Representing War as Punishment in the War on Terror

Abstract

This paper shows how the notion of punishment has been invoked by former US President George W. Bush, and ex UK Prime Minister Tony Blair to represent war. It is suggested that in this context, the notion of punishment serves different objectives: legitimizing violence, suggesting the sovereign role taken by the US and highlighting the emergence of new sensibilities. Building on previous literature in criminology and international relations it examines points of contact between two previously distinct security mechanisms-war and punishment-and suggests possible effects of this discursive blurring. It highlights not only the need for criminologists to engage with international relations literature but also the need to evaluate closely the different nature of the international context.

War and order: rethinking criminal accountability for the Iraq War

“…72 Indeed, one commentator has described the invasion of Iraq as a form of punishment for its 'deviancy'. 73…”

“Soldiering By Consent” and Military–Civil Relations: Military Transition Into the Public Space of Policing

“…This tendency has, in fact, been slowly maturing for some time. Earlier examples can be found, for instance, in a language constructed around the need to "punish" or react to illegal behaviors in both the first Gulf war, Kosovo (Degenhardt, 2010) and in Northern Ireland (Murray, 2015). It is perhaps now more apparent, however, in public and political rhetoric, exemplified with notions such as to "bring terrorists to justice" and "eliminate the threat that they pose" (Blair, 2001).…”

“…It is well documented that one cannot escape the war metaphor in criminological discourse (Garland, 1996; Ruggiero, 2005). The “war on terror” is just one example of how policing functions are spoken of regarding “war.” What is perhaps not so well documented in criminology is that warfare relies more and more frequently upon metaphors of criminal justice (Degenhardt, 2010; Murray, 2015). This is realized through a language that situates and perceives insurgents not as actors of war but rather as criminals.…”

Representing the Experience of War and Atrocity

“…It is precisely in the sharing of these affective reflections that this work is able to access and express the violence which the veterans embody, and their vulnerability, as both personal and structural. This seems to be particularly poignant in an age when 'war' and 'peace' might not be so easily demarcated and set apart as once may have been the case (Degenhardt 2010, Evans 2013. Could you expand upon how this shaped the final form, edit and narrative structure of the installation (if at all)?…”