foucault k - northwestern 2015

7/25/2019 Foucault K - Northwestern 2015

1/107

NDI 4wk Sophomores

Foucault K


2/107

FYI

What does police or police state mean in context tothe N! e"idence#

$ohnson %&4(Andrew PhD student in Political Science at the Uni- versityof California at Santa Barbara Foucault: Critical heory of the Police in a!eoliberal A"e# heoria$ %ssue &'&$ ol) *&$ !o) ' (Dece+ber ,&'.: /-,0doi:&)1&*23th),&')*&&'&, 33 Co4enhaver.

Foucault5s use of the ter+ 64olice5 is 4ervasive) Foucault5s 7rst reference is in8istory of 9adness (4ublished in French in &0*&. and he Birth of the Clinic(4ublished in French &0*1.$ both written years before his 4rison 4ubli-cation), 6he Birth of Social 9edicine5 (&02*. and 6he Politics of 8ealth in thei"hteenth Century5 (&02'. de4ict a +edical 4olice$ the 9edi;inische4- oli;ei(Foucault ,: 0'


3/107

N! 'eneric

(he plan is insepara)le *rom the police state You should

"iew the +! with extreme skepticism )ecause the plan ismerel, a )ene"olent mo"e to make the police state seema little )it more )eni-n. which onl, creates the conditions*or sur"eillance to )ecome much more insidious/

$ohnson %&4(Andrew PhD student in Political Science at the Uni- versityof California at Santa Barbara Foucault: Critical heory of the Police in a!eoliberal A"e# heoria$ %ssue &'&$ ol) *&$ !o) ' (Dece+ber ,&'.: /-,0doi:&)1&*23th),&')*&&'&, 33 Co4enhaver.

Eere+y Bentha+5s Pano4ticon was never intended to be solely an architec-tural blue4rint for a 4rison$ but was$ fro+ the outset$ a 4lan for all ty4es of

"overn+ental institutions) %n Pano4ticonJ or %ns4ection 8ouse (&2>2.$ he enti-tled his desi"n an: 6idea of a new 4rinci4le of construction ))) a44licable to anysort of establish+ent: Prisons$ 8ouses of industry$ Kor?houses$ Poor 8ouses$9anufactories$ 9adhouses$ a;arettos$ 8os4itals$ and Schools5 (Ben- tha+&00/: ,0.) +s a model *or mana-in- and controllin- populations. 0en1tham2s 3anopticon structures and -o"erns all o* societ,) Foucaultsubstantiates this e4ansive 4urview throu"hout his entire oeuvreJ in his&02>/.)N (he 3anopticon ismost commonl, ali-ned with *actories. schools. militar, )arracksand hospitals/his is evidence of Foucault5s desire to 6cut oI the head ofthe =in"5 in 4olitical analysis (Foucault &02>: >0J &0>: &,&.) Fou- cault see?sto under+ine the e4lanatory sway of state 4ower in 4olitical 4hi-loso4hy byidentifyin" disci4linary techniues 6swar+in" freely5 throu"hout the socialbody (Foucault &022: ,&&.) 8owever$ the 6de-institutionali;ed5 and diIuse


4/107

nature of disci4linary 4ower is Guta4osed with the 6state-control of the+echanis+s of disci4line5 (ibid): ,&1.) he Australian sociolo"ist 9itchellDean$ in his early wor? on Foucault$ fairly wonders: 68ow is it 4ossible that hisheadless body often behaves as if it indeed has a headO5 (Dean &00': &/*.) N(he police are the state institution controllin- disciplinar,mechanics/7(he or-ani8ation o* the police apparatus in the

ei-hteenth centur, sanctioned a -enerali8ation o* the disciplinesthat )ecame co1extensi"e with the state itsel*2 (ibid): ,&/.) Disciplinespreads throu-hout the whole social )od,. includin- non1stateinstitutions actin- as prox,1disciplinar, or sel*1disciplinin- institu1tions. )ut the State is neither passi"e nor idle. acti"el,administerin- and re-1 ulatin-/he 4olice institution brea?s throu"h abloc?ade$ where disci4line is rele"ated to enclosed institutions$ freein" theconce4t to be used as a functional +echanis+ a44ro4riate for all of society)Discipline. in the hands o* the police. 7impro"e9s: the exercise o*power ), makin- it li-hter. more rapid. more e;ec1 ti"e. a desi-n o*su)tle coercion *or a societ, to come /// one o* a -enerali8edsur"eillance /// the *ormation o* what mi-ht )e called in -eneral the

discipli1 nar, societ,2 (ibid): ,0.) he 4olice are the ee+4lar institutionindicative of a 6disci4linary "enerali;ation5 (ibid).$ by 6disci4linin" the non-disci4linary s4aces5 (ibid): ,&/e?uirin- a *unctionalmecha1 nism o* control. the 3anopticon is applied as a "ast policin-schema. carr,in- out a 7-enerali8ed sur"eillance2 upon the whole

social 6eld/5 (:his power had to )e -i"en the instrument o*

permanent. exhausti"e. omnipresent sur"eillance. capa)le o*

makin- all "isi)le. as lon- as it could itsel* remain in"isi1 )le/ %t had

to be li?e a faceless "a;e that transfor+ed the whole social body into a 7eldof 4erce4tion: thousands of eyes 4osted everywhere (ibid): ,&'.)Nhe 4oliceare characterised by their surveillance of the civil 4o4ulation) hey aree+4owered to see everythin"J nothin" should be too s+all or inconse-uential enou"h to esca4e their "a;e) his bein" an i+4ossible endeavour.Foucault notes that police sur"eillance )ecomes a 7dou)le1entr,s,stem2 (ibid): ,&'.) he infa+ous letters de cachets$ 4ublicly derided as4roof of arbitrary absolutis+$ were de+anded by fa+ily +e+bers$nei"hbours$ nobles and 4arish 4riests) Societ, colludes. e;ecti"el,policin- itsel*) Police$ lac?in" a sin"le tower which can oversee everythin"$relies u4on a self-disci4linin" society$ a thousand dutiful eyes$ delinuentsand citi;ens ali?e$ 67llin"Q the "a4s$ lin?in"Q the+ to"ether5 (ibid): ,&/.$diIusin" surveillance throu"hout the social 7eld) @i)eral policin- entailscircular rein*orcement throu-h a network o* perpetual and mutualsur"eillance/Foucault a--ressi"el, concludes 7We are /// in thepanoptic machine2(ibid): ,&2.) %n Disci4line and Punish$ the 4olice are +oreclosely ali"ned with Fichte than 8e"el) Fichte5s 4ass4ort 4olice$ a 4role4ticforetellin" of a buddin" totalitarian security-state$ arran"e the constant andcontinuous re"ulation of 4eo- 4les and +ove+ents by +eans of identifyin"4a4ers$ and is dia+etrically o44osed to the welfare-state 4atrolled by 8e"el5s4oli;ei) rH"oire Cha+ayou is +ista?en when he clai+s that: 6% thin? that this


5/107

ty4e of technolo"y of 4ower Fichte5s 4ass4ort 4oliceQ is +ar?edly diIerentthan the one described by Fou- cault under the na+e of Pano4ticis+5(Cha+ayou ,&1.) Foucault5s history of the 4rison is iso+or4hic with thecontrol of society by the 4olice) he +icro- 4hysics or"anisin" disci4linary4ower are four-fold: hierarchical surveillance$ continuous re"istration$4er4etual assess+ent and classi7cation) 8ierarchical surveillance receives

the +ost attention$ because of its o+inous o+ni4resence and nor+alisin"aIectJ however$ the 4olice also re"ister$ assess and classify (e)") +andatin"identifyin" 4a4ers and controllin" 4oints of accessJ asse+- blin" easilyattainable historical records.$ constitutin" a "eneralised and total- isin"surveillance a44aratus$ a 4olyvalent syste+ of dyna+ic control) Pass4orts$ as?eleton ?ey 4rovidin" access to various control 4oints$ are cohe- sivelyinte"rated into the lo"ic of 4ano4ticis+)& Foucault clai+s$ 6a surveil- lancethat was once de Gure and which is today de factoJ the 4olice record that hasta?en the 4lace of the convict5s 4ass4ort5 (Foucault &022: ,2,.)N %t is a truis+that: 7(oda, we li"e in a societ, /// where panopticism rei-ns2/ (hepolice are the archet,pal panoptic institution e"ident in e"er,da,.*ree li*e/Foucault5s Disci4line and Punish$ a history of the 4rison that

tan"entially founds a critical theory of the 4olice$ blea?ly 4ronounces that+odern con7"- urations of 4ower allow nothin" to esca4e and are at wor?everywhere)

0iopower puts the people in a *alse sense o* nationalisticpride *or their countr, while it takes drastic measures toprotect the population A turns caseKell, &B 9ar?$ Clinical Senior ecturer$ @bstetrics$ ynaecolo"y and!eonatolo"y$ Kest+ead Clinical School$ acis+$ !ationalis+ and Bio4olitics:Foucault5s Society 9ust Be Defended# Sydney)edu$htt4:33sydney)edu)au3contrete+4s3'se4te+ber,'3=elly)4dfQ eynoso

he United States see+s ready to tolerate hi"her levels of casualties in theKar on error than in other recent conRicts) @ne e4lanation for this could+a?e reference to a retreat of bio4olitical values in the US) here have beenRuctuations in the 4enetration of bio4olitics in relation to the old soverei"n4ower to ?ill: the so-called Kar on error is 4erha4s indicative of a retreat) Anotable recent re"ain for the ri"ht to ?ill has been the re-etension of ca4ital4unish+ent in the US)%t would see+ 4lausible to cou4le this with the e4ublican ad+inistration inthe US and the +ove to wa"e new wars and deduce a li+ited revival of the old +odel of soverei"n 4owerresidin" in the ri"ht to ?ill) 8owever$ it see+s that there is also a shyin" away fro+ the ?inds of attac?s onene+y 4o4ulations seen in 4revious wars) Khile lar"e nu+bers of civilians do die$ there is an undeniablesuea+ishness about this now) here is no +ore (ocial. tal? of bo+bin" 4eo4le bac? into the Stone A"e)!a4al+ is used under a diIerent na+e$ 4recisely because its use is contentious) 8ere there see+ to have

been "eneral "ains for the bio4olitical over the ri"ht to ?ill since the ietna+ Kar) 8owever$ there is anundeniable willin"ness to wa"e wars that were not acce4table beforeSe4te+ber &&) @ne +i"ht ar"ue that with Se4te+ber && there has been so+e ?ind ofbreach of the bio4olitical co+4act in the United States$ or in the Kest"enerally$ which allows the 4ublic to tolerate the loss of A+erican lives$ withthe lar"e nu+bers ?illed in !ew Mor? bein" so+ethin" bio4olitically shelteredA+ericans are si+4ly not used to)But this would be wron"$ because it is 4recisely because ofbio4olitics that this attac? a44ears as such an uns4ea?able atrocityTotherwise it +i"ht see+ li?e arational act of war$ rather than an uns4ea?able act of evil outside of the real+ of co+4rehensible$ valid
http://sydney.edu.au/contretemps/4september2004/Kelly.pdfhttp://sydney.edu.au/contretemps/4september2004/Kelly.pdf


