As America's empire spreads abroad, it becomes ever more the police state at home. The methods used for the suppression of foreigners by military force and violence are eventually mirrored in the “homeland.”
In an article last September 25th titled “It Is Official: the US Is A Police State,” author Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Treasury Secretary during the Reagan years, wrote, “'Violent extremism' is one of those undefined police state terms that will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. In this morning's FBI foray into the homes of American citizens of conscience it means antiwar activists, whose activities are equated with 'the material support of terrorism'...”
The FBI raids at home are reminiscent of U.S. military raids overseas. In Iraq, for instance, labor union offices were raided and rifled and labor leaders imprisoned by the Occupation forces. Their “crime” was to oppose sweetheart contract deals with private oil firms.
The vast U.S. prison system, which houses 2.4 million Americans, may be compared with the Gulag the U.S. has built abroad. America today is the World's Jailer. As Allan Uthman reported on AlterNet, in 2006 the Bush regime began building “detention centers” to warehouse inmates for unspecified “new programs” when the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root nearly $400 million. What we do abroad, we do at home.
Adopting police state tactics on Americans the U.S. Empire first used on subjects abroad has a long history. When Filipinos rebelled against U.S. rule after their country was “liberated” from Spain, captured resistance fighters were subjected to water torture. Twenty years later, imprisoned American pacifists who opposed the Wilson administration's entry into World War One were hung by their hands, and had running hoses shoved in their faces.
In its editorial of July 25th, The Nation magazine denounces America's use of “secret armies, covert operations...offshore torture centers, out-of-control armed corporations, runaway military spending, wars by fleets of robots, wars by assassination---and all the other features of the imperial presidency...”
The magazine has long sought to end these practices. It's still a great idea but now it's a tad late. The Reactionary Elite that runs America is powerful. Congress rubber-stamps President Obama's five wars of aggression abroad and enacts laws at home that scorch individual liberty. The result is the emergent police state.
The other day I watched people entering a bus station in Orlando, Florida, submit to a body scan by two security officers who had no probable cause whatever to search them. Americans boarding trains and planes now accept such scans routinely. In area after area, Americans are accepting violations of their privacy in the name of “national security” with hardly a murmur of dissent. The Bush regime created "watch"(75,000 names) and "no fly"(45,000 names) lists that restrict individuals' air travel--and those searched and/or stopped from flying can complain all they like because it won't do them any good.
Robert Johnson, an American citizen, Naomi Wolf reports in her book “The End of America”(Chelsea Green), described the humiliation factor of being strip searched when he attempted to board an airplane: "I had to take off my pants. I had to take off my sneakers, then I had to take off my socks. I was treated like a criminal." This has now become a commonplace ordeal for countless numbers of Americans. Even at the height of World War Two, such invasions of personal rights would have been unthinkable.
Fear of government, unlike anything I have ever known in my lifetime, appears widespread. How do I know people are fearful? Because many readers call me “courageous” (which I definitely am not) for challenging the government, revealing that they truly do fear to speak out.
David Cole, a professor at Georgetown Law School, writes in The Nation that Congress last May reauthorized provisions of the misnamed “Patriot Act” that “permit the government to obtain 'roving' wiretaps without identifying the person or the phone to be tapped, (to)demand records from libraries and businesses without establishing any reason to believe the target is involved in criminal, much less terrorist, activity; and (to)use surveillance powers initially restricted to agents of foreign governments or terrorist organizations against 'lone wolves' not affiliated with any such group or government.” This is an echo of the ECHELON system the U.S. and its British Commonwealth allies have employed since World War Two to eavesdrop on the entire planet, track dissenters, and steal business secrets.
Cole also writes Attorney General Eric Holder will now allow FBI agents “to rummage through citizens' trash, conduct searches of computer databases and repeatedly use surveillance squads to track people without any suspicion of individual wrongdoing or court approval.” (Just like the body searches at the bus terminal.) The absence of court approval is significant in that a court is the only legal bulwark a citizen has against unbridled police power. And now that's gone. The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq have suffered far worse at the hands of American-led military.
The fact is, when the Empire goes to war, the life of its individual citizen is devalued and degraded---not only on the battlefield, where it is often sacrificed for all the wrong reasons, but at home as well. It's happening here. The right to form unions freely is scrapped in defiance of the vast majority of workers who want one. The public treasury is looted by Congress to bail out the bankers over the 100-to-one protests of constituents. Foreign wars are waged over the wishes of the popular majority who want them ended.
As liberty after liberty is being circumscribed or eliminated, the common man and woman are being reduced to the common serf. Harold Laski, a former chairman of the British Labor Party, once noted, “We live under a system by which the many are exploited by the few, and war is the ultimate sanction of that exploitation.” Imperialism---whether practiced by Spain in the 16th century, England in the 18th century, Soviet Russia, Imperial Japan, and Nazi Germany in the 20th century, or America today---is a gangrene that expands tyranny at home with the equivalent velocity that it spreads war abroad.
Sherwood Ross is director of the Anti-War News Service. He formerly worked as a columnist for daily newspapers and wire services. All donations to his news service cheerfully accepted. Reach him at firstname.lastname@example.org
Sherwood Ross is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Sherwood Ross
Global Research, July 25, 2011 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25770
The year is quite young, and yet it has already seen a multitude of disturbing events and trends — unrest in Cairo and North Africa; nuclearization in Iran; a growing anti-American alliance among Turkey, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria; the expansionary designs of a newly unabashed China with attendant repercussions on Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan; calls for the end of the dollar as the global currency; the muscle flexing from an “I can’t believe my good luck” Russia; and the tottering of the European Union. I have no idea how most Americans react to any of the above, and I don’t think the administration has either.
