Marching Straight Towards Authoritarianism

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.

Expand the post +/-

In addition to the overwhelming assaults on the U.S. constitution, 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, anyone?), the U.S. government is now letting go of some of its people-empowered roles in diplomacy and foreign affairs. To whit:

(...) when did a four star general get handed the authority to act as if he were Secretary of State?

The WaPo reports that:

Gen. David H. Petraeus has launched a major reassessment of U.S. strategy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and the surrounding region, while warning that the lack of development and the spiraling violence in Afghanistan will probably make it "the longest campaign of the long war."

The 100-day assessment will result in a new campaign plan for the Middle East and Central Asia, a region in which Petraeus will oversee the operations of more than 200,000 American troops as the new head of U.S. Central Command, beginning Oct. 31.

The review will formally begin next month, but experts and military officials involved said Petraeus is already focused on at least two major themes: government-led reconciliation of Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the leveraging of diplomatic and economic initiatives with nearby countries that are influential in the war.

All of this seems like a good idea to me. But, crucially, neither of those themes are military ones and the military shouldn't be leading the way on them. It's about separation of power and having the military subordinate to civilian policymakers rather than the other way around.

So where are the US ambassador, State Dept. and Condi Rice, who should be leading the way on them while the military man concentrates on military matters? For that matter, won't the leaders of other nations involved in the region wonder why America has appointed a de facto proconsul (again) and want their say?

"When you look at a lot of these problems, you see considerable regional connections," Petraeus said yesterday. The effort would embrace all of Afghanistan's neighbors and possibly extend to India, which has had a long-standing rivalry with Pakistan. "There may be opportunities with respect to India," he said.

An overview of the review team's mission obtained by The Post says that including other government agencies and other nations in the planning will "mitigate the risk of over-militarization of efforts and the development of short-term solutions to long-term problems."

Nevertheless, some experts questioned whether Petraeus will have the authority to carry out such a sweeping strategy.

"General Petraeus is not in charge of our diplomacy. He can't decide whether we try to form an international contacts group on Pakistan," said Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University.

Moreover, in dealing with Afghanistan at Central Command, Petraeus will face limitations that he did not encounter as the top commander in Iraq, such as the lack of a unified military command and serious resource shortages.

"We don't own it. It's been a NATO effort since 2006. He won't have the same sway with Karzai and the ambassadors and a bunch of other people that he had in Iraq," said a former senior military official with experience in Afghanistan.

Perhaps most worrying of all, Petraus' mini foreign policy is being described as "a policy bridge from one administration to the next" by one of his team members, Clare Lockhart, co-founder of the New York-based Institute for State Effectiveness along with former Afghan finance minister Ashraf Ghani.

"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.

For indeed, remember this, as but one example? (emphasis added)

Canada's spy agency has the green light to meet with Canadians detained abroad (as apart of a national security or terrorism case) before (Foreign Affairs) consular officials do when there are "urgent national security or terrorism-related considerations," says a newly disclosed federal agreement.

Which made me conclude the following (emphasis added):

In effect, Foreign Affairs will leave it up entirely to CSIS to make its own call - and defer to it.

Without any outside oversight whatsoever.

Plain and simple.

(...) This is how your Security State fully awakens, folks: when a country's secret security agency is given the power of life and death, of freedom and detention, over its citizens and whose judgement prevails over constitutional, civilian institutions supposedly mandated to deal in such matters.

After 9/11, we have witnessed a gradual encroachment of security measures which have been eroding our rights of freedom and privacy - all the while either applauding such measures, or remaining indifferent to them, because They. Make. Us. Feel. Safe.

Same thing with regards to human rights overall - whereby too many folks out there actually approve of the use of torture.

What we are now witnessing is the gradual deferment of responsibilities of our governments towards security agencies and the military - with the same mind set of needing to feel secure, which in turn has elevated security and military entities as preeminent Saviors in which We Trust implicitly.

Even for law and order enforcement (meaning: martial law by any other way).

All aided, abetted and amplified by the all-too-eager, gung ho, subservient, approving, supportive, enthusiastic, complicit, propagandist, media.

Indeed, a sickening worship of all things authoritarian and/or military was gleefully on display at the RNC last September (for instance, whether it was about McCain, his wife or Palin, it was inevitably emphasised that either they have served, have as son currently serving and/or had a parent/grandparent who served during WWI, WWII or some othe conflict - the message being that they are from a "strong" bloodline of military service).

The DNC likewise delved into this theme, albeit to a much lesser extent - nevertheless, that a past parent of Obama served and Biden's son being deployed to Iraq were emphasised as well.

