Thursday, January 30, 2014

Will the 2014 Midterms be a Referendum on Obama's Surveillance, Secrecy, and Assassinations?

There will be elections for 435 House seats in 2014.

With respect to any given race, the probability is low that U.S. surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations will be an issue.

However, it is a near certainty that in at least one or more race, U.S. surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations will be an issue.

The fun part will be watching to see which one(s).

Herewith an Insider's Guide to the 7 S's (surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations) in the 2014 Midterms. (More to come in the weeks ahead! :-)

2014 U.S. House battleground states

(1) Linchpin Districts
(or, In a horse race, anything can happen)

Of the 435 races, a fraction are frequently spoken of as "highly contested" races.

See Ballotopedia: 2014 U.S. House battleground states.

It is far more likely that vital but sensitive concerns will find their way to the center of highly contested races, than in an election for a safe seat.

(See: In the California 17th: "But has he got drones …. " )
(See: To Drone or Not to Drone? The Strange Choice in Virginia's 2nd District  )
(See: Texas' Militarized Border: How Will Drone Politics Impact the 2014 Midterm in the 23rd? )

And yet . . .


Chicago: Fed up with being spied on . . . .
(2) Scandal (or, People in "safe" districts get pissed off, too)

Don't underestimate the power of events to mobilize the public.

For instance, most of the seats in the community in which I live -- Chicago -- would conventionally be thought of as "safe." But the surveillance and trumped-up charges in what has come to be known as the NATO3 case is shining a bright light on government abuse -- political repression, secrecy, fear-mongering, and state violence -- and the need for vigilance in protecting civil liberties.

If I were an incumbent running for re-election for a seat in one of the Chicago congressional districts, I would be bracing for questions about the Obama administration's surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations. (See Hey Illinois pols! Where do you stand? (On U.S. surveillance, secrecy, and assassinations) )

And Chicago isn't the only place these issues are coming to the fore.  It's a long ten months until November, and anything can happen . . . .


(3) The Principle of the Thing (or, Libertarian candidates may choose to make it an issue)

Will Libertarians stir things up?
There is a fair sprinkling of candidates out there who associate with neither the current Democratic administration nor with conventional GOP politics.

If there was ever a moment for Libertarian candidates to define themselves in terms of values, using current events as a foil, and to set themselves off sharply from "politics-as-usual," this is it.


(4) Drone Testing (or, Why "frontline state" now has a whole new meaning)

There's been intermittent interest in course of the past 24 months in the possible use of drones within U.S. borders, but in the last 60 days, the stakes just got a whole lot higher.

Domestic drone test sites
In December, 2013, the FAA designated six states to be first in line for domestic drone testing: Alaska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.

"Safe seat" or not, I think candidates in those six states need to be prepared to answer a whole series of questions, such as:
* What affirmative protection assures me that I will not be subject to surveillance by drones being tested in (our state)?

* What will you do to assure an open book about any and all drone testing in (our state)? How can I know that pervasive government secrecy isn't going to be extended to drone testing, and used to hide what the government is doing?

* What are you going to do to assure an absolute prohibition on arming any drones that will be used in (our state)? -- before the first tests are conducted here?
What do you think?  Do these seem like reasonable questions to you?

(See New York State's 21st Congressional District: Excelsior? )


(5) The "Special" Club (or, No holds are barred when someone calls themselves a 'states(wo)man')

Finally, there is a small subset of races in which one or more candidates holds themselves out as a leader in international affairs. A handful actually chair relevant committees: Foreign Affairs, Armed Services, etc., or one of the subcommittees thereof.

U.N. action on drones
Thus, while not every candidate can be expected to concern himself or herself with what's coming down the pike in international affairs -- at least not in the heat of a district race -- some must.

A case in point: an international call has been made for the U.S. to come clean with the full details of its drone killings. (See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)? andUN calls for drone strikes to comply with international law) The message is clear:  the world intends to evaluate the evidence and determine if crimes have been committed, and each day that the U.S. government delays opening its records adds to a presumption of wrongdoing.

It is extremely likely that further action on this demand will come on the anniversary of the initial demand, which came during the fall 2013 session of the United Nations General Assembly. In other words, the next installment in this drama is set to collide with the U.S. election falling in November, 2014.

The question for these leaders in international relations is a simple one:
Do you support the call for the U.S. to come clean with the records of its drone killings?
Or, I should say, it allows of a simple answer: "yes" or "no."

The thinking behind the answer will of necessity be complex.

But not to worry: only true leaders need apply.

Related posts

One thing's for sure: there's a whole passel of advisers talking to Barack Obama every day about how things are progressing in key districts like the Illinois 12th. (And the Michigan 1st. And the Minnesota 8th. And ... ) I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they tell him the candidate is complaining about the latest anti-drones campaign there. ("Why the hell are there protesters at my appearance in Carbondale with signs that say, 'When will the DEMs stop being the party of Drone Execution and Murder' ???")

(See DRONES: Let's Give Obama a Political Choice He Can Understand in 2014

Edward J. Snowden has forced us to confront what we all knew already: our government is running wild and we can't get our privacy back, short of some kind of very extreme change . . . . We have a problem with our government. It sees opportunities for power in every bit and byte of our personal data, and it's time to call it what it is: wrong.

See Fed Up With Being Spied On


The Amash Conyers Amendment to curtail NSA spying was advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives shortly after the Snowden revelations. It narrowly failed -- in part due to the votes of some so-called "progressive" Illinois representatives.

(See In Chicago, Illinois: YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE! )

NATO3 in 6 words: "Those 3 guys are getting railroaded."

Case Illustrates State Manipulation of Atmosphere of Fear

Well, it's started.  The State's Attorney's office has begun what will certainly be a whole bevy of prejudicial jury instruction requests in the NATO3 case -- the first being an instruction to the jury to disregard the whole question of what law enforcement was doing with its surveillance of public meetings and other Constitutionally-protected speech -- "Just focus on what we want you to focus on," they're saying.

And this is to be expected. Far from bringing to light any kind of threat to public order, the prosecution of three young men in Cook County court is illustrating just how bad the surveillance and persecution state we live in has become.  Frankly, it's a mystery to me why State's Attorney Anita Alvarez -- or, if not her, at least someone she answers to -- didn't pull the plug on this embarrassing proceeding before it got this far.

All I can think of is that they were hoping to channel the energy of that great Chicago impresario, L. Frank Baum, responsible among other things for that famous line: "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

Consider, for a moment, a bottle . . . .

"Just a bottle," you say? But  -- don't look at anything except what I tell you to look at! -- on second glance, isn't it clear that this is a very suspicious-looking bottle?  Even -- a dangerous bottle?

State's Exhibit M
"The Bottle"

In fact, isn't it clear that this bottle poses a clear and present threat to public security?!?!

Or so the the State's Attorney would have us believe.

Luckily, it isn't possible to tell people to "don't look at anything except what I tell you to look at." People are paying attention to the manipulation going on behind the scenes.

When the jury and the public use their senses and their heads, they will see that the bottle is part of an elaborate scheme, engineered by law enforcement.

State's Exhibits A thru O
(with apologies to Rube Goldberg)


And they'll see the scheme is not about protecting the public safety, but rather about befuddling the public.

The illustration is humorous, but what's going on here poses extreme danger to our society.  Because the manipulation that's going on in the NATO3 prosecution is NOT just the attempt to pin some charges on a few young men. Rather, it is the perpetuation of a state of fear in the United States that is used as a pretext for blanket surveillance, persecution, and an undeclared war -- including extrajudicial assassinations that continue around the world every month.

