Yet There Is Method In It

You see hundreds of houses every day. What if one has unusual activity and seems suspicious?

Terrorists live within our communities, planning attacks and storing chemicals. If you’re suspicious of a property where there’s unusual activity that doesn’t fit normal day-to-day life, the police need to know. Let experienced officers decide what action to take.

Just kidding! Those are not my words.

The top two paragraphs are actually part of a new counter terrorist campaign by the London police. Apart from reading like: “don’t think, let the state think for you!” and “anyone different to you might be a terrorist!” it also reminds me of a poster in the TV comedy Red Dwarf:

Betray your family and friends. Fabulous prizes to be won!

Nice,

Anti Citizen One

PS If anyone is weird enough to start reading this from the bottom, you know who you are(!!), you are probably less likely to think I have gone crazy with the start of this blog post…

“Contrary to earlier explicit assurances that Diego Garcia had not been used for rendition flights, recent US investigations have now revealed two occasions, both in 2002, when this had in fact occurred,” Miliband told MPs.
…
“We both agree that the mistakes made in these two cases are not acceptable, and she shares my deep regret that this information has only just come to light,” Miliband said. The Guardian

Raised this concern last summer. “I tried telling them, but they wouldn’t listen. They never listen…” (Vir, B5)

The question is will anything be done to rectify this? Will anything be done to stop it happening again?

AC1

Canada recently disclosed an internal government document that listed the US and Israel as states that practice torture. The Canadian government has since been in back pedal mode and withdrawn the accusation.

The Canadian foreign minster has said:

“I regret the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the manual used in the department’s torture awareness training”

“It contains a list that wrongly includes some of our closest allies.”

“I have directed that the manual be reviewed and rewritten. The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy. As such, it does not convey the Government’s views or positions.”

You might notice that they did not say “The United States does not torture detainees.” They did say the list “wrongly includes some of our closest allies”. This might imply they should not be on the list because they are allies!

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend”

Anti Citizen One

The US, the UK, China and Russia are “endemic surveillance societies”, according to a recent study examining privacy protection around the world that gave the four nations the lowest possible rating. New Scientist

Update: (this story nicely complements the above)

WASHINGTON (AP) – Telephone companies have cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau’s repeated failures to pay phone bills on time. Myway

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it. The Times

Retired CIA agent John Kiriakou speaks to ABC John Kiriakou said he felt water-boarding may be torture. A retired CIA agent has said a top al-Qaeda suspect was interrogated using a simulated drowning technique but that he believes it was justified. BBC

So if someone makes a mistake in US law enforcement, you might be falsely abducted and tortured. Due process does not apply since you are not in US legal jurisdiction.

Next time the US demands some hostage should be released or have good treatment, can I laugh ironically?

Did I mention that 2+2=5?

AC1

Following on from the widely reported scandal of the missing personal details of 25 million people and the backlash that this has inaugurated against the UK governments soon to be implemented ID card policy, I decided it was high time to meditate deeply on this matter.

In principle I was vaguely opposed to ID cards believing in the anarchist/libertarian concept of the liberty of the self, which opposes any intrusive governmental control over the details of your identity.

Yet two small qualms kept preventing me from an outright opposition to the idea (believing in vain that a sensible compromise could be reached). The first temptation came from my inner librarian who said “would’nt it be a good idea to have all your personal data centralised and organised in one neat database and card?” – thus preventing the countless piles of forms that need to be completed when any business is being conducted with government agencies. The second voice came from my inner nationalist “wouldn’t an ID card be helpful for counter-terrorism?” This was a strange position (for a revolutionary like me); but not being inclined towards Islamic fundamentalism (although I seek a greater understanding of its roots and development), and being repulsed by mass killings of the sort that occured on 9/11 and 11/7 and those planned but foiled on other occasions, I felt that possibly a national identity card of the variety used in the second world war could be of use to enhance our general security.

