Recolección de datos

On January 29, 2002, President Bush, in the annual State of the Union Address, succinctly outlined his strategy for conducting the war on terror. A major component of his strategy was to persuade the public to accept the cultural shift regarding the responsibility of national security away from the government and onto citizens. Bush explains:

For too long our culture has said, "If it feels good, do it." Now America is embracing a new ethic and a new creed: "Let's roll." In the sacrifice of soldiers, the fierce brotherhood of firefighters, and the bravery and generosity of ordinary citizens, we have glimpsed what a new culture of responsibility could look like. (WH, OPS, 2002, January 29, para. 51) In soliciting citizens to adopt the new culture of responsibility, Bush begins the rhetorical constitution of algorithmic citizenship. The culture of responsibility requires that citizens become more than mere consumers living their daily lives while the government fights a global war on terror on their behalf. According to Bush, because the U.S. is exceptional, it is the nation’s responsibility to confront global enemies such as the “axis of evil” that produces geopolitical chaos and danger. Yet, citizens are responsible for assenting to war by volunteering their services and helping carry out the war in their daily activities. The president outsources the responsibility of the war onto citizen-soldiers who are hailed to serve their country in the fight against terrorism and evil in all of their manifestations.

One of the many things that makes this speech particularly interesting in reformulating the discourse of modern warfare is that Bush began his constitution of algorithmic citizenship by first redefining the global disposition of various nations. This begins with Bush declaring that terrorists view the entire world as a battlefield and thus

the American response will require the U.S. to scour the globe (WH, OPS, 2002, January 29). Even though most of the visible military action occurred in Afghanistan, the U.S. was taking action and gathering intelligence all over the world. This invisible action occurs by training other countries’ armed forces to participate in the fight against terror. It also occurred by imposing more military presence in countries that the U.S. has not declared war against. For instance, Bush provided the example of naval patrols off the coast of Africa to prevent terrorist activity in Somalia (WH, OPS, 2002, January 29). Moreover, if a country was unwilling to join the U.S. in its demand to take action to eliminate terrorism, Bush vowed that America would act on their behalf.

Bush distinguished between timid countries unwilling to act and hostile nation- states that he articulated as being terrorist allies. Specifically, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea were defined as hostile nations, which as Bush stated, “constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world” (WH, OPS, 2002, January 29, para. 21). These countries were articulated as being especially evil because they all possessed or were attempting to possess weapons of mass destruction. By positing that these countries were capable of having weapons of mass destruction and allied with terrorist organizations, Bush aimed to persuade the public that it is America’s responsibility to subject these countries to strict surveillance, sanctions, and, as was the case with Iraq, in need of regime change through war or other means.

In addition to refining the world outside the U.S., Bush’s State of the Union Address also reconstituted the citizen’s duties. Even though the U.S. was acting globally against both terrorist organizations and their alleged nation-state allies and sponsors,

Bush maintained that security was only possible when citizens were vigilant at home (WH, OPS, 2002, January 29). Citizen’s awareness required a dual process of submitting to intense surveillance and actively monitoring activity around them. Bush explained this process when claiming that, “we will improve intelligence collection and sharing, expand patrols at our borders, strengthen the security of air travel, and use technology to track the arrivals and departures of visitors to the United States” (WH, OPS, 2002, January 29, para. 31). Citizens were encouraged to submit to this surveillance based on the traditional biopolitical defense of improving public health. For instance, increased border control and police surveillance were defended on the basis that it will help put a stop to illegal drugs and make neighborhoods safer. Furthermore, Bush articulated the culture of responsibility with national security, asking citizens to keep their eyes and ears open, commit themselves to service such as the USA Freedom Corps, whose purpose will be homeland security, and when confronted with acts of terrorism to take action like the passengers did in response to the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s attempt to detonate a bomb located in his underwear (WH, OPS, 2002, January 29). The 2002 State of the Union address provides valuable insight into how President Bush uses the war on terror as a rhetorical strategy designed to persuade citizens to accept security measures such as intense surveillance while simultaneously directing their energy to directly participate in the war efforts through everyday activity.

Exploring similar rhetorical acts found in this State of the Union, this chapter widens the frame to tracks how citizenship and governance have intensified since September 11, 2001 into modes that are consistent with the logic of 2.0. Examining

Bush’s presidential rhetoric is quite fitting given how W. in many is a 2.0 president. There is the easy and obvious connection that George W. Bush is the son of President George H.W. Bush; where even the name is a more efficient version that eliminates an entire name. However, if one is to draw a distinction between 1.0 and 2.0 in regards to how the latter builds on and intensifies the former, then it is not difficult to connect Bush 43’s rhetoric on citizenship, surveillance, and war operates as a 2.0 version of his father. There is Gulf War I and Gulf War II. Bush 41 had the War on Drugs that increases police power and mass surveillance. Bush 43 continues the War on Drugs, and then upgrades to 2.0 version, the War on Terror, which streamlines and bolsters War on Drugs military and police collaboration, information gathering, and targeted killings, and intensified the original Gulf War by removing Saddam Hussain.

