The New York Times pubished an article that argued that the CIA choose to torture because of their haste to respond to the attrocities of 9/11.  Aside from the realities that the torturing did not start in earnest till almost a year had passed since 9/11, there is evidence to suggest that torture was not just a hasty decision but rather a critical feature of the Bush administration.

The reason why the U.S. engaged in torture go beyond the CIA, contractors Mitchell and Jensen, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the Congress, a petrified American people, and an uncritical media. The answer lies in the overarching political strategy and theory of “preemption” that occupied a large contingent of White House officials and that dominated White House decisions and actions after 9/11. That was what I and my co-authors argued in our 2010 book, The Iraq Papers, published by Oxford University Press. Preemption was a strategy advocated by a contingent of neoconservatives that included Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Donald Rumsfeld. They had argued for over a decade before 9/11 that the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1Hood_headphones_what_is989 gave the U.S. a singular, supreme Super-power status that could be put to use to fix the world’s problems without opposition from any other power. Preemption meant attacking and defeating opponents even though they may only pose a hypothetical threat. They had approached President Clinton with the idea of toppling Saddam Hussein during his administration without success. They finally succeeded with President Bush because of the 9/11 tragedy.

As we argued in the Iraq Papers, preemption was not only a Bush policy for international affairs. It also permeated domestic policies. Thus, the casual dismissal of our constitutional and ethical safeguards regarding personal privacy, human rights, judicial processes, and democracy. Our moral standards and international law regarding torture were preempted.

Eric Garner and the Police

Posted: December 5, 2014 in Uncategorized

Eric Garner’s killing at the hands of the police is about a lot of things. It is about racism, inequality, and male testosterone.  It is also about bad policing policy.  This came to mind when I read that Rand Paul declared recently that Garner got killed because of the high taxes in New York on cigarettes.

Rand_Paul_5

Paul’s tax lament is that “for someone to die over breaking that law, there really is no excuse for it. But I do blame the politicians, we put our police in a difficult situation with bad laws.” [MSNBC, Hardball12/3/14]

The real issue is not taxes, however.  It is the “Broken Windows” policing policy that has cops out looking for jay walkers, subway sleepers, spitters, open beer-can drinkers, and loose cigarette sellers. Broken Windows policy claims that reducing minor criminal infractions will result in the reduction of major criminal infractions. In practice, it means that police departments push cops to look for, fine, and arrest people for minor infractions. They end up doing this primarily to minorities, homeless, and the poor because they are the low-hanging fruit. This produces an ever increasing number of abusive interactions that often result in tragedy like what happened to Eric Garner.

The New York City Police, for their own malicious reasons, do not provide all the data that would conclusively prove the connections between their policing methods and increasing friction with poor and minority people. But analysis by organizations at the front lines provide estimates that reveals the high degree of terror by police in minority neighborhoods.  As a New York Civil Liberties Union analysis shows, “81% of New Yorkers slapped with a criminal summons between 2001 and 2013 for minor infractions are black or Latino.” Fix the broken policing policies and you will help to radically reduce police killings of innocent and mostly harmless people.

Some conservative websites are recirculating videos of a black man giving a rant on how what happened in Ferguson to Michael Brown, and to black men in general, could have been avoided if black men just took responsibility for their lives. In the video, he says things like:

“Black people it is 2014, hate to break this to you if your life is messed up, it ain’t because of slavery. Your a** was never a slave, you probably ain’t know nobody was a slave, you probably don’t know nobody that knew nobody who was a slave.”

“Civil rights about 50 years ago, we won. It was a fight. We sat, they marched, we won.”

Here is the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUcA7yrErg

Here are a few of things commentators posted about the video:

  • if the other black males felt the same way as he does,,,, black people would rise up and become overall more successful in a single generation,,,, or quicker.

  • Like he said time to clean up! let’s start from the White House!

  • These are the cracks in the facade that Black people need to free themselves from the racism and control that white liberals and their approved black overseers have.

    If the Berlin Wall could be torn down and statues of Lenin pulled down, then maybe there is hope for the Black community.

  • This man says it in a way that ” ‘da brothers (& sisters)” will relate to. We whites got it when Bill Cosby said it alright, but this needs to go “stratospheric.”

  • Well said, Sir! It’s nice to hear people speaking from their intelligence instead of their posterior. Why isn’t this on MSM? Never mind, we ALL know why … it doesn’t fit their agenda! It’s a shame too. I know many people, of many races, colors, religions, and ancestry who think just like this man. We are special because we are Americans … act like it!

I think that white people want to see this guy say these things because it makes them feel better. It confirms their opinion that they have no role to play in this tragedy. But they DO! They want to believe that black people are so stupid as to want to stay in their misery when all they have to do is change their mindset. Hahahaha… That is a big joke. In the vast majority of these cases of police killings, the black man was doing nothing more than minding their own business when confronted by police. The police, like white people in general, are afraid of black men, even when there is no evidence to support the fear. The same people who applaud this man’s rant, will also walk across the street or shrink when they see him in an elevator. We all have to admit it! There is white people’s justice and black people’s justice, and the latter is severe, unjust, and deadly. Take a look at this article: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/leonard-pitts-jr/article4149075.html

Until we deal with an unjust justice system, we will continue to see these barbaric police crimes.

American politics has become increasingly polarized… even toxic.  Truth may never be a very high goal in political debate, but it is too often proudly rejected as a goal today.  A lot of this has to do with what social psychologists say is ideological confirmation bias.  We tend not to pay much attention to facts that contradict our world view and values.  In fact, opposing facts usually make us hold onto our ideological beliefs even stronger. Which makes my feeble attempts to insert some rational discourse into conservative commentary on issues like the undocumented, “takers”, government spending, and President Obama that much more preposterous.  I can’t help myself.  I read those bizarre and incorrect statements and I respond.  Here are some examples of what I mean.  It comes from a Facebook site called Conservative Daily.  The commentary was in response to a post that claimed that people leaned to Republicans because the Democrats have so wreaked the economy.  It came with a chart, see below, that purports to show that Democratic led states do worse with unemployment than Republican led states.

screen-shot-2014-07-19-at-6.27.34-am

 

 

 

They also provided an “analysis” of what the chart means:

“A quick look at the 5 states on either side of the graph and a brief analysis of their statewide party support is revealing.

High Unemployment states:

  • Mississippi: Strongly Republican – Republican governor and Senators, 75% of their Congressmen are Republican and their state legislature is 55% Republican.
  • Rhode Island: Strongly not Republican – Independent governor, 100% Democratic Senators and Congressmen, and Republicans are only 10% of the state legislature.
  • Nevada: Mixed – Republican governor, Senators and Congressional representation is split down the middle, and the state legislature is 63% Democrat.
  • Michigan: Mixed – Republican governor, Democratic Senators, mixed in the House, and 58% Republican in the legislature.
  • California: Republicans need not apply – Democrat governor and Senators, 75% of those in Congress are Democrats, and Republicans are just under 30% of the state legislature.

Result: Only one “Strongly Republican” state is in the bottom five.

Low Unemployment states:

North Dakota: Strongly Republican – Republican governor, senators are split, Republican House member, and the state legislature is 75% Republican.
Utah: Even stronger Republican presence – Everything is Republican except one House member and 18% of the state legislature.
Vermont: Republicans need not apply – only 32% of the state body is Republican and that’s it.
Nebraska: Most Republican of all – 39% of the state legislature is Democrat and everything else is Republican.
South Dakota: Stongly Republican – one Democratic Senator and only 24% Democratic representation in the state legislature.
Result: Only one Democratic state in the top five.”

Obviously, there is much that is left out of such rudimentary analysis.  States like Michigan have suffered because manufacturing has fled while states like North Dakota have benefited from the discovery of gas and oil energy.  And all states have been able to reduce their unemployment to levels below 8% since the highs of 2008 under Bush.  That is, of course, something that can be attributed to the limited policies that President Obama has been able to institute.  What is more fascinating is the response of Conservative Daily’s members.  Here is a sample:

