Description
Studies of “forbidden” security practices (here meaning practices which violate domestic or international law, or widely shared norms) usually presume that these occur in secret. Analysis of public debates around such practices therefore often focuses on the pivotal moment of “exposure”, and the ensuing scandal when such information is made public. But what happens when “forbidden” security practices are “born public”? Drawing on a study of public debate around the use of torture in the post-9/11 U.S. war on terror, this paper analyses the characteristics of public discourse about formally “forbidden” practices when these are made known not through an unmasking of secrets, but through open acknowledgements by the state. How does political debate unfold differently when violations are openly acknowledged, rather than excavated from the realm of covert action?
