In this extract, Massumi shifts his attention to the concept of threat. More specifically, he attempts to define what constitutes a threat, what the social and political implications are, and whether certain responses to perceived threats are legitimate.

Massumi explains that a threat, regardless of the form it takes, can come at any time, and the time and date when a threat will manifest itself is generally unknowable. Additionally, “even though a clear and present danger materializes in the present, it is still not over”
(53). The possibility that a threat will evolve into something of an even more serious nature, and will subsequently present itself in a more threatening form, always remains. Essentially, this means that we all are, to some extent, …show more content…
A domestic terror attack or unknown strains of bacteria which are immune to all known forms of antibiotics are prime examples of threats as defined by
Massumi.
The question which must be asked is how can such threats of unquantifiable magnitude be handled both humanely and effectively?
Reference is made to George Bush and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when
Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein’s regime posed an immediate threat to
America and her interests. Due to this perceived threat, he pre-emptively invaded Iraq based on what "Saddam could have done, not what he didn't do’’ (54). It was to be later proven that Saddam's regime did not actually possess weapons of mass destruction as previously claimed by the US government, but was the U.S. response still justified in view of the perceived threat? In this context, is unilateral preemptive action by a person or state rightfully warranted? Although a nation’s prime directive can be considered the security and safety of its citizens, throughout history, governments have tended to use perceived threats as a legitimate excuse to bend and break both national and international laws. If not held