Given Bush 43’s proclivity for expanding domestic surveillance and war, this chapter analyzes his presidential speeches to highlight how citizenship is transformed into a 2.0 version of algorithmic citizenship. More broadly, this chapter explores how the logic of government 2.0 and algorithmic citizenship becomes ingrained as essential characteristics in conducting the war on terror. The remainder of the chapter is categorized into three sections. The first section provides a theoretical context to understand the rhetorical strategies used in presidential address during the war on terror. The second section analyzes how Bush used public address to define the war on terror, interpellate citizens to participate in an ideological battle, and implement policies of mass surveillance. The third section examines how Bush implemented mass surveillance as an essential tool for identifying potential terrorists, predicting future attacks, and taking pre-

emptive action to prevent them. Next, the chapter addresses how information becomes a vital national resource by analyzing Bush’s surveillance programs and information gathering policies. Finally, the chapter explores how citizenship is constituted through performances of transparency that allow the government to identify normal citizens from those who were infected by the contagion of terrorism.

The rhetorical effects and functions of presidential address

Interpellating citizenship. The process of interpellating citizens, shaping public

memory, and utilizing presidential definition operate as a series of interrelated rhetorical strategies that demarcates national identity and the political possibilities which can be pursued. Vanessa Beasley (2001) contends that presidential address articulates abstract ideological commitments into the social identity of the public. In other words, presidential speeches play a fundamental role in the interpellative process involved in constructing and managing citizenship. The president is able to circumscribe the social identity of citizens and position the audience to identify with an offered subject position. While the interpellative process is not always successful, the attacks on 9/11 provided a unique opportunity for citizens became more likely to accept the ideological calling of the president, as the affect generated by the attacks could be routed into support for presidential policies. In this rhetorical situation, President Bush responded with public address that sought to shape public memory and citizens’ role by defining the enemy and the threat. The same rhetorical force that defined an enemy as an external threat also operates to define the ideological investments of good citizenship. For instance, Americans were able to unify as a nation that was at war against the threat of Islamic

fundamentalism and terrorism. Framing the war on terror as an ideological battle against competing ideological values, Bush is able to redefine American values, encourage citizens to adopt them, and then identify those who do not adhere to those values as a threat to national security.

Public memory and nostalgia. The ability to shape public memory is another

public address technique that is used liberally by politicians, especially the president. Shawn and Trevor Perry-Giles (2000) explain that collective memory has material consequences as it ideologically constitutes the way that citizens interacts with one another and institutions and their public involvements. By drawing on historical narratives, the president defines the collective identity of the nation based on an interpretation of a shared past. Furthermore, presidents call forth and interpret public memory, expressing history through narratives inviting the public to identify and embody particular subject positions. The ability to articulate specific modes of subjectivity as well as a collective national subjectivity provides President Bush with powerful rhetorical tools to wage the war on terror.

According to President Bush, part of being the chief decision-maker is the ability to engage in a form of reactive security that includes worst case scenario planning and a readiness to respond if and when this scenario occurs (WH, OPS, 2006, January 23). While the president’s job requires constantly attention on national security, Bush argued that the public’s focus should be directed towards maintain normalcy (WH, OPS, 2006, January 23). To achieve this goal after the attacks, Bush asked the public to get on with their lives. In other words, the public could return to their normal consumer lifestyles, fly

on planes, take trips to tourist destinations, return to work at a major financial center, or take in a sporting event with a large crowd. In utilizing the rhetorical technique of framing public memory, Bush was able to direct citizens focus towards consuming and normalcy while framing the role of the president as the ever-vigilant protector that should collecting information to best protect the population. This is what Jeremy Engles and William Sass (2013) label as acquiescence rhetoric; the call for acceptance of presidential war decisions due to the differential in both expertise and focus.

Integral to Bush’s call for a return to a state of normalcy was the rhetorical strategy of political nostalgia. Parry-Gilles (2000) contend that political nostalgia magnifies appeals based in a selective recollection of the past because of the emotional resonance it creates between political leaders and audiences and the identification it creates with an idealized yet partisan view of the past. For example, after 9/11, citizens were asked to overlook the disparate problems in their daily lives and to unite together as a nation resolved to undefeated by terrorism. However, the calls to return to daily life glossed over the particular material struggles and differences faced by individuals in the wake of the tragedy in order to appeal to unify with a mythologized version of the past that never existed. Moreover, this articulated collective memory seeped in political nostalgia demanded that citizens sacrifice many of their civil liberties in order to preserve a way of life that never really existed.

Presidential definition. The last function or technique of presidential public

address that I examine in this chapter is the use of definition. President Bush’s attempts to shape public memory highlights the fluidity of social reality. In a postmodern sense,

social reality is fluid, pliable, and full of potential. It is not a given, natural, or pre- determined state of affairs. Instead, it is chosen from a multiplicity of possibilities. Zarefsky (2004) contends that political actors contribute to the production of social reality and that people actively participate in shaping and giving meaning to the world around them. The primary way that people constitute their social reality is through naming the world around them. By naming a situation, people shape the context for understanding social reality and determine the parameters for engagement. Therefore, the ability to define and name is rhetorically very powerful. Defining is the power to identify, name, and bring forth or allow something new to emerge into a field of signification. In addition to allowing new meanings and signs to be constituted and emerge, definitions also frame how something should be understood. It dictates what something is, what value it has, and the meaning that it signifies.