6/107

hu+an conduct) For bio4ower$ Se4te+ber && is unacce4table)1 Bio4olitics is about the re"ularity andstability of a 4o4ulation) @f course$ bio4ower co+es into its own in warti+e$ as in the Second Korld Kar inBritain$ thou"h it brea?s down when 4ut under too +uch 4ressure */ Contrete+4s '$ Se4te+ber ,' (as

in er+any towards the end of the sa+e war.) Bio4ower is ca4able of thrivin" under thethreat now i+4osed$ but it de+ands the i+4osition of +assive +easures forthe 4rotection of the 4o4ulation as such$ even if they a44ear 4aranoid fro+

the 4ers4ective of what is strictly necessary for 4rotection ) o understand this$ we+ust loo? to the o4eration of bio4olitics at the level of individuals) DiIerences in individuals5 values and4erce4tions are utterly necessary for the o4eration of bio4ower: it is both a condition of the 4ossibility of

bio4olitical technolo"y$ and a necessary 4art of its functionin") Bio4ower is a technolo"y$ andcan only be de4loyed if it is understood and desired) %t de+ands coo4erationfro+ a 4o4ulation$ de+ands that they ado4t 4ractices of hy"iene and +edicalself-+onitorin"$ of breedin"$ that they co+4ly with the +easure+ent of4o4ulation) %t de+ands a cessation of rando+ violence and an end to ?illin" )Part of a bio4olitical society is the horror of and taboo of death) Foucault in Society 9ust Be Defendedar"ues that this taboo is essentially due to the fact that 4ower no lon"er cares about death: rather thandeath bein" its stoc?-intrade$ death beco+es utterly 4rivate)1& %n any case$ for whatever reason$ death isseen as the ulti+ate evil) Khat Foucault describes is the 4olitical$ or rather the bio4olitical$ di+ension of

this)he need to defend A+erica fro+ attac? at the level of the 4o4ulation has

its corollary at the individual level in the horror of dyin" in such anun4redictable and violent way as havin" a 4lane tear into your oce whileyou are siftin" throu"h your s4a+ e-+ail)here is a 4sycholo"y which is bound u4 withconte+4orary econo+ics$ which is notoriously fra"ile$ as indicated in the inde of 6consu+er con7dence$

for ea+4le)his is the individual de+and for a re"ulari;ed lifestyle$ without the4ossibility of death$ certainly not violent or 64re+ature death (which is to say$irre"ular death.$ which essentially corres4onds to the sa+e de+and +adebio4olitically at the level of the 4o4ulation)1, %t is an intrinsic ele+ent of the technolo"y ofbio4olitics that 4eo4le not be concerned about dyin") Khen they feel under even a s+all threat ofetraordinary death in terrorist atrocities they will de+and the ut+ost +easures of their "overn+ent toe4tir4ate this$ and disru4tion to the econo+y will occur far beyond the direct destruction caused by anyterrorist act) he result of Se4te+ber &&$ then$ has been for bio4olitical society to "o on the oIensive) his

is nothin" 4articularly newTbio4olitical societies have wa"ed oIensives ever since

they have eisted) Se4te+ber &&$ however$constituted a new i+4etus for abio4olitical society to e4and$ to attac? to defend$ to launch a war which isnot 4ri+arily about the bio4olitical colonisation of new 4o4ulations but rathersi+4ly about the interests of the eistin" 4o4ulationTin the 7rst instance+eanin" the United States 4o4ulation) his necessitates a division alon"state racist lines between 6us and 6those who threaten us)

(he alternati"e is to reCect the +!/ >eCection createsspace *or criticism that is necessar, to challen-eassumptions that ha"e )ecome deepl, en-rained indominant metanarrati"es surroundin- sur"eillance polic,

David wen$ Professor of Social and Political Philoso4hy at the University ofSoutha+4ton$ EE4$ 9orality and 9odernity) 44) ,>-,&) 33uo-tGs(he 7uni"ersal2 intellectual$ on Foucault5s account$ is that 6-ure whomaintains a commitment to criti?ue as a le-islati"e acti"it, in whichthe pi"otal positin- o* uni"ersal norms or uni"ersal procedures *or-eneratin- norms< -rounds politics in the 7truth2 o* our )ein- e/-/our 7real2 interests


7/107

as hu+anis+ si+ultaneously asserts and under+ines autono+y) %f$ however$ this is the case$ whatalternati"e conceptions of the role of the intellectual and the activity of critiue canFoucault present to usOFoucault2s ela)oration o* the speci6cintellectual pro"ides thebe"innin"s of an answerto this uestion: I dream o* theintellectual whodestroys evidence and "eneralities$ the one who$ in theinertias andconstraints o* the present time. locates and marks the weak points.

the openin-s. the lines o* *orce. who is incessantl, on the mo"e.doesn2t know exactl, where he is 9the, are: headin- nor what he

9the,: will think tomorrow . *or he is too attenti"e to the present (PPC4) &,'. he historicity of thou"ht$ the i+4ossibility of locatin" an Archi+edean 4oint outside ti+e$ leadsFoucault to locate intellectual activity as an on"oin" attentiveness to the 4resent in ter+s of what is

sin"ular and arbitrary in what we ta?e to be universal and necessary) Followin" fro+ this$ the

intellectual does not seek to o;er -rand theories )ut speci6c

anal,ses $not "lobal but local criticis+) Ke should be clear on the latter 4oint for it is necessary to

ac?nowled"e that Foucault2s position does entail the impossi)ilit, o*7accedin- to a point o* "iew that could -i"e us access to an,complete and de6niti"e knowled-e o* what ma, constitute our

historical limits2 and$ conseuently$ 6we are always in the 4osition of bar"ainin" a"ain5 (F 4) '2.)(he upshot o* this reco-nition o* the partial character o* criticism isnot. howe"er. to produce an ethos o* *atal resi-nation )ut$in so far as it

involves a reco"nition that everythin" is dan"erous$ a 7h,per and pessimistic acti"ism2

(F 4) 1'1.) %n other words. it is the "er, historicit, and particularit, o*criticism which )estows on the acti"it, o* criti?ue its di-nit, andur-enc,) Khat of this activity thenO Ke can s?etch the Foucault account of the activity of critiue byco+in" to "ri4s with the o44osition he draws between ideal critiue and real transfor+ation) Foucault

su""ests that the activity of criti?ue is not a matter o* sa,in- that thin-s arenot ri-ht as the, are )ut rathero* pointin- out on what kinds o*assumptions$ what ?inds of fa+iliar$unchallen"ed$ uncontested +odes of thou"htthepractices we accept rest (PPC 4)&/'. (he"enealo"ical thrust o* this criticalacti"it, is 7toshow that thin"s are not as self-evident as one believed$ to see that what isaccepted as sel*1e"ident is no lon-er accepted as such2 *or 7as soonas one can no lon-er think thin-s as one *ormerl, thou-ht them.trans*ormation )ecomes both very ur"ent$ very dicult$ and?uite possi)le2(PPC 4)&//.) he ur"ency of transfor+ation derives fro+ the contestation of thou"ht (and the social 4ractices in

which it is e+bedded. as the for+ of our autono+y$ althou"hthis ur-enc, is -i"en itss4eci7ccharacter for +odern culture), the reco-nition that thehumanist-rammar of this thou"htties us into the technical matrix o* )iopolitics)(he speci6cit, o* intellectual practice and this account o* the acti"it,o* criti?ue come to-ether in the re*usal to le-islate a uni"ersaldetermination o* 7what is ri-ht2 in *a"our o* the perpetualpro)lemati8ation o* the present/%t is not a uestion$ for Foucault$ of invo?in" a

deter+ination of who we are as a basis for critiue but of locatin" whatwe are now as the basis forre4osin" the uestion 6who are weO5 (he role o* the intellectual is thus not tospeak on )ehal* o* others(the dis4ossessed$ the downtrodden. )ut to create thespace within which others can speak *or themsel"es)he uestion re+ains$however$ as to the ca4acity of Foucault5s wor? to 4erfor+ this crucial activity throu"h an entrench+ent ofthe ethics of creativity as the structures of reco"nition throu"h which we reco"ni;e our autono+y in thecontestation of deter+inations of who we are)


8/107

@inks


9/107

!ourts

Empirics prove the US Supreme Court is an instrumentutitlized as a biopolitical tool by the sovereign state to

extend its control of their citizens this means that reformabout the ideology of the way its used must be addressedJennings 14 (Bruce, director of bioethics at the Center for Humans and Nature Encycloedia ofBioethics!htt"##$$$%geneticsandsociety%org#do$nloads#Bioolitics&Essay%df' oronda

)he history of bioolitics in social and olitical ad*ocacy+both as a term and as a set of concerns raised byde*eloments in the life sciences and the biotechnologyindustry+has been less fre-uently discussed than has itsacademic genealogy% . full discussion of this history$ould be an imortant contribution to understanding thecurrentlandscae of bioolitics% )his entry ro*ides /ust afe$ landmar0s on a rather s0etchy ma%Emergence of ssues% 2e*erale*ents in the mid3156sresaged the emergence of bioolitics in the 7nited 2tatesand around the $orld% )heublication in 158 ofEd$ard 9% :ilsons 2ociobiology" )he Ne$ 2ynthesis, $hich argued that genetics rather than socialanden*ironmental conditions are determinant in indi*idualhuman beha*ior and in social formations, sar0ed heatedcontro*ersy about the olitics of biology% .lso in 158some 146 biologists, hysicians, la$yers, and othersgathered inCalifornia at the .silomar Conference on;ecombinant


10/107

first century,! cuttingacross the eisting olitical lines%!Hughes distinguishesbet$een$hat he calls right bioconser*ati*es! and leftbioconser*ati*es! and describes a olari=ation bet$eenthetranshumanist and bioconser*ati*e ositions $ithinbioolitics! (Hughes D611, 1>8'%)he Center for ?enetics and2ociety (C?2', $ith$hich both authors of this entry are or ha*e beenaffiliated, $as founded in D661% ts initial focus$as thethreat to social /ustice and e-uality raised by the rosectof inheritable genetic modifications that could beenabledby cloning, gene transfer, and assisted reroducti*etechnologies% C?2s mission statement, ublished ontheorgani=ations $ebsite, signaled its commitments tofundamental rogressi*e rinciles, including the e-uitablero*ision of health technologies,! reroducti*erights, disability rights, and a recautionary aroach tone$

technologies (Center for ?enetics and 2ocietyD61Aa'% )he organi=ation soon adoted the termbioolitics in D66> itestablished a blog called Bioolitical)imes, accessible through its $ebsite% or C?2 the termrogressi*e bioolitics andthe hrase a ne$ biooliticsconnote a commitment to social /ustice, human rights,and ublic3interest *alues% C?2 has$or0ed $ith scholarsacross a range of discilines, including la$, sociology,anthroology, ublic health, biology, andscience and technology studies, and $ith ad*ocates romoting *ariousissues, including reroducti*e health, rights, and/usticeracial /ustice disability rights and en*ironmentalism(Center for ?enetics and 2ociety D61Ab'%B99G)C.G

