Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

The Next Wave Of Extremists Will Be Green

If military strategists are always fighting the last war, the same is true of those who work on countering radicalization. In 2001, Western intelligence services, mostly focused on localized terrorist groups like the Irish Republican Army and ETA, were stunned by al Qaeda.

Come 2011, they were then blindsided by Anders Behring Breivik and the growth in far-right extremism. By the mid-zoios, the Islamist threat had evolved into the Islamic State — and they were slow to spot that, too. Today, we are about to make the same mistake. We will not easily forgive ourselves if our attention is exclusively occupied by the Islamic State or the far-right when the coming wave of environmental radicalization hits.

There's nothing new about radical environmentalism. In 2001, the Earth Liberation Front — a militant, violent environmentalist group — was described by the FBI as one of the top domestic terrorist threats.

Academics have estimated that "REAR" (Radical Environmentalist and Animal Rights) cells can be found in at least 25 countries and were responsible for more than 1,000 criminal acts between 1970 and 2007 in the United States alone — mostly vandalism and attacks on animal testing facilities. Over the last 30 years, there have been periodic fears about new waves of "eco-terrorism." which have never quite materialized. More

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

The Criminalization of Everyday Life

The hulking vehicles, built for about $500,000 each at the height of the war, are among the biggest pieces of equipment that the Defense Department is giving to law enforcement agencies under a national military surplus program. (AP Photo/Mike Groll)

Sometimes a single story has a way of standing in for everything you need to know. In the case of the up-arming, up-armoring and militarization of police forces across the country, there is such a story. Not the police, mind you, but the campus cops at Ohio State University now possess an MRAP; that is, a $500,000, 18-ton, mine-resistant, ambush-protected armored vehicle of a sort used in the war in Afghanistan and, as Hunter Stuart of the Huffington Post reported, built to withstand "ballistic arms fire, mine fields, IEDs and nuclear, biological and chemical environments." Sounds like just the thing for bouts of binge drinking and post-football-game shenanigans.

That MRAP came, like so much other equipment police departments are stocking up on — from tactical military vests, assault rifles and grenade launchers to actual tanks and helicopters – as a freebie via a Pentagon-organized surplus military equipment program. As it happens, police departments across the country are getting MRAPs like OSU’s, including the Dakota County Sheriff’s Office in Minnesota. It’s received one of 18 such decommissioned military vehicles already being distributed around that state. So has Warren County which, like a number of counties in New York state, some quite rural, is now deploying Afghan War-grade vehicles. (Nationwide, rural counties have received a disproportionate percentage of the billions of dollars’ worth of surplus military equipment that has gone to the police in these years.)

When questioned on the utility of its new MRAP, Warren County Sheriff Bud York suggested, according to the Post-Star, the local newspaper, that "in an era of terrorist attacks on US soil and mass killings in schools, police agencies need to be ready for whatever comes their way… The vehicle will also serve as a deterrent to drug dealers or others who might be contemplating a show of force." So, breathe a sigh of relief, Warren County is ready for the next Al Qaeda-style show of force and, for those fretting about how to deal with such things, there are now 165 18-ton "deterrents" in the hands of local law enforcement around the country, with hundreds of requests still pending.

You can imagine just how useful an MRAP is likely to be if the next Adam Lanza busts into a school in Warren County, assault rifle in hand, or takes over a building at Ohio State University. But keep in mind that we all love bargains and that Warren County’s vehicle cost the department less than $10. (Yes, you read that right!) A cornucopia of such Pentagon "bargains" has, in the post-9/11 years, played its part in transforming the way the police imagine their jobs and in militarizing the very idea of policing in this country.

Just thinking about that MRAP at OSU makes me feel like I grew up in Neolithic America. After all, when I went to college in the early 1960s, campus cops were mooks in suits. Gun-less, they were there to enforce such crucial matters as "parietal hours." (If you’re too young to know what they were, look it up.) At their worst, they faced what in those still civilianized (and sexist) days were called "panty raids," but today would undoubtedly be seen as potential manifestations of a terrorist mentality. Now, if there is a sit-in or sit-down on campus, as infamously at the University of California, Davis, during the Occupy movement, expect that the demonstrators will be treated like enemies of the state and pepper-sprayed or perhaps immobilized with a stun gun. And if there’s a bona fide student riot in town, the cops will now roll out an armored vehicle (as they did recently in Seattle).

