Changes

Jump to: navigation, search
no edit summary
Does anyone still remember the unfortunate Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf? As Saddam's information minister, he heroically would deny the most evident facts and stick to the Iraqi line. Even as U.S. tanks were hundreds of yards from his office, al-Sahaf continued to claim that the television shots of the tanks on Baghdad streets were Hollywood special effects. Once, however, he did strike a strange truth. When told that the U.S. military already controlled parts of Baghdad, he snapped back: "They are not in control of anything-they don't even control themselves!" When the scandalous news broke 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 not control.{{Title}}by [[Slavoj Žižek]]{{Author}}
In his reaction Does anyone still remember the unfortunate Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf? As Saddam’s information minister, he heroically would deny the most evident facts and stick to the photos showing Iraqi prisoners tortured and humiliated by line. Even as U.S. soldierstanks were hundreds of yards from his office, President George W. Bush, as expected, emphasized how al-Sahaf continued to claim that the deeds television shots of the soldiers tanks on Baghdad streets were isolated crimes that do not reflect what America stands and fights for - the values of democracyHollywood special effects. Once, however, freedom and personal dignityhe did strike a strange truth. And the fact When told that the case turned into a public scandal that put the U.S. administration on the defensive is a positive sign. In a really "totalitarian" regimemilitary already controlled parts of Baghdad, he snapped back: “They are not in control of anything—they don’t even control themselves!” When the case would simply be hushed up. (In scandalous news broke about the same wayweird things going on in Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, the fact we got a glimpse of this very dimension of themselves that U.S. forces did Americans do not find weapons of mass destruction is a positive sign: A truly "totalitarian" power would have done what cops usually do-plant drugs and then "discover" the evidence of crimecontrol.)
HoweverIn his reaction to the photos showing Iraqi prisoners tortured and humiliated by U.S. soldiers, a number of disturbing features complicate this simple picturePresident George W. In the past several monthsBush, as expected, emphasized how the International Committee deeds of the Red Cross regularly bombarded the Pentagon with reports about the abuses in Iraqi military prisonssoldiers were isolated crimes that do not reflect what America stands and fights for—the values of democracy, freedom and personal dignity. And the reports were systematically ignored. So it was not fact that the case turned into a public scandal that put the U.S. authorities were getting no signals about what was going administration on - they the defensive is a positive sign. In a really “totalitarian” regime, the case would simply admitted the crimes only when be hushed up. (and because) they were faced with their disclosure in In the media. The immediate reaction of same way, the fact that U.S. military officials was surprising, to say forces did not find weapons of mass destruction is a positive sign: A truly “totalitarian” power would have done what cops usually do—plant drugs and then “discover” the leastevidence of crime. They explained that the soldiers were not properly taught the Geneva Convention rules about how to treat war prisoners - as if one has to be taught not to humiliate and torture prisoners!)
But However, a number of disturbing features complicate this simple picture. In the main complication is past several months, the contrast between International Committee of the Red Cross regularly bombarded the Pentagon with reports about the "standard" way prisoners were tortured abuses in Saddam's regime Iraqi military prisons, and how they the reports were tortured under systematically ignored. So it was not that U.S. occupation. Under Saddam, the accent authorities were getting no signals about what was on direct infliction of pain, while going on—they simply admitted the American soldiers focused on psychological humiliation. Further, recording the humiliation crimes only when (and because) they were faced with a camera, with the perpetrators included in the picture, their faces stupidly smiling beside the twisted naked bodies of the prisoners, was an integral part of the process, disclosure in stark contrast with the secrecy of the Saddam torturesmedia. The very positions and costumes immediate reaction of the prisoners suggest a theatrical stagingU.S. military officials was surprising, a kind of tableau vivant, which brings to mind American performance art, "theatre of cruelty," say the least. They explained that the photos of Mapplethorpe or soldiers were not properly taught the unnerving scenes in David Lynch's films.Geneva Convention rules about how to treat war prisoners—as if one has to be taught not to humiliate and torture prisoners!
This theatricality leads us to But the crux of main complication is the matter: To anyone acquainted with contrast between the reality of the American “standard” way of life, the photos brought to mind the obscene underside of prisoners were tortured in Saddam’s regime and how they were tortured under U.S. popular culture - sayoccupation. Under Saddam, the initiatory rituals accent was on direct infliction of torture and pain, while the American soldiers focused on psychological humiliation. Further, <i>recording</i> the humiliation one has to undergo to be accepted into with a closed community. Similar photos appear at regular intervals camera, with the perpetrators included in the U.S. press after some scandal explodes at picture, their faces stupidly smiling beside the twisted naked bodies of the prisoners, was an Army base or high school campusintegral part of the process, when such rituals went overboardin stark contrast with the secrecy of the Saddam tortures. Far too often we are treated The very positions and costumes of the prisoners suggest a theatrical staging, a kind of tableau vivant, which brings to images mind American performance art, “theatre of soldiers and students forced to assume humiliating posescruelty, perform debasing gestures and suffer sadistic punishments” the photos of Mapplethorpe or the unnerving scenes in David Lynch’s films.