C9N);9IE;2E2:hat does bioolitics loo0 li0e on the contemoraryoliticallandscae)his section offers se*eral briefcomments on selectedbioolitical issuesthat ha*eemerged asolitically or socially significant in thet$enty3first century% )his is far from an ehausti*e listthe issues discussed here

ha*e been chosen because theyare $idely recogni=ed as olitically salient, ha*e triggeredlegislation or/udicial decisions, or ha*e been engagedby ublic3interest organi=ations andci*il3societyconstituencies%

Political institutions in society such as the Supreme Court are able to refine the rights of the states individualsthrough torture and therefore cause them to live life underan abusive regime

Kamin > (.licia, board member of hysicians for Human ;ights and is currently collaborating$ith the ;eroducti*e ;ights ro/ect at the Columbia 2chool of ublic HealthHuman RightsQuarterly


11/107

intention of the go*ernment to torture and the desire of the indi*idual to retaincontrol o*er her body% 2econd, there are obser*able actors, $ith the go*ernmentagent being the sub/ect $ho acts on the *ictim, $ho is the ob/ect% )hird, there is anobser*able outcome% )hat is, that the torture is conducted e*idences the o$er ofthe go*ernment% n this *ie$ torture is not merely a *iolation of human rights

because it inflicts ain, but because it deri*es the *ictim of the most elementalcontrol o*er her body and her entire affecti*e $orld% n so doing, torture deniescomletely a ersonQs agency, $hich in turn denies her caacity forconsciousness, $hich in turn denies her ersonhood% )hus, the hysical and sychologicalse-uelae of torture constitute e*idence of the *iolation of a right to health, but do not constitute the *iolation er se%

Here, it is imortant to oint out ho$ this form of direct o$er o*er health statuscan be seen as directed simultaneously at indi*iduals and grous% or instance, $hen ra-used biological $arfare against Rurds in the northern ortion of that country, the indi*idual Rurd $as targeted as an

ob/ect of the go*ernmentQs action by *irtue of being art of a certain ethnic, social, and economic collecti*ity% n the7nited 2tates, feminist scholars ha*e ointed out in critici=ing the reasoning underlying the 2uremeCourtQs decision in ;oe *% :ade that restricting the right of abortion $ouldconstitute effecti*ely an attac0 on the seual e-uality of all $omen and not

merely a limitation of indi*idual interests in rocreati*e autonomy% 161)hese *iolationsof control o*er health status are $idesread and can often be egregious% Ho$e*er, they are also readily identifiable and, ingeneral, it is clear that remedying these *iolations calls for en/oining the direct beha*ior or olicy of the go*ernment or its

agents% )he /udiciary is an institution $hich is $ell3suited to arbitrating in o*ertconflicts of interest and en/oining abusi*e go*ernment actions% oreo*er, theenforcement ofEnd age 4D8O rohibitions on medical eerimentation, con*entionsestablishing medical neutrality during $ar, and re-uirements of sub/ectingmental atientsQ commitment orders to /udicial re*ie$ all resent issues ofsecuring eisting rights under eisting la$s or imorting $ell3established,traditional ci*il rights constructs to the health contet% n fact, although theygenerally emloy the rhetoric of the health imact of ci*il#olitical rights*iolations instead of the right to health itself, certain N?9s ha*e de*eloed

considerable eertise in both documentation and ad*ocacy in an effort to amassublic indignation $ith resect to this 0ind of health *iolation%16D


12/107

Drones

(he rhetorical *ocus on drones as uni?ue *orm o*suri"llence and "iolence is nai"e and *uels militarism

(rom)l, %(Dan ro+bly$ he Drone Kar Does !ot a?e Place#$ &*!ove+ber ,&,$ htt4:33slouchin"colu+bia)word4ress)co+3,&,3&&3&*3the-drone-war-does-not-ta?e-4lace3$ +Gb.

%5ll try to +a?e this a bit shorter than +y usual fare on the subGect$ but let +ebe clear about so+ethin") As +uch as % and +any others inadvertently usethe ter+$ there is no such thin- as drone war/here is no nuclear war$ noair war$ no naval war) here isn5t really even irre"ular war) (here2s Custwar/N here is$ of course$ drone warfare$ Gust as there is nuclear warfare$aerial warfare$ and naval warfare) (his is "er-in- on pedantr,. )ut theuse o* lan-ua-e does matter/ (he chan-in- conduct and character o*war should not )e con*used with its nature$ as Colin ray strives to

re+ind us in so +any of his writin"s) When we )elie"e that some aspecto* war*are chan-es the nature o* war whether we do so to despairits ethical descent or praise its technolo-ical mar"els. or to tr, too)Cecti"el, discern some new and irre"ersi)le realit, we lose si-hto* a lo-ic that ), and lar-e endures in its political and conceptualcharacter/58ence the title (with so+e$ but not too +uch$ a4olo"y toBaudrillard.) (here is no drone war. there is onl, the emplo,ment o*drones in the "arious wars we 6-ht under the misleadin- andconceptuall, noxious War on (error/ Khy does this +atterON (o im)uea weapons s,stem with the political properties o* the polic,emplo,in- it is *allacious. and to assume its mere presenceinstitutes new political realities relies on a denial o* *acts and

context/ (his remains the case with drones/ (he character o* warswa-ed with drones is di;erent the war*are is di;erent )ut thenature o* these wars do not chan-e. and "er, o*ten this ar-umento)scures the wider militar, operations occurrin-/5on" before the 7rstdrone stri?es occurred in So+alia$ A+erica was very +uch at war there)Before their availability in that theater$ the U)S) had de4loyed C%A and S@Fassets to the re"ion) %t su44orted thio4ia5s ar+ies and it hel4ed ban?roll andcoordinate 4roy "rou4s$ whether they were So+ali F units$ +ilitias$ or4rivate contractors) %t bo+barded select So+ali tar"ets with everythin" fro+naval "uns to AC-&1 "unshi4s to conventional stri?e aircraft) %t de4loyed

ES@C tea+s to ca4ture or ?ill So+alis) hat at so+e 4oint the U)S) acuired anew 4latfor+ to conduct these stri?es is not 4articularly relevant to the

character of that war and even less to its nature)N We sometimes assumedrones inau-urate some new t,pe o* in"inci)ilit, or sometranscendental trans*ormation o* war as an enterprise o* risk andmutual "iolence/ We are incorrect to do so) he war in So+alia iscertainly not ris? free for the 4eo4le who the U)S) e+4loys or contracts totar"et these drones) %t is not ris? free for the +ilitias$ +ercenaries$ or +ilitary4artners which follow u4 on the "round) !or is it ris? free for those whosu44ort the drones) Eust as? Abu alha al-Sudani$ one of the ?ey 7"ures


13/107

behind the &00> U)S) +bassy bo+bin"s in =enya and an;ania$ who sento4eratives to case Ca+4 e+onier and launch a co++ando raid < one whichloo?s$ in retros4ect$ very +uch li?e the one that cri44led 9arine aviation atCa+4 Bastion recently < that +i"ht have ?illed a "reat +any U)S) 4ersonnelon a base then and now critical to A+erican o4erations in the 8orn of Africaand ulf of Aden)N he eistence of ris? is an inherent 4roduct of an ene+y

whose will to 7"ht we have not yet overco+e) he de"ree of that inherentris? < whether it is ne"li"ible or "reat < is a 4roduct of relative +ilitaryca4abilities and war5s +ultifarious eternal contets) oo?ed at throu"h thislens$ it2s not drones that reduce G/S/ political and material risk. it2sthe )asic *acts o* the conHict/%n the ri"ht contet$ +ost any ?ind of+ilitary technolo"y can si"ni7cantly +iti"ate ris?s) A &0th century ironcladReet could shell the coast of a troubleso+e 4rinci4ality with basic i+4unity)Khen Dewey said$ Mou +ay 7re when ready$ ridley$# at 9anila Bay$accordin" to +ost history and +uch le"end he lost only one +an < due toheatstro?eV < while inRictin" "rievous casualties on his out-ran"ed and out-"unned S4anish foes) hat so+e historians have su""ested Dewey +ay haveconcealed a do;en casualties by fud"in" the+ in with desertions$ which were

in any case were a far "reater 4roble+ than casualties since the !avy wasstill in the habit of e+4loyin" forei"n sailors e4endable by the 4oliticalstandards of the day is even +ore tellin") Mes$ there are alwa,s risks andalmost alwa,s casualties e"en in the most un*air 6-hts. )ut Cust asG/S/ polic,makers wrote o; +sian sailors. the, write o; the "ictimso* death s?uads which hunt down the chippers. spotters. andin*ormants in 3akistan or the contractors trainin- 3untland2s anti1pirac, *orces/ And no$ not even the A+erican s4oo?s are untouchable$ thefallen at Ca+4 Cha4+an are testa+ent to that)N (his is hardl, uni?ue todrones or toda,2s co"ert wars) he C%A5s secret air Reet in %ndochina lost+en$ too$ and the 8+on" suIered +i"htily for their aid to the U)S) in theaotian civil war) he fall of i+a Site >/$ by virtue or de+erit of 4olicy$resonated little with the A+erican 4ublic but dee4ly +ar?s the intelli"enceco++unity and those branches of the +ilitary en"a"in" in clandestine action)

he wars we wa"e in Pa?istan$ Me+en$ and So+alia are not drone wars any+ore than our war in aos was an air war si+4ly because @4eration Barreloll5s bo+bers elicit +ore attention than the +uch +ore vulnerable 4ro4-driven s4ottin" aircraft or an" Pao5s +en on the "round)N (here is acertain hu)ris in thinkin- we can limit war ), limitin- its mostin*amous weapons s,stems/ (he ta)oo and treaties a-ainst chemicalweapons perhaps sa"ed men 9and wom,n:)ut not the !hinese atWuhan. nor the +llied and innocents downwind o* the SS $ohnar"e, at 0ari< *rom one o* the 'reat War2s particular horrors. )utthe, did nothin- apprecia)le to check the kind o* war the 'reat Warwas. or the h,persan-uinar, conse?uences o* its se?uel )ut a-eneration later/5(he 3redators and >eapers could ha"e ne"erexisted. and "er, likel, the G/S/ would still )e seekin- wa,s to carr,out its war a-ainst al Jaeda and its aliates under the auspices o*the +G=F in all o* toda,2s same theaters/9ore +i"ht die fro+ riRes$

o+ahaw?s$ Bofors "uns or Stri?e a"les5 EDA9s than re+otely-launchedrins$ and the te+4o of stri?es would abate) 0ut the same *undamentalpro)lems the opa?ue decisions to kill. the esoteric le-al


14/107

Custi6cations *or doin- so. the o)tuse o)Cecti"es these *urther would all remain/ Were it not *or the exa--erated and almost m,opic*ocus on killer ro)ots. the G/S/ pu)lic would likel, pa, *ar lessattention to the "ictims. excesses. and contradictions/ 0ut )lamin-drones ?ua drones *or these pro)lems/ or *earin- their proli*eration

at home. makes little more sense than )lamin- helicopters *or

Lietnam $ or fearin" air+obile assaults when DC 9PD5s 9D-/s bu;; over

+y nei"hborhood)N (hat concern that proli*eration o* a weaponss,stem e?uates to proli*eration o* the outcomes associated withthem. without re-ard to context. is e?uall, misleadin-) !obody inA+erica should fear the e4ansion of the Chinese UA Reet because$ li?e theU)S) UA Reet$ it is +erely "oin" to e4and their ability to do what si+ilaraircraft were already doin") Any country with +odern air defenses can +a?e+ince+eat of drone-only sorties$ and for that reason China$ which unli?e