Zarefsky (2004) argues that the office of the president has a sustainable ability to define political reality. The president has unique access and authority to communicate with a wide range of audiences. For instance, the president can address the nation through an electronic broadcast, communicate with the press and shape the context in which the public encounter specific events, and speak directly with policy-makers in Congress. By choosing to define political situations in specific ways with these audiences, the president is able to frame reality as if it were natural and uncontestable rather than selected and open to critique or discussion. Furthermore, through framing, the president can dictate what constitutes credible and worthy arguments, data, and proof (Zarefsky, 2004). Take for example, the evidence offered by the Bush administration to

prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Administration provided satellite images of what it considered to be proof that Iraq possessed WMDs. However, the satellite data could only be analyzed and understood by technical experts. Consequently, Bush was able to define Iraq as a threat to U.S. national security by controlling what counted as sufficient evidence. This control of what constituted data prevented the public from challenging the presidential definition of WMD threat because it was incapable of analyzing the evidence that was being presented to them and contesting was it was ample proof. Therefore, the way that the American public understood the situation in Iraq was framed in terms of threat construction that foreclosed or discredited any discussion about whether or not Iraq posed an actual threat to national security.

Additionally, by defining Iraq as a terrorist and WMD threat, Bush was able to control the discussion about appropriate courses of actions in response to the risk. If Iraq has WMDs, then the U.S. was justified in taking pre-emptive action to eliminate WMD use. Furthermore, presidential definition invited moral judgments that concluded that Saddam Hussain and his regime was evil and oppressive and warranted elimination. This was done in two parts: first, Iraq was included in the “Axis of Evil” that was defined as the primary enemy facing the U.S.; second, Hussain’s regime was bad enough to justify one war against it and now there are claims of WMD possession. Such an evil and oppression regime necessarily had to be invaded through the definitional logic of the Bush administration.

Zarefsky (2004) also contends that presidents use definitional arguments by creating associations between various terms. For example, Bush’s decision to classify the

9/11 terrorist attacks as an act of war. Zarefsky (2004) notes that the terrorist attacks did not necessarily meet the characteristics of war because the attacks were not carried out by a military, did not involve at least another nation-state, and there was no declaration of war by either side. Yet, in defining the attacks as an act of war, Bush was able to justify that a swift military response was necessary that was to be conducted under the wars power of the president rather than as a crime that warranted a public trial and deliberation about the best response to the attack (Zarefksy, 2004).

Interestingly, even though this reality is offered to the public as an accurate reflection of reality, presidential definitions are flexible enough to allow for strategic shifts in definition. For instance, once more information came out that called into question the Administration’s evidence that defined Iraq as a WMD threat, President Bush’s discourse shifted the threat frame away from WMD possession to the liberation of oppressed people, particularly women, and the spread of democracy (Zarefsky, 2004). This ability to shift frames shows the fluid power of presidential definition. On one hand, presidential definition naturalizes social reality as an uncontestable given, yet, on the other, it is also malleable enough to shift when necessary.

Now that I have reviewed the broad rhetorical effects, functions, and techniques of presidential public address, I now use this understanding of presidential address to analyze how President Bush specifically frames the war on terror. The first section examines how Bush used arguments of definition about the war on terror. Mapping the ways Bush defined the war provides insight into the ideology and logic that rationalized mass surveillance and preemptive warfare. The second section maps Bush’s rhetoric of

enemyship and how it was articulated in relation to citizenship. In order to find the enemy and bring them to justice, Bush first had to identify what constituted a terrorist. To determine this, Bush relied on presidential definition to classify good citizens from enemies. This system of classification transformed typical understandings of citizenship and initiated the president’s ability to classify bodies to be detained or eliminated. The third section follows how Bush rhetorically framed his justifications for domestic surveillance and intelligence gathering as consistent with American values. The ability to classify surveillance programs as top secret while publicly claiming that they are legal, restrained, and true to American values allowed the president to control public discourse regarding classification of enemies and threat construction. This then displaced constitutional protections of citizenship and justified a secret program of domestic spying.

Defining the war on terror

Enemies and terrain. On the evening of 9/11/2001, President Bush addressed

the nation about the attacks from the Oval Office. While Bush did not announce who was behind the attacks, he did use his speech to declare that the attacks were an act of terrorism and that the U.S. would launch a successful war on terrorism (WH, OPS, 2001, September 11). With the simply expression “war on terror”, the choice to define the events of 9/11 as an act of war became the framework from which the American people would conceptualize what occurred and how America would respond. Throughout the remainder of his presidency, Bush framed the attacks and America’s response as a global war on terror being waged through a Manichean battle of “good” versus “evil,”