This book is about the relationship between language and security. More specifically, it explores how the language of security constitutes and constrains certain actions both when and after it is spoken and afterwards. Empirically it is argued that the language employed by the Bush administration to justify the Iraq War legitimated certain kinds of practices but not others in the name of security. This process of legitimation, in turn, had serious implications for setting the rules of engagement and play both inside this particular context as well as outside it in other settings. The ambition to explore these issues requires consideration of two deeper theoretical themes. Our first goal is to open up and reflect upon the linguistic paradox.