Me+en and Pa?istan would not consent to wanton U)S) bo+bin" of itscountryside$ need not fear drones) For an enor+ous nu+ber of "eo"ra4hical$4olitical$ and +ilitary reasons$ the U)S) ou"ht fear the drone war# co+in"

ho+e even less) Drones do not -rant a countr, the a)ilit, to conductthe kind o* wars we conduct a-ainst +J+=/ (he political le"era-e to)uild )ases and clear airspaces. and the militar, and intelli-encecapa)ilities to miti-ate an as,mmetric countermeasure operationdo/ I* another countr, -ains that a)ilit, to conduct them a-ainst asmaller countr,. e"en. it is not )ecause the, lacked the a)ilit, to putweapons on planes. )ut )ecause o* the *ull tapestr, o* nationalpower and militar, capa)ilities -a"e them such an a)ilit,/5%t was notasy++etry in basic technical ability that +ade the U)S) sub+arine bloc?adeof Ea4an so +uch +ore eIective than the Ais5s atte+4ts to do the sa+ea"ainst A+erica5s shores$ but the total sco4e of the assets in the 7eld andcontet of their use) %t was not because of 4recedent or +oral euivalence$ or

lac? thereof that the Ais could bo+b Britain or lose the ability to do so$ butbecause of the cu+ulative eIect of +ilitary ca4abilities and the Gud"+ents"uidin" the+) Khat +i"ht e4and the battle7eld of a drone war# is +uchthe sa+e/ +merica2s enemies do not re*rain *rom attackin- )ases in!NGS or tar-etin- dissidents in the G/S) (not that they have notbefore.$ the, wait *or an opportunit, and practical reason to do so.and that has "er, little to do with drones in particular and e"en lessthe nature o* the war itsel*/N Fearin- that the mere use o* a weaponss,stem determines the wa, in which our enemies will use it withoutre-ard to this context is not prophetic wisdom/ It is ?uasi1Spen-lerian h,per"entilation that attri)utes the decision to use*orce to childlike mimesis rather than its *undamentall, political

purposes/ Iran and >ussia do not wait on drones to conductextraCudicial tar-eted killin-s. and indeed drones would )e o* muchless use to them in their own political contexts/ Focusin- on dronesand the nature o* tar-eted killin-s as some sort o* inherent linki-nores those contexts and ultimatel, does a disser"ice tounderstandin- o* wars past. present. and *uture. and ), doin- so.does little help and possi)l, a -reat deal o* harm tounderstandin- how to mo"e *orward/


15/107

WWWnote: evidence edited for "endered lan"ua"e


16/107

FIS+

!S" is a tool of biopower that allows the state toreconfigure itself to further utilize their control over

citizensassa*ant S8 (.ssociate rofessor of olitical 2cience at Hobart and :illiam 2mith Colleges )he2trong Neo3liberal 2tate" Crime, Consumtion, ?o*erance! htts"##muse3/hu3edu%turing%library%north$estern%edu#/ournals#theory&and&e*ent#*66@#@%Aassa*ant%htmlMauth

bio' oronda

)he olitical mentality of the consumer3criminal double based in a olitics of fearthat identifies the ris0 of certain threatsas beyond toleration informed olitical ractices rior to2etember 11th% or eamle, the .nti3)errorism and Effecti*e (.E


17/107

account for o*er half of all federal $iretaing conducted, it aears that the $ill focus in $hat follo$s on three asects of go*erning sub/ects as consumers%irst, go*erning sub/ects as consumers means inserting sub/ects into net$or0s ofsur*eillance that can *astly eand state o$er in light of the stateQs o$ers tocomel a search (for eamle, through a 2. $arrant'% 2econd, consumerism has led to amerger of mar0et and state interests that *astly eands state o$er such that the state no longer needs to rely uon a

$arrant to comel a single ri*ate arty li0e a boo0store or a library to roduce information% ncreasingly, the stateis go*erning through consumerism and the commodification of information thatthis roduces% )his merger of state and mar0et interests has roduced t$o conse-uences% (.' Consumerism leads

to the comilation of *ast databases, and comanies ha*e formed to ta0e ad*antage of this situation by comilinginformation from multile sources and then selling access to this data% ndeed, information comilation has become ahighly rofitable industry% .s shall elain belo$, the fact that these databases are ri*ately comiled aradoicallyenhances the stateQs o$ers% (B' urthermore, in light of the fact that much of this information rofiles consumers andthat, in see0ing access to this information, the state is relying uon consumerist mentalities, $e can see that the logic ofgo*ernance is increasingly based on hierarchi=ed mar0et segments rather than a logic of e-ual citi=enshi% )hird, utili=ingconsumerism to see0 security means that as mar0ets are established for security 33 often than0s to go*ernment contracts33 sta0eholders in this order (i%e%, those $ho hold a financial sta0e in this state order' are created $ho $ill resist any future

change% ?o*erningthrough consumerism, then, reconfigures both the state and caitalism%


18/107

@e-al FrameworksM>e*orm@e-al *rameworks are Cust a *aade *or the -o"ernment to

escape criticisms o* their h,pocritical actions leads to

torture and human ri-hts "iolations

Sanders$ %(ebecca$ Doctor of Philoso4hy at the De4art+ent of PoliticalScience University of oronto ce4tional Security Practices$ 8u+an i"htsAbuses$ and the Politics of e"al e"iti+ation in the A+erican lobal Kar on

error#htt4s:33ts4ace)library)utoronto)ca3bitstrea+3&>231,>>313SandersXebeccaX,&,*XPhDXthesis)4dfAccess Date 23&13&/ Shar+a.

@ther 4oc?ets of ece4tion have e+er"ed in the history of A+erican torture $+ost notably in the 4enal syste+) Chain "an"s subGected 4risoners to notoriouslybrutal conditions)arious water tortures wereco++only e+4loyed at Sin" Sin"and San Yuentin 4risonsin nineteenth century)21 Folso+ 4rison had a chloride of

li+e cell that created burnin" noious fu+es)2' Durin" Korld Kar %$conscientious obGectors were tortured in custody) Khile President Kilson cha+4ionedde+ocracy abroad$ 4risoners found the+selves subGected to a litany of abuses)2/ As described in a &0&>account by for+er detainees at the Ca+4 Funston uard 8ouse in =ansas: he @cer of the Day#Q4roceeded to abuse and insult us$ referrin" to those of Eewish birth as da+n ?i?es$# etc) 8e then had ourbeds and blan?ets ta?en fro+ us$ and ordered that we be "iven raw rations T 4or? and beans T which wewere to coo? in the latrine$ if we wanted to eatZ%n the afternoon arsen was brutally assaulted$ bein"cho?ed$ his head ban"ed a"ainst the wall$ and dra""ed around the roo+ by the Ser"eant of the "uardsZhe bayonet was a44lied to all of us T arsen receivin" a scar) =a4lan and Bre"er were beaten with thebutt end of the riRe) All were ?ic?ed and shoved aboutZ Ke were co+4elled to ta?e a cold shower once inthe +ornin" and once in the afternoon)))he Ca4tain hi+self brou"ht forth scrubbrushes$ used ordinarilyfor cleanin" toilet seats and broo+s used for swee4in"$ and ordered that we scrub each other with the+Z9r) =a4lan was forced to re+ain seated while cold water was tric?led on his head and this 4rocess wascontinued until he fainted$ while 9r) =a4lan was bound with his hands above his head in a +anner so4ainful that he felt his ar+s were bein" bro?en and the 4ain caused hi+ to screa+ re4eatedlyZ 9ost of

the +istreat+ent too? 4lace outside$# notes the re4ort$ with lar"e "rou4s watchin" the sorry and revoltin"s4ectacle of defenseless +en bein" +ost brutally 4unched$ shoved$ and abused)#2* %n Delaware$ the

whi44in" 4ost re+ained a le"islated 4unish+ent until &02,)22 ven today$ +any 4risonershave been subGect to beatin"s$ stun shoc?s$ che+ical s4rays$ and seualassault while incarcerated) 8u+an ri"hts investi"ations have uncovered asyste+ic failure to 4revent and 4rosecute wides4read seual abuse ofwo+en2> and 9oreover$ the 4unitive3disci4linary 4ractice of solitarycon7ne+ent +ay ar"uably a+ount to torture when i+4osed for etended4eriods) Kith the e4losion of su4er+a# 4risons$ the once dar? dirty hole# has "onehi"h tech) %n so+e 4laces$ the environ+ent is so severe that 4eo4le end u4co+4letely isolated$ con7ned in constantly bri"ht or constantly di+ s4aceswithout any +eanin"ful hu+an contactTtorturous conditions that are 4rovento cause +ental deterioration$# notes an investi"ative re4ort) > %n +uch the sa+e waythat a 4revious "eneration of A+ericans countenanced le"ali;ed se"re"ation$ours has countenanced le"ali;ed torture) And there is no clearer+anifestation of this than our routine use of solitary con7ne+entTon ourown 4eo4le$ in our own co++unities$ in a su4er+a 4rison$# ar"ues Atulawande)>& %t should be clear fro+ this discussion that le"al 4rohibition does notnecessarily4revent torture) ven after states have acce4ted hu+an ri"hts 4rinci4les$
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32880/3/Sanders_Rebecca_201206_PhD_thesis.pdfhttps://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32880/3/Sanders_Rebecca_201206_PhD_thesis.pdfhttps://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32880/3/Sanders_Rebecca_201206_PhD_thesis.pdfhttps://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/32880/3/Sanders_Rebecca_201206_PhD_thesis.pdf


19/107

etensive abuses are 4ossible) @ne way this occurs is throu"h the declaration by theocial state soverei"n or +ore locali;ed authorities Teither overtly or +oretacitly and infor+allyTof law free ;ones where victi+s can be abused withi+4unity)he law is in essence sus4ended and 4ushed aside$ allowin"so+eone in 4ower$ be it a fascist dictator$ colonial ad+inistrator$ ;ealous

"eneral$ local sheriI$ or sadistic 4rison warden$ to eercise their un+iti"ated4ower) orture can be 4racticed relatively o4enly because no hi"her authorityis willin" or able to sto4 it)

