Security sovereignty and the preemption of low-risk detainees: A look into ‘battlelab’ torture techniques used at Guantanamo Bay

Abstract

This study conceptualizes a new sovereign power following controversial interrogation practices used at Guantanamo Bay. I conceptualize this new sovereign, referred to as security sovereignty, as a new style of governance that draws commonalities and differences with logics of security and sovereignty. While security logics aim to preempt future danger and sovereignty seeks to violently retaliate against those that break the law, security sovereignty uses violent measures against low-level risks that have not been charged or convicted of wrongdoing. This new concept can be used to help explain why high-ranking officials in the Bush Administration authorized controversial interrogation methods against low-value detainees at Guantanamo Bay and CIA black sites. Indeed, President Bush and high-ranking officials at Guantanamo Bay created a secret interrogation program at Guantanamo Bay, referred to as ‘battlelab’ interrogations by Major General Michael Dunlavey, to develop the most sophisticated psychological and physical torture techniques. Battlelab experimentation techniques were used on select detainees to develop useful truth extraction methods that could later be used on high-value targets captured on the battlefield. Such practices included severe sleep deprivation, the use of psychosis-inducing drugs, forced enemas and medications, and prolonged IV feedings that resulted in involuntary bowel movements. This study uses battlelab experimentations as substantive support to theorize a new sovereign power that exercises the absolute right to torture detainees that do not pose a threat to U.S. national security.