A little history: when Lenin and his Bolsheviks created a new revolutionary state, Stalin was always helpful, willing to please, until he fully controlled the secret police. Once he controlled it, he was able to control everyone's lives in a way no ruler ever had before, partly because of the huge amount of information he amassed about everyone who mattered. The secret police mission: know what everyone is thinking. Stalin's monopoly of power was unparalleled.
Seeing "Citizen Four" on Snowden's revelations, I was reminded of how Stalin had amassed such power. But here, at least for now, the power is organized at a seemingly lower level: the management. The CIA, the FBI and now the NSA, and of course the militarized police and the DOD are each contributing to the creation of a police state even more effective than Stalin's. It hasn't quite gotten there, yet. More properly, they have not. On the other hand, no President is going to go against them: witness Obama's almost fearful expression as he says Ed Snowden should just turn himself in…he should have followed procedures…he'd get a fair trial….
Wow! I seem to remember a different Obama.
Of course we could only have the same SuperStalin for eight years, and the people would decide who would best represent them--every four, but really eight years: a new form of democracy, or the most oppressive totalitarianism ever yet devised? Technology makes it all so much easier, ultimately, for the few who amass all the wealth. They will 'brainwash' everyone to love them.
They'll control, equally, by what they know about each of you, and what they persuade you to think. That will be through the schools and the media, of course, but carefully modulated to fit all 'tendencies' in the population. So, of course there will be jobs for teachers, journalists, image-makers and attractive faces and voices, as long as they are careful. Yet, technology might make more of you redundant, anyway.
And the intelligence community would know, if even a keystroke--an eye-flick--implied DANGER.
Guantanamo and the gulags' successors will be called supermax correctionals, and life there might even be more hideous than in their predecessors'. Water boarding, pfft!
So, what can we do? On the one side are the terrorists and on the other side are the Government--and all its corporate allies, and the money behind all of them.
And we are between them.
But think about this: terrorism is used to scare most of us enough that we're willing to give up our rights, in order to be protected from them. But Snowden has revealed that the intelligence agencies, government departments and corporations gain tremendous streams of information about all of us. They say they'll only keep the records for five years, but any time your name, number, email, Facebook, etc. comes up relating to anything--a crime, a stirring of dissent, even if the connection is tenuous, then all your communications over the last five years could be mined for the crime, of dissent, at very least.
Stalin made such a spectacle of his show trials!
There are dangers, of course: the new barbarism of the Taliban, Boko Haram and now Islamic State do have appeal to those left out of, or oppressed by, global capitalism and civilization. More on that next time.
Showing posts with label Snowden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Snowden. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2015
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Edward Snowden
Edward Snowden has done a tremendous service to the American people and to the world. He has not profited from his action to steal and divulge millions of government documents. He did so because it was the Government that was lying and committing the greater crimes of violating almost everyone's privacy. He deserves full amnesty, as do Chelsea Manning and others, for revealing CRIMES our government has committed, supposedly in our name. Proven liars like NSA's Clapper should be tried for perjury.
The New York Times wrote an editorial, of which the above is a brief synopsis. Essentially what they and the Progressive community want is to roll back the surveillance state.
Perhaps it's possible, although surveillance corporations will probably circumvent any government limits, and the technology for surveillance has become so powerful that entities with power will use it.
We are all like insects, under giant microscopes.
The last Roman Emperors probably dreamed they'd be able to do stuff like this, but could hardly keep track of the intrigue at court. They resorted, instead, to burning 'miscreants' alive on lamp-posts.
Now our "democracy" threatens Snowden with life in prison and hell, to begin with, just as they visited on Chelsea Manning--for revealing something most dangerous of all: the truth about Government lies.
Hell, Ed Snowden should get not only Amnesty, but the NObel Peace Prize, for revealing the absurdity of our international war culture and embarrassing the bully on the block, the USA.
Maybe peace and stability are still possible.
The New York Times wrote an editorial, of which the above is a brief synopsis. Essentially what they and the Progressive community want is to roll back the surveillance state.
Perhaps it's possible, although surveillance corporations will probably circumvent any government limits, and the technology for surveillance has become so powerful that entities with power will use it.
We are all like insects, under giant microscopes.
The last Roman Emperors probably dreamed they'd be able to do stuff like this, but could hardly keep track of the intrigue at court. They resorted, instead, to burning 'miscreants' alive on lamp-posts.
Now our "democracy" threatens Snowden with life in prison and hell, to begin with, just as they visited on Chelsea Manning--for revealing something most dangerous of all: the truth about Government lies.
Hell, Ed Snowden should get not only Amnesty, but the NObel Peace Prize, for revealing the absurdity of our international war culture and embarrassing the bully on the block, the USA.
Maybe peace and stability are still possible.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Is It Possible: Peace Not War?