That is creeping and already well entrenched militarism for you - case in point:

If I could be granted one small wish about our political discourse, it would be that reporters and pundits would accept -- as disappointing and unglorious as it is -- that, under our Constitution and basic government design, people who aren't in the military don't have a "Commander-in-Chief." The President isn't your "commander," and the "Commander-in-Chief" power, now synonymous in our political culture with "President," is actually extremely limited (Art. II, Sec. 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States").

This endless festishization of "President as Our Commander-in-Chief" is one of those small but pernicious reflections of how militarized we've become, of how we are a society in a state of perpetual and endless war.

Punditman likewise expressed herein his concerns last year over the same phenomenon apparently slowly sinking into Canada's own consciousness:

Wearing camouflage used to signify one of two things: the person was either in the armed forces or was setting out on a different sort of mission that involved drinking tons of beer and killing furry creatures in a forest somewhere. But nowadays, the whole idea of hunting (humans or animals, that is), has been demoted by those who dress like G.I. Joe just because they are out hunting for a latte or an Ipod.

Grow a brain, people. This is all about the militarization of our culture.

(...) Along with camouflage, Canada is now beset by an overabundance of “Support Our Troops” ribbons, t-shirts, bracelets and mugs. You can’t go anywhere without seeing the telltale yellow ribbon on cars. Come to think of it, some are camouflaged. It is high time that the elephant in the room is asked the obvious question that polite Canadians would rather avoid: What does “Support Our Troops” really mean?

Those who decorate their vehicles thusly would have us believe that the decals are politically neutral symbols of support for soldiers overseas. This is nonsense and they know it. The intended audience are those of us who forego yellow ribbons. If you think about it, the phrase “Support Our Troops” is sort of bossy, like a drill sargent’s snarl. This is known in grammatical circles as the “imperative mood.” Therefore the directive to “Support Our Troops” comes off like an order, but with a somewhat fuzzy meaning: What exactly am I supposed to do? Buy a ribbon, I guess.

Yet the context is obvious. This is all about the Afghan War and nothing else. The yellow ribbon campaign has succeeded in convincing at least eighteen Canadian municipal and local governments to affix the decals to police cars, ambulances, fire trucks, buses and other municipal vehicles. Since this is all public property, this is a divisive move, not an inclusive one. Why this cause, but no others? Why not “Support Our Cancer Patients” or “Support Our Single Moms”? Are they less worthy?

(...) One may well ask: where should Canada’s foreign policy priorities be right now? Tied down in Afghanistan, begging NATO allies for more help in what looks more and more like an intractable military stalemate? Or, working through diplomatic channels to try to prevent a global conflagration between the US and Iran that could even go nuclear?

It’s time to ditch the camouflage and put on your thinking caps.

And that is without considering Harper's own drive to militarize Canada further. Peacekeeping? We Canadians apparently don't do that anymore:

(...) Rwanda was there, desperately needing help to prevent a genocide. Dallaire even knew what to do. But the rest of the world, Canada's government included, opted to do nothing. They let "traditional peacekeeping" fail in a grand and horrible way, with 800 000 dead, so they could pretend that "traditional peacekeeping" was itself dead.

And now the Canadian Press is helping them with this pretence. And at the end of article they're going to lament how little we trust journalists.

Referring to failed Bosnia-Serbia intervention, the article continues:

That frustrating experience shaped the attitude of a generation of soldiers, who were eager to shed the United Nations blue beret, which they saw as a symbol of weakness and indecision.

Really? The soldiers saw it as a sign of weakness? Who is writing this article? Where is the survey that demonstrates this? Is this the infantry or the military brass? Besides which, it doesn't matter what the soldiers think. It is the civilian population that selects the missions. If those enrolled don't like peacekeeping, they don't have to stay enrolled.

Yet the public clings to the romanticized notion of brave soldiers standing between belligerents.

Yeah. We stupid, ignorant Canadians have these stupid, romantic morals and values. God, we're so fricking naive, aren't we?

(...) The fact is that Canadians should be in charge of what their military is doing. At this time, we are not. The Liberals failed to steer the military in to the post Cold War peacekeeping force that we wanted. The Conservatives are taking that military force and using it aggressively.

Indeed - for only through military might may one country be taken seriously.

Once again - it all goes back to the fact that Americans and Canadians are sill gripped by the all-encompassing fear of terrorism - which is used whenever convenient to further push more authoritarian security measures, increased militarization/military interventionism, or simply to win elections.

History has clearly shown that fear-driven radical interpretations of the separation of powers within a republic, or any democracy, along with the slow erosion of the rule of constitutional law and the clamor for a single strong and powerful leader in times of crises, have lead to the downfall and de facto end of said republics/democracies - the fall of the Roman republic constituting an obvious, ancient example.