(he -o"ernment uses plausi)le le-alit, to create

excuses *or their human ri-hts "iolations/Sanders$ %(ebecca$ Doctor of Philoso4hy at the De4art+ent of PoliticalScience University of oronto ce4tional Security Practices$ 8u+an i"htsAbuses$ and the Politics of e"al e"iti+ation in the A+erican lobal Kar on

error#htt4s:33ts4ace)library)utoronto)ca3bitstrea+3&>231,>>313SandersXebeccaX,

&,*XPhDXthesis)4dfAccess Date 23&'3&/ Shar+a.overn+ents+ay evade accusations of hu+an ri"hts violations in +ulti4le ways) Asty4olo"i;ed by sociolo"ist Stanley Cohen$ i+4licatory denial# is 4re+ised on Gustifyin"or +ini+i;in" violations)Eusti7cations+ay include assertin" the ri"hteousnessof a cause$ clai+in" e+er"ency necessity$ bla+in" and dehu+ani;in" thevicti+$ +a?in" advanta"eous co+4arisons with others$ and reGectin"universal standards)&*' De+oni;in" the ene+y is es4ecially i+4ortant torationali;e sus4ension of law in states of ece4tion) @n the other hand$ while ene+yi+a"es re+ain 4ervasive$ 4lausible deniability isessentially a for+ of literal denial#Ttheclai+ that violations did not ha44en or so+eone else was res4onsible) his for+of denial is often acco+4anied by attac?s on the credibility and +otives of victi+s $

witnesses$ and Gournalists)&*/ Des4ite +irrorin" ece4tion and denial in i+4ortant ways$ the a44roachta?en to security and intelli"ence 4ractice in the K@ is better understood under a third distinctive

4aradi"+ that % ter+ 4lausible le"ality)# o be clear$ 4lausible le"ality is a strate"y for"ettin" away with hu+an ri"hts abuses) %tshould de7nitely not be confused with anassertion that ar"u+ents 4roduced via this strate"y are in fact 4lausible or convincin") Eust as Cold Kar4lausible deniability was "enerally fallacious$ so too are +ost of the le"al clai+s referenced in the

followin" 4a"es) Plausible le"ality is for+ of what Cohen ter+s inter4retive denial# thatrefra+es+eanin"s$ e+4loys eu4he+is+s and le"alis+s$ fud"es lines of res4onsibility$and clai+s abuses are isolated incidents)&** So+eti+es evasions are de4loyed becauseso+e cate"ori;ations are so 4eGorative$ sti"+atic$ and universally conde+ned that they cannot be o4enly

ad+itted or defended$# he notes) %n such cases$ states 4ay li4 service to hu+an ri"htsconsiderations$ forcin" hu+an ri"hts advocates to reveal the 4ictorial reality(@rwell[s \+ental 4ictures\. that lies beneath the intricate facade of le"alis+) Z to e4ose the "a4 between noble rhetoric and actual reality)#&*2 Debate isshifted to the terrain of inter4retationTa stru""le +ade all the +ore dicult by its le"iti+ate function in

nor+al le"al ar"u+ent) Plausible le"alityhas 4layed a lar"e and ar"uably decisive role in4ost-03&& U)S) decisions about torture) A close ea+ination of the develo4+ent ofinterro"ation 4olicy de+onstrates that le"al inter4retation was intentionally stretched to authori;ecoercive techniues$ while the choice of techniues was$ at least 4artly$ sha4ed$ by le"al ar"u+ents

atte+4tin" to le"iti+i;e their use) %n this circular euation$ law was neither sus4ended norsi+4ly i"nored) %nstead$ 4olicy +a?ers atte+4ted to e+4loy le"al rationales


20/107

for what on 7rst "lance a44ear blatantly ille"al 4ractices)Accordin"ly$ 4lausiblele"ality co+bines the desire to brea? with eistin" nor+s found in states of ece4tion with an awareness of

re4utational and le"al ris?s a44arent in the 4ractice of 4lausible deniability) %t atte+4ts to le"ali;ethe ece4tion without 4ublicly sus4endin" the eistin" order ) %t as4ires toreconcile the nor+ally irreconcilableTto 4er+it the i+4er+issible withoutfully ad+ittin" the +ove) As ichtblau notes$ For the architects of this new war$ there was aconstant dru+beat: the rule of law still had to be followed$ they said$ but Gust what those rules really+eant was often +alleable$ subGect to twistin"$ Rein"$ and reinter4retin" so lon" as the tactics were

Gusti7ed to sto4 another attac?)# %n doin" so$ 4lausible le"ality hides rather than hi"hli"htsdero"ations fro+ the rule of law)


21/107

Internet

#he internet and the subtle surveillance conducted throughit is the states tool to extend their mechanisms of discipline

$oyle %&(James, rofessor of Ga$ at :ashington College of Ga$ at .merican 7ni*ersityoucault n Cybersace" 2ur*eillance, 2o*ereignty, and Hard$ired Censors!htt"##scholarshi%la$%du0e%edu#cgi#*ie$content%cgiarticleT188DUcontetTfaculty&scholarshi'oronda

rom the oint of *ie$ of this .rticle, one of oucaultQs most interesting contributions $as tochallenge a articular notion of o$er,o$er3as3so*ereignty, andto/utaose against it a*ision of Psur*eillanceP and Pdisciline%PD .t the heart of this ro/ect $as a belief that both ouranalyses of the oeration of olitical o$er and ourstrategies for its restraint or limitation $ere inaccurate or misguided%

na series of essays and boo0s oucault argued that, rather than the ublic and formal triangle ofso*ereign, citi=en, and right, $e should focus on a series of subtler ri*ate,informal, and material forms of coercion organi=ed around the concets of

sur*eillance and disciline% )he aradigm for the idea of sur*eillance $as theanoticon,BenthamQslan for a rison constructed in the shae of a $heel around the hub ofan obser*ing$arden% .t any moment the $arden might ha*e therisoner under obser*ation through a nineteenth century *ersion of

theclosed3circuit )I%DD Q 7nsure $hen authority might in fact be $atching, the risoner$ould stri*e al$ays to conform his beha*ior to its resumed desires% Bentham had hituon a beha*ioralist e-ui*alent of thesuerego, formed from uncertainty about $hen one $as being obser*edby the

o$ers that be% )he echo of contemorary laments about thePri*acy3free stateP isstri0ing% )o this, oucault added the notion ofdisciline3crudely ut, the multitudinous ri*ate methods ofregulationof indi*idual beha*ior ranging from $or0lace time3and3motionefficiency directi*es to sychiatric

e*aluation%P oucault ointed out theaarent conflict bet$een a formal languageof olitics organi=edaround relations bet$een so*ereign and citi=en,eressed through rules bac0ed by sanctions, and an actual eerience

of o$er being eercised through multitudinous non3state sources,oftendeendent on material or technological means of enforcement%:ritingin a manner thatmanaged to be simultaneously coy and sinister,oucault suggested that there $as something strange going on in thecoeistence of these t$o systems" mossible to describe in the terminology of the theory of so*ereigntyfrom $hich itdiffers so radically, this discilinary o$er ought byrights to ha*e led to the disaearance of the grand /uridical edifice

created by that theory% But in reality, the theory of so*ereignty has continued to eist notonly as an ideology of right, but also to ro*ide the organising rincile of thelegal codes%%%%:hy has the theory of so*ereignty ersisted in thisfashion %%% or t$o reasons, belie*e% 9n theone hand, it has been%%, a ermanent instrument of criticism of the monarchy and allthe obstacles that can th$art the de*eloment of a discilinary society%But at thesame time, the theory of so*ereignty, and the organisationof a legal code centereduon it, ha*e allo$ed a system of right to be suerimosed uon the mechanismsof disciline in such a $ay as to conceal its actual rocedures%%%% D4! oucault

was not writing about the !nternet% He $as not e*en $ritingabout the t$entieth century%

But his $ords ro*ide a good startinglace from $hich to eamine the catechism ofnternet in*iolability%)hey are a good starting oint recisely because, $hen *ie$ed $ithinthe discourse ofso*ereign Pcommands bac0ed by threatsP aimed at adefined territory and oulation, the nternet does indeed loo0

almostin*ulnerable% )hings loo0 rather different $hen *ie$ed from the ersecti*e of atye of o$er $hich is constantly eercised by means of sur*eillancerather than in adiscontinuous manner by means of asystem of le*ies or obligations distributed o*er time and $hichO%%%%resuoses atightly 0nit grid of material coercions rather than thehysical eistence of a so*ereign%P D8 :hat is more, there is a sensein$hich the Psystem of right isO suerimosed uon the mechanism ofdisciline in such a $ay as to conceal its actualrocedures %%% ,, D> )he/urisrudence of digital libertarianism is not simly inaccurate it may actually obscure ourunderstanding of $hat is going on% )hus, e*en thedigerati may find the analysis that follo$s of interest, if only to see
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552&context=faculty_scholarshiphttp://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1552&context=faculty_scholarship


22/107

ho$far the nternet can be made to treat censorshi as a feature not a bug,ho$ far local ordinances may reach incybersace, and ho$informationQs desire for freedom may be curbed%


23/107

State

'ife under the federal government is inherently harmful they present a myriad of abuses which people must live

under and fail to fix themselvesSimon ()(Jonathan, rofessor of Ga$ at 7C Ber0eley 2anctioning ?o*ernment" Elaining

.mericas 2e*erity ;e*olution! htt"##scholarshi%la$%ber0eley%edu#cgi#*ie$content%cgiarticleTDDDDUcontetTfacubs '

erhas the best ad*antage of arentiQs arist olitical economyis that it carries his interretation of the se*erityre*olution far beyondthe recincts of crime, the criminal /ustice system, and the immediateinterests in*ol*ed in each%

)o arenti, it is 7nited 2tatesCaitalism as asocial system in crisis that is the real forcebehind the Ploc0do$n%P:hile there are rices to be aid for so strong and structured a theory, ithas the ad*antage ofbringing into *ie$ the full range of social relationsactually at sta0e in the crac03do$n on crime%rom this ersecti*e,arenti identifies t$o critical moments thatshae the se*erity re*olution% )he first ta0es lace in the 1>6s during the

administrations of relati*ely liberal residents3Rennedy, Johnson, and Nion3as the federal go*ernmentbegan a sustained inter*ention inthe -uality of local la$ and state la$ enforcement% )he initial moti*ations$ere largely

liberal ressures to address racism and a host of otherin/ustices in the under3funded andunder3re*ie$ed olice and court systemsof the 7nited 2tates% .s the social turmoil of the 1>6sunfolded, ho$e*er, the imetus became one of building local /ustice systems caableof maintaining order in the face of

riots, anti3$ar rotests, and a rising tide of aggressi*e armed robberies and0illings in the formerly PsafeP areas of the large cities% 4A