The authorities in Cook County -- and their allies in Chicago City Hall, and their allies in the White House -- are counting on their ability to convince the public, "Don't look at anything except what I tell you to look at!" and "PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"

And that's where they've gone wrong. The average citizen is just too smart to put up with this treatment. Consider, for instance, the 80-year-old parishioner who came up to me on the way into church on Sunday, elbowed me, shook her head, and said, "Those 3 guys are getting railroaded." Funny: I had just gotten done assembling a thousand or so words and half a dozen images for my previous blog post about the NATO3; she said it all in 6 words.

"Those 3 guys are getting railroaded."  I think that's the message that the public is going to take away from this prosecution. And I hope they won't let it end there.  I hope the public will say, "Now that we're on the subject, we want to know all about what the government has been doing.  Tell us all about:
* state surveillance
* state secrecy
* state violence
Since it's the government that pulled back the curtain in the first place, isn't it time for the general public to get the full story?

Related posts

The NATO 3 prosecution sounds like a comedy of errors, and in many ways it is. But there are at least four things about it at that are deadly serious and should serve as a call to action for people who care about liberty and justice.

(See Keystone (Undercover) Kops and the Lemonhead Gang)



I think there may only be one person left in America who hasn't realized that the NSA surveillance scandal is killing the Democratic Party . . .

(See Obama's Surveillance Problem Is the Dems' Surveillance Problem )








As we have known all along, we need the public to think about how crummy the whole drone program is, and then they will be ready to be on our side. The best way to get them really thinking is to shine a spotlight on the secrecy, evasiveness, and deceit involved in the U.S. drone program.

(See Drone Killings: Come Clean)





Before there was the NATO5 -- or the NATO3 -- there was NATOin5. People tweeted their summaries of NATO in just 5 words (hashtag: #NATOin5). It all started with an interview between Eric Zorn and Andy Thayer about NATO ....

(See #NATOin5)

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Keystone (Undercover) Kops and the Lemonhead Gang

Hey, all I know is what I read in the Chicago Tribune.

State's Exhibit #1
Lemonhead® is a registered trademark of the
Ferrara Candy Company -- Chicago, IL
The facts coming out of the very expensive prosecution of three young men on "terrorism" charges are, well, sobering.
According to recordings played Thursday, the talk of explosives was first sparked when Chase dropped a Lemonhead candy into a beer he was drinking, creating a fizzing chemical reaction.  Church and Betterly then discussed how to build an "acid bomb" that could eat through the clothes of police officers.
Well, there's your problem right there.  Someone called the wrong gang of troublemakers.  Lemonheads? Lemonheads? Everyone knows that if you want to create real havoc, you have to use Mentos!!!

State's Exhibit #2
Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov (left)
of Russia drinking a co -- what's that? Oh . . . .
I blame it on the undercover cops -- Nadia "Gloves" Chikko and Mehmet "Mo" Uygum. Clearly they were not coaching their targets nearly effectively enough in how to be serious threats to public order.

Consider the recording of "Gloves" trying to talk the defendants into making explosives:
"Dude, we got Molotovs -- that's not whack," said the other undercover cop . . . .
Well, that's clearly ambiguous. Prospective bad guys could be forgiven for getting confused. And the response of defendant Church, indeed, showed that he was either not clear on what was going on, not serious, not terribly practical, or some combination of the three:
"We can use vodka!"
State's Exhibit #3
Unindicted co-conspirator
As Dave Barry says, I'm not making this up.

The three defendants -- known as the "NATO 3" -- talked about other things, as well, under the encouragement of the undercover agents.  Marbles projected by slingshots . . . homemade potato launchers . . . a message to be sent to Mayor Emanuel by attaching it to an arrow shot through the window of his house. As one reads the descriptions of the court proceedings, one can't help imagining their influences -- Marbles: Huck Finn? or the tin soldier scene in "Babes in Toyland"? Arrow-through-the-window: clearly Robin Hood but . . . Errol Flynn? or Disney? -- though I'm still trying to figure the potato launcher out.

