This dissertation is guided by three central questions: Why did the Abu Ghraib photographs fail to generate widespread opposition to the Iraq War among U.S. citizens? How did U.S. political leaders, news media, and entertainment media rhetorically manage the impact of the violence at Abu Ghraib? Finally, what can the tortures at Abu Ghraib tell us about commitment to national identity and justifications for violence? I argue that the primary rhetorical, ideological work of national violence against a foreign other is to create and protect national identification that deflects potential critique of national policy and discourages alternative allegiances (e.g., those of race and class). In support of this argument, I analyze four sets of texts surrounding the scandal. First, I analyze the Abu Ghraib photographs. These photographs, revealing torture of Iraqi detainees by U.S. troops, posed a serious challenge to American national identity and the prevailing rationale for war: namely, that the U.S. would liberate Iraqis from a torturous dictator and the threat of terrorism. The remaining types of discourse, then, can be seen as rhetorical attempts at damage control, containing and softening the edges of the visual records of violence against an enemy Other. For example, the second set of discourses I examine contains the legal memoranda outlining U.S. "coercive interrogation practices" dating back to September 2001. I compare these documents to the political speeches made by public officials during the 2004 presidential campaign. These texts, I argue, provide insight into the Abu Ghraib scandal's political context and illustrate how the scandal was ultimately managed by the Bush administration as a matter of private authority and prerogative rather than public accountability. Third, I explore mainstream media reports concerning Abu Ghraib in order to come to a better understanding of how violence is framed for public consumption. And finally, I analyze depictions of the torture within the popular television series 24. Because 24's plotline deals with issues of torture and terrorist threat, I argue that it can help us better understand both the social climate in which the Abu Ghraib scandal emerged and our current climate in which torture is still very much an issue. / text

LL.M. (International Law) / The attacks on the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 sent waves of disbelief and shock through the world. It was probably the worst terrorist attack on the United States ever. The horrific terrorist attacks led to a mixture of political, social and economic reaction around the world and also led to the creation of what is today known as the “The war on terror”. When acts of torture by United States officials came to light in 2004, as well as allegations that these acts were authorized by the United States executive as a way of obtaining information from terrorist suspects in the United States’ “War on Terror”, it led to the question – “How was it possible that acts of torture were committed by United States officials”? The purpose of this dissertation is to try to find an answer to this question and also tom establish which definition of torture should be utilized in the United States domestic laws for the establishment of acts of torture.