FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Glenn Greenwald writes: "The Surveillance State hovers over any attacks that meaningfully challenge state-appropriated power. It doesn't just hover over it. It impedes it, it deters it and kills it. That's its intent. It does that by design."

(illustration: Zen Gardner)
(illustration: Zen Gardner)



America's Surveillance State Breeds Fear

By Glenn Greenwald, Alternet

07 July 12

 

ast year was my maiden trip to the Socialism 2012 world. I started off by standing up and saying -- I was actually surprised by this, pleasantly surprised, because I didn’t know what to expect -- how amazingly inspirational I actually found this conference to be. The energy of activism and the sophisticated level of the conversation and the commitment that people displayed and the diversity of the attendees, really is unlike any other conference. And so when I was asked back this year, I was super excited to come back and accept. Not only because of that, but also because the conference organizers asked if I could speak about challenging the Surveillance State.

The reason that I was so eager to come and do that is because I really think that this topic is central to all of the other activism that’s being discussed here this weekend.

The Surveillance State hovers over any attacks that meaningfully challenge state-appropriated power. It doesn’t just hover over it. It impedes it, it deters it and kills it.  That’s its intent. It does that by design.

And so, understanding what the Surveillance State, how it operates -- most importantly, figuring out how to challenge it and undermine it, and subvert it -- really is, I think, an absolute prerequisite to any sort of meaningful activism, to developing strategies and tactics for how to challenge state and corporate power.

To begin this discussion, I want to begin with a little story that I think is illustrative and significant in lots of ways.

The story begins in the mid-1970s when there were scandals that were erupting, arising out of the Watergate investigation in the Nixon administration and/or scandals surrounding the fact that, as it turned out, the Nixon administration and various law enforcement officials in the federal government were misusing their eavesdropping powers. They were listening in on people who were political opponents, they were doing so purely out of political self-interest, having nothing to do with legal factors or the business of the nation, and this created a scandal, and unlike today, a scandal 40 years ago in the mid-1970s resulted in at least some relatively significant reactions.

In particular, a committee was formed in the Congress and the Senate, and it was headed by someone named Frank Church, who was a Democratic Party of the United States senator from Idaho who had been, in the Senate, at this time, for 20 years as one of the most widely regarded senators, and was chosen because of that. And he led this investigation into these eavesdropping abuses and tried to get into the scandal. One of the things that he discovered was that these eavesdropping abuses were radically more pervasive and egregious than anything that had been known at the start of the investigation.

It was by no means confined to the Nixon administration. In fact, it went all the way back to the 1920s, when the government first began developing the detective audio capability to eavesdrop on American citizens and heightened as the power heightened through the 1940s, when WWII would justify it; into the '50s when the Cold War did, and the 1960s when the social unrest justified surveillance. What Senator Church found was that literally every single administration under both Democratic and Republican presidents had seriously abused this power.

And not in isolated ways, but systematically. This committee documented all the ways in which that was true, and the realization quickly emerged that, allowing government officials to eavesdrop on other people, on citizens, without constraints or oversight, to do so in the dark, is a power that gives so much authority and leverage to those in power that it is virtually impossible for human beings to resist abusing that power.  That’s how potent of a power it is.

But the second thing that he realized beyond just the general realization that this power had been systematically abused was that, there was an agency that was at the heart of this abuse, and it was the National Security Agency. And what was really amazing about the National Security Agency was that it had been formed 20 years ago back in 1949 by President Truman, and it was formed as part of the Defense Department. It was so covert that literally, for two decades, almost nobody in the government even knew that it existed, let alone knew what it did. Including key senators like Frank Church.

And part of his investigation -- and actually, it was a fairly radical investigation, fairly aggressive even looking at it through cynical eyes and realizing that the ultimate impact wasn’t particularly grand, but the investigation itself was pretty impressive -- and he forced his way into the National Security Agency and found out as much as he possibly could about it.

And after the investigation concluded, he issued all sorts of warnings about the Surveillance State and how it was emerging, and the urgency of only allowing government officials to eavesdrop on citizens, that they have all kinds of layers of oversight in the courts and Congress, but he issued a specific warning about the National Security Agency that is really remarkable in terms of what he said. And this is what he said -- and you can find this anywhere online, in the New York Times, everywhere -- he said, as part of a written report, and in an interview:

The National Security Agency’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter.

He continued,

There would be no place to hide. If a dictator takes over the United States, the NSA could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back.

Now, there are several things that I find extraordinary about that statement. For one, the language that he uses. I mean, this is not somebody who is a speaker at the Socialism conference 2012. This was literally one of the people who was the most established institutional figures in American politics. I mean, he was in the liberal way of the Democratic Party but very much, he was mainstream for many years [ ... ] And here he is warning the country of the dangers, not just of the U.S. government but specifically about the National Security Agency using words like “dictator” and “total tyranny” and warning of the way in which this power can be abused such that, essentially it would be irreversible. That once the government is able to monitor everything we do and everything we say, there’s no way to fight back because fighting back requires doing it away from their prying eyes.

And if you look now, 30 years later to where we are, not only would you never, ever hear a U.S. senator stand up and insinuate that the National Security State poses this great danger or use words like “tyranny” and “dictators” to describe the United States the way that Frank Church did only 30 years ago. Now it’s virtually a religious obligation to talk about the National Security State and its close cousin, the Surveillance State, with nothing short of veneration.

Just a few weeks ago, Chris Hayes, who’s an MSNBC host on the weekends, used the opportunity of Memorial Day to express this view in this very tortured, careful and pre-apologetic way that maybe it’s the case that not every single person who has ever served as an American soldier or enlisted in the American military is a hero. Maybe we can think about them in ways short of that. And this incredible controversy erupted, condemnation poured down on him from Democrats and conservatives, liberals and the like, and he was forced in multiple venues in the course of the next week to issue one, increasingly sheepish apology after the next. That’s how radically our discourse has changed, so that you cannot talk about the National Security State or the Surveillance State in these kinds of nefarious terms, the way that Frank Church, who probably knew more about it, did just a few decades ago.

The second remarkable aspect of that story, of that quote to me, is that the outcome of that investigation was a series of laws that were grounded in the principle that, as I said earlier, that we cannot allow government officials to eavesdrop on American citizens or in any way to engage in surveillance without all kinds of oversights and checks. The most illustrative of which was the FISA law, which said that no government official can eavesdrop on the occasion without first going through a court and proving to a court that we’re actually doing something wrong and getting the court permission before they can eavesdrop.

There was a similar controversy in the mid 2000s and in 2005 when the New York Times revealed that the Bush administration had been using the NSA to do exactly what Frank Church warned against -- which is spying on the communication of American citizens. And the outcome of that was not new laws or new safeguards to constrain these sorts of abuses, it was exactly the opposite. In 2008, the Democratic-led Congress, with the support of President Obama, most of his supporters in the Democratic party and almost all Republicans basically gutted that law. Repealed it in its core and made it much, much easier for the government to eavesdrop on American citizens without constraint, and then immunized the nation’s telecoms that had participated in that illegal program.

So you see the radically different attitudes that the United States has to surveillance just some 30 years ago, when abuses resulted in a whole variety of a weak, but still meaningful legal constraint, versus what we do now when we find out that the government is lawlessly spying on us, which is act as quickly as possible to make it legal.

But the third part of why I think Church’s statements are so remarkable and important: If you look at what he said, he phrased his warning in a conditional sense. He said, If A happens, then B. A was: If the NSA starts using its eavesdropping capabilities and not directing them at foreign, nationals we suspect of spying, but instead at the American people, then B will happen. B being, we’ll essentially live under a dictatorship. There will be total tyranny where the American people will be unable to fight back because this net of surveillance will cover what we do.

And what’s really remarkable is that that conditional that he warned against -- the apparatus of the NSA being directed domestically and inwardly rather than outwardly -- has absolutely come to pass. That is the current situation, that is the current circumstance of the United States. The NSA, beginning 2001, was secretly ordered to spy domestically on the communications of American citizens. It has escalated in all sorts of lawless, and now lawful ways, such that it is now an enormous part of what that agency does. Even more significantly, the technology that it has developed is now shared by a whole variety of agencies, including the FBI, so that this surveillance net that Frank Church warned so stridently about, in a way that if we stood up now, we’d be immediately be branded a sort of shrill, submarginalized radical, has come to be, in all sorts of entrenched and legal ways.

Now there’s a few ways to think about the Surveillance State and try to understand its scope and magnitude. I think the most effective way to do that is to look at a couple of numbers. And to use the most mainstream sources to do that in terms of where we are, in terms of the American Surveillance State.

In 2010 the Washington Post published a three-part series called "Top Secret America" written by their Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters Dana Priest and William Arkin. The first installment in that series looked at the National Security State and the Surveillance State, how it functions in the United States, and this was one of the sentences that appeared in this article. Listen to this, it said, “Every day -- every day, collections systems at the National Security Agency intercept and store 1.7 billion e-mails, phone calls, and other types of comunication.”

That’s every day, they intercept and store, and keep for as long as they want, 1.7 billion e-mails and other forms of telephonic communications.

William Binney is a NSA official, who is a high-ranking NSA official for decades, and he resigned in the wake of 9/11 because he was so outraged that the NSA was starting to be turned against the American people. And he resigned, and recently he has begun to speak out about the NSA’s abuses and he gave an interview on Democracy Now! three weeks ago, and this is what he said about surveillance under the Obama administration. He said,

“Surveillance has increased every year since 9/11. In fact, I would suggest that they’ve assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens: 20 trillion transactions have been assembled by the NSA and its related agencies about U.S. citizens interacting with other U.S. citizens."

He then went on to add that, that’s only e-mails and telephone calls, and not things like financial transactions or other forms of video surveillance. So that pretty much tracks with the Washington Post report as well -- if you’re storing 1.7 billion e-mails and telephone calls each and every day, it’s likely that you’ll fairly quickly reach the 20 trillion level that William Binney identified.

Now the most amazing thing about the Surveillance State given how incredibly liquidated it is and how incredibly menacing it is, is that we actually know very little about it. We’re almost back to the mid-1970s when nobody even knew what the NSA was. The big joke in Washington whenever anyone would mention the NSA is that the “NSA” stood for “No Such Agency.” It was something that you were not permitted to talk about, even in government. No one knew what it did.

We’re basically at that point. We get little snippets of information like the two statistics that I just described that give us a sense of just how sprawling and all-encompassing the surveillance state is. But we don’t know very much about who runs it, how it’s operated, at whom it’s directed and who makes those decisions. And in fact, so clear is that lack of knowledge that there is an amazing controversy right now about the Patriot Act.

You may remember, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Patriot Act was something that was really controversial. And mid-September, October of 2001, Congress enacted this law and everyone went around warning that it was this massive expansion of surveillance that was unlike anything we had ever seen before -- became the symbol of Bush-Cheney radicalism. Now, the Patriot Act is completely uncontroversial. It gets renewed without any notice every three years with zero reforms, no matter which party is in control.

There are two Democratic senators that are very, kind of, mainstream, loyal, Democratic Party supporters. They’re President Obama supporters [ ... ] One is Ron Wyden of Oregon and the other is Mark Udall of Colorado. And what these two Democratic Party senators have been doing for the last three years is running around warning that the Patriot Act is so much worse than anything that any of us thought all that time when we were objecting to it. And the reason it’s so much worse is because the U.S. government has secretly interpreted it -- what the Patriot Act admits it to do in terms of surveillance on American citizens, is completely unrelated to what the law actually says, and it’s something that almost nobody knows.

Just listen to these two quotes that they gave to the New York Times a month ago.  Senator Wyden said:

“I want to deliver a warning this afternoon. When the American people find out how their government has secretly interpreted the Patriot Act, they will be stunned, and they will be angry.”

Now he’s talking about a different American people than the one that I know, but the point is that if you were paying attention and cared about these things as you should, you will be stunned and angry to learn about what the government is doing under this already broad act.

Senator Udall said, “Americans will be alarmed if they knew how this law is being carried out.” Now they are two, as I said, established Democrats warning that the Democratic control of the Executive branch is massively abusing this already incredibly broad Patriot Act. And one of the things they are trying to do is extract some basic information from the NSA about what it is they’re doing in terms of the surveillance on the American people.  Because even though they are on the Intelligence Committee, they say they don’t even know the most basic information about what the NSA does including even how many Americans have had their e-mails read or had their telephone calls intercepted by the NSA.

So one of the things they did a couple months ago is, they wrote a demand to the NSA saying, we don’t want you to tell us anything sensitive, we just need to know the basic information about what it is that you’re doing. Such as, for example, the thing we want to know, is how many American citizens on U.S. soil have had their e-mails read by you, and their telephone calls listened to by you. That’s what we want to know, most of all.

And the NSA responded two weeks ago by saying -- I’m not exaggerating, I’m not saying this to be humorous, I’m not being ironic, I’m not snippeting a part of it to distort it -- their answer was, "We can’t tell you how many millions of Americans are having their e-mails read by us, and their telephone calls listened in by us, because for us to tell you that would violate the privacy of American citizens." (Laughter)

And just so you believe me, because if I were you I’d think, “That’s just ridiculous.” I just want to read you from the letter that the head of the NSA wrote to the Intelligence Committee as a response, “The NSA inspector general and NSA leadership both agree that a review of the sort you’re suggesting would itself violate the privacy of U.S. persons.”

So, I think the important thing to realize is how little we know about what it is that they’re doing. But the little that we do know is extraordinarily alarming in exactly the way that Frank Church  described. Now, I just want to make a couple other points about the Surveillance State, that don’t get enough attention but that really are necessary for completing the picture about what it really is and what it does.

We talk a lot about things like the NSA and federal government agencies like the FBI, but it actually stands well beyond that. We really live in a culture of surveillance. I mean, if you even go into any normal American city or even, increasingly, small or mid-sized towns, there are all kinds of instruments of surveillance everywhere that you probably don’t even notice. If you wake up in the morning and drive to your local convenience store, you’ve undoubtedly been photographed by all sorts of surveillance cameras on the street. If you go to the ATM to take out money to buy things, that will be then recorded. If you go into a convenience store to buy things you want to buy, you’ll have your photograph taken and will be reported.

An article in Popular Mechanics in 2004 reported on a study of American surveillance and this is what it said: “There are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras now deployed in the United States shooting 4 billion hours of footage a week. Americans are being watched. All of us, almost everywhere.” There is a study in 2006 that estimated that that number would quadruple to 100 million cameras -- surveillance cameras -- in the United States within five years largely because of the bonanza of post-9/11 surveilling.

And it’s not just the government that is engaged in surveillance, but just as menacingly, corporations, private corporations, engage in huge amounts of surveillance on us. They give us cell phones that track every moment of where we are physically, and then provide that to law enforcement agencies without so much as a search warrant.  Obviously, credit card and banking transactions are reported, and tell anyone who wants to know everything we do. We talk about the scandal of the Bush eavesdropping program that was not really a government eavesdropping program, so much as it was a private industry eavesdropping program. It was done with the direct and full cooperation of AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and the other telecom giants.

In fact, when you talk about the American Surveillance State, what you’re really talking about is no longer public government agencies. What you’re talking about is a full-scale merger between the federal government and industry. That is what the Surveillance State is. They are equally important parts of what the Surveillance State does.

I think the most interesting, and probably revealing, example that I can give you about where we are in terms of surveillance in the United States is a really ironic and unintendedly amusing series of events that took place in mid-2011. What happened in mid-2011 was that the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which as we know are very, very oppressive and hate freedom, they said that what they were going to do was ban the use of Blackberries and similar devices on their soil.  The reason is that the corporation that produces Blackberries was either unable or unwilling to guarantee that Saudi and UAE intelligence agencies would be able to intercept all communications.

And the governments in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were horrified by the prospect that people might be able to communicate on their soil without them being able to intercept and surveill their communication. And in response, they banned Blackberries.

This created huge amounts of condemnation in the western world. Every American newspaper editorialized about how this showed how much these governments were the enemies of freedom, the Obama administration issued a stinging denunciation of both governments, saying that they were engaged in the kinds of oppression that we couldn’t tolerate. And yet, six weeks later, the New York Times reported that, “The Obama administration was preparing legislation to mandate that all services that enable communications” -- and I’m quoting from the New York Times -- “to mandate that all services that enable communication, including in encrypted e-mail transmitters like Blackberry, social networking websites like Facebook, and software that allows direct pure messaging like Skype, be designed to ensure government surveillance,” which is exactly the same principle that everyone can damn United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia for.

The principle being that there can be no human interaction, especially no human communication, not just for international between foreign nations but by America citizens on American soils that is beyond the reach of the U.S. government.

This was the mindset in 2002 when the Bush administration, to dredge up John Poindexter, from wherever it was that he was -- and he was going to start the program that they call the Total Information Awareness Program. The logo which, I actually looked in the last couple of weeks, you should go look at that, you won’t believe how creepy it is, has a pyramid with this huge eye hovering over it. This eye is the “all-seeing eye” and the only problem with the Total Information Awareness Program is that, they just put a name on it that was too honest about what it was.

It freaked everybody out and they had to pretend like they weren’t going to go forward with it but what they did was incrementally, in a very clear way, recreated the Total Information Awareness Program under a whole variety of different legislative initiatives.  And this idea that every single form of technological communication, by law, must be constructed to permit government backdoor interception and surveillance is an expression of what this Surveillance State mindset is: that there can be no such thing as any form of privacy from the U.S. government. That is the mindset that has led the Surveillance State to beam the sprawling, vast, ubiquitous and always expanding instrument that state and corporate power users employ in order to safeguard their power.

One other point worth making about how this works, about how the Surveillance State works and how powers exercise through it -- and this I think is probably the most pernicious part. I refer to this as the one-way mirror. The government’s one-way mirror.

At exactly the same time (this is really, so remarkable to me), at exactly the same time that the government has been massively expanding its ability to know everything that we’re doing it has simultaneously erected a wall of secrecy around it that prevents us from knowing anything that they’re doing. There is this amazing controversy when the documents from WikiLeaks were disclosed, and the American media had to rush to assure everybody simultaneously that this was all a completely meaningless act and a completely horrible act.

So, the two claims that were made was, this horrible, traitorous organization, WikiLeaks, has severely damaged American national security, but at the same time we want you to know, there’s nothing new in anything that they disclosed. There’s nothing worth knowing. That was literally the two claims that was named and nobody ever bothered to reconcile those.

But what was true is that, of the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pages that WikiLeaks disclosed, it’s actually an excess of a million now. The vast, vast bulk of it were very banal content. It was stuff that really wasn’t particularly interesting, that didn’t really reveal very much about anything that was worth knowing. And what was actually so scandalous about that was that very fact, because every single page that WikiLeaks disclosed was stamped “Classified” and they made it a crime to disclose any of it. Even though so much of it was banal and revealed nothing worth knowing. And what that reflected is that the U.S. government reflexively labels everything that it does of any conceivable significance as “classified” and “secret." It keeps everything that it does from us, at the very same time that it knows more and more about what we’re doing. If you think about [...] what a radical reversal [that is] of how things are supposed to work, it’s really startling.

