Sleepycatz

War on Privacy

This week one of the nation’s top intelligence officials made a startling announcement:

Privacy no longer can mean anonymity, says Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence. Instead, it should mean that government and businesses properly safeguard people’s private communications and financial information.

Safeguard from whom? should be the question that is asked of Mr. Kern. I doubt very much that al Qaeda or Syria cares where our day to day travels take us , but my boss might, your insurance company might, political opponents might. What Mr. Kern is insisting upon is a surveillance state - one in which government collected information is seamlessly shared with business collected data. For instance: you go to an ATM at 8:00 Am, Stop and buy a coffee at 8:30 Am using a discount card, punch into work at 9:00 AM - respond your e-mail & make calls, drive home via a tollbridge at 5:00 Pm, stop off for a drink at 5:30, then go home and read your personal e-mail, visit and adult website, maybe read some blogs; the government would now know exactly where you were during the day, and what you were doing. Perhaps you visited a blog which was critical of government policies; you might now find yourself undergoing additional IRS auditing - after all it’s happened before, or find yourself bared from flying. What Mr. Kerr is suggesting is even a bit more nefarious: a two way street in which businesses have access to to personal data for their own purposes. Perhaps your employer is devout and decides to fire you because you consume pornography — there is currently no law which protects employees for actions unrelated to their work. Perhaps your health insurance company decides you are consuming too much alcohol and decides to raise your premium or drop you. All of these things are more than possible, they are probable outcomes of Mr. Kerr’s policy. Information, it has been said, is power, and once made available those with the information will make the most use of it as possible.

Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Monroe, and James Madison all published their works under pseudonyms — anonymously. And they all did so at a time in which the future of their country was far less certain then it is today. Mr. Kerr, and the administration, keep arguing that we are in greater peril today then we have ever been before. But there is little to no evidence of this. If our country is in peril, it is from the incompetence and hubris of its leaders, not from any outside force. But these same leaders cry for more power to help assuage the fear their own policies have created. Should Mr. Kerr and his administration get their way, we and future Americans will quickly learn to fear our own government and its powers. To quote a popular film, “People should not fear the government; Government should fear the people.”

America’s Dilemma

At some point today Michael Mukasey will, essentially, be confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States. Mr. Mukasey’s testimony of blatant evasion and obfuscation regarding water boarding and torture should stand as one of the more shameful moments in our history. But those who defend Mr. Mukasey and the act of water boarding –such as Mona Charen, Andrew McCarthy, and Patrick Buchanan– represent a betrayal of our country’s laws and values which boarders on monstrous.

One can almost hear the glee in their voices when they throw out the patented ticking bomb scenario* to justify their desire to torture suspected terrorists. As these pundits are eager to adopt a tactic pioneered by the Spanish Inquisition and honed by the Khmer Rouge, I would like to know what interrogation tactic would be too immoral, or violate our country’s values, in the ticking bomb scenario? To save the hypothetical city from a terrorist attack would it be acceptable to electro-shock the suspected terrorist? On his chest and extremities? On his genetiles? Would it be acceptable to cut off his digits or limbs while he watched? Could one kill his wife in front of him? Or his son? Could one, in order to save a city from the evil terrorist, rape his young daughter in his presence? Just how determined and macho are you pundits?

Over a hundred years ago Fyodor Dostoevsky asked the very question which I posed above. Ivan Karamozov presents his brother Alyosha with the following dilemma: Suppose that in order to bring eternal happiness to the world, it was essential and inevitable to torture to death one tiny innocent creature, only one small child. Would you consent? How we answer this question defines our humanity and therefore the kind of country we wish to have. People cannot abandon their individual humanity and then claim that their nation is in anyway just or moral. To suggest otherwise is is treasonous to the founding principles of our country.

*The ticking bomb scenario is perhaps the greatest hoax perpetrated in the debate on torture. Outside of a concocted television plot, the possibility of the scenario –in which the government captures a single terrorist who has specific location of a ticking bomb which will detonate, causing massive destruction, in a short time– actually occurring is so infinitesimal it should be dismissed as implausible. The scenario, however, provides the crucial exception to the prohibitions against torture for those who seek it. Since this scenario never occurs, the exemption is constantly extended. Instead of torturing only the terrorist with direct knowledge of the plot, interrogators now extend the act to those they believe have second or third hand knowledge. Eventually, they are torturing suspects who know suspects who are related to terrorists who may know the leader of a plot to detonate a bomb in the United States. This is the reality of torture. This is the reality of what the United States is engaged in.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day

Four hundred and two years ago today, Guy Fawkes was seized outside of the House of Lords. When captured, with matches and fuse, he gleefully admitted his intention to blow up the King and his lords. Fawkes was taken to the Tower and tortured, under the explicit permission of King James I, for three days. On the fourth day, Fawkes named conspirators who had already been known or arrested. Fawkes jumped to his death at the scaffold, saving himself the gruesome punishment of being drawn and quartered.

Fawkes, and his conspirators, had planned their act because the religion and politics in England had become too intertwined. Catholics and Puritans were being heavily discriminated against by James I and his Archbishop, Richard Bancroft. The roundup and trials of Fawkes and his compatriots were War on Terror of the day.

