Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Failure, Government, Privacy, Reason, Society, Terrorism, Violence
A friend sent me this Wall Street Journal article yesterday:
White House Czar Calls for End to ‘War on Drugs’
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s new drug czar says he wants to banish the idea that the U.S. is fighting “a war on drugs,” a move that would underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to reduce illicit drug use.
In his first interview since being confirmed to head the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, Gil Kerlikowske said Wednesday the bellicose analogy was a barrier to dealing with the nation’s drug issues.
“Regardless of how you try to explain to people it’s a ‘war on drugs’ or a ‘war on a product,’ people see a war as a war on them,” he said. “We’re not at war with people in this country.”
OK, that’s not the same thing as actually changing drug policy, but how you say something matters a lot. As Radly Balko says:
The drug war imagery started by Nixon, subdued by Carter, then ratcheted up again in the Reagan administration (and remaining basically level since) has had significant repercussions on the way drug policy is enforced, from policymakers on down to street-level cops. It’s war rhetoric that gave us the Pentagon giveaway program, where millions of pieces of surplus military equipment (such as tanks) have been transferred to local police departments. War imagery set the stage for the approximately 1,200 percent rise in the use of SWAT teams since the early 1980s, and has fostered the militaristic, “us vs. them” mentality too prevalent in too many police departments today.
War implies a threat so existential, so dire to our way of life, that we citizens should be ready to sign over some of our basic rights, be expected to make significant sacrifices, and endure collateral damage in order to defeat it. Preventing people from getting high has never represented that sort of threat.
The “War on (Some) Drugs” was never really about controlling drug abuse. It was about controlling people, particularly those people who could be easily demonized to give politicians a nice boost amongst their white, middle-class base. It helped to cement the allegiance of local pols and police departments, who got lots of new toys to play with at no cost (local cost, that is), and gave them more power. It eroded our civil rights and constitutional freedoms, and helped to set the stage for further intrusions when the “War on Terror” came along.
Getting rid of the “War” rhetoric doesn’t solve the problems with abuse of authority, but it does help to redefine the relationship a bit. It is a necessary first step in reclaiming some of our freedoms. Let’s hope that it is the first of many.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Bruce Schneier, Emergency, Failure, General Musings, Government, Health, Politics, Predictions, Preparedness, Science, Society, Survival, Terrorism, Violence
The annoying cold I mentioned the other day seems to be trying for an upgrade to bronchial infection, perhaps with delusions of becoming pneumonia. So I’m not feeling particularly creative or insightful. Maybe I used up too much outrage yesterday. Anyway, since I am a bit under the weather, let me just post an excerpt from something you ought to read. This is the closing of The Most Dangerous Person in the World?:
Security itself is an illusion. It is a perception that exists only between our ears. No army, insurance policy, hazmat team, video surveillance or explosive sniffer can protect us from our own immune system, a well-intentioned but clumsy surgeon, failing to look before crossing the street, an asteroid randomly hurtling through space or someone willing to die in order to do others harm.
In this sense, the only things that can truly make us more “secure” are not things. They are the courage to face whatever comes with dignity and intention, and the strong relationships that assure we will face the future together, and find comfort and meaning in doing so.
Imagine, then, what might happen if we simply quit listening to the scaremongers and those who profit from our paranoia. Imagine what the world could look like if we made a conscious choice to live out whatever time we have with courage, compassion, service and joy.
Terrorism is an act of the weak. But so is walking through the airport in our socks.
We can make better choices.
Go read the whole thing.
Jim Downey
(Via Bruce Schneier.)
Filed under: BoingBoing, Civil Rights, Government, Politics, Privacy, Society, Terrorism, Travel, YouTube
So, there was a convention in St. Louis weekend before last. No big deal – just the sort of regional thing that is held in cities around the US regularly. This was a political convention, for a group which is a little out of the mainstream, but just a bit: Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty. Not my cup of tea, but like I said, no big deal.
And at this convention they sold the usual books and bumper stickers and t-shirts you might expect, and there were probably ticket sales to special events and whatnot. All this is standard fare. Following the convention, one young man who had responsibility for handling some portion of the sales receipts was trying to get home, and went to the airport to catch his flight back to Virginia. There, going through the security checkpoint . . .
