Someone You Love, Coming to a Gulag Near You: The Ascendency of the National Surveillance State

August 28th, 2012 by Andy in Patriot Act & The Surveillance State

Chris Hedges lays it out regarding the so-called National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and its implications for the future of life and liberty in the United States. The binary world of “with us or against us,” besides being inherently anti-American in principle and purpose, heralds a pretty dystopian version of society, when merged with the awesome capacities inherent in the digital mass surveillance envirionment of the modern technological state. It is a society where dissent becomes conflated with treason and sedition, and there is no differentiation between why and how one challenges power, only that one is challenging it. Arguing against bank bailouts and crony capitalism becomes an offense of no distinction from engaging in jihadist mass murder.

In such a society, any realm of just law or democratic accountability is impossible. Welcome to tyranny.Hedges’ article goes into some detail in just how this tarnishing by fabricated association works among the security state apparatus…

The deliberate obtuseness of the NDAA’s language, which defines “covered persons” as those who “substantially supported” al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces,” makes all Americans, in the eyes of our expanding homeland security apparatus, potential terrorists. It does not differentiate. And the testimony of my fellow plaintiffs, who understand that the NDAA is not about them but about us, repeatedly illustrated this.

Alexa O’Brien, a content strategist and information architect who co-founded the U.S. Day of Rage, an organization created to reform the election process and wrest it back from corporate hands, was the first plaintiff to address the court. She testified that when WikiLeaks released 5 million emails from Stratfor, a private security firm that does work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Marine Corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency, she discovered that the company was attempting to link her and her organization to Islamic radicals and websites as well as jihadist ideology.

———

In early September, U.S. Day of Rage, which supported the Sept. 17 call to occupy Wall Street, received Twitter messages that falsely accused it of being affiliated with terrorist groups. The messages came from a privately owned security and intelligence contractor, Provide Security, managed by Thomas Ryan, who works for U.S. military and government agencies, and Dr. Kevin Schatzle, a former FBI, Secret Service and New York City Police Department counterterrorism agent who is on the advisory board of a private intelligence firm that sells technology to profile and interrogate terrorism suspects.

———

Perhaps the most chilling exchange on Thursday took place between government lawyers and Judge Forrest. The judge, who will probably rule in May, repeatedly asked for assurance that the plaintiffs would not be subject to detention under the NDAA. It was an assurance the two government lawyers refused to give. She asked U.S. Assistant Attorney Benjamin Torrance whether the government would see a book containing the sentence “I support the political goals of the Taliban” as providing “material support” for “associated forces.”

Torrance did not rule out such an interpretation.

“You are unable to say that [such a book] consisting of political speech could not be captured under [NDAA section] 1021?” the judge asked.

“We can’t say that,” Torrance answered.

“Are you telling me that no U.S. citizen can be detained under 1021?” Forest asked.

“That’s not a reasonable fear,” the government lawyer said.

“Say it’s reasonable to fear you will be unlucky [and face] detention, trial. What does ‘directly supported’ mean?” she asked.

“We have not said anything about that …” Torrance answered.

“What do you think it means?” the judge asked. “Give me an example that distinguishes between direct and indirect support. Give me a single example.”?

“We have not come to a position on that,” he said.

“So assume you are a U.S. citizen trying not to run afoul of this law. What does it [the phrase] mean to you?” the judge said.

“I couldn’t offer any specific language,” Torrance answered. “I don’t have a specific example.”

There are now 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 private companies that work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States, The Washington Post reported in a 2010 series by Dana Priest and William M. Arken. There are 854,000 people with top-secret security clearances, the reporters wrote, and in Washington, D.C., and the surrounding area 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2011. Investigative reporter James Bamford wrote in the latest issue of Wired magazine that the National Security Agency is building the largest spy center in the country in Bluffdale, Utah, as part of a secret NSA surveillance program code-named “Stellar Wind.” Bamford noted that the NSA has established listening posts throughout the country to collect, store and examine billions of emai messages and phone calls.

If we lose this case it will hand to the vast network of operatives and agencies that investigate and demonize anyone who is not subservient to the corporate state the power to detain citizens and strip them of due process. It will permit the security and surveillance state to brand as terrorists any nonviolent protesters and movements, along with social and political critics, that in the government’s imagination have any trace of connection to al-Qaida or “associated forces.” If the National Defense Authorization Act is not reversed it will plunge us into despotism, leaving us without a voice, trapped in eddies of fear and terror, unsure of what small comment, what small action, could be misinterpreted to push us out of our jobs or send us to jail. This is the future before us. And we better fight back now while we can.

Read the Full Article Here.

As a reader of Hedges’ article, writing under the nom de plume of piceprisnersdilema, commented…

The Terror war was the pretext for the one per centers, to install a totalitarian regime in Chimerica.

Each, moment of fear, complete with multi colored terror warnings, was used to create a regime, to protect the one per centers from their greatest fear, the American people with their rights intact.

While they spread paranoia, and fear, they allowed the borders to remain a sieve. While they talked about austerity, they stole trillions, and bought immunity…

Just, as the European Aristocracy used to picnic on the battlefield, while armies slaughtered themselves, they have engaged in unparalleled gluttony, while reducing American soldiers to amputee’s and quadriplegics, poisoning their families with depleted Uranium.

But if you bring these things up, you risk being labeled as a terrorist yourself. For they view the truth as terror.

Who are these crippled monsters? We know them well in this country, they are the corporate state, and the corporate political duopoly that licks their behind.

The truth is the only mirror in which they can view themselves, this is why they must hide behind a cloud of lies.

This is why we need as much truth and transparency as possible in civic affairs. Here’s to all those who are working to make it so. Especially Chris Hedges and all of his co-plaintiffs who are pursuing the lawsuit against the NDAA and all the insidious ramifications inherent in it.

Leave a reply

Search Articles



USTV Recommended Read: