Comedy of Terrors: National Security Fictions and the Origins of al-Qa'ida (original) (raw)
Related papers
How to read a case: Ethnographic lawyering, conspiracy, and the origins of Al Qaeda
American Anthropologist, 2023
This article delineates a particular orientation to combining professional legal training and anthropological scholarship that I call ethnographic lawyering. Ethnographic lawyering takes legal form as an object of anthropological analysis, loosely inspired by the Marxist jurist Evgeny Pashukanis's theorization of law as a social relation. If ethnographic method in anthropology entails theorizing from the concepts and experiences of interlocutors, then ethnographic lawyering analytically centers the subjectivities, logics, and relationalities that legal form both presupposes and animates. Ethnographic lawyering brings to light the contingent lives of legal form. To demonstrate this method, the article uses the example of conspiracy in early US court cases involving Al Qaeda, informed by the author’s experiences as an attorney and anthropologist in litigation arising from the war on terror. An ethnographic lawyering approach illuminates how conspiracy’s distinct forms in criminal law, the law of evidence, and tort law each bring far-flung subjects, events, and actions together into reified entities even as they atomize and recombine social relations. This dynamic tension resembles the vertiginous nature of conspiracy theorizing in general.
Journal of Commonwealth Studies, 2019
Abstract This article focuses on the literary productions in prose and verse by or related to Muslim Guantánamo detainees. They are redacted documents directly written or translated into English. The purpose of this essay is to read “terrorist” literature para-doxically and argue that US authorities may be right in claiming that it represents a “national security threat”, but not in the meaning initially purveyed. Indeed, marked by the black bars of redaction, the literature eloquently displays the “terror” of state violence. Integrating redactions into the narrating process and exposing what happens in black sites give detainees’ texts the power, albeit precarious, to break the hegemonic discourse of the state and undermine its monopoly over representations of “terrorism”. The article also discusses the danger of interpreting these texts as mere responses to state violence, to failing justice systems, and democracies. It shows how their subjection to official redaction, editorial rewriting, and to the “forensic” imperative is real but it also delves into the literariness of these texts and their literary interventions. It is precisely by reactivating literary connections and intervening in existing Arabic and Pashto poetic traditions that they escape the physical and imaginary confines of Guantánamo and achieve liberation. Content List 1. Abstract 2. Obliterating a voice: What happens in the black of redaction 3. Regaining a voice: Can the terrorist speak? 4. Finding a voice: Writing beyond the imperative and reconnecting with tradition 5. Conclusion 6. Notes 7. References
Terrorism Discourses, Public and Secret
The following paper is the Author’s Original Manuscript. The author’s Accepted Manuscript will be published in the journal Contemporary Social Science and can be found online here: http://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21582041.2017.1390246#.WfczZGJSwfE In this article, the author intends to make the following claim: contemporary debates surrounding ‘counterinsurgency,’ ‘terrorism’ as well as questions about the appropriate role that social scientists should play in helping the US government and its military forces in waging the so-called ‘war on terrorism’ would gain greatly from a focus on the fundamental contradictions that have historically existed between public and secret discourses on these issues. After briefly summarizing the birth of the ‘counterinsurgency’ paradigm in the US government in the 1950s and early 1960s, and the rise and rapid fall of Project Camelot in the mid-1960s, the author will illustrate his argument by focusing on a series of declassified US documents about the Guatemalan conflict between 1966 and 1968, and by comparing the content and nature of such secret analyses with the very public statements made by several representatives of the executive branch in the following years to defend policies that were increasingly being criticized in the US Congress. This juxtaposition will reveal the existence of two fundamentally different discourses, one secret, the other public, around the true nature of ‘counterinsurgency’ and ‘terrorism’ in Guatemala, and thus highlight the extent to which political violence, especially when its perpetrators are State actors, was dependent then and remains dependent now on secrets, lies and silences. In conclusion, it will be argued that one of the most troubling aspects of contemporary projects such as Human Terrain Systems lies precisely in the apparent willingness of its most public proponents, on both the military and social science side, to perpetuate the historical silences surrounding the true nature of past US ‘counterinsurgency’ practices. As the author will suggest, a potentially productive avenue for future research on ‘terrorism,’ ‘counter-terrorism’ or ‘counterinsurgency’ may thus be to bring the state’s secret and public discourses back.
