RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Welcome to Spy Wars Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=5494"><span class="small">Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Wednesday, 16 July 2014 15:30

"Major Vasili Mitrokhin cut a strange figure in his time, and continues to do so, much like the living dead. A long-time Soviet spook in the Middle East, he went on to work as a senior archivist of foreign intelligence at the KGB. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Britain's Secret Intelligence Service - SIS or, more popularly, MI-6, their CIA - 'exfiltrated' him and his family from Russia in 1992."

Former CIA officer Phillip Agee. (photo: unknown)
Former CIA officer Phillip Agee. (photo: unknown)


Welcome to Spy Wars

By Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News

16 July 14

 

ajor Vasili Mitrokhin cut a strange figure in his time, and continues to do so, much like the living dead. A long-time Soviet spook in the Middle East, he went on to work as a senior archivist of foreign intelligence at the KGB. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service – SIS or, more popularly, MI-6, their CIA – “exfiltrated” him and his family from Russia in 1992, along with 6 large containers of handwritten notes he claimed he had copied from the most highly classified secrets of Soviet espionage. Last week, the Brits announced they had declassified the first batch of the now typewritten pages, giving media around the world yet another opportunity to repeat Mitrokhin’s still unproven allegations. As The Guardian reported it, the documents target many people and institutions as Soviet agents, including two much too close for my personal comfort.

“They claim that Philip Agee, the former CIA officer who publicly named a list of US agents, had used material offered to him by the KGB, and that Yuri Andropov, head of the KGB in the 1960s and 1970s, infiltrated Ramparts, the radical US magazine which consistently opposed the Vietnam war and also published Che Guevara’s diaries.”

So that readers will know, I worked as an editor at Ramparts, apparently after the events the documents describe, and I named names and wrote articles with Agee in London. I was his friend, though we never agreed politically, as I wrote at the time. Readers should also know that I don’t give a damn whether Phil worked for, with, or against the Soviets and their Cuban allies. The test for me then and now cuts closer to the bone. Did he tell the truth about the CIA? Or was he, as his die-hard detractors never stop saying, spreading disinformation – in bastardized Russian, disinformatzya?

Even Agee’s harshest critics, many of them former CIA colleagues, have had to admit that his revelations were true. In the case of Mitrokhin and his notes, telling the difference between truth-telling and purposeful disinformation poses a tougher challenge, and I will restrict my efforts for now to what they say about Agee. Since the notes are publicly available only at Cambridge University in England and since my graduate-school Russian has faded away, I turned to a more convenient source that journalists since 1999 have foolishly taken at face value. This is a book called “The Mitrokhin Archive,” which became a best-seller in the US under the title “The Sword and the Shield.” The Cambridge historian Christopher Andrew, who wrote it, went on to produce three subsequent volumes (here, here, and here).

For most of the mass media, these books have become “The Mitrokhin Archives,” which the Brits have brilliantly sold as a stand-in for the KGB’s own archives. As Home Secretary Jack Straw told the House of Commons when the first volume appeared in 1999, “Mitrokhin brought out no KGB documents,” nor any evidence that could be presented to a court of law. He brought only his notes, which the British were not yet willing to make public. So, to spread the word as the government wanted it spread, Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind in 1996 authorized Britain’s Intelligence and Security services – SIS (MI-6) and MI-5, their FBI – to pick Professor Andrew to write the books, giving him privileged access to the highly classified material.

No one can deny that Andrew had a cozy relationship with the British Intelligence and Security services, and Mitrokhin was only part of it. The professor had earlier written “KGB: The Inside Story,” on which he collaborated with Soviet defector Oleg Godievsky. And he later wrote the authorized history of MI-5, taking “the Queen’s shilling” and becoming, as his critics contended, even more of “a Court historian.”

His writing shows how he sacrificed his scholarly responsibility to those in government who made his work and so much of his career possible. As a historian, he acknowledged the obvious – that the authors of the original documents Mitrokhin claimed to have copied were KGB officers anxious to exaggerate their influence to impress their superiors and political bosses. So, at best, we would have only their word for how much they actually controlled the people to whom the KGB gave code names and whom it considered its agents and assets.

But as a purveyor of official truth, Chris Andrew failed to dig into the material he was given. Did Mitrokhin doctor his notes to please his new employers? Or did SIS and MI-5 doctor them to promote their own disinformatzya? The professor never raised or answered such obvious questions. He also failed to look at available evidence, misrepresented it, and made assertions that are provably wrong.

“The KGB’s most valuable asset in its active measures to discredit the Agency,” he wrote, “was an embittered former CIA operations officer in Latin America, Philip Agee (codenamed Pont), who had been forced to resign after complaints at his heavy drinking, poor financial management and attempts to proposition wives of American diplomats.”

Andrew footnoted the personal innuendo as coming from John Barron’s “KGB Today,” which simply repeated the CIA’s standard line of attack on Agee when he published his best-selling “Inside the Company: CIA Diary.” Andrew offered no independent evidence, not even from the KGB. Phil consistently denied the story, and his behavior when I knew him makes me doubt what Barron and Andrew wrote.


