Re: [A-List] US national insecurity state

["Annewilliamson" <Annewilliamson@xxxxxxx>]

Yes, unfortunately it is an accurate report, Sabri.  I was in London last
week for the SRA Conference on Oil Wars and queried another speaker, Chuck
Spinney, a DOD analyst and maverick (great website, www.d-n-i.net) and he
took the position that the program was unrealistic as far as attainability
goes, that Poindexter had bitten off more than he could chew, and that the
only certain consequence of Poindexter's efforts would be the transfer of
large sums of taxpayer money to the program, and his agency (which, he
maintains, is the truth of about 90% of DOD programs and initiatives - just
funnel huge sums to defense contractors.) -A.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>
To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 8:24 AM(
Subject: [A-List] US national insecurity state


> Please tell me that this news is a hoax. Sabri
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Sorry, Sabri, but this has been circulating all week now in so many
> different places that either it's an absolutely splendid hoax or it's all
> too real. I incline to the latter, especially given the personalities
> involved, especially Admiral Poindexter.
>
>
> Pentagon creates a Big Brother so Uncle Sam can keep his eye on us
>
> Lawrence Donegan San Francisco
> Sunday November 17, 2002
> The Observer
>
> The motto of the Information Awareness Office in Washington DC reads
> 'Knowledge is Power' and, just a few months into its life, it's clear that
> the newly founded Pentagon offshoot aims to become very powerful indeed.
>
> In a development which has provoked outrage across America's political
> spectrum, the IAO has begun work on a global computer surveillance network
> which will allow unfettered access to personal details currently held in
> government and commercial databases around the world.
>
> Contracts worth millions of dollars have been awarded to companies to
> develop technology which will enable the Pentagon to store billions of
> pieces of electronic personal information - from records of internet use
to
> travel documentation, lending library records and bank transactions - and
> then access this information without a search warrant. The system would
also
> used video technology to identify people at a distance.
>
> 'Total Information Awareness,' or TIA, was proposed to the Pentagon by
> Admiral John Poindexter after the terrorist attacks of September 2001. A
> former official in the Reagan administration who was convicted for his
> leading role in the Iran-Contra scandal, Poindexter was appointed head of
> the IAO in February.
>
> Implementing the proposal would require legislation, which is before
> Congress, to amend existing laws protecting people's privacy.
>
> Poindexter made his first public comments about TIA this week, saying that
> because the war against terrorism was global so, too, would be the data
his
> agency would seek.
>
> 'How are we going to find terrorists, and pre-empt them, except by
following
> their trail? The problem is much more complex than we've faced before -
how
> to harness with technology the street smarts of people on the ground on a
> global scale,' he said. His remarks prompted civil rights groups to claim
> that countries such as Britain would be caught up in the Pentagon's
network.
>
> 'From what little we know of the Information Awareness Office, it is clear
> that, by comparison, 1984 was just a primer,' said Mihir Kshirsagar, a
> policy analyst at the Electronic Privacy Information Centre in Washington.
> 'This will intrude on every aspect of people's lives and completely change
> our culture. It is the government saying, "We will collect every piece of
> information about you and then we will decide whether or not we like what
> you are doing."'
>
> Former senator Gary Hart, of the US Commission on National Security, said
> the plan was a 'total overkill of intelligence,'and, potentially, a huge
> waste of money.
>
> -----
>
> Someone to watch over me
>
> Watch out - extra government powers granted as security measures have a
> nasty habit of sticking around
>
> Ian Buruma
> Tuesday November 19, 2002
> The Guardian
>
> Call it the Tokyo Police Syndrome. When I lived in Japan during the 1970s,
I
> noticed an odd thing: every time a foreign leader came to visit, there
would
> be more cops in the streets and heavier measures were taken to protect the
> visitor's security, measures which then came to be seen as normal. Once
> granted, police powers never reduce. When extra powers become law, you
have
> a serious problem. Consider, most recently, the cases of Hong Kong and the
> United States.
>
> It isn't entirely clear whether Hong Kong is slowly being strangled, or
> committing political suicide, but the Hong Kong government's plan to enact
> legislation, under article 23 of the Basic Law, which prohibits acts of
> treason, secessions, sedition, subversion, or theft of state secrets, as
> well contacts with foreign political organisations, is likely to wreck the
> one comparative advantage Hong Kong still has over other cities in China:
> its residual civil liberties. What it could mean is that a newspaper
article
> about, say, Taiwanese independence, lands the writer and his editor in
> prison. An anti-government demonstration, or even a memorial of the
> Tiananmen massacre, could lead to arrests. Trade unions, parties or
> religious groups could be banned for having contact with foreign political
> organisations.
>
> This might seem a little alarmist, but one should remember the case in
1993
> of the Hong Kong reporter who spent four years in a Chinese jail for
writing
> that the government was going to raise interest rates (divulging state
> secrets). The trouble with subversion laws is that they are vague enough
for
> authorities to abuse them. Anything can be banned in the interest of
> national security, public safety or public order.
>
> Since Hong Kong has no particular problem with national security, one
> wonders why its rulers want this now. My guess is that there is a
> convergence of fears: the Chinese government fears that Hong Kong could
> become a base for subversive activities, and Hong Kong's local mandarins
> fear that their authority, which is not based on a democratic mandate,
might
> be undermined by criticism from their own citizens. As far as democratic
> tolerance is concerned, there is little to choose between the business men
> who run Hong Kong and their technocratic masters in Beijing.
>
> There might be a more Machiavellian explanation for Chinese pressure on
Hong
> Kong: snuffing out its freedoms would make Hong Kong less competitive with
> the mainland cities. Why do business in authoritarian Hong Kong, if
Shanghai
> is cheaper? Western businessmen have said as much.
>
> In the USA, on the other hand, pretty much every politician prides himself
> on his love of democracy and freedom. Yet there too civil liberties are
> under siege, and for the same ostensible reason: national security. If the
> Homeland Security Act, in its present form, becomes law, the US government
> will have the right to snoop into every aspect of its citizens' lives:
what
> they buy or sell, what websites they visit on the internet, what medicines
> they take, what they write in their emails, and where they are and what
they
> are doing at any given moment. And the man who wants to administer the
> Information Awareness Office, the chief snoop, is Admiral John Poindexter.
>
> Poindexter was Ronald Reagan's former national security adviser, the man
who
> thought up the Iran-Contra scam and was convicted in 1990 for misleading
> Congress and making false statements. The fact that Poindexter is an
> unsavoury character is not, however, the point. The Homeland Security Act
is
> just the latest of several proposals to strengthen state power at the
> expense of individual privacy. The USA Patriot Act is already law. The
> Terrorism Information and Prevention System, encouraging informers, was
shot
> down in the House. But despite some ferocious criticism from such
> libertarians as William Safire, the conservative columnist, this bill is
> expected to pass. And where the US goes, Britain is likely to follow.
>
> Open societies, such as Britain or the US, are, of course, vulnerable to
> terrorism, and it may be so that we have to grant our governments more
> powers to cope with potential disasters. But once those powers are there,
> they will be very hard to dislodge, even in calmer times. Poindexter may
be
> a more malign snoop than Jack Straw or an American Democrat, but the fact
is
> that no democratic government should be given powers that are too easy to
> abuse.
>
>
>
>
>