Men of Steel

It has now become apparent that –with the support of Sens. Schumer and Feinstein and the insane hyperbole of President Bush– Judge Mukasey will be confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United States. It is nearly inconceivable that a man who who believes that the President has the right to detain citizens and residents without charge, and who has called for secret courts of prosecution, could be confirmed as the chief legal representative in the United States. Yet, these are the times in which we live: Times filled with fear and uncertainty. It is in these times that an old ideology has risen to prominence: The ideology of authoritarianism.

Authoritarianism should not be confused with fascism –though one may lead to the other and vice-versa. Where the later seeks to unite a country under single cooperative rule lead by a charismatic leader, authoritarianism seeks only the goal of power for its leader, and his small band of loyalists. Where fascism uses nationalism and fear to unite the people into a fasces, authoritarianism primarily uses fear to maintain power, with little concern of uniting people in anything other then fear of itself or its prescribed enemies. Authoritarianism is the poor man’s fascism. It requires little to intellectual honesty, but offers the same ultimate power to its leaders.

The current authoritarian crop is found among the leading candidates for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. These men are engaged in a battle to prove which is stronger. They argue as to which will more quickly throw off the burdensome weaknesses of law (national or international), or which has the strength of will to incarcerate and abuse more of their enemies. These are men of steel. They argue for the preternatural power of the Presidency. They acknowledge no limits on this power; for they believe that that the next president must expand upon the powers the existing one. This, they suggest, must be done until the Presidency is indistinguishable from the Roman office of Dictator: an office with unlimited power to protect the state.

Among the prospective Duci, John McCain –the only combat veteran– has suggested that America cease torturing its detainees. Mr. McCain has been mocked for his stance in the past, and met with the equivocation argument of “we’re no worse then the evil we are fighting;” an argument used to justify nearly every atrocity throughout history. Mr. McCain has suffered for his beliefs among the base of his party –he is presently polling third or fourth. And though Mr. McCain believes in the authoritarian office of President, this is not enough to satisfy many. His party stalwarts believe that a single iron willed leader is the only thing that can save them from the enemy they have created in their fear. They will trust only a man who has the vision to see beyond law and reason and into the depths of their fears and dreams for order and vengeance.

For nearly one hundred years, our country had hosted two great political parties, both of which vied for political dominance generally within the framework of our laws and government. Even in the worst days of our republic in which the most heinous decisions were made (such as Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and Roosevelt’s internment of American citizens) the acts were made with the full knowledge of the other branches of our government and with lawful review. But today, one party insists that one part of our government –the excellency of the Presidency– must be allowed to operate in secret, with secret expansive powers which no court nor man can hold to account. The Republican party has chosen an expedient path of authoritarianism in hopes that the fears and desperation of the American people match those of the party’s financiers and base. The other party, the Democratic Party, has showed itself either too afraid or too covetous of these new powers to act against its political adversaries. This party has shown itself to lack any will of leadership, authoritarian or otherwise, and thus struggles for unity and direction. The base of the Democratic party has been clear in its demands, but the leadership has ignored their calls and has pursued appeasement through ‘moderation’. The Republican party has offered a vision of the future, though be it a frightening one. The Democratic party, however, has been able to provide little evidence that it is opposed to the authoritarian ideas from across the aisle, or that it has the will to govern at all.

Our republic is in danger. But it is not threatened from without, but from within. It is threatened by those who seek to use its offices to gain ultimate authority; it is threatened by those pundits and politicians who cynically see all of politics as a win/loose game; and it is threatened by a frightened and apathetic public who seek quick fixes over reasoned understanding. It is only this final element which may be changing. There are growing voices outside of the pundits and politicians calling for introspection and change. It remains to be seen whether those voices will be heard by those threatening our nation.

Why We Torture

Press Secretary Perino: “But the legal opinion of the United States is that we do not torture. The statutes have been interpreted, the committees have been briefed. And I believe that the members that have been briefed are satisfied that the policy of the United States, and the practices, do not constitute torture.”

That the American government has been involved in torture for the last fifty years should come as no surprise to scholars and observers of its foreign policy. America’s techniques were honed in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, and El Salvador. But what was once done as consultations with foreign security services in the past, has now become overtly practiced by the American government.

When President Bush insists that “We do not torture” it is always with a wink and a nudge to foreign interests and the American people. Historically, governments never admit that that torture prisoners. They will couch their language in professional euphemisms: “enhanced interrogations”, “harsh questioning,” “psychological treatment,” “re-education” are all terms used in the past by governments which tortured prisoners, but denied that they tortured. Even the classification of ‘prisoner’ becomes euphemised: in the Soviet Union prisoners became “patients,” or “dissidents,” in Latin America they were “suspects” or “rebels,” in China “counter-revolutionaries,” and here, in America, they are “detainees” or “enemy combatants”. But this re-defining of language, this euphemization, was never intended to completely hide the fact that all of these governments engaged in in torture. Rather, the language is designed to provide both the highest levels of deniability and justification of tortures use.

