Description
This paper analyses how states may suppress debate and controversy in the field of security, with a particular focus on torture and counterterrorism. I outline how governments and opposing stakeholders engage in a struggle for legitimacy and credibility concerning security and human rights. The case of the Spain-ETA conflict is examined to show how state actors may use what I call ‘reverse shaming’ to shun and discredit international organisations or civil society actors in an attempt to stymie public debate on torture. Drawing on the literatures on ‘rhetorical coercion’ and ‘shaming’, I argue that Spanish officials sought to delegitimise the entire enterprise of human rights fact-finding and the documentation of abuse. In effect, a world was constructed in which it was almost impossible to make a legitimate report or allegation of human rights abuse against Spain. These rhetorical moves enabled Spanish security agencies to torture and mistreat suspected Basque militants for decades. Through this analysis, the paper seeks to demonstrate that struggles over legitimacy, credibility and expertise have important consequences for public debate, human rights and security practice.
Keywords: human rights, counterterrorism, torture, shaming, controversies