Unclassified Fictions: The CIA, Secrecy Law, and the Dangerous Rhetoric of Authenticity
Zero Dark Thirty, Kathryn Bigelow's cinematic account of the manhunt for Osama bin Laden, attracted tremendous popular attention, inspiring impassioned debates about torture, political access, and responsible filmmaking. But, in the aftermath of the 2013 Academy Awards, critical scrutiny of the film has abated and the Senate has dropped its much-hyped inquiry. If the discussion about Zero Dark Thirty ultimately proved fleeting, our attention to the circumstances of its creation should not. The CIA has a longstanding policy of promoting the accuracy of television shows and films that portray the agency, and Langley's collaboration with Bigelow provided no exception. To date, legal scholarship has largely ignored the CIA's policy, yet the practice of assisting filmmakers has important consequences for national security law. Recently, the CIA's role in Zero Dark Thirty's creation and the agency's refusal to release authentic images of the deceased Osama bin Laden reveals its attitude toward fiction and how it impacts the CIA's legal justifications for secrecy. By conducting a close analysis of CIA affidavits submitted in FOIA litigation and recently declassified records detailing the CIA's interactions with Bigelow, this article demonstrates how films like Zero Dark Thirty function as workarounds where the underlying records are classified. These films are "unclassified fictions" in that they allow the CIA to preserve the secrecy of classified records by communicating nearly identical information to the public. Unclassified fictions, in other words, allow the CIA to evade secrecy while maintaining that secrecy-to speak without speaking. This article also analyzes how the creation of unclassified fictions risks either undermining valid national security concerns or exposing these concerns as deceptions for the CIA to act secretly. In turn, this article offers a new position from which to analyze the CIA's related practices and criticize secrecy law. Because the agency's continued support of unclassified fictions has the potential to undermine FOIA 1 Exemptions, the CIA has an impetus to reevaluate its relationship with the entertainment industry. Similarly, legal scholarship should devote new attention to the Intelligence Community's attitude toward fiction, especially because films like Zero Dark Thirty are part of an emerging trend, As we continue to discuss leaks, plants, Glomar responses, deterrence by denial, and FOIA disclosures, we should consider unclassified fictions a related practice in the diverse ecology of the classification system.
The Great War of Our Time: The CIA's Fight Against Terrorism--From Al Qa'ida to Isis
2015
The author of this memoir, Michael Morell, spent 33 years at the CIA, ultimately rising to become it deputy director. Many of the details in his surprisingly candid (and even selfcritical) account of his tenure at the CIA are new and of importance to those studying the war on terror. For example, the sections dealing with the Agency’s greatest blunder, the “groupthink” mistakes on Iraq’s non-existent WMD program will be of interest to those who want to learn more about how the Agency assessed its mistakes. While President George W. Bush (whom Morell briefed on terror threats for much of his career) comes off as well-meaning, Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff Scooter Libby are described in a negative light as attempting to shape CIA intelligence on WMDs to fit their political agenda. Morell describes efforts by Libby to intervene in decisions at the Agency as “the most blatant attempt to politicize intelligence that I saw in thirty-three years in the business” (p. 87). Mor...
Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies
This paper offers a critical rhetorical analysis of the counterterrorist arguments that were presented by 9/11 families and their representatives when they sued Saudi Arabians for their role in the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. By drawing from Foucault’s concept of governmentality, and by extending the work of critical security studies scholars who critique populist support for the Global War on Terrorism, the authors argue that supporters of the eventual passage of a bill known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act were able to interrogate official notions of . By taking advantage of their social capital, their victimage status that was based on their traumatic experiences, and their moral authority, empowered 9/11 family members allowed the National September 11 Memorial and Memorial Museum to function as a governmentality that helped produce contested public memories and particular types of subjectivities. Visitors and defenders of this hallowed site were invited to become freedom fighters who vigilantly engaged in counterterrorist practices by questioning more official historiographies and public memories of 9/11 as they sued Saudi conspirators.
2011
American government memoranda authorising controversial interrogation, detention, and surveillance practices raise questions about the role of legality in shaping post-9/11 counterterrorism. Have policy makers ignored the law and declared a 'state of exception'? Alternatively, have they attempted to covertly evade rules through 'plausible deniability'? This article suggests that the 'Global War on Terror' has been characterised by a distinctive relationship between legality and security policy. Human rights violations have become official government policy, publicly justified and legally rationalised by top administration lawyers. Yet, for the most part, the law has not been overtly suspended in favour of unmitigated sovereign power. Rather, policy makers have pursued a strategic doctrine of 'plausible legality' aimed at securing immunity and legitimacy for abuses, an approach epitomised by the legalisation of torture.