Thanks for all the great food for thought. So much going on...
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Eugen Leitl <[email protected]> wrote: > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/14/climate-change-energy-shocks-nsa-prism > > Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks > > NSA Prism is motivated in part by fears that environmentally-linked > disasters > could spur anti-government activism > > US domestic surveillance has targeted anti-fracking activists across the > country. Photograph: Les Stone/REUTERS > > Top secret US National Security Agency (NSA) documents disclosed by the > Guardian have shocked the world with revelations of a comprehensive > US-based > surveillance system with direct access to Facebook, Apple, Google, > Microsoft > and other tech giants. New Zealand court records suggest that data > harvested > by the NSA's Prism system has been fed into the Five Eyes intelligence > alliance whose members also include the UK, Canada, Australia and New > Zealand. > > But why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented > capacity to spy on their own domestic populations? Since the 2008 economic > crash, security agencies have increasingly spied on political activists, > especially environmental groups, on behalf of corporate interests. This > activity is linked to the last decade of US defence planning, which has > been > increasingly concerned by the risk of civil unrest at home triggered by > catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic > crisis - or all three. > > Just last month, unilateral changes to US military laws formally granted > the > Pentagon extraordinary powers to intervene in a domestic "emergency" or > "civil disturbance": > > "Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency > circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and > duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to > engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, > unexpected civil disturbances." > > Other documents show that the "extraordinary emergencies" the Pentagon is > worried about include a range of environmental and related disasters. > > In 2006, the US National Security Strategy warned that: > > "Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic > mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. > Problems > of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, > and > may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international > response." > > Two years later, the Department of Defense's (DoD) Army Modernisation > Strategy described the arrival of a new "era of persistent conflict" due to > competition for "depleting natural resources and overseas markets" fuelling > "future resource wars over water, food and energy." The report predicted a > resurgence of: > > "... anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten > government stability." > > In the same year, a report by the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute > warned that a series of domestic crises could provoke large-scale civil > unrest. The path to "disruptive domestic shock" could include traditional > threats such as deployment of WMDs, alongside "catastrophic natural and > human > disasters" or "pervasive public health emergencies" coinciding with > "unforeseen economic collapse." Such crises could lead to "loss of > functioning political and legal order" leading to "purposeful domestic > resistance or insurgency... > > "DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the > disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to > domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might > include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United > States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for > the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil > conflict or disturbance." > > That year, the Pentagon had begun developing a 20,000 strong troop force > who > would be on-hand to respond to "domestic catastrophes" and civil unrest - > the > programme was reportedly based on a 2005 homeland security strategy which > emphasised "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." > > The following year, a US Army-funded RAND Corp study called for a US force > presence specifically to deal with civil unrest. > > Such fears were further solidified in a detailed 2010 study by the US Joint > Forces Command - designed to inform "joint concept development and > experimentation throughout the Department of Defense" - setting out the US > military's definitive vision for future trends and potential global > threats. > Climate change, the study said, would lead to increased risk of: > > "... tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other > natural > catastrophes... Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United > States itself - particularly when the nation's economy is in a fragile > state > or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly > affected - the damage to US security could be considerable." > > The study also warned of a possible shortfall in global oil output by 2015: > "A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of > production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict > precisely > what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might > produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the > developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate > other unresolved tensions." > > That year the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review seconded such concerns, > while > recognising that "climate change, energy security, and economic stability > are > inextricably linked." > > Also in 2010, the Pentagon ran war games to explore the implications of > "large scale economic breakdown" in the US impacting on food supplies and > other essential services, as well as how to maintain "domestic order amid > civil unrest." > > Speaking about the group's conclusions at giant US defence contractor Booz > Allen Hamilton's conference facility in Virginia, Lt Col. Mark Elfendahl - > then chief of the Joint and Army Concepts Division - highlighted homeland > operations as a way to legitimise the US military budget: "An increased > focus > on domestic activities might be a way of justifying whatever Army force > structure the country can still afford." > > Two months earlier, Elfendahl explained in a DoD roundtable that future > planning was needed: > > "Because technology is changing so rapidly, because there's so much > uncertainty in the world, both economically and politically, and because > the > threats are so adaptive and networked, because they live within the > populations in many cases." > > The 2010 exercises were part of the US Army's annual Unified Quest > programme > which more recently, based on expert input from across the Pentagon, has > explored the prospect that "ecological disasters and a weak economy" (as > the > "recovery won't take root until 2020") will fuel migration to urban areas, > ramping up social tensions in the US homeland as well as within and between > "resource-starved nations." > > NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was a computer systems administrator for > Booz Allen Hamilton, where he directly handled the NSA's IT systems, > including the Prism surveillance system. According to Booz Allen's 2011 > Annual Report, the corporation has overseen Unified Quest "for more than a > decade" to help "military and civilian leaders envision the future." > > The latest war games, the report reveals, focused on "detailed, realistic > scenarios with hypothetical 'roads to crisis'", including "homeland > operations" resulting from "a high-magnitude natural disaster" among other > scenarios, in the context of: > > "... converging global trends [which] may change the current security > landscape and future operating environment... At the end of the two-day > event, senior leaders were better prepared to understand new required > capabilities and force design requirements to make homeland operations more > effective." > > It is therefore not surprising that the increasing privatisation of > intelligence has coincided with the proliferation of domestic surveillance > operations against political activists, particularly those linked to > environmental and social justice protest groups. > > Department of Homeland Security documents released in April prove a > "systematic effort" by the agency "to surveil and disrupt peaceful > demonstrations" linked to Occupy Wall Street, according to the Partnership > for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). > > Similarly, FBI documents confirmed "a strategic partnership between the > FBI, > the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector" designed to > produce intelligence on behalf of "the corporate security community." A > PCJF > spokesperson remarked that the documents show "federal agencies functioning > as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America." > > In particular, domestic surveillance has systematically targeted peaceful > environment activists including anti-fracking activists across the US, such > as the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, Rising Tide North America, the > People's Oil & Gas Collaborative, and Greenpeace. Similar trends are at > play > in the UK, where the case of undercover policeman Mark Kennedy revealed the > extent of the state's involvement in monitoring the environmental direct > action movement. > > A University of Bath study citing the Kennedy case, and based on > confidential > sources, found that a whole range of corporations - such as McDonald's, > Nestle and the oil major Shell, "use covert methods to gather intelligence > on > activist groups, counter criticism of their strategies and practices, and > evade accountability." > > Indeed, Kennedy's case was just the tip of the iceberg - internal police > documents obtained by the Guardian in 2009 revealed that environment > activists had been routinely categorised as "domestic extremists" targeting > "national infrastructure" as part of a wider strategy tracking protest > groups > and protestors. > > Superintendent Steve Pearl, then head of the National Extremism Tactical > Coordination Unit (Nectu), confirmed at that time how his unit worked with > thousands of companies in the private sector. Nectu, according to Pearl, > was > set up by the Home Office because it was "getting really pressured by big > business - pharmaceuticals in particular, and the banks." He added that > environmental protestors were being brought "more on the radar." The > programme continues today, despite police acknowledgements that > environmentalists have not been involved in "violent acts." > > The Pentagon knows that environmental, economic and other crises could > provoke widespread public anger toward government and corporations in > coming > years. The revelations on the NSA's global surveillance programmes are just > the latest indication that as business as usual creates instability at home > and abroad, and as disillusionment with the status quo escalates, Western > publics are being increasingly viewed as potential enemies that must be > policed by the state. > > Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research > & > Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And > How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed > -- > Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by > emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech > -- Bambi http://BambisMusings.WordPress.com
-- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
