Neoliberalism K - Gonzaga 2015

7/24/2019 Neoliberalism K - Gonzaga 2015

1/47

Neoliberalism K


2/47

Top Shelf


3/47

1NC

Framing abuse of surveillance power as merely a failure of legal accountability obscures

the neoliberal social relations that sustain the surveillance state. Connecting surveillance

with broader systems of neoliberal violence is necessary for sustainable solutions.

Girou! "yerson distinguished visiting professor! #$1%(Henry, Totalitarian Paranoia in the Post-Orwellian Surveillance State, Cultural Studies, 29.2, Taylor and rancis!

"et, the neoli#eral authoritarian culture o$ %odernity has also created a social order in which participation insurveillance culture becomes self&generated, aided #y a &u#lic &eda'o'y &roduced and circulated throu'h a%achinery o$ consu%&tion that encoura'es trans$or%in' drea%s into data #its . Such #its then %ove $ro% the s&here o$ entertain%ent to the deadl y serious and inte'rateds&heres o$ ca&ital accu%ulation and &olicin' as they are collected and sold to #usiness and 'overn%ent a'encies who trac the &o&ulace either $or c o%%ercial &ur&oses or out o$ $ear o$ a &ossi#le threat to esta#lished institutions o$ &ower. )odernity in this instance has #een u&dated, wiredand %ilitari*ed. The surveillance state with its i%%ense data-%inin' ca&a#ilities re&resents a historical ru&ture $ro% the $oundational &rinci&les o$ %odernity, with its e%&hasis on enli'hten%ent, reason and the ideals o$ +ustice, euality, $reedo% and de%ocracy however $lawed. nvest%entin &u#lic 'oods was once seen as central to a social contract that asserted all citi*ens should have access to those &rovisions, resources, institutions and #ene$its that e/&anded their sense o$ a'ency and social r es&onsi#ility. 0ut %odernity is now driven #y the i%&eratives o$ a sava'e neoli#eral

&olitical and econo%ic syste% that e%#race what Charles 1er#er and une Seera (2345! call a 6&u#lic 'oods de$icit7 in which 6#ud'etary &riorities7 are relentlessly &ushed so as to hollow out the wel$are state and drastically reduce social &rovisions as &art o$ a lar'er neoli#eral counter-revolution to lower the ta/es o$ the rich and %e'a-cor&orations while sellin' o$$ &u#lic 'ood to &rivate interests. 1e#ates a#out the %eanin' and &ur&ose o$ the &u#lic and social 'ood have #een co-o&ted #y a &olitics o$ $ear, rele'atin' notions o$ the civic 'ood, &u#lic s&here and even the ver y

word 6&u#lic7 to the status o$ a lia#ility, i$ not a &atholo'y (Cru* 2342, &. 8!. The new %odernity and its e/&andin' surveillance net su#ordinates hu%an needs,&u#lic 'oods and +ustice to the demands of security and commerce worin' in tande% to &ro%ote theaccu%ulation o$ ca&ital at all costs. ear has lost its social connotations and no lon'er re$erences $ear o$ social de&rivations such as &overty, ho%elessness, lac o$ health care and other $unda%ental conditions o$ a'ency. Fear isnow personali'ed! reduced to an atomi'ed fear that revolves around crime! safety! apocalypse and survival. n thisinstance, as the late Harvard econo%ist ohn :enneth ;al#raith once warned, %odernity now &rivile'es 6a dis'race$ul co%#ination o$ &rivate o&ulence and &u#lic sualor7 (td. in 1er#er and Seera 2345!. This is not sur&risin' 'iven the #asic el e%ents o$ neoli#eral &olicy, which as ere%y;il#ert (234ll o$ these activities indirectly serve t o e/&and the &leasure uotient o$ surveillance, while nor%ali*in' &ractices and %odes o$ re&ression that Orwell could never have i%a'ined. ?hereOrwellDs characters loathed the intrusion o$ surveillance, today= ?e see% to e/&erience no +oy in havin' secrets, unless they are t he inds o$ secrets liely to enhance our e'os #y attractin' the att ention o$ researchers and editors o$ TE tal shows, ta#loid $ront &a'es and th e F covers o$ 'lossy%a'a*ines F. @verythin' &rivate is now done, &otentially, in &u#lic and is &otentially availa#le $or &u#lic consu%&tion and re%ains availa#le $or the duration, till the end o$ ti%e, as the internet 6canDt #e %ade to $or'et7 anythin' once recorded on any o$ its innu%era#le servers. This erosion

o$ anony%ity is a &roduct o$ &ervasive social %edia services, chea& cell &hone ca%eras, $ree &hoto and video ?e# hosts, and &erha&s %ost i%&ortant o$ all, a chan'e in &eo&leDs views a#out what ou'ht to #e &u#lic and what ou'ht to #e &rivate. (0au%an a nd Byons 234

entertain%ent and co%%erce. n addition, this new sta'e o$ %odernity is driven not only #y the need to watch, #ut also the will to &unish. nder the re'i%e o$ neoli#eral ca&italis%, the e/&ansion o$'overn%ent and cor&orate surveillance %easures #eco%e synony%ous with new $or%s o$ antide%ocratic'overnance and an intensi$ication o$ %aterial and sy%#olic violence(;itlin 234

acco%&anyin' culture o$ cruelt y.Since 9I44, the destruction o$ &rivacy in the S> has #een driven #y an intensi$ication o$ the $ear o$dissent. This $ear is &aired with a dee&-seated sus&icion o$ others, es&ecially those non-white &o&ulations who are

&oor or non-Christian, and anyone who %i'ht uestion >%erican e/ce&tionalis%. Such underlyin' $ears sanction social e/clusion and &ro%ote wides&read reli'ious andracial discri%ination, $uel the e/&ansion o$ the &unishin' state and have #eco%e a uni$yin' thread o$ the secret re'i%es o$ surveillance. Jather than wa'in' a war on terrorists, the neoli#eral securitystate wa'es a war on dissent in the interest o$ consolidatin' class &ower. ?histle#lowers are not only &unished #y the 'overn%ent their li ves are also turned u&side down in the

&rocess #y &rivate surveillance a'encies and %a+or cor&orations which increasin'ly share in$or%ation with the 'overn%ent and do their own s&yin' and da%a'e control. The %er'in' o$ cor&orate and state surveillance syste%s u&dated with the %ost so&histicated shared technolo'ies hasresulted in illicit counter-intelli'ence o&erations, industrial es&iona'e and at tacs on &ro-de%ocracy %ove%ents such as Occu&y as well as on other non-violent social %ove%ents &rotestin' a ran'e o$ state and cor&orate in+ustices (0o'hosian 234t least 6TJOT >CTS7 (;eovanis 2345!, desi'ned &ri%arily to cri%inali*e various $or%s o$ dissent. The useo$ re&ressive le'islation to uell and &unish &eace$ul &rotests was also on $ull dis&lay in Olaho%a where LB &i&eline o&&onents now $ace state terroris% char'es $or 6dro&&in' 'litter inside a #uildin' durin' a &eace$ul #anner dro&7 (;eovanis 2345!. Baw-a#idin' citi*ens and 6those withdissentin' views within the law can #e sin'led out $or surveillance and &laced on wide-ran'in' watch lists r elatin' to terroris%7 (?ard 234 and other intelli'ence a'encies. SnowdenDs e/&osure o$ the %assive reach o$ the surveillance state with its #iosensors, scanners, $ace-reco'nition technolo'ies, %iniaturedrones, hi'h-s&eed co%&uters, %assive data-%inin' ca&a#ilities and other stealth technolo'ies %ade visi#le 6the star realities o$ disa&&earin' &rivacy and di%inishin' li# erties7 (@&stein 234 and at least 4K additional intelli'ence a'encies are not the only threat to &rivacy,$reedo% and de%ocracy. Cor&orations now have their own data-%inin' o$$ices and de&loy their sta$$ and new surveillance technolo'ies lar'ely to s&y on anyone who uestions the a#uses o$ cor&orate &ower. or instance, in res&onse to the Snowden a$$air, the 0an o$ >%erica asse%#led 48


4/47

23 #an o$$icials and retained the law $ir% o$ Hunton M ?illia%s in order to devise 6various sche%es to attac ?iiBeas and N+ournalist ;lenn ;reenwald who% they thou'ht was a#out to release da%a'in' in$or%ation a#out the #an7 (;u&ta 234'a%#en 2345!. ;ior'io >'a%#en (2345! ar'ues that in a &ost-9I44 world, 6#iolo'ical identity7 taes &ri%acy over &olitical identity and 6the uns&oen &rinci&le which rules oursociety can #e stated lie this= every citi*en is a &otential terrorist7. The war on terroris% has #eco%e a war o$ terror turnin' every social s&ace int o a war *one and every %e%#er o$ society into a sus&ect. )eanwhile, a#sor#ed in &rivati*ed or#its o$ consu%&tion, co%%odi$ication and dis&lay,>%ericans vicariously &artici&ate in the to/ic &leasures o$ consu%er culture, relentlessly entertained #y s&ectacles o$ violence in which, as 1avid ;rae#er (2342! su''ests, the &olice 6#eco%e the al% ost o#sessive o#+ects o$ i%a'inative identi$ication in &o&ular culture F watchin' %ovies, orviewin' TE shows that invite the% to loo at the world $ro% a &olice &oint o$ view7 (&. 449!. Gew technolo'ies that ran'e $ro% we#ca%s and s&yca%s to #io%etrics and the nternet drillin' rein$orce not only the $ear o$ #ein' watched, %onitored and investi'ated, #ut also encoura'e a

&ro&ensity towards ado&tin' such technolo'ies $or oneDs own use. ?hat is &ro$oundly distur#in' in this new inti%acy #etween di'ital technolo'ies and cultures o$ surveillance is their &redatory nature as they &ro#e $or unseen, inti%ate connections to the %ost &ersonal and &rivate areas o$&eo&leDs lives, while their victi%s %ore or less unwittin'ly leave the%selves e/&osed #y &u#lishin' and docu%entin' their interests, identities, ho&es and $ears online in %assive uantities (1ei#ert 234, there is a l on' history o$ state surveillance #ein' used to co%%it ille'al acts ran'in' $ro% $alsely accusin' &eo&le o$ cri%es and destroyin' social %ove%ents to co%%ittin' deadly cri%es. or e/a%&le, there has #een e/tensive research

&u#lished on the 0 counterterroris% &ro'ra%%e launched #y . @d'ar Hoover in the 4983s until it was dis%antled in the 493s. >lthou'h not %uch has #een written a#out the Church and Pie co%%ittees, in the 493s they e/&osed a wave o$ ille'al surveillance and disru&tion ca%&ai'nscarried out #y the 0 and l ocal &olice $orces, %ost o$ which were ai%ed at anti-war de%onstrators, the leaders o$ the civil ri'hts % ove%ent and the 0lac Panthers. ?hile a nu%#er o$ laws i%&le%entin' +udicial oversi'ht $or $ederal wireta&s were &ut in &lace, they have #een since

syste%atically dis%antled under the Jea'an, Clinton and 0ush ad%inistrations. 1ocu%entation o$ the ne$arious ille'alities co%%itted #y the Clinton and 0ush ad%inistrations has #een %ade #y +ournalists such as 1aniel @lls#er' and Sey%our Hersh. n the &resent historical %o%ent, it isal%ost i%&ossi#le to i%a'ine that wireta&&in' was once denounced #y the 0 or that le'islation was &assed in the early &art o$ the twentieth century that cri%inali*ed a nd outlawed the $ederal use o$ wireta&s (Price 234s the renowned anthro&olo'ist 1avid Price (234s the historical %e%ory o$ such a#usesdisa&&ears, re&ressive le'islation such as the S> P>TJOT >ct and 'rowin' su&&ort $or a &ano&tical surveillance and 6ho%eland7 security state has increased to the &oint o$ dissolvin' the line # etween the &rivate and the &u#lic. uelled #y a culture o$ $ear and its underside, the O#a%aad%inistration has tilted the #alance #etween security and civil li#erties lar'ely in $avour o$ the $or%er, with a %ana'ed e%&hasis on a one-di%ensional notion o$ sa$ety and security. The S ;overn%ent, now in the control o$ elite and ri'ht-win' e/tre%ists, has e%#raced a %ode o$lawlessness evident in the $or%s o$ $orei'n and do%estic terroris% that utterly undercut the o#li'ations o$ citi *enshi&, +ustice and %orality. or e/a%&le, ;lenn ;reenwald, who was one o$ the $irst +ournalists to di vul'e SnowdenDs revelations a#out the GS>Ds secret 6unaccounta#le syste% o$

&ervasive surveillance7 (Snowden 234%ericans trust a President who instituted the nsider Threat Pro'ra%, which was desi'ned t o 'et 'overn%ent e%&loyees to s&y on each other and 6turn the%selves and others in $or $ailin' to re&ort

#reaches7 (Taylor and Banday 234%erican &u#lic is now aware that they are #ein' s&ied u&on #y the 'overn%ent, in s&ite o$ the $act that they are not sus&ects in a cri%e and that 'overn%ents around the world have conde%ned theindiscri%inate and ille'al s&yin' o$ S intelli'ence a'encies. n a #i*arre co%%ent, Cla&&er also accused Snowden 6o$ hy&ocrisy $or choosin' to live in Jussia while %ain' &u#lic &ronounce%ents a#out what an Orwellian state he thins this country is7 (td. in )a**etti and San'er 2345!.Jeclessly, Cla&&er then i%&lied that Snowden is a Jussian s&y and that he had availa#le to hi% a wide ran'e o$ choices re'ardin' where he %i'ht $lee $ollowin' his &u#lic revelations o$ GS> secret ille'alities. 0y su''estin' that SnowdenDs livin' in Jussia so%ehow serves to cancel out hiscritiue o$ the authoritarian &ractices, &olicies a nd %odes o$ 'overnance, Cla&&erDs co%%ents reveal #oth an astonishin' lac o$ sel$-re$lection at the a'ency and the lies and innuendo the GS> will en'a'e in to de$lect or +usti$y acts o$ cri%inality that are now a %att er o$ &u#lic record. )orechillin'ly, the GS>Ds sca&e'oatin' %echanis%s co%e into $ull view when Cla&&er insinuated that 6Snowden is cons&irin' with +ournalists, rather than actin' as their source7 (Calderine 2345!. This is a serious a ccusation desi'ned to ratchet u& a cli%ate o$ $ear #y su''estin' that re&orters suchas ;lenn ;reenwald and others worin' with Snowden were &artici&ants in a cri%e and should thus #e su#+ect to c ri%inal re&risals. n the end, such ar'u%ents, cou&led with the #latant ?ashin'ton cover-u& o$ the sco&e and reach o$ the Orwellian &ano&tic co%&le/, testi$y to the de'ree towhich the 'overn%ent will resort to $ear % on'erin' in order to silence dissent. The Orwellian ni'ht%are e/&osed #y the revelations o$ Snowden, Ha%%er, )annin' and others &rovides only a s%all window into the worin's o$ the GS> and the 'lo#al surveillance state and says very littlea#out the other 4K %assive intelli'ence a 'encies, includin' the C>, 0 and the Penta'onDs 1e$ense ntelli'ence >'ency. ?hat the >%erican &u#lic does now is that the O#a%a ad%inistration has 'reatly e/tended the we# o$ secrecy has &ursued a relentless attac on 'overn%entwhistle#lowers and, in the $ace o$ e're'ious ille'alities co%%itted #y the 0, GS> and C> in the &ast, has instituted re$or%s that #order on #ein' lau'ha#le. )oreover, the O#a%a ad%inistration now &ro%otes its own re'i%e o$ lawlessness, evident in indiscri%inate drone attacs, thesu&&ression o$ civil li#erties and tar'eted assassinations that include >%ericans. n a %ove dri&&in' with irony, the O#a%a ad%inistration &oints to the orei'n ntelli'ence Surveillance Court, created a$ter the hearin's held #y Senator ran Church into ' overn%ent a#use, as a %uch neededre$or%, when in $act the court o&erates i n secret and has &roved to #e a ru##er sta%& $or +ust a#out any de%and issued #y the national security state. The %essa'e here $or the >%erican &eo&le is clear= secrecy is a virtue $or which there is no de%ocratic accounta#ility, and the 'overn%ent cando whatever it wants in the na%e o$ security and wa'in' the war on terroris%. nder the ru#ric o$ #attlin' terroris%, the S ;overn%ent has indeed wa'ed a war on civil li#erties, &rivacy and de%ocracy, while turnin' a #lind eye to the ways in which the &olice and intelli'ence a'encies

in$iltrate and harass 'rou&s en'a'ed in &eace$ul &rotests, &articularly treatin' those 'rou&s denouncin' #anin' and cor&orate institutions as cri%inal entities (;itlin 234%erican &u#lic. t should 'enerate %assive individual resistance and collective stru''les ai%ed at the develo&%ent o$ social %ove%ents desi'ned to tae #ac de%ocracy $ro% the cor&orate&olitical%ilitary e/tre%ists who now control all the co%%andin' institutions o$ >%erican society.Puttin' trust in a 'overn%ent that %aes a %ocery o$ civil li#erties is co%&ara#le to throwin' away the %ost #asic &rinci&les o$ our constitutional and de%ocratic order. >s onathan Schell (234s the line #etween a uthoritarian &ower and state 'overnance eva&orates, re&ression intensi$ies and increasin'ly en'ul$s the nation in a to/ic cli%ate o$ $ear and sel$-censorshi& in which $rees&eech, i$ not critical thou'ht itsel$, is viewed as a &ractice too dan'erous in which to en'a'e. The GS> alone has #eco%e what Scott Shane (234%ericans without due cause dis&atch secret o&erations $orces wherever it wants and ille'ally 'ather intelli'ence on hundreds o$ world leaders, #usiness e/ecutives and $orei'n co%&anies, such as 0ra*ilDs Petro#ias oil $ir%, sends a clear %essa'e to those who run the national security statethat they can act with i%&unity. President O#a%a u&dates and 6ela#orates President ;eor'e ?. 0ushDs notions o$ &re-e%&tive strie #y clai%in' the $urther &rivile'e to order the illin' o$ any citi*en overseas who is #eli eved to #e a terrorist or a $riend o$ terrorists7 (Ba&ha% 2342!. n O#a%aDs

&ost-Orwellian authoritarian state, the uni$yin' %essa'e is that that lawlessness has #eco%e nor%ali*ed and that whatever the national security state does, however horri$ic, nasty and ille'al, those who run it and carry out its &olicies and &ractices will not have to $ace a court o$ law and #e&rosecuted. State 'overnance has #een $reed $ro% the rule o$ law. History o$$ers alternative narratives to those su&&orted #y the new authoritarians. Su&&ressed %e%ories have a way o$ sur$acin' une/&ectedly at ti%es and, in doin' so, can &ose a dan'erous challen'e to o$$icial narratives andthe nor%ali*ation o$ $or%s o$ tyranny, includin' the %echanis%s o$ a surveillance state de$ined #y a history o$ i lle'al and cri%inal #ehaviour. >s the %ainstrea% &ress recently noted, the dar shadow o$ OrwellDs dysto&ian $a#le was so $ri'htenin' in the early 493s t hat a 'rou& o$ youn'

&eo&le #roe into an 0 o$$ice in )edia, Pennsylvania, stole as %any records as &ossi#le, and leaed the% to the &ress. Gone o$ the 'rou& was ever cau'ht (;ood%an 2345#!. Their actions were not only dee&ly rooted in an era when dissent a'ainst the Eietna% ?ar, racis% and cor&oratecorru&tion was runnin' hi'h, #ut also su''estive o$ an era i n which the &olitics o$ $ear was not a 'eneral condition o$ society. Bar'e 'rou&s o$ &eo&le were %o#ili*in' in diverse sites to %ae &ower accounta#le on a nu%#er o$ $ronts, e/tendin' $ro% colle'e ca%&uses to the sha&in' o$ $orei'n

&olicy. The 494 #ur'lary %ade clear that the 0 was en'a'in' in a nu%#er o$ ille'al and cri%inal acts ai%ed &ri%arily a'ainst anti-war dissenters and the >$rican->%erican co%%unity, which was at that ti%e 'ivin' a voice in so%e cities to the 0lac Power %ove%ent. ?hat the >%erican&eo&le learned as a result o$ the leaed 0 docu%ents was that %any &eo&le were #ein' ille'ally wireta&&ed and that anti-war 'rou&s were #ein' in$iltrated. )oreover, the leaed $iles revealed that the 0 was s&yin' on )artin Buther :in' r. as well as a nu%#er o$ other &ro%inent&oliticians and activists. > cou&le o$ years later, Carl Stern, an G0C re&orter, $ollowed u& on the in$or%ation that had #een leaed and revealed a &ro'ra%%e called COGT@BPJO, which stands $or Counterintelli'ence Pro'ra%, that docu%ented how #oth the 0 and C> were not onlysecretly harassin', disru&tin', in$iltratin' and neutrali*in' le$tist or'ani*ations, #ut also atte%&tin' t o assassinate those considered do%estic and $orei'n ene%ies (;ood%an 2345a!. COGT@BPJO was a#out %ore than s&yin'= it was an ille'ally sanctioned %achinery o$ violence andassassination (Churchill and Eander ?all 2334, Peo&leDs History o$ the C> 234

#y the theolo'ian, 1ietrich 0onhoe$$er, who was illed #y the Ga*is. ?hat is crucial a#out the 0 incident is that it not only revealed the lon' historical reach o$ 'overn%ent surveillance and cri%inal activity desi'ned to uash dissent, #ut it also &rovided a %odel o$ civic coura'ede%onstrated #y youn' &eo&le who acted on their &rinci&les in a non-violent way to sto& what they considered to #e %achineries o$ civil and social death. >s ;lenn ;reenwald (2345! ar'ues, COGT@BPJO %aes clear that 'overn%ents have no ual%s a#out 6tar'etin' citi*ens $or theirdis$avored &olitical views and tryin' to turn the% into cri%inals throu'h in$iltration, entra&%ent and the lie7 and that such actions are 6alive and well today in the nited States7. ;overn%ents that elevate lawlessness to one o$ the hi'hest &rinci&les o$ social order re&roduce and le'iti%ateviolence as an acce&ta#le %ode o$ action throu'hout a society. Eiolence in >%erican society has #eco%e #oth its heart#eat and nervous syste%, &araly*in' de%ocratic ideolo'y, &olicy and 'overnance and &erha&s even the very idea o$ &oliti cs. nder such circu%stances, the cor&oratesurveillance state #eco%es sy%&to%atic o$ a $or% o$ tyranny and authoritarianis% that has corru&ted and disavowed the ideals and reality o$ a su#stantive de%ocracy. ?hile the Snowden a$$air #rou'ht the stateDs ca&acity $or s&yin' and corru&tion to a level o$ &u#lic consciousness &reviouslyunnown, the %edia res&onded #y alertin' individuals to &otential threats to their &rivacy. )edia covera'e did little or nothin' to &rovide a lar'er conte/t that %i'ht stir a collective res&onse to the surveillance state that currently has >%erican de%ocracy under sie'e. Eir'inia @u#ans (2345!ri'htly ar'ues that the &ractices o$ state and cor&orate surveillance should #e seen as %ore than a violation o$ individual &rivacy ri'hts. >ny atte%&t to &rotect the &rivacy o$ >%erican citi*ens %ust consider the lon'er history o$ how %any >%ericans have never #een sa$e $ro% the state and itsintrusions. or this reason, surveillance should #e seen as a civil ri'hts issue #ecause its &ractice is se&arate and uneual. >s she &oints out, $or= %ost &eo&le &rivacy is a &i&edrea%. Bivin' in dense ur#an nei'h#orhoods, &u#lic housin', $avelas, &risons, or su#+ect to ho%e visits #y

caseworers, &oor and worin' &eo&le %i'ht wish $or %ore &ersonal s&ace #ut they donDt %ae SnowdenDs %istae o$ assu%in' that &rivacy is 6what all ows us to deter%ine who we are and who we want to #e7. Je'i%es o$ surveillance %ust #eheld accounta#le $or their wide-ran'in' violations o$ hu%an ri'hts and de%ocratic values #eyond individual &rivacyri'hts, includin' the ways they have under%ined= internationalis%, active citi*enshi&, access to in$or%ation,$reedo% o$ e/&ression, de%ocratic 'overnance, civic &artici&ation, %ultilateralis%, inclusivity and non-discri%ination, &lurality, cultural diversity, $reedo% o$ s&eech F. Seein' &rivacy as the cornerstone $or de%ocracyis a ind o$ naivetR we can no lon'er e/cuse nor a$$ord. (@u#ans 2345! n a si%ilar %anner, the renowned intellectual historian uentin Sinner insists that li%itin' critiues o$surveillance to char'es o$ violated &rivacy does not account $or the underlyin' cause= a#usive &ower. On this &oint, Sinner (td. in Sinner and )arshall 234

#alancin' security a'ainst civil li#erties. +ny understanding of the growth of the surveillance state must beconnected to a growing culture of violence! the criminali'ation of social problems! the depolitici'ation of

public memory! the militari'ation of +merican society and the rise of the punishing state with its secret

prisons! state&sanctioned torture and one of the largest prison systems in the world! all of which ,are only the

most concrete! condensed manifestations of a diffuse security regime in which we are all interned and enlisted7


5/47

(Hardt and Ge'ri 2342, &. 2, with its 6ur'e to surveil, eavesdro& on, s&y on, %onitor, record, and save everyco%%unication o$ any sort on the &lanet7 (@n'elhardt 234

cultures of control and punishment, includin' security-&atrolled corridors o$ &u#lic schools, the e/&ansion o$ su&er-%a/ &risons, the hy&er-%ilitari*ation o$ local &olice $orces, the rise o$ the %ilita ryindustrialacade%ic co%&le/, and

the increasin' la#ellin' o$ dissent as an act o$ terroris% (see ;irou/ 2344, 2342, 2345!. ndenia#ly, one o$ the %ost dread$ul conseuences o$ neoli#eral %odernity andits culture o$ surveillance is the ideolo'ical war #ein' wa'ed in order #oth to eli%inate any &u#lic s&heres ca&a#le o$educatin' the &u#lic to hold &ower accounta#le and to dissolve all social #onds that entail a sense o$ res&onsi#ilitytowards others.n such circu%stances, &olitics has not only #eco%e dys$unctional and corru&t in the $ace o$ %assiveineualities in wealth and &ower, #ut it has also been emptied out of any substantive meaning.>t the sa%e ti%e, 6citi*enshi& has

#eco%e de&olitici*ed, reduced to an act o$ &roducin', consu%in', and discardin' without &ause,hastenin' thee/haustion o$ li$e and the de&letion o$ resources7 (Crary 234ccountin' or >&ocaly&se Je-Thinin' Social >ccountin' Theory >nd Practice or Our Ti%eO$ Social Crises >nd @colo'ical Colla&se,htt&=IIresearcharchive.vuw.ac.n*I/%luiI#itstrea%IhandleI433K


6/47

attention tothose social patterns of ine-ualitywhicha&&ear to #e violations o$ such &rinci&les, and to call attention to thedestructive ecolo'ical &atterns that threaten individual and collective well-#ein'. >s a critic and conscience o$ society, one tas o$ intellectuals is to identi$y issues

that &eo&le should all &ay attention to, even when indeed, es&ecially when&eo&le would rather i'nore the issues(ensen, 234C@BW;@O;J>PH@S.&d$

Thinin' intelligently a#out &eacewithin the disci&line o$ 'eo'ra&hy reuires us to +u/ta&ose our as&irations to a &eace$ulworld, one #eyond war and at least the %ost e're'ious in+ustices o$ structural violence,with care$ul analysis o$ how theworld is #ein' chan'edso that useful advocacy is &ossi#le.Contrary to ar'u%ents that construct a real world o$ &olitics se&arate $ro% &eaceactivis%, one co%%only $or%ulated in ter%s o$ an autono%ous real% o$ the international, the ar'u%ents $ro% #oth critical international relations thinin' as well as

the early critical 'eo&olitics discussions were &recisely that the reasonings of politics are part of politics! and that thinin' care$ullya#out the ontolo'ical $ra%in'sinvoed in &olitical discoursematteras &art o$ the &olitical worldthat constitutes thepossible options for political actors. The tas) for scholarsin &resent ti%es, as so o$ten in the &ast has to #e to ee& as&iration,analysis and advocacy in creative tension wish$ul thinin' has to #e avoided at each sta'e, #ut i$ intellectual activity is to #e use$ul in %ain' a %ore &eace$ulworld then naivety is no hel&. >nalysis can channel as&iration into use$ul advocacy &recisely #y actin' as an antidote to either e%otional i%&ulse or thou'htless heroic'estures. t is crucial to the tas o$ the acade%ic and as such linin' acade%ic activity directly into &ractical action is si%&ly &art o$ our trade. Teachin' %atters

'reatly here, and care$ul advocacy o$ &eace$ul &ossi#ilities is )eyto teachin' critical 'eo&olitics. The scholarly research #oth onterritoryand waras well as discussions o$ environ%ental de'radationand its security i%&lications#oth showclearly that how theseissues are handled matters greatly. Confrontation is not inevitable&olitical initiatives toward coo&eration ratherthan real politi) lead to constructive solutions.Continuin' to challen'e deter%inist ar'u%ents that ar'ue otherwise re%ains a ey tas $or'eo'ra&hers (:earns 2339!. elegitimi'ation of violence is a )ey parto$ all this. @ndin' death &enalties, reducin' &hysical a#use, torture,>%nesty nternational ca%&ai'ns and international solidarity in the $ace o$ su$$erin' as well as e/tendin' the nor%s o$ &olitics and the a&&ro&riate cultural %odes


7/47

acce&ta#le $or rulin'. t is &recisely the $ailure o$ the S to live u& to su&&osedly hi'her civili*ational standards in >#u ;rai#, ;uantana%o and now in the tar'etin' o$

drone wea&ons that under%ines its le'iti%acy in %any &laces (;re'ory 2343,Hannah 233K!. Cou&led with the'reat len'ths to which the 4nitedStates has 'one to render its actions legitimate, and to avoid&otential&ro#le%s with the internationalcri%inal court, %atterso$ le'alityo$$er considerable options for activist'eo'ra&hers to contri#ute to chan'in' societal nor%s away frommilitarism.The lins to critical le'al 'eo'ra&hies need $urther attention too +urisdiction %atters (;re'ory 233K!X The overall conclusion $ro% this &a&er is that'eo'ra&hers should never $or'et that &olitics is &rior to all the other discussions and understandin' &eace in the conte/t o$ &articular $or%s o$ &olitics is not unrelatedto the $or%s o$ rule and authority invoed in &articular situations. Conte/tualisations continue to %atter 'reatly there are co%&le/ 'eo'ra&hies to all this. The world ischan'in' ra&idly #ut sha&in' that chan'e is a %atter o$ &ractical initiatives, and &eace%ain'. This si%&le &oint should never #e $or'otten neither should the o&&osite

&oint that war %ay ha&&en des&ite 'ood intentions. Go dou#t in the ne/t $ew years there will #e $urther re$lections on the &rocesses that lead to the out#rea o$ theirst ?orld ?ar, The ;uns o$ >u'ust in 0ar#ara Tuch%an7s (49K2!$a%ous ter%s, or what Giall er'uson (233K! discusses in ter%s o$ %eta&hors o$ a train wrec.0uildin' institutions that can ne'otiate and coo&erate in the $ace o$ desta#ili*in' crises events %atters 'reatly, notwithstandin' the &o&ular ani%osity towards'overn%ents #uilt u& #y a 'eneration o$ neo-li#eral ideolo'y and ri'ht win' &o&ulist %ove%ents 'enerously $unded #y those with an interest in turnin' states into the

tools o$ ca&ital. n the $ace o$ endless neo&0althusian fearso$ scarcities anddisru&tions to co%e, the &ossi#ilities o$ a%ore &eace$ul world re%ain achieva#le in %any &laces. Challenging fearful cartographies, re$usin' thedesi'nation o$ di$$erenceand distance as necessarilydan'eroushas lon' #een &art o$ the 'eo'ra&hers7&otentialcontri#ution, as Gic )e'oran re%inds us all $reuently with his re&eated invocation o$ Peter :ro&otin7s (48!state%ent concernin' what 'eo'ra&hy ou'ht to#e. Thinin' lon' and hard a#out the di$$usion o$ %ilitary technolo'ies and the &ossi#le ways 'eo'ra&hers %i'ht use$ully contri#ute to the discussions o$ ar%s control,not least the ey &oint a#out the i%&licit 'eo&olitics in the su&&osedly technical arran'e%ents o$ wea&ons li%itation veri$icat ions %atters too (1al#y 2344#!. >r%scontrol needs very %uch %ore attention. lti%ately 'eo&olitics is crucial in that i$ the do%inant %a&&in's o$ &olitics continue to s&eci$y the world in ter%s o$territorial do%ains o$ rule in rivalry with one another, and with %ilitary $orce as the ulti%ate ar#iter, then the &ossi#ilities o$ its use re%ain on the a'enda. Jealists willar'ue that this is inevita#le. 0ut i$ the &aci$ication o$ international national, or &erha&s tha t should #e inter-i%&erial, relations that the nited Gations syste% has

#e'un, is e/tended then the &ossi#ilities o$ a &aci$ic 'eo&olitics o&en u&. Gow the challen'e is to see new %odes o$ rule that deal with the%ost i%&ortant %a&&in's o$ an interconnected 'lo#ewhere ecolo'ical %attersreuire %a&&in's o$ interconnectionrather than #orders o$ autonomous entities(1al#y 2339#!.?ho decides the $uture o$ the &lanet matters greatly,#ut

&olitics re%ainsat least so $ar a %atter o$ who decides lon' #e$ore it is a %atter o$ what 'ets decided over. That too is a%atter $or &eace$ul 'eo'ra&hers to tacle the fate of the earth is at sta)e, and as a disci&line with as&irations to study it as hu%anity7s ho%e, our

attention is certainly warranted. n the circu%stances o$ ra&id 'lo#al chan'e and the &otential disru&tions that are co%in', wenow have additionalco%&ellin' reasonsto wor towards %ain' Santayana7s dis%al assertionconcernin' the inevita#ility o$ wara thingof the past.


8/47

*erm / #NC

The lin) is premised on their curtailment of surveillance5they cannot sever the ideology

the plan is invested in5that would ma)e being neg impossible5abandoning the +FF in the

#ac moots all preparation

The +FF does not engage in the necessary connecting and delegitimi'ing of surveillance

practice as a system of violence but rather views it as a failure of legal safeguards&that6s

Girou and alby.

7egalism crowds out deeper political solutions

Schlanger! 0ichigan law professor! #$12()ar'o, The Pro#le% ?ith Be'alis% in the Surveillance State, 44-, htt&=II+ustsecurity.or'I44K, $or e/a%&le, i%&oses a &ro#a#le cause reuire%ent $or do%estic surveillance $or $orei'nintelli'ence &ur&oses, as the Su&re%e Court hinted in the :eith case %i'ht so%eday #e reuired as a %atter o$ constitutional law. 0ut that7s it, su#stantively. O&ti%al &olicy reuires cali#ration o$&rivacy and surveillanceYsurveillance should #e conducted only when its security #ene$its outwei'h its &rivacy in$rin'e%ent. S> includes no such constraint. To #e sure, S> directs the GS>to %ini%i*e in$rin'e%ents on unconsentin' nited States &ersonsY#ut only inso$ar as such %ini%i*ation is consistent with the need o$ the nited States to o#tain, &roduce, and disse%inate$orei'n intelli'ence in$or%ation. Thus, S> cate'orically 'ives security %ore wei'ht than li#erty its te/t directs that an y $orei'n intelli'ence need can tru%& &rivacy. "ou %ay #e thinin'that the Con'ress that enacted S> chose to &ut a thu%# on the scale $or security #ecause it #elieved S>7s tru%& card $or security constituted o&ti%al &olic y. n other words, &erha&s the 49Con'ress saw S> as closin' whatever civil li#erties 'a& it thou'ht needed closin'. The historical record su''ests otherwise. Je$or%ers in the 493s %ade clear that they didn7t intend $orcon'ressional &rotection o$ civil li#erties a'ainst surveillance to end with S>. Jather, the Church Co%%ittee7s view was that on to& o$ S>, e/ecutive-con'ressional disclosure would$acilitate $uture interventions to %ini%i*e the &ros&ective u se o$ li#erty-in$rin'in' techniues. Con'ressional disclosure has not in &ractice $ul$illed these ho&es. > lac o$ le'islative e/&ertise andthe usually low &olitical salience o$ intelli'enceY#oth the%selves rooted in secrecyYhave %eant that &ost-S> con'ressional interventions have not &layed %uch o$ a role in &rotectin' civilli#erties. Perha&s the Snowden disclosures have shi$ted the &olitical econo%y enou'h $or Con'ress to &ass a ri'hts-&rotective %easure in res&onse, #ut that is still hy&othetical. 0esides, even i$Con'ress does u&date surveillance rules to #e %ore li#erty-&rotective, such an action will only te%&orarily ali'n can with the re$or%ers7 ideas a#out should and only $or hi'h-salience issues.or issues that have not %ade it into the &ress, or $or i ssues in the $uture, there will always #e a dis+unction #etween what i s le'al and what even %e%#ers o$ Con'ress would $ind to #e, on $ulland &u#lic consideration, a&&ro&riate &olicy. >reas o$ surveillance &ractice that have not so $ar leaedYor in which e/ecutive &ractice chan'esYwill &ersist, and there$ore so will a civil li#erties'a&. @/ecutive orders Ge/t in ran a$ter t he Constitution and statutes co%e e/ecutive orders. One o$ @/ecutive Order 42


9/47

inde&endence, they are not dissatis$ied. +nd when lawyers are given a say in policy! their legal sign&off fre-uently stands in as

sufficient (ustification for the policy. To -uote :ac) Goldsmith! describing the ;ush administration6s

aggressive stance on a variety of national security topics! the role of lawyers was part of why 0andwidth and Be'iti%ation Theorists and o#servers in avariety o$ $ields have develo&ed the #road critiue that law and its conco%itant ri'hts orientation %ay have thecounterintuitive i%&act o$ decreasin' the wel$are o$ ri'htsholdersYor, in a %ore %odest version o$ the &oint, %aya%eliorate so%e set o$ har%s but undermine more ambitious efforts. ocusin' &articularly on liti'ation, they ar'ue that it is inherently a ti%identer&rise, and yet it crowds out other %ore %uscular &olicy a&&roaches. >t the GS>, ri'hts occu&y the li#erty $ield #ecause o$ a %undane$actor= attention #andwidth. >$ter all, even lar'e o r'ani*ations have li%ited ca&acity. NS+6s legal compliance is such an enormous tas)that little room remains for more conceptual weighing of interests and options. O$ the do*en-&lus o$$ices that do co%&liance or civilli#erties wor, +ust twoYthe Civil Bi#erties and Privacy O$$ice at the GS>, and the Privacy and Civil Bi#erties Oversi'ht 0oardYare currently &layin' a &olic y rather than strictly a co%&liancerole. They are also, not coincidentally, the newest and s%allest. thin that this #andwidth issue is also driven # y a %ore conce&tual, less &ractical, $actor= that ri'hts tal hides the necessity o$

&olicy +ud'%ents and, #y its &urity, diverts attention $ro% that %essier $ield. )orton Horwit* e/&lains the &oint= > . . . trou#lin' as&ect o$ ri'hts discourse is thatits $ocus on $unda%ental, inherent, inaliena#le or natural ri'hts is a way o$ o#scurin' or distortin' the reality o$ thesocial construction o$ ri'hts and duties. t shi$ts discussion away $ro% the always dis&uta#le issue o$ what is or isnot socially desira#le. Ji'hts discourse . . . wishes us to #elieve instead that the reco'nition o$ ri'hts is not auestion o$ social choice at all, as i$ in the nor%ative and constitutional real% ri'hts have the sa%e $orce as the lawo$ 'ravity. 0y co%&arison with +udicially en$orcea#le ri'hts, other %ethods o$ advancin' individual li#erty loo $ee#le, contin'ent, +ury-ri''ed. >n accusation o$ ille'ality #eco%es thereuired $irst #id $or any &olicy discussion, and a re$utation o$ that accusation ends &lay. This dyna%ic is very %uch in evidence in the res&onse to the Privacy and Civil Bi#erties Oversi'ht0oard7s (PCBO0! re&ort on S> Section 32. ?hen the PCBO0 declined to o&ine that Section 32 surveillance i s ille'al, its re&ort $ound lit tle traction. Ji'hts discourse stunts needed &olicydiscourse. n addition, +udicial review le 'iti%ates the >%erican surveillance syste%. That is why surveillance &ro&onents i%%ediately &oint to court su&ervision when they want to su''est thateverythin' is $ine. Court involve%ent is o$$ered as evidence o$ #oth le'ality and a&&ro&riateness indeed, the two are conce&tually %er'ed. )y &oint is not that S> Court le'iti%ation is &hony.n $act, +udicial review has real i$ li%ited e$$ects on the syste%. "et the oversi'ht 'ain carries with it a cost the e/istence o$ +udicial review %aes &olitical chan'e %ore di$$icult. The &oint is notthat law acco%&lishes nothin' $or its &ur&orted #ene$iciaries. $ that were true, it could not le'iti%ate. 0ut 'ains $ro% ri'hts %ayYand in the surveillance situation clearly doY%ae 'ains $ro%

&olitics less availa#le. To su% u&, neither the Constitution nor S> ai%s to o&ti%ally #alance security and li#ertyYandwell-understood di$$iculties in con'ressional intelli'ence oversi'ht %ean that new statutes are unliely to $ill that'a&. Biewise the e/istin' $oundational @ /ecutive Order, 42t the sa%e ti%e, the solution see%s to #eclearly situated within the discursive framewor) of the problem.0ure su''ests that there should #e a &ri%ary concern $or 6e$$ectiveness,euality, $airness, and +ustice not $or states, &er se, #ut $or hu%an #ein's, and t he 'lo#al #ios&here7 (&. 25!. nless the only &ro#le% wi th %odernity is the &ost- ?est&halian structure o$ the state(which this a&&roach does not eschew, #ut clai%s not to &rivile'e!, then this state%ent o$ values %i'ht entrench the &ro#le%. )any o$ the ideas o$ euality, $airness, and +ustice that co%e to %ind

with the (so%ewhat rehearsed! use o$ those words in &ro'ressive &olitics are inse&ara#le $ro% an ethos o$ enli'hten%ent %odernity. This %ay #e &ro#le%atic on a nu%#er o$ levels. irst, it%ay fail to interrupt the series o$ choices that 0ure su''ests&roduce a cycle o$ insecurity. Second, it %ay $old #ac onto itsel$ in thereco%%endations that security cos%o&olitanis% &roduces. This es&ecially concerned %e in 0ure7s discussion o$ h ow to end 6dan'erous &rocesses,7 where he &laces 6'reater $aithin theethical, nor%ative, and le'al su&&ression o$ dan'erous &rocessesand actions than in $or%alistic or &rocedural solutions7 (&. 25!. t see%s to %e that there is a'ood ar'u%ent that 6suppression6 is itself a ,dangerous process,7 yet 0ure7s $ra%ewor does not really include a

mechanism for internal criti-ue. >nother &ro#le% that see%s to con$ound security cos%o&olitanis% is evaluatin' the relationshi&s #etween &ower, 'overnance, and'overn%entality. There are certainly several ways in which 0ure uses a notion o$ the state that distin'uishes security cos%o&olitanis% $ro% the %ainstrea% neoli#eral literature. or e/a%&le, hecharacteri*es the 6state as an entity whose national survival de&ends on its 'lo#al &artici&ation, o#li'ations, and de&en- dencies,7 (citin' 0ure 234t the sa%e ti%e, later in the article, 0ure su''ests entrenchin' the current structure o$ the state. His &ractical a&&roach o$ looin'$or the 6solidarity o$ the 'o vernin' with the 'overned7 see%s to si%ultaneously interro'ate the current &ower structures and rei$y the%. 0ure says= Such a 6solidarity o$ t he 'overned7 thaten'a'es in a 6&ractical interro'ation o$ &ower7 ou'ht to #e a si'ni$icant $eature o$ security cos%o&olitanis%. >t the sa%e ti%e, however, security cos%o&olitanis% %ust #e concerned with

i%&rovin' the 'lo#al 'overnance o$ security # y elites and e/&erts. (&. 24! This attach%ent to the i%&rove%ent o$ e/istin' structures o$'overnance see%s to #e at the heart o$ what see as the failure of the radical potential in the idea o$ securitycos%o&olitanis%.?hen discussin' how the &ower dyna%ics #etween the elite and the su#ordinated %i'ht chan'e, 0ure su''ests that 6voluntary renunciation o$ the &rivile'es and&owers o$ #oth state and cor&orate soverei'nty will no dou#t #e a necessary $eature o$ such an order7 (&. 28!. Jelyin' on the voluntary renunciation o$ &ower #ythe &ower$ul see%s #oth unrealistic and not &articularly theoretically innovative. This see%s to #e at the center o$ a