By the way, don’t think it’s just the weaponry that’s militarizing the police. It’s a mentality as well that, like those weapons, is migrating home from our distant wars. It’s a sense that the US, too, is a "battlefield" and that, for instance, those highly militarized SWAT teams spreading to just about any community you want to mention are made up of "operators" (a "term of art" from the special operations community) ready to deal with threats to American life.

Embedding itself chillingly in our civilian world, that battlefield is proving mobile indeed. As Chase Madar wrote for TomDispatch the last time around, it leads now to the repeated handcuffing of six- and seven-year-olds in our schools as mini-criminals for offenses that once would have been dealt with by a teacher or principal, not a cop, and at school, not in jail or court. Today, Madar returns to explain just how this particular nightmare is spreading into every crevice of American life. Tom

The Over-Policing of America
Police Overkill Has Entered the DNA of Social Policy

If all you’ve got is a hammer, then everything starts to look like a nail. And if police and prosecutors are your only tool, sooner or later everything and everyone will be treated as criminal. This is increasingly the American way of life, a path that involves "solving" social problems (and even some non-problems) by throwing cops at them, with generally disastrous results. Wall-to-wall criminal law encroaches ever more on everyday life as police power is applied in ways that would have been unthinkable just a generation ago.

By now, the militarization of the police has advanced to the point where "the war on crime" and "the war on drugs" are no longer metaphors but bland understatements. There is the proliferation of heavily-armed SWAT teams, even in small towns; the use of shock-and-awe tactics to bust small-time bookies; the no-knock raids to recover trace amounts of drugs that often result in the killing of family dogs, if not family members; and in communities where drug treatment programs once were key, the waging of a drug version of counterinsurgency war. (All of this is ably reported on journalist Radley Balko’s blog and in his book, The Rise of the Warrior Cop.) But American over-policing involves far more than the widely reported up-armoring of your local precinct. It’s also the way police power has entered the DNA of social policy, turning just about every sphere of American life into a police matter.

The School-to-Prison Pipeline

It starts in our schools, where discipline is increasingly outsourced to police personnel. What not long ago would have been seen as normal childhood misbehavior – doodling on a desk, farting in class, a kindergartener’s tantrum – can leave a kid in handcuffs, removed from school or even booked at the local precinct. Such "criminals" can be as young as seven-year-old Wilson Reyes, a New Yorker who was handcuffed and interrogated under suspicion of stealing five dollars from a classmate. (Turned out he didn’t do it.)

Though it’s a national phenomenon, Mississippi currently leads the way in turning school behavior into a police issue. The Hospitality State has imposed felony charges on schoolchildren for "crimes" like throwing peanuts on a bus. Wearing the wrong color belt to school got one child handcuffed to a railing for several hours. All of this goes under the rubric of "zero-tolerance" discipline, which turns out to be just another form of violence legally imported into schools.

Despite a long-term drop in youth crime, the carceral style of education remains in style. Metal detectors — a horrible way for any child to start the day — are installed in ever more schools, even those with sterling disciplinary records, despite the demonstrable fact that such scanners provide no guarantee against shootings and stabbings.

Every school shooting, whether in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, or Littleton, Colorado, only leads to more police in schools and more arms as well. It’s the one thing the National Rifle Association and Democratic senators can agree on. There are plenty of successful ways to run an orderly school without criminalizing the classroom, but politicians and much of the media don’t seem to want to know about them. The "school-to-prison pipeline," a jargon term coined by activists, is entering the vernacular.

Go to Jail, Do Not Pass Go

Even as simple a matter as getting yourself from point A to point B can quickly become a law enforcement matter as travel and public space are ever more aggressively policed. Waiting for a bus? Such loitering just got three Rochester youths arrested. Driving without a seat belt can easily escalate into an arrest, even if the driver is a state judge. (Notably, all four of these men were black.) If the police think you might be carrying drugs, warrantless body cavity searches at the nearest hospital may be in the offing — you will be sent the bill later.

Air travel entails increasingly intimate pat-downs and arbitrary rules that many experts see as nothing more than "security theater." As for staying at home, it carries its own risks as Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates found out when a Cambridge police officer mistook him for a burglar and hauled him away — a case that is hardly unique.