The idea is supposed to be -- and this is just basic political science, basic design of the founding -- that there’s supposed to be transparency for government. We’re supposed to know virtually everything that they do. Individuals are supposed live in a sphere of privacy. Nobody’s supposed to know what we’re doing unless there’s a demonstrated, good reason to invade that wall of privacy.

We completely reversed that, so that the government now operates with complete secrecy, and we have none. The reason this is so disturbing is -- you can just look at the famous aphorism, typically attributed to Francis Bacon that “knowledge is power.” If I’m able to know everything about you, what you do, what you think, what you fear, where you go, what your aspirations are, the bad things that you do, the bad things you think about, and you know nothing about me? I have immense leverage over you in all kinds of ways. I can think about how to control you, I can blackmail you, I can figure out what your weaknesses are, I can manipulate you in all sorts of ways. That is the state of affairs that this Surveillance State, combined with the wall of secrecy, has brought about.

Now if you want to talk a little bit about the mechanisms by which this has been done, and the reasons why it matters so much [...] in relationship to the government and the corporate component of the Surveillance State [...]

When you look at the way in which the war on terror functioned in the first, say five to seven years after it was declared, and the civil liberties abuses that it ushered in particularly and inevitably, you’ll find that all this, without exception (there were few exceptions), they were directed toward foreign nationals -- not American citizens, but foreign nationals -- who were on foreign soil, not on U.S. soil. And the reason is that governments, when they want to give themselves abusive and radical powers, typically first target people who they think their citizens won’t care very much about, because they’ll think they’re not affected by it. And that’s pretty much what happened.

We detained, without charges and without trials, a bunch of Muslims who remain nameless, who were being picked up in places that nobody really knew about or cared much about. We sent drones to assassinate them. All of these powers were directed at foreign “others.”

But what has happened in the last three to four years is a radical change in the war on terror. The war on terror has now been imported into United States policy. It is now directed at American citizens on American soil. So rather than simply sending drones to foreign soil to assassinate foreign nationals, we are now sending drones to target and kill American citizens without charges or trial. Rather than indefinitely detaining foreign nationals like Guantanamo, Congress last year enacted, and President Obama signed, the National Defense Authorization Act that permits the detention -- without trial, indefinitely -- of American citizens on U.S. soil.

Rather than sending drones only over Yemen and Somalia and Pakistan, drones are now being approved at an alarming rate. Not just surveillance drones, but increasingly, possibly, weaponized drones that will fly over American soil, watching everything that we do in ways that say, police helicopters could never possibly accomplish.

Even when President Obama promised to close Guantanamo -- and lots of his defenders say, not accurately, that he was prevented from doing so because Congress blocked the closure -- the plan that he had was not to close Guantanamo and eliminate the system of indefinite detention that made it so controversial. The plan was to take that system of indefinite detention, close Guantanamo because it had become an upsetting symbol, and import it, move it, onto American soil  (video cuts out) ...

So what you see is the gradual importation of all the abuses of the war on terror. Now they are entrenched and not just into foreign nationals but to U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil as well. That’s the mechanism by which this is being done.

If you listen to US officials -- intelligence and defense officials -- talk about terrorism, what they emphasize now is not Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, which they largely acknowledge has been eliminated. Or even Al-Qaeda in Yemen which isn’t really much of a threat to anybody. What they talk about is the threat of a home-grown terrorism.

This is now the grave menace that American terrorism officials will warn, needs to be restrained, and the solution to that has been the gradual transference of all these abuses that we let take root because they weren’t happening to us but were happening to us but were happening to people "over there," and are now being imported into domestic powers.

And the reason that’s being done isn't difficult to see. American policymakers know that the financial unraveling that took place in 2008 that’s even more visible in European states like Spain and Portugal and Greece, has never really been rectified, and it can’t be rectified because there are structural problems. The way in which oligarchs in  the United States monopolize wealth and then use that wealth to control our political processes, ensure that this is not going to change, it’s only going to worsen. Mass unemployment, mass foreclosure, all these income inequality pathologies are here to stay, and the future that America policymakers see is visible if you look at what happened in London for a weak period of time and what happens all the time in Athens, what is happening with increasing frequency in Spain: huge amounts of social unrest. And you see lots of that happening. I think that’s what the Occupy movement, in many ways, is.

And the elites in the United States, both corporate and government, are petrified about that type of unrest, and what people in power always do when they fear unrest, is they start consolidating power in order to constrain it, in order to suppress it.

And this is what the Surveillance State is designed to do.  It’s justified, in the name of terrorism, of course that’s the packaging in which it’s wrapped, that’s been used extremely, and in all sorts of ways, since 9/11 for domestic application. And that’s being, that’s happening even more. It’s happening in terms of the Occupy movement and the infiltration that federal officials were able to accomplish using Patriot Act authorities. It’s happened with pro-Palestinian activists in the United States and all other dissident groups that have themselves [dealt with] with surveillance and law enforcement used by what was originally the war on terror powers.

I just want to close by talking about why I think this matters. The attitude that you typically encounter, and it’s not a very easy mindset to address or to refute, is that, and one that the government has sold continuously and peddled...is that privacy in the aspect I can understand as something to value, but ultimately, if I’m not really doing anything wrong, if I’m not one of the terrorists, if I’m not plotting to bomb a bridge, I don’t really have much reason to care, and people are invading my sphere of privacy and watching and learning what it is that I’m doing.

So I think it’s worth talking about the reasons why that is such an ill-advised way to think. Why it absolutely matters that privacy is being invaded in these systematic ways.  I mean, one obvious answer is that any kind of social movement needs to be able to organize in private, away from the targets of the organization. (applause)

If you look at the revolutionary movements in the Arab world, one of the greatest challenges that they had was that the government sought all sorts of ways to prevent them from communicating with one another, either at all, or in privacy. The fact that the Internet was not nearly as pervasive in those countries actually turned out to be a blessing because it enabled them to organize in more organic ways. But if the government is able to know what we speak about and know who we’re talking to, know what it is that we’re planning, it makes any kind of activism extremely difficult. Because secrecy and privacy are prerequisites to effective actions.

But I think that the more difficult value of privacy, the one that’s harder to think about, the one that’s more important than the one I just described. And that is that, it is in the private realm exclusively, where things like dissent and creativity, and challenges to orthodoxy, reside.

It’s only when you know that you can explore without external judgment, or when you can experiment without eyes being cast upon you, that the opportunity for creating new paths comes and there are all kinds of fascinating studies that  prove this to be the case. There are psychological studies where people have sat down at their dinner tables with their family members and friends talking for a long time in a very informal way. Then suddenly one of them pulls out a tape recorder and puts it on the table and says, “I’m going to tape-record this conversation just for my own interest. I promise I’m not going to tell anybody, I’m not going to show it to anybody, no one’s going to hear it, I’m just going to tape-record it because I like to go over all of the wisdom that you give me.”

And it’s an experiment to psychologically assess what the impact of that is. And invariably, what happens is, people who are now being recorded radically change their behavior. They speak in much more stilted sentences, they try and talk about much more high-minded topics, they are much stiffer in their expression of things because they now feel that they are being monitored. There was a pilot program in Los Angeles six or seven years ago that was in response to a couple of exaggerated news stories about rambunctious school children, elementary school children, on buses that were apparently being bullying and abusing other students.

The solution that they came up with was, they were going to install surveillance cameras in every single public school bus in Los Angeles county, which is the second or third largest county in the United States. The response, when it was ultimately disclosed, was well, this is going to be extraordinarily expensive! How can you have tens of thousands of working surveillance cameras with people monitoring them, recording them, every single day for every school bus in LA county? The answer that they gave was, Oh no, we’re not going to have working cameras in these buses, there may be a few buses that have working cameras, just so nobody knows which buses have those. We’re going to have faux cameras, because we know that if we put cameras up, even though they're not working, that will radically change the behavior of students.

In other words, we are training our young citizens to live in a culture where the expect they are always being watched. And we want them to be chilled, we want them to be deterred, we want them not to ever challenge orthodoxy or to explore limits where engaging creativity in any kind. This type of surveillance, by design, breeds conformism.  That’s its purpose. that’s what makes surveillance so pernicious.

The last point I want to make is this. One of the points about the Surveillance State, one of the things that happens is that, the way in which it affects how people think and behave is typically insidious. It’s something that is very potent and yet it’s very easy to avoid understanding or realizing. Now sometimes people do know about the effects of the Surveillance State and the climate of fear it creates.

I went on a book tour last October and early November and I went to 15 different cities and in each of the cities, I honestly didn’t really care about the book events, I was much more interested in going to the Occupy camps in each city. It was much more enlightening.

One of the things that would happen is -- literally almost the entirety of my book tour was taken up by taking about the Occupy movement.  It’s what everybody was thinking about, they had written many times that it was by far the most significant political development in many years, and I still think that. Everywhere I’d go to talk about the Occupy movement, literally all the time I would get people who would say things like (and I would be on radio shows, and I’d get calls that say this), like, "look, I’m really supportive of the Occupy movements. I want to go down there and be a participant in it, but I’m a woman who has a small baby. Or, I’m a man who has a bad leg, and given all the police abuse that’s taking place there and all the infiltration, I’m just afraid of going and participating in these movements."

That was definitely part of the effect of this infiltration and police abuse had, it created this kind of fear in the way that people knew.

I spend a lot of time with American Muslims and American Muslim communities doing the work that I do and where I go and speak, and one of the things that emboldens me and keeps me very energized and engaged about these issues is if you go and speak to communities of American Muslims is you find an incredibly pervasive climate of fear.

And the reason is that they know that they are always being watched. They know that they have FBI informants who are attempting to infiltrate their communities, they know that there are people next to them, their neighbors, fellow mosque-goers, who have been manipulated by the FBI to be informants. They know that they are being eavesdropped on when they speak on the telephone, they know that they are having their e-mails read when they speak or communicate to anybody. What they will say all the time is that it’s created this extreme suspicion within their own communities, within their own mosques to a point where they’re even afraid to talk to any new people about anything significant because they fear, quite rightly, that this is all being done as part of  a government effort to watch them.

It doesn’t really matter whether it’s true in a particular case or it isn’t true. This climate of fear creates limits around the behavior in which they’re willing to engage in very damaging ways.

But I think what this Surveillance State really does more than making people consciously aware of the limits in those two examples I just described: people not wanting to go to Occupy movements and people in Muslim communities being very guarded is, it makes people believe that they’re free even though they’ve been subtly convinced that there are things that they shouldn’t do that they might want to do.

I always use dog examples. I have 11 dogs. It’s one of the thing, examples that I use. I know you probably think I’m crazy, it’s all rescue dogs, it’s one of the things we do, so I draw a lot of lessons from dogs. One of the most amazing things about dog behavior is, if you don’t want dogs to go into a certain place because it’s dangerous for them, one of the things you can do is put a fence around the area that you want to confine them.

But eventually, you can remove the fence and you don’t need the fence anymore because they will have been trained that the entirety of the world is within the boundaries that you first set for them. So even once you remove the fence, they won’t venture beyond it. They’ve been trained that that’s the only world that they want or are interested in, or known.

There are studies in what was formerly East Germany, which was probably one of the most notorious surveillance states in the last 50 years, where even once their boundaries were removed, once the Stazi no longer existed, once the wall fell... the psychological effects on East German people endure until today. The way in which they have been trained for decades to understand that there are limits to their life, even once you remove the limits, they’ve been trained that those are not things they need to transgress.

And that’s one of the things that constantly surveilling people and constantly communicating to them that they’re powerless against this omnipotent government corporate institution does to people, it convinces people that the tiny little box in which they live is really the only box in which they want to live so they don’t even realize being in prison.

Rosa Luxembourg said, “He who does not move does not notice his chains.”

You can acculturate people to believing that tyranny is freedom, that their limits are actually emancipations and freedom, that is what this Surveillance State does, by training people  to accept their own conformity that they are actually free, that they no longer even realize the ways in which they’re being limited.

So the last point I just want to mention, and we can talk about this in the discussion that follows and it probably will, it’s usually what discussions afterwards entail, is what can be done about all this?

There are just a few quick points I want to make about that.

One is that you can do things that remove yourself from the surveillance matrix. Not completely, but to the best extent that it can. There are people who only engage in transactions using cash, as inconvenient as that is, it at least removes that level of surveillance. There are ways of communicating on the internet using very effective forms of anonymity, which I will talk about in a minute. There are ways of educating yourself about how to engage in interaction and activism beyond the prying eye of the U.S. government.

There are important ways to educate yourself about the rights that you have when interacting with government agents. So much of what the government learns about people is that they let them learn that without having any legal obligation to do so. So much of government searches or government questioning is done under the manipulative pretext of consent, where people thought they had to consent or they don’t have the right to, and give up information about information they didn’t need to give up. And educating yourself about what your rights are by going to the Center for Constitutional Rights Web site or the National Coalition to Protect Civil Freedoms or the ACLU. Lots of places online will tell you how to do that.