Oh, wait – first, let me give a little bit of background. See, recently there was a big flair-up here in Missouri over a government report issued by the Department of Public Safety which caused a huge uproar. The document, titled “Modern Militia Movement”, was sent to law enforcement agencies around the state, outlining what potential threats might come out of right-wing groups. Problem is, a lot of people took the report as being hostile to legitimate political groups. Here’s the relevant passage:
Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with third party groups. It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material. These members are usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr.
This created such an uproar that the the governor intervened and told the head of the DPS to correct the problem. From a newspaper report on the 24th:
In a letter dated March 23, Public Safety Director John Britt told third-party presidential candidates U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party that he was ordering the “Modern Militia Movement” report altered to delete their names and the names of their political parties as possible indicators of militia involvement.
* * *
The inclusion led members of these parties to fear they would be profiled by police based on political bumper stickers or other paraphernalia.
Britt, who oversees MIAC, writes: “Portions of the report may be easily construed by readers as offensive to supporters of certain political candidates or to those candidates themselves. I regret those components were ultimately included in the final report issued by MIAC.”
Britt also wrote that any characterization of the three presidential candidates or their parties as possible militia members was “an undesired and unwarranted outcome.”
OK, so there’s that. Now, back to our story.
. . . Steve Bierfeldt was stopped. He had a metal lockbox which contained Ron Paul & Campaign for Liberty bumper stickers, and $4700 in sales receipts. He was asked why he had such a large sum of cash. He asked whether he was required by law to answer the question. Things predictably degenerated from there. Here’s the TSA’s version of events:
Incident at St. Louis International Airport
At approximately 6:50 p.m. on March 29, 2009, a metal box alarmed the X-ray machine at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, triggering the need for additional screening. Because the box contained a number of items including a large amount of cash, all of which needed to be removed to be properly screened, it was deemed more appropriate to continue the screening process in a private area. A Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employee and members of the St. Louis Airport Police Department can be heard on the audio recording. The tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate. TSA holds its employees to the highest professional standards. TSA will continue to investigate this matter and take appropriate action.
Movements of large amounts of cash through the checkpoint may be investigated by law enforcement authorities if criminal activity is suspected. As a general rule, passengers are required to cooperate with the screening process. Cooperation may involve answering questions about their property, including why they are carrying a large sum of cash. A passenger who refuses to answer questions may be referred to appropriate authorities for further inquiry.
Now, take a few minutes to watch the following video. Yes, it is a clip from FOX News. My apologies for that – but it contains about 70 seconds worth of recording from the event itself, which clearly gives an indication of the type of tactics and behaviour being employed by the TSA:
Let me sum up for those who don’t wish to watch the video. Mr. Bierfeldt is repeatedly asked why he has such a large sum of money. He in turn asks whether he is *required by law* to answer that question. He is then told that he will be “taken downtown” and turned over to the FBI and/or DEA if he doesn’t answer the question. He is further threatened with missing his flight, arrest, et cetera for not cooperating. One of the four or five TSA officials in the room even states directly “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
This evidently went on for the better part of 25 minutes. At the end, a plainclothes police or FBI official came into the room, whispered to the TSA officials, who then gave Bierfeldt back his things and got him on his scheduled flight.
* * *
OK, several things. If you want a very enlightening insight into the functioning of the TSA mindset, go look at their official blog post and read comments from multiple TSA employees, who make incorrect claims about the law about transporting money saying that such a large sum gives them the right to investigate, that they are required to watch for drug law violations, et cetera.
It is *not* illegal to carry large amounts of cash. I would even say that $4700 doesn’t even qualify as a large amount of cash, though that’s more than I ever carry. Detaining someone for having that kind of money on them is nothing short of harassment.
Was Bierfeldt singled out for his political beliefs? Remember, that Missouri Department of Public Safety bulletin was still fresh, and had only been ‘rescinded’ a week previously. I think a reasonable person could conclude that there was a likelihood that it played a part.
Did Bierfeldt ask for this kind of problem? Wouldn’t it have been easier for him to just answer the stupid question and be done with it? Yeah, probably. But I consider the man a hero for sticking up for his rights. More of us should.