In other words:

Fear + Need for security + Erosion of the rule of Law + Religious fundamentalism + Militarism + Intolerance for opposing/dissenting opinions and beliefs + Calls for a strong and powerful leader = A democracy facing possible overthrow in favor of despotism.

And this little reminder of the 10 steps towards fascism:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy;
2. Create a gulag;
3. Develop a thug caste;
4. Set up an internal surveillance system;
5. Harass citizens' groups;
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release;
7. Target key individuals;
8. Control the press;
9. Dissent equals treason;
and 10. Suspend the rule of law.

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 ...


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Time For A New Convention?

What is a "government" and what is it for?

The time has long passed to ask ourselves this fundamental question.

Far be it from me to undertake an extensive "scholarly" analysis of the various forms of governments throughout history, their pros and cons, their origins and evolutions, and whatnot. Nor is it my intent to discuss the nuts and bolts of governing.

Rather, allow me to present to you my humble thoughts on what democratically elected governments are for - in other words, why we go through the process of electing people to represent us and govern in our (individual) stead. And of course, I'll be focusing on Canada and the U.S.A.

Expand the post +/-

Aside from the obvious fact that Canada is a parliamentary-based democracy and the U.S.A. is a Republic-based one, the two share basic similarities in levels of government.

The very first level is the municipal one. Representatives and Mayors (leaders of municipal governments) are elected to City Councils in order to govern the affairs of municipalities, both small and greater. Same thing applies with agglomerated municipalities, whereby Burroughs elect representatives and Mayors for themselves, as well as for the overall Agglomerated Greater Municipality Council.

The second level of government is Provincial (in Canada) or State (in the U.S.A.). Here, representatives and leaders (Governors/Provincial Prime Ministers) are elected to govern the affairs of the greater geographically/territorially-defined entity under which many municipalities are regrouped.

Then we have the last level, the Federal, whereby representatives and leaders (Presidents/Prime Ministers) are elected to govern the affairs of countries, entities which regroup numerous states/provinces.

My intent today is not to discuss the distribution of powers and jurisdictions of governing between these three ascending levels of government. Rather, my presentation of these three levels serves as the set up to discuss the question I asked right at the top on this article: what is a government and what is it for?

First and foremost, governments are needed to provide and maintain basic communal services for all citizens - be it power (e.g. electricity), running water, sewage systems/water recycling, garbage collection and disposal, snow removal in the winter, road/bridge maintenance or construction, communal transport (buses, trains, shuttles, etc.), schools, and so on. Governments are also there to act as watchdogs in our stead to preserve and defend our immediate territory against those who would appropriate it for themselves, exploit it or outright steal it. Hence zoning and permits for land buys, constructions (residential or industrial), and so on. Likewise for the role of maintaining proper communal peace and protection from crime - thus they are to make laws and provide the necessary policing services to ensure that said laws are respected by all. Then there is also a need to ensure the flow of goods in and out of the agglomeration - thus the need for regulating trade and the responsibility of managing communal trade agreements within a given municipality, as well as with other municipalities. In short: to manage the economics of the municipality so that prosperity is not only brought about, but maintained at the very least.

Hence why we need at least a municipal level of government, to which we pay taxes in order to allow it to provide those basic services that we require as individual communities.

However, whenever communities gather themselves within a larger geographical and territorial association, such as the State or Province, then a new level of communal services is required for said greater whole. The sovereignty of the greater territory must be protected and defended. Land-based communications such as roads, waterways and railways, must be established and maintained between municipalities for travel and trade. The vast unsettled landscapes must be preserved and managed against those who would appropriate it for themselves, exploit it or outright steal it. A need for harmonization of civil and criminal laws between all municipalities requires State/Provincial laws and the resources to enforce/police them. Same thing for health services. There is also the need to manage the economics of the greater territory, such as harmonization of trade between individual municipalities as well as establishing trade with other, similar greater territories. Often, by necessity, such a level of government will take charge of many other responsibilities of the individual municipalities, if only to ensure harmony between all of them. One could see this as an evolutionary step in governing at a greater scale, out of the individual agglomeration level. The human need to form alliances and friendships in order to create a greater common good is as much a driving force here than at its original level of agglomeration.

Hence why we have the Provincial/State level of government, to which we pay taxes in order to allow it to provide those basic services that we require as citizens of such individual, "small countries".

But of course, the need for alliances and friendship to ensure a greater common good of prosperity and security does not end here, whereby States/Provinces come together (by choice or by whim of history, whether as a union or confederation, however tight or loose it may be) to form a larger country - Canada or the U.S.A., in this case. It is typically at this third, higher level of government that responsibilities such as maintaining an army, managing the currency, preserving/managing even vaster, unsettled landscapes and natural resources, or managing overall economics and trade between member states/provinces as well with other countries, come into play. In short, it will be usually a matter of necessity that such a level of government will often take charge of many other responsibilities of the individual states/provinces, if only to ensure harmony between all of them. One could see this as yet another evolutionary step in governing at an even greater scale, out of the individual state/provincial level.