10/47

&arado/ inherent in security cos%o&olitanis%= aith in the ?estern li#eral state is insidious, #ut the ?estern li#eralstate does not have to #e.)odernity causes insecurity, #ut need not #e discarded $ully.So%e universali*ations are dan'erous, others are#eni'n. 1an'erous &rocesses %ust #e sto&&ed, even i$ #y dan'erous &rocesses. )oral entre&reneurshi& is the ey, #ut ther e i s no clear $oundation$or what counts as %oral. The security cos%o&olitanis% critiue is ins&ired #y conseuentialis%, #ut lacs deontolo'ical $oundations des&ite deontolo'ical i%&lications. 0ure calls $or (andindeed de%ands! to 6tae res&onsi#ility $or it7 (&. 2

understandin' the insidious de&loy%ent o$ various notions o$ %oral &ro'ress #y others. Security cos%o&olitanis%, then, is a &rocla%ation $or radicalchan'e that isinitially stalled by its internal contradictionsand$urther handica&&ed #y its lac o$ ca&acity to enact the

very sort o$ radical chan'e0ure sees it as $unda%ental to ri'htin' the wron's he sees in the world. The result see%s to #e the(&otential! reificationof eisting governmentsAgovernmentality throu'h what essentially a&&ears to #e a non-anthro&ocentric 6hu%an security7which cannot #e clearly distin'uished $ro% current notions o$ hu%an security(&. 48!. t a&&ears to re%ain to&-downand without clear %oral $oundation while clai%in' si'ni$icant i%&rove%ent over e/istin' a&&roaches . ThisappearanceAseduction of improvement without real promise for change might be more insidious thanthe

nihilismo$ which %any &ost-structuralists are accused, as it seductively appears to solve a problem it does not solve.


11/47

7in)s


12/47

Begemony

Begemony is a paranoid fantasy&&&the strategy omnipotence sees threats to empire

everywhere! which necessitates constant violence&&&you have an obligation to place the

structural violence that hegemony invisibili'es at the core of your decision calculus

0cClintoc)! 4=&0adison women and gender studies professor! #$$(>nne, Paranoid @%&ire= S&ecters $ro% ;uantZna%o and >#u ;hrai#, S%all >/e, )arch, &ro+ect %use!

0y now it is $air to say that the nited States has co%e to #e dominated by two grand and dangerous hallucinations8 thepromise of benign 4S globali'ation and the permanent threat of the have co%e to $eel that we cannotunderstand the etravagance of the violenceto which the S 'overn%enthas co%%itted itsel$a$ter 9I44Ytwo countriesinvaded, thousands of innocent people imprisoned! )illed! and torturedYunless we 'ras& a defining feature ofour moment, that is, a deep and disturbing doubleness with respect to power. Tain' sha&e, as it now does,around fantasies of global omnipotence(O&eration n$inite ustice, the ?ar to @nd >ll @vil! coincidin' with nightmares of impendingattac)! the 4nited States has entered the domain of paranoia8 dream world and catastrophe.or it is only in &aranoiathat one $inds si%ultaneouslyand in such condensed $or% #oth deliriums of absolute power and forebodings of perpetualthreat.Hence the s&ectral and ni'ht%arish uality o$ the war on terror, alimitless war against a limitless threat! a warvaunted by the 4S administration to encompass all of space and persisting without end.0ut the war on terror is not a real war,

$or terror is not an identi$ia#le ene%y nor a strate'ic, real-world tar'et. The war on terror is what ?illia% ;i#son calls elsewhere a consensualhallucination!>5 and the S'overn%ent can $lin' its %ilitary %i'ht a'ainst 'hostly a&&aritions and hallucinate a victoryover all evil only at the cost of catastrophic self&delusion and the infliction of great calamities elsewhere. haveco%e to $eel that weur'ently need to %ae visi#le?the better politically to challengethose esta#lished #ut concealed circuitsof imperial violencethat now ani%ate the war on terror. ?e need, as ur'ently, to illu%inate the continuities that connect thosecircuits o$ i%&erial violence a#road with the vast, internal shadowlands o$ &risons and su&er%a/esYthe %odern slave-shi&son the %iddle &assa'e to nowhereYthat have co%e to characteri*e the nited States as a super&carceral state.8 Can we, the uneasyheirs o$ e%&ire, now s&ea only o$ national thin'sQ$ a lon'-esta#lished #ut &ri%arily covert S i%&erialis% has, since 9I44, %ani$ested itsel$ %orea''ressively as an overt e%&ire, does the terrain and o#+ect o$ intellectual in-uiry, as well as the clai%s o$ politicalresponsibility !not also e/tend #eyond that use$ul $iction o$ the e/ce&tional nation to e%#racethe shadowlands ofempire9$ so, how can we theori*ethe &hantas%a'oric, i%&erial violence that has co%e so dread$ully to constitute our inshi&with the ordinary,#ut which also at the sa%e %o%ent renders e/traordinary the ordinary #odies o$ ordinary &eo&le,an i%&erial violence which in collusion with a co%&licit cor&orate %edia would render itsel$ invisi#le, casting

states of emergency into fitful shadow and fleshly bodies into specters9or imperialism is not something thathappens elsewhere!an offshore$act to #e de&lored #ut as easily i'nored. Jather, the $orce o$ e%&ire co%es to recon$i'ure,fromwithin, the nature and violence o$ the nation-state itsel$, 'ivin' rise to &er&le/in' uestions= ?ho under an e%&ireare we, the &eo&leQ>nd who are the 'hosted, ordinary &eo&le #eyond the nation-state who, in turn, constitute usQ ?e now inha#it a crisis o$ violence and the visi#le. How do we insist on seein' the violence that the i%&erial state atte%&ts to render invisi#le, while also seein' the ordinary &eo&le a$$licted #ythat violenceQ or to allow the s&ectral, dis$i'ured &eo&le (es&ecially those under torture! o#li 'ed to inha#it the haunted no -&laces and &enu%#ra o$ e%&ire to #e %ade visi#le as ordinar y &eo&leis to $or$eit the lon'-held S clai% o$ %oral and cultural e/ce&tionalis%, the traditional sel$-identity o$ the nited States as the uniuely su&erior, universal standard-#earer o$ %oral authority, atenacious, national %ytholo'y o$ ori'inary i nnocence now in tatters. The dee&er uestion, however, is not only how to see #ut also how to theori*e and o&&ose the violence without #eco%in'#e'uiled #y the seductions o$ s&ectacle alone. K Perha&s in the la#yrinths o$ torture we %ust also $ind a way to s&ea with 'hosts, $or s&ecters distur# the authority o$ vision and the hauntin's o$

&o&ular %e%ory disru&t the 'reat $or'ettin's o$ o$$icial history. Paranoia @ven the &aranoid have ene%ies. Y1onald Ju%s$eld ?hy &aranoiaQ Can we$ully understand theproliferating circuits of imperial violenceYthe very ecli&sin' o$ which 'ives to our %o%ent its uncanny, &hantas%a'oric castYwithoutunderstandin' the pervasive presence of the paranoia that has co%e, uite violently, to %ani$est itsel$ across thepolitical and cultural spectrum as a de$inin' $eature o$ our ti%eQ0y &aranoia, %ean not si%&ly Ho$stadter7s $a%ous identi$ication o$ the Sstate7s tendency toward cons&iracy theories. Jather, conceive o$ &aranoia as an inherent contradictionwith res&ect to &ower= a dou#le-sided &hantas% thatoscillates &recariously #etween deliriu%s o$ 'randeur and ni'ht%ares o$ &er&etual threat, a dee& and dan'erous

dou#leness with res&ect to &ower that is held in unsta#le tension,

#ut which, i$ suddenly desta#ili*ed (as a$ter 9I44!,

can&roduce pyrotechnic displays of violence. The &ertinence o$ understandin' &aranoia, ar'ue, lies in its &eculiarly inti%ate and &eculiarly dan'erous relation toviolence. Bet %e #e clear= do not see &aranoia as a &ri%ary, structural cause o$ S i%&erialis% nor as its structurin' identity. Gor do see the S war on terror as ani%ated #y so%e collective,&sychic a'ency, su#%er'ed %ind, or He'elian cunnin' o$ reason, nor #y what Susan aludi calls a national terror drea%. 9 Gor a% interested in evoin' &aranoia as a ind o$ &sycholo'icaldia'nosis o$ the i%&erial nation-state. Gations do not have &syches or an unconscious onl y &eo&le do. Jather, a social entity such as an or'ani*ation, state, or e%&ire can #e s&oen o$ as&aranoid i$ the do%inant &owers 'overnin' that entity cohere as a collective co%%unity around contradictory cultural narratives, sel$-%ytholo'ies, &ractices, and identities that oscillate#etween delusions o$ inherent su&eriority and o%ni&otence, and &hantas%s o$ threat and en'ul$%ent. The ter% &aranoia is analytically use$ul here, then, not as a descri&tion o$ a collectivenational &syche, nor as a descri&tion o$ a universal &atholo'y, #ut rather as an analytically strate'ic conce&t, a way o$ seein' and #ein' attentive to contradictions within &ower, a way o$ %ain'visi#le (the #etter &olitically to o&&ose! the contradictory $lash&oints o$ violence that the state tries to conceal. Paranoia is in this sense what call a hin'e &heno%enon, articulated #etween theordinary &erson and society, #etween &sychodyna%ics and socio-&olitical history. Paranoia is in that sense dialectical rather than #inary, $or its violence eru&ts $ro% the $orce o$ its %ulti&le,cascadin' contradictions= the inti%ate %e%ories o$ wounds, de$eats, and hu%iliations condensin' with cultural $antasies o$ a''randi*e%ent and reven'e, in such a way as to #e &roductive atti%es o$ uns&eaa#le violence. or how else can we understand such de#auches o$ crueltyQ > critical uestion still re%ains= does not so%ethin' terri#le have to ha&&en to ordinary &eo&le(%ilitary &olice, soldiers, interro'ators! to instill in the%, as ordinary &eo&le, in the %ost inti%ate, $leshly ways, a &aranoid cast that ena#les the% to act co%&liantly with, and in o#edience to, the

&aranoid visions o$ a &aranoid stateQ Perha&s we need to tae a lon', hard loo at the si%ultaneously hu%iliatin' and a''randi*in' rituals o$ %ilitari*ed


13/47

institutions, where#y individuals are $irst #roen down, then reinte'rated(incor&orated! into the lar'er cor&s as auni$ied, o#edient $i'htin' #ody! the methods by which schools,the %ilitary, trainin' ca%&sY not to mention the paranoidimage&worlds of the corporate media5instill paranoia in ordinary people and fatally con(ure up collective

but unstable fantasies of omnipotence. 43 n what $ollows, want to trace the $lash&oints o$ i%&erial &aranoia into the la#yrinths o$ torture in order to illu%inatethree crises that ani%ate our %o%ent= the crisis o$ violence and the visi#le, the crisis o$ i%&erial le'iti%acy, and what call the ene%y de$icit. e/&lore these $lash&oints o$ i%&erial &aranoia asthey e%er'e in the torture at ;uantZna%o and >#u ;hrai#. ar'ue that ;uantZna%o is the territoriali*in' o$ &aranoia and that t orture itsel$ is &aranoia incarnate, in order to %ae visi#le, inee&in' with Ha*el Car#y7s #rilliant wor, those contradictory sites where i%&erial racis%, se/uality, and 'ender catastro&hically collide. 44 The @ne%y 1e$icit= )ain' the 0ar#arians Eisi#le0ecause ni'ht is here #ut the #ar#arians have not co%e. So%e &eo&le arrived $ro% the $rontiers, >nd they said that there are no lon'er any #ar#arians. >nd now what shall #eco%e o$ us withoutany #ar#ariansQ Those &eo&le were a ind o$ solution. YC. P. Cava$y, ?aitin' $or the 0ar#arians The #ar#arians have declared war. YPresident ;eor'e ?. 0ush C. P. Cava$y wrote ?aitin'

