The Post-9/11 State of Emergency: Reality versus Rhetoric

Abstract

After the 9/11 attacks the US Administration went beyond emergency response towards imperialism, but cloaked its agenda in the rhetoric of fighting "terrorists" and "terrorism". After distinguishing between emergency thinking and emergency planning, I question the Administration's "war on terrorism" rhetoric in three stages. First, upon examining the post-9/11 antiterrorism discourse I find that it splits into two agendas: domestic, protect our infrastructure; and foreign, select military targets. Second, I review (legitimate) approaches to emergency planning already in place. Third, after reviewing what philosophers have said about emergencies, I recommend they turn their attention to the biases inherent in and misleading uses of antiterrorism terminology.