Comments on: Knight of the Living Dead http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2007/03/27/knight-of-the-living-dead/ The Politics, Economics & Culture of Radical Change Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:56:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: graykane http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2007/03/27/knight-of-the-living-dead/comment-page-1/#comment-22024 graykane Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:37:45 +0000 http://www.solidarityeconomy.net/2007/03/27/knight-of-the-living-dead/#comment-22024 During the Democratic debates, neither Barack Obama nor Hilary Clinton could rule out the use of torture in the time-bomb scenario. As a matter of policy, the act of torture for them remained in a suspended state. These Democratic front runners in effect have two policies: (1) to exclude torture from policy, and (2) to refuse to exclude torture, as a matter of policy. Perhaps Khalid Shaikh Mohammed-- and Agamben's overarching category of "homo sacer"-- are merely symptoms of a greater structural problem. Each year members of Congress push through an inane amount of legislation to prove their own legitimacy to their constituency. The infrastructural support to consistently and equally enforce the laws doesn't exist. And if it did, the contradictions would transform nearly everyone into "homo sacer." Even within their own specialties, lawyers can't possibly know the all of the laws that are relevant to their cases, and sometimes in the court room, they play the contradictions against each other. This governmental familiarity with such legal contradictions has infected political ideology, to the point at which politicians unconsciously (and sometimes consciously) replicate such contradictions in their policies. And such policies support the framework for laws. In other words, "homo sacer" is a natural byproduct of representational democracy-- as is selective enforcement. In the best case scenario, selective enforcement encourages both blue-collar and white-collar criminals to take their chances. In the worst case scenario, selective enforcement services racism, politics, and private vendettas. The best part is that American citizens petition their representatives for these laws that culminate, without expiration, into chaos. And they applaud Barack Obama's and Hilary Clinton's answers about torture. I guess the exclusionary inclusion is the only answer that makes sense in this contradictory world. During the Democratic debates, neither Barack Obama nor Hilary Clinton could rule out the use of torture in the time-bomb scenario. As a matter of policy, the act of torture for them remained in a suspended state. These Democratic front runners in effect have two policies: (1) to exclude torture from policy, and (2) to refuse to exclude torture, as a matter of policy.

Perhaps Khalid Shaikh Mohammed– and Agamben’s overarching category of “homo sacer”– are merely symptoms of a greater structural problem. Each year members of Congress push through an inane amount of legislation to prove their own legitimacy to their constituency. The infrastructural support to consistently and equally enforce the laws doesn’t exist. And if it did, the contradictions would transform nearly everyone into “homo sacer.”

Even within their own specialties, lawyers can’t possibly know the all of the laws that are relevant to their cases, and sometimes in the court room, they play the contradictions against each other. This governmental familiarity with such legal contradictions has infected political ideology, to the point at which politicians unconsciously (and sometimes consciously) replicate such contradictions in their policies.

And such policies support the framework for laws.

In other words, “homo sacer” is a natural byproduct of representational democracy– as is selective enforcement.

In the best case scenario, selective enforcement encourages both blue-collar and white-collar criminals to take their chances. In the worst case scenario, selective enforcement services racism, politics, and private vendettas.

The best part is that American citizens petition their representatives for these laws that culminate, without expiration, into chaos.

And they applaud Barack Obama’s and Hilary Clinton’s answers about torture. I guess the exclusionary inclusion is the only answer that makes sense in this contradictory world.

]]>