While I have some libertarian leanings, as I said at the beginning of this post Ron Paul and the Campaign for Liberty are not my cup of tea. And I find it a bit telling that only now when a nice white kid gets hassled by the TSA during the Obama administration does FOX News find it worth covering. But I certainly do hope that this is the start of people becoming more aware of what kinds of threats we all face to our liberties by the ‘security theater‘ which is the TSA. After all, what threat to airline security is presented by someone with a wad of cash?
Jim Downey
(Via BB and Dispatches from the Culture Wars. Cross posted to UTI.)
Pub evacuated after Monty Python prop mistaken for grenade
Bomb disposal teams were called in and buildings evacuated after workmen mistook a Monty Python film prop for a hand grenade.Water company engineers spotted the object when they lifted up a fire hydrant cover during work on a street in Shoreditch, east London.
The road was cordoned off and a nearby pub was evacuated amid fears that the “grenade” could explode.
But after nearly an hour of analysis bomb experts realised that the cause of the scare was in fact a copy of the “Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch” used by Eric Idle to slaughter a killer rabbit in the 1975 film Monty Python And The Holy Grail.
Makes me wonder whether there isn’t a new version of the DVD coming out – this’d be a brilliant marketing gimmick.
Jim Downey
(Via BB. Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Daily Kos, Emergency, General Musings, Government, Politics, Predictions, Preparedness, Society, Terrorism, Violence, YouTube
This is what I was afraid would happen.
And it makes me, well, worried. Very worried.
Prompted by 9/11, we watched the fairly rapid curtailment of civil liberties during the Bush administration (though supported & enabled entirely too much by Democrats in Congress). The Patriot Act. The expansion of FISA. Warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. Legal opinions which effectively gave the president dictatorial powers, and which allowed for torture of terrorism suspects.
Coupled with this was a dramatic rise in rhetoric on the right, to the effect that failure to get in line -completely- with the Bush administration’s “War on Terror” was called nothing short of treason. Anyone who objected to the “temporary curtailment of civil liberties” was likely to be painted as a traitor, or worse. It was not a good time to be a civil libertarian, or a liberal, and for eight long years many felt that we were under seige. I half expected more violence or even some excuse to suspend normal civil law and elections. And I was hardly alone.
But the elections were held, and changes were made. A new president, with a very different concept of the rule of law, was elected and has taken office. Granted, it was during the worst economic crisis we’ve faced in 70 years, but a lot of us had hope for the future. Hope that we could indeed start to work together as a nation.
Of course, the losers didn’t see it that way. Oh, some did, and there has actually been a substantial increase in the popularity and public support of Obama since the election and since he took office. But the core of the right has just gotten wound tighter and tighter, to the point where the rhetoric has taken on violent overtones. It started back during the election, with Gov. Palin’s characterization of Sen. Obama as “hanging around with terrorists” and the sentiments that engendered among her audience. Since then, it has only gotten worse.
Former UN Ambassador Alan Keyes (who has run for a variety of offices under the GOP banner) via YouTube:
“Obama is a radical communist, and I think it is becoming clear. That is what I told people in Illinois and now everybody realizes it’s true. He is going to destroy this country, and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”
And
“I’m not sure he’s even president of the United States, neither are many of our military people now who are now going to court to ask the question, ‘Do we have to obey a man who is not qualified under the constitution?’ We are in the midst of the greatest crisis this nation has ever seen, and if we don’t stop laughing about it and deal with it, we’re going to find ourselves in the midst of chaos, confusion and civil war.”
The ‘civil war’ theme has been picked and run with elsewhere on the right. There were the Glenn Beck “War Games” scenarios recently, which played out the idea of widespread civil unrest leading to civil war. You’ve got Chuck Norris writing an insane column for a major right-wing website promoting the idea of secession. Here’s a bit of that:
For those losing hope, and others wanting to rekindle the patriotic fires of early America, I encourage you to join Fox News’ Glenn Beck, me and millions of people across the country in the live telecast, “We Surround Them,” on Friday afternoon (March 13 at 5 p.m. ET, 4 p.m. CT and 2 p.m. PST). Thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation. You can host or attend a viewing party by going to Glenn’s website. My wife Gena and I will be hosting one from our Texas ranch, in which we’ve invited many family members, friends and law enforcement to join us. It’s our way of saying “We’re united, we’re tired of the corruption, and we’re not going to take it anymore!”