Hence why we have the Federal level of government, to which we pay taxes in order to allow it to provide those basic services that we require as citizens of such individual, countries.

Of course, such an incremental superseding of levels of government will, and do, lead to instances of chicanery with regards as to which level has jurisdiction over which service to provide and/or manage and, consequently, at which level specific taxes are paid by the citizens. But that is merely an expression of the inherent adaptive/evolutive nature of such type of democratically elected, incremental level of governance.

The real point to emphasise here is that a government, regardless of whether it lies at the municipal, state/provincial or federal level, has one - and only one - purpose: to preserve and protect our rights and civil liberties, while dispensing those services that we require - and yes, one such service is the encouragement of the creation of riches and prosperity ... for us.

In other words: a government is by nature and definition a non-profit organization which we entrust and hold accountable, by giving to it the monies that are necessary for the performance of its function.

No more, no less.

Therefore, as a tax-paying citizen, I demand the following:

Enough with attempting to run a government like a business;

Enough with the outsourcing of services which are supposed to be provided by a government;

Enough with by-passing the basic provisions of our constitutions by forming without our expressed consent (such as a national referendum) supra-governmental organizations like the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America;

Enough with putting aside our constitutional rights and civil liberties in the name of the false god of security;

Enough with treating big business like "privileged", favored citizens not beholden to any laws ("regulations"), unlike the rest of us;

Enough with forcibly (i.e. through war) attempting to impose our democratic values to other countries;

Enough with the lack of ethics in government;

Enough with the unrestrained access of lobbyists;

Enough with the erosion of the separation between church and state;

Enough with the nauseating, arrogant "Father-knows-best" act by treating us like children;

Enough is quite enough.

The time has long come for a New Convention, whereby we the citizens reaffirm the original purpose and function of our governments. For despite all the complexities of the world, one fundamental truth has ever remained unchanged:

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Whether for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or for peace, order and good government, this truism constitutes nevertheless the founding stone of our democratic values.

What say you?


(Cross-posted from APOV)

Surveillance

Image byBanksy

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.

– Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

EXPAND THE POST +/-

The word surveillance and its associated connections have appeared everywhere since the 9/11 bombings. The catalyst for my own exploration of this topic comes from a recent discussion I had with a person who expressed the point-of-view on surveillance that it's necessary and only minimally, if at all, affects the "average American".

She pointed to how video surveillance, for example, can increase our safety as citizens by deterring crime and pointed to the prosecution of terrorist responsible for the bus and subway bombings in London in 2005. I listened and said little. I have always had an aversion to surveillance. Almost like an intuition that it is wrong, dangerous and indicative of a society using technology as a means of political and social control. Intuition, however, helped me very little in responding to the person to whom I was listening defend surveillance as essentially a positive tool. With that in mind, I began by searching the internet for information about surveillance. I learned enough to be able to formulate a small argument against it. And since in my day-to-day dealings with people, I don't need or want to be any sort of scholar on this type of issue, I think for now it is enough of a base of knowledge to at least begin to take on the issue.

I first began by reading a few articles on video surveillance. One MSNBC article, which I will refer to again later in this piece, contained on a sidebar a video surveillance clip depicting a cold-blooded murder, due to which the suspect of said crime was promptly arrested and charged. Sounds good, right?

The article mentions a huge surge of and push for further video surveillance by police and city officials across the United States. Yet, no comprehensive national study has been done on the effectiveness of video surveillance as a deterrent to crime. Some folks are catching on, though:

Police officials in San Francisco, meanwhile, have delayed approving installation of new cameras pending a final study from researchers at the University of California, who said in a preliminary report this spring that the city’s 68 anti-crime cameras had failed to deter street crime. Where the cameras had any impact, the interim report said, they simply moved crime down the street or around the corner.

London's head of Metropolitan Police, had this comment quoted in the article:
Licata noted that he had supported the plan when it was introduced in May, but he said he changed his mind after Detective Chief Inspector Mick Neville, head of London’s Metropolitan Police, reported that the city’s network of near-ubiquitous public cameras had been “an utter fiasco.”

“Only 3 percent of crimes were solved by CCTV,” or closed-circuit television cameras, Neville said in an address to the Security Document World Conference last month. “There’s no fear of CCTV. “Why don’t people fear it?” he asked. “The cameras are not working.”

But is it just video surveillance and the "Big Brother is watching you" phenomenon the only thing we should be worried about?

