Establishing Enemy Combatant As Political Rhetoric: How the Bush Administration Has Framed the Conversation on Wartime Prisoners

Culture, Society, and Praxis

Volume 5 Number 1 Article 2

January 2006

Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush Administration has Framed the Conversation on Wartime Prisoners

Paul R. Alexander California State University, Monterey Bay

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp

Recommended Citation Alexander, Paul R. (2006) "Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush Administration has Framed the Conversation on Wartime Prisoners," Culture, Society, and Praxis: Vol. 5 : No. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol5/iss1/2

This Main Theme / Tema Central is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Digital Commons @ CSUMB. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culture, Society, and Praxis by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CSUMB. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Alexander: Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush

ESTABLISHING “ENEMY COMBATANT” AS POLITICAL RHETO- RIC: HOW THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS FRAMED THE CONVERSATION ON WARTIME PRISONERS By PAUL ALEXANDER

The White House administration of George W. Bush faced a crisis when an attack was committed on United States territory in September of 2001. As a result, the administration has initiated a "War on Terror" in which they have disregarded the Geneva Conventions and placed a huge amount of authority in the role of the president in determining who is classified as an "enemy combatant." This paper specifically addresses the use of the term "enemy combatant" as a rhetorical device which the administration has used to make a moral statement about prisoners of war. Using George Lakoff's concept of frames, the paper shows how this phrase communicates a moral value to convince the U.S. public that these "combatants" deserve whatever punishment the U.S. might choose to impose, up to and including torture.

Introduction dent and members of his admini- “The President has unquestioned stration violating international law, authority to detain enemy specifically the Geneva Conven- combatants, including those who tion. This document governs how are U.S. citizens, during prisoners taken in wartime are to wartime.” William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the be treated and classified, including Department of Defense, the protocols and processes that memorandum dated December determine how this is to happen. 12, 2002 When the president took the “unquestioned authority” to designate The White House administra- “enemy combatants”, he ignored tion of George W. Bush has been the process laid out in the Geneva tasked with an overwhelming pro- Convention for determining the ject as a response to the attacks status of those captured in war. that took place on United States territory in September of 2001. In fact, the very existence of a Congress has granted the president category called “enemy combat- certain specific powers as a part of ant” can be called into question. what is now being called a “War Although a general concept of an on Terror”. However, the President “enemy combatant” can be implied and his administration have inter- by the Geneva Convention, the preted these powers too broadly specific nomenclature and inter- and this has resulted in the Presi- pretation that has emerged under

CS&P Vol 3 Num 1 November 2004

Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2006 1 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2006], Art. 2 CS&P PAUL ALEXANDER 23

Bush's administration is nowhere imply ideological and moral values to be found in the documents. That which are essential to the admini- terminology emerged when the stration for justifying illegal and administration decided to “sub- unjust detention of captured pris- sume” (Haynes, 2002) two prior oners to the American public. legal classifications for enemies in wartime, “lawful” or “unlawful” Existing literature explores the combatants, under the umbrella of legal ramifications of the admini- the “enemy combatant”. The dis- stration's decision to detain so- tinction between these two classi- called “enemy combatants”. I in- fications is important as it decides tend to focus on the concept of how a captured prisoner will be “enemy combatant” not only as a treated and held. Geneva Conven- legal (or non-legal) phenomenon tion III, Part I, Article 5 describes but also as a piece of political the following: rhetoric aimed to justify the deten- Should any doubt arise as to tion and torture of accused terror- whether persons, having ists at the whim of the Bush ad- committed a belligerent act and ministration. By employing this having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the particular piece of rhetoric, the categories enumerated in Article Bush administration has been suc- 4, such persons shall enjoy the cessful in convincing the Ameri- protection of the present can public, and perhaps some judi- Convention until such time as cial authorities, that the detention their status has been determined of prisoners can be done indefi- by a competent tribunal. nitely, without charges, and with- By ignoring this statement, deny- out access to legal counsel. In or- ing tribunals, and acting as sole der to break down the concept as authority on the designation of rhetoric, I will examine the histori- POW status, the president and his cal usage of the term “enemy administration appear to be in vio- combatant”, especially within the lation of the Geneva Convention. Bush administration after the Sep- These actions have been justified tember 11 attacks and during the by the administration in two ways: “War on Terror”. I believe that the legally and morally. Legal chal- context in which the term was lenges to detention under “enemy originally used will provide useful combatant” status have been ar- insights into the intentions of the gued before the Supreme Court. administration when dealing with Additionally, as a linguistic term the identification and detention of “enemy combatant” has come to accused terrorists. In addition, I will examine the term as a frame, a