We do know that President Obama wants to borrow another $1.6 trillion this year to ensure expansion of EU-like entitlements. One mystery is why the Chinese — 400 million of whom have never encountered Western-style medicine — apparently won’t mind lending us more of their hundreds of billions of dollars in surpluses to fund Obamacare. Another is why people should risk their environments in Africa, the Russian Arctic, and Asian coastal waters to provide petroleum for a thirsty planet, while we will not take much smaller risks to satisfy our own voracious oil appetite. The only common denominator is our desire to consume more than we produce.
Yet the impending crises on the horizon — so reminiscent of the annus horribilis of 1979, when the wages of another American president’s sermonizing and economic weakness came due — are not foreordained to come at America’s expense. Were we to put our financial house in order, slash our deficits, show the world how we intend to pay down our $14 trillion debt, and make the needed long-term reforms to Social Security and Medicare, the United States would be in a unique position in comparison to an ailing and sclerotic Europe, a demographically challenged Japan, and a China with a rendezvous with social tension, environmental catastrophe, and a warped demography. We are still a more open and transparent society than our rivals — with a more meritocratic ethos, far greater social and political stability, and blessed with vast natural and human resources. Why, then, cannot we regain our exceptionalism?
In a word, I think we do not wish to. The problem — aside from the fact that we are a country obsessed with wrangling over distribution of old wealth (much of it provided by previous generations) rather than creation of new national riches — is that the United States does not quite know what its role should be in yet another new world order.
Hence, President Obama was a day late and a dollar short in figuring out both the Tehran 2009 and the Cairo 2011 protests. Like a modern-day Hamlet, he paused to examine every imaginable consequence before doing nothing — as in “Should I criticize Ahmadinejad when I promised in landmark fashion to meet face to face with the Iranians? Where is the U.N. in all of this? If I encourage the protesters, am I interfering in the internal affairs of Iran — the way America did a half century ago, for which I just apologized? If I support democratic reform, will I appear no different from a Bush neocon? Will Mubarak survive or will he not? Should he, or should he not? Are the protesters authentic Egyptians or Westernized upper middle classes without Third World bona fides? Are they Kerensky types about to be swallowed up by hard-core Islamists? Could my own unique heritage not appeal to the Muslim Brotherhood as I was hoping it would when I reached out to Iran and Syria? If I pressure Mubarak, will the Right ask why I did not pressure Ahmadinejad? If I do not, will the Left accuse me of realpolitik? Isn’t Bush at fault somewhere here?” So many questions, so many occasions to vote present.
The reset “I’m not Bush” Pavlovian foreign policy is in shambles. There comes a moment in which a trivial event finally distills chaos into clarity. In the Obama administration’s case, it was the description of the Muslim Brotherhood by the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, who just assured Capitol Hill that the Brotherhood was “largely secular” and has “eschewed violence.” Keep that inanity in mind, and almost everything else becomes clear. Add “Muslim” to “Brotherhood” and these days you get “largely secular.”
The euphemisms for terrorism have become a late-night-show running joke; more, not fewer, terrorist plots directed at the U.S. have answered Obama’s Muslim outreach efforts. It is by now about as likely that Eric Holder will try KSM in a New York federal court as that Obama himself will close down Guantanamo, which he earlier described as “a tremendous recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.” The one Obama success (in Joe Biden’s words, the administration’s “greatest achievement”) was a still-constitutional Iraq — only because Obama dropped his own campaign promises on unilateral withdrawals and stuck to the Bush-Petraeus departure plans.
A strengthened U.S. role in the U.N. has come to nothing. Did we gain anything by humiliating Israel in 2009? Are Venezuela and its axis moderating their efforts to turn Latin America into a Marxist utopia? Has America ever before joined Mexico — or any other foreign government – in efforts to sue one of its own states that simply wanted federal law enforced? Was Russia really all that eager to help an appeasing U.S. diplomatically? When the U.S. provided serial numbers of British nuclear weapons to Putin’s Russia, and when Europeans like Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have to lecture the West about the failures of multiculturalism, we are reminded that the Europeans should have been careful of what they so loudly wished for during the 2008 presidential campaign.
Are we inept or calculating in piling up over $4 trillion in debt in just 36 months and lowering America’s global profile? If the goal of the present American administration is to turn the United States into something envisioned on university campuses, the editorial page of the New York Times, and breezy synopses on NPR, then it is right on schedule. But what would that new America look like?
An enormous public sector, guided by an elite European-like technocracy overseeing henchmen in public unions, would ensure spread-the-wealth redistribution, more regulation, and an ideology of equality of result that reminds us that at some point (the new financial Mason-Dixon line of $250,000 in annual income?), we have made enough money at someone else’s expense. Abroad, it might mean a new America analogous to France or Germany, which from time to time would chest-pound about current crises, but would risk nothing while calibrating the post-facto humanitarian rhetoric to match realities on the ground.
In sum, just as we are to be all equal at home, so abroad all nations are to be equal as well — if not by fiat, at least by wish. Sameness, here and abroad — that is the new national aspiration.