No. Data and government surveillance are perhaps, in my opinion, the most dangerous. But as I learned from a position paper from the ACLU, it's the three in conjunction with one another, in a time of eroding regard for privacy and civil liberties, that makes the issue of surveillance such a formidable three-headed monster. The interplay of technology, law and politics has never in our history seen a situation so dangerous to our privacy and constitutional rights.

In the ACLU document Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society, many aspects of surveillance were brought to light for me. Too many and too complex to be properly addressed here. It's a very compelling paper and I urge everyone to take the time to read its fifteen or so pages. I will attempt here to highlight some of the basics of what I was able to garner as tools for thinking about and discussing this issue.

Data surveillance is defined by the ACLU article thus: ... the collection of information about an identifiable individual,often from multiple sources, that can be assembled into a portrait of that person’s activities.

Thanks to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed by Congress in 1999, financial institutions can sell personal financial information about us to private corporations. They're free to give out all financial information about you, including balances on accounts and financial activity associated with deposits and withdrawals. If it's any small comfort,the only thing your bank cannot sell is your account number.

Then there is the matter of medical and genetic information which can be shared about you to insurance companies and possibly even employers.

Cell phone location data is the type of surveillance that we've seen a lot about in the media recently, with the passage of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA). Here it is, straight from the horses mouth.

Other types of data surveillance of interest are:
* Black boxes
* Biometrics (fingerprints, etc.)
* RFID Chips (used at tool booths)
*Implantable GPS chips (used in delivery boxes; can also be imbedded in the skin)

All of these types of data surveillance can crop up on powerful search engines when any type of security check is one on any individual. If you use your imagination, I'm sure you can form a picture of how this type of date could be used against you. Are you properly terrified yet?

Then there is the most dangerous head of the three-headed Surveillance Monster: government surveillance. We know about this and yet I, for one, have somehwat ignored it. There are literally thousands of government data bases with information about Americans in them:

*The FBI, of course
* The Registry of Motor Vehicles
* The Department of Education
* The Treasury Department

As a government, as a system, as a society, we now have all of the above surveillance capacity (and some I've not mentioned) and new ones in the cooker. Couple this with the passing of the Patriot Act and the monster is complete, with restrictions on its activities eroding at an alarming pace. Secret searches, wiretapping, power to demand records on individuals with little or no justified cause. What a field day for the heat, to quote an old Stevens Stills song.

The fact that we have the various technologies to create such extensive and multi-faceted surveillance strategies makes them neither sound, nor reliable. Society is yet again forging ahead with the implementation of strategies that are not well thoughtthrough to begin with and subsequently not studies to determine their effectiveness and potential for social and political malaise.

Further, we the people, are showing just how little we value our personal freedoms and rights under the constitution. The fact that in the U.S., our government has gotten away with so much erosion of core American principles, with very little effort, demonstrates how easy it will eventually be to abuse surveillance on a larger and large scale; affecting more and more people in the civilized world.

The threat of world domination through various methods of sophisticated, complex and inter-related surveillance mechanisms seems to become less science fiction and more reality daily. Corporations and government alike are watching us when it is they that need watching.

Western Democracies In Trouble

It would seem that our democracies in Canada and the U.S.A. are not the only ones ailing - especially with regards to the increasing - and successful - assaults on our privacy and civil liberties ... all in the name of the false God of Security.

Indeed - things are not looking so good either in the U.K. Case in point with the following article (and I invite you good folks to rejoin me below after reading it):

**********

What do we do now?
Anthony Barnett

A leading Conservative politician in Britain and former shadow home secretary has broken ranks with the political and media establishment to launch a campaign linking government plans to extend the time suspects can be held without charge to a wider erosion of rights and liberties. In a sweeping essay, openDemocracy's founder (and OurKingdom editor) Anthony Barnett assesses what is at stake and sees this moment as a historic test of democratic commitment for liberals and radicals.

We are at a potentially historic moment in British politics. David Davis has raised the banner of Britain's liberty in the modern world and is attempting to appeal to the people to secure it. He has gone over the heads of the ruling elite, in parliament, the parties and the media, to take two great issues to the voters: the asphyxiation of our freedom, and the incapacity of our parliamentary system to defend us from it. The by-election he forced on 12 June 2008 with his resignation as Conservative member of parliament and shadow home secretary is only the start of what may need to be a much wider year-long campaign to prevent "42 days" - the length of time the government proposes to grant itself the power to hold detainees without charge in terrorism-related cases - from becoming law, and this will be only the opening round of a profound effort to establish contemporary democracy in the United Kingdom.

Across the network of paid commentators and politicians it was immediately agreed that the action of David Davis was a pointless, selfish, celebrity-seeking gesture. This, indeed, is what they want it to be, as his initiative threatens their monopoly over defining what is important. Whatever brought him personally to his moment of defiance the decision David Davis has taken is profoundly radical: what he was saying from the steps of the House of Commons is that parliament won't defend us because it is corrupted and suborned. It is. The whole of our political class tell us it isn't. They would, wouldn't they.

When he became prime minister on 27 June 2007, Gordon Brown knew there was a problem. He pledged that he would restore trust in parliament. He had done his reading, he seemed to have grasped the depth of people's disenchantment and its constitutional consequences. As a result I had some hope that he would indeed start a reform process that would release public energy and begin to revive British democracy. Instead, he has made it much worse. It is not just the stench of a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to get through 42 days. "Is it right", Diane Abbott MP asked in a strong speech during the debate on 11 June,

"that our civil liberties should be traded in such a bazaar? Is it appropriate or right that we should trade votes at the United Nations on the basis of such political pandering?"

David Davis's views on the death penalty and low taxes are hardly appealing to progressives, liberals or the left; a Yorkshire constituency where Labour is third is not best situated for a showdown on the nature of the British state; coming at the summer solstice when parliament will soon take a holiday this is an awkward moment. But even if you think it has been done by the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, you have to decide: is this in any important way your banner too, that he has raised.

I have been surprised at the degree of jealously and small-mindedness towards his action on the left, though mainly from those in political parties. This is one of those potentially shaping moments, which never come at your own choosing, where you need to think in a generous, strategic way. In some of the discussion threads people are saying progressives cannot "allow" David Davis to walk away with the flag of liberty or the ‘issue". But who dropped the flag in the first place? The man matters, but the cause and the potential of the moment matter much more.

Here one feels the decomposition of Labour as an influential movement. Individual MPs stood firm but there was no sense of Labour being divided in a way that had wider consequence. The overwhelming majority of its ordinary membership surely oppose the measure. But they continue to leave the party quietly and privately. The underlying cataract of their disaffection is one of the forces that is driving, literally, Labour into bankruptcy. On the issue itself MPs did not feel threatened electorally by, for example,the prospect of Labour being seen as "split" over 42 days. Thus many MPs who opposed it privately, voted for it. And it was carried. It was this, the failure of the left, that put Davis into the position where he had to make his call.

It was one of those moments when someone with influence had to make a stand. In British politics they almost never do. This time Davis did. Surprises like this mix up bedfellows (his campaign was opened by Tony Benn) which makes it all the more necessary to set out clear aims: what are the outcomes we want? There seem to me to be three, achieving the first two depends on the third:

1. To stop 42 days detention without charge from becoming law

2. To reverse the creation of "the database state"

3. To ensure constitutional issues matter in the public mind and become part of popular politics

I will address them in reverse order.

To make constitutional issues popular

When the speaker of the Commons refused to allow David Davis to give his resignation speech to the House he was obliged to walk out of the palace of Westminster to deliver it in the open air. The symbolism was perfect. If you haven't, do watch it. Davis kicked down the door, walked out the bubble and announced the end of parliamentary government as we have known it:

"I had always viewed membership of this House as a noble endeavour, not least because we and our forebears have for centuries fiercely defended the fundamental freedoms of our citizens. Or we did, up until yesterday...

But in truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms...

This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And for that reason, I feel that today it's incumbent on me to take a stand."

The groan of incredulity that swept political professionals, MPs and reporters alike was a cry of genuine pain, expressed as a condemnation of his vanity, as if they were selfless moderates all. Peter Wilby crafted an excellent summary,

"Davis was guilty of ‘flawed judgment, erratic temperament and unrestrained ego', raged the Times leader. His behaviour was ‘egregiously self-serving', his resignation statement ‘weary rhetoric'. The Guardian's Julian Glover thought Davis's decision the result of ‘some sort of extraordinary brainstorm'. The Telegraph's Iain Martin saw it as ‘monumentally wrong-headed', the Mirror's Kevin Maguire as ‘the mother of all bad political stunts', the Independent's Michael Brown as ‘truly bizarre'. And that was just in the papers that agreed with Davis, at least on being against 42-day detentions. On the pro-42 days side, the Sun's headlines were ‘Davis is a quitter', ‘Who Dares Whinges' (Davis is a former SAS man, geddit?) and ‘Crazy Davis'."

Perhaps the BBC was the worst. Committed to public-service broadcasting, its remit includes education as well as the obligation to inform and entertain. But had it educated the public about the fact that half those arrested under anti-terrorism laws are innocent? Davis was in effect challenging the failure of the media as well as parliament.


Keep reading ...