CS&P Vol 5 Num 1 December 2006 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol5/iss1/2 2 Alexander: Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush 24 ESTABLISHING “ENEMY COMBATANT” AS POLITIAL RHETORIC CS&P

concept developed by linguist and legal and moral system already es- cognitive psychologist George La- tablished by the Bush administra- koff to uncover how politicians use tion. language to associate issues or ideas with particular moral values. The second area of literature In this case, “enemy combatant” is will encompass publicly available a frame that has been used to iden- documents that show how the tify anyone who is detained as po- Bush administration developed the tentially dangerous and deserving thinking behind “enemy combat- of whatever conditions the U.S. ant”. First, I will explore the legal might impose upon them. and ideological predecessor to Bush's contemporary assertion of Method of Analysis authority by examining the Su- There are four major areas of preme Court case Ex parte Quirin, literature that will be the focus of a case which sent six men to their this investigation. The first is death under dubious circum- scholarly work that has been writ- stances. Additionally, I will ana- ten regarding “enemy combatants” lyze documents that advise the and their detention. Much of this president as to his legal authority work (Cole 2002, Yuu 2003, (Gonzalez memo) or attempt to es- Priester 2004, Stumpf 2004, Sloss tablish the legal justification for 2004) focuses on the role of the the administration's actions judicial branch in adjudicating (Haynes memo). My goal in dis- cases involving people captured cussing these documents is to es- and held outside of U.S. territory1. tablish the administration's think- I will briefly summarize and ex- ing behind their actions. While I plain the prevalent arguments and don't expect it to be laid out clearly the response of the Bush admini- in the text, it is my hope that I can stration to legal challenges. Addi- infer some sort of motivation from tionally, I intend to show that an analysis that puts different while scholarly and legal chal- documents in conversation with lenges are important and effective, one another. they fail to establish a competing rhetoric to the “enemy combatant” Public speeches, radio addresses, and press conferences will 1 The detention center at Guantanamo constitute another area of literature Bay, of course, provides a problematic investigation. Through these I will situation for lawyers wishing to intervene on behalf of their clients as the U.S. be able to trace the historic emer- government argues that courts have no gence of the “enemy combatant” jurisdiction there because it isn't technically a U.S. territory. term. I am especially interested in

Culture Society & Praxis

Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2006 3 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2006], Art. 2 CS&P PAUL ALEXANDER 25

the context in which it is evoked. Legal Defenses For example, is it used as a primar- Various lawyers have lashed ily legal term in discussions focus- out against the Bush administra- ing on the legality of actions taken tion's grab at power in relation to by the U.S. or is it used by the the denial of habeas corpus for President in political speeches in- U.S. citizen prisoners, the distinc- tent on rallying the American pub- tion made between treatment of lic behind a particular cause? U.S. citizen prisoners and alien Where was the term first used and prisoners, and the use of secret who used it? Can this be correlated military tribunals to try and con- with other memos or actions that vict captured prisoners. Addition- emerged around the same time? ally, the Bush administration has presented lengthly legal defenses Finally, I intend to bring UC of their actions in regards to pris- Berkeley linguist George Lakoff's oners and the Geneva Conven- work in conversation with the idea tions. I will briefly sketch the com- of an “enemy combatant”. Lakoff ponents of each argument here in developed the idea of linguistic order to highlight some of the suc- frames to explain how conserva- cesses that the human rights re- tive movements in the U.S. have gime has enjoyed as well as iden- been particularly effective at asso- tify areas where their work could ciating moral themes and values be improved. In addition, I will with the ideas that are espoused in provide some counter arguments their speech. Terms such as “tax as the legal debate is very conten- relief” and “tort reform” are exam- tious and the human rights view- ples of conservative frames. The point is not the only voice speak- power of such terms is that they ing out. form a base around which both progressive and conservative ar- David Cole wrote about the dif- guments end up being framed. ferentiation in the way that the Progressives cannot argue against U.S. treats prisoners captured as a “tax relief” without using the term, part of the “War on Terror” de- thereby lending the idea credence pending on whether or not they are and reinforcing it with the public. I U.S. citizens. He cautions against recognize that this paper may fall disregarding the liberties of immi- into that trap as well and I will re- grants in favor of security despite flect on that and offer some sug- the obvious need for a rigorous ex- gestions for moving forward as a amination of security in the wake part of my conclusion. of the September 11 attacks (Cole 2002:1004). Cole is able to look

CS&P Vol 5 Num 1 December 2006 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol5/iss1/2 4 Alexander: Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush 26 ESTABLISHING “ENEMY COMBATANT” AS POLITIAL RHETORIC CS&P

back at other times in U.S. history as it relied in part on international when prejudice and stereotypes law such as the Geneva Conven- controlled our response and be- tions and also in part on common lieves if we are cautious then per- law that was established prior to haps we won't have to look back and superseded by the Conven- upon this time with regret. Juliet tions (Sloss 2004:798). Benjamin Stumpf examines similar themes Priester disagrees as he believes and also believes that we need to that the Geneva Conventions sup- be cautious in the way that we pro- port a classification of unlawful ceed when handling alien combat- combatant which would allow the ants (Stumpf 2004:139). Bush administration to detain, try, and punish captured prisoners who John Yuu and James Ho, on the were members of the Taliban and other hand, are supportive of the al Qaida (Priester 2004:7). treatment and classification system used by the Bush administration. Throughout the various legal They conclude that the “armed battles, arguments against the Bush conflict” in which the U.S. is en- administration's decisions regard- gaged is not against a group that ing the Geneva Convention and can be a party to the Geneva Con- were strongly made. Unfortu- ventions and thus the U.S. re- nately, they were made on purely sponse should be to classify cap- legal grounds, often ignoring the tured prisoners as unlawful com- history of the concept of “enemy batants and deny them the right to combatants”. I hope to add to the prisoner of war treatment (Yuu and strength of these arguments by ex- Ho 2003:228). Yuu will later go on amining some of the rhetorical and to denounce the position taken by other non-legal reasons that the the Bush administration in regards Bush administration adopted the to their justification of torture of policies it did. Guantanamo prisoners. Although I lack the legal pedigree that Yuu Origin of the Enemy Combatant does I disagree with his reading of It is impossible to talk about the the Geneva Conventions, as I will contemporary use of military explain below. courts to prosecute detained alleged terrorists without looking David Sloss explored the Rasul back upon the historic Supreme vs. Bush case that was heard be- Court case which the Bush admini- fore the Supreme Court and found stration is using as a basis for their that the defense provided by the new legal outlook on wartime U.S. government was “untenable” prisoners. In

Culture Society & Praxis

Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2006 5 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2006], Art. 2 CS&P PAUL ALEXANDER 27

the 1942 case, Ex parte Quirin, that the accused saboteurs must be eight accused saboteurs who had put to death, regardless of the out- traveled from Germany to the U.S. come of the trial, and the tribunal in U-boats with orders to blow up was used to insure this result. The aluminum manufacturing plants Army-appointed defense lawyer in were caught by the FBI, tried by a the case, Col. Kenneth Royall, military tribunal, and then six of fought vigorously to have the trial them were sentenced to death and moved to civilian court but failed promptly executed. This happened in his appeal to the Supreme Court. despite the fact that all of the men The entire process was over had once lived in the U.S., many quickly, taking only six weeks for long periods of time. In addi- from the time the men were cap- tion, the only reason they were tured, and the Supreme Court did caught was because two of the not deliver an opinion on the case saboteurs were intent on defecting until twelve weeks after the sabo- to the U.S. by turning themselves teurs had already been executed. and the other saboteurs into the The justices involved would later FBI. Despite the fact that the FBI show regret over how the case was had no knowledge of the saboteurs handled (Dobbs 2004:B04). before one of the group turned themselves in, the presentation to It is this case, one that holds the media was such that it ap- dubious standards of justice, that is peared the FBI had been staked out being used to justify the contempo- on the beach just waiting for the rary decision of the President to enemy to show up. The tribunals hold and try “enemy combatants” were created on order of President in military institutions rather than Franklin Roosevelt and bypassed civil ones. Further, the President any chance that the men would relies on a similar rhetoric to es- have their case tried in a civilian tablish that the prisoners being court. held at Guantanamo Bay as “enemy combatants” are deserving of The military tribunals were their fate: harsh and cruel treat- used in part to shroud the case in ment, punishing interrogations, secrecy so that the image of the and periods of detention that have U.S. and FBI as vigilant and suc- stretched into years without any cessful at infiltrating German op- indication that the prisoners will be erations could be presented to and accused or tried. For the Bush ad- maintained with the public. In administration, the Ex parte Quirin dition, it is thought that Roosevelt case establishes both a legal and was convinced from the beginning rhetorical precedent for achieving