State's Exhibit #4
ACME Brand "Instant Havoc" supplies . . .
. . . ordered by "Mo" and "Gloves" . . . .
According to their testimony, the two undercover police officers -- the leading edge of a team of police that at times numbered 16 -- focused on the Brent Betterly, Jared Chase, and Brian Church because they felt they had the greatest chance of proving criminal activity against the three, compared to anyone else they had observed in "more than two months investigating the protest movement" planning antiwar marches, teach-ins, and other activities during the May, 2012, meeting in Chicago of the NATO military alliance.  Pretty slim pickin's.

The funniest -- or, perhaps, saddest -- detail to come out in court proceedings was that when the alleged miscreants were urged to target Barack Obama's re-election headquarters, they couldn't locate it using the Internet.  Now, in the first place, this is hard to believe because during that period there were almost daily protests in front of the Obama campaign headquarters on Randolph St. just east of Michigan. But-- dude! -- this points to a much larger problem: how could they wreak havoc on the city if they couldn't figure out how to go to the Acme website and order their supplies? (The answer, like everything else in this "case" is . . . with a little help from their undercover cop friends.)

The serious side of the NATO 3 prosecution

People's Exhibit #1
Cook County Jail
The NATO 3 prosecution sounds like a comedy of errors, and in many ways it is. But there are at least four things about it at that are deadly serious and should serve as a call to action for people who care about liberty and justice.

Number One,  the NATO 3 have been held for nearly two years due to on exorbitantly high bail in the hell-hole known as the Cook County Jail.  Not only should there be compensation, but this should shine a bright light on the approximately 10,000 people held there largely as a manipulative means to compel plea bargains. (See Free Them All)

People's Exhibit #2
A pattern of entrapment.
Number Two, the plot to ensnare these three young men is just the tip of the iceberg in a nationwide epidemic of efforts at entrapment and prosecutions by a range of law enforcement agencies.

The new modus operandus is to find someone who is very suggestible and then work on them and work on them until they are badgered into being part of some kind of scheme or plot. 

As documented by Trevor Aaronson in his book, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism, the FBI and other government agencies are the single largest planner of terrorist acts in the United States.

People's Exhibit #3
Hands off our young people!
Number Three, anybody who is a parent should think about what's really going on here. How would you like it if someone were egging your kid on, trying perhaps to get them to make the jump from playing video games in which they pretend to hurt people to pulling the trigger of an actual weapon. If you don't think it goes on all day long in Chicago, take a look at what military recruiters are doing in our city schools. (See Chicago Needs Schools for Education, not for War and Occupation)

People's Exhibit #4
"The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today"
Number Four, the way this all started was the invitation that Barack Obama's right-hand man, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, extended to the most terrorizing military alliance in the history of the earth to come to Chicago and plan how to use its weapons and armies. Where's the prosecution of that violence? (See War, War Protests, and "Technology")

There are some prosecutions that should be going on, all right, but the prosecutions that should be happening are of people in the criminal justice system who are perpetuating the wrongful imprisonment of thousands of people in this country . . . people who are abusing investigative power to entrap ordinary citizens . . . people who are luring our kids into the military . . . and people who are using U.S. military might to assault people all over the world and commit war crimes.

Related posts

I predict that by the time the NATO3 trial is over, people will be saying, "Before Edward Snowden, before the revelations about the NSA, we already had clear signs that the US government wanted total surveillance over us.  Just look at how they reacted the minute they started to see dissent from the general public: the Occupy Movement."

(See What I Learned About Obama's Surveillance State at the NATO3 Show Trial )

Guantanamo and Chicago '68 live in the public's subconscious, where they lurk in the shadows, threatening anyone who has a dissenting thought. It's time we dragged those images out into the open, forcing people to consciously address the way people are being intentionally terrorized by our government. Only if we can do this -- put a name to the threat -- will the ordinary Chicagoan wake up and say, "You expect me to be intimidated? HELL NO!"

