Avowedly or not, in the wake of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden it’s obvious that our State aspires to scrutinize all human communication and physical movement across the planet. Originally they called the project “total information awareness” but they’ve since re-branded this product for the same reason that BlackWater is now called Academi. A few years ago this goal would have seemed laughable to most non-techies (like myself) but it now looks like they’re actually within striking distance. This intention and these capabilities raise some serious questions which have not, in my opinion, received nearly enough attention.
Wouldn’t it be vastly easier, less expensive and certainly less intrusive to dispense with the spying and simply concentrate on securing the obvious targets? Instead of spying on billions of potential terrorists wouldn’t it make more sense to concentrate on the physical security of nuclear plants, chemical facilities and public structures? Take 9-11 as an example: we spent vast sums of money tracking nineteen disgruntled Saudis when a modest investment in cockpit security was always a no-brainer and would have saved the day. Is their any truly rational justification for all of this surveillance.
Even if you do believe that constant surveillance is necessary, why does our Government hide its actions and deny that it is spying on us (except when they‘re caught)? Are we children? Can we not be trusted to understand why these actions are taken? When you enter a department store you know that store security is watching you, they make no great effort to hide the cameras and certainly they would not deny their existence. This doesn’t seem to stop many people from shopping. Similarly, most people have assumed for many years that the Government is eavesdropping on them but we still converse freely. Any serious “terrorist” understands this perfectly well; there is no “element of surprise” to be compromised. If our Government is hiding its actions should we not take this as evidence that their motives are less than pure?
Where’s the oversight? It is ludicrous to imagine that a handful of Senators, Congressmen and FISA judges can monitor the enormous hydra which has grown up since 9-11. Obviously they only know as much as the CIA and NSA choose to tell them. At the very least, if we’re expected to submit blandly to all this surveillance then it’s time to talk about oversight. There should be an intelligence body comparable to the Internal Affairs section of the Police Department. Someone has to watch the watchers.
And last but not least, is it unreasonable to ask for an official definition of “Terrorism”? Is there a rational explanation as to why this threat is so profound that total surveillance is justified but negotiating with the perpetrators is not acceptable. With all due respect to the victims of 9-11, three thousand people died, that‘s .001% of our population; a hundred times that and more have died on our highways since then but I don’t see the DMV conducting background checks or installing surveillance cameras outside of bars. Yes, the intentional targeting of civilians is unquestionably repugnant but viewed rationally is there any appropriate justification for the magnitude of our response? The U.S. has targeted civilians as well (in Germany, Japan, Vietnam and other places too) and we never hesitated to negotiate with other states that committed similar acts (like the USSR, Israel or Iraq [under Saddam] ); why is it that we refuse to speak with Al Qaeda? If their demands are unreasonable then going on record in a public setting will help to discredit and weaken them, if their demands have some merit then we would be wise to consider them. When there is a conflict and one party refuses to speak with the other, we must question their motives. To me it seems that “Terrorism” has been transformed into an existential threat, like an alien invasion or killer asteroid. This threat justifies absolutely anything; surveillance, torture, assassination - you name it.. Negotiating with the enemy would clearly break the spell by transforming our enemies back into human beings. Then we’d have to start acting like humans as well.
In the absence of substantive answers to these questions I can only assume that George Orwell was right. I fully expect all the predictions of 1984 to come true, probably within my lifetime and certainly within those of my children. Sorry kids.