CS&P Vol 5 Num 1 December 2006 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol5/iss1/2 6 Alexander: Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush 28 ESTABLISHING “ENEMY COMBATANT” AS POLITIAL RHETORIC CS&P

the result that the President wants Interestingly, when read the way I to see, regardless of whether jus- think it was intended, enemy com- tice is being served. batant as it is used here does noth- ing but refer to an individual fight- The specific term “enemy coming for the enemy in a time of war. batant” actually originates in this It does not establish an additional case. In the following quote we legal category beyond lawful and can see its only usage in the entire unlawful combatants that were, at judgment: the time the opinion was offered, By universal agreement and outlined in the laws of war from practice the law of war draws a the Hague Convention. These distinction between the armed categories were refined in the Ge- forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations neva Convention, as discussed and also between those who are above, which was signed after the lawful and unlawful combatants. conclusion of World War II. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as Further, the Supreme Court in prisoners of war by opposing this case refer specifically to ene- military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject mies crossing into the territory of to capture and detention, but in the U.S. and abandoning their uni- addition they are subject to trial forms in order to commit acts of and punishment by military violence or destruction: tribunals for acts which render By passing our boundaries for their belligerency unlawful. The such purposes [acts of war] spy who secretly and without without uniform or other emblem uniform passes the military lines signifying their belligerent status, of a belligerent in time of war, or by discarding that means of seeking to gather military identification after entry, such information and communicate it enemies become unlawful to the enemy, or an enemy belligerents subject to trial and combatant who without uniform punishment. (Ex parte Quirin, comes secretly through the lines 317 U.S. 1 [1942]) for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, Because the Court is so specific are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally about belligerents' characteristics deemed not to be entitled to the and the nature of their actions, it status of prisoners of war, but to would be difficult to use this case be offenders against the law of as legal precedence for combatants war subject to trial and who were captured on a field of punishment by military tribunals. battle outside of U.S. territory. (Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 [1942]) However, that is exactly how the

Culture Society & Praxis

Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2006 7 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2006], Art. 2 CS&P PAUL ALEXANDER 29

case is being used by the Bush United States Government,” “To protect administration. the United States and its citizens,” “the danger to the safety of the United States,” and “considered the magnitude Characterizing the Enemy, of the potential deaths, injuries, and Establishing Authority property destruction that would result Beginning with a Presidential from potential acts of terrorism.” Despite military order issued on November 13, the “danger”, the order will only apply to 2001, the Bush administration began a non-citizens who are accused by the systematic process to establish the President. President as the sole authority for

determining who would be considered a The day after the military order was POW amongst those captured in the issued, Vice President Dick Cheney “War on Terror”2. The order, among spoke at a meeting of the U.S. Chamber other things, states that the president has of Commerce3. He spoke on the war in the authority to determine who will be Afghanistan and “tax relief” and after his held and tried within military remarks took a few questions from the institutions, so long as they are gathered businessmen. The final associated with al Qaida and pose a question asked what the difference was threat to the nation. The criteria are between the tribunals established in the broad and subject to a huge variance in military order from the previous day and interpretation and, again, the final arbiter other established procedures in the of decisions is the President. The Hague. Cheney refers to the Ex parte President establishes that these people Quirin case in defense of the order and will be tried through military tribunal also says that the order would only apply with proceedings held in secret. Further, to individuals coming into the U.S. for the order amazingly disallows persons the purpose of “killing thousands of who fall into this category any sort of innocent Americans, men, women, and remedy in U.S. courts, foreign courts, or children”. Because of this, he says, courts with an international jurisdiction. “They don't deserve to be treated as a The order establishes these rules without prisoner of war” as they would be justifying a legal framework which considered “unlawful combatants”. might allow such sweeping powers to be

