"Guantanamo Bay houses enemy combatants ranging from terrorist trainers and recruiters to bomb makers, would-be suicide bombers, and terrorist financiers"
About this Quote
Guantanamo Bay becomes, in Chris Chocola's framing, less a prison than a catalog of threats. The sentence stacks roles like an evidence table: "trainers", "recruiters", "bomb makers", "would-be suicide bombers", "financiers". It’s a rhetorical roll call designed to close the debate before it starts. If the occupants can be named as specialists in terror, then the facility reads not as a legal anomaly but as a necessary firewall.
The intent is defensive politics: justify an institution widely criticized for indefinite detention and murky due process by anchoring it to the worst imaginable categories. The phrase "enemy combatants" does heavy lifting. It’s not "suspects" or "defendants", which would imply courts and standards of proof; it’s a wartime label that shifts the audience into national-security mode, where urgency can outrun civil liberties.
Subtext: the moral math is pre-solved. By front-loading extreme archetypes, the line invites listeners to treat objections as naivete at best, softness at worst. Even "would-be" matters. It expands the net from acts committed to intentions inferred, making preemption sound prudent rather than speculative.
Contextually, this is post-9/11 governance language, shaped by the War on Terror’s need for clarity in a world of asymmetric threats. The sentence functions as a permission slip for exceptional measures, using enumeration and fear-management to translate a contested policy into common sense. It’s persuasion through inventory: keep looking at the list until the legal questions feel beside the point.
The intent is defensive politics: justify an institution widely criticized for indefinite detention and murky due process by anchoring it to the worst imaginable categories. The phrase "enemy combatants" does heavy lifting. It’s not "suspects" or "defendants", which would imply courts and standards of proof; it’s a wartime label that shifts the audience into national-security mode, where urgency can outrun civil liberties.
Subtext: the moral math is pre-solved. By front-loading extreme archetypes, the line invites listeners to treat objections as naivete at best, softness at worst. Even "would-be" matters. It expands the net from acts committed to intentions inferred, making preemption sound prudent rather than speculative.
Contextually, this is post-9/11 governance language, shaped by the War on Terror’s need for clarity in a world of asymmetric threats. The sentence functions as a permission slip for exceptional measures, using enumeration and fear-management to translate a contested policy into common sense. It’s persuasion through inventory: keep looking at the list until the legal questions feel beside the point.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|
More Quotes by Chris
Add to List
