Prolonged Detention and Zizek

This is a bit of a follow-up on a previous post on Obama's "Prolonged Detention".  You can read up on it by clicking here.  I was reading a chapter of Zizek's In Defense of Lost Causes that discussed the US admission of torturing prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.  I couldn't help but compare it to the US admission that we will hold prisoners without a trial.

Zizek argues that ay heinous act changes in a fundamental way when it's admitted to.  The admittance itself marks a move.  In his words: "The act of publicly reporting on something is never neutral, it affects the reported content itself" (48).  He then goes on to talk about Dick Cheney's open admission of torture in November 2005 ("we also have to work... sort of the dark side... A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion") (48).  That is: torture is necessary, I'm discussing it, making it known it should not be discussed further.  The opposite happened, of course: opened up was a forum for the debate on torture.

Zizek makes one of his provocative comparisons here: let's say a couple coexists with a silent agreement that they can have extra-marital affairs.  What if one day the man was to then openly tell his wife he was sleeping with someone else.  He's now made it public - it's not longer a silent agreement - the pact, as it existed, is lost.  That is, the wife is now rightfully angry because the open admission altered their situation and their agreement.

Cheney's open admission of torturing prisoners likewise altered our moral situation and Zizek holds that it is a dangerous game played by politicians with power.  As the forum for the debate on torture is opened up, what has been morally reprehensible and outrageous is now given the respect of an official debate.  Zizek argues that torture should be much like rape is: so morally repugnant that anyone who argued for or against it would be considered ridiculous.  Even to argue against rape is considered silly because nobody takes the argument for it seriously.  He writes, "the sign of progress in our societies is that one does not need to argue against rape: it is 'dogmatically' clear to everyone that rape is wrong, and we all feel that even arguing against it is too much.  If someone were to advocate the legitimacy of rape, it would be a sad sign if one had to argue against him - he should simply appear ridiculous.  And the same should hold for torture" (50).

But it's not so with torture anymore.  There are philosophical texts that have been recently published that defend it, including Sam Harris's The End of Faith.  As a publicly acknowledged moral dilemma (as rape is not a moral dilemma - it's a moral outrage), the public is victimized.  The public has been brought back to a medieval debate.  A great achievement in civilization has been lost.

Zizek notes that torture is legitimized by propping up both suspected terrorists and the US authorities as having an in-between status.  That is, there are legal and illegal criminals.  If you are a legal criminal, you are given a trial and a jury and you are not submitted to the threat of torture.  If you are an illegal criminal, you get no trial or jury or even a conviction, and you are submitted to the threat of torture.  The US authorities, as having an in-between status, act as a legal power that includes the power to bypass the law.  That is: "acting as a legal power, their acts are no longer covered and constrained by the law - they operate in an empty space that is sustained by the law, and yet not regulated by the rule of law" (49).  Zizek's point is that the admission of torturing prisoners made this in-between state legitimate.  The public has to acknowledge and debate this reality as a viable option.

To be clear, Zizek is not saying that he would in no case torture someone.  Imagine the unlikely scenario in a show like 24 (a scenario, incidentally that has not happened in Guantanamo Bay), where there's a ticking clock and thousands of people will be saved if we just tortured one suspected terrorist.  Zizek would torture the man, for sure.  But in this extreme scenario, Zizek would do it, but not say it.  He would not publicly defend his action, for in a post-medieval ethical world, it would be considered a horrific and desperate act one wouldn't want to talk about.  Zizek writes, "I can well imagine that, in a very specific situation, I would resort to torture - however in such a case, it is crucial that I do not elevate this desperate choice into a universal principle.  Following the unavoidable brutal urgency of the moment, I should simply do it.  Only in this way, in the very impossibility of elevating what I had to do into a universal principle, do I retain the proper sense of the horror of what I did" (50).  How beautifully put! - Cheney, in his admission of torture, does not respect how horrific the act of torture is.  And neither does the public now.

Can we make a similar comparison to prolonged detention?  If we had no choice but to detain people without trial or jury or even an accusation, given our 21st century commitments to justice and democracy and fairness, wouldn't we want to keep that quiet?  Wouldn't it be a truly desperate act - a shameful secret - a horror that has to be endured?  But we debate it, we talk about it in public, the Obama administration defends it.  Have our leaders crossed a line, then?  As with Zizek's thinking on the legalization of torture, so long as we have prolonged detention, we also have illegal criminals and a justice system that has an 'in-between status'.  What kind of moral line did we now cross with the naming of National Defense Authorization Act?