bestowed on the President. Instead, the On November 29, 2001 the President Bush administration invoked fear and a addressed a gathering of lawyers at the state of emergency as the justification U.S. Attorneys Conference, saying that for implementing the order. The the U.S. Attorneys are on the “front line language used includes “if not detected of war”4. In his speech, the President and prevented, will cause mass deaths, refers to “unlawful combatants who seek mass injuries, and massive destruction of property, and may place at risk the continuity of the operations of the 3 Vice President Addresses U.S. Chamber of Commerce: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release 2 Detention, Treatment, and Trial of s/2001/11/20011114-6.html Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against 4 President Says U.S. Attorneys on Front Terrorism: Line in War: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release s/2001/11/print/20011113-27.html s/2001/11/20011129-12.html

CS&P Vol 5 Num 1 December 2006 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol5/iss1/2 8 Alexander: Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush 30 ESTABLISHING “ENEMY COMBATANT” AS POLITIAL RHETORIC CS&P

to destroy our country and our way of By January 9, 2002 discussion of life.” This obviously continues to invoke detainees and combatants had reached ideas of fear and emergency within the the White House press conferences6. On country. Immediately after this statement that day, Ari Fleischer took a question the President asserts his sole authority to regarding “prisoners of war”. He handle accused terrorists saying, “if I immediately countered that prisoner of determine that it is in the national war is a legal term established in the security interest of our great land to try Geneva Conventions and is something by military commission those who make that needs to be established on a case- war on America, then we will do so.” by-case basis. The reporters present Interestingly, the president positions the press him on exactly what international lawyers in the center of the war and, as convention the U.S. was holding people we have seen, the role of lawyers in the under, with one reporter stating, “Under Attorney General's office was significant the Geneva Convention and other in attempting to establish the legitimacy conventions we've signed, there's no of the President's powers and the use of such thing as a detainee -- either they're torture against detained prisoners. prisoners of war -- and even though they may not, some of them may not have One day prior to Bush's address at had the insignia, I mean, by all legal the lawyers conference, two attorneys, understandings, they are prisoners of Griffin Bell and former Attorney war.” Fleischer continues to defer to General William Barr, gave testimony to individual legal proceedings as being the the Senate Committee on the Judiciary determinant of who is or isn't a prisoner who had convened in a meeting titled, of war but it fails to satisfy the reporters “Department of Justice Oversight: who are pressing the legitimacy of Preserving Our Freedoms While holding prisoners from Afghanistan Defending Against Terrorism”5. In both halfway around the world from where of their testimonies, the attorneys they were captured. Fleischer eventually referred to prisoners as “enemy takes a question that changes the subject combatants”. This is the only use of this and leaves the reporters' concerns specific term found in official records unresolved. between September 11, 2001 and June 9, 2002 and it was done by people Nineteen days later, on January 28, ostensibly outside of the Bush Ari Fleischer again met with the press administration. Both lawyers argued and discussed the detainees in fiercely that it is in the President's Guantanamo7. The difference in his authority as granted by the constitution response to questions between the two to proceed with trials by military conferences was dramatic. In the later tribunals for members of al Qaida or conference, Fleischer answered other terrorist organizations. questions with ease, drawing from an

6 Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer: 5 DOJ Oversight: Preserving Our http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release Freedoms While Defending Against s/2002/01/20020109-5.html Terrorism: 7 Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer: http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release =126 s/2002/01/20020128-11.html

Culture Society & Praxis

Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2006 9 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2006], Art. 2 CS&P PAUL ALEXANDER 31

obviously prepared position to present a On February 7, President Bush strong argument for the legitimacy of issued a memorandum to his detainee treatment by the U.S. He stated, administration that made clear the “the detainees who are being held in position he was taking in regard to Cuba, the determination has been made detainees' rights as prisoners of war9. In that they are not and will not be the memo, he detailed a plan that would considered POWs.” This determination prevent the application of Geneva was made on the advice of the Conventions to those who were being President's counsel and directly held by the U.S. The President concurs contradicts the statements made just with the lawyers working for the three weeks prior by Fleischer himself. Department of Justice which found that Fleischer's answers were much longer it was within the President's authority to and better thought through than in the make such determinations regarding previous conference. Additionally, prisoner status, in effect granting himself Fleischer does not attempt to dodge the authority to suspend the Geneva questions at all and instead simply sticks Conventions. In the memo, Bush refers to the assertions that, we will find out to a “new paradigm” that the U.S. must later, were established by attorneys. operate in, one “ushered in not by us, but Finally, it is important to note that the by terrorists”. Language that invoked “a terminology being used here is still new kind of enemy” was common when “detainee” or “illegal combatant” rather the administration spoke about fighting than the “enemy combatant” phrase the new “War on Terror”. Of course, which comes into use later. along with a new kind of enemy comes a new way of doing things. In this case, One day prior, on January 28, the hand of the President has been forced President Bush had addressed the press to suspend the Geneva Conventions not with Chairman Hamid Karzai of the because he wants to but because the Afghan Interim Authority8. The first terrorists have forced him to. The question asked by reporters was in language used to refer to prisoners is still regards to formally applying the Geneva either “detainee” or “unlawful Convention to detainees at Guantanamo combatant”. Bay. The President asserted that he had applied the Geneva Convention, later Something interesting happens after going on to say that the Geneva this memo is released. Any discussion of Conventions are not outdated and that “combatants” or “detainees” disappears the U.S. has adhered to the “spirit of the from Presidential speeches, Q&A Convention.” The president, much like sessions, press releases, and press Fleischer, asserted that the prisoners are conferences. When the discussion does “illegal combatants” and as such will not pick up again the term used to discuss be afforded prisoner of war status. prisoners has changed. In a memo produced on June 9, 2002 President Bush ordered Secretary of Defense

8 Remarks by the President and Chairman of the Afghan Interim Authority Hamid 9 Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Karzai: Taliban Detainees: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/release http://www.library.law.pace.edu/research/ s/2002/01/20020128-13.html 020207_bushmemo.pdf

CS&P Vol 5 Num 1 December 2006 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol5/iss1/2 10 Alexander: Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush 32 ESTABLISHING “ENEMY COMBATANT” AS POLITIAL RHETORIC CS&P

Rumsfield to hold José Padilla as an selectively ignore the Geneva “enemy combatant”10. The order Conventions when they did not support identified Padilla as a “grave threat” to his initial goal of prosecution at his the safety of the U.S. and placed him in discretion in military tribunals and he the custody of the military. The very was able to do so with little resistance next day In a press conference held by from the press or public. In the end, this Ari Fleischer, Padilla is referred to as an allowed the Bush administration to “enemy combatant” rather than a invent a category of wartime prisoner, detainee or unlawful combatant. Padilla, the so-called “enemy combatant”, which who was being held in a military brig in has no legal meaning or merit and the U.S., is a U.S. citizen charged as a contradicted the administration's own material witness in the September 11 characterization of prisoners that was terrorist attacks. Eventually the Supreme used for the nine months following the Court found that it was Congress and not September 11 attacks. The press became the President who has specific powers complicit in its usage as they parroted that could be used to detain a U.S. the phrase back when asking questions citizen and deny them the right of or referring to the Guantanamo Bay habeas corpus. prisoner situation. While the term has no legal merit, its widespread acceptance This sweeping trace of the provided the administration with a administration's official discussion of rhetorical victory, one which insured that prisoners captured in the early stages of challenges to their prisoner paradigm the “War on Terror” is revealing. It is would fail not based on legal standing obvious that President Bush initially but because the term framed the decided to move forward under the discussion in such a way that it would premise that he had the sole authority to become difficult to talk about prisoners order military tribunals for captured without supporting the administration's prisoners without any kind of formal rhetoric. legal justification for doing so. Three months after his initial military order Framing the Wartime Prisoner outlining the treatment and prosecution Conversation of detainees, he followed with an order One way that we can attempt to that, not surprisingly, relied on his break through such powerful rhetoric is administration's lawyers to legitimize his to examine the way in which the Bush authority. Throughout the administration and conservatives in administration's discussion, we can see general strategically frame the how images of fear, danger, and conversation on wartime prisoners. emergency were invoked to quash any George Lakoff, a linguist and cognitive kind of resistance that might arise as a psychologist at UC Berkeley, has reaction. This allowed the President to developed a method for analyzing the language and rhetoric used in politics in order to determine the underlying values 10 Memo from Pres. George W. Bush inherent in catch phrases that are to U.S. Sec’y of Defense Donald Rumsfeld constantly employed by politicians. He RE Jose Padilla designated an enemy combatant: argues that the conservative movement http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdoc in the U.S. has been dominant in recent s/docs/padilla/padillabush60902det.pdf