Gary Ei takers tend to be liberal, workers conservativ

  • Shelly Erickson Wake up America liberal ideas do not work!
    Greg Manger The problem has more to do with overpopulation and lack of industry than it does a states political affiliations. Before I get blasted for being a liberal I will state that I am a republican through and through. However, I feel like the kind of hyperbole that this post boasts is the problem the Republican Party has had over the past 2 decades. Instead always blaming liberals and going as far right as we can, I think we need to get back to some common sense politics and solutions and stop constantly fighting the other side of the isle. Let’s be the bigger people and lead again.
    John Vanis Love poverty? then vote democrat
    Richard Shockley Look at DETROIT!! 50 years of democrat rule!! only bright spot– u can buy a 3000 sq.ft home for 1000 bucks!!
  • Mike Davis Why do people consistently leave out Wyoming. Most conservative state in the US. Lowest tax rate. 7th highest average income in the nation. Highest in personal disposable income in the US.
    Deb Chambers Smith Oh! Maybe you might want to keep the secret and keep WY healthy
    Sylvia Olson Way to go North Dakota!!!
    Christopher Stevens actually population’s role has everything to do with it. they keep electing democrats, err progressives, err socialists.
  • Jenifer Leslie Much of North Dakota (western part at least) is paying over $15 an hour starting wages at places like Menards and fast food restaurants and they still can’t find people to work. People may dis this state, but at least we aren’t broke….and it isn’t just because of the oil industry.
    Alex Kuban More like a connection between lazy and stupid LOL
    Daryl Kirk Clinton didn’t create a good job climate Paul O. Thompson. After the 1st two years of his presidency, the people wanted his nonsense like NAFTA, pressuring banks to give loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and raising taxes stopped. We voted in a conservative Republican Congress headed by Newt Gingrich which put a balanced budget on his desk to sign for several years in a row. Due to that and their easing of regulations and taxes, the economy soared, jobs were created and Clinton took the credit.
    Brandon Vale It’s the same thing here in Canada; the most prosperous provinces are always Conservative. The Left wing provinces always high unemployment, high taxes, and growing debt. With the rise of Liberalism we see the decline of society. Not just North America, but abroad as well
    Brett Watson It’s a fact that states led by Republican or Conservative Governors have better economies and growth than those run by Democrat or Liberal Leaders. The truth hurts!
    Bob Moller I worked in NYC when Democrats ran the city down the drain. Then Republicans and Independents came in and crime rates dropped. Now a Liberatard Dumbocrat is Mayor and crime is up. I worked in Newark New Jersey (Dumbocrats) it was so bad we needed Armed Security Guards to accompany us so we wouldn’t get killed. So tell me how wonderful cities and states are under Dumbocrats
    Mike Stott I have been in Mississippi foe 30 years and not unemployed one time . I would rather be controlled by Republicans than rounded up like an animals to prison camps by our Democratic leaning commie president !
    Ginger Stevens Pelletier Liberals have no morals. They are all liars.
    PamChris Holmes Well Greg, good to hear you are republican. But the states political affiliations are the cause. Liberals-progressive policies along with the lefts over regulation is what kills industry. Unions are funding the lefts policies. The lefts policies are to blame for the 98 week unemployment. Their policies are letting cities die from within. Detroit is a perfect example. Haydays in the 50 and 60’s where industry thrived are dead because of over spending, big government. The American industrial complex is being gutted by The EPA. Energy sources are being made illegal because of the left. Expensive energy, means expensive industry, which means middle class suffering, which means the country suffering, which means the country slows down and stops. All perpetuated by leftist liberal progressive policies. Obama said in2008, “your energy costs are necessarily going to go up”. Combine that with the costs to business of Obama care, it doesn’t pay to own a business. 29 hour work weeks, other reduced benefit packages, no wonder why liberal states are suffering. Greece, Italy, Spain, Russia, and a few others are collapsing from socialist policies. If America keeps going down the socialist, progressive policies, we are doomed as a country!
    Gennan Cameron Carabajal What do they know? The Libtard credo….Keep the People stupid so that they will vote for handouts!!! Tax those who ARE working to death to pay for those handouts. Know nothing about economics and the concept that jobs= revenue!!!
    Stewart Abernathy Hmm? What do you mean states without income tax cant support themselves over the long run? Texas has been running budget surpluses for several years.
    Chris O’Dell and I will say I live in MS and the vast majority of unemployed are democratic/liberal minded people. so even though MS has mostly republican representation this still show the democratic mindset doesn’t work. bad work ethic bad additude, no education no ambition etc….equals poverty level life.
    Jon Nagle Pesky statistics, but the government under the liberal wing just thinks these facts are anomalies. Square pegs in round holes if you just campaign enough and hold enough fund raisers and promise the unemployed free stuff from other people’s pockets. Oh yeh and get some more illegals to shore up your base.
    Dee Richard Liberal socialism does not work!
    Christopher Shaffer Politics and all of those involved, regardless of their political party, are stupid. It’s really that simple. It’s not just one political party which is destroying this once-great nation, it’s all of them.
    Michael Raiborn Devising new taxes & increasing old ones doesn’t create jobs or help anyone but the Feds!!!!! It bankrupts cities!
    Michael Clark All I know is to create jobs, states must make it attractive to the company’s bottom line. Low capital gains taxes and lower regulation. That’s why many companies are moving to Florida and Texas. These companies create jobs and those workers pay taxes and spend their paychecks at other companies…. And so forth.”

 

 As you can see, the commentary is sprinkled with a few rational responses about over-population, loss of industry, and taxation.  But it is dominated by people who simply make ad hominem arguments about “libartards,” Obama, and “socialism.”  Our politics has become so polarized that even Reagan might seem like a liberal today.  When presidential candidate Romney told his big lie in 2012 that 47% of Americans are “Takers” because they paid no federal taxes, he took a position that Ronald Reagan would have rejected.
Romney was talking about people who are too young or old to make enough money to be taxed as well as many more who work but pay little taxes because they have big enough families to claim dependent and other deductions. It is insulting and not true to label them “takers,” as even Ronald Reagan understood.  Reagan was a strong supporter of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).  This tax policy sends checks to Americans who work but earn less than around $46,000 a year, depending on family size. This means that these workers who receive the credit are going to be among those who don’t pay income tax.  Reagan did not see this as a problem. That 1986 tax code reform of the tax code removed 6 million working poor from the tax rolls. Reagan viewed this reform as a “sweeping victory for fairness” and “perhaps the biggest antipoverty program in our history.” But today, this kind of policy and this kind of centrist politics is no longer possible.

Bringing the Iraq and Afghan Wars Home

to Latino and African American Communities

By José Ramon Sánchez (April 7, 2013)

 

The Iraq and Afghan wars reintroduced the use of torture to extract information from captives as well as the use of drones and other new technologies of surveillance and attack. The Obama Administration has done less of the former and more of the latter. But largely missed in discussions of these issues is the extent to which these new technologies, even torture to some extent, have become an increasing part of the government’s efforts to control minority communities inside the U.S. In more ways than we care to see, the lessons of war in Iraq are being imported back into the U.S.

 

The Iraq and Afghan wars had a tremendous impact on political policy. The first very important reason is that those wars exposed the deep ironic vulnerability of the U.S., as the world’s only superpower. Terrorist enemies can skirt around the superpower’s vast and deep capabilities and often flummox its efforts to dominate. Terrorists have always operated in an uneven, asymmetrical, and unorthodox terrain. They wear no uniforms, have no standing armies or clear command structures, and can be found anywhere. They are also now globally dispersed and armed with conventional weapons.

 

Terrorists can also make themselves formidable opponents by simply making use of the technologies developed by the Superpower. They easily armed themselves with modern technologies like computers and cell phones in order to coordinate and send destruction almost anywhere. All of this blunts the effectiveness of the U.S.’s mighty armed forces as well as limits the usefulness of its expensive and deadly weapons. Modern terrorists have exposed the loneSuperpower’s Achilles’ heel and compelled their determined political leaders to turn to unlawful and, largely, unproductive strategies to diminish the terrorist advantage.

 

Second, the reality is that the “war on terror” is not really a war and cannot be settled by the use of overwhelming force. Terrorist movements can last forever and can impose a great cost to the blood and treasure of the superpower. They spring, for the most part, from the weakness of a population that views itself colonized and suppressed. For these reasons, the U.S. has resorted increasingly to technological methods of combat. Since these methods are supposedly cheaper and don’t endanger American troops, they can, theoretically, also be used forever.