(See Twin Specters of Repression in America)



People are now beginning to understand that the solution is not to delegate our well-being to our political "representatives." We all have to take part directly, and we all have to keep at it. It will take sustained resistance to stop the abuses of our government. If you've read this far, you've probably realized that you now need to be part of the resistance, too.

(See got police state?)

Friday, January 24, 2014

Obama's Surveillance Problem Is the Dems' Surveillance Problem

I think there may only be one person left in America who hasn't realized that the NSA surveillance scandal is killing the Democratic Party . . .  and he'll be giving the State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

I'm sure Barack Obama is huddled with his speechwriters at this very moment, and is crafting a wide-ranging, precise, balanced, statesmanlike address. Unfortunately, no one is interested in a wide-ranging, precise, balanced, statesmanlike address -- they want to know what he's going to do to get the NSA the hell away from them.

Poor Obama -- it's just not in his nature to recognize a BIG problem when he sees it, and to solve it.  Every problem goes into the "analysis pending" folder, and gets mixed in with a thousand other policy initiatives and projects and working groups and review panels and expert commissions.

There is no question that he will be content to let this problem fester for the rest of 2014.  (Kiss the midterms goodbye.) And beyond. I wonder when people are going to wake up to the fact that the Democratic Party may be dragged down by the NSA surveillance scandal in 2016.

What's that? The Democratic Party didn't create the problem in the first place?  I'm sorry: completely irrelevant. Politics is all about "now."

My prediction?  Republican candidates in the 2014 midterms are going to say, "Hey - I'm a 4th amendment supporter! Vote me in and I'll get the government out of your hair! Obama may be afraid of the guys at the NSA, but I'm not!" Which puts Democratic candidates in a rather awkward position. What can they say, without appearing insipid on the one hand -- or incurring the wrath of the Chief on the other?

Related posts

One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election? 




There has been a good sign in 2013, in that many people have become outraged about government surveillance. A recent Pew poll found that Americans are now more worried about civil liberties abuses than terrorism. I believe a big question in 2014 will be whether challengers successfully address the issue of NSA surveillance in their campaigns.

(See What Will Election 2014 Boil Down To? )






Edward J. Snowden has forced us to confront what we all knew already: our government is running wild and we can't get our privacy back, short of some kind of very extreme change . . . . We have a problem with our government. It sees opportunities for power in every bit and byte of our personal data, and it's time to call it what it is: wrong.

(See Fed Up With Being Spied On)

Thursday, January 23, 2014

Palestine: enough with 'the Lutheran both/and' already . . . !

"Both/AND"? Aw, Daveyyyyy . . . !
I'm excited to be working with a large group of other Lutherans who are focused on issues of justice in Israel/Palestine.

There is no question in my mind that justice in Israel/Palestine is fundamental to peace and justice throughout the Mideast, and in the world.

And there is also no question in my mind that, just as it was a group of people who considered themselves very serious about the Bible that got us into the present situation in Palestine, it is those of us who have inherited that tradition of seriousness about the Bible that need to "own" the consequences of our tradition, and work for a rectification of wrongs we have inherited.

The Lutheran denomination -- and here I mean the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) -- has done some important work towards justice in Palestine. In particular, I would point to the October, 2012, letter from our then presiding bishop Mark Hanson and others calling on the U.S. government to halt the sale to Israel of any arms being used in the Occupation.

At the same time, the 2.5 million Lutherans nationwide could be doing a whole lot more to bring about real change.  The problem, I fear, is a Lutheran tendency to go slow, to cautiously creep up on all sides of an issue -- a fondness for what is often referred to as  'the Lutheran both/and'.

In other words, we Lutherans are careful not to make rash choices, preferring instead to eat our cake and have it, too.  We avoid either/or choices -- which sometimes are false choices -- in favor of the good old  'Lutheran both/and'.

