The Post-9/11 State of Emergency: Reality versus Rhetoric
dc.contributor.author | Byrne, Edmund F. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-08-09T20:43:28Z | |
dc.date.available | 2018-08-09T20:43:28Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2004 | |
dc.description.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. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | in Social Philosophy Today, vol. 19, ed. C. Hughes, pp. 193-215 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1805/17072 | |
dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
dc.publisher | Philosophy Documentation Center, Charlottesville, VA | en_US |
dc.subject | emergency | en_US |
dc.subject | terror | en_US |
dc.subject | terrorism | en_US |
dc.subject | antiterrorism | en_US |
dc.title | The Post-9/11 State of Emergency: Reality versus Rhetoric | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |