Butler claims that the violence unleashed by the United States in its preemptive war after 9/11 was unethical and that the United States, in its violent imperialism, helped to create the conditions that “bred” the violence of the attacks. At the same time, the author argues that to insist that the United States got what it deserved in being attacked is also deeply problematic. Why, specifically, is Butler opposed to this final response, on ethical grounds?

Butler argues that, in the case of “indefinite detention” in Guantanamo Bay, the law should not be suspended, but also argues that reinstating the law is not enough and is not what they are calling for in the argument. What else is Butler calling for, and why is the law not enough?

How do the charges of “terrorist-sympathizer” when attached to criticism of the United States’ response to 9/11 and “antisemite” when attached to criticism of Israel’s policies do similar political work?