As former CIA officer Robert Baer has stated, torture is not an effective or accurate means of acquiring intelligence information. In fact there are well known methods of interrogation which have proven accurate, and which do not involve physical or psychological violence. Around the world, torture is is publicly denounced and decried as inhuman, barbarous, and cruel. So why is torture employed? Partially because it is so publicly reviled. Employing torture signifies a state’s determination and its willingness to protect its interests. For those people who strongly support the state, the act of torture tends embolden their support. For this group, torture — through a state proxy — signifies strength, resolve, and feeds a cathartic need for violent retribution against those they perceive as enemies of the state they support. Torture allows the state transmits the message that it has the ultimate authority over life, death, pain, and comfort. Because of this torture can never be completely hidden. The state must make sure that its ‘enemies’ are aware of its actions. But the state must also maintain the ability to plausibly deny that it utilizes torture. Historically, states have found it nearly impossible to achieve this balance. For years, it was considered monstrously humorous that the Soviets or the Cubans would deny that they tortured prisoners. Today that same sarcastic view is held of America.

Governments which employ torture always claim they need to do so to save the nation from its enemies. But there is no evidence to support this. There is no record of a nation falling because it failed to torture its prisoners. But there is ample evidence to suggest that torture generates fear, which engenders hatred, and which leads to violence against the nation and its people. As President Bush and his supporters have decided that America is to be a torturing nation, they should consider that the terror they try to engender today may be visited upon them tomorrow. They should reflect on the fact that by taking up the banner of torture they have equated America with those nations whose citizens fled to America to escape the horrors of their own torturers. They should remember that history and law always condemns the brutality and horror of torture and those who supported and employed it.

The Grand Diversion

The United States Senate, the most deliberative body in the world, this week affirmed,in a bold move, by a vote of 72 to 25 that

A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

Just to be clear, the advertisement did not suggest that Gen. Petraeus received his bronze star under false pretenses or behaved questionably under fire; yet, these assertions were made quite regularly against a decorated officer by those now rushing to defend the honor of the military. Additionally, the doggerel presented in the MoveOn ad did not go so far as to suggest that Gen. Petraeus is an enemy of the United States, as so many others have suggested, using a similar lyrical device, of a sitting United States Senator. There is an inherent hypocrisy in the Republican discourse being foisted on America. Under the rules of this discourse proponents of the administration are always presenting logical facts while those who question the administration are always ‘playing politics’ or worse, unpatriotic cowards. The fact that a minority of Democrats in the Senate failed to vote against the measure only reinforces how successful this hypocrisy has become.

Meanwhile, on the same day that the US Senate voted to condemn the uncouth folks at MoveOn.org, three American soldiers lost their lives in Iraq. That’s three Americans who will never see their family or loved ones again; three Americans who cannot pursue their dreams and hopes; three Americans who cannot participate in debate over Iraq.

Of course, unsatisfied with the bloodshed in Iraq, on the same day the condemnation of political speech was approved by the Senate another was introduced by supporters of Gen. Petraeus, one which would allow the President open authority to extend his war to Iran. And it can be guaranteed that anyone questioning the need to offer up more human suffering in sacrifice for the honor of of military will be dismissed as unamerican or defeatist.

Billions and Billions

Yesterday, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell offered some enlightening and frightening testimony before the judiciary committee. McConnell testified to what a number of us have been for years:

[the] Director of National Intelligence acknowledged that the terror attacks of Sept. 11, which he invoked to justify expanding US spy powers, “could have been prevented” under existing laws if intelligence agencies had “connected the dots” in analyzing intelligence.

That’s right, there was no real need for the Patriot Act, FISA revisions, or the myriad of other ‘enhancements’ to surveillance laws to prevent another 9/11. Those events could have been prevented but for the incompetence of the agencies involved. Instead, we have provided the alphabet soup of security agencies with more unfettered access to our personal data. Has this made us more secure? Well, the numbers suggest that perhaps we are less secure.

When questioned about the number of Americans currently under surveillance, McConnell responded: “It’s a very small number considering that there are billions of transactions [intercepted] every day.” Let us consider this for a moment: if the agencies are intercepting billions of transactions a day how can these be processed? Assuming that McConnell was engaging in some hyperbole, let’s assume 1bn transactions a day. Throw away 50 percent for obvious misses, and assume an average of 10 seconds to review and classify a transaction (a very generous average, given translation time) would mean that it would take 155.5 man years (56,757.5 days) to review one day’s collection of data. This enormous amount of data, obviously, cannot be properly analyzed, so they are simply collecting and storing it for future reference and correlation. This suggests that quality of intelligence data has simply been replaced by quantity. So the odds of actually preventing an event are actually less then they were prior to this massive collection simply due to the volume that needs to be plowed through. In other words: analysts would be unable to “connect the dots”, because the dot are buried in mounds of background noise.

McConnell, and his supporters, though keep insisting that huge amounts of data collection is necessary to prevent an attack. If the data was there prior to 9/11 to prevent that attack and could not be analyzed properly, how can exponentially more data be handled to prevent an attack? It can’t . For the supporters of the security state the entire debate is really about pushing acceptance of wholesale government surveillance not about useful intelligence gathering.