We already know that Big G. (i.e., Big Government) wants to look in your underwear; after all, that’s how they determine whether or not you can be eligible for the draft so that you can pull triggers and push buttons in the great war machine. We also know they want to look in your bedrooms to see what you’re doing there, so they can punish you if you perform any unapproved acts (even when the participants are consenting adults). They can use these underwear/peephole checks to determine whether or not you’re capable of being married or whether you deserve other legal protections (e.g., housing, healthcare, job security). However, Big G. is going to great new lengths now that we’re undergoing the 2nd generation McCarthy era (ultra- high-tech with better fear efficiency).
When the Cold War ended (officially in 1991, but well on its way to collapse by the mid 1980s), it was a terribly sad for Big G. – its favorite scapegoat and boxing buddy retired from the ring. It tried for another abstract war concept (officially started in 1969, but ramped up into a powerful, mainstream initiative when the Cold War began to die down, in the 1980s), the War on Drugs. That pepped things up for a brief while, but most people weren’t really that interested (ho-hum – Prohibition, been there, done that). After a decade or so, most of those who weren’t using drugs (and many who were) weren’t particularly scared and, worse, it was transparently ineffective[1] (we need a war that we can at least pretend to make progress on). This so-called war was also undermined by our government’s collusion with drug-supporting regimes and rebel factions in other countries (e.g., the anti-Soviet [opium-growing] Taliban of the 1980s Afghanistan or the [cocaine-trafficking] Contras in Nicaragua, also in the Reagan “just say no” era).[2]
As new technologies (computers, cell phones) gained popularity in the late 1980s and through the 1990s, they brought with them more sophisticated transmittal patterns, and therefore Big G. needed to increase its options in preparation for the next big scare tactic (via initiatives such as the Clipper Chip, which is required for advanced telecommunication devices as a means of “encryption” that is decryptable by US law enforcement agencies, so they can conduct surveillance at will). A shade past the turn of the 21st century, Big G. found the excuse it needed to announce the next big thing: War on Terror.[3] This can truly be the new Cold War, except this time, it can last literally forever (because there’s a more clear danger and potential for endless progress, where no specific country is “the” enemy, but rather a great swath of ideologies and nations that can be encompassed within that concept).
So now, Big G. wants to probe you more deeply, because you might be a terrorist. Not only will they scan your person and all belongings (and prevent you from bringing your own water) on airplanes, but biometric data is beginning to be used for passports and visas.[4] As defined by U.S. Department of state:
A biometric or biometric identifier is an objective measurement of a physical characteristic of an individual which, when captured in a database, can be used to verify the identity or check against other entries in the database. The best known biometric is the fingerprint, but others include facial recognition and iris scans.
For U.S. Visas the chosen biometric identifier method is a digital photo and electronic fingerprints. All fingers of a visa applicant are electronically scanned in a quick, inkless process during the consular officer’s interview with the applicant.
So now we’re fingerprinting even non-criminals (i.e., anyone who wishes to travel across a border). It may not be long before they’re taking blood or skin samples to track by our DNA and perhaps we’ll have implanted identity chips with built-in GPS tracking. From one angle, this may seem reasonable – after all, we need to protect our security – yet there seems to be a lot of trade-off in freedoms and it is clear that total security would absolutely mean extremely limited (if any) freedom. So, where should we draw the line? Why aren’t we talking about setting limits? The early years of this century saw warrant-less and illegal wiretapping (phones and email / internet-tracking), as well as arrests devoid of evidence and indefinite detentions. There’s no doubt that Big G. is capable of location tracking via cellphones and other devices with GPS (or via electronic tollbooth transponders, such as EasyPass and FastLane, as featured in the excellent novel “Little Brother” by Cory Doctorow).
Here’s an interesting quote from the Supreme Court (ref. Ex Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866)) whichwas included in Hunter S. Thompson’s “Kingdom of Fear”:
The Constitution of the United States is the law for rulers and people, equally in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protections all classes of men, at all times and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the whit of man than that any of [the Constitution’s] provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of Government.
In case it’s not obvious, it’s saying that nothing, not even war, justifies suspending or eroding any of our constitutional rights (including the freedom to peaceably assemble, one that’s been denied with increasing frequency lately, in the wake of national political conventions or other powerful elite [independent & peaceable journalists have even been arrested for such constitutional acts]). In case you’ve forgotten, here is the constitution: (click or scroll to The Amendments to see your constitutional rights, especially Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression).
Now that we’re involved in our third and most long-ranging abstract war (against a basic human emotion and anyone who might trigger it), keeping our wits (and rights) about us is extra important. And allowing these to decline in the service of “security” is something we need to stand against. And if we’re truly concerned about terror, we should really be looking hard at our government’s violence against its own people. There are many terrifying things that have occurred this century that were perpetrated by Big G (or its official agents). Numerous acts of police violence against peaceful protesters (note: it is frighteningly easy to find examples of this with a simple websearch), including a mentality of “preemptive attack” by the police (also known as attacking based on your imagination, the thing we used to call illegal assault). Equally bad are the many incidents of individual police brutality, including outright murder of innocent or restrained and unarmed “suspects”, such as Oscar Grant. And, the USA has deployed a full-time domestic unit of the army specifically for “civil unrest” (note: I confirmed this on the armytimes.com last summer, their first tour of duty began in Oct. 2008).
The U.S. Patriot Act really loosened the definition of “domestic terrorism” (Sec. 802, reference http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html)[5], so I can see why we now need increased violence expertise for our “terrorists”, which are those who engage in or support activities that:
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended–
- `(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
- `(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
- `(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
In a certain reading, this may seem reasonable, but “dangerous to human life” is actually quite broad and could involve a protest of a military or police function (where law officers have guns and thus it could be dangerous to human life – picture the hippies of the 60’s putting daisies in guns at Kent State) and, as for appear to be intended to coerce a civilian population or government – that applies to all political protests! The only fragment of sanity here is that it must also be a violation of a criminal law, but luckily trespassing counts, so if protesters go to a military base without permission, they can all be branded as terrorists. Which means, assuming the army and police deign to avoid deadly violence, that all of their assets can be immediately seized and the participants (suspected terrorists) can be held near indefinitely.
——————————————————————————
For some great thoughts and information about privacy and surveillance, see Jonathan Twelve Hawks site (author of the fantastic “The Traveler” series): www.randomhouse.com/features/johntwelvehawks/
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Footnotes:
[1] This is not to dismiss the many, many victims of this so-called war on drugs, most of them young men of color, imprisoned with absurdly long sentences for “crimes” like selling or possessing drugs other than those which are state-sanctioned (i.e., alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals).
[2] Some hints of the government’s involvement with cocaine may be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contra%27s_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US
History of the “War on Drugs” may be found on wikipedia, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs
[3] Interesting article about Osama bin Laden and how The War on Terror ties in with The Cold War (which includes CIA complicity in the drug trade, contra [pun intended] the War on Drugs): http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html
[4] Some data on biometric requirements may be found here: http://travel.state.gov/visa/laws/telegrams/telegrams_1393.html or here: http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/info/info_1336.html#easy4
[5] More info in this ACLU article on the problems with the Patriot Act and “Domestic Terrorism”: http://www.aclu.org/natsec/emergpowers/14444leg20021206.html
