8825. Matthew S. Weinert, Democratic Sovereignty (London: University College Press, 2007) p2
8826. Weber, “Securitizing the Unconscious: The Bush Doctrine of Preemption and Minority Report”, Geopolitics Vol. 10, no. 3 (Oct. 2005) p115
8827. Rasch, p58
8828. Ibid, p100 footnote 51
84
remain true to the ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyranny even to resist an assault by the forces of tyranny.”25 When the Bush Administration was asked for comment, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz replied, “There was no plan. We stopped this man in the initial planning stages.”26 As in the movie, errors of judgment may occur. Imminent is a fixed term – it has little to no temporal elasticity. Something will always be imminent until it is not. Burgess’ suicide illustrates that choice potentiality exists right up until action occurs. The ‘death’ of Burgess answers the question of martyrdom mentioned above; that which does not represent an ending, but rather a continuing tangent to the whole which, through reflection, obtains an uncontested sovereignty unto itself by being an indisputable act of opposition of some form.
VVThe events of 9.11.2001 confounded the US, and in a ‘fit of uncharacteristic honesty’ resulted in the tearing off the veil of legality the UN provides.27 Preemption then targets/positions the current world order to either; agree to emulate a US structure globally, or ‘creates a monster’ that resides ‘outside’ all but its own methodology, i.e. that dismisses any definition of itself generated by the ‘other’ – a regressive self-reference. The threat of sanctioned state violence, as a performative to inclusion, backed by a rationalized legitimacy – ergo just, transfers focus to the mode of justification. Yet the set of universally accepted moral and legal codes are more an abstract temporal horizon than realizable concretes. Global issues along this receding horizon against which all are judged then requires evaluation of ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors for local compliance. A jurisdiction undefined within the apparatus, opposing its own inclusion threatens the rationale behind Coke’s ‘artificial reasoning’ and forces the jurisdiction to choose martyrdom, the compelled comprehension that its existential anxieties will be realized. This potential raises concerns of hypocrisy, that instance when the liberalist trajectory towards global acceptance becomes illiberal by coercing the actualization of its liberal agenda – from the larger structure compelling compliance with its idealized pluralism or annihilation in opposition to coercion.