IS IT TIME TO UNWIND AMERICA'S NATIONAL SECURITY STATE? YES, AND HERE'S WHY ...

According to a newly declassified document, warrantless surveillance and mass data collection done by the National Security Agency (NSA) after 9/11 did little to make America safer. After Edward J. Snowden leaked a draft version of the report in 2013, the government declassified many elements about the surveillance program, which lead the NY Times to file a lawsuit asking for the full and final report (though it has been redacted).

The domestic spying program was code-named Stellarwind, and was used by five intelligence  and law enforcement agencies. Early in 2002 details of the program were shared with the chief judge of the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which is the product of our Nixon-inspired Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. How secret was the program? It was so secret that the ... 

... White House would not let [presiding FISC] Judge Kollar-Kotelly keep a copy of a letter written by a Justice Department lawyer, John C. Yoo, explaining the claimed legal basis of the program, and it rejected a request by Attorney General John Ashcroft to tell his deputy, Larry Thompson, about the program.

While 1.2 percent of the tips from the program provided some useful information from 2001 to 2004, two years later the FBI reviewed all of the Stellarwind leads and found that none of them proved useful. 

Whether you agree with the secretive domestic spying programs as a matter of policy, it's important that we understand how we arrived at the point where Stellarwind became part of our national security profile. Below is a revised overview of that profile drawn from a previous post. 

__________________________

* The Post-9/11 Environment: Fear dominates America's national scene, which put our secretive FISA courts into overdrive and helped lay the groundwork for programs like Stellarwind.

* The Patriot Act: After 9/11 the Patriot Act reduced restrictions on law enforcement for gathering information, and expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic incidents (however loosely defined). Many FISA-like provisions were made available as well. In 2011 President Obama signed a four year extension for roving wiretaps, business record searches, and for the surveillance of "lone wolves" (individuals suspected of terrorist activities, but not connected to any terrorist groups). 

* Operation Enduring Freedom (originally Operation Enduring Justice): An on-going and seemingly open-ended war linked to the larger and more amorphous war on terror. This has given rise to what has been called the national security state and America's unitary executive.

* The Unitary Presidency: After 9/11 White House lawyer John Yoo wrote a memo to President Bush that stated the president’s powers were not confined to the battlefield or wars because “Congress has recognized the President’s authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11, 2001 incidents … These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.”

* NSA Eavesdropping: President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on ordinary Americans without obtaining a warrant, and did so numerous times. The president and his advisers claimed the president has the authority during war time and that judicial oversight is not necessary and/or is too cumbersome to deal with real time threats.

* Extraordinary Rendition: The Bush administration asserted that it had the authority to kidnap and fly (or transport) suspected enemies to interrogation stations around the world. This practice is called extraordinary rendition, and was initiated during the Clinton administration. 

* Torture Redefined: An August 2002 memo, written largely by John Yoo but signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, argued that torture required the intent to inflict suffering “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

* Tools of War and State Secrets: The Bush administration claimed they could not release prisoners exposed to certain interrogation "programs" (i.e. torture techniques).  The administration claimed that torture programs – which they also denied existed – are state secrets. 

Releasing prisoners who have been part of the "program" could undermine national security because they could then speak with the press, and release details of our interrogation methods. Al Qaeda, it’s assumed, would then begin to practice these methods and build up some kind of - for lack of a better term - torture stamina.

* State Secrets and Corruption: According to the State Secrets Doctrine Congress and the American taxpayer can’t ask to take a look at national security related items - like the books of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s troubled Shi'ite government - because releasing embarrassing information could undermine U.S. security, or U.S.-Iraq relations.

* State Secrets and Due Process: The Supreme Court refused to hear Masri v. United States. Here the plaintiff, a German national, argued that he was abducted in Macedonia in 2003 and then transported to overseas prisons where he was tortured. The assumption here is that the State Secrets Doctrine can be employed (by the Supreme Court) to dismiss cases without evidence ever being produced.

* Intent is Good Enough: Hamid Hayat of Lodi, Ca. was arrested and convicted although the government had no direct evidence. What the U.S. government argued was that Hamid Hayat had a “jihadi heart and a jihadi mind.” In spite of withdrawing their original affidavit because of what it revealed about Hayat and the process, the prosecutor’s argued Hayat’s intent was clear. For those who have seen Tom Cruise’s “Minority Report” you know where this leads. 

____________________________

If the above and our growing culture of state secrecy doesn't represent the America you believe in then we need to change how we do business, and how we approach national security. We have to remember that the United States of America represents an idea as much as it does a nation-state.

