Reading between presidential lines - An examination of morally embedded US governmental narrative allied to the approval and employment of selected counter-terrorism tactics

Abstract

In the aftermath of 9/11, President Bush stated in a national television address ‘We will find those responsible and bring them to justice’.1 These words, reassuringly defiant and globally reaching, would set the course of US history for the next 15 years in their pursuit of terrorists across the globe. However, by applying linguistic analysis in the form of Speech Act Theory, these words also imply a contract of response between the American population and its Government to respond to acts of terrorism and present a self-generated pre-approval to undertake some sort of action – an alibi before the act has been committed. Speech Act Theory will highlight that this authority is not dependent by the severity of the terrorist attack, nor is the timeline between terrorist attack and delivery of justice affected by the limitations of a Presidential term of office; the words that make up the alibi remain enduring until the perpetrators are held to account. The application of Speech Act Theory will furthermore reveal that justification has been inherently embedded to Presidential narrative and policy documents in an effort to appease the recipient that the threat from international terrorism is being countered; and that this veiled justification is for the use of selected counter-terrorism tactics in the form of extraordinary rendition, enhanced interrogation techniques, targeted military strikes including the use of armed Remotely Piloted Aircraft. The justification to use these tactics is not new and dates back the Reagan Administration when counter-terrorism was a relatively new concept for the US Government to undertake. This unique approach presents Speech Act Theory as additional methodology to the understanding of actions by the US in their response to terrorism in addition to the principles of Just War Theory and the Law of Armed Conflict.