American Political Plays In The Age Of Terrorism

This powerful anthology brings together reflective and raw plays by American playwrights surrounding the psychic and political boundaries of the many faces and shadows of terrorism. Allan Havis's introduction addresses a variety of terrorism cases from the last 25 years, examines several theories of the root causes of modern terrors, and underscores how theatre forms a unique contour to social and philosophical thought on terrorism. With a foreword from Robert Brustein, the anthology features: Break of Noon by Neil LaBute 7/11 by Kia Corthron Omnium Gatherum by Theresa Rebeck and Alexandra Gersten-Vassilaros Columbinus by PJ Paparelli and Stephen Karam Why Torture is Wrong, and the People Who Love Them by Christopher Durang

This book features a lively debate between two prominent scholars—Michael A. Genovese and David Gray Adler—on the critical issue of whether the Constitution, written in the 18th Century, remains adequate to the national security challenges of our time. The question of the scope of the president’s constitutional authority—if any—to initiate war on behalf of the American people, long the subject of heated debate in the corridors of power and the groves of academe, has become an issue of surpassing importance for a nation confronted by existential threats in an Age of Terrorism. This question should be thoroughly reviewed and debated by members of Congress, and considered by all Americans before they are asked to go to war. If the constitutional allocation of powers on matters of war and peace is outdated, what changes should be made? Is there a need to increase presidential power? What role should Congress play in the war on terror?

The Theatre of Christopher Durang considers the works of one of the foremost comedic writers for the American stage. From Durang's early success with the controversial Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All for You (1974) to his recent Tony Award-winning play, Vanya and Sonia and Masha and Spike (2012), he has been an original theatrical voice in American theatre. Edith Oliver, long-time theatre critic for The New Yorker, described Durang as “one of the funniest men in the world.” Durang challenges traditional dramatic idioms with his irreverent comedies that are as shocking as they are prescient and compassionate. This volume provides the first comprehensive examination of Durang's works and incorporates comedic theory to examine how laughter in performance subverts social conventions and hierarchies. Through a clear, detailed discussion of the plays, Miriam Chirico considers Durang's use of black comedy, satire, and parody to explode such topics as: western literature, religion, dysfunctional families, and American social malaise. Robert Combs and Jay Malarcher provide additional critical perspectives about Durang's works, detailing his use of alienation techniques and locating his place within the American parodic tradition. The book also includes a warm introduction by Durang's former student, Pulitzer Prize-winner, David Lindsay-Abaire. The Theatre of Christopher Durang, in demonstrating how Durang has shaped contemporary theatrical possibilities, offers a valuable guide for students of American drama and comedy.

This collection offers new and insightful perspectives on Ingmar Bergman's work as a film and theatre director as well as writer of fiction. Ingmar Bergman's rich legacy as a film director and writer of classics such as The Seventh Seal, Scenes From a Marriage, and Fanny and Alexander has attracted scholars not only in film studies but also of literature, theater, gender, philosophy, religion, sociology, musicology, and more. Less known, however, is Bergman from the perspective of production studies, including all the choices, practices, and routines involved in what goes on behind the scenes. For instance, what about Bergman's collaborations and conflicts with film producers? What about his work with musicians at the opera, technicians in the television studio, and actors on the film set? What about Bergman and MeToo? In order to throw light on these issues, art practitioners such as film directors Ang Lee and Margarethe von Trotta, film and opera director Atom Egoyan, and film producer and screenwriter James Schamus are brought together with academics such as philosopher and film scholar Paisley Livingston, musicologist Alexis Luko, and playwright and performance studies scholar Allan Havis to discuss Bergman's work from their unique perspectives. In addition, Ingmar Bergman at the Crossroads provides, for the first time, in-depth interviews with Bergman's longtime collaborators Katinka Faragó and Måns Reuterswärd, who both have first-hand experience of working intimately as producers in film and television with Bergman, covering more than 5 decades. In an open exchange between individual and institutional perspectives, this book bridges the often-rigid boundaries between theoreticians and practitioners, in turn pointing Bergman's studies in new directions.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government adopted a series of counterterrorism policies that radically altered the prevailing balance between civil liberties and security. These changes allowed for warrantless domestic surveillance, military commissions at Guantanamo Bay and even extralegal assassinations. Now, more than a decade after 9/11, these sharply contested measures appear poised to become lasting features of American government. What do Americans think about these policies? Where do they draw the line on what the government is allowed to do in the name of fighting terrorism? Drawing from a wealth of survey and experimental data, Whose Rights? explores the underlying sources of public attitudes toward the war on terror in a more detailed and comprehensive manner than has ever been attempted. In an analysis that deftly deploys the tools of political science and psychology, Whose Rights? addresses a vexing puzzle: Why does the counterterrorism agenda persist even as 9/11 recedes in time and the threat from Al Qaeda wanes? Authors Clem Brooks and Jeff Manza provocatively argue that American opinion, despite traditionally showing strong support for civil liberties, exhibits a “dark side” that tolerates illiberal policies in the face of a threat. Surveillance of American citizens, heightened airport security, the Patriot Act and targeted assassinations enjoy broad support among Americans, and these preferences have remained largely stable over the past decade. There are, however, important variations: Waterboarding and torture receive notably low levels of support, and counterterrorism activities sanctioned by formal legislation, as opposed to covert operations, tend to draw more favor. To better evaluate these trends, Whose Rights? examines the concept of “threat-priming” and finds that getting people to think about the specter of terrorism bolsters anew their willingness to support coercive measures. A series of experimental surveys also yields fascinating insight into the impact of national identity cues. When respondents are primed to think that American citizens would be targeted by harsh counterterrorism policies, support declines significantly. On the other hand, groups such as Muslims, foreigners, and people of Middle Eastern background elicit particularly negative attitudes and increase support for counterterrorism measures. Under the right conditions, Brooks and Manza show, American support for counterterrorism activities can be propelled upward by simple reminders of past terrorism plots and communication about disliked external groups. Whose Rights? convincingly argues that mass opinion plays a central role in the politics of contemporary counterterrorism policy. With their clarity and compelling evidence, Brooks and Manza offer much-needed insight into the policy responses to the defining conflict of our age and the psychological impact of terrorism.

Richard Clarke has been one of America's foremost experts on counterterrorism measures for more than two decades. He has served under four presidents from both parties, beginning in Ronald Reagan's State Department becoming America's first Counter-terrorism Czar under Bill Clinton and remaining for the first two years of George W. Bush's administration. He has seen every piece of intelligence on Al-Qaeda from the beginning; he was in the Situation Room on September 11th and he knows exactly what has taken place under the United State's new Department of Homeland Security. Through gripping, thriller-like scenes, he tells the full story for the first time and explains what the Bush Administration are doing.

This book offers a broad interdisciplinary approach to the changes in the U.S. immigration debate before and after 9/11. A nation’s reaction to foreigners has as much to do with sociology as it does with political science, economics and psychology. Without drawing on this knowledge, our understanding of the immigration debate remains mundane, partial, and imperfect. Therefore, our story accounts for multiple factors, including culture and politics, power, organizations, social psychological processes, and political change. Examining this relationship in the contemporary context requires a lengthy voyage across academic disciplines, a synthesis of seemingly contradictory assumptions, and a grasp of research traditions so vast and confusing that an accurate rendering may seem implausible. And yet, to tell the story of the immigration debate in the age of terrorism, polarization, and Trump in any other way is to tell it in part. The immigration debate in the United States has always been about openness. Two questions in particular—how open should the door be and what type of immigrant should walk through it—have characterized policy disputes for well over a century. In the current debate, expansionists want to see more legal immigrants in the U.S. and greater tolerance, if not respect, for immigrants. Restrictionists favor lower levels of immigration, stronger borders, and tighter law enforcement measures to stop the stream of ‘illegal’ migration and alleged crime. The aim of this book is to describe how these opposing views materialized in the news media, political rhetoric, and, ultimately, in policy. Much of our argument rests on the idea that history matters, that the dominant narrative about immigration is in constant flux, and that the ‘winner’ of the immigration debate is determined by a vector of contextual elements: the joint impact of current events, enduring traditions, and political-economic forces. Our approach to the immigration debate avoids deterministic claims and grand-scale projections. Although we argue with conviction that a climate of fear played an important role in shaping the debate, the fear itself and its effects on social attitudes and public policy were neither inevitable nor necessarily long lasting.

In the wake of the September 11 attacks, Americans were confronted with a new kind of war and a new kind of danger. After the strikes, institutions were created to mobilize the domestic response to potential terrorist threats and Congress passed legislation giving the president broad powers to fight terrorism and to provide heightened security for the nation. In this timely work, a team of experts addresses the question of how a democracy faces the challenge of balancing legitimate homeland security concerns against the rights and freedoms of its citizens. They evaluate the measures introduced in the aftermath of 9/11 and assess the far-reaching consequences of those changes for American politics and society.

The lethality of lone-wolf terrorism has reached an all-time high in the United States. Isolated individuals using firearms with high-capacity magazines are committing brutally efficient killings with the aim of terrorizing others, yet there is little consensus on what connects these crimes and the motivations behind them. In The Age of Lone Wolf Terrorism, terrorism experts Mark S. Hamm and Ramón Spaaij combine criminological theory with empirical and ethnographic research to map the pathways of lone-wolf radicalization, helping with the identification of suspected behaviors and recognizing patterns of indoctrination. Reviewing comprehensive data on these actors, including more than two hundred terrorist incidents, Hamm and Spaaij find that a combination of personal and political grievances lead lone wolves to befriend online sympathizers—whether jihadists, white supremacists, or other antigovernment extremists—and then announce their intent to commit terror when triggered. Hamm and Spaaij carefully distinguish between lone wolves and individuals radicalized within a group dynamic. This important difference is what makes this book such a significant manual for professionals seeking richer insight into the transformation of alienated individuals into armed warriors. Hamm and Spaaij conclude with an analysis of recent FBI sting operations designed to prevent lone-wolf terrorism in the United States, describing who gets targeted, strategies for luring suspects, and the ethics of arresting and prosecuting citizens.

Terrorism is one of the forces defining our age, but it has also been around since some of the earliest civilizations. This one-of-a-kind study of the history of terrorism — from ancient Assyria to the post-9/11 War on Terror — puts terrorism into broad historical, political, religious and social context. The book leads the reader through the shifting understandings and definitions of terrorism through the ages, and its continuous development of themes allows for a fuller understanding of the uses of and responses to terrorism. The study of terrorism is constantly growing and ever changing. In Terrorism: A History, Randall Law gives students and general readers access to this rich field through the most up-to-date research combined with a much-needed long-range historical perspective. He extensively covers jihadism, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Northern Ireland and the Ku Klux Klan plus lesser known movements in Uruguay, Algeria and even the pre-modern uses of terror in ancient Rome, medieval Europe and the French Revolution, among other topics.