'of thee i sing'

i watched 'sons of anarchy' last night with hubby on the netflix. we seem to be drawn to gritty dramas like that- we also enjoyed 'deadwood' and 'the shield'. what struck me- i was rooting for the bad guys. now, i am sure that's what the writers intended- as they make the bad guys partially good and the good guys- well, bad. the atf agent is played quite well by ally walker and she gave me much to think about in this age of border wars with canada and mexico- and the fact that we still have the odious guantanamo bay.

what is it in the american psyche that allows the dissonance between innocent until proven guilty and gleefully watching someone arrested and tased on 'cops'? from the nightly news to the dozen or so 'law and order' episodes to the ads on the sidebar on facebook calling for fbi applicants, our nation has become a police state. oh, most of us don't believe so- but in america, we hold people without legal counsel and we trick them into talking without one. i am most definitely not pro death penalty- not because some of these folks who did indeed commit heinous crimes shouldn't pay the ultimate price--- but because our track record with jailing innocent folks isn't good.

our justice system is beyond flawed- when you have the patriot act and the military commissions act and hundreds of other laws on the books like the draconian 'three strikes and you get life' laws- well, appeal is tough. and if you do the crime, i absolutely believe that you should do the time. i guess i just have an outmoded sense of justice- i believe that if you are innocent you should be set free.

and, i don't see things in black and white. i see myself sitting in that chair- and know that i wouldn't want to be interrogated for hours on end without my legal counsel or forced into a van in the middle of the night to be spirited away while my loved ones didn't know where i was. guilt isn't supposed to be proven in the streets by arresting agents or officers- or in an hour's time on a tv show. but it is- and america is not a land of liberty.

Reloaded: The Cost Of Security (Meaning: Terror)

Following up on this post from last week, proof again that the terrorists are winning as we keep on losing ourselves beyond redemption (emphasis added):

[READ MORE +/-]

Poll: Most Americans would trim liberties to be safer

After a recent attempted terrorist attack set off a debate about full-body X-rays at airports, a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll finds that Americans lean more toward giving up some of their liberty in exchange for more safety.

The survey found 51 percent of Americans agreeing that "it is necessary to give up some civil liberties in order to make the country safe from terrorism."

At the same time, 36 percent agreed that "some of the government's proposals will go too far in restricting the public's civil liberties."

The rest were undecided or said their opinions would depend on circumstances.

Meanwhile:

The path down the road to perdition continues, especially in the USA where now some 54% of Americans believe torture is "often" or "sometimes" justified (an actual increment of 10% from June 2008).

Security - Hallowed Be Thy Name.

Indeed:

So, my American friends ...

Maybe you remain unfazed by all of this, your smug reasoning reassuring you that nothing like that could ever happen to you, that it is inconceivable that some "tracker" has been listening (or may yet still) to your most private conversations on the phone, or parsing through your emails, or credit card/bank statements, and so on.

Or maybe you remain approving of indiscriminate domestic spying, confident that such setting aside of constitutional rights serves the ultimate purpose of catching them evul ter'rists (which, as it turns out, is a false premise), while also being of the mind that such "accidental" abuses happen to others - never to you. In other words, you are one who would gladly proclaim "Security - Hallowed Be Thy Name" with much gratitude, patriotic fervor and conviction.

But regardless, how would you know whether or not you have been caught in the "wide-net" approach to electronic surveillance already adopted by Police and Security Agencies?

How would you possibly become aware that some faceless "tracker" is sharing all that was caught of your most private, intimate conversations - all the while sharing laughs with colleagues in so doing? That complete strangers have become quite familiar with your private life?

That faceless, shadowy men and women have been endowed with the power to act as nothing more than peeping toms, all-too-eager to watch and listen into every and all facets of your privacy, of your intimacy?

And how would you know whether or not you will be branded a security threat just because you went on strike, or because someone "out there" has decided that some of the books/newspapers/magazines that you read may be suspicious, or simply because you were overheard complaining about the government?

That is the question, isn't it?

(...)

All of the above once again demonstrate the harsh, ugly reality in this post-9/11 world driven by fear and the willingness to accept the ludicrous fallacy that we need to surrender "some" of our basic constitutional rights in order to improve security against terrorist attacks.

Yet always forgetting that abuse of security measures is as inevitable as the sun rising and setting - especially without any significant oversight, or even refusal of such.

Better wake up fast on your own and now, instead of being awaken by the thundering sound of jackboots just outside your home ... mere moments before your door is crashed open and you get picked up in a "pre-emptive security sweep".

Do you get it now?

In an older post on this same matter, I made the following conclusion:

Hence, it still remains to be established indeed whether we will stand up for our constitution, our democracy-based society, or let fear and paranoia sweep them away in lieu of authoritarianism - as we keep allowing our elected representatives to grant vast powers to security agencies.

More than ever, we better wake up before it is too little, too late ...

If it isn't already.