Former KGB officer Vasili Mitrokhin. (photo: Guardian UK/PA)

Andrew also repeated a story from Oleg Kalugin, a high-ranking KGB official who moved to the United States in the 1990s and wrote a book called “Spymaster.” As Andrew quoted Kalugin, Agee had approached the KGB residency in Mexico City and offered them “reams of information” about CIA operations. Suspecting he was part of a CIA plot, the Soviet spies turned him away. “Agee then went to the Cubans, who welcomed him with open arms,” wrote Kalugin. “The Cubans shared Agee’s information with us. But as I sat in my office in Moscow reading reports about the growing list of revelations coming from Agee, I cursed our officers for turning away such a prize.”

Kalugin’s tale flatly contradicts the picture Andrew tried to paint of Agee as a major KGB asset. Mitrokhin’s notes, as Andrew presented them, similarly described Agee as an agent of the Cuban Dirección de Inteligencia (DGI), not of the KGB. Andrew admitted this, but only in a footnote. Neither Kalugin nor Andrew offered any supporting evidence for either version, which is par for the course.

Mitrokhin’s notes also diminish the importance of Phil’s Russian contact, Edgar Cheporov, the London correspondent of Moscow’s Novosti press agency and the Literaturnaya Gazeta. According to Mitrokhin, Cheporov was not a regular KGB officer. The KGB had merely co-opted him to keep tabs on Phil while he was writing his book. Andrew adds in a footnote that the London residency became dissatisfied with Cheporov, claiming that he “used his cooperation with the KGB for his own benefit,” and “expressed improper criticism of the system in the USSR.”

This fits perfectly with the Edgar Cheporov with whom my wife Anna and I regularly visited London jazz clubs, always splitting the check. We loved his company, in part because he was no hero of the Soviet Union. The first time he and his wife Inge invited us to dinner, he tried his best to get me drunk, and then invited me to take a free trip to wherever in his country I wanted to go. I suppose that was part of his job. When I turned him down, Edgar launched into a spirited defense of Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Another time, while the musicians were taking a break, Anna asked about the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia. Edgar’s eyes lit up. “Oh no,” he said, “we do not call it an invasion. As Comrade Leonid [Brezhnev] said, ‘Friendship knows no frontiers.’”

“But Edgar,” Anna protested. “What do YOU call it?”

“Oh,” he said, “I call it the invasion of Czechoslovakia.”

Delightful as he was, Edgar Cheporov was not the man the KGB would have put in charge of anything close to a major operation.

According to Mitrokhin’s notes, the KGB files took credit for Phil’s book, claiming that it was “prepared by Service A, together with the Cubans.” Service A was the KGB’s active measures branch, responsible for covert action and disinformatzya. Andrews, still part historian, acknowledged that the Soviet spooks had doubtlessly exaggerated their self-congratulatory claim. He also admitted in a footnote that Mitrokhin’s notes “do not indicate exactly what the KGB and its Cuban ally, the DGI, contributed to Agee’s text.”

But Andrew, an agent of the British state, quickly countered that Agee himself had acknowledged that “Representatives of the Communist Party of Cuba (the DGI] … gave important encouragement at a time when I doubted that I would be able to find the additional information I needed.” If I remember correctly, Phil was talking about how discouraged he had become about finding library resources to fill out his diary entries.

Mitrokhin’s notes identify one piece of information that Phil used which the KGB might well have provided. This was a copy of 69 “Key Intelligence Questions” that the CIA wanted US diplomats and intelligence people to investigate in the mid-1970s. Phil had given me a copy of these KIQs, which he said had shown up in the mail with a letter from an anonymous source. The American Embassy subsequently accused me of circulating a forgery, but inquiries from The Sunday Times forced the embassy to admit the document’s authenticity. Neither Andrew nor the Mitrokhin notes suggest that Phil knew who had sent him the KIQs.

In a much more damning indictment, Andrew cited Mitrokhin’s notes to accuse Phil of shaping his book to the KGB’s demands. “At Service A’s insistence, Agee removed all references to the CIA penetration of Latin American Communist parties from his typescript before publication.” Most of us who worked with Agee would have taken such a move as completely out of order. But, as Andrew could have read for himself, Phil’s “CIA Diary” clearly described how he and his CIA colleagues had their people working in the Communist parties.

Starting with the premise that the KGB ran Agee, Andrew assumed that Agee ran the effort by journalists in London to expose CIA officers. Phil inspired us, no doubt. But as Andrew completely failed to mention, we learned how to identify CIA agents from an article by former State Department official John Marks in the Washington Monthly called “How to Spot a Spook.” I’ve written about this extensively. (For example, see here and here.) Leads that helped us expose covert operations came from censored passages in “The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence,” which Marks wrote with former CIA official Victor Marchetti.

Chris Andrews never wanted to know any of this. What he wrote about Agee was disinformation, whether by his own choice or because that was the job SIS and MI-5 gave him to do. The rest of his “Mitrokhin Archive” appears no more scholarly, but the professor and his masters pulled off a superb bit of skullduggery in getting the world to accept their work as an authoritative replica of the KGB archives.



A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly Ramparts, Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, "Big Money and the Corporate State: How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold."

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Why Democrats Can't Be the Party of Business Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=10204"><span class="small">Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine</span></a>   
Wednesday, 16 July 2014 13:42

Chait writes: "The business lobby's very public exasperation with House Republicans has given Democrats in Congress an idea: They can lure the business lobby to switch sides."

US Chamber of Commerce headquarters. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)
US Chamber of Commerce headquarters. (photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)


Why Democrats Can't Be the Party of Business

By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine

16 July 14

 

he business lobby’s very public exasperation with House Republicans has given Democrats in Congress an idea: They can lure the business lobby to switch sides. The basic underlying calculation makes a certain degree of sense. The most recent controversies in Congress have all entailed Republicans defying corporate America’s preferences — by killing immigration reform, threatening the Export-Import Bank, and blocking any long-term solution to highway funding. “It is a trifecta reminder of how the tea party has taken over the Republican Congress,” says Democrat Steve Israel, who, reports The Wall Street Journal, has “stepped up his courtship of business donors.” Likewise, Senator Charles Schumer pleads, “From the Export-Import bank to tax extenders to immigration reform, Democrats and business are on the same side on a range of issues. The Tea Party has dragged the Republican Party so far to the right that business is now closer to mainstream Democrats than Republicans.” But the Democratic courtship of the business lobby has not worked, and it isn’t going to.

It is certainly true that the business lobby has some bitter recriminations against the GOP. The House Republican takeover in the 2010 election, to which the business lobby lent its overwhelming support, went off the rails almost immediately. In their mania for confrontation, Republicans kept shooting at President Obama and hitting the economy where their business allies live. They have repeatedly ratted markets by threatening default, and then, as the price of avoiding full calamity, received budget sequestration cuts that have cost around a million jobs. The costly government shutdown likewise impaired the federal government’s basic functioning.

The most frequent talking point used by businesses to denounce Obama’s agenda — that it was introducing “uncertainty” — turned out to be a demonstrably false description of Obama’s agenda but a plausibly true description of the House Republican one. The erratic pattern of angry backbench rebellion, failed votes, and John Boehner giving up in tears has turned even the normal, status quo gridlock business thought that it would get into an unattainable aspiration.

Yet several things stand between the Democrats and the dream of prying business, and its hundreds of billions of dollars in contributions. One is the inertia of established loyalties. During their 12-year reign from 1995 through 2007, House Republicans carried out what they called the “K Street Project” to cleanse the ranks of the business lobby of former Democrats and fill the slots with GOP loyalists. The mostly Republican loyalists who direct K Street’s political orientation are not eager to sever ties with the Party that nurtured them.

Another barrier is the daunting scale of the task. Flipping business support might help Democrats in the Senate hold on to a few vulnerable seats. But the prospect of making Mitch McConnell the Majority Leader does not exactly strike fear into K Street. Senate Republicans, for the most part, are not their problem. The House Republicans are the problem. And the House map lends Republicans such entrenched control that flipping it is a near-hopeless proposition. Why would business throw itself behind a long-shot campaign to turn the House blue, when the overwhelmingly likely result of such an effort would be to anger the tea party without deposing it? It would be like shooting the king as he speeds past you in his armor-plated limousine.

And even if it could flip the House, the main trouble is that the business lobby wouldn’t want to. This is the main obstacle missing in all the talk about friction between Chamber of Commerce Republicans and tea party Republicans: They’re all Republicans. Just stroll through the U.S. Chamber’s website. They hate Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank law, power-plant regulations, the minimum wage, unions — pretty much the entire Democratic agenda.

Now, as it currently stands, the Democratic agenda (except EPA regulations) is presently dead. So the current context has instead created a series of “should Republicans blow stuff up because they hate Obama” issues where the Chamber is indeed aligned with the Democrats. But if the House flipped, then there would be a new context where Democrats could suddenly pass Democratic bills again. And that would be worse for the business lobby than the status quo.

If you had a Republican president to veto these bills, then the business lobby wouldn’t fear a Democratic House. But if you had a Republican president, House Republicans would be passing Republican laws instead of blowing things up. So, either way, flipping the House fails to solve business’s troubles.

Here are the four possible arrangements of government control, ranked from top to bottom, from the standpoint of the business lobby:

1. All-Republican government. Business can enjoy a flurry of laws cutting taxes for owners of capital and eliminating regulations to protect labor and the environment.

2. Republican president, Democratic Congress. Benign gridlock with no sabotage — the Democratic Congress was not willing to block a stimulus in 2008 even though the resulting economic damage would have helped them.

3. Democratic president, Republican Congress. Malign gridlock with regular crises and mayhem.

4. Democratic president, Democratic Congress. Passage of legislation business mostly or entirely opposes.

If the business lobby could flip the House from red to blue while also flipping the White House from blue to red, it would do that in a heartbeat. But that option isn’t on the table. The choice is whether to help Democrats gain power in Congress. Business has lots to lose from doing that, and little to gain.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Church Founded in Sixth Century Has More Modern Views on Women Than Scalia Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Tuesday, 15 July 2014 15:15

Borowitz writes: "The Church of England, an institution whose origins date back to the sixth century A.D., has far more modern views about the rights of women than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, experts said today."

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. (photo: unknown)
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia. (photo: unknown)


Church Founded in Sixth Century Has More Modern Views on Women Than Scalia

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

15 July 14

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."

he Church of England, an institution whose origins date back to the sixth century A.D., has far more modern views about the rights of women than Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, experts said today.

“In recognizing that women are the equals of men, the Church of England has embraced a position that is centuries ahead of Scalia’s,” Davis Logsdon, a professor of religion at the University of Minnesota, said. “This is a remarkable achievement, given that Scalia was born in 1936 and the Church began in the late five hundreds.”

But Dr. Carol Foyler, a history professor at the University of Sussex, took issue with that assessment. “I date the beginning of the Church of England to 1534, when it was officially established under Henry VIII,” she said. “But regardless of whether the Church is fourteen centuries old or five centuries old, it’s unquestionably more modern than Scalia.”

As for Justice Scalia, he seemed to dismiss the controversy, issuing a terse official statement Monday afternoon. “I do not keep up with the goings on of every newfangled institution,” he said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Border Wars in the Homeland Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=26693"><span class="small">Todd Miller, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Tuesday, 15 July 2014 15:06

Miller writes: "Shena Gutierrez was already cuffed and in an inspection room in Nogales, Arizona, when the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent grabbed her purse, opened it, and dumped its contents onto the floor right in front of her. There couldn't be a sharper image of the Bill of Rights rollback we are experiencing in the U.S. borderlands in the post-9/11 era."

Shena Gutierrez, 28, shows photos of her husband, Jose Gutierrez, who received electric shocks, was beaten and fell into coma in March, 2011. (photo: San Diego Red)
Shena Gutierrez, 28, shows photos of her husband, Jose Gutierrez, who received electric shocks, was beaten and fell into coma in March, 2011. (photo: San Diego Red)


Border Wars in the Homeland

By Todd Miller, TomDispatch

15 July 14

 

hena Gutierrez was already cuffed and in an inspection room in Nogales, Arizona, when the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent grabbed her purse, opened it, and dumped its contents onto the floor right in front of her. There couldn’t be a sharper image of the Bill of Rights rollback we are experiencing in the U.S. borderlands in the post-9/11 era.

Tumbling out of that purse came Gutierrez’s life: photos of her kids, business cards, credit cards, and other papers, all now open to the official scrutiny of the Department of Homeland Security. There were also photographs of her husband, Jose Gutierrez Guzman, whom CBP agents beat so badly in 2011 that he suffered permanent brain damage. The supervisory agent, whose name badge on his blue uniform read “Gomez,” now began to trample on her life, quite literally, with his black boots.

“Please stop stepping on the pictures,” Shena asked him.

A U.S. citizen, unlike her husband, she had been returning from a 48-hour vigil against Border Patrol violence in Mexico and was wearing a shirt that said “Stop Border Patrol Brutality” when she was aggressively questioned and cuffed at the CBP’s “port of entry” in Nogales on that hot day in May. She had no doubt that Gomez was stepping all over the contents of her purse in response to her shirt, the evidence of her activism.

Perhaps what bothered Gomez was the photo silkscreened onto that shirt -- of her husband during his hospitalization. It showed the aftermath of a beating he received from CBP agents. His head had a partially caved-in look because doctors had removed part of his skull. Over his chest and arms were bruises from Tasering. One tooth was out of place, and he had two black eyes. Although you couldn’t see them in the photo, two heavily armed Homeland Security agents were then guarding his hospital door to prevent the father of two, formerly a sound technician and the lead singer of a popular band in Los Angeles, from escaping -- even in his comatose state.

Jose Gutierrez Guzman's has become an ever more common story in an American age of mass expulsions. Although he had grown up in the United States (without papers), he was born in Mexico. After receiving a letter requesting his appearance, he went to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Los Angeles and was promptly arrested and deported. Customs and Border Protection agents later caught him crossing the border in San Luis, Arizona, near Yuma, in an attempt to reunite with his wife and children.

“Stop... stepping... on... the... pictures,” Shena insisted.

As she tells the story, Agent Gomez looked at her shirt for a second, then looked up at her and said, “You have that mentality about us. You think we go around abusing.” His tone remained faux-friendly, but his boots didn’t -- and neither did those cuffs another CBP agent had put on her. Forcing her hands behind her back, they cut uncomfortably into her wrists. They would leave deep red circular marks.

On display was a post-9/11 world in which the usual rights meant to protect Americans from unreasonable search and seizure and unwanted, as well as unwarranted, interrogation were up for grabs.

While such constitutionally questionable intrusions into people’s privacy have been increasing at border crossings in the post-9/11 years, this type of hardline border policing has also moved inland. In other words, the sort of intrusions that once would have qualified as unconstitutional have moved in startling numbers into the interior of the country.

Imagine the once thin borderline of the American past as an ever-thickening band, now extending 100 miles inland around the United States -- along the 2,000-mile southern border, the 4,000-mile northern border, and both coasts -- and you will be able to visualize how vast the CBP’s jurisdiction has become. This “border” region now covers places where two-thirds of the U.S. population (197.4 million people) live. The ACLU has come to call it a “constitution-free zone.” The “border” has by now devoured the full states of Maine and Florida and much of Michigan.

In these vast domains, Homeland Security authorities can institute roving patrols with broad, extra-constitutional powers backed by national security, immigration enforcement, and drug interdiction mandates. There, the Border Patrol can set up traffic checkpoints and fly surveillance drones overhead with high-powered cameras and radar that can track your movements. Within 25 miles of the international boundary, CBP agents can enter a person’s private property without a warrant. In these areas, the Homeland Security state is anything but abstract. On any given day, it can stand between you and the grocery store.

“Border Patrol checkpoints and roving patrols are the physical world equivalent of the National Security Agency,” says attorney James Lyall of ACLU Arizona puts it. “They involve a massive dragnet and stopping and monitoring of innocent Americans without any suspicion of wrongdoing by increasingly abusive and unaccountable federal government agents.”

Before she was so unceremoniously stopped and held, Shena Gutierrez shared the story of her husband at that 48-hour vigil. It was another story of the kind of pervasive abuse reported by people in the 100-mile zone. There were no cameras that night to record how 11 agents “subdued” Jose Gutierrez Guzman, as the CBP put it in its official report on the incident. Its claim: that Jose “struck his head on the ground,” a way perhaps of accounting for the hospital’s eventual diagnosis of “blunt force trauma.”

Considering the extent of Jose’s injuries, that CBP report is questionable indeed. Many Border Patrol agents now use the term “tonk” -- the sound a flashlight supposedly makes when it bangs against someone’s head -- as their way of describing border-crossers. Jose was also repeatedly “shot” with an “electronic control device,” aka a Taser. He was so badly beaten that, more than three years later, he still suffers seizures.

“Stop stepping on my pictures!” Gutierrez insisted again. But much like the CBP’s official complaint process, the words were ignored. The only thing Gomez eventually spat out was, “Are you going to get difficult?”

When Shena Gutierrez offered me a play-by-play account of her long day, including her five-hour detainment at the border, her voice ran a gamut of emotions from desperation to defiance. Perhaps these are the signature emotions of what State Department whistleblower Peter Van Buren has dubbed the “Post-Constitutional Era.” We now live in a time when, as he writes, “the government might as well have taken scissors to the original copy of the Constitution stored in the National Archives, then crumpled up the Fourth Amendment and tossed it in the garbage can.” The prototype for this new era, with all the potential for abuse it gives the authorities, can be found in that 100-mile zone.

A Standing Army

The zone first came into existence thanks to a series of laws passed by Congress in the 1940s and 1950s at a time when the Border Patrol was just an afterthought with a miniscule budget and only 1,100 agents. Today, Customs and Border Protection has more than 60,000 employees and is by far the largest federal law enforcement agency in the country. According to author and constitutional attorney John Whitehead, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), created in 2002, is efficiently and ruthlessly building “a standing army on American soil.”

Long ago, President James Madison warned that “a standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty.” With its 240,000 employees and $61 billion budget, the DHS, Whitehead points out, is militarizing police units, stockpiling ammunition, spying on activists, and building detention centers, among many other things. CBP is the uniformed and most visible component of this “standing army.” It practically has its own air force and navy, an Office of Air and Marine equipped with 280 sea vessels, 250 aircraft, and 1,200 agents.

On the border, never before have there been so many miles of walls and barriers, or such an array of sophisticated cameras capable of operating at night as well as in the daylight. Motion sensors, radar systems, and cameras mounted on towers, as well as those drones, all feed their information into operational control rooms throughout the borderlands. There, agents can surveil activity over large stretches of territory on sophisticated (and expensive) video walls. This expanding border enforcement regime is now moving into the 100-mile zone.

Such technological capability also involves the warehousing of staggering amounts of personal information in the digital databases that have ushered in the Post-Constitutional Era. “What does all this mean in terms of the Fourth Amendment?” Van Buren asks. “It’s simple: the technological and human factors that constrained the gathering and processing of data in the past are fast disappearing.”

The border, in the post 9/11 years, has also become a place where military manufacturers, eyeing a market in an “unprecedented boom period,” are repurposing their wartime technologies for the Homeland Security mission. This “bring the battlefield to the border” posture has created an unprecedented enforcement, incarceration, and expulsion machine aimed at the foreign-born (or often simply foreign-looking). The sweep is reminiscent of the operation that forced Japanese (a majority of them citizens) into internment camps during World War II, but on a scale never before seen in this country. With it, unsurprisingly, has come a wave of complaints about physical and verbal abuse by Homeland Security agents, as well as tales of inadequate food and medical attention to undocumented immigrants in short-term detention.

The result is a permanent, low-intensity state of exception that makes the expanding borderlands a ripe place to experiment with tearing apart the Constitution, a place where not just undocumented border-crossers, but millions of borderland residents have become the targets of continual surveillance. If you don’t see the Border Patrol’s ever-expanding forces in places like New York City (although CBP agents are certainly present at its airports and seaports), you can see them pulling people over these days in plenty of other spots in that Constitution-free zone where they hadn’t previously had a presence.

They are, for instance, in cities like Rochester, New York, and Erie, Pennsylvania, as well as in Washington State, Vermont, Florida, and at all international airports. Homeland Security officials are scrutinizing people’s belongings, including their electronic devices, from sea to shining sea. Just ask Pascal Abidor, an Islamic studies doctoral student whose computer was turned on by CBP agents in Champlain, New York.

When an agent saw that he had a picture of a Hezbollah rally, she asked Abidor, a U.S. citizen, “What is this stuff?” His answer -- that he was studying the modern history of the Shiites -- meant nothing to her and his computer was seized for 10 days. Between 2008 and 2010, the CBP searched the electronic devices of more than 6,500 people. Like many of us, Abidor keeps everything, even his most private and intimate conversations with his girlfriend, on his computer. Now, it’s private no longer.

Despite all this, the message politicians and the media generally offer is that the country needs more agents, new techno-gadgets, and even more walls for our “safety.” In that context, President Obama on July 7th asked Congress for an additional $3.7 billion for “border security.”

Since last October, in what officials have called a “humanitarian crisis,” 52,000 unaccompanied children, mostly from Central America, have been apprehended by Border Patrol agents. News about and photos of some of those children, including toddlers, parentless and incarcerated in warehouses in the Southwest, have led to a flood of articles, many claiming that border security is “strained.” A Border Patrol Union representative typically claimed that the border is “more porous than it’s ever been.” While such claims are ludicrous, all signs point to more money being packed aboard what Whitehead has called a “runaway train.”

Make no bones about it, every dollar spent this way works not just to keep others out of this country, but to lock American citizens into a border zone that may soon encompass the whole country. It also fortifies our new domestic “standing military force” and its rollback of the Bill of Rights.

Resistance Inside the 100-Mile Zone

The first thing Cynthia (a pseudonym) asks the supervisory agent with the green Border Patrol hat and wrap-around sunglasses who stops her car is: “Can I have your name and agent number please?” She’s been halted at a checkpoint approximately 25 miles north of the U.S.-Mexican border on a road running east-west-running near the small town of Arivaca, Arizona, where she lives.

The agent pauses. He looks like he’s swallowed a hornet before he barks, “We ask the questions here first, okay? Do you have some ID on you?”

This starts a tense exchange between the two of them that she videotaped in its entirety. She is only one of many challenging the omnipresence and activities of the Border Patrol in the heart of the 100-mile zone. Like many locals in Arivaca, she is sick of the checkpoint, which has been there for seven years. She and her neighbors were fed up with the obligatory stop between their small town and the dentist or the nearest bookstore. They were tired of Homeland Security agents scrutinizing their children on their way to school. So they began to organize.

In late 2013, they demanded that the federal government remove the checkpoint. It was, they wrote in a petition, an ugly artifact of border militarization; it had, they added, a negative economic impact on residents and infringed on people’s constitutional rights. At the beginning of 2014, small groups from People Helping People in the Border Zone -- the name of their organization -- started monitoring the checkpoint several days a week.

This Arivaca Border Patrol road barricade, one of at least 71 in the southwest, functions as a de facto enforcement zone away from the border. In Border Patrolese, it’s “an additional layer in our Defense in Depth strategy.” This particular checkpoint isn’t exactly impressive -- just a portable trailer with an attached tarp for shade, but it still qualifies, according to one of the Patrol’s informational brochures, as “a critical enforcement tool for securing the nation’s borders against all threats to our homeland.”

The agents manning it stop every car on the road, do a quick visual check of its interior, and ask the driver and passengers their citizenship. There are also dogs available to sniff each car for traces of drugs or explosives. “Our enforcement presence along these strategic routes reduces the ability of criminals and potential terrorists to easily travel away from the border,” the brochure explains.

The Homeland Security surveillance gaze in the Southwest is, in fact, so pervasive that it has even nabbed singer Willy Nelson in Texas for marijuana possession. It detained 96-year-old former Arizona governor Raul Castro and made him stand in 100-degree heat for more than 30 minutes because a dog detected the radiation from his pacemaker. In the past three years in the Tucson sector, the Patrol has made more than 6,000 arrests and confiscated 135,000 pounds of narcotics at checkpoints.

But this is no longer just a matter of inland areas near the Mexican Border. A Border Patrol agent forced Vermont’s senior senator Patrick Leahy from his car at a checkpoint 125 miles south of the New York State border. The ACLU of Vermont unearthed a prototype plan for CBP to operate checkpoints to stop southbound traffic on all five highways through that New England border state.

