More than the oligarchs deploying the police state against the nameless masses, this system's power expands its grid to target specific oligarchical operatives. Some oligarchical operatives who promoted the NSA panopticon's necessity like former members of the U.S. Congress Jane Harman (D-CA) and Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) reveal their hypocrisy when expressing anger upon learning their exalted status offered no shield from the surveillance state. Their abrupt shift from surveillance state promoter to faux-converts of "privacy" is certainly funny. This humor though is ephemeral because such operatives' communications being seamlessly sucked up into the surveillance state demonstrates it is an integral component of modern society. We can criticize it on most frequently on social media, but we cannot escape this surveillance state.
The surveillance state is a digital system manipulating data; meanwhile, this virtual power base coexists with an increasingly violent police state.
A seemingly increase of police killings of citizens certainly reveals evidence that the police state is less heated rhetoric and more a cold reality. I say "seemingly" because the U.S. federal government currently tracks no figures of police officers' killing of citizens. [1]. Nonetheless, some though not all of the law enforcement departments across the U.S., provide data showing alarming rates of cops killing citizens:
Officials with the Justice Department keep no comprehensive database or record of police shootings, instead allowing the nations's more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies to self-report officer-involved shootings as part of the FBI's annual data on "justifiable homicides"by law enforcement.
That number-which includes self-reported information from about 750 law enforcement agencies-hovers around 400 "justifiable homicides" by police each year. The DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics also tracks "arrest-related deaths." But, the department stopped releasing those numbers after 2009, because, like the FBI data, they were widely regarded as unreliable. [2].The same U.S. government that tracks data on many kinds of trivial makes no commitment to track how many citizens are killed by police officers. This omission should concern all who value civil liberties, especially because the U.S. government tracks the number of police officers killed in the line of duty.
A close review of the FBI data on cops assaulted or killed in the line of duty do not suggest a nation fractured by civil unrest. However, during 2013 FBI data shows that 49,851 police officers reported being assaulted [3]. This figure certainly suggests police officers are constant targets and should prompt their most vocal critics to reevaluate their conclusions. But, of this figure 29.2% of the reported assaults included the police officer sustaining injuries. [4]. These two figures prompt my asking two cynical questions. If only 29.2% of the cops assaulted were injured, were the other 71.8% really assaulted? And, regarding the 29.2% assaulted, how many of them by chance initiated the corresponding physical altercations? Both questions may be groundless. Additional statistics compiled by the FBI show the prevalence of cops killing civilians is not resulting from an increasingly murderous society.
The number of cops murdered in the line of duty from 2004-2013 totaled 511. [5]. During this 10-year period, the fewest number of cops (27) being murdered occurred in 2013. [6]. In addition to the 10-year decline in the murder rate of cops, the overall homicide has declined. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
The U.S. homicide rate declined by nearly half (49.3%), from 9.3 homicides per 100,000 U.S. residents in 1992 to 4.7 in 2011, falling to the lowest level since 1963. [7].With a declining homicide rate, what factors explain an apparent increase in police officers killing citizens? Many dynamics may explain these divergent trends which may prove to be a statistical anomaly implying no forging of a police state. Other actions taken by the state support claims that the U.S. is becoming more of a police state.
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed on December 10th and 9th, 2014, respectively, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015-pending President Obama's signature (view the Bill's approval track at (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr4681 ). Congress passes many innocuous sounding bills. The public's innocuous reaction or lack thereof shouldn't prevent our expressing concerns about the the future impact this bill could have on our civil liberties. Congressman Justin Amash (R-Mich) who voted against this bill expressed his reasoning for opposing this Bill:
The provision in this Bill allowing the Executive Branch to expand its surveillance and retention of U.S citizens' communications further codifies the abolition of the 4th Amendment. Supporters of such a Bill will use the same rhetoric to justify its passage, presupposing their entrusting the state with imaginary benevolence and restraint. One cautionary example of little restraint imposed on the Executive branch's requests to conduct warrantless surveillance is demonstrated pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act enacted in 1979, which entails a three judge panel reviewing such requests. The three judge panels rejected only 12 of 35,530 surveillance requests reviewed from 1979-2013. [9]. Regardless whether supporters believe such a Bill is necessary, its language if acted on means that in order for the state to protect us, they must resort to ubiquitous spying on us. A benevolent police state is a police state, nonetheless.Block New Spying on U.S. Citizens: Vote “NO” on H.R. 4681Dear Colleague:The intelligence reauthorizationbill, which the House will vote on today, contains a troubling new provision that for the first time statutorily authorizes spying on U.S. citizens without legal process. Last night, the Senate passed an amended version of the intelligence reauthorizationbill with a new Sec. 309—one the House never has considered. Sec. 309 authorizes “the acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of nonpublic communications, including those to and from U.S. persons. The section contemplates that those private communications of Americans, obtained without a court order, may be transferred to domestic law enforcement for criminal investigations. To be clear, Sec. 309 provides the first statutory authority for the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of U.S. persons’ private communications obtained without legal process such as a court order or a subpoena. The administration currently may conduct such surveillance under a claim of executive authority, such as E.O. 12333. However, Congress never has approved of using executive authority in that way to capture and use Americans’ private telephone records, electronic communications,or cloud data. Supporters of Sec. 309 claim that the provision actually reins in the executive branch’s power to retain Americans’ private communications.It is true that Sec. 309 includes exceedingly weak limits on the executive’s retention of Americans’ communications. With many exceptions, the provision requires the executive to dispose of Americans’ communications within five years of acquiring them—although, as HPSCI admits, the executive branch already follows procedures along these lines. In exchange for the data retention requirements that the executive already follows, Sec. 309 provides a novel statutory basis for the executive branch’s capture and use of Americans’ private communications.The Senate inserted the provision into the intelligence reauthorization bill late last night. That is no way for Congress to address the sensitive, private information of our constituents—es pecially when we are asked to expand our government’s surveillance powers. I urge you to join me in voting “no” on H.R. 4681, the intelligence reauthorizationbill, when it comes before the House today. [8].
Will a condition of freedom be invented that offers to us some reprieve somewhere within the ubiquitous surveillance state? Is it too utopian to imagine a free condition in the future where the surveillance state lacks the means to intrude upon it?
[1]. Wesley Lowery. "How many police shootings a year? No one knows." Post Nation. The Washington Post. September 08, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/09/08/how-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/
[2]. Ibid.
[3]. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports: 2013 Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2013/officers-assaulted/assaults_topic_page_-2013
[4]. Ibid.
[5]. The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reports: 2013 Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2013/tables/table_1_leos_fk_region_geographic_division_and_state_2004-2013.xls
[6]. Ibid.
[7]. Alexia Cooper, PhD and Erica L. Smith. "Homicide in the U.S. Known to Law Enforcement, 2011." Dec 30, 2013. NCJ 243035. Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4863
[8]. Washington's Blog. "Congress Just Passed Legislation Ramping Up Mass Surveillance to Super-Steroid Levels. Dec 11, 2014. Global Research: Center for Research on Globalization. http://www.globalresearch.ca/congress-just-passed-legislation-ramping-up-mass-surveillance-to-super-steroid-levels/5419350
[9]. Electronic Privacy Information Center. epic.org. "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2014." https://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html
No comments:
Post a Comment