 

The third and most important contribution from the Iraq and Afghan wars is the policy of pre-emption. The U.S. launched its war against Iraq because it claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But the Bush Administration actually lied and manipulated the United Nations, the U.S. Congress, and the American people into believing this charge was true. It did so primarily because the Bush Administration was flooded with a group of war minded ideologues called the Neo-Cons (Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and others). This bunch had pushed a plan since the early 1990s totopple Saddam as part of a grand strategy to reshape the politics of the Middle East. The philosophical and political principle behind this strategy was called “preemption.”

 

All three of these products of the Iraq and Afghan wars are becoming increasingly evident in the strategies now being used to contain minority communities within U.S. cities and to “close the borders” to Latino migrants. The strategies for fighting and containing terrorist threats now being used inside the U.S. has incurred opposition from both the right and the left. Most of these concerns have been over the threats to freedom posed by these strategies. But there are other, equally important, reasons to be concerned. Though it is not yet fully apparent, I believe that very similar strategies are also being deployed today in efforts to control racial minorities in the U.S.

 

Superpower’s Ironic Vulnerability

 

U.S. political leaders should have learned what al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden learned from the Soviet war in Afghanistan during the 1980s. Big superpowers have a very difficult time stopping and containing guerilla and terrorist movements, especially on their home turf and in rugged terrain. The Soviets learned it the hard way by suffering defeat at the hands of tribal and rebel opposition in their disastrous nine-year war in Afghanistan. The U.S. should have learned it too since it helped to defeat the Soviets by arming the rebels, including Osama Bin Laden. The Bush administration compounded the problem.

 

Osama explained how easy it was for al Qaeda to use the 9/11 attack to “provoke” the Bush “administration and to drag it [to us]” to fight a “war of attrition” and “to make America bleed profusely.” Thus, the evidence suggests very strongly that the attack of 9/11 was launched as part of al Qaeda’s plan to lure the U.S. to fight a major war in the Middle East against terrorists. They believed that such a war would give al Qaeda an advantage, weaken the U.S., and eventually cause the U.S. to collapse because the war would be too costly, in blood and treasure, to the U.S. They were not far wrong.

 

Similar field-leveling conditions now exist in the U.S. with regards to border security. The boundary with Mexico has always been porous, but more so since the creation of NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement opened up the borders between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada beginning in 1994. But it did so primarily for goods and capital. That policy, however, severely disrupted Mexico’s economy. The result is that Mexicans and other Central Americans uprooted from the countryside by new foreign investments and the collapse of the peasant economy have had few options but to try their luck in the U.S. The addition of the drug trade and its concomitant violence simply accelerated theforced migration process.

 

These efforts to close the borders, however, have produced no real results. Only the 2008 economic recession in the U.S. put any dent in the flow of people across the border. That migration has proven as impossible to contain as the terrorist uprising in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the solutions have, as a result, become very similar. Militarizing the border, new surveillance technologies, electrified fences, and physical barriers have all been deployed along the Mexican border. They have not contained the migration but they have caused death and hardship to many migrants. But, perhaps, the biggest similarity is in the use of detention facilities to remove migrants from society while the government decides what to do with them.

 

Like the thousands of “unlawful enemy combatants” held hostage in U.S. bases like Guantanamo, these “illegal aliens” are mostly Latino, not criminals, and held hostage in numerous federal detention facilities all around the country without judicial processing, often for years. Recent reports indicate that these migrants have also been subject to torture. Large numbers of migrants have often been placed in solitary confinement for weeks and months at a time. As a result, between 2003 and 2012, 110 migrants died while held in U.S. detention centers.

 

In Iraq, the U.S. government resorted to private corporate security forces, not subject to legal and government oversight, to provide security, services, as well as to protect high value locations and individuals. One of the biggest beneficiaries of these government contracts was Dick Cheney’s Halliburton and subsidiary corporations. These companies fed at the federal government trough with inflated contracts, performed poorly, and were found to be largely rotting from corruption on the inside.

 

The U.S. has similarly “outsourced” the detention of undocumented Latinos and others to private contractors. These private corporations enter into agreements with local and state governments who provide the prison space. The local community usually enters into these agreements seeking to remedy local economic problems. They see these prisons as an opportunity to make “money for nothing.” But the reality is that the corporation has little financial risk and usually makes enormous profits from the ill-equipped and badly maintained immigrant detention facilities they operate.