On Sunday afternoons in Sodus, New York, about 30 miles east of Rochester, green-striped Border Patrol vehicles can sometimes be found parked in front of a laundromat which farmworkers (many undocumented) use. In Erie, Pennsylvania, agents wait at the Greyhound bus terminal or the Amtrak station to question people arriving in town. These are all places where the Border Patrol was all but unknown before 2005. In Detroit, simply being at a bus stop at four in the morning en route to work or fishing in the Detroit River is now “probable cause” for an agent to question you.

Or perhaps it is simply the color of your skin. Arrest records from both bus terminals and railway stations in Rochester, New York, show that of the 2,776 arrests agents made between 2005 and 2009, 71.2% were of “medium” complexion (likely of Latino or Arab background) and 12.9% “black.” Only 0.9% of those arrested were of “fair” complexion.

Back in Arivaca, the agent with the wraparound sunglasses tells Cynthia that she needs to get out of her car. Much like Senator Leahy, she responds that she doesn’t “understand why.”

“You don’t have to understand,” he says. “It’s for my safety. And yours. Do you understand that?”

Then his tone gains an angry edge. He clearly doesn’t like having his authority challenged. “We don’t have time for this. We have criminals here, okay? If you have a political or an emotional situation here” -- he makes an emphatic chopping motion with his hand -- “I don’t want to hear about it. I want to see your ID.” He pauses. “Now!”

The adrenaline is obviously pumping and he is about to edge up on the limits of what an agent can do, even with extra-constitutional powers. He thrusts his hand through the open window and into the car and unlocks it. With a yank, he pulls the door open from the inside. When Cynthia is out of the car, he asks, his voice rising, “What do you think we’re looking for here?”

“I don’t know,” Cynthia responds.

“That’s where I’m gonna educate you a little bit. Okay?”

“Okay,” she says.

“What happens through this checkpoint is that we catch smugglers of aliens, smugglers of drugs, child molesters, murderers, and everything else. Okay? Does that make sense?”

This rural area of Arizona, he insists as they stand under a vast cloudless blue sky, is infested with bandits, criminals, and drug dealers. “We have methamphetamine being made and manufactured,” the agent explains. “Do you think methamphetamine is a good thing?”

“Personally, no,” she says.

“Personally, I don’t think so either. I think they’re poisoning our world, okay? So when we ask you just to do something simple, like uncover something, do it! It’s a relief for us that it’s not something dangerous or something else.” By now, the agent is making the full-blown case for Homeland Security’s rollback of the Bill of Rights: the world’s a dangerous place, too dangerous for us not to have a free hand searching wherever we want whenever we want -- and it’s your job to understand that new twenty-first-century American reality. He ends with a final dig at her for her initial resistance: “You’re destroying your rights, because what happens is, is that the criminals take your rights away, okay? Not us. We’re here to protect you.”

According to the ACLU’s Lyall, the fact is that the abuses of Customs and Border Protection in that Constitution-free zone are “massively underreported” and “far more prevalent than anyone has been able to document.” Many people, according to him, are simply afraid to come forward; others don’t know their rights.

In Shena Gutierrez’s case, she returned to the same Nogales “port of entry” with two other activists to lodge a complaint about the purse incident. When she refused to leave federal property (for which she now faces charges), the CBP arrested and detained her for hours. This time they did what she described as “an invasive body search.”

“I told them that I had not given my consent to be touched.” They nonetheless made her take off her wedding ring “for safety.” When she resisted, they said that they “would force it off her.” Again, the handcuffs cut into her wrists. This time, an agent kicked her in the ankle from behind. A female agent searched her thoroughly, from head to toe and in her private parts, because she “might have drugs or contraband or documents.”

As the agent groped her, she told me, she began to think yet again about what her husband had gone through. If this can happen to a U.S. citizen, she told me, “Imagine what happens to a person without documents.”

Imagine what can happen to anyone in a realm where, increasingly, anything goes, including the Constitution.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | How Kansas and California Debunked the GOP's Tax Cuts Argument Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=7118"><span class="small">Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Tuesday, 15 July 2014 13:00

Gibson writes: "Imagine making a bet with a hardline trickle-down believer like Paul Ryan on a state's projected economic growth. You would bet that one state that raised taxes on its richest residents would have unprecedented new job creation and a vastly improved economy, while Paul Ryan would bet that a state which cut taxes for the wealthy would have the better economy."

Kansas governor Sam Brownback. (photo: AP)
Kansas governor Sam Brownback. (photo: AP)


How Kansas and California Debunked the GOP's Tax Cuts Argument

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

15 July 14

 

magine making a bet with a hardline trickle-down believer like Paul Ryan on a state’s projected economic growth. You would bet that one state that raised taxes on its richest residents would have unprecedented new job creation and a vastly improved economy, while Paul Ryan would bet that a state which cut taxes for the wealthy would have the better economy. If this bet actually took place, you would walk away the winner. And the trickle-down believers of America would be speechless.