Well then - considering that the ever incremental costs in money and civil liberties is meant apparently to keep us safe from nefarious, evil terrorists like this s.o.b. ... I suppose it is safe to say that the results are now in - and it looks like it is indeed too late for us all.

Thus why I reiterate: we are the real problem with terrorism.

But congratulations nonetheless to the terrorists for such an unequivocal, complete and total victory.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Because Infringing On Privacy Is A Lucrative Business

Security agencies crave to monitor and spy on everyone. Telecom companies, like any and all business, want to make insane profits.

How do the two add up? It's simple: telecom companies charge security agencies for any and all wiretaps, retrieval of communication data, etc., all the while pretending that they protect the privacy of their customers.

Follow the money indeed (emphasis added):

[READ MORE +/-]

A little-noticed letter from Yahoo! to the US Marshals Service offers troubling insight into the surveillance policies of one of the Internet's largest email providers.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request seeking details of Yahoo's! policies allowing the Justice Department to request wiretaps of its users and the amount they charge US taxpayers per wiretap -- the search engine leviathan declared in a 12-page letter that they couldn't provide information on their approach because their pricing scheme would "shock" customers. The news was first reported by Kim Zetter at Wired.

"It is reasonable to assume from these comments that the [pricing] information, if disclosed, would be used to "shame" Yahoo! and other companies -- and to "shock" their customers," a lawyer for the company writes. "Therefore, release of Yahoo!'s information is reasonably likely to lead to impairment of its reputation for protection of user privacy and security, which is a competitive disadvantage for technology companies."

Yahoo! also argues that because their price sheet for wiretaps was "voluntarily submitted" to the US Marshals Service, it is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act law.

Verizon, meanwhile, says (letter PDF) they can't provide details on how much they charge for wiretaps because it would be "confusing."

“Customers may see a listing of records, information or assistance that is available only to law enforcement,” Verizon writes, “but call in to Verizon and seek those same services. Such calls would stretch limited resources, especially those that are reserved only for law enforcement emergencies.”

Consumers might “become unnecessarily afraid that their lines have been tapped or call Verizon to ask if their lines are tapped (a question we cannot answer),” the telecom giant adds.

Verizon also revealed it "receives tens of thousands of requests for customer records, or other customer information from law enforcement."

The Freedom of Information request was filed by muckraker Christopher Soghoian.

"Assuming a conservative estimate of 20,000 requests per year, Verizon alone receives more requests from law enforcement per year than can be explained by any published surveillance statistics," Soghoian responds. "That doesn't mean the published stats are necessarily incorrect -- merely that most types of surveillance are not reported.

"In the summer of 2009, I decided to try and follow the money trail in order to determine how often Internet firms were disclosing their customers’ private information to the government," he adds later. "I theorized that if I could obtain the price lists of each ISP, detailing the price for each kind of service, and invoices paid by the various parts of the Federal government, then I might be able to reverse engineer some approximate statistics. In order to obtain these documents, I filed Freedom of Information Act requests with every part of the Department of Justice that I could think of."

Cox Communications, meanwhile, says they charge "$2,500 to fulfill a pen register/trap-and-trace order for 60 days, and $2,000 for each additional 60-day-interval," Zetter notes. "It charges $3,500 for the first 30 days of a wiretap, and $2,500 for each additional 30 days. Thirty days worth of a customer’s call detail records costs $40."

"Comcast’s pricing list," she adds, "which was already leaked to the internet in 2007, indicated that it charges at least $1,000 for the first month of a wiretap, and $750 per month thereafter."

In other words: authoritarianism + corporate complicity = fascism.

Which prompts me to reiterate the following points (with new links added):

Whenever a civilian government either outsources its responsibilities in matters domestic and/or foreign affairs, whether to corporations, security agencies and/or the military, then it is safe to say that it is the beginning of the end of democratic governance - ultimately leading to authoritarian corporatocracy, security state and/or military junta ... or all of the above, also known as fascism.

In addition to the overwhelming assaults on the U.S./Canadian constitution's civil rights and human rights (i.e. military commissions, indiscriminate domestic spying, security sweep pre-emptive arrests, renditions, indefinite detentions, torture, etc.), including outsourcing of security and war efforts (Blackwater/Xe, anyone?), the U.S. government is now letting go of some of its people-empowered roles in diplomacy and foreign affairs.

(...) "It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around" - Cernig is spot on with this reminder.

However, I would amend this truism to include security agencies alongside the military.

(...) All the necessary tools are already on hand.

As the saying goes - one must remember and understand history in order not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It remains to be established whether we, Americans and Canadians alike, will stand up for our constitutions, our democracy-based societies, or let fear and paranoia sweep them away in lieu of authoritarianism - as we keep allowing our elected representatives to defer their entrusted powers and responsibilities to security agencies and the military.

We better wake up before it is too little, too late ...

Marching straight toward authoritarianism?

Looks like we're getting there fast - if we're not already there.

I think it is safe to say that it is already "too little, too late" ...

Addendum: here's one more note added in (scary) proof ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)