What would the world be like, if the US relinquished its self-defined role as world policeman and imperial arbiter of power anywhere on the globe?
It looks as if this might actually happen: the American public's opposition to war against Syria, no matter how limited in intent, was so sustained and broad-based, that Congress and even the Senate listened, and then the President heard. Supposedly, even Michelle was against!
John Kerry's statement on Syria giving up chemical weapons was hardly rhetorical, despite his claims. It was an appeal for a way out of the dead end Obama had created by his "red line" remark about chemical weapons use.
Russia didn't want to see its ally bombed, so Putin transformed the "rhetorical" remark into a diplomatic proposal that (so far) has legs. Now Obama is negotiating through Kerry, willing to appeal for a UN solution, and Putin thinks, maybe, he has a chance at the Nobel Peace Prize. Agreement may be near.
But consider how different this is to prior reactions by Presidents at least since Kennedy. Backing down from a threat, or use of force, was considered weakness, and loss of credibility for the US. Hawkish Republicans and Democrats claim this has happened with Obama on Syria: the US has lost face; Russia has won; US credibility is at an all-time low.
What credibility? The US has operated outside international law, arrogating to itself unilateral power to punish transgressors of its power, or challengers to its control, since at least WWII. The most recent demonstration of US reach and ultimate weakness before Syria was the Snowden affair. The US was even able to pressure Cuba and Ecuador against offering asylum to Snowden, and it forced President Evo Morales's plane to divert its course and finally be brought down to be searched, in Portugal. So, Snowden got asylum where he was: in Russia.
Russia is no super-power, but Putin has demonstrated that the US can no longer get its way globally. The US had already lost control over large parts of South America. The sooner the United States of America realizes that it can't control the whole planet, and it would be better not to try, the better off everyone would be. Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars we could spend on aiding our citizens, instead of "Defense." Think of the people around the world who wouldn't be killed, or driven from their homes because they transgressed US interests.
Envision a world in which the very real conflicts within and between nations would be resolved by negotiation, not force of arms. Obama's reversal and Putin's initiative on Syria could lead to very different international relations. The same model--negotiation and world law--should be extended to US relations with Iran, and maybe, finally, to North Korea.
Envision a world in which swords really are beaten into plowshares.
It looks as if this might actually happen: the American public's opposition to war against Syria, no matter how limited in intent, was so sustained and broad-based, that Congress and even the Senate listened, and then the President heard. Supposedly, even Michelle was against!
John Kerry's statement on Syria giving up chemical weapons was hardly rhetorical, despite his claims. It was an appeal for a way out of the dead end Obama had created by his "red line" remark about chemical weapons use.
Russia didn't want to see its ally bombed, so Putin transformed the "rhetorical" remark into a diplomatic proposal that (so far) has legs. Now Obama is negotiating through Kerry, willing to appeal for a UN solution, and Putin thinks, maybe, he has a chance at the Nobel Peace Prize. Agreement may be near.
But consider how different this is to prior reactions by Presidents at least since Kennedy. Backing down from a threat, or use of force, was considered weakness, and loss of credibility for the US. Hawkish Republicans and Democrats claim this has happened with Obama on Syria: the US has lost face; Russia has won; US credibility is at an all-time low.
What credibility? The US has operated outside international law, arrogating to itself unilateral power to punish transgressors of its power, or challengers to its control, since at least WWII. The most recent demonstration of US reach and ultimate weakness before Syria was the Snowden affair. The US was even able to pressure Cuba and Ecuador against offering asylum to Snowden, and it forced President Evo Morales's plane to divert its course and finally be brought down to be searched, in Portugal. So, Snowden got asylum where he was: in Russia.
Russia is no super-power, but Putin has demonstrated that the US can no longer get its way globally. The US had already lost control over large parts of South America. The sooner the United States of America realizes that it can't control the whole planet, and it would be better not to try, the better off everyone would be. Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars we could spend on aiding our citizens, instead of "Defense." Think of the people around the world who wouldn't be killed, or driven from their homes because they transgressed US interests.
Envision a world in which the very real conflicts within and between nations would be resolved by negotiation, not force of arms. Obama's reversal and Putin's initiative on Syria could lead to very different international relations. The same model--negotiation and world law--should be extended to US relations with Iran, and maybe, finally, to North Korea.
Envision a world in which swords really are beaten into plowshares.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Surveillance Makes Us Safe
Drones, "minimization procedures," "targeting procedures," "metadata" "US persons" "non-US persons…."
It's okay: we're only "targeting" non-US persons abroad; if we've mistakenly targeted a US person and there is indication of a crime, that's also okay. So, surveillance not only stops terrorism in its tracks--NY subway bombing plot, etc.--it also fights crime--at home and abroad.