Very important means of subverting this one-way mirror that I’ve described is forcible, radical transparency. It’s one of the reasons I support, so enthusiastically and unqualafiably, groups like Anonymous and WikiLeaks. I want holes to be blown in the wall of secrecy.

The way that this ends up operating effectively is only because they’re able to conceal what they do, and that’s why they consider these unauthorized means of transparency so threatening.

The last point I want to make about things that can be done is that there are groups that are pursuing very interesting and effective forms of anonymity on the internet.

There are things like the Tour project and other groups that enable people to use the internet without any detection from government authorities. That has the effect of preventing regimes that actually bar their citizens from using the Internet from doing so since you can no longer trace the origins of the Internet user. But it also protects people who live in countries like ours where the government is trying to constantly monitor what we do by sending our communications through multiple proxies around the world that can’t be invaded. There’s really a war taking place: an arms race where the government and these groups are attempting to stay one tactical step ahead of the other. In terms of ability to shield internet communications from the government and the government’s ability to invade them and participating in this war in ways that are supportive of the “good side” are really critical as is veiling yourself from the technology that exists, to make what you do as tight as possible.

I really don’t think there’s one any more important front, or battle, if there are any, than combating the Surveillance State. So that’s why I’m so interested in the topic, and I’m so happy to be able to speak with you.

Glenn Greenwald is a constitutional law attorney and chief blogger at Unclaimed Territory. His forthcoming book, How Would a Patriot Act: Defending American Values from a President Run Amok will be released by Working Assets Publishing next month.

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+34 # balconesfalk 2012-07-07 10:33
A long read but this is a deep, and deeply disturbing subject. I also see an absurd side to it--as in "Krapp's Last Tape," a play from the theater of the absurd by Samuel Beckett. It is about a guy who audio tapes his whole life, and then doesn't have time to listen.
However, most disturbing is the fact that the Constitution has been turned inside out. It is the people who have no privacy and the government who carefully and viciously guards its secrets--even under penalty of death--think Bradley Manning.
In the comments following this article the words fascism and comparisons to Nazism were used repeatedly--and rightly so. However the reality is far worse. The Nazi's didn't have near the capacity for identifying and detaining people as is possible now in this age of the Internet. Militarily arming police departments, even supplying them with drone planes, is downright scary. Continuing to build domestic prison facilities reeks of potential danger to United States citizen's and our human rights.
Curious that pre 9-11 surveillance existed but was actively ignored, hmm--then all surveillance was beefed up and turned on us, the American public.
 
 
+8 # Doubter 2012-07-08 14:06
We are way past the "point of no return" and deep into the "Brave New World."
In a way I'm glad I'm 86, though I 'fear' I'm still healthy enough to live through the worst of this, which no doubt, is still to come.
 
 
+27 # Vardoz 2012-07-07 10:54
This is only one component of the global corporate take over of our nation that is in the process of destroying everything. All protections, privacy, rights everything is under assault. This is a horrible time in our history. Every right and freedom is now under attack. We are all in trouble. Added to this story is this so this is not an isolated situation. It is an out and out coup and the spy matrix is just one part of the entire agenda. They are waging war on us.
By Lori Wallach

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Under Cover of Darkness, a Corporate Coup Is Underway
The highly secretive pact, dubbed "NAFTA on steroids," is so invasive it would even limit how governments can spend tax dollars.
 
 
+13 # AKPatriot 2012-07-07 11:06
code secret a keep can you if, nuts them drive will it.
 
 
+18 # seeuingoa 2012-07-07 11:14
On 9/11th the terrorists tried to
change our way of living.

Did they win?
 
 
+27 # John Locke 2012-07-07 12:04
The question is not did "they" win but did George Bush win? 9-11 was an inside job, the new pearl harbor to war with the middle east and asia, BUSH KNEW in advance!
 
 
+18 # paulrevere 2012-07-07 18:03
Yep...and the 'advance' had been planned way before bushco took office...one small question to bolster that argument, 'how was the 900 page legally complex Patriot Act put into being within weeks of the towers tragedy?...if there was no long term planning?????
 
 
-1 # gzuckier 2012-07-07 18:42
Quoting John Locke:
The question is not did "they" win but did George Bush win? 9-11 was an inside job, the new pearl harbor to war with the middle east and asia, BUSH KNEW in advance!


Oh please, Bush barely knew afterwards. Any conspiracy theory which involves Bush as a mastermind is deeply flawed.
 
 
+11 # futhark 2012-07-07 20:57
I personally doubt that George W. Bush could "mastermind" anything more complex than tying his shoe laces. He was barely able to manage to cough up that pretzel. Not a "mastermind" but a "go-along". Any masterminding connected with the execution of the 9/11 attacks most likely came straight out of Bush puppet's ventriloquist master's brain, that of Richard Bruce Cheney.

Thank you Glenn Greenwald for continuing to articulately define the real threats to our dignity as a nation and our liberty as citizens: the uncontrolled military--indus trial complex and the surveillance state apparatus.
 
 
0 # John Locke 2012-07-09 16:44
Bush Knew and so did colin Powell a CIA asset named Michael Riconosciuto met with Colon Powell and offered to provide him a list of the 40 hijackers not 20 40, but Powell and Bush had no interest, Michael Riconosciuto was not he only one to try to warn Bush...Bush was well aware of the pending attack, But you don't have to believe it if you don't want to!

I had an inside track to Michael Riconosciuto and have reviewed letters sent to powell!
 
 
+12 # VLR 2012-07-08 08:18
Gosh, can one actually say that 9/11 was an inside job here without getting shouted down?
 
 
+8 # Glen 2012-07-08 11:49
Folks until lately were reluctant to believe anything so radical. Not so much doubt now, even if folks continue to refuse doing the research.
 
 
+12 # Doubter 2012-07-08 14:14
All the research you need is to watch how three of the best built buildings in the world dropped literally "like a stone" and turned into an almost neat pile on the ground.
Among other things, the way this was done shows the utter contempt the perpetrators have for us.
If CIA asset Bin Laden had anything to do with this (except maybe lend his name) I'll eat his shoes!
 
 
+6 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-09 09:44
Quoting VLR:
Gosh, can one actually say that 9/11 was an inside job here without getting shouted down?


That's the purpose of "9/11 conspiracy theories" - they're disinformation meant to poison any real discussion of the Bush administration' s role before and after.

I have a few questions I want answered.

Why did George W Bush just sit there like a bump on a log when they "knew America was under attack"?

