Changes

{{Title}}by [[Slavoj ZizekŽižek]]{{Author}}

Does anyone still remember However, a [[number]] of disturbing features complicate this simple picture. In the unfortunate Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf? As Saddam's information minister[[past]] several months, he heroically would deny the most evident facts International Committee of the Red Cross regularly bombarded the Pentagon with reports about the abuses in Iraqi military prisons, and stick to the Iraqi linereports were systematically ignored. Even as So it was not that U.S. tanks authorities were hundreds of yards from his office, al-Sahaf continued to claim that getting no signals about what was going on—they simply admitted the television shots of crimes only when (and because) they were faced with their disclosure in the tanks on Baghdad streets were Hollywood special effects[[media]]. Once, however, he did strike a strange truth. When told that The immediate reaction of the U.S. military already controlled parts of Baghdadofficials was surprising, he snapped back: "to say the least. They are explained that the soldiers were not in control of anything-they don't even control themselves!" When properly taught the scandalous news broke Geneva Convention rules about the weird things going on in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, we got a glimpse of this very dimension of themselves that Americans do how to treat war prisoners—as if one has to be taught not control.to humiliate and [[torture]] prisoners!

In his reaction to But the main complication is the contrast between the photos showing Iraqi “standard” way prisoners were tortured in Saddam’s regime and humiliated by how they were tortured under U.S. occupation. Under [[Saddam]], the accent was on direct infliction of [[pain]], while the American soldiers, President George Wfocused on [[psychological]] [[humiliation]]. BushFurther, as expected<i>recording</i> the humiliation with a camera, emphasized how with the deeds of perpetrators included in the soldiers were isolated crimes that do not reflect what America stands and fights for - picture, their faces stupidly smiling beside the values twisted naked bodies of democracythe prisoners, freedom and personal dignity. And was an integral part of the fact that [[process]], in stark contrast with the case turned into a public scandal that put secrecy of the USaddam tortures.S. administration on The very positions and costumes of the defensive is prisoners [[suggest]] a positive sign. In theatrical staging, a really "totalitarian" regimekind of tableau vivant, which brings to [[mind]] American performance art, the case would simply be hushed up. (In the same way“theatre of [[cruelty]], ” the fact that U.S. forces did not find weapons photos of mass destruction is a positive sign: A truly "totalitarian" power would have done what cops usually do-plant drugs and then "discover" Mapplethorpe or the evidence of crimeunnerving scenes in David Lynch’s [[films]].)

However, a number This theatricality leads us to the crux of disturbing features complicate this simple picture. In the past several months, matter: To anyone acquainted with the International Committee [[reality]] of the Red Cross regularly bombarded American way of [[life]], the Pentagon with reports about photos brought to mind the abuses in Iraqi military prisons, and the reports were systematically ignored. So it was not that [[obscene]] underside of U.S. authorities were getting no signals about what was going on - they simply admitted popular culture—say, the crimes only when (initiatory [[rituals]] of torture and because) they were faced with their disclosure humiliation one has to undergo to be accepted into a closed [[community]]. Similar photos appear at regular intervals in the media. The immediate reaction of the U.S. military officials was surprisingpress after some scandal explodes at an [[Army]] base or high [[school]] campus, when such rituals went overboard. Far too often we are treated to say the least. They explained that the [[images]] of soldiers were not properly taught the Geneva Convention rules about how and students [[forced]] to treat war prisoners - as if one has to be taught not to humiliate assume humiliating poses, perform debasing gestures and torture prisoners!suffer [[sadistic]] punishments.

But The torture at Abu Ghraib was thus not simply a case of American arrogance toward a [[Third]] [[World]] [[people]]. In [[being]] submitted to the main complication is the contrast between humiliating tortures, the "standard" way Iraqi prisoners were tortured in Saddam's regime and how they were tortured under U.S. occupation. Under Saddam, effectively <i>initiated into American [[culture]]:</i> They got a taste of the culture’s [[obscene underside]] that forms the necessary [[supplement]] to the accent was on direct infliction public values of painpersonal dignity, while the American soldiers focused on psychological humiliationdemocracy and freedom. FurtherNo wonder, then, recording the ritualistic humiliation with a camera, with the perpetrators included in the picture, their faces stupidly smiling beside the twisted naked bodies of the Iraqi prisoners, was not an integral isolated case but part of the processa widespread [[practice]]. On May 6, in stark contrast with Donald Rumsfeld had to admit that the secrecy of photos rendered public are just the Saddam tortures. The very positions and costumes “tip of the prisoners suggest a theatrical stagingiceberg, a kind of tableau vivant, which brings ” and that there were much stronger things to mind American performance artcome, "theatre including [[videos]] of cruelty," the photos of Mapplethorpe or the unnerving scenes in David Lynch's filmsrape and [[murder]].

This theatricality leads us to the crux of the matter: To anyone acquainted with is the reality of the American way of lifeRumsfeld’s dismissive [[statement]], the photos brought to mind the obscene underside a couple of U.S. popular culture - saymonths ago, that the initiatory rituals Geneva Convention rules are “out of torture and humiliation one has to undergo to be accepted into a closed community. Similar photos appear at regular intervals date” in the U.S. press after some scandal explodes at an Army base or high school campus, when such rituals went overboard. Far too often we are treated [[regard]] to images of soldiers and students forced to assume humiliating poses, perform debasing gestures and suffer sadistic punishmentstoday’s warfare.

The torture at Abu Ghraib was thus not simply a case In the debate about the [[Guantanamo]] prisoners, one often hears arguments that their [[treatment]] is ethically and legally acceptable because “they are those who were missed by the bombs.” Since they were the targets of U.S. bombings and accidentally survived [[them]], and since these bombings were part of American arrogance toward a Third World peoplelegitimate military operation, one cannot condemn their fate when they were taken prisoners after the combat—whatever their [[situation]], it is better, less severe, than being [[dead]]. In being submitted This reasoning tells more than it intends to the humiliating tortures, the Iraqi say. It puts prisoners were effectively initiated into American culture: They got a taste literal [[position]] of the culture's obscene underside that forms the necessary supplement “[[living]] dead,” those who are in a way already dead (their [[right]] to the public values live forfeited by being legitimate targets of personal dignity, democracy and freedommurderous bombings). No wonderThus the prisoners are now what [[philosopher]] Giorgio [[Agamben]] calls <i>[[homo sacer]]</i>, thenthose who can be killed with impunity since, in the ritualistic humiliation eyes of Iraqi the law, their lives no longer count. If the Guantanamo prisoners was not an isolated case but part are located in the [[space]] “between the two deaths”—legally dead (deprived of a widespread practicedeterminate [[legal]] status) while [[biologically]] still alive—then the U. On May 6, Donald Rumsfeld had to admit S. authorities that the photos rendered public treat them this way are just in an in-between legal status that forms the "tip [[counterpart]] of the iceberghomo sacer. They act as a legal power," but their [[acts]] are no longer covered and constrained by the law—they operate in an empty space that there were much stronger things to comeis nonetheless within the [[domain]] of the law. Hence, including videos the [[recent]] disclosures about Abu Ghraib display the consequences of rape and murderlocating prisoners in this [[place]] “[[between the two deaths]].”

This is the reality of Rumsfeld's dismissive statement, a couple of months ago, that the Geneva Convention rules are "out of date" in regard to today's warfare. In the debate about the Guantanamo prisoners, one often hears arguments that their treatment is ethically and legally acceptable because "they are those who were missed by the bombs." Since they were the targets of U.S. bombings and accidentally survived them, and since these bombings were part of a legitimate military operation, one cannot condemn their fate when they were taken prisoners after the combat-whatever their situation, it is better, less severe, than being dead. This reasoning tells more than it intends to say. It puts prisoners into a literal position of the "living dead," those who are in a way already dead (their right to live forfeited by being legitimate targets of murderous bombings). Thus the prisoners are now what philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls homo sacer, those who can be killed with impunity since, in the eyes of the law, their lives no longer count. If the Guantanamo prisoners are located in the space "between the two deaths" - legally dead (deprived of a determinate legal status) while biologically still alive-then the U.S. authorities that treat them this way are in an in-between legal status that forms the counterpart of homo sacer. They act as a legal power, but their acts are no longer covered and constrained by the law - they operate in an empty space that is nonetheless within the domain of the law. Hence, the recent disclosures about Abu Ghraib display the consequences of locating prisoners in this place "between the two deaths." In March 2003, Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophizing about the [[relationship ]] between the known and the unknown: "There “There are known knowns. These are things we [[know ]] that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't don’t know we don't don’t know." ” What he forgot to add was the crucial fourth term: the "unknown “unknown knowns," ” the things we don't don’t know that we know-which know—which is precisely, the [[Freudian ]] [[unconscious]], the "“[[knowledge ]] which doesn't doesn’t know itself," ” as [[Lacan ]] used to say. If Rumsfeld thinks that the main dangers in the confrontation with Iraq were the "unknown unknowns," that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that the main dangers lie in the "unknown knowns" - the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices we pretend not to know about, even though they form the background of our public values. Thus, Bush was wrong. What we get when we see the photos of humiliated Iraqi prisoners is precisely a direct insight into "American values," into the core of an obscene enjoyment that sustains the American way of life.

* [[What Rumsfeld Doesn't Doesn’t Know That He Knows About Abu Ghraib]]. ‘’In ''In These Times’’[[Times]]''. May 21, 2004.  <http://www.lacaninthesetimes.com/zizekrumsfeld.htmsite/main/article/747/>

[[Category:Zizek]][[Category:EssaysArticles]]