Reining in the Fear-Monger Monopoly
Published in Sueddeutsche Zeitung
(Germany) on 5 June 2015
by Nicolas Richter (link to original)
(Germany) on 5 June 2015
by Nicolas Richter (link to original)
Translated from
by Ron Argentati.
Edited by Laurence Bouvard.
Despite its tremendous strengths, the United States is a timid and easily frightened country. Especially since the 9/11 attacks, one often hears prophets of doom proposing the most abstruse things be done in the name of national security. This monopoly of fear once included President George W. Bush who ordered the rampant collection of private citizens' telephone data and the pillaging of the entire country in the name of security.
Today, the latest members of this cartel include politicians and would-be presidents such as Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. Graham is demanding — again — more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq to prevent the Islamic State from conquering America. Rubio wants the U.S. military “strengthened” but fails to note that the United States already has the strongest military in world history.
“Strength” Could Mean Incompetence, Hubris and Deception
All the same, something noteworthy happened in Washington this week: For the first time since September 11, 2001, the bipartisan Congress voted to take something away from the national security apparatus instead of continually giving it more and more. The National Security Agency must give up its database of recorded domestic telephone calls ordered by the Bush administration and further monitoring is to be done only by private telephone companies.
That's less a reform of the NSA than it is a course correction, but it's a victory nonetheless against the security fanatics. Fourteen years after the terrorist attacks it's again possible in Washington to deny the security services something without the danger of being branded a traitor.
America's eternal fight between security and freedom hasn't been decided in freedom's favor by this vote but maybe it will now be a fight that will be more fairly and thoughtfully fought. The mega-security package called the Patriot Act was born at the end of 2001 out of a mixture of shock, panic and patriotic rage. The U.S. government then went about expanding its scope in secret: Every telephone call to grandma was deemed potentially relevant to pursuing jihadis. When the public got suspicious, the security apparatus lied to Congress.
Shock, executive excesses and lies — the U.S. surveillance apparatus was complicit in all of these. It's significant that President Obama initially went along with it. The erstwhile critic of an over-zealous executive branch could have reined the NSA in early on, but he didn't. Obama is a textbook example of how people quickly lose their distrust of an intrusive state once they think they control it.
The Mood Has Changed
Now, for the first time, Congress has admitted that the United States went overboard in the wake of 9/11 and that the chickens have now come home to roost. The impetus for that was given by Edward Snowden when he exposed the methods used by the NSA; after that, the driving forces were the pragmatists in both parties. Like their fellow countrymen, they wanted to avoid another 9/11 by any means, but at the same time they weren't prepared to let the government get away with anything it desired.
The mood has changed, especially among Republicans: As much as they loathe foreign groups like the Islamic State group, they also mistrust their own government. Libertarian Senator Rand Paul is correct in warning against the systematic fear-mongering which Washington's security apparatus has exploited for years in order to frighten the masses from one terrorist act to the next.
The Washington Fear-Mongers' Real Victory
But these latest course corrections by the NSA can't undo what the security monopoly accomplished in 15 years and much of it will still be with us. The NSA will continue to operate and to warehouse unimaginable amounts of global information in Utah. It will continue spying on America's closest allies. It will continue to be the core of the largest, most secret and most expensive security apparatus in world history.
At the same time, a presidential campaign is emerging in which the candidates will try to outdo one another to show more “power” and “resolve” on the world stage where the word “power” has already proven too often be another word for a fatal mixture of hubris, deception and incompetence. Whether U.S. troops will return to Iraq in the name of national security remains to be seen but the Republicans are fully capable of trying to convince the American people that America's security again needs to be defended in Iraq's deserts.
Either way, the majority of the security structure ramp-up following 9/11 will stay in place. That's the fear-mongers' real victory.
Today, the latest members of this cartel include politicians and would-be presidents such as Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio. Graham is demanding — again — more U.S. boots on the ground in Iraq to prevent the Islamic State from conquering America. Rubio wants the U.S. military “strengthened” but fails to note that the United States already has the strongest military in world history.
“Strength” Could Mean Incompetence, Hubris and Deception
All the same, something noteworthy happened in Washington this week: For the first time since September 11, 2001, the bipartisan Congress voted to take something away from the national security apparatus instead of continually giving it more and more. The National Security Agency must give up its database of recorded domestic telephone calls ordered by the Bush administration and further monitoring is to be done only by private telephone companies.
That's less a reform of the NSA than it is a course correction, but it's a victory nonetheless against the security fanatics. Fourteen years after the terrorist attacks it's again possible in Washington to deny the security services something without the danger of being branded a traitor.
America's eternal fight between security and freedom hasn't been decided in freedom's favor by this vote but maybe it will now be a fight that will be more fairly and thoughtfully fought. The mega-security package called the Patriot Act was born at the end of 2001 out of a mixture of shock, panic and patriotic rage. The U.S. government then went about expanding its scope in secret: Every telephone call to grandma was deemed potentially relevant to pursuing jihadis. When the public got suspicious, the security apparatus lied to Congress.
Shock, executive excesses and lies — the U.S. surveillance apparatus was complicit in all of these. It's significant that President Obama initially went along with it. The erstwhile critic of an over-zealous executive branch could have reined the NSA in early on, but he didn't. Obama is a textbook example of how people quickly lose their distrust of an intrusive state once they think they control it.
The Mood Has Changed
Now, for the first time, Congress has admitted that the United States went overboard in the wake of 9/11 and that the chickens have now come home to roost. The impetus for that was given by Edward Snowden when he exposed the methods used by the NSA; after that, the driving forces were the pragmatists in both parties. Like their fellow countrymen, they wanted to avoid another 9/11 by any means, but at the same time they weren't prepared to let the government get away with anything it desired.
The mood has changed, especially among Republicans: As much as they loathe foreign groups like the Islamic State group, they also mistrust their own government. Libertarian Senator Rand Paul is correct in warning against the systematic fear-mongering which Washington's security apparatus has exploited for years in order to frighten the masses from one terrorist act to the next.
The Washington Fear-Mongers' Real Victory
But these latest course corrections by the NSA can't undo what the security monopoly accomplished in 15 years and much of it will still be with us. The NSA will continue to operate and to warehouse unimaginable amounts of global information in Utah. It will continue spying on America's closest allies. It will continue to be the core of the largest, most secret and most expensive security apparatus in world history.
At the same time, a presidential campaign is emerging in which the candidates will try to outdo one another to show more “power” and “resolve” on the world stage where the word “power” has already proven too often be another word for a fatal mixture of hubris, deception and incompetence. Whether U.S. troops will return to Iraq in the name of national security remains to be seen but the Republicans are fully capable of trying to convince the American people that America's security again needs to be defended in Iraq's deserts.
Either way, the majority of the security structure ramp-up following 9/11 will stay in place. That's the fear-mongers' real victory.