Again, Sam Houston put it well when he gave the marching orders, “We view ourselves on the eve of battle. We are nerved for the contest, and must conquer or perish. It is vain to look for present aid: None is at hand. We must now act or abandon all hope! Rally to the standard, and be no longer the scoff of mercenary tongues! Be men, be free men, that your children may bless their father’s name.”
“Cell groups”? Really?
Sheesh.
But that isn’t what worries me. Well, it does, but I’ve got bigger fish to fry here. What really worries me is that this kind of rhetoric has prompted a backlash on the left that was entirely too predictable: a desire to use the powers of government already put into play by the Bush administration to quash this perceived threat. Not everyone agrees, but just look at comments in any of these different discussions and you’ll see what I mean. There are a lot of people who are fed up with the nonsense from the right, who say “shit, man, we put up with Bush for 8 years and you’re whining after only 8 weeks of Obama??? Fine, let’s take care of this now, using the tools you gave us.”
It’s a completely understandable reaction. But it is also extremely dangerous. It is, in fact, a poisoned well, and we drink from it at grave risk to ourselves and our Republic.
Because if we use those tools – if we employ the power of the government to suppress the freedoms of our enemies – then we legitimize all that the Bush administration did. And if that happens, I’m not sure there is any turning back. And down that path lies madness: violence, martial law, suspension of the Constitution, the whole crazy nightmare. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: 2nd Amendment, Civil Rights, Constitution, Emergency, Government, Politics, Terrorism
Offered, without need for additional comment:
George W. Bush’s Disposable Constitution
Yesterday the Obama Administration released a series of nine previously secret legal opinions crafted by the Office of Legal Counsel to enhance the presidential powers of George W. Bush. Perhaps the most astonishing of these memos was one crafted by University of California at Berkeley law professor John Yoo. He concluded that in wartime, the President was freed from the constraints of the Bill of Rights with respect to anything he chose to label as a counterterrorism operations inside the United States.
Here’s Neil Lewis’s summary in the New York Times:
“The law has recognized that force (including deadly force) may be legitimately used in self-defense,” Mr. Yoo and Mr. Delahunty wrote to Mr. Gonzales. Therefore any objections based on the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches are swept away, they said, since any possible privacy offense resulting from such a search is a lesser matter than any injury from deadly force. The Oct. 23 memorandum also said that “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully.” It added that “the current campaign against terrorism may require even broader exercises of federal power domestically.”
John Yoo’s Constitution is unlike any other I have ever seen. It seems to consist of one clause: appointing the President as commander-in-chief. The rest of the Constitution was apparently printed in disappearing ink.
More from the NYT piece:
WASHINGTON — The secret legal opinions issued by Bush administration lawyers after the Sept. 11 attacks included assertions that the president could use the nation’s military within the United States to combat terrorism suspects and to conduct raids without obtaining search warrants.
* * *
The opinions reflected a broad interpretation of presidential authority, asserting as well that the president could unilaterally abrogate foreign treaties, ignore any guidance from Congress in dealing with detainees suspected of terrorism, and conduct a program of domestic eavesdropping without warrants.
And from Newsweek:
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Justice Department secretly gave the green light for the U.S. military to attack apartment buildings and office complexes inside the United States, deploy high-tech surveillance against U.S. citizens and potentially suspend First Amendment freedom-of-the-press rights in order to combat the terror threat, according to a memo released Monday.
* * *
In perhaps the most surprising assertion, the Oct. 23, 2001, memo suggested the president could even suspend press freedoms if he concluded it was necessary to wage the war on terror. “First Amendment speech and press rights may also be subordinated to the overriding need to wage war successfully,” Yoo wrote in the memo entitled “Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activity Within the United States.”
Draw your own conclusions.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Via dKos, this story:
Report: ‘Dirty bomb’ parts found in slain man’s home
BELFAST, Maine — James G. Cummings, who police say was shot to death by his wife two months ago, allegedly had a cache of radioactive materials in his home suitable for building a “dirty bomb.”
According to an FBI field intelligence report from the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center posted online by WikiLeaks, an organization that posts leaked documents, an investigation into the case revealed that radioactive materials were removed from Cummings’ home after his shooting death on Dec. 9.
* * *
It says that four 1-gallon containers of 35 percent hydrogen peroxide, uranium, thorium, lithium metal, thermite, aluminum powder, beryllium, boron, black iron oxide and magnesium ribbon were found in the home.
Also found was literature on how to build “dirty bombs” and information about cesium-137, strontium-90 and cobalt-60, radioactive materials. The FBI report also stated there was evidence linking James Cummings to white supremacist groups. This would seem to confirm observations by local tradesmen who worked at the Cummings home that he was an ardent admirer of Adolf Hitler and had a collection of Nazi memorabilia around the house, including a prominently displayed flag with swastika. Cummings claimed to have pieces of Hitler’s personal silverware and place settings, painter Mike Robbins said a few days after the shooting.
OK, skepticism is in order. We’ve seen a “terrorist threat” hyped too many times in the last 8 years for me to trust any initial reports of some guy who may have just had a bunch of random chemicals in his house. But the whole story seems to hold together reasonably well if you read it. Be interesting to see what comes out over the long run. Certainly, it seems more credible to me that it is being handled in what I would consider an intelligent and professional manner, rather than the Attorney General holding a press conference to claim that some huge plot has been foiled.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: ACLU, Bruce Schneier, Civil Rights, Government, NPR, Predictions, Society, Terrorism, Travel
Well, in spite of the fact that I doubt it will really change anything, this is good news:
Transportation Security Administration officials and JetBlue Airways are paying $240,000 to settle (.pdf) a discrimination lawsuit against a District of Columbia man who, as a condition of boarding a domestic flight, was forced to cover his shirt that displayed Arabic writing.
Oh noes! Not evil Arabic writing!! Next thing you know, there’ll be evil Arabic numerals, taking over our culture!
According to a civil rights lawsuit, TSA and JetBlue demanded Raed Jarrar to sit at the back of a 2006 flight from New York to Oakland because his shirt read “We Will Not Be Silent” in English and Arabic.
As Jarrar was waiting to board, TSA officials approached him and said he was required to remove his shirt because passengers were not comfortable with it, according to the lawsuit. The suit claimed one TSA official commented that the Arabic lettering was akin to wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, “I am a robber.”
The lawsuit claimed Jarrar, 30, invoked the First Amendment but acquiesced after it became clear to him that he would not be allowed to fly if he did not cover his shirt with one given to him by JetBlue officials.
From Jarrar’s blog, this:
“All people in this country have the right to be free of discrimination and to express their own opinions,” said Jarrar, who is currently employed with the American Friends Service Committee, an organization committed to peace and social justice. “With this outcome, I am hopeful that TSA and airlines officials will think twice before practicing illegal discrimination and that other travelers will be spared the treatment I endured.”
Nice sentiment. And not a bad settlement – I’m glad to see him get the money. But I am highly skeptical that it will really change anything – it’s not, after all, like the people who did this will be paying the money out of their own pockets. The Security Theater will continue, and there will still be instances of absurd behaviour such as we saw last week:
All Things Considered, January 2, 2009 · A Muslim-American passenger, one of nine members of a family detained and questioned at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after fellow passengers on their AirTran flight reported hearing a suspicious conversation, says the family is trying not to be angry at what happened.
So, yeah, Jarrar’s settlement is good news, but only one small bit of good news, and mostly for him.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: ACLU, Civil Rights, Government, Politics, Privacy, Society, Terrorism
That’s pretty much my maxim for dealing with any government agency, at any level: no matter what they tell you, the situation will always turn out to be worse the more you find out about it.
You know what’s going to happen when they’re talking about road construction being delayed or taxes having to go up. I expect it when I hear that the economy is “having difficulties”. That’s bad enough. But when they start talking about infringements on your civil liberties, you might as well reach for the lube and grab your ankles.
Latest such instance:
More Groups Than Thought Monitored in Police Spying
The Maryland State Police surveillance of advocacy groups was far more extensive than previously acknowledged, with records showing that troopers monitored — and labeled as terrorists — activists devoted to such wide-ranging causes as promoting human rights and establishing bike lanes.
Yeah, those evil bike-lane loving terrorists had to be watched!
Police have acknowledged that the monitoring, which took place during the administration of then-Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R), spiraled out of control, with an undercover trooper spending 14 months infiltrating peaceful protest groups. Troopers have said they inappropriately labeled 53 individuals as terrorists in their database, information that was shared with federal authorities. But the new documents reveal a far more expansive set of police targets and indicate that police did not close some files until late 2007.
Your tax dollars at work. Well, if you live in Maryland. But note that bit about sharing the information with the federal authorities? Here’s a bit more from the same article:
The activists fear that they will land on federal watch lists, in part because the police shared their intelligence information with at least seven area law enforcement agencies.
HIDTA Director Tom Carr said his organization’s database became a dead end for the information because law enforcement agencies cannot access the data directly. The database instead acts as a “pointer”: Investigators enter case information and the database indicates whether another agency has related material and instructs investigators to contact that agency. The activists were not a match with any other data, Carr said, and their information has since purged.
“The problem lies in the fact that once [the state police] checked it out and found it was not accurate, they should have removed it from the system,” Carr said. “And they did not do that.”
So of course, we should trust that they have done it now, right?
Sure.
See, if you’re a member of, say, PETA or the ACLU, those organizations had a file tied to that federal database. One which indicated that there was something worth monitoring. Giving justification to any other agency which found that such a file existed to “investigate further”, regardless of the fact that the file should have never existed in the first place.
Kafka would be proud.
Remember: it’s always worse than they first tell you.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI.)
Filed under: Civil Rights, Constitution, Daily Kos, Failure, Government, Politics, Privacy, Society, Terrorism, Travel
Vice President Dick Cheney is reported to have set forth the “One Percent Doctrine” following the 9-11 attacks. The basic premise is that if there is just 1% chance that an enemy is planning a serious terrorist attack, we have to treat it as though it were a certainty, and respond accordingly.
So, I suppose it really is no surprise that all the absurdity of “behaviour detection” that the TSA employs at airports leads to just a 1% arrest rate, and that they proclaim this as “”incredibly effective.” No, seriously:
TSA’s ‘behavior detection’ leads to few arrests
WASHINGTON — Fewer than 1% of airline passengers singled out at airports for suspicious behavior are arrested, Transportation Security Administration figures show, raising complaints that too many innocent people are stopped.
A TSA program launched in early 2006 that looks for terrorists using a controversial surveillance method has led to more than 160,000 people in airports receiving scrutiny, such as a pat-down search or a brief interview. That has resulted in 1,266 arrests, often on charges of carrying drugs or fake IDs, the TSA said.
* * *
TSA spokeswoman Ellen Howe said the program has been “incredibly effective” at catching criminals at airports. “It definitely gets at things that other layers of security might miss,” Howe said.
Sure it does. Because people who are carrying drugs or using a fake ID are really the terrorist threat that you say you are protecting us from. And to achieve that, they had to have over 99% false positives.
It’s just more Security Theater, of course: the illusion of ‘doing something’, not any kind of practical prevention. I’ve written about this often, and in looking back through those posts it is clear that the real effect of this whole bureaucracy is to make us more and more inured to the systematic destruction of any sense of privacy at the hands of our government. As I wrote just over a year ago:
Over the weekend, news came out of yet another “Trust us, we’re the government” debacle, this time in the form of the principal deputy director of national intelligence saying that Americans have to give up on the idea that they have any expectation of privacy. Rather, he said, we should simply trust the government to properly safeguard the communications and financial information that they gather about us. No, I am not making this up. From the NYT:
“Our job now is to engage in a productive debate, which focuses on privacy as a component of appropriate levels of security and public safety,” Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, told attendees of the Geospatial Intelligence Foundation’s symposium in Dallas.
Little wonder that they’re happy to define 1% as “success” – it gets them exactly what they want.
Jim Downey
(Cross posted to UTI and Daily Kos.)
Communion Of Dreams 