As I've pointed out before, the war on terror helped turn America into a national security fortress, and the American president into a fledgling American Caesar. If Americans don't like what's happening with domestic spying and our drone wars (among other developments) we need to learn more, and get Congress to turn back the clock on the developments listed above. 

We can't continue to spend our way into the ash heap of history because we are led to believe that we have to feed a growing military-industrial complex (that we were warned about).

The most "egregious part" of the Patriot Act dealing with the NSA's call-records program - Section 215 - is set to expire on June 1. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already introduced legislation to extend it another five years. This shouldn't happen. 

If you don't like the idea of the federal government spying on you without cause call your representatives and tell them to oppose McConnell's legislation. It's time to unwind America's national security state.

- Mark 

MILITARISM AND AMERICA'S GROWING CULTURE OF SECRECY ... WHAT IT MEANS (It's Not Good)

If you didn't see "The Deputy Director" program last night you can find the 60 Minutes interview with former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell here. 

The Morell interview demonstrated how our national security state has become so entrenched in our society that a culture of militarism, rather than the spirit of democracy, is what drives our nation's security elite. Specifically, as Chalmers Johnson pointed out long ago, our nation's security institutions are now putting institutional preservation (theirs) ahead of our democratic structures. 

Worse, our nation's long-term security needs and democratic traditions are under strain and being compromised in the process. Here's why. 

Three points from former CIA Deputy Director Morell's 60 Minutes interview stand out because of what it reveals to us about our national security leaders thinking. It's not impressive ...

1. SNOWDEN: Former Deputy Director Morell is not happy with the Edward Snowden national security leaks. 
2. TORTURE & AMERICAN VALUES: While defending the activities of CIA operatives, Morell strangely claimed to oppose torture because it goes against our values (his discussion on our "coercive techniques" was framed in the now standard "it's not torture" meme).
3. OUR "JUST SAY NO" CONGRESS: Our biggest threat today is not al Qaeda but lawmakers in Washington who seem more concerned with political point scoring rather than rebuilding the economy. I agree with him here. But Morell's baffled by the development. I'm not (more on this below).

One thing's clear. While the former no. 2 guy at the CIA seems to have been an informed and steady hand while at the CIA, he appears to have lost sight of America's larger mission, and how the CIA and our growing national security state have contributed to the gradual erosion of America's historical place in the world. Here's the 60 Minutes clip (discussion below) ...

Here's what came to mind as I listened to Morell's comments:

1. THE SNOWDEN LEAKS ... NATIONAL SECURITY ON THE CHEAP: 
It's no secret that Deputy Director Morell would be opposed to the security leaks from Edward Snowden. His industry trade was compromised. But here's what Morell misses. The Snowden leaks are the product of the CIA allowing profit-driven private contractors - instead of career national security employees - to handle both background checks and sensitive material. 

In a few words, privately vetted nationals and private "patriots" don't have the same interests and motives to do their job as people who have made life decisions to serve their country. Snowden's not the problem here. The decision to privatize (outsource) national security plus the CIA's sloppily outsourced vetting process are the issue. 

Don't blame Snowden because the CIA wanted to do national security on the cheap.


2. THE SNOWDEN LEAKS, II ... AMERICA'S CULT OF SECRECY: 

As I pointed out in 2010 (here and here), starting with the Cold War our nation has slowly become an overly militarized and highly secretive state. As Chalmers Johnson argued in The Sorrows of Empire the U.S. no longer has a foreign policy based on diplomacy with war as the ultimate threat. Today the U.S. has a military empire (p. 22) with a growing military bureaucracy - both private and public - that places a primacy on institutional preservation, growth, and self-importance. 

From this we have seen an explosion in secrecy and the over-classification of mundane matters. So much so that President Obama had to sign into law "The Reducing Over-Classification Act" (H.R. 533) to prompt government agencies to share information with one another, and to stop classifying  stuff that doesn't need to be classified. 

What the over-classification of information has done is create a cottage industry of top secret organizations and new intelligence personnel across the nation. This cult of secrecy undermines the integrity of our democracy. Our evolving cult of secrecy is so well developed that exposing the growth and absurdities behind some of those secrets - which Edward Snowden did - has now become a national security emergency.

Apart from undermining the democratic spirit of transparency and openness, there's a very compelling reason why over-classification and our growing secrecy culture is unnecessary. If some of the useless and misleading information that President Bush used in the run up to war had been de-classified experts without a political agenda could have questioned the veracity of people like "Curveball," who (wrongly) claimed that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of biological weapons and mobile plants.

This was never done, and the Bush administration ran with his allegations all the way towards the UN, and war. 
  

3. SNOWDEN LEAKS, III ... REVEAL A CULT OF SECRECY OVERKILL
This points to perhaps the greatest absurdity that has happened to our nation since 9/11: We've become so paranoid that our efforts at intelligence gathering has grown far in excess to the actual threats that exist in our world. 

Think about this. According to the Center for Disease Control you are 110 times more likely to die from contaminated food than you are from a terrorist attack. You're also more likely to be hit by lightening or win the lottery than die at the hands of a terrorist. Heck, you just might be killed by a toddler before you are killed by a terrorist. 

Yet, we have decided to weaken the 1st and 4th amendments by building a national security infrastructure that's designed to monitor speech and violate the sanctity of our personal effects, every minute of every day. Why? To catch terrorists.

The end result, as the Washington Post revealed in "Top Secret America," is that ...

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counter terrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the U.S.
* Nearly 1 and 1/2 times the number of people who live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.
* In the D.C. metropolitan area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since 9/11. They occupy the equivalent of three Pentagons.
* Many security and intelligence agencies do the exact same work, creating redundancy and waste.
* 50,000 intelligence reports are issued each year (about 1,000 a week), which even senior officials admit cannot possibly be digested.

This national security apparatus, with all of its secrecy and paranoia, grows every day.


4. TORTURE & SPYING ... COMPROMISING OUR VALUES/FRIENDS

While former Deputy Director Morell discussed "coercive techniques" instead of "torture" the reality is - especially if we apply international law, or go by U.S. standards used in World War II and Vietnam - we tortured people. While the claim that the terrorists are bad guys is real, the fact is - as Senator John McCain put it - it's not about who they are, it's about who we are.

The real problem with our national security teams' torture mentality is the conceptual aerobatics that these guys go through to justify their torture policies. It might make sense in their minds, but it doesn't make sense when we look at America's place in the larger stretch of history (the real thinkers out there know what this means). 

But wait, the impact of our cult of secrecy and evolving militarism gets better (or is that worse?). 

In spite of the fact that we're not in a real war on terror (how do you fight an abstract concept?) - nor are in a predicament remotely as dangerous as the Founding Fathers or the Greatest Generation faced - we not only tell ourselves that we needed to torture, but that we need to build more military bases to confront our terrorist fears. We have at least 725 around the world, and perhaps over 1,000. 

We also tell ourselves that we need to spend even more money on defense, in spite of the fact that we spend more than the next 10 nation-states combined (of which 9 are considered allies). 

We then tell ourselves that we need to conduct drone strikes in other nations, even if civilians are killed and international law is compromised in the process. 

We even tell ourselves that we need to spy on our friends and allies, and have gotten so sloppy at it that they're finding out on a regular basis (for the record, getting caught spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel, is not an aberration). 

5. TAKING OUR EYE OFF OF THE REAL ENEMY ... GAMES IN WASHINGTON

Finally, we have Deputy Director Morell's inability to understand what's happening in Washington. This is understandable. He's been focused on trying to protect our nation. But the gridlock and acrimony in Washington does have a source. 

Let's make this real simple. 

Gerrymandered districts create politically safe districts, which allow politicians to grandstand and stay in office. Throw in an unlimited amount of political money from corporate lobbyists (thank you Citizens United) and it's easy to understand why America's democracy has been turned into one big auction house. But instead of of buying used goods at bargain prices America's lobbyists are buying influence with politicians who just want to get re-elected. 

What makes this situation cancerous is that our politicos are simply echoing corporate lies about free markets when the reality is that our market wheels are greased with favorable legislation, reckless deregulation, cheap money from the Federal Reserve, and trillion dollar bailout programs from the Treasury Department and the Fed. 

With safe (gerrymandered) districts for the trouble makers in Congress it should come as no surprise that we have the GOP's 2009 promise not to cooperate with President Obama, their record (or threats of) filibusters in the Senate, their presentation of phony budgets with no numbers, the perpetual but phony debt ceiling crisis, no real jobs proposals, allowing the interests of Wall Street to run herd over Main Street, and general political grandstanding have become the norm in Washington. 

The end result of rising militarism and political gridlock in Washington? American democracy is in danger, big time. 

- Mark 

UPDATE: I overlooked this one, which should have ended up in section no. 4 (or 3) of this post. In a few words, NSA director General Keith Alexander thinks the U.S. government should "come up with a way of stopping" the release of information that the media gets from people like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. In essence, Alexander is saying dilute or get rid of 1st amendment protections, which effectively erases his pledge - or the pledge of any military agent who agrees with him - to uphold and defend the Constitution. 

UNDERSTANDING PRESIDENT OBAMA'S DRONE WAR (and why it shouldn't surprise anyone)

On the surface this is not a good media week for our national security institutions ... 

An independent report, Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition, was released this week. In a few words it explains where and how the United States was able to abduct and torture terror suspects around the world. It is regarded as "the most comprehensive account of human rights abuses" by the CIA. 

Then we have Michael Isikoff's story this week, which outlines how President Obama is increasingly relying upon drones to attack suspected terrorists, and even U.S. citizens abroad who pose a threat to the United States. It doesn't matter if the individuals were ever tried in a court of law, or if they are United States citizens. We also learn that President Obama has a "more elastic" concept of imminent threat. 

Whether you agree with torture or the drone attacks as a matter of policy, it's important that we have an understanding of how we have arrived at this point in our national security road. 

__________________________

* The Post-9/11 Environment: Fear dominates America's national scene.

* The Patriot Act: This act of Congress immediately after 9/11 reduced restrictions on law enforcement for gathering information, and expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic incidents (however loosely defined). Many FISA-like provisions were made available as well. In 2011 President Obama signed a four year extension for roving wiretaps, business record searches, and for the surveillance of "lone wolves" (individuals suspected of terrorist activities, but not connected to any terrorist groups). 

* Operation Enduring Freedom (originally Operation Enduring Justice): An on-going and seemingly open-ended war linked to the larger and more amorphous war on terror. This has given rise to what has been called the national security state and America's unitary executive.

* The Unitary Presidency: After 9/11 White House lawyer John Yoo wrote a memo to President Bush that stated the president’s powers were not confined to the battlefield or wars because “Congress has recognized the President’s authority to use force in circumstances such as those created by the September 11, 2001 incidents … These decisions, under our Constitution, are for the President alone to make.”

* NSA Eavesdropping: President Bush ordered the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on ordinary Americans without obtaining a warrant, and did so numerous times. The president and his advisers claimed the president has the authority during war time and that judicial oversight is not necessary and/or is too cumbersome to deal with real time threats.

* Extraordinary Rendition: The Bush administration asserted that it had the authority to kidnap and fly (or transport) suspected enemies to interrogation stations around the world. This practice is called extraordinary rendition, and was initiated during the Clinton administration. 

* Torture Redefined: An August 2002 memo, written largely by John Yoo but signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee, argued that torture required the intent to inflict suffering “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

* Tools of War and State Secrets: The Bush administration claimed they could not release prisoners exposed to certain interrogation "programs" (i.e. torture techniques).  The administration claimed that torture programs – which they also denied existed – are state secrets. 

Releasing prisoners who have been part of the "program" could undermine national security because they could then speak with the press, and release details of our interrogation methods. Al Qaeda, it’s assumed, would then begin to practice these methods and build up some kind of - for lack of a better term - torture stamina.

* State Secrets and Corruption: According to the State Secrets Doctrine Congress and the American taxpayer can’t ask to take a look at national security related items - like the books of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s troubled Shi'ite government - because releasing embarrassing information could undermine U.S. security, or U.S.-Iraq relations.

* State Secrets and Due Process: The Supreme Court refused to hear Masri v. United States. Here the plaintiff, a German national, argued that he was abducted in Macedonia in 2003 and then transported to overseas prisons where he was tortured. The assumption here is that the State Secrets Doctrine can be employed (by the Supreme Court) to dismiss cases without evidence ever being produced.

* Intent is Good Enough: Hamid Hayat of Lodi, Ca. was arrested and convicted although the government had no direct evidence. What the U.S. government argued was that Hamid Hayat had a “jihadi heart and a jihadi mind.” In spite of withdrawing their original affidavit because of what it revealed about Hayat and the process, the prosecutor’s argued Hayat’s intent was clear. For those who have seen Tom Cruise’s “Minority Report” you know where this leads. 

____________________________

To make a long story short, as I pointed out many times before, the war on terror has aided in turning America into a national security fortress, and the American president into a fledgling American Caesar. If Americans don't like what's happening with President Obama and the drone war they need to learn more, and get Congress to turn back the clock on the developments listed above. 

President Obama, like President Bush, is simply doing what Congress authorized him to do.

- Mark 

FINANCIAL TERRORISTS REQUEST NATIONAL SECURITY PROTECTIONS?

During the height of the market crisis in 2008 the Federal Reserve demanded unusual security procedures before sharing or supplying critical A.I.G. bailout related documents. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) said that if it agreed to go along with the request it would store the information it received where national security related files are kept.

Imagine ... demanding national security status in exchange for information needed to secure public funds, to save a private firm no less. Incredible. While it's not novel to tie economics into national security, this request provides an entirely new twist to the national security state (it actually makes a joke of it). But it appears we now know why the request was made.