$or the 0ar#arians in 492, #ut the &oe% haunts the a$ter%ath o$ 9I44 with the $orce o$ an uncanny and &rescient dR+[ vu. To what dile%%a are the #ar#arians a ind o$ solutionQ @very%odern e%&ire $aces an a#idin' crisis of legitimacyin that it $lin's its &ower over territories and &eo&les who havenot consented to that &ower.Cava$y7s insi'ht is that an imperial state claims legitimacy only by evo)ing the threat of thebarbarians. 3t is only the threat of the barbarians that constitutes the silhouette of the empire6s borders in the

first place.On the other hand, the hallucination o$ the #ar#arians distur#s the e%&ire with perpetual nightmares ofimpending attac).The enemy is the ab(ect of empire8the re(ected from which we cannot part. >nd without the

barbarians the legitimacy of empire vanishes li)e a disappearing phantom.Those people were a )ind of

solution.?ith the colla&se o$ the Soviet nion in 1ece%#er 4994, the 'rand anta'onis% o$ the nited States and the SSJ eva&orated lie a uicly $adin' ni'ht%are. The cold warrhetoric o$ totalitarianis%, inlandi*ation, &resent dan'er, $i$th colu%nist, and in$iltration vanished. ?here were the ene%ies now to +usti$y the continuin' escalation o$ the %ilitary colossusQ>nd now what shall #eco%e o$ us without any #ar#ariansQ 0y ri'hts, the t hawin' o$ the cold war should have &ro%&ted an i%%ediate downsi*in' o$ the %ilitary an y &lausi#le e/ternal threathad si%&ly ceased to e/ist. Prior to 9I44, ;eneral Peter Schoo%aer, head o$ the S >r%y, #e%oaned the ene%y de$icit= t7s no use havin' an ar%y that did nothin' #ut train, he said. There7s'ot to #e a certain a&&etite $or what the hell we e/ist $or. 1ic Cheney liewise co%&lained= The threats have #eco%e so re%ote. So re%ote that they are di$$icult to ascertain. Colin Powella'reed= Thou'h we can still &lausi#ly identi$y s&eci$ic threatsYGorth :orea, ran, ra, so%ethin' lie t hatYthe real threat is the unnown, the uncertain. 0e$ore #eco%in' &resident, ;eor'e?. 0ush liewise $retted over the &ostcold war dearth o$ a visi #le ene%y= ?e do not now who the ene%y is, #ut we now they are out there. t is now well esta#lished that t he invasion o$ra had #een a lon'-standin' 'oal o $ the S ad%inistration, #ut there was no clear rationale with which to sell such an invasion. n 499 a 'rou& o$ neocons at the Pro+ect $or the Gew >%erican

Century &roduced a re%ara#le re&ort in which they stated that to %ae such an invasion &alata#le would reuire a catastro&hic and cataly*in' eventYlie a new Pearl Har#or. 42 The9I44 attacs ca%e as a da**lin' solution, #oth to the ene%y de$icit and the &ro#le% o$ le'iti%acy , o$$erin' the 0ushad%inistration what they would clai% as a political casus belli and the military unimaginable license to epandits reach. ;eneral Peter Schoo%aer would &u#licly ad%it that the att acs were an i%%ense #oon= There is a hu'e sil ver linin' in this cloud. . . . ?ar is a tre%endous $ocus. . . . Gow wehave this $ocusin' o&&ortunity, and we have the $act that (terrorists! have actually attaced our ho%eland, which 'ives it so%e oo%&h. n his #oo >'ainst >ll @ne%ies, Jichard Clare recallsthinin' durin' the attac, Gow we can &erha&s attac Osa%a 0in Baden. >$ter the invasion o$ >$'hanistan, Secretary o$ State Colin Powell noted, >%erica will have a continuin' interest

and &resence in Central >sia o$ a ind we could not have drea%ed o$ #e$ore. Charles :rautha%%er, $or one, called $or a declaration o$ total war. ?e nolon'er have to search $or a na%e $or the &ost-Cold ?ar era, hedeclared. t will hence$orth #e nown as the a'e o$terroris%.4


14/47

7egalism / #NC

Technical legal solutions to surveillance issues are a shell game which loc)s in

eceptionalism. The 1+C re&enforces an ideology of insecurity that lays the groundwor) for

future abuse by the neoliberal surveillance state.

=illiams! Northeastern law professor! #$$D(1aniel, >$ter the ;old Jush-Part = Ha%di, 9I44, and the 1ar Side o$ the @nli'hten%ent,htt&=II&a&ers.ssrn.co%Isol%ericans---the ones wieldin' thisle'ality! with the veil of democracy, nitted to'ether with the thread o$ process (urisprudence. ?ithin &rocess +uris&rudence,there is no inuiry into the $unda%ental uestion= allocation o$ &ower #etween the #ranches to acco%&lish. . . whatQt is very easy to si& that uestion, and thuseasy to slide into or accept circular argumentation.laeda, and %ore 'enerally, terroris% arisin' $ro% a certain violent and nihilistic strain o$ sla%ic $unda%entalis%. Our $orei'n &olicy is e/&ressly $ueled #y the outloo that &ree%&tive attacs isnot %erely an o&tion, #ut i s the o&tion to #e used. n the words o$ the 0ush >d%inistration7s 2332 Gational Security Strate'y docu%ent, n the world we have entered, the on ly &ath to sa$ety isthe &ath o$ action. >nd this nation will act.$ter all, the stories we want to tell dictate the storiesthat we do tell. ?e want to tell ourselves stories a#out our own essential 'oodness and #enevolence, our own $idelityto the rule o$ law and that desire dictates the +uridical story that ulti%ately 'ets told. Once one &osits that our $orei'n &olicy is &urely and alwaysde$ensive, as well as #enevolent in %otivation, conceals--renders invisi#le,

a &ost%odernist would liely &ut it--an even %ore $unda%ental,and %ore radical, uestion= the allocation o$ &ower that the Court is calledu&on to esta#lish is in the service o$ eli%inatin' a terrorist threat to acco%&lish . . . what Q The standard answer is, our security, which%ost >%ericans would tae to %ean, to avert an attac on our ho%eland, and thus, as it was with Bincoln, to &reserve the nion. >nd so, we acce&t as o#vious that ourdile%%a is $indin' the ri'ht security-li#erty #alance. The &ro#le% with that standard answer is two-$old. irst, it 'losses over the $act thatwe $ace no true e/istential threat, no enemythat 'enuinely threatens to sei*e controlover our state a&&aratus and $oist u&on us a$or% o$ 'overn%ent to which we would not consent. That $act alone distin'uishes our current war on terroris% $ro% Bincoln7s uest to &reserve the niona'ainst secession.53 Second, this we-%ust-&rotect-the-Ho%eland answer is $ar too convenient as a conversation sto&&er.?hen the0ush >d%inistration7 Gational Security Strate'y docu%ent avers that the only &ath to sa$ety is the &ath o$ action, we ou'ht to as what 'lo#al arran'e%ents areconte%&lated throu'h that?hen that docu%ent announces that this nation will act, it surely cannot su$$ice to say that the 'oal is %erelyeli%inatin' a threat to attain security. >ll e%&ires and e%&ire-seein' nations en'a'e in a''ression under the ru#ric o$ sel$-de$ense and the de&loy%ent o$ no#le-ai%s rhetoric. These+usti$ications carry no 'enuine %eanin' #ut are devices o$ the &ower$ul and the &rivile'ed, with the acuiescence and o$ten encoura'e%ent #y a $ri'htened &o&ulace, to uell unsettlin' uestions

$ro% dissenters within the society.54 Sto& and thin $or a %o%ent, how is it that the nation with the %ost $or%ida#le %ilitary %i'ht--thebeneficiary of the hugest imbalance in military power ever in world history--is also the nation that &ro$esses to


15/47

#e the %ost i%&eriled #y threats throu'hout the world, o$ten threatened #y i%&overished &easant societies(Eietna%,Gicara'ua, @l Salvador, Chile, ;ranada, etc.!Q52 +n empire must always cast itself as vulnerable to attac) and as constantly being

under attac) in order to (ustify its own military aggression. This is %ost acutely true when the e%&ire is ade%ocracy that %ust 'arner the consent o$ the &o&ulace, which e/&lains why so %uch o$ 'overn%ental rhetoricconcernin' 'lo#al a$$airs is alar%ist in tone.The &oint is that uandaries over constitutional inter&retation--ou'ht we #e &rudential, orare other techniues %ore closely tied to the te/t the only le'iti%ate %ode o$ constitutional ad+udication--%ayvery well mas)what %ay #e the %ost ur'ent issueo$ all, which concerns what e/actly this nation7strue identity isat this %o%ent in world history, what it is that we are &ursuin'. ?hereas San$ordBevinson has coura'eously ar'ued that too %any &eo&le\venerate the Constitution and use it as a ind o$ %oral co%&ass,5< which leads to acertain #lindness, raise $or consideration an idea that Ha%di su&&resses, throu'h its narrative techniues, which is that too %any &eo&le venerate this nationwithout any 'enuine consideration o$ the &articular way we have, since ?orld ?ar , %ani$ested ourselves as anation. +oin Bevinson7s sus&icion that our Constitution is venerated as an idea, as an a#straction, without %uch thou'ht 'iven to its &articulars. t is i%&ortant to #e o&en tothe &ossi#ility that the sa%e is true with re'ard to our nation--the &ossi#ility that we venerate the idea o$ >%erica(undou#tedly worth veneratin'!,#ut re%ain(will$ullyQ! i'norant o$ the &articulars o$ ouractual responsibility for the health of theplanet and its inhabitants.55 To o&enly consider such issues is not anti->%erican--an utterly a#surd locution--$or to su''est that i t is a%ounts to a denial that .S. actions (aso&&osed to rhetoric that leeches o$$ o$ the &ro%ise and ideal o$ >%erica! can #e %easured #y so%e yardstic o$ &ro&riety that a&&lies to all nations.58 The very idea o$ a yardstic o$&ro&riety reuires a &rior acce&tance o$ two ideas= one, that we are &art o$ so%ethin' lar'er, that we are &ro&erly accounta#le to others and to that lar'er circu%stance and two, that it is not a#etrayal or traitorous $or a &eo&le within a nation to loo within itsel$.5K ssacharo$$ and Pildes, the %ost &ro%inent &rocess theorists, o#serve that &rocess +uris&rudence %ay #e inadeuate to

address the ris that we %i'ht succu%# to warti%e hysteria.5 would #roaden that o#servation so as to #e o&en to the &ossi#ility that the ris 'oes #eyond +ust warti%e hysteria, that ourdesire $or security and %ilitary victory, rooted in our re&udiation o$ a 'enuine universal yardstic o$ &ro&riety thatwe willin'ly a&&ly to ourselves(o$ten called >%erican e/ce&tionalis%5!--which %eans that security and %ilitary victory are not i&so$acto the sa%e thin'--could easily slide us into sanctionin' a $or% o$ soverei'nty that is dan'erously out%oded and