#he sovereign and its institutions with their constantpolicing ma*e it the norm+ #his breeds a society in whichpeople silently accept their fate+ #his is true of all stateentities placing authoritarian and democratic states such

as the United States on the same playing field+,ardt -).(ichael, h%


24/107

means to mediate and recueratethe antagonisms born of caitalist roduction and caitalist socialrelations3thuscreating a $or0er sub/ecti*ity that is recuerable $ithinand actually suorti*e of the order of the caitalist 2tate%oucault analy=esthe institutions of ci*il society the *ery same $ay in $hich Hegel celebratesthem% .s $e sa$ earlier,

the labor union and the other institutions of ci*il society are to PeducateP the citi=ens,creating $ithin them the uni*ersal desires that are in line $ith the 2tate%P.ctually, therefore,P Hegel $rites, Pthe 2tate as such is not so much the result as

the beginningP

(Hegel 18D, D8>'% )he social dialectic thus functions in order that

antagonistic social forces besubsumed $ithin the rior and unitary synthesisof the 2tate%n order to situate oucaultQs $or0 on the terrain ofHegelQs ci*il society,ho$e*er, $e need to ta0e a ste bac0 and elaborate some of thenuances of oucaultQs theoreticalersecti*e% HegelQs understanding ofthe historical rise of ci*il society and the generali=ation of its educati*esocial roledoes corresond in se*eral resects to the rocess that icheloucault calls the go*ernmentali=ation of the 2tate% )he2tate of so*ereignty$hich, according to oucault, ser*ed as the dominant form of rulein Euroe from the iddle .gesto the siteenth century, ositioned itselfas a transcendent singularity $ith resect to its sub/ects% )he transcendenceof

the so*ereign 2tate afforded it a certain detachment from theressures of conflicti*e articular interests in society% nthe assage to the modern 2tate, ho$e*er, the transcendence and singularity of the2tate$ere o*erturned through the rise of $hat oucault callsPgo*ernmentality%P)he rule of the go*ernmental 2tate is characteri=ed insteadby itsimmanence to the oulation through a multilicity of forms% P)he art ofgo*ernment % % %,P oucault said, Pmust resond essentially to this -uestion"ho$ can it introduce the economy, in other$ords, the manner ofade-uately managing indi*iduals, goods, and $ealth, as can be done$ithin a family, li0e a goodfather $ho 0no$s ho$ to direct his $ife, hischildren, and his ser*ants %% %P (14c, >4134D'%4 )he management ofeoleand things imlied by this go*ernance in*ol*es an acti*e engagement,echange, or dialectic among social forces and

bet$een social forcesand the 2tate% )he same educati*e social rocessesthat Hegel casts interms ofabstraction and organi=ation, oucault recogni=es in terms of training, disciline, andmanagement% )he channels or striae in $hichthese rocesses function, recogni=ed as social institutions by Hegel,arecharacteri=ed by oucault in terms of deloyments (disositifs' and enclosures(enfermements'% Ci*il society,from this ersecti*e, is the roducti*e site of modern economy (economy understood no$ in the large sense' inother

$ords, it is the site of the roduction of goods, desires, indi*idualand collecti*e identities, et cetera% t is the site,finally, of the institutionaldialectic of social forces, of the social dialectic that gi*es rise to and under$ritesthe 2tate%nhis etensi*e $or0 on the nature of o$er, ho$e*er, oucault notonly refuses ?ramsciQs in*ersion of the riority bet$eenci*il society andolitical society (that is, ci*il society and the 2tate', he goes one ste furtherand argues that $e can

ma0e no analytical distinction at all bet$eenthem% :hen oucault argues that o$er cannot beisolated but is e*ery$here,that it comes from e*ery$here, that there is no outside to o$er,

he is also denying the analytical searation of olitical society from ci*il society% n

a no$ famous assage, oucault (15@, 4' $rites that Prelationsof o$er are not in a osition of eteriority $ith resectto othertyes of relationshi (economic rocesses, 0no$ledge relationshis, seualrelations', but are immanent to thelatter %%% they ha*e a directly roducti*erole, $here*er they come into lay%P n the discilinary and go*ernmentalsociety

the lines of o$er etend throughout social sace in thechannels created by the institutions of ci*il society% )heeertion of o$eris organi=ed through deloyments, $hich are at onceideological, institutional, and cororeal% )his is not to say that there is no 2tate, but ratherthat itcannot effecti*ely be isolated and contested at a le*el searate fromsociety% n oucaultQs frame$or0, the modern 2tate is

not roerly understoodas the transcendent source of o$er relations in society% 9n thecontrary, the 2tate assuch is better understood as a result, the consolidationor molari=ation of forcesof Pstati=ationP(etatisation' immanent to social o$er relations(see , @4'% )hecauses and intentionsthat inform and order o$er relations are not isolated in some head-uartersof rationality but areimmanent to the field of forces% oucault thusrefers to use instead of 2tate the term go*ernment, $hich indicates themultilicity and immanence of the forces of stati=ation to the social field%:hile this denies all the moral and teleological

elements of HegelQs socialtheory, oucaultQs understanding of the discilinary and go*ernmentalsociety does in certainresects ta0e the Hegelian notion of ci*il society toits logical conclusion% n articular, oucault emhasi=es thePeducationalPasect of ci*il society $hereby articular social interests areenlightened to the general interest andbrought in line $ith the uni*ersal%Education means disciline% ore accurately, oucault reformulates theeducationalrocess of ci*il society in terms of roduction" o$er actsnot only by training or ordering the elements of the socialterrain butactually by roducing them3roducing desires, needs, indi*iduals, identities,et cetera% see this not so much

as a contradiction but as an etensionof Hegelian theory% )he 2tate, Hegel claims, is not the result butthe cause oucault adds, not a transcendent but an immanent cause, stati=ation,immanent to the *arious channels, institutions, or enclosures of socialroduction%


25/107

Giving legitimacy to the state surrenders all privacy that citizens have

Henry AGiroux, 2014 (Henry A Giroux, Professorship at McMaster University in

the English and Cultural Studies epart!ent, "#otalitarian Paranoia in the Post$

%r&ellian Surveillance State', )*+)+*, http-))&&&.truth$

out.org)opinion)ite!)*/0/$totalitarian$paranoia$in$the$post$or&ellian$

surveillance$state12 3.GE33E4

#he revelations of &histle$5lo&ers such as Chelsea Manning, 6ere!y Ha!!ond and Ed&ard

Sno&den a5out govern!ent la&lessness and corporate spying provide a ne& !eaning if not a

revitali7ed urgency and relevance to George %r&ell8s dystopian fa5le *9:. %r&ell offered his

readers an i!age of the !odern state that had 5eco!e dystopian $ one in &hich privacy as a civil

virtue and a crucial right &as no longer valued as a !easure of the ro5ust strength of a healthy

and thriving de!ocracy. %r&ell &as clear that the right to privacy had co!e under egregious

assault. ;ut the right to privacy pointed to so!ething !ore sinister than the violation of

individual rights. %r&ell never could have i!agined that the ?ational Security Agency (?SA2

&ould a!ass !etadata on 5illions of our phone calls and ++ !illion of our text !essages every

day. %r&ell could not have foreseen that our govern!ent &ould read the content of our e!ails,

file transfers, and live chats fro! the social !edia &e use.>*@ #o read !ore articles 5y Henry A.

Giroux and other authors in the Pu5lic ntellectual Pro=ect, clicB here. @ n his videotaped

Christ!as !essage, Sno&den references %r&ell8s &arning of >the dangers of !icrophones, video

ca!eras and #s that &atch us,> allo&ing the state to regulate su5=ects &ithin the !ost inti!ate

spaces of private life. ;ut these older !odes of surveillance, Sno&den ela5orates, ho&ever, are

nothing co!pared to &hat is used to infringe on our personal privacy today. Dor Sno&den, the

threat posed 5y the ne& surveillance state can 5e !easured 5y its reach and use of technologies

that far outdate anything %r&ell envisioned and pose a !uch greater threat to the privacy rights

of citi7ens and the reach of sovereign po&ers. He reiterates this point 5y re!inding his vie&ers

that >a child 5orn today &ill gro& up &ith no conception of privacy at all $ they &ill never Bno&

&hat it !eans to have a private !o!ent to the!selves, an unrecorded, unanaly7ed thought.>

Sno&den is right a5out the danger to privacy rights 5ut his analysis fails to go far enough in

linBing together the Fuestion of surveillance &ith the rise of >net&orBed societies,> glo5al flo&s

of po&er and the e!ergence of the totalitarian state.@ n a &orld devoid of care, co!passion and

protection, privacy is no longer connected and resuscitated through its connection to pu5lic life,

the co!!on good or a vulnera5ility 5orn of the recognition of the frailty of hu!an life. @ #he

de!ocratic ideal rooted in the right to privacy under the !odernist state in &hich %r&ell lived out

his political i!agination has 5een transfor!ed and !utilated, al!ost 5eyond recognition. 6ust as

%r&ell8s fa5le has !orphed over ti!e into a co!5ination of >realistic novel,> real$life

docu!entary and a for! of reality #, privacy has 5een altered radically in an age of per!anent,

8nonstop8 glo5al exchange and circulation. So, too, and in the current period of historical a!nesia,

privacy has 5een redefined through the !aterial and ideological registers of a neoli5eral order in

&hich the right to privacy has succu!5ed to the seductions of a narcissistic culture and casino

capitalis!8s unending necessity to turn every relationship into an act of co!!erce and to !aBe all


26/107

aspects of daily life visi5le and su5=ect to data !anipulation.0 n a &orld devoid of care,

co!passion and protection, privacy is no longer connected and resuscitated through its

connection to pu5lic life, the co!!on good or a vulnera5ility 5orn of the recognition of the

frailty of hu!an life. n a &orld in &hich the &orst excesses of capitalis! are unchecBed, privacy

is nurtured in a 7one of historical a!nesia, indifferent to its transfor!ation and de!ise under a

>5road set of panoptic practices.>/ ConseFuently, culture loses its po&er as the 5earer of pu5lic

!e!ory in a social order &here a consu!erist$driven ethic >!aBes i!possi5le any shared

recognition of co!!on interests or goals> and furthers the collective indifference to the gro&th of

the surveillance state. @ Surveillance has 5eco!e a gro&ing feature of daily life. n fact, it is

!ore appropriate to analy7e the culture of surveillance, rather than address exclusively the

violations co!!itted 5y the corporate$surveillance state. n this instance, the surveillance and

security state is one that not only listens, &atches and gathers !assive a!ounts of infor!ation

through data !ining necessary for identifying consu!er populations 5ut also acculturates the

pu5lic into accepting the intrusion of surveillance technologies and privati7ed co!!odified

values into all aspects of their lives. Personal infor!ation is &illingly given over to social !edia

and other corporate$5ased &e5sites and gathered daily as people !ove fro! one targeted &e5 site

to the next across !ultiple screens and digital apparatuses. As Ariel orf!an points out, "social

!edia users gladly give up their li5erty and privacy, invaria5ly for the !ost 5enevolent ofplatitudes and reasons,' all the &hile endlessly shopping online and texting.A #his collecting of

infor!ation !ight 5e !ost evident in the video ca!eras that inha5it every pu5lic space fro! the

streets, co!!ercial esta5lish!ents and &orBplaces to the schools our children attend as &ell as in

the !yriad scanners placed at the entry points of airports, stores, sporting events and the liBe.