 

Hard to Control the Insurgents

 

Clearly, racial and ethnic minorities do not pose any serious threat to destroy or weaken the U.S. the way radical Islamic insurgents or terrorists do. But one major similarity includes the fact that the U.S. could not control the Iraq insurgency with brute force. Brute force actually fueled the insurgency. Similarly, stronger border enforcement did not end the migration of Latinos across those borders. In fact, the U.S. continues to fuel that migration by disrupting the economies and the politics of Latin American nations as well as by demanding the cheap and disposable labor those Latinos provide toAmerican industries.

 

There are some additional contemporary political and economic realities in the U.S. that create a potential for future radicalization and a threat to the perceived sense of security among some sectors of this society. Many economists have argued that the current economic reality appears to be a permanent rather than a typical cyclical downturn. This has made the growing economic inequality and persistent poverty in the U.S. also seem permanent and hard to eradicate. This potential for a revolt fueled by both growing inequality and racism has encouraged many urban police forces to develop harsh, desperate, and paranoid policies for policing minority communities.

 

Whether or not economic decline produces unrest is, perhaps, not as important as the belief that it will. Many policy experts have been predicting just that for a number of years. Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, for instance, predicted that sooner or later there would be serious “social unrest from the income disparities in the U.S.” Newsweek reported that, in response to the economic decline and inequality, Americans were beginning to show not just “sadness and frustration, but also an inchoate rage.” Even Moody, the financial corporation, made global predictions that “future tax rises and spending cuts could trigger social unrest in a range of countries from the developing to the developed world.” And the U.S. War College issued a policy paper in 2008warning that the emerging “unforeseen economic collapse,” could lead to “domestic resistance” and the “loss of functioning political and legal order” producing “widespread civil violence.”

 

Thus, rising inequality in the U.S., continued forced migration from Latin America, fear of minority unrest in the U.S., as well as the need by U.S. police forces to justify their budgets in a time of cutbacks have all created a ramped up effort to try to contain minority communities in the U.S. with radical new military technologies. That these efforts, like those against insurgents in Iraq, will ultimately prove fruitless also seems to be understood to some extent. Witness the crass title of one Economist article on this issue. In September of 2011, The Economist titled an article on drug related violence and migration in Mexico as “Herding Cockroaches.”

 

Focus on Pre-emption Rather than Justice

 

We appear to be in the midst of a structural economic adjustment that will likely mean an even greater and permanent decline in middle class jobs and incomes. This can only make matters worse for African American and Latino communities that are already disproportionately locked into the bottom rungs of this society and who expect to be denied any real upward movement.

 

The persistence of the prison-industrial complex means that police forces around the country are motivated to continue to churn out arrests and prisoners to satisfy economic and political needs of non-minority communities. Thus, witness the widespread use of “stop and frisk” methods of policing that research shows results in the arrest of a very small number of offenders. In recent courtroom testimony, one policeman testified that the New York City police“were expected to issue 20 summons and make one arrest per month.”The presumption of guilt and the use of pre-fabricated arrest policies harassed and essentially paint minority communities as criminal.

 

Police commissioners and mayors, like those in New York City, suggest that these pre-emptive tactics are what continue to keep their cities relatively crime free. They are not, apparently, aware of the bitter irony of their claims. New York City had the lowest murder rate in thirty years! No one knows quite why crime has dropped since it has also gone down in other cities where NYPD policies are not followed. But at a time of dramatic declines in crime, the NYPD is ramping up the use of more intrusive and murderous police strategies.

 

Thus, the NYPD continues to use suspect and unconstitutional policies like stop and frisk as well as biometric screening. Stop and frisk policies often produces fractious confrontations with innocent young African American and Latino young men and women as well as unnecessary police shootings. The criminalization of entire communities is exactly what the Iraqi people suffered at the hands of U.S. soldiers during the war.