Culture Society & Praxis

Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2006 11 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2006], Art. 2 CS&P PAUL ALEXANDER 33

years because of a long-term investment determined to destroy the way of life in establishing think tanks that could that most people in the U.S. hold dear. create linguistic strategies that would Additionally, it is not the same enemy force progressives to debate issues in that the U.S. has faced in the past, conservative terms, thus reinforcing perhaps during the Cold War, the conservative values and ideals even Vietnam War, or World War II. when arguing against them (Lakoff According to the administration, this 200?:27). new enemy has forced the hand of the President and made him do things that This works through frames, or pieces he doesn't want to do, such as suspend of rhetoric that evoke a particular image the Geneva Conventions for captured when their literal meaning often belies or enemy fighters. When this frame is contradicts the actual message. “Tax placed upon a person, that individual is relief” is a good example of this. The immediately labeled as a combatant and term tax relief frames taxes as something shown to be ready to fight, they were that people need relief from rather than fighting when they were captured, and it an essential investment in infrastructure, would be dangerous to release them welfare, etc. Another example is “death because they would continue to fight and tax” where the frame points to a dead again would threaten the safety of life in person, a loved one, being taxed after the U.S. they have passed rather than the living recipients of the dead one's estate. The A competing frame needs to be “War on Terror” is perhaps the most introduced into this conversation, a task prominent and dangerous frame as it that could be taken up by the human evokes images traditionally associated rights regime that has been so vigilant in with war, such as a battlefront, invasion observing and fighting for the rights of or defense, surrender and victory, that prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay and simply cannot exist in a war against a other U.S. prisons positioned around the band of loosely connected individuals. globe. Although I haven't completed a Further, the phrase promotes the idea of comprehensive analysis, I believe that fighting fear itself even when the tactics continuing to use “prisoner of war” to used by the U.S. consist of campaigns of describe these prisoners would be an terror, otherwise known as shock and effective frame to employ. It directly awe, that affect the innocent members of contradicts the goals and arguments that nations where the “War on Terror” is the Bush administration has presented waged. when trying to decide how to treat and handle the prisoners. At its most basic The Bush administration spent a level, the phrase is a very accurate great deal of time and energy on creating description for these individuals as they a frame for prisoners captured in are literally prisoners taken during an Afghanistan and Iraq. The frame is acknowledged war. It also reflects an based on a legal misnomer but is still established piece of international law effective at conveying ideas that make which is very widely accepted and sense, especially to the U.S. public. understood in both the mind of the “Enemy combatant” is a term that public and international politics. Further, invokes fear of an enemy, someone it will make it difficult for the Bush

CS&P Vol 5 Num 1 December 2006 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol5/iss1/2 12 Alexander: Establishing Enemy Combatant as Political Rhetoric: How the Bush 34 ESTABLISHING “ENEMY COMBATANT” AS POLITIAL RHETORIC CS&P