According to this New York Times article, A.I.G. effectively gave up it's right to sue Wall Street firms once it took bailout money. Wall Street titans like Goldman Sachs, and their financial partners in crime, effectively got a blanket waiver from lawsuits from A.I.G. Why did this happen? Because Wall Street's biggest firms were really trying to cover their butts, and we're using their buddies in Washington to help them do so.

One way for Wall Street's biggest firms to cover their butts and avoid lawsuits (and even jail time) was to get A.I.G. - the insurer of their toxic crap - to give up their right to sue on behalf of shareholders. So Wall Street's friends at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department made A.I.G. an offer they couldn't refuse: Waive your right to sue and take our money with full payouts, or go under.

As I've pointed out before (many times), I think it's time we start thinking about invoking the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO) to get some answers. Think about it. The only reason you would want to have your market information classified along national security lines AFTER the fact is because you've got something incriminating to hide (proprietary information, after all, doesn't need national security status). Any good prosecutor will tell you that a request to secure security status for documents suggests two things. Somebody has something to hide, and panic. Panic is good, if you're a good prosecutor.

To get a RICO case going on a Wall Street firm (which has been done before) the SEC would have to show a "pattern of racketeering activity" that was committed by an "ongoing criminal organization." What's more criminal than duping investors with toxic assets and then stealing taxpayer money?

- Mark

WIKILEAKS DID US ALL A FAVOR

This is funny. I always enjoyed how Yosemite Sam got hot and bothered over trespassers getting "footy prints" all over his desert. It's a classic. Best of all, the clip reminds me of how people are getting hot and bothered over the WikiLeaks document dump that's all over the Internet. Seriously.

Why beat up the camel on Julian Assange for dropping "footy prints" all over when there's all kinds of "footy prints" already out there?

I've been watching the WikiLeaks-National Security drama unfold for the past week and see Yosemite Sams and political theater all around. Indeed, cries of treason and terrorism are almost as absurd as are suggestions that we should consider both the death penalty and the censorship of private media groups for those who helped publish WikiLeaks' documents.

What a bunch of drama queens. Here's why.

What About Scooter Libby (and Iraq)?
Remember I. "Scooter" Libby? He was convicted of lying to conceal the involvement of the Bush White House in leaking the identity of an active CIA agent. Curiously, the same people who either gave Libby a free pass or provided propaganda cover are now suddenly concerned over national security secrets. Why is that?

And what about all the lies and corruption that led us into war in Iraq in the first place? Where's the indignation here? The last time I looked, going to war on a pack of lies has produced far more death, destruction, and debt than what WikiLeaks has done.

State Secrets Exposed? Hardly
Still, I'm particularly amused by the absurd claims of damage to our national secrets. As I pointed out months ago, starting with the cold war our nation has slowly become an overly militarized and secretive state. The events of 9/11 only made this trend worse.

How bad is it? Think about this:

* We now have over 10,000 counter terrorism, homeland security and intelligence locations across the country.

* We have over 850,000 intelligence personnel with "top secret" access.

* We also produce over 50,000 intelligence reports (no doubt all "top secret") every year.

What this means is that most of the cables that were downloaded and transferred to WikiLeaks were already accessible to around 3 million diplomats, military people, agencies, and private security companies (and their staff) at many levels. In addition, most of the stuff we've seen from WikiLeaks we've known about for years. As John Allen Paulos put it, "Something is not all that secret ... if millions of people can pull it up on their computers."

(And, besides, according to George Bush's Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, "not every wrong, or even every violation of the law, is a crime.”)

But Let's Kill the Messenger Anyways ...
Just as I'm concerned by the absurd claims of damage to our national secrets, I'm equally concerned over the equally absurd notion that killing the messenger, Julian Assange, will somehow make us safer (or send a message). Just as Yosemite Sam did himself a disservice by beating the heck out the poor camel, going after Julian Assange and WikiLeaks will not make anyone safer.

This is the 21st century. Because there are lots of "footy prints" out there we will have more WikiLeaks. What our diplomatic corps needs to keep in mind is what I tell my students - don't write or post anything that would prove embarrassing if it were put on the front page of a newspaper.

Concluding Comments
As we privatized and expanded our military apparatus the result has been that we've ended up with more and more national security crazies. Their level of importance (in their minds) is tied to the amount of top secret stuff they work with. Many of them think they're the second coming of James Bond. They're not.

With so many top secret clearances, and with so many hands and eyes in the national security pot, many of them are doing little more than looking for Boris and Natasha ...

This is why so many work to classify everything that crosses their desks as "top secret" - even when the information is run of the mill stuff that can be easily accessed on the Internet. While much of the stuff our analysts see is important, they don't want to appear insignificant by missing anything or, worse, be accused of overlooking some thing.

Put another way, our evolving cloak and dagger culture is increasingly making a mockery of national security. 

