About Article

This article approaches a hitherto understudied topic in counterterrorism discourse, namely argumentative speech, as it relates to measures impacting on human rights. Frame analysis is applied for the first time in this area to statements and other types of ‘public speech’ communicated by the main US and EU executive institutions between September 2001 and September 2010. After detailing some methodological consid erations, the article focuses on the pragmatic justification pattern and assesses its persuasion potential along a series of resonance criteria. It then argues for a more rigor ous analysis of normative argumentation along a series of inductively derived analytical concepts and for a switch in focus from the liberty versus security trade-off and from the notion of exceptionalism towards that of pragmatism, given the increased odds of ‘success’ of this type of argumentation in the context of de facto normative change