Prison Camp or “Prison Clinic?” - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 208

these changes are quite slow and require large political/cultural shifts in order to
gain traction. These shifts transcend individual leaders or leadership groups. Again,
Foucault's focus on decentralized power structures is a methodological approach
which can coexist with the factual claim that power is wielded by individuals. Now
that I have addressed these concerns, I shall move on to the importance of biopower
in understanding the use of fMRI technology in nonclinical environments.
GUANTANAMO BAY: NATIONAL SECURITY CLINIC
As you may recall, there are three lingering questions that I must answer. These
are why would the State be interested in utilizing medical technology for political
ends; why would the State focus this medical technology on vulnerable populations
such as detained enemy combatants; and how is this use both nonmedical and ille-
gitimate? Regarding the first question, critics have often (and at times justifiably)
called Foucault to question regarding the accuracy of his historical claims. As this
discussion of lie detecting brain scans indicates, however, Foucault's discussion of
biopower does have a real-world correlate. Even if the science behind fMRI-based
lie detection is questionable at best, the potential use of such scans on detainees is
a picture perfect example of medical technology utilized for political ends. In an
attempt to promote national security, the U.S. government brings the fMRI out of the
hospital and into the interrogation room. I will not belabor this point, given the fact
that I have already discussed it in some detail. What I would like to add is a comment
regarding the connection between the political and medical realms, which in turn
will lead to an answer to the second question.
By continuing the analysis, one can make the following claim regarding this
connection between politics and the medical realm. If the State as a whole has,
as one of its political ends, the tracking and maintaining of established statistical
norms regarding the health of the population, then the State cannot surround itself
solely with safety mechanisms aimed at what might be considered “standard” medi-
cal threats. The State must do more than remind us to get our flu vaccines, tell us
to regularly wash our hands, and provide functional waste disposal infrastructure
in order to prevent the spread of disease. A State characterized by biopower must
expand its focus in order to maintain a nation's overall health and prevent spikes in
morbidity. The use of fMRI in national security contexts is simply another example
of this expansion. The DoD and DHS are attempting to maintain the health of the
overall population by creating a body of national security-related intelligence, much
in the same way that early biopolitical States began to collect and centralize medi-
cal knowledge. Given this fact, the utilization of medical technology makes more
sense. As odd as it may sound, we can group organizations like the Center for Disease
Control (CDC), the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department
of Homeland Security under the same biopolitical umbrella. The only real difference,
according to a biopolitical understanding, is the “foe” each is attempting to combat.
For the CDC, it may take the form of a new communicable disease or next year's
flu virus. For the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), the
goal is often to provide practical information for living a healthier lifestyle. Examples
include nutritional advice and insurance information. For the DHS, the “foe” does not