy combatants’. As such, they were excluded from protection under the 1949 Geneva Conventions. At the same time, the denotation of ‘enemy combatant’ remained legally undefined until 2006, which left the detainees’ status, disposition and treatment open to the decisions of the president and his administration (Lutz 2011: 142; cf. Olshansky 2007: 86f).6 Finally, the ban on torture was abandoned by suspending particular laws, declaring international law as invalid in this particular case, or by redefining torture to make the course of action fit U.S. law. As a result, detainees were exposed to ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ that included torture such as ‘waterboarding’ and other inhumane treatment. Overall, the U.S. was anxious to isolate the captives in a lawless zone. This constitutes an exceptional attempt to gain ultimate authority over the detainees by suspending, circumventing and/or violating the U.S. constitution as well as international treaties and rules of customary international law on human rights, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Geneva Conventions, and the United Nations Charter (Olshansky 2007; Paust 2007; Ginbar 2008; Hucke 2008; Christol 2009; Bassiouni 2010; Lutz 2011).
In 2008, U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama embedded a different approach to the detention and interrogation policies employed in Guantanamo in his election campaign. He became the voice of a security discourse that advocated the reversal of existing policy, and argued for the closure of the detention center. In fact, immediately after his inauguration in January 2009 President Obama signed an executive order closing the facility. He prohibited ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ and restored human and legal rights to detainees who were henceforth protected under the Geneva Conventions. Nevertheless, in sum, Obama’s administration failed to fully comply with human rights law: Guantanamo has yet to be closed, indefinite detention continues, as do trials before military commissions. Whereas the Bush administration managed to gain acceptance for a political course that dramatically deviated from established practices, the Obama administration has been unable to fully reverse this course and reestablish what would have been considered ‘normal’ proceedings before 9/11. This is remarkable in a country so proud of its basis in freedom and democracy in which “the concept of the universal rule of law is firmly rooted” (Christol 2009: 6). Since the U.S. is bound by international human rights law that has become “more detailed, more sophisticated and (at least rhetorically) more accepted on a normative basis” (de Londras 2011: 3) than ever before, this development may initially seem surprising.
This book sets out to address the developments as depicted above and does so by reconstructing the constitutive relationship between language use and policy enactment. The study focuses on these questions: First, how was it possible that the United States – a nation that understands itself as ideal in terms of human rights – could install the detention center at Guantanamo and implement policies that included torture? Second, and this is linked to the former: What did the policy reversal, or, more precisely, the attempt at policy reversal, look like? How was the need for a return to the rule of law communicated and why was it not possible for President Obama to fully reach this aim? In approaching an answer to these questions, this study suggests that the issue revolves around the framing of ‘self’, ‘other’ and ‘threat’, and of the acceptance of these framings.7 Analytically, these questions will be addressed by examining the constitution of identity and threat as put forth in the presidents’ security narratives. However, although these framings bear the chance of providing legitimacy for particular actions, they have to be largely approved of if they are to unfold political power. Therefore, this book also examines what kind of resonance these narratives provoked from their audience(s) and whether they were able to dominate public discourse.
1.2 The Theory and Method of Analysis
With regard to the theoretical foundation of analyzing security narratives, this book builds on the insights provided by the Copenhagen School (CS). The CS conceptualizes security as a speech act and thus as discursive practice. This is not to say that threats are generally not real, but this view suggests that politicians can frame people and phenomena in a way that constructs them as a security issue. This kind of framing is understood as a political choice since alternative framings are possible. However, by securitizing a matter or person, the topic is easily shifted into the realm of survival and this empowers the state to do whatever is necessary to avert a perceived threat. Consequently, the Copenhagen School argues that ‘speaking security’ is probably the most powerful tool of legitimizing politics (Wæver 1995; Buzan 1997; Buzan/Wæver 1997; Buzan et al. 1998). It enables actors to break free of the rules and renders actions possible that normally would be forbidden. However, as this book suggests with regard to Obama’s security narrative, securitization can also be used to do the opposite, that is, to argue in favor of a return to the rules and compliance with the law. By examining security discourse, the Copenhagen School provides an expedient theoretical device. It opens up the possibility of demonstrating that Bush’s and Obama’s constitution of ‘self’, ‘other’ and ‘threat’ was a deliberate act of framing, employed to enforce and legitimate certain policies.
Analytically, the study leans on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), an approach rooted in a constructivist paradigm. Constructivism assumes that the meaning of subjects and objects is not given but socially constructed. In this sense, subjects and objects are the product of social processes and are situated in a specific historical context. Following this view, there is no inherent truth to meanings. Rather, what appears to be true has been established as such, namely, as this book argues, through language, i.e., through dominant discourses and the meanings they purport. It is thus discursive constructions that position the ‘self’ and the ‘other’ in the social world and make willful action meaningful. CDA lends itself to the analysis of these constructions as it sheds light on how framings create leverage and legitimacy for political action. In addition, CDA fits well with the Copenhagen School’s approach in challenging these very constructions and thus the policies that rely on them. This approach de-naturalizes what is deemed normal or plausible in terms of common sense or social objectivity. CDA and CS share the goal of arousing critical language awareness. Framings are not inevitable in nature; however, if they become dominant in discourse they can become effective in their consequences, since they shape who we are, what we do and how we do it. In that sense, powerful discourses constitute what they speak of (Onuf 1989; Fairclough 1992; Zehfuß 1998, Zehfuss 2001, 2006; Howarth/Stavrakakis 2000; Fierke/Jørgensen 2001; Mills 2004; Howarth 2005; Torfing 2005).
1.3 The Contribution to the Social Sciences
By analyzing the security narratives of President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama in the context of their policies on detention and interrogation, this book hopes to be of value in two ways. Firstly, it aims to contribute to the IR8 literature on the relationship between identity and foreign policy. The latter has been of great concern to IR scholars since the constructivist current placed identity in the center of debate in this field (Wendt 1992a, 1994, 1996; Katzenstein 1996a). Since then, this relationship has been the object of numerous studies. However, ‘moderate’ constructivism is strongly affected by the presuppositions of traditional IR theory. It still tends to treat identities and interests as pre-social, ranks agency over structure and adheres to a causal epistemology. Moreover, it neglects the role of language as a core constitutive in the formation of identity and interest. By applying an approach that analyzes discourse, this book opts for a different paradigm and suggests an alternative conceptualization by focusing on how meaning is produced in the first place. The approach analyzes identities and interests as discursive constructions that enable, yet simultaneously constrain, the possibilities for political action according to their perceived legitimacy. Therefore, this is an amenable manner in which to investigate the genesis of political action, and it also offers a critical stance as it acknowledges that ‘things could be different’. Adopting this approach should provide confirmatio...