$ar out o$ &ro&ortion to what circu%stances warrant. Process +uris&rudence su&&osedly has the %erit o$ &uttin' the #alance o$ security and li#erty into the handso$ the de%ocratic institutions o$ our 'overn%ent. 0ut what it cannot #rin' into the $ield o$ vision--and what is a#solutely #anished $ro% view in Ha%di--is the &ossi#ility that the de%ocraticinstitutions the%selves, and &erha&s even the de%ocratic culture'enerally, the &u#lics&hereo$ that culture, have been corrupted so severelyas to reduce process (urisprudence to a shell game.59 )ore s&eci$ically, the $or%al &rocesses o$ 'overn%entality res&ondin' tocrisis is+udicially %onitored, #ut the %ythos o$ our national identity,&articularly the idea that every international crisis #oilsdown to the unuestioned $act that the nited States at least endeavors to act solely in sel$ de$ense and to &ro%oteso%e #enevolent 'oal that the entire world ou'ht to stand #ehind, is%anu$actured and thus so%e he'e%onic &ursuitin this 'lo#al waron terror re%ainsnot +ust +uridically i'nored, #ut %uted and %ar'inali*ed in %uch o$ our &u#lic discussions a#out it.83 nder &rocess

+uris&rudence, it is the wording of a piece of legislation, not the decoding of the slogan national security!thatulti%ately %atters. >nd under &rocess +uris&rudence, $unda%ental decisions have already #een %ade--$unda%ental decisions concernin' thenature o$ our global ambitionsand the way we will &ursue the%--#e$ore the +udiciary can con$ront the so-calledsecurity-li#erty #alance, which %eans that the analytical dec has #een staced #y the ti%e the +ust icia#le uestion---that is, what we re'ard as t he +usticia#le uestion---is &osed.Stacin' the analytical dec in this way reduces the Court %e%#ers to the role o$ t echnicians in the service o$ whatever &ursuit the soverei'n ha&&ens to choose.84 This i s why it is worth asin'

what %any %i'ht re'ard as a naive, i$ not tendentious, uestion= is it true that in the case o$ Ha%di and other &ost-9I44 cases, the +udiciary7s

uandary over allocation o$ &ower is actually in the service o$ 'enuine security, %eanin' &hysical sa$ety o$ the&o&ulaceQ1oes the see%in'ly o#vious answer t hat we see only to &rotect the sa$ety o$ our co%%unities a'ainst naed viol ence #lind us to a dee&er ail%ent within our cultureQ s it&ossi#le that the allocation o$ &ower, at #otto%, is rooted in a dar side o$ our @nli'hten%ent herita'e,an impulse within7egality that threatens us in a way similar to the Thanatos drive Freud identified as creating civili'ation6s

discontentQ82 Perha&s Ha%di itsel$, as a cultural docu%ent, si'nals yet another ca&itulation to the i%&ulse to e%#race a $or% o$ %eans-ends rationality that su&&orts the @nli'hten%entdrive to control and su#due.8< Perha&s what Ha%di shows is that 9I44 has not really tri''ered a need to recali#rate the security-li#erty #alance, #ut has actually unleashed that which has already$iltered into and corru&ted our cultureY@nli'hten%ent7s dar side, as the ran$urt School understood it8577and is thus one a%on' %any cultural docu%ents t hat ou'ht to tell us we are notavertin' a new dar a'e, #ut are already in it, or at least, to #orrow a &hrase $ro% ?endell 0erry, that we are lea&$ro''in' into the dar. 88 t is i%&ossi#le, withou t the #ene$it o$ historical

distance, to answer these uestions with what a%ounts to co%$ortin' certitude. 0ut they are worth con$rontin', since the $ate o$ so %any &eo&lede&ends on it, 'iven our unrivaled a#ility and $ri'htenin' willin'ness to use %ilitary $orce. Our culture7s ina#ility to as suchuestions in any %eanin'$ul way, as o&&osed to %ar'inali*in' those who &lead $or the% to #e con$ronted, is so%ewhat re%iniscent o$ how early @nli'hten%ent culture treated scienti$icendeavors. Science, durin' the rise o$ @nli'hten%ent culture, re#u$$ed the why uestion, #anished it as a re%nant o$ %edieval darness, #ecause the why-ness o$ a certain scienti$ic &u rsuit

su''ested that certain do%ains o$ nowled'e were #ad, o$$-li%its, ta#oo. Thewhole cultural %indset o$ the @nli'hten%entwas to +ettison &recisely such a su''estion. That cultural%indset&roduced a $aith all its own, that all scienti$ic &ursuits, and#y e/tension all hu%an uests $or nowled'e, will in theend &ro%ote hu%an $lourishin'. t has taen the devastation o$ our &lanet to reveal the $olly o$ that $aith, a blind&

spot in the =estern mind. t %ay turn out, as a sort o$ silver linin' on a dar cloud, that the terroris% arisin' $ro%sla%ic +ihadists %ay do so%ethin' si%ilar.


16/47

7egitimacy

The discourse of legitimacy mas)s the violence of hegemony&&&the affirmative6s

commitment to 4S leadership recreates gendered national identity that codes the 4S as a

the masculine shepherd of the global&liberal architecture&&&turns the case because gendered

security binaries are the root of eecutive overreach7andreau! New :ersey gender studies professor! #$11(ohn, O#a%as )y 1ad= )i/ed Jace Sus&ects, Political >n/iety and the Gew %&erialis%,www.thirds&ace.caI+ournalIarticleIview>rticleIlandreauI53

0oth durin' his ca%&ai'n, and in his &residential inau'uration s&eech, 0arac O#a%a &ro%ised a ]new beginningE in +merican foreignand national security&olicy(es&ecially in relation to the )iddle @ast! that would#oth ee& us sa$e$ro% ene%ies andErestore our moral standingE(O#a%a, >cce&tance!. n &articular, this new #e'innin' &ro%ised to distance .S. $orei'n

&olicy $ro%the 'ri% (and lar'ely ille'al! $eatures o$ the 0ushad%inistrationDs ]war on terror] such as the eecutive sanctionin'o$ thetortureo$ &risoners, the %aintenance o$ a 'ula' o$ $orei'n detention centres where &risoners could #e treated outside the'uidelineso$ .S.and international law, and ille'al secret initiatives such as the &ro'ra% to assassinate >l-aeda o&eratives directed #y Eice President Cheney ()a**ettiand Shane!. n his $irst day in the ?hite House, on anuary 22, 2339, O#a%a issued three e/ecutive orders that $ollowed throu'h on this &ro%ise.N2 n addition tothese early e/ecutive orders, in the days and %onths $ollowin' his election O#a%a showed 'reat rhetorical sensitivity to the wide-s&read ne'ative &erce&tion in the)iddle @ast o$ .S. i%&erial #ehavior and desi'ns, its uncritical su&&ort o$ srael, and its disre'ard $or civilian casualties and $or the civil ri'hts o$ &risoners. n an

e$$ort to reverse the tide o$ anti ->%erican $eelin', O#a%aDs $irst &ost-inau'ural interview was 'iven to Hisha% )elhe% o$ >l >ra#iya TE news (nterview!. This was$ollowed in >&ril and )ay #y %a+or addresses in >nara and Cairo whose &ri%ary intended audience was )iddle @astern and, %ore #roadly, sla%ic. 0oth o$ theses&eeches articulate a new rhetoric o$ ho&e $or .S.-)iddle @astern relations. n the s&eech to the Turish &arlia%ent, $or e/a%&le, O#a%a declares=^ N... want to #eclear that >%ericaDs relationshi& with the )usli% co%%unity, the )usli% world, cannot, and will not, +ust #e #ased u&on o&&osition to terroris%. ?e see #roaderen'a'e%ent #ased on %utual interest and %utual res&ect. ?e will listen care$ully, we will #rid'e %isunderstandin's, and we will see co%%on 'round. ?e will #eres&ect$ul, even when we do not a'ree N.... (&ara. %erican e/ce&tionalis%. )any have co%%ented on the %uscular character o$ ;eor'e ?. 0ushDs rhetoric o$ war and nationalsecurity. ndeed, his &olicies in what he called the Dwar on terrorD de&ended al%ost e/clusively on what ose&h Gye $a%ously called ]hard &ower], and were +usti$iedrhetorically #y a cons&icuously %ilitarist and %asculinist narrat ive a#out >%ericaDs role in world history and &olitics.N less tra'ic sense o$order %andated a reduced sense o$ 'uilt and there#y decreased the need $or rede%&tion via the cult o$ illin'. This e/&ression o$ national %ission in %ore de%ocraticand &ractical ter%s indicated, at least ] lo'olo'ically,] the &ossi#ility o$ ali'nin' &u#lic culture with a %ore 'lo#al and constructive &ers&ective on %atters o$ nationalsecurity. t revealed the &ossi#ility o$ a $oundin' %yth re$or%ed to rela/ the lethal 'ri& o$ the @vil One on the conscience o$ a nation that %i'ht do %ore 'ood in theworld i$ it were #urdened less #y tra'ic 'uilt.N5 (29K!^This conclusion reuires a retros&ective reassess%ent in the li'ht o$ O#a%aDs decision to escalate the war in

>$'hanistan. How do we reconcile O#a%aDs see%in'ly dra%atic shi$t $ro% &ro'ressive&residential candidate whowas &roud to haveo&&osedthe war in ra$ro% the #e'innin', and who a#olished the use o$ torture and ille'al detention in his $irst day in o$$ice, to the &resident whoin1ece%#er 2339 %ade the decision to&ursue and si'ni$icantly escalate%ilitary violence in >$'hanistanQHow do we reconcile O#a%aDssee%in'ly contradictory use o$ #oth the so$t rhetoric o$ ho&e and di&lo%acy and the hard rhetoric o$ $ear and %ilitary violence in his national security state%ents and

s&eechesQ^n the analysis that $ollows ar'ue that while bamaat times articulates a softer version of foreign policy!and

seems to perform a softer! more inclusive presidential masculinity in the area of global politicsand terroris%, this

does not fundamentally signify a different orientation to national securityas so%e have ar'ued. 3 emphasi'e how

bamas rhetoricand &olicies fall within the standard rhetorical oscillations that constitute the myth of +merican

eceptionalism and presidential masculinity! and that those oscillations are&rinci&ally and %ost si'ni$icantlyoriented by

the more militarist andconventionallymasculinist versions of the myth.^Presidential )asculinity in the 1e%ocratic Go%ination

S&eech^O#a%aDs s&eech at the 1e%ocratic Gational Convention in >u'ust 233 %ars the $or%al shi$t o$ his ca%&ai'n $ocus $ro% 1e%ocratic Party voters towards anational audience, and $ro% his rivalry with Hillary Clinton to a ca%&ai'n a'ainst ohn )cCain. n ter%s o$ O#a%aDs national security rhetoric, th is is a $ascinatin'%o%ent #ecause, in this new #roader conte/t, he %aes an attitudinal shi$t to a %ore %ilitari*ed and %asculini*ed %ode o$ s&eech. n $act, O#a%aDs &er$or%ance o$so$t %asculinity on issues o$ national security durin' the &ri%ary ca%&ai'n was an o&&ortune &roduct o$ the %o%ent that did not re$lect the &rinci&al orientation o$ histhinin'.N8 This is uite clear in the no%ination s&eech as he shi$ts his ca%&ai'n towards a %ore conservative national audience, and directs his attention $ro% a$e%ale rival to a %ale rival with %ilitary credentials.^O#a%aDs $irst sentence a#out $orei'n &olicy in the no%ination s&eech concerns his own stature and a#ility tolead >%erican troo&s into #attle, and to #attle ohn )cCain $or the &osition o$ co%%ander in chie$. ]$ ohn )cCain wants to have a de#ate a#out who has thete%&era%ent and +ud'%ent to serve as the ne/t co%%ander-in-chie$, thatDs a de#ate D% ready to have.] (&ara. 9! ?hat is %ost interestin' a#out this lead-in to theto&ic o$ national security, terroris%, and $orei'n &olicy is that its %ain rhetorical $unction is to e%&hasi*e O#a%aDs %asculine ca&a#ility. t does this #y declarin' his&residential %ettle, #ut also throu'h the &er$or%ance o$ an D dare youD challen'e to his &olitical adversary. t see%s to say, Di$ you want to $i'ht, then letDs $i'ht. 0rin' itonXD^?hy does O#a%a #e'in this section o$ the s&eech with a $ le/in' o$ %uscleQ n &art, it has to do with the histrionics o$ &residential ca%&ai'ns, and in this&articular ca%&ai'n with the antici&ated challen'e to O#a%aDs %ilitary %asculinity $ro% ohn )cCain, a candidate with a &ower$ul story o$ %ilitary #ravery andherois% to his credit. >t the sa%e ti%e, the $ore'roundin' o$ &residential %asculinity in ter%s o$ the resolve and ca&acity to lead the ar%ed $orces into #attle is


17/47

nothin' unusual. The %ost si'ni$icant hu%an &rota'onist in the narrative o$ >%erican e/ce&tionalis% is al%ost always the $i'ure o$ the &resident. This ises&ecially true in ti%es o$ dan'er, crisis or war. He is the co%%ander in chie$ o$ the ar%ed $orces. To hi% 'oes the +o# o$ &rotectin' the national $a%ily $ro% outside

threats and dan'er. To do this e$$ectively, he %ust #e #rave, decisive and rational.He cannot a$$ord to #e $e%ini*ed #y #ein' overly e%otional orsy%&athetic to others he cannotsuccu%# to dou#ts, or#eco%e scared to act(Cohn, Cuordileone, Ho&&er, Bao$$, Sylvester, Ticner, "oun'!. t is to this%ythos that O#a%aDs #e'innin' &er$or%ance o$ %asculinity in the s&eech #elon's. n the new conte/t o$ a national audience, it stands out as a dee&ly-$elt andvi'orously articulated orientation towards national security.^>$ter this initial show o$ %ale &lu%a'e, O#a%a continues the $orei'n &olicy section o$ the no%inations&eech #y contrastin' his youth$ul %asculinity to )cCainDs elderly, #u%#lin' %asculinity.ôr -- $or while -- while Senator )cCain was turnin' his si'hts to ra +ustdays a$ter 9I44, stood u& and o&&osed this war, nowin' that it would distract us $ ro% the real threats that we $ace. ?hen ohn )cCain said we could +ust %uddle

throu'h in >$'hanistan, ar'ued $or %ore resources and %ore troo&s to $inish the $i'ht a'ainst the terrorists who actually attaced us on 9I44, and %ade clear that we%ust tae out Osa%a #in Baden and his lieutenants i$ we have the% in our si'hts. (&ara. 3-4!^?hile )cCain turns his si'hts away $ro% the tar'et, O#a%a standsu&. ?hile )cCain %uddles, O#a%a wors to $inish the $i'ht and ]tae out] #in Baden i$ heDs ]in our si'hts.] n the su#t ly cra$ted %eta&hor o$ ai%in' a 'un at anene%y that or'ani*es the &assa'e, )cCain a&&ears as a distracted old soldier who ai%s at the wron' tar'et and is 'enerally con$used. n contrast, vi'orous andyouth$ul, O#a%a stands u& &ur&osely, ai%s at the tar'et, and $ires. These %eta&hors all wor to hi'hli'ht the di$$erences #etween )cCain and O#a%a in ter%s o$ theire%#odi%ent o$ a &ro&erly %ilitari*ed %asculinity= which candidate can stand u&, correctly identi$y the ene%y, and $ire the necessary shots to ill hi%.Ô#a%acritici*es )cCain $or standin' alone in ]stu##orn re$usal] to reco'ni*e the realities o$ the con$lict (that it is with al aeda in Paistan and >$'hanistan, not in ra!,

and there$ore $or lacin' +ud'%ent. This lac o$ +ud'%ent is also narrated in ter%s o$ a contrast #etween a youth$ul and an a'in' %asculinity= ]?e need a&resident who can $ace the threats o$ the $uture, not ee& 'ras&in' at the ideas o$ the &ast.](&ara. 5! O#a%a declares. Thecontrast #etween a %an who 'ras&s at the &ast and one who ]$aces] the $uture is coded with %essa'es a#out a'e and %asculinity= youth$ul, con$ident ste&&in' $orwardinto the $uture versus old, unsteady #ac-ste&&in' towards the &ast. >t stae in this contrast is which strate'y will ]de$eat] the ene%y. ]"ou donDt de$eat -- you donDtde$eat a terrorist networ that o&erates in 3 countries #y occu&yin' ra], (&ara. 8! O#a%a ar'ues. These are ene%ies who %ust #e illed in order to &rotect the

nation. To do this reuires a co%%ander-in-chie$ with %asculine resolve and coura'e who can lead us into #attle . This isnot wor $or touchy-$eely idealists who want to understand, co%%unicate, and ne'otiate. >nd Je&u#licans, O#a%a &oints out &roudly, are not the only ones with the&ro&er testicular si*e to lead the ar%y into #attle= ]?e are the &arty o$ Joosevelt. ?e are the &arty o$ :ennedy. So donDt tell %e that 1e%ocrats wonDt de$end thiscountry. 1onDt tell %e that 1e%ocrats wonDt ee& us sa$e.] (&ara. ! >s in his o&enin' state%ent, &art o$ the e$$ectiveness o$ these lines is their &er$or%ance o$ a indo$ ]D% u& to the challen'e %asculinity] that tals tou'h, is a''ressive with challen'ers (]donDt tell %e]!, and does not #ac down. The rhetoric o$ >%ericane/ce&tionalis% and &residential %asculinity $ore'rounded here in the no%ination clearly constitutes the do%inant note o$ continuity in O#a%aDs national security

thinin'. This is %ost evident in his two s&eeches $ro% 1ece%#er 2339 in which he +usti$ ies his decision to escalate the war in >$'hanistan as the $ollowin'discussion will show.^Jeasons $or ?ar= the 1ece%#er 4, 2339 S&eech at ?est PointÔ#a%aDs 1ece%#er 2339 s&eech at ?est Point ar'ues $or the strate'ic necessityand ethical correctness o$ increased war e$$ort in >$'hanistan on the #asis o$ history. The history #e'ins with the 49 >l aeda o&eratives who co%%itted the terroristatrocities on 9I44 and %oves uicly to $ocus on the Tali#an who &rovided the% with a secure #ase $ro% which to o&erate. >$ter 9I44, as O#a%a tells the story, we%ade 'reat %ilitary inroads a'ainst the Tali#an and >l aeda, #ut then %istaenly turned our attention to ra. This &rovided an o&enin' $or the Tali#an, and $or >laeda, who are now co%in' #ac into >$'hanistan $ro% Paistan. The >$'han 'overn%ent cannot $i'ht the% o$$ and there$ore, he says, su%%in' it all u&= ] n short,the status uo is not sustaina#le] (&ara. 42!. How does a rudi%entary history lie this serve as an e/&lanation or +usti$ication $or warQ ?hat is the %ediatin' lo'icQ^The over-si%&li$ication o$ conte%&orary .S and >$'han history entailed in this sche%atic narrative is head-s&innin'.NK 0ut, even &uttin' that as ide, i$ one acce&tsthe history at $ace value, it is still the case that our co%%it%ent to war is le$t une/&lained and un+usti$ied #y the narrative. The history #e'ins with 49 terrorists, andends with the lar'e-scale %ilitary action on the &art o$ the nited States. Should it not tae a lot %ore than sayin', Dwell, the Tali#an are 'ainin' %o%entu% and,re%e%#er, they are #est $riends with >l aedaD to +usti$y the de&loy%ent o$ 433,333 .S. troo&s, &redator drones stries all over northern Paistan and eastern>$'hanistan, $ull involve%ent o$ the C>, %a+or $lows o$ ca&ital and %ateriel, and hu'e contracts with &rivate %ilitary contractors lie L@ Services (aa 0lacwater!Q

O#a%aDs historical narrative si%&ly does not add u& to a &olitical ar'u%ent $or this ind o$ war, and $or this ind o$ out lay o$ ca&ital.^>s a +usti$ication $orwar, it see%s, rather, to #e structured lie a %yth in the sense that Joland 0arthes 'ave the word. )yth, accordin' to 0arthes, is &arado/icallye$$ective #ecause, $or%ally, it wors lie an ali#i. 3t is an eplanation based on an absence of evidence and meaningrather than its presence.n an ali#i (the accused was a#sent not &resent at the scene! the %eanin' and the evidence are a lways elsewhere (424-42!.

O#a%aDs narrative a%ounts to a mythological eplanation for war in the sense that its si'ni$icance lies not in the history itsel$ #ut in the$or%al seriousness o$ a &resident tellin' a story to +usti$y war. That is, its si'ni$icance lies in the rhetorical 'esture that serves to re%ind the audience o$ the &residentDsauthority as co%%ander in chie$ and o$ his role to de$end the nation $ro% har%. 0y tellin' this story the &resident in e$$ect uotes an array o$ %otives, intentions, &lotseuences and characters that are $or%ally $ull even i$ their content in this instance is %isleadin' or e%&ty. To &ara&hrase Hayden ?hite, in this case the content is the$or%. Here, the details o$ the story o$ the Tali#an and >l aeda in >$'hanistan are si'ni$icant to the e/tent that they &lay a role in a lar'er narrative already $a%iliar tothe >%erican audience= the nites States stands $or &eace and &ros&erity, $reedo% and de%ocracy #ut so%eti%es it is attaced #y evil ene%ies whose irrational desireis to destroy all that is 'ood. n that circu%stance, the &resident %ust &rotect the national $a%ily throu'h the use o$ %ilitary violence. ?ar is the #est and, in $act, theonly way to %ae ourselves secure.ôllowin' this sche%atic historical narrative with which he #e'ins the ?est Point s&eech, O#a%a reassures the audience that his$inal decision to escalate the war was taen only a$ter a serious and di$$icult deli#erative &rocess. This &rocess, he says, ]has allowed %e to as the hard uestions, andto e/&lore all the di$$erent o&tions, alon' with %y national security tea%, our %ilitary and civilian leadershi& in >$'hanistan, and our ey &artners. >nd 'iven the

staes involved, owed the >%erican &eo&le -- and our troo&s -- no less.] (&ara. 4

'reat care, and with their co%%unal

Documents

Neoliberalism K - Gonzaga 2015