Reports in ReviewThe Public Eye Magazine - Fall 2005
Report of the Month
Surveillance-Industrial Complex
“The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American
Government is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the
Construction of a Surveillance Society,”
by Jay Stanley, American Civil Liberties Union, August 2004.
This summer, seven new state/federal “fusion centers” that aim
to stream together and process “intelligence” generated by everyone
from postal carriers and perhaps private data-mining businesses
to FBI agents made headlines in a few places like
Massachusetts and California [see Carol Rose and Chip Berlet,
“Romney’s Spy Center,“ Boston Globe, June 14, 2005]. So it seems
fitting to go back to the American Civil Liberties Union’s August
2004 report on “The Surveillance-Industrial Complex” to understand
the broader apparatus through which the government created
the data flowing into these high-tech spying centers.
The report documents the pro-surveillance lobby of companies
pitching high-tech spying technology to a government
obsessed with stopping crime before it starts. It also highlights how
the government recruits both individuals and companies to collect
data and report suspicious behavior through watch programs,
open-market data purchases, etc., as well as how it is collecting,
saving, and using the data. For instance, it reports on wholly new
volunteer programs created post-9/11:
- Police on the East Coast are embracing CAT Eyes — or
Community Anti-Terrorism Training Institute — to
train neighborhood watches.
- The Department of Homeland Security is funding
Highway Watch to encourage truck drivers to report
suspicions to a central control center. Citizen preparedness
campaigns are widespread, and, in New York, encourage
residents to call a statewide tip line.
- The FBI’s InfraGard built a network of 10,000 businesses
(exactly which businesses is a secret) that may or may not
be a network of tipsters.
While citizens are cryptically alerted to watch and report
“suspicious activity” and report anyone who “does not seem to
belong,” even more aggressive programs are being proposed to
recruit everyone from mail carriers to utility employees—who have
access to private residences—to act as de facto spies informing on
any unusual sightings inside private homes.
At the same time that watch programs cultivate an atmosphere
of distrust and racial profiling among individuals and communities,
the government is recruiting companies to provide it with
personal information on customers. It buys this information —
collected by companies through routine purchases, supermarket
loyalty cards, car rentals, banking, identification verification, routine
background checks, and other transactions—and creates regulatory
standards to make data easily accessible or simply requires
or “encourages” its surrender. One of the biggest data companies,
Choicepoint, says it sells data to 35 different government agencies
including the FBI. The report explains that private companies
are not restricted by the Privacy Act or subject to the Freedom
of Information Act.
The notorious Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act allows the
FBI to demand information about individuals involuntarily
from libraries, bookstores, and internet service providers without
court oversight, while another section allow agents to use National
Security Letters to secure information on individuals from financial
and other institutions which was once allowed only to
research those with ties to suspicious governments. Even Las Vegas
hotels were deemed interesting, receiving National Security Letters
from the FBI in December 2003.
While some companies are forced to release their data with secret
orders, others are actually lobbying the government to purchase
and install the use of surveillance technology which they developed.
Moreover, the information collected from all these sources
can be fused to create detailed profiles on the private lives of billions
of citizens. Together the innovations create an atmosphere
of eroding checks on government and corporations, unchallenged
by courts that have not caught up to the Brave New World
threatening people’s liberties.
Other Reports in Review
Who are the Domestic Terrorists?
Terror From the Right: Almost 60 Terrorist Plots Uncovered in the U.S.
by Andrew Bleiwas, Anthony Griggs and Mark
Potok, Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence
Report, July 2005.
The Southern Poverty Law Center gracefully turns Homeland Security logic on its
head with this simple report compiling the 60 terrorist plots in the United States devised
by white supremacists and the Far Right since the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.
Although the Congressional Quarterly secured a draft listing from Homeland Security
that marks animal rights and Earth Firsters as the nation’s gravest domestic terror
threat, their property destruction is a far cry from the deaths sought by the white
supremacists, the report notes.
Among the more recent plots listed:
- David Wayne Hull, imperial wizard of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan
and an adherent of the anti-Semitic Christian Identity theology, was charged
in February 2003 with buying hand grenades with the aim of blowing up
abortion clinics. The FBI says Hull also illegally taught followers how to build
pipe bombs. He was convicted of weapons violations and sentenced to 12
years in federal prison.
- Antigovernment extremist and tax resister David Roland Hinkson of Idaho
was charged with trying twice to hire someone to murder a federal judge, a
prosecutor, and an IRS agent involved in a tax case against him. Hinkson had
refused to pay almost $1 million in taxes earned from his Water Oz dietary supplement
company. He was convicted in 2004 on tax charges and in 2005 for the
assassination plot as well.