Shall we have traditional worship or contemporary? Both/and! Should we do a Bible study or a book group? Both/and! Is it going to be coffee or tea? Both/and! You get the picture . . . .

In the context of the Israel/Palestine situation, this preference for "both/and" sometimes leave us in a "on the one hand ... on the other hand ... " limbo: a feeling that we can't give consideration to one set of facts (e.g. the injustice experienced by Palestinians) without an a priori expectation that those facts will be offset by some equal and opposite set of facts (injustice experienced by Israelis, and Jews in general).


Rabbi Brant Rosen and the Rev. Naim Ateek, Director, Sabeel
Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center

I found a healthy antidote to this in a talk by Rabbi Brant Rosen. I recently watched a Youtube video of Rabbi Rosen speaking in Evanston in early 2013. His talk provides a wonderful overview of the issue, and deals in particular with the moment when he finally said, “It’s time to take a stand.” (December 28, 2008, to be exact – the day he wrote a blog post about the Israeli operation called “Cast Lead,” carried out against the Palestinian inhabitants of Gaza.)

In the video, Rabbi Rosen talks about the “mantra” of “It’s complicated . . . ,” the idea that it's not possible to take a stand against the injustice Palestinians are subjected to because the subject is "complicated." Rosen suggests, however, that the only thing that is “complicated” is the way we, ourselves, have become part of the oppression. “That,” he says, “is painfully complicated!”

We have invited Rabbi Rosen to speak at St. Luke's Lutheran Church in Logan Square on February 16, 2014. He'll be talking about his book, Wrestling in the Daylight, and we are encouraging people from throughout the Metropolitan Chicago Synod of the ELCA to take this opportunity to come, listen, and engage in conversation with him.

If anyone can embolden us -- if anyone can give us the confidence to say "enough with 'the Lutheran both/and' already!" -- it is Rabbi Rosen.

Related posts

"Inhumane treatment of young men and boys, arrests under cover of night, unjust torture while in police custody, missing husbands and brothers and sons, children stripped of internationally agreed upon human rights. For these Palestinian boys and men, we weep with the women."

(See Palestine: The Women Weep (34th Annual 8th Day Good Friday Justice Walk) on the Working Group on the Middle East, Metropolitan Chicago Synod, ELCA blog.)



There is a need for a much broader effort to tackle the issue of Palestine, particularly among faith communities (congregations). Why not start in December, when all eyes turn toward Bethlehem?

(See Faith Communities Need to Get Active Working for Justice in Palestine)








There are some people who say, "Why does it take the sacrifice of an American to get people to care about the many people who have died and suffered in Gaza and other parts of Palestine and Israel?"

(See Where were YOU on April 10, 1979?)













Read more about the December, 2013, adult education on Palestine at St. Luke's Lutheran Church in Logan Square, Chicago.

(See Adult Education During December: Palestine in The Messenger blog of St. Luke's Logan Square)

Tuesday, January 21, 2014

What I Learned About Obama's Surveillance State at the NATO3 Show Trial

I won't be in the gallery when the trial of the NATO3 starts in Chicago today. The usual public access to the Cook County court system has been suspended; the courts have been overtaken by the Obama security state and its rules.

The foundation of the American system is trials that take place in "open court." Courtrooms are fundamentally public spaces; a few spaces are reserved for the officers of the court - the judge, the lawyers, etc. - but there should never be any mistake about the fact that what is taking place there is to serve the public, and is subject to scrutiny by the public.

I got a taste of this a few years ago when I was working on a patent case.  A lawsuit had been filed against Gillette for patent infringement, and we were beginning a trial in U.S. Federal Court in downtown Chicago.  When it got time to get into the details of Gillette's actual infringement of the patent, the attorney for Gillette argued that the court should be cleared, and the transcripts of the proceeding be sealed, lest the company be irreparably harmed by the leakage of the details of their manufacturing process.  The judge gently but firmly reminded counsel for Gillette that the institution of "open court" is rather important in our system; she wasn't going to start messing with it without a darn good reason.  (She did request that if there were any industrial spies working for Gillette competitors in the courtroom, they should please leave.)