**********

It is not inherently wrong, but rather healthy, to be proud of the democratic institutions of our country - it is however pure folly to hold as an article of faith the perfection and immaculate nature of these same institutions.

Such blind patriotism, or unshakable pride, in our institutions are as damaging to our constitutions and civil rights, as citizen apathy can be - and actually is - one of the strongest eroding agents of those same cornerstones upon which our democracies are founded upon.

In fact, both attitudes - that of the blind/false patriot and the apathetic citizen - are not only unwitting enablers of those who would transform our countries into authoritarian security states, but furthermore inevitably become tacit supporters of such would-be "leaders".

And, as consequence, they play the roles of de facto accomplices in the gradual disintegration of those very democratic values and institutions for which such pride is derived from to begin with.

Not questioning the actions and decisions of those who govern through our consent constitutes the basest betrayal of those democratic principles that we so loudly proclaim to hold dear.

As I put it a while back:

We The People - this is what it has, and always has been, about. In a democracy, it is the electorate who holds all the keys and guard all the doors - provided that the citizens actually live up to their responsibility.

(...) we are the ones who have broken the "contract between citizens and their government" because, in essence, we thought somehow that our vigilance and implication were optional.

(...) We gave the keys away to the foxes and let them guard the hen house without supervision, because we would not be bothered anymore with our "burdensome" responsibilities as citizens. Hence, we are only reaping what we have sown.

Therefore, we must ever remain vigilant if we are to preserve our democratic values and institutions ... just like we will have to bear the shame of having forsaken them because of intellectual sloth, ignorance, fear, selfishness and the search for instant gratification.

As I am fond of saying: "Living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility. And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?"

It is high time to remember that it is indeed we who guard all the doors and hold all the keys of our democratic values and institutions.

It is, in the end, up to us to act as the Guardians and Caretakers of our constitutions, our civil rights and our civil liberties.

It has always been up to us.


(Cross-posted from APOV)

You Think You Are Safe From The Ruling Regime? Guess Again ...

Considering all the (righteous) hooplah concerning the capitulation on the FISA + "telecom immunity" + FISA "wide open", we should all be taking into account what FISA always was to begin with - an affront to the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S.A. (emphasis added):

The act was passed in 1979, in the wake of the Church Hearings and other congressional action that exposed and shut down the FBI's COINTELPRO domestic spying program. From the late 1940s through the early 1970s, the FBI was spying on tens of thousands of American citizens, with little or no oversight. What began as a search for communist inflitrators widened into surveillance on political groups, right and left, that were seen as threats. After Watergate and the end of Nixon's "imperial presidency," as it became apparent that the FBI had been used as a tool to stifle dissent, Congress put an end to COINTELPRO with a series of statutes that forbade electronic surveillance except by means of a search warrant.

But the intelligence agencies argued - persuasively - that this left a gap in terms of intelligence-gathering on foreign agents operating in the U.S. Having to go to an ordinary judge, many of whom have only minimal security vetting, and lay out specific "sources and methods" information to get an intelligence wiretap warrant, might compromise the security of those "sources and methods." In some instances, it might put the lives of informants and other assets at risk. The intelligence agencies argued that they needed another, more secure way to gain such warrants.

And thus was born FISA - the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - and the very first secret court in our nation's history. Yes, the FISA Court is a secret court. FISC judges undergo full security vetting, because they will have access to "sources and methods" material, the factual allegations constituting probable cause for a FISA warrant. The affidavits for FISA warrants are classified. The subject cannot see the affidavit, nor challenge its factual basis in court.

See how FISA and its FISC constituted an affront to the 4th Amendment to begin with? That is what some bloggers have been decrying all along since the current "telecom immunity" issue began - most notably Chris Floyd (example here) and, especially, Arthur Silber (example here).

But as if this was not bad enough, then came the "breaking of the wall of separation" between intelligence gathering and regular law enforcement (emphasis added):

And that seemed reasonable, because the original FISA specified that no information gained by means of a FISA warrant could be used in a criminal prosecution. There was a "wall of separation" between the intelligence-gathering and law enforcement sections within the FBI. The former was to investigate foreign espionage cases; the latter was to investigate crimes and gather evidence for prosecution. And because FISA warrants were not reviewable in a trial court, the two were not allowed to mix.

That ended with the USA PATRIOT Act. The consensus, after 9/11, was that the plot might have been stopped had the intelligence and law enforcement agencies been able to share information. Foreign-trained and -financed terrorists acting in the United States do seem to pose a special case, as they are not "spies," but rather are plainly "criminals." Thus the USAPA took down that "wall of separation," allowing information gained from FISA warrants (and other classified intelligence methods) to be used by law enforcement agencies and in criminal prosecutions.

