humiliation of prisoners is a timeless practice - when it comes to US abuses
of those in custody there is nothing new under the sun - Guananamo Bay
detainees complain of having menstrual blood rubbed in their faces
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed
> hmm . . .since the panopticon is supposed to be *pan*optic, what we are
> seeing is the beginning of panoptics in Abu Ghraib, not its 'reversal'.
> Indeed, many of the complaints are precisely that the panoptic principles
of
> imprisonment were not observed, although there was a level of visibility,
in
> that prisoners themselves saw what was going on as did the guards, and so
> did their superiors (apparently), and copious photography was done, which
> has now made the practices of the prison visible to the world at large.
> The interesting question about Abu Ghraib is what sort of power is in play
> here? It would not seem to be disciplinary, but nor is it the sovereign
> power, as practised by Saddam Hussein, which involved marking bodies by
> violence etc. While the Americans certainly have inflicted brutality, this
> aspect of humiliation of inmates is something rather new. The use of dogs
> and homosexuality is an attack on the inmates via their cultural norms,
> doing things which were unspeakable to them, and as some inmates have
> pointed out, were things that the Ba'ath regime would not have done,
despite
> itssavagery. It seems like an attack at the level of culture, but more
than
> that I don't feel immediately able to characterise it, or ts objectives.
> Anyone else?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "max neill" <meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 5:34 AM
> Subject: Panopticon Reversed
>
>
> >
> > Any opinions on the apparent reversal of the 'Panopticon Effect' at Abu
> Ghraib, where now the gaze of the world is focussed on the jailers?
> >
> > "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we
> had
> > not conceived of" Gadamer
> >
> >
>
of those in custody there is nothing new under the sun - Guananamo Bay
detainees complain of having menstrual blood rubbed in their faces
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Kelly" <mgekelly@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: Panopticon Reversed
> hmm . . .since the panopticon is supposed to be *pan*optic, what we are
> seeing is the beginning of panoptics in Abu Ghraib, not its 'reversal'.
> Indeed, many of the complaints are precisely that the panoptic principles
of
> imprisonment were not observed, although there was a level of visibility,
in
> that prisoners themselves saw what was going on as did the guards, and so
> did their superiors (apparently), and copious photography was done, which
> has now made the practices of the prison visible to the world at large.
> The interesting question about Abu Ghraib is what sort of power is in play
> here? It would not seem to be disciplinary, but nor is it the sovereign
> power, as practised by Saddam Hussein, which involved marking bodies by
> violence etc. While the Americans certainly have inflicted brutality, this
> aspect of humiliation of inmates is something rather new. The use of dogs
> and homosexuality is an attack on the inmates via their cultural norms,
> doing things which were unspeakable to them, and as some inmates have
> pointed out, were things that the Ba'ath regime would not have done,
despite
> itssavagery. It seems like an attack at the level of culture, but more
than
> that I don't feel immediately able to characterise it, or ts objectives.
> Anyone else?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "max neill" <meneilu2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <foucault@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2004 5:34 AM
> Subject: Panopticon Reversed
>
>
> >
> > Any opinions on the apparent reversal of the 'Panopticon Effect' at Abu
> Ghraib, where now the gaze of the world is focussed on the jailers?
> >
> > "We speak and the word goes beyond us to consequences and ends which we
> had
> > not conceived of" Gadamer
> >
> >
>