With much of the country aware of the extent of government spying on and lying to American citizens, there is now a limited public discussion of what kind of country we want ours to be. Americans have lived for decades in fear of threats identified by the U.S. government without credible supporting evidence and in some cases fabricated (yellowcake uranium). Our government routinely inflated the Soviet threat even, as well as obviously non-threatening enemies like Libya or Nicaragua or Cuba (still). Rather than fading with the passing of the cold war, American susceptibility to threat was re-invigorated in 2001 by the attacks of 9/11, which demagogic politicians in and out of government routinely invoke to cow those who resist the increasing militarization of domestic society. In a rational world, the burden of proof would be on the intelligence agencies to show proof that they need to take away freedom to keep us safe and to prove that any serious, credible threat exists. Why Are We Talking About Having Any Kind Of Police State? Apparently there is general public approbation of the “national conversation” we may be having about Americans spying on Americans. Many in media seem to take a certain smug, self-satisfaction of our “openness” and willingness to confront “hard issues,” all of which is bogus in the extreme. The NSA is only one of 16 secret intelligence agencies under the general control of the Director of National Intelligence. We aren’t talking about the others. Even though they have a history of operating outside the law or against it, we aren’t talking about them. We aren’t talking about any state intelligence agencies or fusion centers or local intelligence agencies (for example, New York City or Chicago). Together these number in the thousands. Nor have I heard any fuss in the national media about the increasing number of bungled S.W.A.T. raids that have ended tragically for the innocent victims of mistaken identity, yet carried no repercussions civil or criminal, for those that participated or supervised them because their actions are considered "within the law". That is part of the problem. “Within the law” also does not equate with either “moral” or even “intelligent choice”. We are substituting more police violence for less police work and that leads to dangerous places because forceful entries with bad intelligence get people killed (on both sides). The growing numbers of these “raids” that go wrong, and innocent people get killed, including, children, the elderly, and family pets, is putting the citizenry in more danger than the criminal element. Fundamentally, we aren’t talking about the basic infrastructure of a potential American police state, even though much of that infrastructure is already in place and in a growing number of instances, practiced. But for now the “conversation” is contained to the question of whether the NSA should be spying on us more? Or less? Whether the NSA should be spying on us at all is hardly heard above a whisper. Our current “conversation” is about the size, shape, and authority of our police state apparatus, not whether or not we should have one.
Posted on: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 07:09:43 +0000