So I am saddened that the judge in the NATO3 case now taking place in Chicago has set up rules that are clearly intended to keep the public out of the courtroom.  Even more shocking to me than the fact that members of the public are barred from the gallery unless they (a) make an in-person visit to the court building at 26th and California a full day in advance of the day they wish to attend and register; and (b) submit to a background check, is the fact that the judge tried (but was talked out of) barring observers from taking notes of the proceeding.

OK, we're getting used to our government conducting their affairs in secret. (By the way, that is one of the bizarre features of a "show trial" -- it is conducted for maximum publicity but there is nothing truly "public" about it.) Under our increasingly secret-driven government, the people get to see NOTHING about the conduct of the government.  On the other hand, the government sees EVERYTHING about us.  And so, if just one shred of truth manages to get into the public view as a result of this trial, it should be the way surveillance was used by the Obama administration against the Occupy movement.

The story of the surveillance of the NATO3 -- the REAL story to come out of the trial in Chicago this week -- is the tip of the iceberg of a national program of surveillance against anyone and everyone who participated in the Occupy Movement.

I predict that by the time the NATO3 trial is over, people will be saying, "Before Edward Snowden, before the revelations about the NSA, we already had clear signs that the US government wanted total surveillance over us.  Just look at how they reacted the minute they started to see dissent from the general public: the Occupy Movement."

Related posts

If you have any doubt that the U.S. government wants to observe EVERYTHING you do, perhaps its time for Foucault 101. Consider the panopticon  . . . .

(See Drones, 1984, and Foucault's Panopticon)








The Amash Conyers Amendment to curtail NSA spying was advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives shortly after the Snowden revelations. It narrowly failed -- in part due to the votes of some so-called "progressive" Illinois representatives.

(See In Chicago, Illinois: YOU ARE UNDER SURVEILLANCE! )







One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)

Saturday, January 18, 2014

Drone Killings: Come Clean

Lots of people are trying to deduce the extent of U.S. drone
killings. Why doesn't the U.S. just come clean?
How are we going to make progress in ending the menace of drones in the next few months -- i.e. in the first half of 2014?

We are going to have to carefully assess our audience, our messages, and where we put our time, energy, and resources. We need to be alert to what's happening in the broader culture.

It is also important that we are honest with ourselves about the moment we are in.  Is there adequate awareness of the issue? Have people started to become dissatisfied with what the government is doing? Are people ready to embrace the alternative(s) we are proposing?


Awareness: "What's a drone?"

In 2013, a much larger portion of the American public woke up to drones and what's being done with them.

Nonetheless, there are still people who ask, "What's a drone?"

NYC campaign by Essan Attia
My belief is that we will have a continuing need for building awareness.  I believe that it is important to the movement to find ways to increase awareness as efficiently as possible - i.e. using high-leverage communications mechanisms.  We need to accomplish as much as we possibly can without using up all our time, energy, and resources on this part of the campaign.

For instance, I wonder about: in a city like Chicago, would we be better off organizing a big teach-in? Or putting 100,000 stickers on lampposts that say "Drone Strikes: Out of Control"? Which would build more awareness?


Dissatisfaction: It's not just the secrecy ... it's the secrecy, the evasion, the lying, the spying ....

The heart of the campaign, in my opinion, should be find the Obama administration's greatest area of vulnerability with the public and focus on that.

Alternate caption: Same Spying, Different Day
Clearly, the public is outraged by NSA surveillance. Obama's weak response to this is leaving people more and more dissatisfied.  From every indication, this situation is going to worsen with each passing day.

The deeper impact is that people are realizing, "I've got zero protection from government surveillance -- they know everything about me -- and everything they do is a secret."  This pair of complementary realizations -- surveillance and invasion of privacy on the one hand, and secrecy and deceit on the other -- is likely to create a spiraling sense of cynicism and dissatisfaction.

The movement to stop drone surveillance and warfare can take advantage of this sentiment with a simple demand such as "Drone Killings: Come Clean!" This would play into the opinion that Americans already hold about the government: they're hiding the truth from us, and the truth is probably pretty bad.

Jan 16, 2014 - Congress keeps secret drone program in hands
of CIA
. We think. We don't know for sure. Because
the measure is included in the classified annex to the
budget bill. (Or so it is rumored.)
And they are hiding the truth.  The United Nations has called for a full accounting of U.S. drone killings. The U.S. government is stonewalling.

The more the government refuses to "come clean" -- and they will refuse; it's in their nature -- the more dissatisfied members of the general public will become.

Imagine if every candidate who was campaigning for a House or Senate seat in 2014 was forced to take a position on the question, "Do you endorse the call for the Administration to come clean about its record of drone killings?"  It's a simple yes or no question.  If the answer is yes, then we have an ally.  If the answer is "no" -- or even "it depends" or "I don't understand the question" -- then the candidate is saddled with the label "sides with the Administration on hiding truth about drones."

NOTE: the fact that a large number of people have labored to do the best possible job of assembling the facts of the US drone killings despite U.S. government concealment -- see, for instance, this startling infographic illustrating drone strikes in Pakistan -- does not diminish the need for the U.S. government, itself, to come clean and publish the full and authoritative facts.  Rather, it serves to emphasize how shocking it is that the government continues to duck this obligation!

And, of course, we will make it clear that the reason the Administration is hiding truth about drones is that they don't have a satisfactory answer for how decisions about drone strikes are made.  As we have known all along, we need the public to think about how crummy the whole drone program is, and then they will be ready to be on our side. The best way to get them really thinking is to shine a spotlight on the secrecy, evasiveness, and deceit involved in the U.S. drone program.


Embracing the Alternative: Ground the drones

We are not yet at the point that enough Americans are dissatisfied with the solutions being offered by the government.  But we could get there soon.

Sunset
When people realize that the U.S. government doesn't have an acceptable answer to the question "Who decides?" . . . and when they realize that the U.S. government will never "come clean" about its drone killings  . . . they'll be ready to listen to the proposal offered by the movement against drones.

My expectation is that, when that time comes, our proposal will be: GROUND THE DRONES!

By that time, it will be the only proposal people will view as trustworthy.


Related posts

A new U.N. report makes it clear that the U.S. has to report fully on all its drone attacks.

(See 2014: The Year of Transparency (for U.S. Drone Use)?)









One thing's for sure: there's a whole passel of advisers talking to Barack Obama every day about how things are progressing in key districts like the Illinois 12th. (And the Michigan 1st. And the Minnesota 8th. And ... ) I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they tell him the candidate is complaining about the latest anti-drones campaign there. ("Why the hell are there protesters at my appearance in Carbondale with signs that say, 'When will the DEMs stop being the party of Drone Execution and Murder' ???")

(See DRONES: Let's Give Obama a Political Choice He Can Understand in 2014

If the public will join us in asking the question "Who decides?" about drone executions, I believe they will rapidly come to realize that they are utterly dissatisfied with what the government is saying.

(See Who Decides? (When Drones are Judge, Jury, and Executioner) )





One issue that has a key place in the midterm elections in 2014, I believe, is surveillance.  With each passing day, I am hearing more and more people say that the surveillance issue is something that a wide spectrum of people are deeply upset about. That includes people on the right as well as people on the left -- people who don't usually talk with each other, much less work together for positive change!

(See The Surveillance Issue: The Fulcrum of the 2014 Election?)