27/107

>i-hts

>i-hts presuppose the *undamental structure that placesthe natural li*e o* the human as the *oundation *or the

citi8en and produces a communit, o* "iolence/Declarations o* uni"ersal ethical principles and eternaldoctrines o* human di-nit, )ecome the inau-uratin-*eature o* -lo)al )iopolitics/ior"io +-am)en$ 4rofessor of 4hiloso4hy at university of erona$ 8o+oSacer: Soverei"n Power and Bare ife$ EEO$ 4") &,*-&,>;)i) 8annah Arendt entitled the 7fth cha4ter of her boo? on i+4erialis+$ which is dedicated to the4roble+ of refu"ees$ he Decline of the !ation-State and the nd of the i"hts of 9an)# in?in" to"etherthe fates of the ri"hts of +an and of the nation-state$ her stri?in" for+ulation see+s to i+4ly the idea ofan inti+ate and necessary connection between the two$ thou"h the author herself leaves the uestion

o4en) (he paradox *rom which +rendt departs is that the "er, 6-urewho should ha"e em)odied the ri-hts o* man par excellenceAthe

re*u-eeAsi-nals instead the concept2s radical crisis/(he conceptiono* human ri-hts$# she states$ )ased upon the assumed existence o* ahuman )ein- as such. )roke down at the "er, moment when thosewho pro*essed to )elie"e in it were *or the 6rst time con*ronted withpeople who had indeed lost all other ?ualities and speci6crelationshipsAexcept that the, were still human# (@r;]ins$ 4) ,00.) %n thesyste+ of the nation-state$ the so1called sacred and inaliena)le ri-hts o* manshow themsel"es to lack e"er, protection and realit, at the momentin which the, can no lon-er take the *orm o* ri-hts )elon-in- tociti8ens o* a state) %f one considers the +atter$ this is in fact i+4licit in the a+bi"uity of the verytitle of the French Declaration of the i"hts of 9an and Citi;en$ of &2>0) %n the 4hrase a dicia ration desdro its tie %5ho++e et du citoyen$ it is not clear whether the two ter+s ho++e and citoyen na+e twoautono+ous bein"s or instead for+ a unitary syste+ in which the 7rst is always already included in the

second) And if the latter is the case$ the ?ind of relation that eists between ho++e and citoyen stillre+ains unclear) Fro+ this 4ers4ective$ Bur?e5s boutade accordin" to which he 4referred his i"hts of ann"lish+an# to the inalienable ri"hts of +an acuires an unsus4ected 4rofundity) Arendt does no +orethan oIer a few$ essential hints concernin" the lin? between the ri"hts of +an and the nation-state$ and

her su""estion has therefore not been followed u4) In the period a*ter the SecondWorld War. )oth the instrumental emphasis on the ri-hts o* man andthe rapid -rowth o* declarations and a-reements on the part o*international or-ani8ations ha"e ultimatel, made an, authenticunderstandin- o* the historical si-ni6cance o* the phenomenonalmost impossi)le/Met it is ti+e to sto4 re"ardin" declarations of ri"hts as 4rocla+ations ofeternal$ +etaGuridical values bindin" the le"islator (in fact$ without +uch success. to res4ect eternalethical 4rinci4les$ and to be"in to consider the+ accordin" to their real historical function in the +odern

nation-state/ Declarations o* ri-hts represent the ori-inar, 6-ure o* theinscription o* natural li*e in the Curidico1political order o* the nation1state) (he same )are li*e that in the ancien re-ime was politicall,neutral and )elon-ed to 'od as creaturel, li*e and in the classicalworld was(at least a44arently. clearly distin-uished as 8oe *rom political li*e()ios. now *ull, enters into the structure o* the state and e"en)ecomes the earthl, *oundation o* the state2s le-it imac, andso"erei-nt,) A si+4le ea+ination of the tet of the Declaration of &2>0 shows that it is 4recisely)arenatural li*eTwhich is to say$ the 4ure fact of birthTthat appears here as the sourceand )earer o* ri-hts) =en. the 6rst article declares. are )orn and


28/107

remain *ree and e?ual in ri-hts# (fro+ this 4ers4ective$ the strictest for+ulation of all isto be found in a Fayette5s 4roGect elaborated in Euly &2>0: very +an is born with inalienable and

indefeasible ri"hts#.) At the sa+e ti+e$ however$ the "er, natural li*e that.inau-uratin- the )iopolitics o* modernit,. is placed at the *oundationo* the order "anishes into the 6-ure o* the citi8en. in whom ri-htsare preser"ed(accordin" to the second article: (he -oal o* e"er, political

association is the preser"ation o* the natural and inde*easi)le ri-htso* man.) And the Declaration can attribute soverei"nty to the nation# (accordin" to the third article:(he principle o* all so"erei-nt, resides essentiall, in the nation Aor those $ho do not yet belong, such asasylum see0ers or recent immigrant grous, there is little olitical rice to beaid for the eercise of terror and many interests can be re$arded%

(he war on terror is onl, used to solidi*, the GS as the

)ene"olent example o* li)ert, and democrac,. howe"erthe GS is the most warrin- nation in the world/ (he

armati"e2s plan allows the militar, to continue to take

the li"es o* innocent people )ecause it -i"es the

-o"ernment the same *alse positi"e reputation/

$ackson. (ichard$ Kriter for -%nternational elations$ he Korld5s9ost Karrin" !ation$# -%nternational elations$ *3,$ htt4:33www)e-


33/107

ir)info3,&&323,3the-world_,_>_00s-+ost-warrin"-nation3 Access Date23&/3,&/. Shar+a

he war on terror$ 4articularly the %ra and Af"hanistan interventions$ de+onstratestheinter4lay of these two factors$ with both strate"ic interests < dealin" with the threat of terroris+$ thesecurin" of %ra5s oil and Af"hanistan5s 4otential role as an access-4oint to Central Asian oil reserves$fashionin" 4ro-US re"i+es$ and the construction of +ilitary bases in strate"ic re"ions to 4ut 4ressure on

countries li?e %ran < and ideolo"ical i+4eratives < brin"in" liberty and de+ocracy tocountries wrac?ed by hu+an ri"hts abuses < drivin" the interventions)Paradoically$of course$ the war on terror$ li?e +any 4revious US interventions$has resulted in +assive hu+an ri"hts abuses around the world and the denialof liberty to +illions$ with torture$ rendition$ and the denial of civil ri"htsco++on4lace$ a+on" others) At the sa+e ti+e$ it hasalso endan"ered US strate"icinterests: the attac? on %ra stren"thened and e+boldened %ran$ destabili;ed Pa?istan$ and "reatlyda+a"ed the re4utation and standin" of the US in the 9iddle ast and lar"e4arts of the 9usli+ world) %n the end$the culturally and 4olitically e+beddedideolo"y of the US < its +ilitari;ed 4atriotis+ < blinds its leaders and 4ublic tothe interests and conseuences of its +ilitary interventions$ and sustains the

li?elihood of future interventions) Few A+ericans acce4t that its country5swars have ?illed$ inGured and dis4laced literally +illions of 4eo4le in the lastfew decades$ +ost often for little or no 4ositive result in either strate"ic orideolo"ical ter+s < that in fact the real-world conseuences of itsinterventions are virtually always the denial of its own stated values of libertyand de+ocracy) Fewer still uestion why the US is willin" to sacri7cethousands or even +illions of lives to secure its strate"ic interests$ or why theUS 4o4ulation is so 4erennially vulnerable to ideolo"ical a44eals by leaderswhich +as? the dee4er strate"ic reasons for violent intervention) Khile it isunli?ely that its strate"ic interests will chan"e any ti+e soon or that the +ilitary-industrial co+4le can besi"ni7cantly reduced in si;e$ there is always the ho4e that new leaders +i"ht arise and 4eace +ove+ents

+i"ht e+er"e which are able to challen"e$ and 4erha4s even chan"e$ the +ilitari;ed 4atriotis+and dee4ly-e+bedded culture of violencewhich +a?es the US the +ost violentstate in the world)

(error is onl, perpetuated ), usin- current tactics to 6-htterrorism!arrol &4 (David$ University of California$ he nd(s. of the %ntellectual:thics$ Politics$ error$ htt4s:33+use-Ghu-edu)turin")library)northwestern)edu3Gournals3southXcentralXreview3v,/3,/)1)carroll)ht+l`f&. Beutels4acher

%n his \A44eal for a Civilian ruce$\ which he +ade in Al"iers on Eanuary ,,$&0/*$ with a hostile crowd asse+bled outside the +eetin" hall threatenin"his life$ Ca+us 4leaded with both sides to a"ree to the sa+e +ini+alist$ non-4olitical 4rinci4le he advanced in his &0'* essay: to s4are innocent civilianlives) %n 4ractical ter+s this +eant that the F! would have to a"ree to sto4its terrorist bo+bin" ca+4ai"n a"ainst civilians and the French to ceasetorturin" and eecutin" sus4ects) !ot only were the lives of 4otential victi+sof both terroris+ and counterterroris+ at sta?e$ Ca+us ar"ued$ but also thefreedo+ of all Al"erians and all French were$ no +atter which side they
https://muse-jhu-edu.turing.library.northwestern.edu/journals/south_central_review/v025/25.3.carroll.html#f1https://muse-jhu-edu.turing.library.northwestern.edu/journals/south_central_review/v025/25.3.carroll.html#f1https://muse-jhu-edu.turing.library.northwestern.edu/journals/south_central_review/v025/25.3.carroll.html#f1https://muse-jhu-edu.turing.library.northwestern.edu/journals/south_central_review/v025/25.3.carroll.html#f1https://muse-jhu-edu.turing.library.northwestern.edu/journals/south_central_review/v025/25.3.carroll.html#f1https://muse-jhu-edu.turing.library.northwestern.edu/journals/south_central_review/v025/25.3.carroll.html#f1


34/107

su44orted in the war) For$ Ca+us ar"ued$ only if the a44eal to \s4are ahandful of innocent victi+s at a solitary s4ot on the "lobe\ is heard andres4onded to by both sides in the war can anyone really be considered to befreeTwith free +en and wo+en described by Ca+us as those \who refuse atthe sa+e ti+e to inRict and sub+it to terror)\1& !o one is free in a state ofterror: certainly neither the victi+s nor the 4er4etrators of terror) But neither

the victi+s nor 4er4etrators of counterterroris+ either)N Khat was true durin"the Al"erian Kar is still true today$ for no one should be +ista?en about thesense of Ca+us[ 4lea: freedo+ is always the issue$ not Gust for the actual and4otential victi+s of terroris+$ but also for those who order$ carry out$ or

Gustify torture and terroris+ in the war a"ainst terroris+) And this is truewhether the war is wa"ed in the na+e of reli"ious or 4olitical absolutes$ onthe one hand$ or inde4endence$ the security and inte"rity of the nation$ oreven or es4ecially de+ocracy$ on the other) Ca+us ?new this and atte+4tedto brin" about a civilian truce based on the basic 4rinci4le that to saveinnocent lives was in fact the necessary 7rst ste4 in the defense of freedo+and the creation of a de+ocratic Al"eria) 8is a44eal for a civilian truce fell ondeaf ears$ of course$ and the French "overn+ent soon continued torturin"

and eecutin" F! sus4ects$ at which 4oint the F! resu+ed its terroristca+4ai"n nd Pa"e &,&Q in Al"iers$ with the conseuence that terroris+ andcounterterroris+ substantially escalated durin" the Battle of Al"iers)


35/107

3risons(he armati"es use o* le-al re*orms with the prison

s,stem are used to mask the wa,s that torture happens

)ehind closed doors/ (his makes it possi)le to make the

prison industrial complex to )ecome more insidious

Sanders$ %(ebecca$ Doctor of Philoso4hy at the De4art+ent of PoliticalScience University of oronto ce4tional Security Practices$ 8u+an i"htsAbuses$ and the Politics of e"al e"iti+ation in the A+erican lobal Kar on

error#htt4s:33ts4ace)library)utoronto)ca3bitstrea+3&>231,>>313SandersXebeccaX,&,*XPhDXthesis)4dfAccess Date 23&13&/ Shar+a.

