The main effect as to the depiction of targets of the counter-terrorism action as “barbarious”, “evil” is to dehumanize terrorists. Dehumanization refers to the socially constructed process of depriving humans of their human character. As Bar Tal defines it, it is characterised by the process of “(attributing) extremely negative characteristics to another group, with the purpose of excluding it from acceptable human groups and denying it humanity” or “labelling a group as inhuman, either by reference to subhuman categories ... or by referring to negatively valued superhuman creatures such as demons, monsters, and Satans” (Bar-Tal, 2000:122). The process of dehumanization is very common in war construction, through the construction of an “Other”,
…show more content…
evil” rhetoric comes as a strategic support to US foreign policy, so far as it implicitly builds the discursive resources necessary to facilitate the gain of public support for actions that would otherwise be considered illegitimate. Indeed, Eliott (2004:99) claims that the dehumanizing process of the targets in a political violent frame is “fundamental to a nation’s public support for war… Dehumanizing others renders the requisite horrors of war tolerable”. The clout of the rhetoric of “good vs. evil” can be accounted for the tolerance level left to certain practises of the war on terror. As main examples of those, can be mentioned the use of torture in prisons such as that of Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Violations of human rights had been practised, including rape, sexual abuse, torture, sodomy and murder. The scandal came to public attention in 2003 through reports published by Amnesty International. Taking the specific case of torture, it is interesting to study the explanations given by the US administration. Torture is defined by the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession (…)” (Article 1). No direct justification was given by the US Foreign Department on those practises in Abu Ghraib. However, a public debate was triggered onto the acceptability of …show more content…
evil” rhetoric has certainly played a great influence in shaping the war on terror; on various levels of analysis: used as a strategic tool as to enrol the American population into the counter-terrorism war, its dehumanizing effects has enabled excesses in the methods of the war and “to allow or even demand its citizens to undertake acts that would be universally rejected if they were directed towards “true” humans beings” (Anderson 2006:739), such as the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, that is torture, in spite of its poor efficiency, demonstrated through numerous studies. (Costanzo and Gerrity,
evil” rhetoric comes as a strategic support to US foreign policy, so far as it implicitly builds the discursive resources necessary to facilitate the gain of public support for actions that would otherwise be considered illegitimate. Indeed, Eliott (2004:99) claims that the dehumanizing process of the targets in a political violent frame is “fundamental to a nation’s public support for war… Dehumanizing others renders the requisite horrors of war tolerable”. The clout of the rhetoric of “good vs. evil” can be accounted for the tolerance level left to certain practises of the war on terror. As main examples of those, can be mentioned the use of torture in prisons such as that of Abu Ghraib in Iraq. Violations of human rights had been practised, including rape, sexual abuse, torture, sodomy and murder. The scandal came to public attention in 2003 through reports published by Amnesty International. Taking the specific case of torture, it is interesting to study the explanations given by the US administration. Torture is defined by the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture as “any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession (…)” (Article 1). No direct justification was given by the US Foreign Department on those practises in Abu Ghraib. However, a public debate was triggered onto the acceptability of …show more content…
evil” rhetoric has certainly played a great influence in shaping the war on terror; on various levels of analysis: used as a strategic tool as to enrol the American population into the counter-terrorism war, its dehumanizing effects has enabled excesses in the methods of the war and “to allow or even demand its citizens to undertake acts that would be universally rejected if they were directed towards “true” humans beings” (Anderson 2006:739), such as the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”, that is torture, in spite of its poor efficiency, demonstrated through numerous studies. (Costanzo and Gerrity,