USA: Police State

photo by Abby Martin, Disinformation

The mainstream media has done a good job of not making this known but the United States is rapidly becoming a police state. They have NOT covered the NYC policy of Stop-and-Frisk, where police officers are actually ordered to stop and cite citizens on the basis of racial profiling. The video listed here - "The Hunted and the Hated"  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rWtDMPaRD8 -  is one the most disturbing I have ever seen but proves, without doubt, the existence of the POLICY. It is not just a few rogue cops - it is standard behavior for the entire police force. It is true that the US Appeals Court has determined that the policy is unconstitutional but the likelihood is that it will wind it's way to the US Supreme Court. Once there, given the make-up of the high court, the policy could well be upheld.

Also troubling has been the response by police departments across the nation to the Occupy movement which is almost entirely peaceful in it's protests. In spite of such peaceful expression of First Amendment rights, police departments in NYC, Oakland, California and elsewhere have responded by hounding, corralling, arresting and savagely beating protestors. Pictures abound of bloodied protestors who have done nothing more than march and chant. Pictures proliferate of police in riot gear, in formation, suppressing such peaceful marches. These are highly militarized police departments who have the weapons of war at their disposal for putting down legitimate and peaceful expression of dissent. The people of this country are already finding ourselves suppressed and oppressed by the 1% who issue the orders to the mayors and police departments. It is only getting worse and with the support of the Department of Homeland Security (itself a name straight from the bowels of Apartheid and the pages of 1984).

The latest is the "revelation" by Eric Snowden that the NSA has the capability to collect and store the private information of millions of Americans electronic communications. Not only that, they regularly monitor said communications. While not a total surprise to many of us, it is beyond disturbing that they do not seem to be apologetic in the least. The only response by the United States government has been to press for the arrest of the one responsible for telling the truth: Eric Snowden. This has become a profoundly disturbing pattern: arresting and prosecuting whistle blowers, those who have pointed out illegal and immoral behavior. People trying to do the right thing are called treasonous when it is the military or the NSA and other agencies who are guilty of unconscionable and unconstitutional behavior. No wonder Eric Snowden elected to flee: the truth is no longer welcome in the United States. Certainly the mainstream media no longer tries to broadcast or print anything the least bit critical of the 1% or the government. It is up to us to keep standing up to tell the truth because the United States IS a police state.

The NSA v. Liberty

I am concerned and angry that the NSA has gone far beyond constitutional limits in gathering and storing information about American citizens. The NDAA and FISA and the Patriot Act itself have allowed the government to intrude on citizens privacy supposedly in the name of security. As has been pointed out in a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, "Those who sacrifice essential liberty for a little security deserve neither."

More and more we are learning the extent to which our right to privacy has been violated by the very government which is entrusted to uphold our civil rights. It is not only ethically wrong it is also wrong-headed to assume that the little security gained justifies this expensive and expansive intrusion into the lives of American citizens. At this point, the government  becomes no better than the terrorists we so fear. Or of the countries we condemn for their security state mentality.

It is often argued that if you do nothing wrong that you have nothing to fear. This misses the point that the collection of personal and private information is unconstitutional (as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in multiple cases such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Roe v Wade, etc). The High Court has repeatedly found that there is an inherent right to privacy as has Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Those who have done nothing wrong ought to be offended most gravely. If I have done nothing wrong then the collection of my private information is a form of stealing. Even if I HAVE done something wrong my information can only be taken via a warrant.

The current methods of the NSA violate the Constitution, the UN Declaration of Human Rights and commonly held morality. All such agencies should be under regular scrutiny by Congress to ensure the propriety of their actions and policies. The NSA, FBI, CIA and other alphabet agencies MUST be held accountable.  Congress should promptly investigate the actions of the NSA and exercise oversight.

The PRISM of Power

There was a tweet on Twitter earlier that asked, "Sandy Levin, why do you support spying on Americans?"  I realized that it's a very good question. My congressman is a lifelong Democrat and a fairly liberal one at that. So why would he support NSA surveillance on American citizens along with N.D.A.A, the Patriot Act and F.I.S.A.?  Part of the answer may lie in his very close relationship with his brother Carl, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Undoubtedly he is privy to more sensitive information than the average congressman. It may partially be the case that Rep. Sander Levin has information that would seem to justify the government's actions infringing upon individual liberties and privacy. I do not know what  could  justify these policies but they presumably do have reasons. Perhaps not good reasons but reasons nonetheless. 

The best justification I can think of is that these policies are needed to prevent another 9/11 style attack on this country. In fact, when Eric Snowden broke the news that the NSA has been spying on American citizens, the agency defended itself by saying that dozens of attacks had been thwarted by their use of PRISM (the data mining program that stores billions of electronic messages from email to cell phones and beyond). However, they do not provide concrete instances as evidence so we are essentially being told to take them at their word. Since they have been lying to the American people from the get go trust is not very likely.  

Neither are their reasons likely to hold water. There was plenty of evidence of an impending attack on this country prior to 9/11 but no one was able to put the pieces together. What we have in PRISM is a gigantic collector of information. Why on earth would it be any better at pulling out relevant information than human agents? All they have succeeded in doing is adding another layer of bureaucracy with a lot more capability to invade citizens privacy and to violate basic constitutional rights. So, why would my congressman be interested in supporting such massive spying on citizens regardless of guilt or innocence? 

It may, upon reflection, be a product of his support for Israel. Information gathered here could easily be used to aid Israel in protecting itself from attack (with the same problems in logic as the American focus on Americans). Nevertheless, Israel does not have the best track record when it comes to preserving basic civil rights (especially if you happen to be Palestinian). I doubt they would have much problem with using the NSA data collection system when it suits their interest. And I am inclined to believe that they have supporters in Congress who would not have problems either. 

Lastly, I have to wonder if our representatives and senators have some other reasons for supporting such surveillance. This all depends, however, on how the information gathered is actually used. Do they gather information for political reasons? If so (like the IRS) this information can easily be misused by the government as well as politicians. Imagine a politician wanting information about an opponent...or about an ex-spouse and so on. Or what about corporations? They would have a field day with this huge collection of data records. The possibilities are endless and our representatives and senators are influenced by many outside interests. Heaven only knows what the truth may be. I just know that it is inevitable that this super-surveillance will be misused. As famously said by Lord Acton, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."