Still, we're urged to kill the messenger of leaked national security documents because the documents are considered so "top secret" that only a few million should have access to them. The reality is the WikiLeaks document dump revealed petty gossip, and proved more embarrassing than many are comfortable with. Worse, they show how we've become an overly secretive and militarized culture - which allowed us to be lied into a war of choice that we still don't know how to leave.

WikiLeaks did us all a favor by reminding us all of this.

I'm with Rep. Ron Paul on this one. If it's not WikiLeaks today, there are plenty of "footy prints" and wannabe WikiLeaks out there. I guarantee it.

- Mark

Update: This piece from Arianna Huffington argues that the WikiLeaks that were posted revealed little because they were limited and vetted by Julian Assange's group. Put another way, they provided no national security threat (unlike George Bush's wars). It also underscores my point that we live in the 21st century, and that there will be more WikiLeaks coming down the pike. Just because the U.S. gets embarrassed by inconvenient stories - many of which should not even be classified - should not be the basis for turning exposed lies into protected speech (while the truth becomes criminal). This is especially pertinent for the Obama administration, who turned its back on their opportunity to expose and prosecute extraordinary lies when they had the opportunity. At the end of the day, Huffingtonpost reminds us, we should be focusing on transparency and what the government is doing, instead of protecting the lies that make Washington insiders uncomfortable.

DRONE ON

So FBI director Robert Mueller has admitted that the FBI is using drones for domestic surveillance purposes. I say, big deal. We've known about these "national security" developments for some time now, and we've done nothing.

Remember this map? It tells us about all the regions that drones have been authorized to fly in the United States by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

I posted this map back in February of this year to help us understand that "Drones" are coming to a theater near you. At the time I also wrote that we shouldn't be surprised when the use of drones and increased domestic surveillance from federal government agencies become the norm.

Why should we be surprised? We've said nothing as Congress has stood by while our national security agencies have granted national security status and clearances to so many agencies and people around the country. In fact, I've been writing and speaking about our evolving cloak and dagger culture for a while now.

The fact of the matter is we are slowly becoming a national security state. We are allowing it to happen because of how we have embraced the fear that has gripped this nation since 9/11. Worse, we will continue to hear more about the use of drones domestically until we learn to confront the political cowards who tell us we have to be afraid all the time.

So, while news of our growing national security state continues to drone on, I'll leave you with these familiar words on fear and security ...

- Mark 

SOME 9/11 THOUGHTS

 "The opportunity of defeating the enemy

is provided by the enemy himself."

- Sun Tzu, approximately 500 B.C.

Ted Koppel has an interesing article in the Washington Post that wraps a couple of thoughts together. First, it prompts us to consider what the following have in common.

* Saddam Hussein has developed weapons of mass destruction.

* Saddam Hussein has developed, or is in the process of developing, nuclear weapons.

* There's a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

* The rise of a national security state and a swollen national security apparatus.

* Overblown hysteria  over a proposed Islamic center in Lower Manhattan.

* A minister in Florida threatening to burn copies of the Koran, which alienates even our friends in the Muslim world.

They are all tied together because they are the product of a fear and hysteria-drenched mind set that has engulfed large segments of the American population, including much of our political leadership. Some of it is warranted in a post-9/11 environment. Much of it is also political pandering.
 
Still, as I pointed out in 2003, this may also be playing right into what Osama bin Laden wants for America - the gradual unwinding of our social, moral and political fabric. Fear, paranoia, and petty grandstanding all serve this agenda. So does the creation of an inward-looking national security state that seems to care little about what over-hyped security, and ill-advised war, really costs.
 

 
Indeed, as Ted Koppel points out, in a 2004 video message bin Laden boasted about leading America on the path to self-destruction.
 

All we have to do is send two mujaheddin . . . to raise a small piece of cloth on which is written 'al-Qaeda' in order to make the generals race there, to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses.

Koppel adds that after spending of a few hundred thousand dollars, then training and sacrificing 19 of his best foot soldiers, that bin Laden:

... has watched his relatively tiny and all but anonymous organization of a few hundred zealots turn into the most recognized international franchise since McDonald's. Could any enemy of the United States have achieved more with less? ... Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos? It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish -- and how we have accommodated him.

I couldn't have said it any better.

- Mark

AMERICA'S DEMORALIZED PLUTOCRACY

From Salon ... 5 signs that America is turning into a demoralized plutocracy.

1. ELECTIONS FOR THE 1%: Both the Democrats and the Republicans are groveling to the richest and most powerful Americans.

2. PRIVATIZATION OF THE STATE: From the privatization of war (think mercenaries) to private prisons (heck, they want to privatize the libraries here in Bakersfield).

3. THE DE-LEGITIMIZATION OF CONGRESS & THE PRESIDENCY: While vying for power, both the White House and Congress have been throwing enough mud over the past 20 years that the only thing they can agree on is war and the national security state ... oh, and privatization of the state.

4. THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE AS THE 4TH BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT: From the creation of the Department of Homeland Security to mercenary armies and our militarized border and police forces, we're told to be afraid of our own shadows.

5. THE DEMOBILIZATION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE: With PR driven military campaigns and privatized mercenaries, Americans no longer care if wages are stagnating, poverty is on the rise, or if the rights of labor are respected. As long as we don't have a draft and we have our apps, we don't seem to care.

It's a bit lengthy, but you can read the article here.

And, yeah, I kind of added a bit to the narrative above. It needed a few more connecting points.

- Mark

CUTTING DEFICITS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE

Some times Congress makes things more difficult than it should be. Check out this article from Christopher Hellman at Huffingtonpost.

Hellman's article details how our base defense budget of $558 billion is not even close to what we actually spend on national security related items. What we actually spend is well over $1.2 trillion ... and counting.

Included in Hellman's numbers are our costs in Iraq and Afghanistan, veteran benefits, homeland security, the CIA, the National Security Agency (NSA), military aid to foreign countries, and an entire group of categories that most Americans are too busy to think about or follow on a regular basis. Worse, billions of our national security expenditures - perhaps $200 billion - is simply overlap and waste.

Considering the $1.1 trillion in tax breaks (write-offs) we give to ordinary Americans, the $100 billion we give to corporations to locate off shore for tax (avoidance) purposes, the $88.7 billion in tax breaks that are dedicated for America's wealthiest class, the unnecessary hundreds of billions given away by the Bush tax cuts, and the trillions in profit subsidies we've handed over to Wall Street (with no tax claw backs), it appears that Congress simply isn't trying hard enough.

Put another way, when Congress says it's trying to cut the fat from the budget it needs to look beyond the chump change it will save by simply cutting public employee benefits and pay. We need to start rescinding tax cuts that don't work, eliminate write-offs that undermine the integrity of the market, abolish subsidies that distort incentives, and do away with other tax breaks that favor the wrong people in America.

Oh, and there's much to be saved by paring down the budget expenditures of our national security state too.

This isn't rocket science. Seriously.

- Mark

FROM WAR TO MERCANTILISM & MARKET CAPITALISM ... EXAM POST

_________________________________________________________

As noted about a month ago here, from time to time I post notes to help students prepare for exams. This is one of those posts. Below I provide a brief sketch of how eras like the Enlightenment combined with war to create the conditions for the modern state and market capitalism to emerge. Critical here is understanding how eras like the Enlightenment combined with war to help secularize society, which helped turn avarice, individual honor, and profits into a "good" thing. I discuss all of these in greater detail in chapters 3 and 5 of my book, The Myth of the Free Market.
_________________________________________________________
The political roots of our current market economy can be summed up in two words: Liberal Revolution.

Recall that before 1776 - when Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations was published and the Declaration of Independence was signed - the Western world was still stuck in a feudal mindset where myths, custom, and tradition dominated what the vast majority of society believed. If someone fell on the floor, in what we now know is an epileptic seizure, anyone in the crowd could be singled out for witchcraft or sorcery.

As well, most commoners had little say over what they wanted to do when they “grew up” and even less control over who would rule over them. Economic feudalism and political monarchies stifled both individual initiative and political freedom. Custom and tradition, rather than individual acumen and personal talent dominated our social and political environment.

This would change because of how three intertwined developments combined with the increased scale of war to secularize our world views. Ultimately, all of this depended on the gradual consolidation of political power to occur. First, the three intertwined developments that helped bring about Liberal Revolution ...

Three Intertwined Developments
The Renaissance (p. 56-60) brought knowledge and the creative spirit back to Europe by reopening the classics to society. St. Francis (1181-1226) and others began to challenge the notion that the world was merely a collection of symbols expressing God’s message, waiting to be unraveled by the priests. Universities were established during the High Middle Ages (1000-1300 AD), creating places where conventional wisdom was discussed and even challenged. Still, custom and tradition mandated that commoners obey authority - the church and the aristocracy - and warned against not accepting your fate in life.

Later, the Reformation - a succession of wars fought to establish religious conformity and “moral universalism” throughout Europe - helped raise questions about the Catholic Church, and finally ended in 1648. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) ended the Reformation, with individual monarchs declaring that it was better to allow each one to determine how people would worship and pray within their borders.

The questions raised by Martin Luther’s 95 theses (tacked on a church door in 1517) were instrumental because they not only questioned internal church practices, but they helped create an environment that would lead scholars and others to question the church’s veracity, and it’s authority on many topics. In the process, feudal customs and traditions would be challenged.

Finally, the Enlightenment - a period of scientific discovery and philosophical discourse - raised serious questions about our world views. By questioning and disproving church teachings scientists and scholars during the Enlightenment helped “secularize” our world by illustrating how and why the church could be wrong. For example, when Galileo looked through his telescope and showed that the earth moved (p. 65) the impact was immediate.

If the church could be wrong about the earth not being the center of the universe could it also be wrong about the divine right to rule, original sin, and the notion that one should simply accept their station in life? If so perhaps the monarchs weren’t the rulers God wanted. Better yet, what if peasants and others didn’t have to accept their fate in life?

These were heady questions indeed.

The Role of War in Secularizing Society
While our knowledge of the world was being altered by the combined effects of the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Enlightenment, the demands of military battles slowly compelled heads of state to acquire armies that could fight for the state, and individual honor, rather than convoluted religious symbols or against the devil’s emissaries.

By inspiring soldiers to fight for national security rather than religious goals it became much easier to convince individual soldiers about the fight. Because survival is instinctual and objective, while fighting for God is faith based and subjective, arguing over “Who else is worthy to worship my God alongside me?” no longer dominated the mind-set of armies.

Better yet, by tying the quest for national security to each soldier’s honor and glory the state actively encouraged individual accomplishment and personal triumph. The goals of moral universalism and the Christian Faith slowly faded away. By secularizing accomplishment on the battlefield the state went a long way in elevating individualism and personal excellence, which are the hallmarks of classical liberalism and entrepreneurialism in market economies today.

Together with the developments brought about by the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, an increasingly secularized society no longer accepted explanations offered by the church. Perhaps more importantly, myths declined as a source of explanation as “scientists” looked for the causes behind disease, weather patterns, and the movement of the stars.

But the biggest impact brought about by war and the Enlightenment was the realization that while armies were expensive, free thinkers were generally surrounded by the most ambitious and profitable merchants of their day. If the state were to survive it would need revenue (p. 63-65). Ergo, it would need to court traders and thinkers, rather than seek the approval of priests and monks. The result? States began making bargains with merchants. In exchange for tax revenue the state would provide protection, stability, and even a say in how the state would be governed.

These dynamics are the roots of modern parliaments and, perhaps more importantly, helps us understand the logic behind constitutional liberalism. Perhaps more importantly, it helps us understand how war and the need for security would shape the state in the modern era by leading to the creation of increasingly efficient bureaucracies (of violence) and war.

War Made the State and the State Made War …
After the collapse of Rome the Eurasian continent was divided along geographic, linguistic, and cultural lines. Once tied together by Roman conquest, infrastructure and diplomacy, Europe devolved into a hodgepodge of unconnected regions. The “empires” that existed were really little more than competing families dominated by strong personalities.

Making matters more difficult was that apart from the Catholic Church coherent and cohesive institutions on the Eurasian continent were largely absent. Simply put, Rome’s “successor kingdoms in the west did not learn how priceless” the state institutions they had destroyed were, and were equally ignorant recognizing how difficult it would be to replace them. The need to pay for war would make this abundantly clear.

Through the Dark Ages (476-1,000 AD) and the High Middle Ages (1,000-1,300 AD), from the Steppe mountain regions to the Pyrenees of Europe, the Eurasian continent was dominated largely by barbarian clans and feuding nobles. And while Western Europe may not have been, as John Keegan suggested, “a continent without armies” it was probably more realistic to say Europe was largely a continent without the institutions necessary for collecting taxes and building large professional armies.

Grappling with the problem of paying warriors, kings began raising private militias made up of nobles and indentured soldiers. As war evolved the arrival of new tactics and technologies – which brought pikemen, artillery, and muskets into warfare – continued to strain state resources. This would help convince Europe’s monarchs to pursue administrative competence during the High Middle Ages in the areas of finance and war.

Because of these dynamics Western European states developed ever larger political units. Smaller political units, especially those capable of producing regular income, were incorporated or swallowed up in the process.

By the fifteenth century European monarchs looked for ways to manage what had been patched together. With weapon innovations proving costlier by the decade the key problem for monarchs was raising revenue, especially from lesser lords who often rebelled. To pay for new weapons and to fund military campaigns Europe’s monarchs became creative domestically, and more aggressive abroad.

The former would set the stage for representative government and mercantilism. The latter paved the way for imperialism and colonial wars. In all cases, it was the demands of war that created the environment for liberal constitutionalism and market capitalism to emerge in the West from the 17th through the 19th centuries.
 
- Mark