No Comment — February 19, 2008, 7:36 am

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the National Surveillance State

For those, like Joe Klein and a large part of the mainstream media, who can’t be bothered to actually understand the debate over FISA (“it’s just too complicated!”) and who are convinced that everything a Bush Administration representative says must be true (even if you know somehow it really can’t be), here’s Teddy, the National Surveillance Teddy Bear. He’s a product of the fertile imagination of Marc Fiore, the piece is entitled “The Spies Who Love You,” and the only word for this is “brilliant.”

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/dxKYG6KTK-M&rel=1&border=0″> <embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/dxKYG6KTK-M&rel=1&border=0″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object></p>

And then for a somewhat more caustic take on the same theme, here is the Special Comment that Keith Olbermann delivered two weeks ago:

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0ay_ykrMJL0&rel=1&border=0″> <embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/0ay_ykrMJL0&rel=1&border=0″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object></p>

And here is Olbermann’s very effective response to Bush’s threat to veto any legislation that fails to include telecom immunity:

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/HDZVTlQJLMA&rel=1&border=0″> <embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/HDZVTlQJLMA&rel=1&border=0″ type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object></p>

Olbermann wades deep into the relationship between the telecoms and the Bush Administration. What does this tell us about Bush’s use of national security concerns? And what does it tell us about Bush’s manipulation of fear for political purposes. Has this at length simply become too crude to work? That’s what the president’s polling numbers reflect.

My one bone to pick: Olbermann uses the political “f”-word with respect to the Administration’s cooption of telecommunications. He should remember that an obsession with their citizens’ private lives is a common feature of all totalitarian states and all totalitarian wannabes, not just the fascists. On the other hand, the cooption of corporate interests to undermine civil liberties does have a strong feeling of the last shuddering days of the Weimar Republic about it.

Finally, some words of praise are appropriate for Silvestre Reyes, the congressman from El Paso who now chairs the House Intelligence Committee. I have been very critical of the intelligence committees in the past. I agree with the criticism that CIA veteran Milt Bearden recently hurled their way in a piece in the Washington Independent: they have been AWOL. What they need to keep in check is not so much a rogue intelligence service as a rogue executive which is constantly trying to spur the intelligence service to act outside the bounds of the law and for purposes that have little ostensible connection to national security. But at length Reyes and his committee seem to understand Bush’s fear-mongering. Reyes sent Bush a letter which demonstrated step by step why Bush’s claim that the nation would be unprotected unless Congress passed his exact version of a telecom immunity bill was a lie. Here’s what Reyes wrote to the President back on Valentine’s Day:

If our nation is left vulnerable in the coming months, it will not be because we don’t have enough domestic spying powers. It will be because your Administration has not done enough to defeat terrorist organizations – including al Qaeda — that have gained strength since 9/11. We do not have nearly enough linguists to translate the reams of information we currently collect. We do not have enough intelligence officers who can penetrate the hardest targets, such as al Qaeda. We have surged so many intelligence resources into Iraq that we have taken our eye off the ball in Afghanistan and Pakistan. As a result, you have allowed al Qaeda to reconstitute itself on your watch.

You have also suggested that Congress must grant retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. As someone who has been briefed on our most sensitive intelligence programs, I can see no argument why the future security of our country depends on whether past actions of telecommunications companies are immunized.

The issue of telecom liability should be carefully considered based on a full review of the documents that your Administration withheld from Congress for eight months. However, it is an insult to the intelligence of the American people to say that we will be vulnerable unless we grant immunity for actions that happened years ago.

The House now remains the nation’s last line of defense against the Bush Administration’s aspirations for the new National Surveillance State. If you haven’t yet written your Congressman or woman, take the time to do so now. Tell him or her that this issue matters, and that you are counting on the House to hold its ground on telecom immunity and to reject the Senate version.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

No Comment March 28, 2014, 12:32 pm

Scott Horton Debates John Rizzo on Democracy Now!

On CIA secrecy, torture, and war-making powers

No Comment November 4, 2013, 5:17 pm

The Torture Doctors

An expert panel concludes that the Pentagon and the CIA ordered physicians to violate the Hippocratic Oath

No Comment August 12, 2013, 7:55 am

Obama’s Snowden Dilemma

How will the Obama Administration handle Edward Snowden’s case in the long term?

Get access to 164 years of
Harper’s for only $34.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

May 2014

50,000 Life Coaches Can’t Be Wrong

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Quinoa Quarrel

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

You Had to Be There

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A Study in Sherlock

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Post
“1. Death, The Sound of Perseverance (Nuclear Blast, 1998)”
Photograph (detail) by Peter Beste
Article
You Had to Be There·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“He explained how sober Doug structured the bits and worked out the material’s logic; drunk Doug found the funny.”
Illustration by Andrew Zbihlyj
[Letter from Bentonville]
Citizen Walmart·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

From the July 2012 issue

“He’s taking on a heap of debt to scale up for Walmart, a heap of debt.”
Photograph by Thomas Allen
Article
Dark Heights·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Discussed in this essay:

The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, by Elizabeth Kolbert. Henry Holt. 352 pages. $28.

The extinction symbol is a spare graphic that began to appear on London walls and sidewalks a couple of years ago. It has since become popular enough as an emblem of protest that people display it at environmental rallies. Others tattoo it on their arms. The symbol consists of two triangles inscribed within a circle, like so:

“The triangles represent an hourglass; the circle represents Earth; the symbol as a whole represents, according to a popular Twitter feed devoted to its dissemination (@extinctsymbol, 19.2K followers), “the rapidly accelerating collapse of global biodiversity” — what scientists refer to alternately as the Holocene extinction, the Anthropocene extinction, and (with somewhat more circumspection) the sixth mass extinction.

Article
Consume, Screw, Kill·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“Now may be the unlikeliest time for us to grow a conscience about how our rapacity is endangering other species, since we’re now aware of how frightfully our rapacity is endangering us.”
Collage (detail) by David McLimans

Ratio of husbands who say they fell in love with their spouse at first sight to wives who say this:

2:1

Mathematicians announced the discovery of the perfect method of cutting a cake.

Indian prime-ministerial contender Narendra Modi, who advertises his bachelorhood as a mark of his incorruptibility, confessed to having a wife.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST