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 con- cept 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 “un- questioned 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 ad- dresses, 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.