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). This is frantically the same project that I am engaged in.Terrorism, writes Asad, 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. 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. 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. 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. Jenkins recognition that terrorism is a generalized construct derived from our concepts of morality, law, and the rules of war (...) pays much tribute to Asads claim as to the particularity of the discourses on terrorism that are prevalent in liberal culture as very reflective of that same culture. It also affects that culture back. 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. Terror through torture is a practice of its war and its interrogation centers throughout the world. 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. This has been reorganizing the space of violence to which Asad refers. The free and open societies(p.28), it is affirmed, need to defend themselves from terrorism, which are structurally a permanent target. 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 still today a central concern, obliterating others? The foregrounding of torture is inextricably linked to the individualizing discourse of human rights.. Also, as that which can be cured, the savage form of civilization that can be done with in liberal political discourse. Why is it easy to recognize torture in liberal political culture as a human right violation? 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