 

Examples or this criminalization abound. New York City police have turned to stalking minority “troubled youths” on Facebook. They began to use face-recognition technology in 2012 to pre-empt crime. They are following young African American and Latino youth on Facebook and on the streets before they become offenders. The police spend countless hours “daily monitoring the teenagers’ chatter – alert for talk of fights, party plans and criminal activities.”

 

The New York City police have also introduced a citywide surveillance systemwith live video feeds and a huge database. They hope to be able to determine when “too many people congregate” so that the police can dispersed and intimidate them “simply by the risk of being identified – before dissent can coalesce.” Minority youth are also subject to police attention in the public schools, which have long been criminalized.

 

As investigative journalist Annette Fuentes argued, heightened security in these schools has come despite the fact that “school violence is not exploding.” The presence of police in schools along with weapons detectors and surveillance cameras do but one thing – deliver more minority youth to the prison industrial complex. And because minority communities are so highly criminalized and militarized, private corporations have been the main beneficiaries, profiting greatly by supplying the technologies placed in the schools and communities.

 

The shooting last week in Flatbush in Brooklyn, New York of a young African American teenager and the resulting riot demonstrated two main things. One is that the police are increasing threatened by communities that they fear and don’t understand. Like in Iraq, they will shoot first and ask questions later. Second is that these minority communities see themselves as an occupied people. They distrust and fear the police. And some like that teenager are maybe willing to take a stand and resist even against overwhelming odds.

 

It’s true that there have been no recent significant civil rights or social justice movements that spring from racial or ethnic minority communities. However, the Occupy Wall Street Movement as well as sporadic protest to police brutality around the country not only raise the concern of government authorities, but accelerate the use of Iraq war techniques and technologies. So, while the civil unrest remains just a potential right now, police and other authorities are gearing up for that potential by turning to the containment strategies learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those strategies are spilling into as well as being tested and utilized in minority communities.

 

Some of the newest products of the wars, like biometric screening, are just now being introduced into urban policing. But there is already some use in border security, which would impact greatly on Latinos. The police departments around the nation see such criminalization and technology strategies as practical attempts to contain crime and to justify the size of their budgets. The New York City Police Department, for example, has 6,000 fewer officers today than in 2001.

 

Some may argue that these developments in urban policing are simply the evolution of criminal justice technology. It may even just represent the tapping of a new market by venture capitalists. Some financial experts estimate that “the worldwide drone market could grow to $90 billion in the next decade.” These things are all true. But they don’t change the fact that there are deep parallels between the “war on terrorism” and the war on minority communities.

 

Now some will say that all of this is mere coincidence and they would be right, but only partially. Admittedly, no one can point to a big conspiracy behind these developments. What we do know is that the Iraq and Afghan wars have introduced new strategies and policies for handling threats to U.S. security. And now, these new methods and policies are flowing into the U.S. for political and financial reasons. As Latinos, we have to be aware of how these flows are directly impacting on Latino and other minority communities around the country.

 

Take a look at my article on this issue at this site

 

http://thesocietypages.org/specials/pr/

I am better off today because we no longer have a president who would launch us into unnecessary wars, eliminate what ever safety net still exists, and keep us in outdated and ineffective 20th century (energy, manufacturing, financial) policies. That being said, I am incredulous how many people who claim to believe in capitalism seem to think that the government has a bigger impact on their lives than capitalism has. Those of you who are unemployed or working for less than you were 4 years ago seem blind to the fact that corporations have a lot to do with that. Not only have corporations shipped a lot of your jobs overseas but in this recent economic recovery they have restarted production with a vastly shrunken workforce. They have eliminated more jobs by resorting to automation and computer software. They did not do this because of Obama. They did it because YOU cost too much. They did not want to pay your salaries, help you pay your mortgage, help you put your kids through school, or pay for your food. And they will continue to do this in the future.

All a president can do is to affect this process of economic structural change around the margins. Obama can make your standard of living better and a little cheaper by supporting education and maintaining a safety net to protect you when employers release you or drop your health care insurance. Romney will make it easier for employers to do what they are doing to ship jobs overseas, shrink their workforce, and make you absorb more of the costs of keeping you alive…even if you die doing it.

You decide what you prefer…a president who will provide you with some support to make it through this economic shift or a president who will provide corporate bosses with the support they want to make it more profitable for them to make it through this current economic shift.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.