Framing The Threat

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.

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.

This title was first published in 2001. Aiming to open up a new perspective on the study of threats and risks, this text combines insights from the thematically linked but academically disassociated fields of security studies, risk studies and crisis management studies. It provides case studies of key agents, arenas and issues involved in the politics of threats. In addition to the traditional unit of analysis - national governments - this book takes into account non-governmental agents, including public opinion, the media and business.

This book explores the political process behind the construction of cyber-threats as one of the quintessential security threats of modern times in the US. Myriam Dunn Cavelty posits that cyber-threats are definable by their unsubstantiated nature. Despite this, they have been propelled to the forefront of the political agenda. Using an innovative theoretical approach, this book examines how, under what conditions, by whom, for what reasons, and with what impact cyber-threats have been moved on to the political agenda. In particular, it analyses how governments have used threat frames, specific interpretive schemata about what counts as a threat or risk and how to respond to this threat. By approaching this subject from a security studies angle, this book closes a gap between practical and theoretical academic approaches. It also contributes to the more general debate about changing practices of national security and their implications for the international community.

The increased use of technology is necessary in order for industrial control systems to maintain and monitor industrial, infrastructural, or environmental processes. The need to secure and identify threats to the system is equally critical. Securing Critical Infrastructures and Critical Control Systems: Approaches for Threat Protection provides a full and detailed understanding of the vulnerabilities and security threats that exist within an industrial control system. This collection of research defines and analyzes the technical, procedural, and managerial responses to securing these systems.

In this highly relevant work, Dr. Michael Hameleers illuminates the role of traditional and social media in shaping the political consequences of populism and disinformation in a mediatized era characterized by post-factual relativism and the perseverance of a populist zeitgeist. Using comparative empirical evidence collected in the US, the UK, and the Netherlands, this book explores the politics and discursive construction of populism and disinformation, how they co-occur, their effects on society, and the antidotes used to combat the consequences of these communicative phenomena. This book is an essential text for students and academics in communication, media studies, political science, sociology, and psychology.

What is power and how is it effective? This volume responds to these questions in terms of regional international relations with a particular focus on the Baltic Sea region, an area still charged with a residue of Cold War conflict and power disparity, in a setting of new cooperative ventures. Each contributor examines the region from a different angle and discusses how its actors coped with the new situation facing them after 1991. The volume looks at how governments have defined their new circumstances, how they have dealt with the opportunity to shift to a new mode of coexistence and collaboration, and how they have tackled the challenge of peacefully converting their region to a security community. The book breaks with tradition by adopting a new, thematic approach based on regional issues and functions rather than a country-by-country discourse. It will be of critical value to readers interested in security studies and European politics.

Examines why some nations, but not others, have met their commitments to international climate treaties.