Human Rights, Nationalism, and the Discourse on Terror in the U.S.A.
Autor: Rodrigo Guim | Publicado: 2017-01-28T17:00:00-08:00
















Human Rights, Nationalism, and the Discourse on Terror in the U.S.A.

























Author:&nbsp; Rodrigo Gomes Guimarães

Professor: Magid Shihade

Course: Human Rights and Law





























California Institute of Integral Studies



2008









 Human Rights, Nationalism, and the Discourse on Terror in the U.S.A.





 This paper discusses the forms that a final paper would take on the links between three dominant discourses present in the United States of America.&nbsp; The first of those, the discourse on human rights, would have to be studied in its shifts and application (or lack of) to the cases of those labeled terrorists or suspects over the “war on terror”.&nbsp; The second discourse to be analyzed would be nationalism.&nbsp; This would be done by dissecting its presence in the discourses on terrorism: how is American nationalism either reproduced or shifted through the encounter with discourses on terrorism operating in the U.S., and what role does nationalism play in the formation of these discourses?&nbsp; Lastly, I would need to focus both on an analysis of human rights and nationalist discourses from particular cases of discourses on terrorism, since otherwise such analysis would have no grounding, due to the pervasiveness of discourses on rights, nationalism and terrorism in the U.S.&nbsp; The focus I choose to do this study with is strategic, since the discourse on terrorism is something that is produced in military settings, government, media, the academy, and throughout the culture.&nbsp; Therefore, my choice of the RAND Corporation as the focus of this study is because it has represented the scientific and military views on terrorism that actually reach practical application many times, besides having direct participation in government and appearing in the media.&nbsp; It became with time the non-governmental organization that most produces research for governmental ends in the world, and probably the one that has more access and is heard in the American government. For thirty years, according to its website, it has been producing studies on terrorism, and institutionally it became one of the most important references, if not the greatest of them, on the subject. Therefore, my choice of the RAND Corporation, a government- and private-funded “think tank”, with direct links to the military, government, media and the academy, is an important node in the power/knowledge of&nbsp; terrorism as an applied science in the U.S. &nbsp; I work from the perspective that it can be shown that discourses on terrorism in the U.S. form “discursive practices” which Michel Foucault (1977) has explained thus:&nbsp;



“Discursive practices are characterized by the delimitation of a field of objects, the definition of a legitimate perspective for the agent of knowledge, and the fixing of norms for the elaboration of concepts and theories.&nbsp; Thus, each discursive practice implies a play of prescriptions that designate its exclusions and choices.”





 Therefore, the study of a discourse on terrorism as discursive practice needs to show how it is that terrorists and terrorism are made into objects, what is expected of a subject in order to speak of those objects, and what that does to the possibilities of this discussion, what can be said and what cannot be said of them, what are the unstated rules of discourse, what are the statements that represent it, and what are its unstated limits. &nbsp;



Human Rights and Terror(ists)



 To make the case of the links between discourses on human rights and terrorism, I would have to look first at the formation of human rights discourse in the U.S.&nbsp; Interestingly, the discourse on human rights is intimately tied to the discourse of American nationalism (Hunt, 2007).&nbsp; The Declaration of Independence of 1776 reads:



“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of&nbsp; Happiness.”



 The Declaration, the result of a nationalist movement that was successful, is a sign that points to the links between American discourses on human rights and&nbsp; nationalism.&nbsp; We will discuss this point in more detail below.&nbsp; For what interests me here is to understand what shifts, if any, occurred to human rights discourse in relation to discourses on terrorism.&nbsp; To this event we should look to current forms of Orientalism with Edward Said's understanding as a frame only to find how nationalist-culturalist discourses is influencing terrorism to be understood as a form of cultural-religious war. &nbsp;