No wonder, neither Hong Kong, nor Russia are jumping through US police-state hoops! Moscow doesn't "know'" where Edward Snowden is. The crimes the US accuses of Snowden reveal the extent of crimes the US commits against people in Russia--and everywhere else--the "legal" targets are non-US persons on "foreign territory." We accuse Putin's government of authoritarian practices, but we're listening in on all those non-US persons in Russia. So, why should the Russian or Hong-Kong governments cooperate with the US? Why should Ecuador, or Iceland?
Talk about a widening gulf! It's between everyone else vs official Washington, which thinks the surveillance of virtually everyone--except US persons--is easily justified because the US has to stop terrorists. After all, even Brits and Canadians aren't "US-persons."
Even an American resident or citizen can be tracked if there is evidence of a crime. How do the authorities establish evidence of a crime? 'Accidental' surveillance?
There have been at least two high profile politicians/public figures recently, who were caught because of such accidental surveillance: Elliot Spitzer and General Petraeus. The former was caught through a bank alert for suspicious money transfers, and then phone surveillance in 2008, the latter in 2012, when the FBI traced harassing emails from Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell, to a woman she feared was competing with her for Petraeus' affections.
Cases like those may have prepared the American public for Snowden's revelations. They may explain the shrug, accompanied by: "we knew they were doing it all along," reaction of so many--instead of outrage.
Why no outrage? Turks and Brazilians are rioting against their governments because of specific accusations--authoritarianism, or corruption and misplaced priorities--the US has its share of similar abuses and they may actually be worse. The vast extent of American surveillance exceeds anything Russia or China can mount.
Which makes it okay?
The NY Times, the Guardian, et al; were the entities that published the leaks, i.e. made them public--so that even al Qaeda can read them! Why aren't they prosecuted for treason, too?
The real treason--betrayal of American and international civil liberties--is perpetrated by the accusers: the US Government (including Obama), and the Congress and Courts permitting it.
The US, in its decline, has the potential to become more authoritarian than the Roman Empire. Surveillance gives the tools to crush all opposition. Even Stalin's powers were puny compared to these! A President elected with our contemporary Roman Senators' support wouldn't bother to assure us (as Obama has) that he wouldn't use these powers to crush opposition. He/she would use them to maintain control.
It's okay: we're only "targeting" non-US persons abroad; if we've mistakenly targeted a US person and there is indication of a crime, that's also okay. So, surveillance not only stops terrorism in its tracks--NY subway bombing plot, etc.--it also fights crime--at home and abroad.
No wonder, neither Hong Kong, nor Russia are jumping through US police-state hoops! Moscow doesn't "know'" where Edward Snowden is. The crimes the US accuses of Snowden reveal the extent of crimes the US commits against people in Russia--and everywhere else--the "legal" targets are non-US persons on "foreign territory." We accuse Putin's government of authoritarian practices, but we're listening in on all those non-US persons in Russia. So, why should the Russian or Hong-Kong governments cooperate with the US? Why should Ecuador, or Iceland?
Talk about a widening gulf! It's between everyone else vs official Washington, which thinks the surveillance of virtually everyone--except US persons--is easily justified because the US has to stop terrorists. After all, even Brits and Canadians aren't "US-persons."
Even an American resident or citizen can be tracked if there is evidence of a crime. How do the authorities establish evidence of a crime? 'Accidental' surveillance?
There have been at least two high profile politicians/public figures recently, who were caught because of such accidental surveillance: Elliot Spitzer and General Petraeus. The former was caught through a bank alert for suspicious money transfers, and then phone surveillance in 2008, the latter in 2012, when the FBI traced harassing emails from Petraeus' biographer, Paula Broadwell, to a woman she feared was competing with her for Petraeus' affections.
Cases like those may have prepared the American public for Snowden's revelations. They may explain the shrug, accompanied by: "we knew they were doing it all along," reaction of so many--instead of outrage.
Why no outrage? Turks and Brazilians are rioting against their governments because of specific accusations--authoritarianism, or corruption and misplaced priorities--the US has its share of similar abuses and they may actually be worse. The vast extent of American surveillance exceeds anything Russia or China can mount.
Which makes it okay?
The NY Times, the Guardian, et al; were the entities that published the leaks, i.e. made them public--so that even al Qaeda can read them! Why aren't they prosecuted for treason, too?
The real treason--betrayal of American and international civil liberties--is perpetrated by the accusers: the US Government (including Obama), and the Congress and Courts permitting it.
The US, in its decline, has the potential to become more authoritarian than the Roman Empire. Surveillance gives the tools to crush all opposition. Even Stalin's powers were puny compared to these! A President elected with our contemporary Roman Senators' support wouldn't bother to assure us (as Obama has) that he wouldn't use these powers to crush opposition. He/she would use them to maintain control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)