administration to talk about the prisoners Actions such as these are promising without acknowledging the idea that for remedying the situation for prisoners they are, in fact, prisoners of war. held unlawfully in Guantanamo Bay and other U.S. prisons. At the very least, Of course, putting the term into use they begin to re-frame the conversation would require the cooperation of around prisoners and move toward a progressive politicians and journalists more accurate and just framework for alike. It would have to be a conscious handling the hundreds of people we have movement but I believe that it is not one incarcerated without an opportunity for lacking momentum. Lakoff's push for release or trial. The human rights regime progressives to re-frame the political has moved us to this point, vehemently conversations taking place has picked up arguing for the legal rights of prisoners steam and he has recently consulted with who most lawyers wouldn't dare to get various politicians on their campaigns in near. I believe that the next step will be an attempt to further the re-framing of to capture the public imagination by political debate in the U.S. It's hardly a breaking down exactly what has comprehensive answer but it would chip happened at Guantanamo and exposing away at a powerful piece of rhetoric that the rhetoric used by the Bush has enabled the President to seize power administration to legitimize their actions. that does not rightfully belong to him As a first step, I have examined the and has resulted in detention that ignores origins of the term “enemy combatant”, the Geneva Conventions and has failed tracing its roots back to the World War to bring to trial or charge hundreds of II Supreme Court case, Ex parte Quirin. prisoners for several years. I then traced how the Bush Conclusion administration took this concept and evolved it to fit their desired outcome: a Recently, more attention has been President who had the sole authority to placed on the Bush administration's decide how prisoners would be tried and actions in regard to prisoners. A staff punished. Finally, I examined the idea of editorial in the New York Times recently “enemy combatant” as a linguistic frame attacked Attorney General Alberto and offered some ways to possibly re- Gonzalez for his threats to “muzzle” the frame the conversation on prisoners of press. As part of their defense, they said war. It is my hope that this contribution that Gonzalez could do many things if he will help others move beyond the image truly respected the rule of law, stating, painted by the Bush administration and “He could uphold the Geneva see that our fear is moving us to deny Conventions and the U.N. Convention those things which are fundamentally Against Torture, instead of coming up important to the U.S.. with cynical justifications for violating them. He could repudiate the disgraceful fiction known as 'unlawful enemy combatant,' which the administration cooked up after 9/11 to deny legal rights to certain prisoners.” (New York Times 2006:26).

Culture Society & Praxis

Published by Digital Commons @ CSUMB, 2006 13 Culture, Society, and Praxis, Vol. 5, No. 1 [2006], Art. 2 CS&P PAUL ALEXANDER 35

Bibliography Constitutional Law of Treason and the Enemy Combatant Cole, David Problem. University of 2002 Enemy Aliens. Stanford Pennsylvania Law Review Law Review 54:953-1005. 154:865-925. Cutler, Leonard Priester, Benjamin J. 2006 Enemy Combatants and 2004 Return of the Great Writ: Guantanamo: The Rule of Law Judicial Review, Due Process, and Law of War of Post–9/11. and the Detention of Alleged Peace and Change 31(1):35-57. Terrorists as Enemy Combatants. Denbeaux, Mark, and Joshua W. FSU College of Law Public Law Denbeaux Research Paper No. 2006 Second Report on the 120:Available at SSRN: Guantanamo Detainees: Inter- http://ssrn.com/abstract=574622 and Intra-Departmental or DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.574622. Disagreements about Who is our Sloss, David L. Enemy. Seton Hall Public Law 2004 Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. Research Paper No. 2686. The American Journal of 893047:Available at SSRN: International Law 98(4):788-798. http://ssrn.com/abstract=893047. Stumpf, Juliet P Dobbs, Michaels 2004 Citizens of an Enemy 2004 A Familiar, Thorny Land: Enemy Combatants, Record Of Wartime Justice In Aliens, and the Constitutional Washington Post. Pp. B04. Rights of the Pseudo-Citizen. UC Wasington D.C. Davis Law Review 38:79-140. Elsea, Jennifer K. Yoo, John C. and Ho, James C. 2003 Presidential Authority to 2003 The Status of Terrorists. Detain "Enemy Combatants". Virginia Journal of International Presidential Studies Quarterly Law 44(1):207-228. 33(3):568-601. Lakoff, George 2002 Moral politics : how liberals and conservatives think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. — 2004 Don't Think Like an Elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. White River, VT: Chelsea Green. Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson 2003 Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Larson, Carlton F. W. 2006 The Forgotten

CS&P Vol 5 Num 1 December 2006 https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/csp/vol5/iss1/2 14