would like to write on the paranoia implied by nationalist discourse, within which the discourse on human rights is framed. The implication here is that the nation is something to be feared. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. 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? 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 terrorismHOFFMAN, Bruce. Inside Terrorism. Columbia University Press: New York, 2006.Mitchell, Timothy. The Role of Experts. OLIVER, Anne Marie; STEINBERG, Paul. The Road to Martyrs Square: a journey into the world of the suicide bomber. Oxford University Press: New York, 2005.PAPE, Robert. Dying to Win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Random House: New York, 2006.RAND Corporation website. Available at <http://www.rand.org> Access on 05/22/2005, 03/03/2006, 06/12/2007, 01/21/2008, and 10/24/2008. REICH, Walter (Ed.). Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, and States of Mind. Woodrow Wilson Center Press: Washington, D.C., 1998.SAID, Edward. The Essential Terrorist.