We have here the coming of Big Brother with a different twist. The terrorists have made it obligatory for governments to take active measures to protect lives and its way of living.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@...> wrote: > > Laptop seizures by US government highlight 9/11-era climate of fear > The treatment of dissidents is the true measure of how free a society > is: consider today's examples from the US > > > * [Glenn Greenwald] > <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald> > * > * Glenn Greenwald <http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/glenn-greenwald> > * guardian.co.uk <http://www.guardian.co.uk/> , Tuesday 4 December > 2012 12.28 GMT > * > > > [NSA headquarters Maryland] The National Security Agency (NSA) > headquarters in Fort Meade, Maryland. Among other forms of > intelligence-gathering, the NSA secretly collects the phone records of > millions of Americans, using data provided by telecom firms AT&T, > Verizon and BellSouth. Photograph: NSA/Getty Images > Whenever I speak about the systematic abridgment of basic rights in the > post-9/11 era, there is a point I try to make that is quite elusive yet, > in my view, of unparalleled significance in understanding the > implications of allowing this to happen. When a government is permitted > to transgress the limits that have been imposed on its power (in the > case of the US, imposed by the Constitution), the relationship between > the government and the citizenry changes fundamentally. > > In a free society, those who wield political power fear those over whom > the power is wielded: specifically, they harbor a healthy fear of what > will happen to them if they abuse that power. But the hallmark of > tyranny is that the opposite dynamic prevails: the citizenry fears its > government because citizens know that there are no actual, meaningful > limits on how power can be exercised. A nation in which liberties are > systematically abused - in which limitations on state power are ignored > without consequence - is one which gives rise to a climate of fear. > > This climate of fear, in turn, leads citizens to refrain from exercising > their political rights, especially to refrain from posing meaningful > challenges to government authority, because they know the government can > act against them without real constraints. This is a more insidious and > more effective form of tyranny than overt abridgment of rights: by > inducing - intimidating - a citizenry into relinquishing their own > rights out of fear, a state can maintain the illusion of freedom while > barring any meaningful dissent from or challenge to its power. Here's > one four-minute video clip <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfBUjRao7kk> > where I describe a personal example to illustrate how this pernicious > fear climate operates; here's another slightly longer video clip > <http://youtu.be/bUOwqNP-zGM?t=36m44s> where I elaborate on this point > more. > > This morning, the New York Times reports on > <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/business/court-cases-challenge-border\ > -searches-of-laptops-and-phones.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hpw> the US > government's practice of targeting US dissidents - or those whom it > believes to be engaging in dissent - with extremely invasive border > searches, including seizing (and sometimes keeping for months) their > laptops and other electronic data, all without any warrants. I've > reported > <http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_bo\ > rder/> many times <http://www.salon.com/2010/11/09/manning_2/> before > <http://www.salon.com/2011/01/15/laptops/> on this practice and won't > repeat any of that here. Instead, I want to highlight several of the > examples provided by the Times as it underscores so powerfully how this > climate of fear functions: > > "Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker and the recipient of a 2012 > MacArthur Fellowship, estimates that she has been detained more than 40 > times upon returning to the United States. She has been questioned for > hours about her meetings abroad, her credit cards and notes have been > copied, and after one trip her laptop, camera and cellphone were seized > for 41 days. > > "Ms. Poitras said these interrogations largely subsided after a Salon > article > <http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_bo\ > rder/> describing her experiences was published in April, but she is > editing her latest film in Europe to avoid crossing the border with her > research and interviews. (The film, the third in a series about the war > on terror, focuses on domestic surveillance.) > > "'I'm taking more and more extreme measures, to the point where I'm > actually editing outside the country,' she said. > > Just think about that. In addition to the credentials listed by the > Times, she produced a 2006 film that documented the actions and motives > of anti-US insurgents in Iraq, one that was nominated for an Academy > Award <http://www.imdb.com/features/rto/2007/oscars> for Best > Documentary, and then produced a second film on radicals in Yemen. She's > now working on an exposé of the US surveillance state and how > domestically invasive it is, featuring a whistleblower, William Binney, > who was an NSA official for 32 years (several months ago, the Times > published an eight-minute preview clip of that extraordinary film > <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-security-agencys\ > -domestic-spying-program.html> , for which I was interviewed by > Poitras). > > So here is a highly accomplished documentarian who has produced two > films and is working on a third - all of which, in one way or another, > pose challenges to US policy. Despite the fact that she has never been > charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime, she has been subjected > to serial invasion and harassment by the US government - so much so that > she is now afraid, quite rationally, of being in her own country while > editing her film. > > As she has conveyed to me for that article I wrote in April, Poitras is > afraid to talk on a US telephone to anyone involved in her project, > travel into her own country with any materials relating to her film > work, or physically keep any of her unedited film on US soil. Does that > sound like the behavior of a citizen and a filmmaker of a free country? > Then there's this, about another US citizen: > > "Pascal Abidor, who is studying for his doctorate in Islamic studies, > sued the government after he was handcuffed and detained at the border > during an Amtrak trip from Montreal to New York. He was questioned and > placed in a cell for several hours. His laptop was searched and kept for > 11 days. . . . > > "Mr. Abidor said he had also changed his travel patterns: because he is > regularly detained at the border, he keeps little data on his laptop and > rents a car when driving back to the United States from Canada, so he is > not stranded waiting for the next train. Still, he said he experienced > 'a near panic attack' every time he returned to the United States. > > "'I have not done anything illegal, nor have I tried to hide anything > I've done,' he said. 'I've told them where I've traveled. I'm studying > something that's legal. I learned a language millions of people speak. I > don't understand how a variety of legal acts can lead to suspicion.'" > > Abidor is a US citizen (he also holds French citizenship). His parents > live in Brooklyn, and he was traveling to visit them the first time this > happened. He has never been charged with any crime, nor notified that he > is suspected of one. But, obviously for good reason, he is now petrified > of traveling into his own country, refrains from flying or taking a > train, and feels compelled to erase almost all data from his laptop - > all because he is studying to be a scholar in Islamic studies and is > learning Arabic. As he put it previously > <http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-technology-and-liberty/groups-sue-over-\ > suspicionless-laptop-search-policy-border> : > > "As an American, I've always been taught that the Constitution protects > me against unreasonable searches and seizures. But having my laptop > searched and then confiscated for no reason at all made me question how > much privacy we actually have. This has had an extreme chilling effect > on my work, studies and private life now I will have to go to > untenable lengths to assure that my academic sources remain confidential > and my personal dignity is maintained when I travel." > > Does that sound like a citizen and academic of a free country? Then > there's this example, perhaps the most amazing one from today's Times > article: > > > "A laptop belonging to Lisa M. Wayne, a criminal defense lawyer, was > searched after she returned from a trip to Mexico. > > "Ms. Wayne said her main concern was the information about clients' > cases stored on her laptop: she is a past president of the National > Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which is a co-plaintiff in the > Abidor suit, along with the National Press Photographers Association. > But at the time of the search, she was unaware of her rights and felt > pressured to hand over her computer. > > "'It was very clear to me that the longer I objected or interrogated > them, the longer I was going to be detained, and I had a connecting > flight,' she said. 'It's an intimidating experience. It was not > consensual other than, you comply with the rules.'" > > Even a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense > Lawyers is sufficiently intimidated by these measures that she reacted > only with paralysis and compliance: she just dutifully handed over her > laptop to government agents to search through and copy at will. And it > requires little prescience to understand the message being sent here to > other lawyers or activists who challenge government policy: if someone > in Wayne's position can and will be subjected to these invasions, who > won't be? > > Laptop seizures are far from the only tactic employed by the US > government to put government opponents in a state of fear and thus deter > others from engaging in similar dissident conduct. That is also the aim > of measures such as the unprecedented persecution of whistleblowers; the > prosecution of Muslim critics of US foreign policy > <http://www.salon.com/2011/09/04/speech_23/> for "material support of > terrorism", thetargeted FBI entrapment > <http://www.civilfreedoms.org/?p=14421> and "preemptive prosecution > <http://www.civilfreedoms.org/?p=6707> " of US Muslims, NATO protesters, > anarchist activists, and others with ideologies the US government > dislikes; and - most of all - the ubiquitous surveillance state. > > What makes this tactic particularly effective is that it will not affect > those who have no interest in engaging in real dissent against the > government. If you're not a filmmaker who challenges the prevailing > government narrative (Poitras), or a scholar trying to understand rather > than demonize currents in the Muslim world (Abidor), or a lawyer > involved in groups suing the US government for unconstitutional behavior > (Wayne), or an activist advocating for WikiLeaks and working to protect > online anonymity and thus thwart government spying and control of the > internet (Jacob > <http://boingboing.net/2011/01/12/wikileaks-volunteer-1.html> Appelbaum > <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/wikileaks-volunteer-j\ > acob-appelbaum-targeted-in-secret-government-order/2011/10/10/gIQAaJNiaL\ > _blog.html> ), or someone who supports Bradley Manning's legal defense > (David House <http://www.aclum.org/news_12.23.10> ), then you're not > going to be subjected to this sort of intimidation and rights-invasions, > and it's thus easy for you to simply assume that it does not exist. > > In essence, the bargain offered by the state is as follows: if you > meaningfully challenge what we're doing, then we will subject you to > harsh recriminations. But if you passively comply with what we want, > refrain from challenging us, and acquiesce to our prevailing order, then > you are "free" and will be left alone. The genius is that those who > accept this bargain are easily convinced that repression does not exist > in the US, that it only takes place in those Other Bad countries, > because, as a reward for their compliant posture, they are not subjected > to it. > > But even in most of the worst tyrannies, those who are content with the > status quo and who refrain from meaningfully challenging prevailing > power systems are free of punishment. Rights exist to protect dissidents > and those who challenge orthodoxies, not those who acquiesce to those > orthodoxies or support state power; the latter group rarely needs any > such protections. The effect, and intent, of this climate of fear is to > force as many citizens as possible into the latter group. > > The true measure of how free a society is how its dissidents are > treated, not those who refrain from meaningful anti-government activism > and dissent. To apply that metric to the US, just look at what the > American citizens quoted in this Times article this morning are saying > and doing. >