Who made the decision that the Secret Service didn't need to get Bush out of there and move him immediately to ensure the safety of the President?

How did they know there was no immediate threat down there in Florida?
 
 
+4 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-09 09:34
Quoting seeuingoa:
On 9/11th the terrorists tried to
change our way of living.

Did they win?


They didn't win, we lost. It's a subtle difference.
 
 
+18 # Mainiac 2012-07-07 11:33
It is not accurate to say that I worked for the agency in its previous incarnation, which was the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA) in the early fifties before got a new moniker and moved to Baltimore.
It was kind of a joke amongst us who worked for AFSA that we were not to tell people where we worked or for whom. It WAS supposed to be secret, but most reporters and journalists knew that we broke codes of messages that were obtained through listening posts from other security forces around the world and gathered intelligence from secret sources. We were not permitted to gather so-called domestic intelligence, but it was done.
Now, the technology is much more sophisticated and draconian. Greenwald is correct in saying how quickly it could become a very nasty piece of a repressive apparatus.
 
 
+5 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-09 09:48
Quoting Mainiac:
Greenwald is correct in saying how quickly it could become a very nasty piece of a repressive apparatus.


Except that Greenwald is not predicting what could happen.

The national security surveillance apparatus has already become an instrument of repression.
 
 
+5 # marjb 2012-07-07 11:40
There is one ray of hope in all this mess, and that is this: The government is collecting so much information that it will quickly become impossible to sort through all of it. With billions upon billions of e-mails, videos and telephone calls collected day after day, month after month, the system of spying will simply collapse under the weight of all this "information." As that happens out anonynimity will be restored, and we will be able to hide our communications in plain sight.
 
 
+1 # Barbara K 2012-07-07 12:23
marjb: I think you are so correct, they have to be getting loaded up pretty good already.
 
 
+2 # Glen 2012-07-07 12:30
Your comments marjb remind me of a science fiction story that I wish I could remember the name of - been too long since reading it.

Surveillance and passwords were necessary even to enter a building. A hand/fingerprin t id was required. The intrusion into privacy then was what has been predicted today.

A grandfather attempted to tell his grandson the truth but was not successful. One morning when all was quiet he took the grandson to a major office building and told him to watch carefully. The grandfather walked straight into the building without inserting his hand into the scanner. Not a thing happened. He turned around, nodded at his grandson and went home. Lesson learned.
 
 
+6 # mdhome 2012-07-07 13:14
I think the overwhelming amount of information was one big factor that brought down East Germany. The amount of e-mails and videos and telephone messages will become unmanageable very quickly, giving me the feeling that most of it will never be used. Whatever happened to the idea of transparency in our government? Looks like the government is being bought by the multibillionair es and we will end up much like the serfs of old.
 
 
+13 # Jerry 2012-07-07 15:00
unfortunately, the capabilities of computers has gotten faster exponentially, and can filter for key words, or phrases to focus on what the operators want to focus on. And if you become of interest, it can focus on all your communication.
 
 
+3 # LML 2012-07-07 16:08
Amen
 
 
+7 # Stephanie Remington 2012-07-07 14:37
In focusing on such a massive amount of "intelligence" that has nothing to do with national security, there's a very good chance that they will miss actual threats, if they haven't already.
 
 
+12 # Glen 2012-07-07 15:17
Or, Stephanie, they will conjure up the threats and recruit the "terrorists", as usual.
 
 
+6 # Michael_K 2012-07-08 11:57
ALL of the recent FBI "successes" against "terrorist plots" were highly inept, almost comical conspiracies entirely manufactured by the FBI.

And while they were busy doing that, I wonder how many truly dangerous episodes we managed to avoid through normal (meaning pre-9/11) checks and balances.
 
 
+6 # paulrevere 2012-07-07 18:06
give a gander to how sophisticated algrithms are...add to that big pay to programmers and software architects and unlimited storage capacity and all the data that will be generated over the next 50 years can be sorted, processed, analysed and acted upon.

That is no exaggeration...
 
 
+1 # gzuckier 2012-07-07 18:44
Quoting marjb:
There is one ray of hope in all this mess, and that is this: The government is collecting so much information that it will quickly become impossible to sort through all of it. With billions upon billions of e-mails, videos and telephone calls collected day after day, month after month, the system of spying will simply collapse under the weight of all this "information." As that happens out anonynimity will be restored, and we will be able to hide our communications in plain sight.


Which is, of course, why the Bushies missed the call regarding 9/11; inability to pull the important needle from the haystack of useless data they collected. It's easy to collect data; it's hard as hell to get anything useful out of it.
 
 
+3 # cakeeater 2012-07-09 10:07
I'd like to believe this is true, but am less than hopeful. True, terrabytes of information are being collected, and it would be an enormous task to sift through all of it at once. But information on all of us is being stored. If you're part of an occupy movement, any organization that the government wants to monitor, or just use terminology in "private" communication that arouses suspicion, all of YOUR individual information is immediately available with a simple search of a database. Information is leverage. The case against you is made before they need to make it. If every form of communication you've participated in over the last decade is available to them, they'll find something to use against you. If telecoms can be exonerated of clearly illegal behavior after the fact with new legislation, how long will the concept of ex-post facto laws endure? If Occupy, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, or whatever group was declared a terrorist organization, I think files would be called up on all members/subscri bers/donors. What if RSN was designated as a hub of terrorist information? Chances are that we all raise the potential for increased scrutiny simply by visiting the site, not to mention subscribing and registering unique usernames when commenting. The enormous facility being built in Utah will accommodate a staggering amount of data, there to use against anyone who steps out of line or has the misfortune of attracting increased scrutiny.
 
 
+3 # NOMINAE 2012-07-11 10:26
@marjb

Certainly hope is our most powerful weapon, but in this case a more complete view is in order. No one is making any attempt to view and analyze each and every recorded email, bank transaction, phone call, etc. in real time, for just the reasons you observe.

The idea is that the data is being kept handy, such that if one day a person *DOES* come across the NSA (or Monsanto, or KOCH) radar, all of the above information will be immediately accessible.

And, the individual in question need not be imprisoned or otherwise publicly pilloried unless that is deemed to have value.

All of a sudden one may received notice from the IRS that there have been many large, recent, and suspicious cash deposits into one's bank account. Said deposits will actually *be* there. Try proving that you have *no* idea how they got there. I think you can see how the rest of the "railroad job" plays out from there. The examples and the possibilities are indeed endless, as Frank Church warned.

What ever we do, we must find new ways to deal with one another. Privately.

Then, this too, shall pass.
 
 
-19 # mginia 2012-07-07 12:26
This could be horrifying news. I'm concerned about the source. Glenn Greenwald describes a logo he finds threatening, without perhaps noticing it's on the back side of every dollar bill: An eye, hanging over a pyramid. Underneath is a motto which translates as"New World Order." I'm still hunting for the translation of "Annuit Coeptis", above the image. If he is ignorant of the symbols on his money, how trustworthy is his knowledge of other things?
 
 
+4 # God Dont Like Ugly 2012-07-07 18:39
Ms. mginia,

Contrary to well-spread but entirely false information, the motto under the eye does not translate to "New World Order".

"'Novus Ordo Seclorum' was adapted in 1782 by Charles Thomson, a Latin teacher, from the Roman writer Virgil's poem Eclogue IV. 'Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo' is more accurately translated to: 'the majestic roll of circling centuries begins anew' or 'the great order of the ages is born afresh'.

The motto signifies 'the beginning of the new American Era,' which commenced from the Declaration of Independence in 1776."

It is ironic that while many use this false information to instill fear, Virgil's poem continues "Thou, trampling out what prints our crimes have left, Shalt free the nations from perpetual fear."

Also, the eye is not the "all-seeing eye", but the eye of Providence, or goodness and plenty.

If you are interesting in researching further, the keywords "symbols on dollar bill" will bring up a host of websites explaining the origins of the symbols as envisioned by the crafters, not those expounded by fear-mongers.
 
 
+10 # cordleycoit 2012-07-07 12:36
Glenn your work is important. We who are monitored know the string is running out. Our ability to publish do the reporting is being diminished daily. Our publishers like, Al Aranowitz (blacklistedjou rnalist.com) are dying off and not being replaced, gate keepers are everywhere keeping writers and artists away from the money while the politicians have a very well paid ride. A sign of decaying systems.
 
 
+14 # reiverpacific 2012-07-07 12:47
The CIA, (Black Budget and all) FBI and certain departments are the "Terrorists" as they like to bandy the expression around so much. COINTELPRO never went away, and has anybody, including these congressional military-corpor ate shills, ever read the "Patriot -Idiot" act? I very much doubt it but Dimwits and his criminal allies rammed it through in the hysteria of the post- "If you're not with us, you're against us", and utterly predictable (By Bin Laden) drumbeat to war era.
Also in the spirit of "All governments lie", Wikileaks has proven THAT beyond any reasonable doubt. I hope that Assange can set up in an Ecuadorian safe base but it won't stop the US revenge apparatus from putting it's considerable weight against Bradley Manning, who should get a medal and compensation for what he has already gone through for TRUE service to his country.
It also proves my assertion that the word "Patriot" can be used as a bludgeon to intimidate and silence dissent, puff up jingoist chests and blur the truth behind lots of flapping flags and military-worshi p. -I've seen it all over the place but never more than here and now.
Sadly, so much badly-needed funds from our taxes are misdirected and I'd like to see the military/survei llance state "Shrunk to a size where it can be drowned in a bathtub" (Norquist) and re-directed to funding life-enhancing and saving, infrastructure and environmental restoration.
And don't forget that WE armed the Mujahadeen a.k.a. Al Queda.
 
 
+12 # Jerry 2012-07-07 13:02
9/11 sure helped the surveillance state out. One would think it let 9/11 happen, if not facilitate 9/11. But that is almost irrelevant now since it is in control and there is no justice under the law.
 
 
+6 # anarchteacher 2012-07-07 15:29
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22071

The top tier of the National Security State murdered JFK 49 years ago and later began the process which eliminated Richard Nixon 40 years ago. Every presidential administration since Harry Truman has lived and operated within their sinister shadow.

http://lewrockwell.com/burris/burris25.1.html

And while they destroyed the careers of Frank Church, Fletcher Prouty, Walter Bowart, and numerous other known (and unknown) critics of the Surveillance State, others such as Glenn Greenwald, Peter Dale Scott, Jim Hougan, Seymour Hersh, Alfred McCoy, and Russ Baker have not been cowed or intimidated into silence.
 
 
+8 # reiverpacific 2012-07-07 18:03
Quoting anarchteacher:
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22071

The top tier of the National Security State murdered JFK 49 years ago and later began the process which eliminated Richard Nixon 40 years ago. Every presidential administration since Harry Truman has lived and operated within their sinister shadow.

http://lewrockwell.com/burris/burris25.1.html

And while they destroyed the careers of Frank Church, Fletcher Prouty, Walter Bowart, and numerous other known (and unknown) critics of the Surveillance State, others such as Glenn Greenwald, Peter Dale Scott, Jim Hougan, Seymour Hersh, Alfred McCoy, and Russ Baker have not been cowed or intimidated into silence.

Agreed absolutely; the shadows of the appalling Dulles bro's are still looming in the names of Koch, Mellon-Scaiafe and so many others, buttressed by as you stated, the "Sinister shadow" of those who would enslave us all.
 
 
+4 # gzuckier 2012-07-07 18:53
Even more powerful; the "sentinel effect". Folks knowing Big Brother is watching them, fearing they may be prey to surveillance should they stray from the straight and narrow and end up rendered to Uzbekistan to be tortured without charges, will avoid anything even faintly reminiscent of dissent, even in their private communications. And so it is stifled before it even begins.

Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed Second Amendment Freedom Fighters will applaud, as they do every incursion on our liberty which does not involve finding funds to pay for healthcare for the uninsured, lulled into complacency by the quaint belief that as long as they have their old hand cannon, tyranny shall never set foot on American soil.
 
 
+5 # sharsand 2012-07-09 06:17
As always, the public, who has been kept in the dark intentionally by the media and sometimes out of laziness because they haven't bothered to read various magazines and the internet sites, will wait until it's too late to wake up. And it's always--"they won't go after me; I haven't done anything wrong."
 
 
+3 # wrodwell 2012-07-09 16:53
Woe is us.......
 
 
+1 # Granny Weatherwax 2012-07-10 08:14
FYI the transcription is erroneous.
The end of the text refers to the "Tour" project - it should read "TOR" which stands for "The Onion Router".
Excellent project.
 
 
0 # NOMINAE 2012-07-11 10:37
@ Granny Weatherwax

Thanks, Granny

The transcription of the entire piece, even though the original was spoken word, was beyond appalling. Hatcheting something so profoundly important was truly despicable.

The only excuse for such bone-crushing ineptitude would be in the case of a transcriptionis t hoping to fool a computer "listening" program ! ;>

Probably fooled an equal amount of readers as well.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN