000			04035nam a2200577 454500
001			241100
003			IT-RoAPU
005			20250106151406.0
006			m|||||o||d||||||||
007			cr || ||||||||
008			240625t20192019gw fo d z eng d
020			_a9783110622140 _qprint
020			_a9783110622355 _qEPUB
020			_a9783110626056 _qPDF
024	7		_a10.1515/9783110626056 _2doi
035			_a(DE-B1597)9783110626056
035			_a(DE-B1597)500875
035			_a(OCoLC)1091710098
040			_aDE-B1597 _beng _cDE-B1597 _erda
072		7	_aPOL062000 _2bisacsh
082	0	4	_81p _a320 _qDE-101
084			_aonline - DeGruyter
100	1		_aKöhler, Imke _eautore
245	1	0	_aFraming the Threat : _bHow Politicians justify their Policies / _cImke Köhler.
264		1	_aMünchen ; _aWien : _bDe Gruyter Oldenbourg, _c[2019]
264		4	_c©2019
300			_a1 online resource (XIII, 279 p.)
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
347			_atext file _bPDF _2rda
505	0	0	_tFrontmatter -- _tWith Thankfulness -- _tContents -- _tList of Tables -- _tList of Abbreviations -- _tPart I: Research Design -- _t1. Introduction -- _tPart II: Theoretical Framework and Methodology -- _t2. Constructivism -- _t3. Discourse Theory -- _t4. Security Discourse -- _t5. Mode of Conduct -- _tPart III: Empiricism -- _t6. Bush’s Security Discourse and Policies -- _t7. Obama’s Security Discourse and Policies -- _tPart IV: Conclusion -- _t8. Findings and Implications -- _tReferences
506	0		_arestricted access _uhttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec _fonline access with authorization _2star
520			_aThere is great power in the use of words: words create most of what we consider to be real and true. Framing our words and narratives is thus a tool of power – but a power that also comes with limitations. This intriguing issue is the topic of Framing the Threat, an investigation of the relationship between language and security and of how discourse creates the scope of possibility for political action. In particular, the book scrutinizes and compares the security narratives of the former US presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. It shows how their framings of identity, i.e., of the American ‘self’ and the enemy ‘other’ facilitated a certain construction of threat that shaped the presidents’ detention and interrogation policies. By defining what was necessary in the name of national security, Bush’s narrative justified the operation of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and rendered the mistreatment of detainees possible – a situation that would have otherwise been illegal. Bush’s framings therefore enabled legal limits to be pushed and made the violation of rules appear legitimate. Obama, in contrast, constructed a threat scenario that required an end to rule violations, and the closure of Guantanamo for security reasons. According to this narrative, a return to the rule of law was imperative if the American people were to be kept safe. However, Obama’s framing was continually challenged, and it was never able to dominate public discourse. Consequently, Framing the Threat argues Obama was unable to implement the policy changes he had announced.
530			_aIssued also in print.
538			_aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
546			_aIn English.
588	0		_aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 25. Jun 2024)
650		0	_aDiscourse analysis.
650		4	_aDiscourse.
650		4	_aGuantanamo.
650		4	_aIdentity.
650		4	_aSecuritization.
650		4	_aThreat.
650		7	_aPOLITICAL SCIENCE / Geopolitics. _2bisacsh
850			_aIT-RoAPU
856	4	0	_uhttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110626056
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9783110626056
856	4	2	_3Cover _uhttps://www.degruyter.com/document/cover/isbn/9783110626056/original
942			_cEB
999			_c241100 _d241100