Overcriminalization at Work

Office and retail work might seem like an unpromising growth area for police and prosecutors, but criminal law has found its way into the white-collar workplace, too. Just ask Georgia Thompson, a Wisconsin state employee targeted by a federal prosecutor for the "crime" of incorrectly processing a travel agency’s bid for state business. She spent four months in a federal prison before being sprung by a federal court. Or Judy Wilkinson, hauled away in handcuffs by an undercover cop for serving mimosas without a license to the customers in her bridal shop. Or George Norris, sentenced to 17 months in prison for selling orchids without the proper paperwork to an undercover federal agent.

Increasingly, basic economic transactions are being policed under the purview of criminal law. In Arkansas, for instance, Human Rights Watch reports that a new law funnels delinquent (or allegedly delinquent) rental tenants directly to the criminal courts, where failure to pay up can result in quick arrest and incarceration, even though debtor’s prison as an institution was supposed to have ended in the 19th century.

And the mood is spreading. Take the asset bubble collapse of 2008 and the rising cries of progressives for the criminal prosecution of Wall Street perpetrators, as if a fundamentally sound financial system had been abused by a small number of criminals who were running free after the debacle. Instead of pushing a debate about how to restructure our predatory financial system, liberals in their focus on individual prosecution are aping the punitive zeal of the authoritarians. A few high-profile prosecutions for insider trading (which had nothing to do with the last crash) have, of course, not changed Wall Street one bit.

Criminalizing Immigration

The past decade has also seen immigration policy ingested by criminal law. According to another Human Rights Watch report — their US division is increasingly busy — federal criminal prosecutions of immigrants for illegal entry have surged from 3,000 in 2002 to 48,000 last year. This novel application of police and prosecutors has broken up families and fueled the expansion of for-profit detention centers, even as it has failed to show any stronger deterrent effect on immigration than the civil law system that preceded it. Thanks to Arizona’s SB 1070 bill, police in that state are now licensed to stop and check the papers of anyone suspected of being undocumented — that is, who looks Latino.

Meanwhile, significant parts of the US-Mexico border are now militarized (as increasingly is the Canadian border), including what seem to resemble free-fire zones. And if anyone were to leave bottled water for migrants illegally crossing the desert and in danger of death from dehydration, that good Samaritan should expect to face criminal charges, too. Intensified policing with aggressive targets for arrests and deportations are guaranteed to be a part of any future bipartisan deal on immigration reform.

Digital Over-Policing

As for the Internet, for a time it was terra nova and so relatively free of a steroidal law enforcement presence. Not anymore. The late Aaron Swartz, a young Internet genius and activist affiliated with Harvard University, was caught downloading masses of scholarly articles (all publicly subsidized) from an open network on the MIT campus. Swartz was federally prosecuted under the capacious Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for violating a "terms and services agreement" — a transgression that anyone who has ever disabled a cookie on his or her laptop has also, technically, committed. Swartz committed suicide earlier this year while facing a possible 50-year sentence and up to a million dollars in fines.

Since the summer, thanks to whistleblowing contractor Edward Snowden, we have learned a great deal about the way the NSA stops and frisks our (and apparently everyone else’s) digital communications, both email and telephonic. The security benefits of such indiscriminate policing are far from clear, despite the government’s emphatic but inconsistent assurances otherwise. What comes into sharper focus with every volley of new revelations is the emerging digital infrastructure of what can only be called a police state.

Sex Police

Sex is another zone of police overkill in our post-Puritan land. Getting put on a sex offender registry is alarmingly easy — as has been done to children as young as 11 for "playing doctor" with a relative, again according to Human Rights Watch. But getting taken off the registry later is extraordinarily difficult. Across the nation, sex offender registries have expanded massively, especially in California, where one in every 380 adults is now a registered sex offender, creating a new pariah class with severe obstacles to employment, housing or any kind of community life. The proper penalty for, say, an 18-year-old who has sex with a 14-year-old can be debated, but should that 18-year-old’s life really be ruined forever?

Equality Before the Cops?

