Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy one of America’s top terrorism analysts thinks U.S. government surveillance has gone too far.
Brian Jenkins is no bleeding heart when it comes to tracking down terrorists. Im not squeamish, he said in a phone interview Friday morning. I dont wring my hands over what has to be done. Jenkins, in fact, is a pioneer in the field of counterterrorism. A former Special Forces soldier and longtime RAND Corporation analyst, he compiled the first database of international terrorists back in 1971, wrote one of the first monographs on the subject in 1974, and has since served as a frequent high-level consultant on the subject.
And yet, Jenkins thinks that the U.S. governments counterterrorism policieswhich hes helped influence over the decadeshave gone too far. What we have put in place, he said, is the foundation of a very oppressive state.
The oppressive state doesnt yet exist, he said, but if a president wanted to move in that direction, the tools are in place now. The choice to do so could be made under circumstances that appear perfectly reasonable, he went on, noting, Democracy does not preclude voluntary submission to despotism. Given a frightened population, Congress can legislate away liberties just as easily as tyrants can seize power. That seems to be what has started to happen. This dynamic has taken hold in many liberal democracies during crises and wars. In the past, at the end of the emergency, the balance has shifted back and a lot of those powers were ended, he said. But were in a situation now that doesnt have a finite ending. If there isnt an end, then these powers accumulate and accumulate and accumulate. This is a fundamental difference. What we put in place becomes a permanent part of the landscape.
But Jenkins, who still has close contacts inside the intelligence community, has been concerned about these dangers for most of the past decade, beginning with the hasty passage of the Patriot Act and the subsequent news stories about NSA domestic surveillance outside the purview of Congress or the courts set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Congress forced the shutdown of that surveillance program, which was known as Total Information Awareness, and passed new laws, expanding the powers of the FISA courts, so that it could rule not just on individual search warrants but also on massive data-mining expeditions.
In fact, though, these steps were illusory. They put in place the principle of oversight, he said, but the practical impactthe actual oversightis less than it was before.
Back in 1974, in his first monograph on the subject, International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict, Jenkins wrote:
"Owing to technological developments and changes in the political environment, powerdefined crudely as the capacity to kill, destroy, disrupt, cause alarm, and compel society to divert vast resources to securityis coming into the hands of smaller and smaller groups whose grievances, real or imaginary, it would not always be possible to satisfy. How democracies deal with this, and remain democracies, is one of the major challenges we face in the late twentieth century."
Almost 40 years later, well into the 21st century, he now said, Thats still the major challenge.
And yet, Jenkins thinks that the U.S. governments counterterrorism policieswhich hes helped influence over the decadeshave gone too far. What we have put in place, he said, is the foundation of a very oppressive state.
The oppressive state doesnt yet exist, he said, but if a president wanted to move in that direction, the tools are in place now. The choice to do so could be made under circumstances that appear perfectly reasonable, he went on, noting, Democracy does not preclude voluntary submission to despotism. Given a frightened population, Congress can legislate away liberties just as easily as tyrants can seize power. That seems to be what has started to happen. This dynamic has taken hold in many liberal democracies during crises and wars. In the past, at the end of the emergency, the balance has shifted back and a lot of those powers were ended, he said. But were in a situation now that doesnt have a finite ending. If there isnt an end, then these powers accumulate and accumulate and accumulate. This is a fundamental difference. What we put in place becomes a permanent part of the landscape.
But Jenkins, who still has close contacts inside the intelligence community, has been concerned about these dangers for most of the past decade, beginning with the hasty passage of the Patriot Act and the subsequent news stories about NSA domestic surveillance outside the purview of Congress or the courts set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Congress forced the shutdown of that surveillance program, which was known as Total Information Awareness, and passed new laws, expanding the powers of the FISA courts, so that it could rule not just on individual search warrants but also on massive data-mining expeditions.
In fact, though, these steps were illusory. They put in place the principle of oversight, he said, but the practical impactthe actual oversightis less than it was before.
Back in 1974, in his first monograph on the subject, International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict, Jenkins wrote:
"Owing to technological developments and changes in the political environment, powerdefined crudely as the capacity to kill, destroy, disrupt, cause alarm, and compel society to divert vast resources to securityis coming into the hands of smaller and smaller groups whose grievances, real or imaginary, it would not always be possible to satisfy. How democracies deal with this, and remain democracies, is one of the major challenges we face in the late twentieth century."
Almost 40 years later, well into the 21st century, he now said, Thats still the major challenge.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/06/brian_jenkins_fears_nsa_overreach_a_top_terrorism_expert_thinks_government.single.html
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
1 replies, 679 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Why one of America’s top terrorism analysts thinks U.S. government surveillance has gone too far. (Original Post)
octoberlib
Jun 2013
OP
I believe absolute power has been shown to resist corruption absolutely
kenny blankenship
Jun 2013
#1
kenny blankenship
(15,689 posts)1. I believe absolute power has been shown to resist corruption absolutely
in test after test. So fear not!