And thus, after being maimed by FISA proper, the 4th Amendment was effectively killed once and for all by the USAPA. In other words (emphasis added):

Not even (a) trial judge can see the FISA affidavit. It is classified, "sources and methods" information. The prosecutor can show the judge that a FISA warrant was indeed issued, but that's as far as it goes.

Because (the defense) can't see the factual allegations underlying the FISA warrant - not even the trial judge can see that - (the defense) cannot challenge the validity of that warrant. It's not reviewable. Not at trial. Not on appeal. Not ever.

Which means they could have said anything they wanted. They could have had only the flimsiest pretext of probable cause. They could even have lied outright. You'll never know, so you can't challenge it.

Oh, and the FISC has refused fewer than five of the tens of thousands of warrant requests submitted, in the past 19 years. The FISC is, quite literally, a rubber-stamp court.

This is the "protection" offered by FISA. This is the "constitutional safeguard" so many of you are so up in arms to preserve. It is no safeguard at all.

See? It is a basic truism that one's constitutional rights exist only so long as one (or one's lawyer) can challenge their violation in court. In this respect, FISA is definitely not the last bastion of the 4th Amendment - as too many progressives out there like to claim in the context of the current issue of "telecom immunity" capitulation.

Even worse, there are those progressives who are actually supporting/defending/excusing some of the Democrats who capitulated, including Barack Obama (examples here and here), or worse - deciding to accept the lesser of two evils.

This is ludicrous, since, as Silber puts it:

(...) as odious and destructive of liberty and privacy as the new FISA "compromise" bill is, there is one perspective from which the momentous to-do about this legislation is very badly misplaced. The selective focus on FISA misses the crucial larger picture (...) if we were genuinely concerned about civil liberties and privacy, we would return to the Fourth Amendment and the procedures it requires, and the FISA regime would be abolished entirely. That's right: it would be abolished. No one wants to do that. Too radical, doncha know. That's scary talk, much scarier, it would appear, than the tyranny which daily strengthens its death grip on all our throats. Nonetheless, if you want to understand the nature and scope of the decades-long attack on individual liberty, you had better remember what FISA is.

Moreover, understand the nature of the old FISA regime, which appears to be just fine with almost everyone, Republicans, Democrats, progressives, everyone. Steny Hoyer has helpfully spelled out the near-omnipotent powers of FISA under the old scheme. Understand how comprehensive it is, and how comprehensively it destroys civil liberties.

Silber then goes on to provide but a few further examples of "sinister instruments", detailing their forceful penetration into every aspect of the lives of Americans.

And Chris Floyd to add:

Watch the layers peel away. The FISA compromise bill is abominable, without question; anyone who supports it cannot possibly be regarded as a serious believer in constitutional democracy. Yet behind this truth is another one, noted above: the FISA system itself is an abomination for a free people. And behind this comes yet another, grimmer truth: the FISA system, either old-style or the new Obama-abetted version, is just a miniscule part of the "endless array of weapons" at the disposal of the National Surveillance State (...).

In short: no one is safe.

And I submit here this further axiom - Canadians are not safe either:

The free sharing of intelligence databases between American security agencies and Canadian ones paves the way for full, unrestrained and potentially abusive domestic spying-by-proxy on both sides of the border. Why? Because Americans can spy on Canadians without warrants and Canadians can spy on Americans without warrants, being allowed to store their data into databases ... which are in turn freely shared between American and Canadian security agencies.

That's North American integration for you.

It is a given, demonstrated fact that governmental security agencies are not seekers of truth, but seekers of guilt. Whenever they are given any powers to spy on their own citizens, they will do so - for reasons frivolous, paranoid or (apparently very rarely as shown so far) actually justified.

Anything and nothing can - and will - be held against you.

Because in the mindset of governmental security agencies, everyone is suspect, everyone is guilty. Period.

And that is not taking into account the plain, typical bureaucrat, often frustrated by his/her bleak, menial job and driven by his/her petty jealousies. Such potential banality of evil is clearly illustrated by Silber:

The fact that every aspect of our lives is regulated, directed and controlled has a further result, one of the most dangerous of all: If someone in government decides to go after you, he has an endless array of weapons from which to choose. Even if you emerge from the battle with your life largely intact, anyone in government who wishes to do so can turn your life into hell for years on end, even for decades. It may all begin with some pathetic bureaucrat in a cramped, stifling cubicle. Perhaps someone cut him off in traffic that morning; perhaps he had a fight at home the night before. Perhaps he's just a rotten human being. He happens to come across your name on some document, and he thinks: "I know: I'll go after him. That could be fun." And your life is destroyed.

Once again: welcome to the Security State of North America, my friends.

Food for thought, eh?


(Originally posted at APOV)