It will surprise no one that Americans are not all treated equally by the police. Law enforcement picks on kids more than adults, the queer more than straight, Muslims more than Methodists – Muslims a lot more than Methodists — antiwar activists more than the apolitical. Above all, our punitive state targets the poor more than the wealthy and blacks and Latinos more than white people.

A case in point: after the 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, a police presence, including surveillance cameras and metal detectors, was ratcheted up at schools around the country, particularly in urban areas with largely working-class black and Latino student bodies. It was all to "protect" the kids, of course. At Columbine itself, however, no metal detector was installed and no heavy police presence intruded. The reason was simple. At that school in the Colorado suburb of Littleton, the mostly well-heeled white families did not want their kids treated like potential felons and they had the status and political power to get their way. But communities without such clout are less able to push back against the encroachments of police power.

Even Our Prisons Are Over-Policed

The over-criminalization of American life empties out into our vast, overcrowded prison system, which is itself over-policed. The ultimate form of punitive control (and torture) is long-term solitary confinement, in which 80,000 to 100,000 prisoners are encased at any given moment. Is this really necessary? Solitary is no longer reserved for the worst or the worst or most dangerous prisoners but can be inflicted on ones who wear Rastafari dreadlocks, have a copy of Sun Tzu’s Art of War in their cell or are in any way suspected, no matter how tenuous the grounds, of gang affiliations.

Not every developed nation does things this way. Some 30 years ago, Great Britain shifted from isolating prisoners to, whenever possible, giving them greater responsibility and autonomy — with less violent results. But don’t even bring the subject up here. It will fall on deaf ears.

Extreme policing is exacerbated by extreme sentencing. For instance, more than 3,000 Americans have been sentenced to life terms without chance of parole for nonviolent offenses. These are mostly but not exclusively drug offenses, including life for a pound of cocaine that a boyfriend stashed in the attic; selling LSD at a Grateful Dead concert; and shoplifting three belts from a department store.

Our incarceration rate is the highest in the world — triple that of the now-defunct East Germany. The incarceration rate for African-American men is about five times higher than that of the Soviet Union at the peak of the gulag.

The Destruction of Families

Prison may seem the logical finale for this litany of over-criminalization, but the story doesn’t actually end with those inmates. As prisons warehouse ever more Americans, often hundreds of miles from their local communities, family bonds weaken and disintegrate. In addition, once a parent goes into the criminal justice system, his or her family tends to end up on the radar screens of state agencies. "Being under surveillance by law enforcement makes a family much more vulnerable to Child Protective Services," says Professor Dorothy Roberts of the University of Pennsylvania Law school. An incarcerated parent, especially an incarcerated mother, means a much stronger likelihood that children will be sent into foster care, where, according to one recent study, they will be twice as likely as war veterans to suffer from PTSD.

In New York State, the Administration for Child Services and the juvenile justice system recently merged, effectively putting thousands of children in a heavily policed, penalty-based environment until they age out. "Being in foster care makes you much more vulnerable to being picked up by the juvenile justice system," says Roberts. "If you’re in a group home and you get in a fight, that could easily become a police matter." In every respect, the creeping over-criminalization of everyday life exerts a corrosive effect on American families.

Do We Live in a Police State?

The term "police state" was once brushed off by mainstream intellectuals as the hyperbole of paranoids. Not so much anymore. Even in the tweediest precincts of the legal system, the over-criminalization of American life is remarked upon with greater frequency and intensity. "You’re probably a (federal) criminal" is the accusatory title of a widely read essay co-authored by Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit of the US Court of Appeals. A Republican appointee, Kozinski surveys the morass of criminal laws that make virtually every American an easy target for law enforcement. Veteran defense lawyer Harvey Silverglate has written an entire book about how an average American professional could easily commit three felonies in a single day without knowing it.

The daily overkill of police power in the US goes a long way toward explaining why more Americans aren’t outraged by the "excesses" of the war on terror, which, as one law professor has argued, are just our everyday domestic penal habits exported to more exotic venues. It is no less true that the growth of domestic police power is, in this positive feedback loop, the partial result of our distant foreign wars seeping back into the homeland (the "imperial boomerang" that Hannah Arendt warned against).

Many who have long railed against our country’s everyday police overkill have reacted to the revelations of NSA surveillance with detectable exasperation: of course we are over-policed! Some have even responded with peevish resentment: Why so much sympathy for this Snowden kid when the daily grind of our justice system destroys so many lives without comment or scandal? After all, in New York, the police department’s "stop and frisk" tactic, which targets African-American and Latino working-class youth for routinized street searches, was until recently uncontroversial among the political and opinion-making class. If "the gloves came off" after September 11, 2001, many Americans were surprised to learn they had ever been on to begin with. More

 

 

 

Sunday, September 1, 2013

6 Corporations Making Money From U.S. Aid to the Brutal Egyptian Military

The $1.3 billion sent to Egypt's armed forces every year functions as a major subsidy program to American military contractors.

Most of the tanks, tear gas and bullets used to brutally clear the Muslim Brotherhood sit-ins in Cairo in mid-August were bought with American money. While there are a number of reasons why the U.S. continues to allocate an annual $1.3 billion in cash for the Egyptian military—Israel, access to the Suez Canal and counter-terrorism cooperation—the profits that go to American weapons companies are a major incentive.

Since 1979, the glue that has stuck the Pentagon and Egyptian military together has been cash. In total, America has given the Egyptian military nearly $42 billion since 1948, according to a Congressional Research Service report. Under the terms of the Foreign Military Financing deal struck with Egypt, the vast majority of the arms equipment the country buys is American. Currently, an estimated 80 percent of the Egyptian military's weapons purchases are covered by American military aid.

Here's how the financing system works: the money allocated for the military aid gets sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Then, it gets delivered to a trust fund at the Treasury Department, and is finally given to military contractors who make the tanks and bullets that have transformed the Egyptian armed forces into one of the most powerful forces in the Middle East.

This system benefits some of the most powerful American military companies like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics.

“It’s clearly a major subsidy program for these companies,” said Shana Marshall, an expert on military aid to Egypt and associate director and research instructor at the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University. “It’s kept open their production line when they would have otherwise been closed down and it’s a source of really reliable profits for them.”

In the aftermath of the military's massacre of supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, these defense contractors are closely watching the unfolding debate about U.S. aid to Egypt. But they have little reason to worry.

While reports about the Obama administration reviewing the U.S. military aid package have emerged in recent weeks, there is little chance of an U.S. aid cut off, despite the fact that American law mandates one if a coup is implemented.

Every time someone mentions a suspension of aid or rethinking the aid program, they send a team of defense industry lobbyists to Capitol Hill to knock on doors to make sure that there’s no suspension of the aid program,” said Marshall.

Further complicating any talk of an aid cut-off is the fact that contracts to provide equipment to the military extend far into the future. Penalties for breaking those contracts would be inflicted on the U.S. taxpayer.

So these military contractors will continue to rake in cash from the U.S.-Egypt relationship for the foreseeable future. Here's a look at six of them.

1. Lockheed Martin

The Maryland-based military company is a tried-and-true customer of the U.S. military. With gross profits of $2.7 billion in 2011, Lockheed Martin is one of the most cash-rich military companies. The vast majority of those profits come from U.S. government contractors to provide fighter jets, missile defense and more. It 's also benefited handsomely from the Egypt-US relationship.

In 2010, Lockheed Martin inked a $2.5 billion deal with the U.S. military to provide 20 F-16 fighter jets to the Egyptian military. Fourteen of the jets have been delivered to Egypt; under the terms of the deal, the remaining six are to be delivered by December 2014. But in the wake of the Egyptian military's violence against supporters of deposed President Mohamed Morsi, the Obama administration announced it would delay the delivery of the remaining jets. While it was a punitive measure in response to human rights violations, in the grand scheme of things it's only a symbolic step, given that it's a temporary suspension and that the vast majority of U.S. military equipment will continue to be sent to the country.

The $1.3 billion sent to Egypt's armed forces every year functions as a major subsidy program to American military contractors.

A month after the fighter jet deal was reached, a Lockheed Martin subsidiary in Florida was awarded a $46 million contract to provide night vision sensor systems for Apache helicopters for Egypt.

2. General Dynamics

This major military company has also benefited from the Egyptian-American military relationship. Specifically, it is the source for key parts needed to build Egypt's M1A1 tanks, a vehicle that the U.S. has delivered to the country since the late 1980s. In total, Egypt's military has acquired more than 1,000 of these tanks—far more than the armed forces actually need—for over $3.9 billion.

Since 1992, General Dynamics has provided components for tank kits for M1A1 vehicles. In 2011, the U.S. military awarded the company a $395 million deal to provide these tank kits to Egypt. The parts are shipped to a production facility in Egypt—an example of how the military relationship with the U.S. also benefits Egyptian military engineers and provides some jobs for Egyptians. (Other contracts have similar arrangements, where some of the production of military goods occurs in the U.S. and the other portion occurring in Egyptian factories.) The deliveries of these specific tank kits will take place from July 2013-January 2016.

In 2012, General Dynamics signed another contract, this time for $37 million, related to M1A1 tanks.

3. L-3 Communications

Known for its prowess in the production of communications, surveillance and reconnaissance equipment for the U.S. government, L-3 Communications brings in billions of dollars in profits each year. Some of the money comes from its contracts with the U.S. military to provide Egypt communications equipment.

This year, L-3 Communications was awarded a $10.5 million contract to provide high-frequency transceivers for Egypt's military.

In 2010, L-3 Communications received even more benefits from the U.S. aid package to Egypt. The company made $24 million to assemble a sonar system for the Egyptian navy. “ L-3's sonar provides long range and detection capability under the harshest of sea state conditions, and we are honored to provide the Egyptian Navy with our high-performance solution,” crowed Jerry Ozovek, the president of L-3's Ocean Systems.

4. General Electric

General Electric has its hands in everything: energy, computers, digital cameras—and U.S. military contracting, specifically in the aviation field.

In August 2013, General Electric signed a $13.6 million deal with the U.S. Air Force to give Egypt's air force “service life extension kits” for the F110 jet fighter engine used in the Lockheed Martin-produced F16s.

Orders like these translate into stable employment for years,” a GE spokesman told an Ohio newspaper.

5. Exelis

While this company is a relatively small name in the world of military contractors, Exelis does well for itself. The Virginia-based company made nearly $6 million last year. The Washington Postdescribes it as specializing in “electronics and communications equipment such as radios, as well as technical services such as cybersecurity and intelligence offerings.”

This year, it inked a $24 million deal with the U.S. Navy to produce “six radio frequency repeater systems for the government of Egypt.”

6. Boeing

Boeing is the second largest military contractor in the world. Its relationship with the Egyptian military stretches back years.

In 2000, Boeing agreed to upgrade 35 of Egypt's Apache helicopters for $400 million. Nine years later, Boeing signed a $820 million contract to provide more Apache aircraft. The U.S. is set to deliver some of the remaining helicopters from that 2009 deal next month.

And in 2010, Boeing signed yet another contract to provide Apache helicopters, this time for $22.5 million. More

 

 

Sunday, July 21, 2013

Bypassing the Rule of Law: This Egyptian struggle transcends borders

What is going on in Egypt is not merely a political crisis but also an Egyptian struggle which transcends borders and will, no doubt, affect the Islamic world, putting the latter at a crossroads. Will the people rise up for freedom from external influences or will they revert to an era of slavery the extent of which only God knows?

This struggle is not about President Mohamed Morsi; it is about the hijacking of the democratic will of the people and their revolution. The disastrous effects of the coup will not be contained within Egypt's borders; all Arabs will despair at ever being able to rise against their authoritarian regimes. The resultant frustration and loss of confidence will delegitimise the Arab will in the eyes of the international community.

Even if we assume, for argument sake, that President Morsi was the worst president in the history of mankind, a failure in politics and government. This does not justify exceeding the bounds of the constitution to be rid of him. The overthrow of a democratically-elected president provides the basis for an endless cycle of chaos and confusion. No future president of Egypt can ever feel secure in the mandate given by the electorate or expect to serve a full term in office. Every president has millions of people who did not vote for him, but that doesn't give them the right to overturn the votes of those who did support him and throw him out of office. From now on, the only president who can be sure of his position is the one who gets 99.9 per cent of the vote, and we all know what that means.

By allowing the democratic experience to be pushed aside in this way the people of Egypt have lost the respect of the world. The US has added to this by expressing support for the military-appointed "interim" government.

If President Morsi is to be blamed for anything at all it is lack of experience, which is hardly surprising given our presidential history. If we opt for a president with experience of governance in the discredited Mubarak regime, then why did we have the revolution in the first place?