But this inner dilemma, politically opposed to ID cards yet pragmatically pre-disposed to supporting the notion, made me feel very uncomfortable. Therefore I did what many philosophers are prone to do (thus demonstrating the family resemblance between philosophy, law and science) and I sought advice in historical precedent. One of the phrases commonly bandied around by the supporters of ID cards are “the innocent would have nothing to fear.” Thus dismissing the opponents as being either in possession of a guilty conscience, or of being paranoid. But, I reasoned, such a defence of ID cards presupposes that the information they contain would be used in an ‘ethical’ manner by the government of the day. This further supposes that the government would have the best and selfless intentions towards its citizens. It finally supposes that the government would not contemplate using the information for the purposes of self-preservation.

Now, although by no means would I describe the current government as being totalitarian, or fascist, or authoritarian (though it is creeping ever closer), could I with confidence assume this to be the case in the future? Of course I cannot! At this point I recalled a history paper I read once concerning the super-efficient manner in which the Nazi’s succeeded in rounding up undesirables (particularly the Jewish communities) within Germany and the occupied countries. The method involved a systematic organisation of information, using punch cards and sorting systems. The information was acquired using census returns and data from Church registries, government records, tax returns, council records etc. The technology used was a punch card machine (a precursor to the computer) designed and manafactured by the European subsidiary companies of IBM! (An allegation of involvement that the major information technology company has never refuted).

The conclusion to my meditation then was quite logical. The seemingly innocent machinery of bureacracy, and the systematic collection of seemingly unimportant bits of personal information when placed in the hands of those who would do anything to preserve their power, or to further their own political ends, rapidly loses all vestiges of innocence.

Ironically whilst watching Oliver Stones Comandante, a documentary about Cuban Communist Fidel Castro, I was reminded of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

While talking about terrorism on BBC Radio 4, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia said “Most countries are not taking this issue too seriously, including, unfortunately, Great Britain”.

Hopefully, the UK will not be taking any advise from the Saudis on internal “security”. Since opposition parties and ciriticism of the government are are illegal in Saudi, how are opponents allowed to change the government? Being backed into a corner, many have turned to overthrow of the government – possibly using force – including Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia and Committee for the Defense of Legitimate Rights. Remember one persons freedom fighter is another persons terrorist. And if the government use force or the threat of force to achieving their goals, are they not terrorists? (That idea terrorism in state and group level moral equivalence, I nicked from Chomsky).

I am just imagine the UK run along these lines with political opponents being kidnapped, tortured, etc. Our response to terrorism is more of a threat than terrorism itself!

Anti Citizen One

(Although not relevant to this topic, I saw this photo of a Muslim only road in Saudi. Rather Odd.)

In a word: wow. This book examines the history of neoliberalism in economic policy since the 1960s (ish). As you probably know, neoliberalism supports free trade, deregulation and privatisation. The title comes from the idea that these economic policies can only be introduced by force (i.e. torture and electric shock) or by lies and deception (often using some crisis or shock as distraction or false justification).

The worrying thing is to maintain this unstable equilibrium, shocks need to be repeated to keep people off balance – eternal war (aka “war on terror”), unstable world markets, etc. As they said on the TV series 24 when Jack first talks to the “mastermind” in series 2:

Kingsley: If someone wants to buy it, it’s for sale.
Jack: How can you justify starting a war to profit from the outcome?
Kingsley: We’re just controlling the chaos, that’s all.
Jack: No, you’re causing it.
(emphasis mine)

You see these free marketeers don’t see themselves as bad people. But conveniently they stand to benefit most from the implementation of their ideas. They are totally self interested.

The neoliberal has the goal of “maximising wealth”. To say that this is best achieved by “unrestrained generation of wealth” is trivial to see – yet this is supposed to be an “insight”. But what is not considered, is the human and environmental cost. Since these things can be costed by pure neoliberalism – they cannot be preserved by neoliberalism.

The only hope for control of our world and our lives is independence of the institutions that propogate these ideas. These institutions include the IMF and World Bank. I am deeply skeptical about stock exchanges where all the traders see is a number (of stock value) and how the number goes up and down. The number does not express the social and environmental context of the company business.

Anti Citizen One

Senior police officers have renewed their call for a change in the law on how long a terror suspect can be held without charge. BBC

“A woman given an Anti Social Behaviour order (Asbo) based on false allegations made against her is to be compensated by the council that issued it.” BBC