Prison Camp or “Prison Clinic?” - Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense - page 211

hospital is exactly like the prison camp. Of course, there are differences between the
two. However, given the clinical character of the State, one cannot simply point to
Guantanamo as a nonclinical space without further analysis. Members of the neuro-
ethical community might balk at the notion that a space associated with such potential
harm could have anything in common with a house of healing. But question we must,
if we are to truly confront the problem of conducting brain scans in the prison camp.
In addition, one could make a claim that is stronger than a simple caution regard-
ing the difficulty in clearly identifying spaces as medical or nonmedical. Given our
analysis, one could go so far as to claim that Guantanamo Bay is a clear example of
a biopolitical clinical space. Remember, fMRI diagnostic technology is being used
against a marginalized group in order to protect the overall health of the nonmar-
ginalized population. This sort of clinic may trade its sterile examination rooms
for dank prison cells, but the ultimate goal remains the same. Protect the health of
the public and eliminate threats to this maintenance of health. Guantanamo Bay is
more a “prison clinic” than “prison camp,” as defined by the aims of State racism.
In summation, to claim that the use of fMRI in lie detection in Guantanamo Bay is
illegitimate and nonclinical is severely complicated by our biopolitical reading. At
best, we could claim that the use of this technology in its current form is an illegiti-
mate clinical use of fMRI. Again, it is illegitimate only if it does not produce proper
results. In spite of this, the scans and the space in which they occur are quite clinical.
I have tried to show that, according to a biopolitical analysis, the State is inter-
ested in utilizing medical technology in a national security setting due to the medical
character of the State. The care for life that characterizes the application of biopower
is changed by State racism, and those who are deemed to be enemies of the State
become no more than a biological threat for a new sort of clinical group to address. In
this case, enemy combatants imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay represent the threat, and
the U.S. DoD and DHS represent the new clinical group. Extracting information from
high-profile detainees is akin to medical research. The knowledge helps the State
better understand the threat it faces and allows the State to install increased security
measures to protect the statistical health norms of its population. To claim that the use
of functional neuroimaging is illegitimate is only true in a scientific sense, according
to this analysis. To claim that these scans are nonclinical in the prison camp is flatly
mistaken. Marks, Mandavilli, and others who seek to protect the neuromedical realm
from the encroachments of national security are quite frankly too late.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
At this point, I have provided a merely descriptive account regarding complications
in defining the national security context, in general, and Guantanamo, in particular, as
nonclinical. I would like to end by providing something in the way of positive next-
steps to go along with my critical application of biopower. As I previously stated, the
criticisms of thinkers such as Marks are admirable contributions to the discourse
addressing neuroethics and national security. It is simply the case that the national
security landscape has a more medical character than previously recognized. The
avenues for future research that I provide may seem disjointed, but I believe they
could serve as fruitful complement to the current discussion.