@ther 4oc?ets of ece4tion have e+er"ed in the history of A+erican torture $+ost notably in the 4enal syste+) Chain "an"s subGected 4risoners to notoriously

brutal conditions)arious

water tortures wereco++only

e+4loyed at Sin" Sin"and San Yuentin 4risonsin nineteenth century)21 Folso+ 4rison had a chloride ofli+e cell that created burnin" noious fu+es)2' Durin" Korld Kar %$conscientious obGectors were tortured in custody) Khile President Kilson cha+4ionedde+ocracy abroad$ 4risoners found the+selves subGected to a litany of abuses)2/ As described in a &0&>account by for+er detainees at the Ca+4 Funston uard 8ouse in =ansas: he @cer of the Day#Q4roceeded to abuse and insult us$ referrin" to those of Eewish birth as da+n ?i?es$# etc) 8e then had ourbeds and blan?ets ta?en fro+ us$ and ordered that we be "iven raw rations T 4or? and beans T which wewere to coo? in the latrine$ if we wanted to eatZ%n the afternoon arsen was brutally assaulted$ bein"cho?ed$ his head ban"ed a"ainst the wall$ and dra""ed around the roo+ by the Ser"eant of the "uardsZhe bayonet was a44lied to all of us T arsen receivin" a scar) =a4lan and Bre"er were beaten with thebutt end of the riRe) All were ?ic?ed and shoved aboutZ Ke were co+4elled to ta?e a cold shower once inthe +ornin" and once in the afternoon)))he Ca4tain hi+self brou"ht forth scrubbrushes$ used ordinarilyfor cleanin" toilet seats and broo+s used for swee4in"$ and ordered that we scrub each other with the+Z9r) =a4lan was forced to re+ain seated while cold water was tric?led on his head and this 4rocess wascontinued until he fainted$ while 9r) =a4lan was bound with his hands above his head in a +anner so4ainful that he felt his ar+s were bein" bro?en and the 4ain caused hi+ to screa+ re4eatedlyZ 9ost ofthe +istreat+ent too? 4lace outside$# notes the re4ort$ with lar"e "rou4s watchin" the sorry and revoltin"s4ectacle of defenseless +en bein" +ost brutally 4unched$ shoved$ and abused)#2* %n Delaware$ the

whi44in" 4ost re+ained a le"islated 4unish+ent until &02,)22 ven today$ +any 4risonershave been subGect to beatin"s$ stun shoc?s$ che+ical s4rays$ and seualassault while incarcerated) 8u+an ri"hts investi"ations have uncovered asyste+ic failure to 4revent and 4rosecute wides4read seual abuse ofwo+en2> and 9oreover$ the 4unitive3disci4linary 4ractice of solitarycon7ne+ent +ay ar"uably a+ount to torture when i+4osed for etended4eriods) Kith the e4losion of su4er+a# 4risons$ the once dar? dirty hole# has "onehi"h tech) %n so+e 4laces$ the environ+ent is so severe that 4eo4le end u4

co+4letely isolated$ con7ned in constantly bri"ht or constantly di+ s4aceswithout any +eanin"ful hu+an contactTtorturous conditions that are 4rovento cause +ental deterioration$# notes an investi"ative re4ort) > %n +uch the sa+e waythat a 4revious "eneration of A+ericans countenanced le"ali;ed se"re"ation$ours has countenanced le"ali;ed torture) And there is no clearer+anifestation of this than our routine use of solitary con7ne+entTon ourown 4eo4le$ in our own co++unities$ in a su4er+a 4rison$# ar"ues Atulawande)>& %t should be clear fro+ this discussion that le"al 4rohibition does notnecessarily


36/107

4revent torture) ven after states have acce4ted hu+an ri"hts 4rinci4les$etensive abuses are 4ossible) @ne way this occurs is throu"h the declaration by theocial state soverei"n or +ore locali;ed authorities Teither overtly or +oretacitly and infor+allyTof law free ;ones where victi+s can be abused withi+4unity)he law is in essence sus4ended and 4ushed aside$ allowin"

so+eone in 4ower$ be it a fascist dictator$ colonial ad+inistrator$ ;ealous"eneral$ local sheriI$ or sadistic 4rison warden$ to eercise their un+iti"ated4ower) orture can be 4racticed relatively o4enly because no hi"her authorityis willin" or able to sto4 it)

(he +;s preposition to curtail sur"eillance throu-h

con-ressional means. solidi6es mass sur"eillance as a

re-ulated and le-ali8ed tool that still pro"ides the means

*or a totalitarian t,pe o* -o"ernment

Drehle 2B David$ Politics ditor in 6i+e5 and author$ he SurveillanceSociety$ 6i+e5 +a"a;ine$ htt4:33nation)ti+e)co+3,&13>3&3the-

surveillance-society3QChowdhury

Since the Snowden disclosures$ further 4rotections have been su""ested)Perha4s the "overn+ent should e+4loy a tea+ of s?illed attorneys$ witha44ro4riate security clearances$ to ar"ue a"ainst the sleuths before the F%SAcourtTto ensure that the Gud"es hear stron" ar"u+ents a"ainst snoo4in")Another su""estion is to declassify F%SA court 4roceedin"s$ to the etent4ossible$ so the 4ublic can better understand what5s "oin" on) ven withoutthose additional ste4s$ however$ a +aGority of A+ericans su44ort the currentarran"e+ent$ even if they don5t entirely trust the "overn+ent5s e4lanations)Accordin" to a recent Kashin"ton Post3ABC !ews 4oll$ after di"estin"Snowden5s news$ a solid +aGority feel that it5s +ore i+4ortant to fully

investi"ate terrorist threats than to 4rotect 4ersonal 4rivacy) Khile the sco4eof surveillance today is +uch broader than in the 4ast$ A+ericans lon" a"o"rew accusto+ed to li+its on 4rivacy) he Su4re+e Court has held thatinfor+ation voluntarily "iven to third 4arties is no lon"er secret$ nor can wee4ect 4rivacy to cloa? our actions in 4ublic 4laces or our co++unicationsvia the 4ublic airwaves) he "overn+ent can interce4t radio si"nals and isallowed to read what5s written on the outside of our +ail) %t5s Gust a ste4T"ranted$ a lar"e ste4Tfro+ those 4rinci4les to the ones that under4in today5s+assive data collections) he header of an e-+ail is not so diIerent fro+ theface of an envelo4e$ nor is the si"nal fro+ a tablet to a wireless routerentirely unli?e the si"nal fro+ one radio to another) Ke have also learned to

trade ele+ents of our 4rivacy for all sorts of su44osed bene7ts) oo"le trac?sour searches so that it will ?now which advertise+ents to show us)S+art4hones record our locations to be +ore hel4ful in steerin" us to thenearest +ulti4le$ restaurant$ "as station or church) Dru"stores analy;e our4urchases to reward us with cou4ons redee+able on a future visit) And so on)Ke want our "ad"ets to ?now us inti+atelyTwant our ther+ostats to ?nowwhen we5re cold$ want our toasters to ?now how we li?e our ba"el$ want oursearch en"ines to ?now what we5re loo?in" for even when we +iss4ell it) So


37/107

far$ we have been willin" to 4ay for that inti+acy in lost 4rivacy) Khich brin"sus to a stran"e crossroads) he +ore technolo"y endan"ers our 4rivacy$ theless we see+ to 4ri;e it) Ke 4ost fa+ily 4hotos on social-+edia sites and shi4our credit-card nu+bers to total stran"ers) Ke as? websites we5ve nevervisitedTdesi"ned by 4eo4le we5ve never +etTto "ive us advice on treatin"

e+barrassin" +aladies and huntin" for 4otential +ates) But the "overn+entis diIerent$ as itt ac?nowled"ed in his recent s4eech$ because the"overn+ent has the 4ower to audit our ta returns$ to 4rosecute andi+4rison us$ to "rant or deny licenses to do business and +any other thin"s)And$# he continued$ there is an entirely understandable concern that the"overn+ent +ay abuse this 4ower)# %n recent years$ 4rivacy advocates have4ersuaded the Su4re+e Court to reuire search warrants before 4olice cansnea? PS trac?ers onto sus4ects5 cars or scan houses fro+ the outside usin"infrared devices that sense the telltale heat si"nature of +ariGuana "rowli"hts) Such ste4s see+ s+all$ however$ co+4ared with the ra4id rise ofsurveillance 4owers and the "ri+ history of "overn+ents corru4ted by thete+4tation to watch their 4eo4les too closely) he ad+irable "oals of 4ublicsafety and national security have been e4loited ti+e and a"ain by intrusivere"i+es around the world see?in" to s4y on their critics and s+other dissent)A+ericans need only read the Bill of i"hts to see that sus4icion of"overn+ent intrusion is a national birthri"ht) As tools for 4ryin" "row innu+ber and stren"th$ this is no ti+e to sto4 bein" sus4icious)


38/107

Impacts


39/107

0iopower

(he o)Cect o* disciplinar, power is the 7natural )od,2Athede"elopment o* )iopower *orces populations to wa-e war

in the name o* li*e necessit,Dillon O 9ichael$ Professor of Politics$ De4art+ent of Politics and%nternational elations$ University of ancaster U=$ Foucault on Politics$security and war# Pal"rave$ 9ac+illan$htt4:33www)research"ate)net34ro7le3AndrewX!eal234ublication3,*2,*'0&XFoucaultXonXPoliticsXSecurityXandXKar3lin?s3/'e10d*cf,b,1&'f/de,1b)4dfQhis cha4ter traces the develo4+ent of Foucault5s articulation of the 4roble+ of war fro+ its be"innin"s in

Disci4line and Punish where he locates the emer-ence o* the militar, sciences$ andespeciall, ei-hteenth centur, thou-ht on militar, tactics. as amon-the ori-inal sources *or the expression o* disciplinar, power/ It is inthe ei-hteenth1centur, militar, sciences that Foucault disco"ers theo)Cect o* disciplinar, power most clearl, constituted/ (hat o)Cect

was the 7natural )od,2(Foucault$ &00&b: 4) &//.) Foucault5s thou"ht on war$ while ori"inatin"as an interest +ainly in +ilitary or"ani;ation as a s4eci7c source for the emer-ence o*disciplinar, power within modern societies. de"elops into a deeperand wider ran-in- concern *or the new *orms that war assumes)etween and within societies as a result o* the de"elopment o*)iopolitical re-imes o* power concerned with the re-ulation o*populations) 9ovin" fro+ Disci4line and Punish throu"h he 8istory of Seuality to Society 9ust BeDefended#$ % e4lain how the develo4+ent of Foucault5s conce4tuali;ation of the 4roble+ of warestablishes the "reat 4arado and crisis of 4olitical +odernity) Fro+ de+onstratin" in Disci4line and Punish

the role o* discourses and practices deri"in- *rom the militar,sciences in the strate-ies o* paci6cation that modern re-imespursue a-ainst their societies throu-h the de"elopment o*disciplinar, power o"er li*e. Foucault shi*ts to *ocus on how the

de"elopment o* )iopower mo)ili8es populations t

foucault k - northwestern 2015

Documents