- In April 2004, neo-Nazi skinhead Sean Gillespie videotaped himself as he firebombed
Temple B’nai Israel, an Oklahoma City synagogue, for a film aimed
at inspiring other racists to violently pursue their cause. He was found guilty
of the attack and faces a minimum 35- year sentence without parole.
Hijacked Day of Prayer
National Day of Prayer Task Force: Turning a Day of Faith into a Rally for the
Christian Right
Texas Freedom Network Education Fund, 2005.
This report documents how the National Day of Prayer Task Force has turned this
observance, established by Congress in 1952, into a battleground of the on-going religious
culture war. The task force, housed in Focus on the Family and led by its leader’s wife, discourages
any non-Christian groups from participating in its programs and disperses the
ideology of the Christian Right to the mainstream public through its prayer day activities.
The Prayer Day is observed nationally, since the Reagan Administration, on the first Thursday
in May.
The report argues that the organization spreads the language of the religious Right into
mainstream politics and government in part by asking people to pray against the “promotion
of homosexuality,” the denial of God in public schools, and condom distribution.
The Task Force organized more than 50,000 prayer events aimed at evangelical Christians.
While the organization explicitly claims to be inclusive of Jewish tradition, in practice
the researchers say this is false because it strictly adheres to the evangelical Lausanne
Covenant, which champions the infallibility of both the Old and New Testaments.
The Task Force lobbies the government to draw upon its themes in celebration of each
year’s National Day of Prayer. In 2005, the organization won endorsement from 26 state
governments — half those recognizing the day — when they issued proclamations adopting
the NDP Task Force’s theme, “God Shed His Grace on Thee.” The scale of its success in
wooing state legislatures demonstrates the increasing popularity of this organization
and its increasing involvement in the political sphere. Overall, the report argues that the
NDP Task Force’s political motivations skew the original purpose of the National Day of
Prayer, which was to unite all faiths, rather than to be sectarian, exclusive, and religiously
and politically divisive.
Conservative Philanthropy, Take 2
Funding the Culture Wars: Philanthropy, Church, and State
By John Russell, National Committee
Responsive Philanthropy, February 2005.
NCRP’s 2004 report, The Axis of Ideology:
Conservative Foundations and Public Policy,
made waves by documenting how 79 conservative foundations helped mainstream
“radical” policy ideas, like huge tax cuts for the wealthy and privatizing Social Security,
with large grants supporting the general operations of conservative organizations. It
also found that conservative Christian organizations won 10% of the grants to fight access
to abortion, promote school prayer, oppose gay marriage, and engage in other culture war
causes.
In its 2005 report, “Funding the Culture Wars,” NCRP uses the same data, plus some
new data on evangelically oriented private foundations, to zero in on support for Christian
evangelical organizations promoting policy changes. This is challenging, since
evangelicals come in all political shapes and sizes. But in the end, Russell tracked 37
foundations and 3,162 grants totaling $168 million. The average social service grant for
work in the United States totaled $59,346, and the average grant for policy and advocacy
totaled $48,541.
Focus on the Family, the Rev. James Dobson’s enterprise which opposes access to abortion
and gay marriage, secured more than $5.5 million from 1999 to 2002 from 32 grantors.
In the international realm, the report is particularly concerned with the President’s Emergency
Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which will distribute $180 million in grants for
abstinence-only AIDS prevention programs in 2005, with several evangelical organizations
eligible for the funding.
The report takes on the larger, more philosophical task of analyzing the challenges to
the separation of Church and State posed by these grantees. But its difficulty in disentangling
Right Wing from less advocacy oriented evangelical activity diminishes the usefulness
of its analysis.
For instance, while Campus Crusade for Christ — which obtained $17,271,852 in
grant money — champions the role of the male as protector, it does not promote political
campaigns on the issue.
Perpetual Report
Bush’s Other War: The Assault on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights
International Women’s Health Coalition, June 2005. www.bushsotherwar.org
The Coalition regularly updates an extensive online report that provides one-stop
shopping from various sources on President George W. Bush’s domestic and international
campaign against women’s reproductive rights, access to health care and abortion, and
sex education: www.bushsotherwar.org. For example:
- In March 2004, at a regional planning meeting of the Economic Commission
for Latin America and the Caribbean, the United States was the only one of 38
countries in the western hemisphere that opposed making a call for greater
access to reproductive health services and HIV/AIDs prevention programs.
- Poor women turn more and more to Medicaid for family planning services
because of cuts to subsidized family planning programs. Because of its greater
expense, this makes for bad health policy.
- One of Bush’s nominees for a Federal court, James Leon Holmes, is former
president of Arkansas Right to Life. The report offers one paragraph summaries
of Holmes and other key judicial nominees.
- The site also covers such topics as giving legal status to embryos, blocking
funding for international programs, and manipulating science for political
ends.
|
|