Whatever the issue is with Morsi, it is a disagreement that is based on details. As long as we have a proper democratic system, we will be able to fix our problems by heading to the ballot box. The coup embodies a deep-rooted problem between the will of the people and the full return of Mubarak's regime and all of its negative characteristics. Should we let our disagreements on the details distract us from our real revolution? More

 

Sunday, June 23, 2013

The NSA's metastasised intelligence-industrial complex is ripe for abuse

Let's be absolutely clear about the news that the NSA collects massive amounts of information on US citizens – from emails, to telephone calls, to videos, under the Prism program and other Fisa court orders: this story has nothing to do with Edward Snowden.

NSA's New Utah Data Centre

As interesting as his flight to Hong Kong might be, the pole-dancing girlfriend, and interviews from undisclosed locations, his fate is just a sideshow to the essential issues of national security versus constitutional guarantees of privacy, which his disclosures have surfaced in sharp relief.

Snowden will be hunted relentlessly and, when finally found, with glee, brought back to the US in handcuffs and severely punished. (If PrivateBradley Manning's obscene conditions while incarcerated are any indication, it won't be pleasant for Snowden either, even while awaiting trial.) Snowden has already been the object of scorn and derision from the Washington establishment and mainstream media, but, once again, the focus is misplaced on the transiently shiny object. The relevant issue should be: what exactly is the US government doing in the people's name to "keep us safe" from terrorists?

Prism and other NSA data-mining programs might indeed be very effective in hunting and capturing actual terrorists, but we don't have enough information as a society to make that decision. Despite laudable efforts led by Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall to bring this to the public's attention that were continually thwarted by the administration because everything about this program was deemed "too secret", Congress could not even exercise its oversight responsibilities. The intelligence community and their friends on the Hill do not have a right to interpret our rights absent such a discussion.

The shock and surprise that Snowden exposed these secrets is hard to understand when over 1.4 million Americans hold "top secret" security clearances. When that many have access to sensitive information, is it really so difficult to envision a leak?

We are now dealing with a vast intelligence-industrial complex that is largely unaccountable to its citizens. This alarming, unchecked growth of the intelligence sector and the increasingly heavy reliance on subcontractors to carry out core intelligence tasks – now estimated to account for approximately 60% of the intelligence budget – have intensified since the 9/11 attacks and what was, arguably, our regrettable over-reaction to them.

The roots of this trend go back at least as far as the Reagan era, when the political right became obsessed with limiting government and denigrating those who worked for the public sector. It began a wave of privatization – because everything was held to be more "cost-efficient" when done by the private sector – and that only deepened with the political polarization following the election of 2000. As it turns out, the promises of cheaper, more efficient services were hollow, but inertia carried the day.

Today, the intelligence sector is so immense that no one person can manage, or even comprehend, its reach. When an operation in the field goes south, who would we prefer to try and correct the damage: a government employee whose loyalty belongs to his country (despite a modest salary), or the subcontractor who wants to ensure that his much fatter paycheck keeps coming?

Early polls of Americans about their privacy concerns that the government might be collecting metadata from phone calls and emails indicates that there is little alarm; there appears to be, in fact, an acceptance of or resignation to these practices. To date, there is no proof that the government has used this information to pursue and harass US citizens based on their political views. There are no J Edgar Hoover-like "enemy lists" … yet. But it is not so difficult to envision a scenario where any of us has a link, via a friend of a friend, to someone on the terrorist watchlist. What then? You may have no idea who this person is, but a supercomputer in Fort Meade (or, soon, at the Utah Data Center near Salt Lake City) will have made this connection. And then you could have some explaining to do to an over-zealous prosecutor.

On this spying business, officials from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to self-important senators are, in effect, telling Americans not to worry: it's not that big a deal, and "trust us" because they're keeping US citizens safe. This position must be turned on its head and opened up to a genuine discussion about the necessary, dynamic tension between security and privacy. As it now stands, these programs are ripe for abuse unless we establish ground rules and barriers between authentic national security interests and potential political chicanery. More

 

Wednesday, March 6, 2013

In Bradley Manning's Own Words

Call Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington - Drop 'Aiding the Enemy'

“I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within [the leaks] this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as well as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.” - Bradley Manning, February 28, 2013.1

Last week, Pfc. Bradley Manning delivered a historic, personal testimony to his motivation behind leaking diplomatic cables and battlefield data to Wikileaks.

Manning explained that he had become deeply troubled by the reality of our asymmetric warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the cover-up of horrific battlefield crimes; he felt similar events could only be prevented by vigorous public debate.

It's perhaps now more clear than ever that Bradley Manning was aiding Americans, not the enemy.

Call Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington now and demand the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge against Bradley Manning be dropped immediately.

Click here for a phone number and a script: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/call-linnington

One of the most moving aspect of Manning’s testimony was his explanation as to why he leaked the so-called “Collateral Murder” video, which shows the gunning down of two Reuters journalists and bystanders by apparently bloodthirsty and remorseless American soldiers in a US aircraft.

Manning described being deeply “troubled” by the video, especially the crew’s “lack of concern for human life” and lack of “concern for injured children at the scene.”2 Manning directly stated that he wanted the American public “to know that not all people were targets that needed to be neutralized” but “people living in the pressure cooker environment of asymmetrical warfare.”

Statements like these solidify what many of us had assumed for some time now: Pfc. Bradley Manning is an American hero who wanted to aid the public, not a traitor looking to 'aid the enemy.' That he risked his life to courageously leak this information and provoke a public debate to bring greater transparency to our foreign policy actions makes the insinuation that he ‘aided the enemy’ all the more absurd.

Can you call Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington now and demand the ‘aiding the enemy’ charge against Bradley Manning be dropped?

It is now clear that Pfc. Manning leaked these documents at great personal risk for our benefit. The least we can do is continue to support him in any way we can. Thank you for continuing to do so.

In solidarity,

Brian SonensteinCampaign Director,Firedoglake.com

Sources:1. Pfc. Bradley E. Manning's Statement for the Providence Inquiry, Alexa O'Brien,AlexaObrien.com, 2/28/2013.1. Bradley Manning Describes ‘Collateral Murder’ Video as ‘War Porn’, Kevin Gosztola, The Dissenter, 2/28/13.


Firedoglake is supported entirely by small donations from people like you.

Can you chip in to keep us strong? Click here to contribute.

 

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Nobel peace laureates call for Israel military boycott over Gaza assault

A group of Nobel peace prize-winners, prominent artists and activists have issued a call for an international military boycott of Israel following its assault on the Gaza Strip this month.

Hamas police station destroyed by an Israeli air strike
The letter also denounces the US, EU and several developing countries for what it describes as their "complicity" through weapons sales and other military support in the attack that killed 160 Palestinians, many of them civilians, including about 35 children.

The 52 signatories include the Nobel peace laureates Mairead Maguire and Adolfo Pérez Esquivel; the film directors Mike Leigh and Ken Loach; the author Alice Walker; the US academic Noam Chomsky; Roger Waters of Pink Floyd; and Stéphane Hessel, a former French diplomat and Holocaust survivor who was co-author of the universal declaration of human rights.

"Horrified at the latest round of Israeli aggression against the 1.5 million Palestinians in the besieged and occupied Gaza Strip and conscious of the impunity that has enabled this new chapter in Israel's decades-old violations of international law and Palestinian rights, we believe there is an urgent need for international action towards a mandatory, comprehensive military embargo against Israel," the letter says.

"Such a measure has been subject to several UN resolutions and is similar to the arms embargo imposed against apartheid South Africa in the past."

The letter accuses several countries of providing important military support that facilitated the assault on Gaza. "While the United States has been the largest sponsor of Israel, supplying billions of dollars of advanced military hardware every year, the role of the European Union must not go unnoticed, in particular its hefty subsidies to Israel's military complex through its research programmes.

"Similarly, the growing military ties between Israel and the emerging economies of Brazil, India and South Korea are unconscionable given their nominal support for Palestinian freedom," it says.

The letter opens with a quote from Nelson Mandela: "For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others."

The other signatories include John Dugard, a South African jurist and former UN special rapporteur in the occupied territories; Luisa Morgantini, former president of the European parliament; Cynthia McKinney, a former member of the US Congress; Ronnie Kasrils, a South African former cabinet minister; and the dramatist Caryl Churchill. More