Kansas’ Sinking Economy

In 2010, newly-minted Kansas governor Sam Brownback, elected on promises of restoring the state’s down economy, made that bet, and proceeded to ram through massive tax cuts for the wealthy, at a cost of $800 million, or 8 percent of the revenue used to fund schools, a hit most commonly seen in a fairly severe recession. The tax cuts reduced the state’s income tax rate from 6.45 percent to 4.9 percent, scheduled to hit 3.9 percent by 2018. The end goal of Brownback's plan was to reduce the state’s income tax rate to zero, earning him an A from the Cato Institute, a Koch-funded, libertarian think tank.

Governor Brownback and the GOP-led legislature also reduced sales taxes from 6.3 percent to 6.15 percent, where it would stay through 2018. This means sales taxes would be higher than income taxes, disproportionately hurting Kansas’ poor, who are already struggling to buy food and medicine and pay the rent. Brownback paid for the cuts by eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction, which is a tax break that middle-class homeowners depend upon.

Several years after those tax cuts were passed, Kansas’ economy is in the shitter. Kansas’ job growth has failed to keep up the pace with the national average. Moody's cut the state’s bond rating for the first time in over a decade, citing a lack of confidence in Kansas' fiscal leadership. Revenue projections are down $700 million from the year before, meaning public services like schools have to be cut as a result. In just fiscal year 2014 alone, the state fell short of estimated revenue projections by $338 million. Kansas’ non-partisan Legislative Research Department estimates Brownback’s tax cuts will cost the state $5 billion in lost revenue by 2019. To put that in perspective, Kansas currently has an $8 billion state budget.

Because public services are being cut, fewer people in the public sector are collecting a paycheck. And because more unemployed workers means less money spent in Kansas’ economy, things are expected to worsen under the current tax structure. As schools suffer from a lack of funds, Kansas’ public school students will fall behind and will be deprived of skills needed to be successful professionals in adulthood. Brownback’s future as a two-term governor is looking grim because of his failure to deliver on economic promises.

California’s Soaring Economy

California did the exact opposite of Kansas. In 2012, when California was in a dire budget crisis, voters passed a critical ballot initiative undoing the state’s requirement of a two-thirds supermajority vote in the legislature to raise taxes. Through the initiative, California voters passed tax increases for everyone, including the rich, marginally increasing the sales tax while creating new income tax brackets of 10.3 percent for those who earned between $250,000 and $300,000; 11.3 percent for taxpayers who made anywhere between $300,000 and $500,000; 12.3 percent for incomes of $500,000 to $1,000,000; and 13.3 percent for all incomes above $1,000,000. The richest Californians would barely notice it, given the immense wealth in California’s major economic hubs like Silicon Valley, Hollywood, and the wine country.

After monitoring the results, the New Jersey Policy Perspective, a non-partisan think tank, found that California’s tax increases are paying off big time. The state’s coffers will gain approximately $6.8 billion in new revenue every year, all of which will be invested in public education. California saw 2.9 percent job growth in 2013, making it the third fastest-growing economy in the US. California will have an operational surplus of $9 billion by 2018, meaning even more public sector jobs created and a better economy for everyone. And because education is now a funding priority, California’s schoolchildren are set up to soar above and beyond national education averages. Well-educated kids means more people in the future able to take on high-skilled, good-paying jobs.

Putting these two states side by side, it doesn’t take an economics professor to see how much unnecessary tax cuts hurt a local economy, and how much marginal tax increases help an economy. At the federal level, American families have lost an average of roughly $48,000 in income per person, or $6.6 TRILLION, since the Bush tax cuts of 2001 (adjusted for inflation). As journalist David Cay Johnston pointed out, that’s enough money to pay off every family’s credit card debt, student loan debt, and car notes, while still having enough left in the bank.

Families freed from such financial worries would have plenty more disposable income to spend in their local economies, boosting small business in the process and creating enough local demand for more new jobs. The extra tax revenue we would have gained had the Bush tax cuts never gone into effect would be enough to invest in improving education, health care, transportation, agriculture, and myriad other programs. In fact, raising the current top tax rates on the richest 1 percent of Americans to 67 percent (still 3 percent less than the top rate under Nixon), along with creating new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires, would generate $4 trillion over ten years. That would be enough for a new WPA-style program aimed at rebuilding our vastly sub-par infrastructure while creating millions of new jobs.

The tax cuts experiment has had plenty of time to show results, but the only people whose economic situations have improved since the Bush tax cuts are the wealthiest 1 percent of society. The Paul Ryans of America have lost the bet fair and square. It’s time we learn a lesson from Kansas and California and apply some common sense to our tax structure.



Carl Gibson, 26, is co-founder of US Uncut, a nationwide creative direct-action movement that mobilized tens of thousands of activists against corporate tax avoidance and budget cuts in the months leading up to the Occupy Wall Street movement. Carl and other US Uncut activists are featured in the documentary "We're Not Broke," which premiered at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival. He currently lives in Madison, Wisconsin. You can contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , and follow him on twitter at @uncutCG.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2781 2782 2783 2784 2785 2786 2787 2788 2789 2790 Next > End >>

Page 2783 of 3432

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