The torture at Abu Ghraib was thus not simply a case of American arrogance toward a Third World people. In being submitted This theatricality leads us to the humiliating tortures, crux of the Iraqi prisoners were effectively initiated into American culturematter: They got a taste To anyone acquainted with the reality of the culture's obscene underside that forms American way of life, the necessary supplement photos brought to mind the public values obscene underside of personal dignity, democracy and freedomU.S. No wonder, thenpopular culture—say, the ritualistic initiatory rituals of torture and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners was not an isolated case but part of one has to undergo to be accepted into a widespread practiceclosed community. Similar photos appear at regular intervals in the U.S. On May 6press after some scandal explodes at an Army base or high school campus, Donald Rumsfeld had when such rituals went overboard. Far too often we are treated to admit that the photos rendered public are just the "tip images of the iceberg," soldiers and that there were much stronger things students forced to comeassume humiliating poses, including videos of rape perform debasing gestures and murdersuffer sadistic punishments.
This is The torture at Abu Ghraib was thus not simply a case of American arrogance toward a Third World people. In being submitted to the humiliating tortures, the Iraqi prisoners were effectively <i>initiated into American culture:</i> They got a taste of the culture’s obscene underside that forms the reality necessary supplement to the public values of Rumsfeld's dismissive statementpersonal dignity, democracy and freedom. No wonder, then, the ritualistic humiliation of Iraqi prisoners was not an isolated case but part of a couple of months agowidespread practice. On May 6, Donald Rumsfeld had to admit that the Geneva Convention rules photos rendered public are "out just the “tip of date" in regard the iceberg,” and that there were much stronger things to today's warfarecome, including videos of rape and murder.
In the debate about the Guantanamo prisoners, one often hears arguments that their treatment This is ethically and legally acceptable because "they are those who were missed by the bombs." Since they were the targets reality of U.S. bombings and accidentally survived themRumsfeld’s dismissive statement, 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 couple of the lawmonths ago, 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 Geneva Convention rules are no longer covered and constrained by the law - they operate in an empty space that is nonetheless within the domain “out of the law. Hence, the recent disclosures about Abu Ghraib display the consequences of locating prisoners date” in this place "between the two deathsregard to today’s warfare."
In March 2003, Rumsfeld engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophizing the debate about the relationship between the known Guantanamo prisoners, one often hears arguments that their treatment is ethically and legally acceptable because “they are those who were missed by the unknown: "There are known knownsbombs. These are things we know that we know” Since they were the targets of U. There are known unknownsS. That 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, there ” those who are things that we know we don't knowin a way already dead (their right to live forfeited by being legitimate targets of murderous bombings). But there Thus the prisoners are also unknown unknownsnow what philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls <i>homo sacer</i>, those who can be killed with impunity since, in the eyes of the law, their lives no longer count. There If the Guantanamo prisoners are things we don't know we don't knowlocated in the space “between the two deaths”—legally dead (deprived of a determinate legal status) while biologically still alive—then the U." What he forgot to add was S. authorities that treat them this way are in an in-between legal status that forms the crucial fourth term: the "unknown knownscounterpart of homo sacer. They act as a legal power," but their acts are no longer covered and constrained by the things we don't know law—they operate in an empty space that we know-which is preciselynonetheless within the domain of the law. Hence, the Freudian unconscious, recent disclosures about Abu Ghraib display the consequences of locating prisoners in this place “between the "knowledge which doesn't know itself," as Lacan used to saytwo deaths.
If In March 2003, Rumsfeld thinks that engaged in a little bit of amateur philosophizing about the main dangers in relationship between the confrontation with Iraq were known and the "unknown : “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say," there are things that is, the threats from Saddam whose nature we cannot even suspect, then the Abu Ghraib scandal shows that know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.” What he forgot to add was the main dangers lie in crucial fourth term: the "unknown “unknown knowns" - ,” the disavowed beliefs, suppositions and obscene practices things we pretend not to don’t know aboutthat we know—which is precisely, the Freudian unconscious, even though they form the background of our public values“knowledge which 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 “American values," into the core of an obscene enjoyment that sustains the American way of life.
==Source==
* [[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:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]]
[[Category:Works]]
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Slavoj Žižek]][[Category:Essays]]
Root Admin, Bots, Bureaucrats, flow-bot, oversight, Administrators, Widget editors
24,654
edits

Navigation menu