Sanctions from on High: The Legitimizing Power of American Exceptionalism

American exceptionalism has been interpreted as everything from a double-edged ideology to a domestic political division. At times it has been called a myth and at others given mythological importance. Whether interpreting its darker or brighter sides, however, a single dimension of American Exceptionalism threads through the literature at large: the capacity of those who seek to achieve a political objective to utilize American Exceptionalism as a means to an end. This paper devotes the bulk of its energies to reexamining the Iraq war, specifically the role American Exceptionalism played in implementing U.S. policy in the lead-up to the invasion, as well as in legitimizing the actions of the U.S. Rather than testifying to the fact or fiction of American Exceptionalism, as so many have done before, this paper instead argues that American Exceptionalism serves as a vital legitimizing factor for the United States government, which it uses to justify adhering to a different set of rules from those other nations are expected to follow. In the case of the Iraq War, the United States brandished Exceptionalist spirit to exempt itself from UN treaties in defiance of international law, and to start an unnecessary war

Captured by the camera's eye: Guantanamo and the shifting frame of the Global War on Terror

In January 2002, images of the detention of prisoners held at US Naval Station Guantanamo Bay as part of the Global War on Terrorism were released by the US Department of Defense, a public relations move that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld later referred to as ‘probably unfortunate’. These images, widely reproduced in the media, quickly came to symbolise the facility and the practices at work there. Nine years on, the images of orange-clad ‘detainees’ – the ‘orange series’ – remain a powerful symbol of US military practices and play a significant role in the resistance to the site. However, as the site has evolved, so too has its visual representation. Official images of these new facilities not only document this evolution but work to constitute, through a careful (re)framing (literal and figurative), a new (re)presentation of the site, and therefore the identities of those involved. The new series of images not only (re)inscribes the identities of detainees as dangerous but, more importantly, work to constitute the US State as humane and modern. These images are part of a broader effort by the US administration to resituate its image, and remind us, as IR scholars, to look at the diverse set of practices (beyond simply spoken language) to understand the complexity of international politic

The Rumsfeld Effect: The unknown unknown

A set of studies tested whether people can use awareness of ignorance to provide enhanced test consistency over time if they are allowed to place uncertain items into a “don’t know” category. For factual knowledge this did occur, but for a range of other forms of knowledge relating to conceptual knowledge and personal identity, no such effect was seen. Known unknowns would appear to be largely restricted to factual kinds of knowledge

The Taint of Torture: The Roles of Law and Policy in Our Descent to the Dark Side

Was the Bush administration’s decision to employ “enhanced interrogation techniques” a mistake of policy, a violation of law, or both? This essay responds to Philip Zelikow’s insider account of how the decision to use these techniques was reached. The author suggests that while Zelikow makes a strong case that the decision to authorize the CIA to use coercive interrogation tactics was a mistaken policy judgment, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that it was also illegal. The latter conclusion demands a different response than the former. In particular, it underscores the necessity for accountability. The author of this essay makes the case that the policy was in fact illegal, and that the nation must hold the architects of the plan accountable. He also offers brief thoughts on the legal and policy issues surrounding detention and targeted killing in the ongoing conflict with Al Qaeda, stressing that while neither is flatly impermissible in an armed conflict, accountability and democracy concerns demand greater transparency

Undergraduate & Graduate Commencement Exercises Program, May 16, 1981.

Bryant University Undergraduate & Graduate Commencement Exercises Program, May 16, 1981

Combatant Status Review Tribunals: Flawed Answers to the Wrong Question

This Comment argues that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were not competent to deny Prisoner of War status because they were charged only with identifying enemy combatants, a broad category that by its own terms includes many POWs. Given the substantial overlap between the definitions of enemy combatant and POW, a CSRT\u27s affirmative enemy combatant determination actually supports a detainee\u27s POW status. Thus, even after their enemy combatant status has been adjudicated by the CSRTs, Guantánamo detainees should still be treated as presumptive POWs

Combatant Status Review Tribunals: Flawed Answers to the Wrong Question

This Comment argues that the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were not competent to deny Prisoner of War status because they were charged only with identifying enemy combatants, a broad category that by its own terms includes many POWs. Given the substantial overlap between the definitions of enemy combatant and POW, a CSRT\u27s affirmative enemy combatant determination actually supports a detainee\u27s POW status. Thus, even after their enemy combatant status has been adjudicated by the CSRTs, Guantánamo detainees should still be treated as presumptive POWs