Deconstitutive rhetoric: The destruction of legal personhood in the global war on terrorism

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

This essay examines a set of memoranda, speeches, and other official discourse issued during the Global War on Terrorism that transformed the legal paradigm under which the enemy was defined and authorized new norms of conduct previously prohibited by law. It argues that these texts employ “deconstitutive rhetoric,” defined as discursive action that undermines the existing legal status of those to whom it refers and produces a disarticulate, destitute subject by denying the individual access to the civic forums in which rhetorical agency may be exercised. The essay begins with an analysis of the use of deconstitutive rhetoric in the decision to legally re-define Afghanistan as a “failed state” in order to absolve the United States of treaty obligations with that nation. It then addresses the emergence of “unlawful enemy combatant status,” a new legal category not recognized under the international laws of war. The essay concludes with a discussion the Obama administration’s detention and drone strike policies, which have continued to use deconstitutive rhetoric to undermine the legal status of those captured and killed in the Global War on Terrorism.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)333-352
Number of pages20
JournalQuarterly Journal of Speech
Volume102
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2016

Fingerprint

Terrorism
terrorism
rhetoric
legal status
International law
International cooperation
law of war
failed state
memorandum
strike
Afghanistan
international law
treaty
obligation
paradigm
Law
discourse
Rhetoric
Destruction
War on Terrorism

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Communication
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Education

Cite this

@article{626a1d88fbd6476bb8f7af435d0f35e6,
title = "Deconstitutive rhetoric: The destruction of legal personhood in the global war on terrorism",
abstract = "This essay examines a set of memoranda, speeches, and other official discourse issued during the Global War on Terrorism that transformed the legal paradigm under which the enemy was defined and authorized new norms of conduct previously prohibited by law. It argues that these texts employ “deconstitutive rhetoric,” defined as discursive action that undermines the existing legal status of those to whom it refers and produces a disarticulate, destitute subject by denying the individual access to the civic forums in which rhetorical agency may be exercised. The essay begins with an analysis of the use of deconstitutive rhetoric in the decision to legally re-define Afghanistan as a “failed state” in order to absolve the United States of treaty obligations with that nation. It then addresses the emergence of “unlawful enemy combatant status,” a new legal category not recognized under the international laws of war. The essay concludes with a discussion the Obama administration’s detention and drone strike policies, which have continued to use deconstitutive rhetoric to undermine the legal status of those captured and killed in the Global War on Terrorism.",
author = "Vicaro, {Michael Paul}",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/00335630.2016.1209547",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "102",
pages = "333--352",
journal = "Quarterly Journal of Speech",
issn = "0033-5630",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

Deconstitutive rhetoric : The destruction of legal personhood in the global war on terrorism. / Vicaro, Michael Paul.

In: Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol. 102, No. 4, 01.10.2016, p. 333-352.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deconstitutive rhetoric

T2 - The destruction of legal personhood in the global war on terrorism

AU - Vicaro, Michael Paul

PY - 2016/10/1

Y1 - 2016/10/1

N2 - This essay examines a set of memoranda, speeches, and other official discourse issued during the Global War on Terrorism that transformed the legal paradigm under which the enemy was defined and authorized new norms of conduct previously prohibited by law. It argues that these texts employ “deconstitutive rhetoric,” defined as discursive action that undermines the existing legal status of those to whom it refers and produces a disarticulate, destitute subject by denying the individual access to the civic forums in which rhetorical agency may be exercised. The essay begins with an analysis of the use of deconstitutive rhetoric in the decision to legally re-define Afghanistan as a “failed state” in order to absolve the United States of treaty obligations with that nation. It then addresses the emergence of “unlawful enemy combatant status,” a new legal category not recognized under the international laws of war. The essay concludes with a discussion the Obama administration’s detention and drone strike policies, which have continued to use deconstitutive rhetoric to undermine the legal status of those captured and killed in the Global War on Terrorism.

AB - This essay examines a set of memoranda, speeches, and other official discourse issued during the Global War on Terrorism that transformed the legal paradigm under which the enemy was defined and authorized new norms of conduct previously prohibited by law. It argues that these texts employ “deconstitutive rhetoric,” defined as discursive action that undermines the existing legal status of those to whom it refers and produces a disarticulate, destitute subject by denying the individual access to the civic forums in which rhetorical agency may be exercised. The essay begins with an analysis of the use of deconstitutive rhetoric in the decision to legally re-define Afghanistan as a “failed state” in order to absolve the United States of treaty obligations with that nation. It then addresses the emergence of “unlawful enemy combatant status,” a new legal category not recognized under the international laws of war. The essay concludes with a discussion the Obama administration’s detention and drone strike policies, which have continued to use deconstitutive rhetoric to undermine the legal status of those captured and killed in the Global War on Terrorism.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84979980487&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84979980487&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/00335630.2016.1209547

DO - 10.1080/00335630.2016.1209547

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84979980487

VL - 102

SP - 333

EP - 352

JO - Quarterly Journal of Speech

JF - Quarterly Journal of Speech

SN - 0033-5630

IS - 4

ER -