 Human rights discourse in the U.S.A. came to hegemony, in the Gramscian sense, from the Declaration as something that was later turned into a monument, to which political culture pays homage here and there and uses for very different purposes, such as two opposing parties in a conflict.&nbsp; This is because it is what regulates, in a very direct way, what can be constitutive of the rights of individual citizens, as individuals.&nbsp; Group's rights are always at a lower status of relationship, in this discourse.&nbsp; &nbsp; It is as if, in order to make compatible the idea of rights in modern states, rights needed to be understood as relative to individuals, or else the state would not be seen as working for “all” and “equals”.&nbsp; No matter how much the discourse on rights limits possibilities of difference, be it social, cultural, economic, political, historical, of gender, race, nationality, religion, sexuality, language, or other, it is generally those who come to power at a certain moment with relation to a certain issue that bring rights.&nbsp; Rights thus are not inalienable, they are very contingent spaces.&nbsp; The culture around rights then, is very contested.&nbsp; As a greater participant of the American imagination, for example, human rights discourse is nationalist.&nbsp; Mahmood Mandani (2000) shows how the discourse on rights is always political and reflects the dominant political culture.&nbsp; Therefore, it is not a surprise that dominant discourses on terrorism in the U.S.A. reflect human rights as limited by nationalism, in a country so prone to war, and thus productive of human rights violations elsewhere more than any other in history (See for example the works of Noam Chomsky).&nbsp;

 There is another side to this, that also needs to be studied.&nbsp; It is how human rights discourse, as a producer and diffuser of forms of power and knowledge that are linked to individualization in dominant American society.&nbsp; Thus, both the cause and the solution to terrorism, from a human rights perspective, are events of individualization.&nbsp; Both the terrorists as people in need of intervention, and the people from whose midst terrorists are framed in dominant discourse, suffer from the characterization, in human rights discourses, as always already participant of worlds of the primacy of the individual over the group, tradition,&nbsp; culture, particular histories.&nbsp; This is particularly the case when forms of representation are essentialist.&nbsp;



Terrorism, American Neo-Liberalism and Nationalism



 American nationalism and its links to Christianity need to be scrutinized, for it begs the question of just how “secular”-like or prone to secularism the American state acts. (Asad, 2003).&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; American nationalism links it values to “freedom”, which in practice has meant specific versions of free trade, democracy, secularism (Asad, 2003). Talal Asad shows how there is no total separation between state and religion, how secularism is a discourse used for political reasons, and became synonymous with “freedom” and against “evil”.&nbsp; In American discourses on terrorism today, this has been meaning freedom from the evil of Other religions different from Christianity, particularly Islam (Asad, 2007).&nbsp; Religion is tied to private belief, through a Christian interpretation of Islam, and the terrorists are then reduced to an outward projection of deeply-held beliefs, which are claimed to be Islamic.&nbsp; The individual is pathologized for being internally malfunctional, and so is Islam, which is taken as “belief”.&nbsp; Religion understood as a private matter obfuscates the fact that it is always mediated by politics, culture, history, and particular forms of religious language, it is an open field, always already in particular social relations that have as outcomes actions that are not only religious.&nbsp; As a contestation of secularism as an ongoing process in the country is that religious views are activated ever more loudly by minorities which occupy high ranks.&nbsp;

 It is also important to note how the discourse on terrorism relates to liberalism,&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; and on this Talal Asad (2007) brings a strong contribution.&nbsp; Talal Asad opens the book On Suicide Bombing with the assertion that September 11 started a long period of anxiety “for many Muslims living in the United States” (p.1), a period in which they have been associated with terrorism.&nbsp; Many non-Muslim Americans have since then associated Islam with a “culture of death” (Dershowitz, 2004 apud Asad, 2007).&nbsp; The book is marked by a critical analysis of culturalist and essentialist assumptions of terrorism as belonging to a culture or religion.&nbsp; Asad addresses the “clash of civilizations”1 theory, showing how it is an anti-Islamic discourse, at the same time that it purports to deal with an Islam enclosed upon itself, with fixed values.&nbsp; He shows how terrorism is “also an integral part of liberal subjectivities” although in liberal political culture “terror itself is dismissed as being essentially part of a nonmodern, nonliberal culture” (p.3).&nbsp; Asad questions the explanations of terrorism as being driven by “motives”, and shows how they have been regarded as truths that can be easily accessed.&nbsp; To the question of “Why did he do it?” with relation to suicide bombing, the “motives” are searched for as truths to be uncovered, as opposed to the manifest intention to kill. &nbsp;

 Asad also shows how although liberal discourses on violence have separated it from politics, mortal violence is part of the formation of liberalism as political.&nbsp; The discourses on violence within liberalism, however, have been produced through its institutions as combinations of cruelty and compassion.&nbsp; Asad says that this is his more speculative analysis of the book.&nbsp; He suggests that liberal institutions diminish the feelings and anxieties of violence being put to work by war for example, by its discourses on compassion and necessary cruelty as forms of compassion (for others or for one’s own).&nbsp; Moral justifications for killing other human beings – including innocent civilians - exist within liberalism; however, those who are labeled terrorists are not granted this privilege because they are considered by liberals as morally inferior or evil.&nbsp; In liberalism, evil is conceived not as a principle that is essential to the world, but as “a dynamic principle that opposes divine will and is therefore eliminable” (p.4).&nbsp;

 In the first chapter of the book, Asad shows how the September 11 attacks were very rapidly discoursed by the US government as “evil” terrorist acts which are against the American way of life, but the next day they were called “acts of war” by president Bush.&nbsp; Terrorism was thus argued as an irrational act, and an international threat.&nbsp; This kind of violence was therefore illegitimate from the beginning.&nbsp; It did not have something which it stood for in history in the Western imaginary, or coming from its conceptions of “proper” history, such as Marxist or socialist and anarchist terrorism had. &nbsp;

 Asad discusses Bernard Lewis’ – an orientalist - views on a “clash of civilization”, a category which has expounded the assertion of jihad as Muslim organized violence against non-Muslims.&nbsp; This view supports the assumption that Islam is today a tradition of resentment against modernity, and terrorism is just an aspect of this resentment.&nbsp; Asad shows how these are Western interpretations of Islam, highly biased in favor of the West and therefore supportive of Islamophobia and anti-Islamic.&nbsp; He writes that “in Western histories of Islam, jihad has been a central theme, although in Islamic thought jihad is not a central notion” (p.10). &nbsp; He explains how jihad has been termed in the West as an integral part of Islamic civilization that would itself be deeply rooted in religion.&nbsp; He shows in what contexts the notion of jihad has been used within Islam, such as when it was invoked in struggles against colonial regimes or at the “level of an individual religious duty” (p.12).&nbsp; However, he says, “such usages have not had the support of most Muslim jurists, for the legal preconditions of jihad – it has been argued by Muslim scholars – must include both the presence of a genuine threat to Islam and the likelihood of success in opposing it” (p.12). &nbsp;

Asad affirms that there can be no clash of civilizations because “there are no self-contained societies to which fixed civilizational values correspond” (p.12).&nbsp; He shows how the Middle East as an example has been influenced and has influenced European economics, politics, and ideologies.&nbsp; The United States has also interfered in the region, politically, economically and militarily.&nbsp; Today’s world, moreover, is “densely interconnected” (p.14).&nbsp; Therefore, he argues, if reform in needed in the Middle East (and many people there see this need) it is needed in Europe and the United States as well, since we cannot reform one civilization without interfering on the other, when the world is so interconnected.&nbsp; The problem of terrorism, therefore, has to be dealt with by changing structures not only in the Middle East (in his example) but also in reforms inside both Europe and the US, thus impacting positively their interventions in the region. &nbsp;

Michael Walzer is analyzed by his definition of terrorism and his differentiation of terrorism and war.&nbsp; In Asad’s analysis, Walzer’s definition and differentiation of terrorism and war is done by affirming that terror must include the killing of innocents.&nbsp; This I compare to the U.S. legal definition of terrorism, because it is the same.&nbsp; Walzer also sees terrorism as illegal and immoral, and thus we can classify his thought as “realist” in the tradition of international relations theory, one of the circulating academic discourses on terrorism in the United States.&nbsp; In Walzer, Asad critiques the contradiction of liberal political culture towards violence: “on the one hand, the state’s need to legitimize organized violence against a collective enemy (including civilians) and, on the other, the humanitarian desire to save human lives” (p.16).&nbsp; Walzer proposes “an extension of the battle against terror into immigrant communities as a priority”, thus equating the work on terrorism with war per se, not attentive to politics as a needed arena for the work, which leads Asad to conclude that violence in liberal political culture is excluded from the arena of politics, only treated as war and through war.&nbsp; The language of terrorism is thus enmeshed within the values of liberal political culture and its self-acclaimed moral superiority.&nbsp; Israeli settlers are thus defenders of liberal democracy against backward Palestinian terrorists.&nbsp; Whenever the story is told, “fair” and “balanced” accounts are what are hoped for in liberalism.&nbsp; However, the defense of democracy against terrorism being the story told, balance and fairness have favored Israel in liberal accounts.

For Walzer, there is unacceptable violence, within which terror has been put.&nbsp; However, there are times when the unacceptable becomes acceptable in order to defend oneself and one’s community.&nbsp; His failure to understand how this very same logic can apply to Palestinians shows how the outright non-acceptance of their terror actions is a particular, partial political position (p.25).&nbsp; The use of the label “terrorism” as unacceptable violence thus disables any claim to “fair” and “balanced” accounts of Palestinian reality; rather, it invites open racist, prejudiced views.&nbsp; Terrorism for Asad participates of a field of discourse that is inextricably linked to how power is functioning today.&nbsp; He says, in response to liberal political culture:&nbsp; “My argument, however, is directed against thinking of terrorism simply as an illegal and immoral form of violence and advocates an examination of what the discourse of terror – and the perpetration of terror – does in the world of power” (p.26).&nbsp; This is frantically the same project that I am engaged in.

“Terrorism”, writes Asad,&nbsp;



“is difficult to define because in doing so complicated political choices have to be made regarding the limits to established state authority and the rights of popular movements the challenge state authority.&nbsp; It was for this reason that the International Criminal Court rejected pressure by India, Turkey, and Sri Lanka to include terrorist acts as punishable offenses” (p.27).



Terrorism experts such as Brian Jenkins, an analyst within RAND Corporation, see the matter in a different way.&nbsp; Asad comments on Jenkins as an example of an expert that wants terrorism to be an object of knowledge, about which data can be collected.&nbsp; Although experts, including Jenkins, have understood terrorism as a “constructed object (not an imaginary object)” (p.27), they have also been unable to define terrorism precisely, the question of the definition of terrorism itself has been a central theme of their studies.&nbsp; Jenkins’ recognition that terrorism is “a generalized construct derived from our concepts of morality, law, and the rules of war (…)” pays much tribute to Asad’s claim as to the particularity of the discourses on terrorism that are prevalent in liberal culture as very reflective of that same culture.&nbsp; It also affects that culture back.&nbsp; Asad explains that “the discourse of terror enables a redefinition of the space of violence in which bold intervention and rearrangement of everyday relations can take place and be governed in relation to terror, a space that presupposes new knowledges and practices” (p.28).

 Liberal democracies such as the U.S. have provided incentives for violence, including the training in torture provided by its military.&nbsp; Terror through torture is a practice of its war and its interrogation centers throughout the world.&nbsp; As part of its new project against terrorism, and of its production of discourses around it, a field of power and knowledge called “homeland security” emerged.&nbsp; This has been reorganizing the “space of violence” to which Asad refers.&nbsp; The “free and open societies”(p.28), it is affirmed, need to defend themselves from terrorism, which are structurally a permanent target.&nbsp; The solution devised for this new and supposedly permanent “threat of terrorism” involves expert knowledge devising a “viable strategy for dealing with the problem, and implement[ing] this strategy effectively” (p.28), according to one such expert who works for the state, Richard Falkenrath.

 Torture, whose use had the effect of founding the discourse on human rights (HUNT, 2007), is&nbsp; still today a central concern, obliterating others?&nbsp; The foregrounding of torture&nbsp; is inextricably linked to the individualizing discourse of human rights..&nbsp; Also, as that which can be “cured”, the “savage” form of “civilization” that can be done with in liberal political discourse.&nbsp; Why is it easy to recognize torture in liberal political culture as a human right violation?&nbsp; What other forms of violence – such as nationalism's violent erasure of difference, might be obliterated by the central concern with torture?



To Conclude



 Finally, I would like to write on the paranoia implied by nationalist discourse, within which the discourse on human rights is framed.&nbsp; The implication here is that the nation is something to be feared.&nbsp; To complete one of the missions of this discourse, a few ideas which together constructed an essential national identity for the “American” have been imposed for too long now.&nbsp; Ideas such as the nation's “duty”, its “labor”, its “mission” have been superimposed on local and international histories for very long, sometimes for oppression, others within liberatory frameworks.&nbsp; Even if the common sense of what liberatory means does not exist, people are all over the world constrained by particular definitions of “nation-ness” (Anderson, 1991), which is itself a major producer of liberal political culture and economy.&nbsp; Human rights, as a form of nationalism, will discuss these at most at the level of national subjects, as citizen rights, as individual rights, almost never as rights of groups.&nbsp; Such then is nationalism's relationship to rights, as a limiting factor, so we could probably say that in a way nationalism produces rights that it itself then limits or destroys.&nbsp; A question begs answering: if nationalism is so provisional, what makes it so present in many discursive formations (Foucault, 1972), from human rights to combating terrorism?&nbsp; Certainly terrorists – or the so-called – are not the only ones to blame for this, for they are in reality a very small minority in comparison to the dominance of nationalism in producing genocidal wars, and through these, major discomforts for a major – not minor – part of world population.&nbsp; The irony: nationalist discourse, for the very reason of its dominance in the world, needs to be utilized, even if, or possibly more when if, it is to be resisted.&nbsp; I see few ways out today of the reutilization and therefore reproduction of nationalisms. But this is just a sign of the times, of the time of nationalism in the form of the nationalist State - as that which regulates rights, even the rights of other nations, whom it calls “failed states”, or in the language of dominant American terrorism studies, “the weak”. &nbsp; How can we envision new forms of human rights through which statements on others as “failed” or as “weak” are complexified and shown to be constructed by complicity and also outright maneuvers of “free” and “strong” states?&nbsp; The analysis of the discourses on terrorism can point to these connections, and needs to be done.





Bibliography to be researched (by thematic groups)



RAND Corporation and other expert knowledge on terrorism




HOFFMAN, Bruce.&nbsp; Inside Terrorism.&nbsp; Columbia University Press: New York, 2006.

Mitchell, Timothy. &nbsp; The Role of Experts.&nbsp;



OLIVER, Anne Marie; STEINBERG, Paul.&nbsp; The Road to Martyr’s Square: a journey into the world of the suicide bomber.&nbsp; Oxford University Press: New York, 2005.



PAPE, Robert.&nbsp; Dying to Win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism.&nbsp; Random House: New York, 2006.



RAND Corporation website.&nbsp; Available at &lt;http://www.rand.org&gt;&nbsp; Access on 05/22/2005, 03/03/2006, 06/12/2007, 01/21/2008, and 10/24/2008.&nbsp;



REICH, Walter (Ed.).&nbsp; Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, and States of Mind.&nbsp; Woodrow Wilson Center Press: Washington, D.C., 1998.



SAID, Edward.&nbsp; The Essential Terrorist.&nbsp; In: Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question.&nbsp; Said, E. &amp; Hitchens, C. (eds.) Verso: New York, 1988.



2.&nbsp; On Neo-Liberalism, Secular Christian Dominance and terrorism






AHMAD, Eqbal.&nbsp; Terrorism: Theirs &amp; Ours. Seven Stories Press: New York, 2001.



ALEXANDER, Y.; BRENNER, E. (eds.)&nbsp; U.S. Federal Legal Responses to Terrorism.&nbsp; Transnational Publishers, Inc.: New York, 2002.



ASAD, Talal.&nbsp; Genealogies of Religion: discipline and reasons of power in Christianity and Islam.&nbsp; The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press: London, 1993.



CHURCHILL, Ward.&nbsp; Pacifism as Pathology.&nbsp; Arbeiter Ring: Winnipeg, 1998



GALEANO, Eduardo.&nbsp; Open Veins of Latin America. &nbsp; Monthly Review Press: New York, 1971.



3.&nbsp; On Nationalism's links to Human Rights and Terrorism




ANDERSON, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.&nbsp; New York:&nbsp; Verso, 1991.&nbsp;



BJORGO, Tore (Ed.). &nbsp; Root Causes of Terrorism: Myths, Reality, and Ways Forward.&nbsp; Routledge: New York, 2006.



CHATERJEE, Partha.&nbsp; The Nation and its Fragments.&nbsp; Colonial and Postcolonial Histories.&nbsp; Princeton Univ. Press: New jersey, 1993.



CRENSHAW, Martha (Ed.).&nbsp; Terrorism in Context.&nbsp; Pennsylvania State University Press: Philadelphia, 1994.



DEVJI, Faisal.&nbsp; Landscapes of the Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity.&nbsp; Cornell University Press: New York, 2005.



HUNT, Lynn.&nbsp; Politics, Culture, and Class in the French Revolution.&nbsp; University of California Press: Berkeley, 2004.

_________. Inventing Human Rights: A History.&nbsp; New York: W.W. Norton &amp; Company Inc.,&nbsp; 2007.



MANDANI, Mahmood.&nbsp; Beyond Rights Talk and Culture Talk.&nbsp; New York: San Martin's Press, 2000.



SAID, Edward.&nbsp; The Politics of Dispossession.&nbsp; The Struggle for Palestinian Self-Determination, 1969-1994.&nbsp; Vintage Books: New York, 1994.



 4. Language, discourse, and power around terrorism as a discourse. 



FOUCAULT, Michel.&nbsp; Language, Counter-Memory, Practice.&nbsp; Cornell University Press: New York, 1977.

__________The Archaeology of Knowledge. Pantheon Books: New York, 1972.



GOLD-BISS, Michael.&nbsp; The Discourse on Terrorism: Political Violence and the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, 1981-1986.&nbsp; Lang: New York, 1994.



HARTWRIGHT, Christian.&nbsp; The Red Roots of Terrorism: Symptoms of a critical illness of civilization, and ways to remedy it.&nbsp; Cui Bono Books: McAllen, TX, 2002.



HERMAN, Edward. S.&nbsp; The Real Terror Network.&nbsp; South End Press: Boston, 1982.



__________Word Tricks And Propaganda In: Zmagazine 4-29-2.



KRONENWETTER, Michael.&nbsp; Terrorism: a guide to event and documents.&nbsp; Greenwood Press: Westport, Conn., 2004.



NORRIS, Pipa et al. (Eds.).&nbsp; Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government, and the Public.&nbsp; Routledge: New York, 2003.



SAID, Edward.&nbsp; Orientalism.&nbsp; Vintage Books: New York, 1978.



p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 16.0px}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: right; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: right; font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 16.0px}
p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 11.0px 'Times New Roman'}
p.p7 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: center; font: 11.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 12.0px}
p.p8 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'}
p.p9 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15.0px}
p.p10 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 93.8px; text-align: justify; font: 11.0px 'Times New Roman'}
p.p11 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 93.8px; text-align: justify; font: 11.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 12.0px}
p.p12 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 85.0px; text-align: justify; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15.0px}
p.p13 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 94.5px; text-align: justify; font: 11.0px 'Times New Roman'}
p.p14 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 11.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 12.0px}
p.p15 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.4px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'}
p.p16 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 35.4px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15.0px}
p.p17 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 117.0px; text-align: justify; font: 11.0px 'Times New Roman'}
p.p18 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'; min-height: 15.0px}
p.p19 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'}
li.li8 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; text-align: justify; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'}
span.s1 {font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'}
span.s2 {font: 14.0px 'Times New Roman'}
span.s3 {font: 11.0px 'Times New Roman'}
span.Apple-tab-span {white-space:pre}
ol.ol1 {list-style-type: decimal}