MyQuest | my thoughts on life's journey

On the Obama administration's abuses of power

Yes, I too am upset with the many recent revelations of abuses of power by the Obama administration.  But I'm annoyed.

Back in 2004 there was a constant stream of news of abuses of power by the Bush administration.  I was appalled (I had voted for him in 2000) and was even more appalled at the lack of outcry, particularly from conservatives who I thought should be defending constitutional principles and the rule of law.  Instead I remember Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, who was chair of the Intelligence Committee, basically saying on Meet the Press that he didn't need to oversee the administration's actions because the President in conducting the war on terror was not bound by normal laws.  At the time, it seemed to me Sen. Roberts wanted to role back the Magna Carta.

It has bothered me throughout the Obama years that he has continued to use some of the powers claimed by Bush.  This is predictable and discouraging.  I had hoped for an adminstration that would have been a radical turn away from Bush, even prosecuting the Bush people, but that didn't happen.  And early in this administration many praised Obama for continuing along the same lines and not choosing to prosecute.

The prosecutions may have helped to turn us and stem the tide of abuse.  Cynically, we should have known that not prosecuting meant that this administration wanted to do what the previous one had done.  Sigh.

And, yes, my outrage was spent a decade ago.  Pardon me if I think the people acting outraged now seem hypocritical.

The New Digital Age: Conclusion

The final two paragraphs merit being quoted in full:

The virtual and physical civilizations will affect and shape each other; the balance they strike will come to define our world.  In our view, the multidimensional result, though not perfect, will be more egalitarian, more transparent and more interesting than we can even imagine.  As in a social contract, users will voluntarily relinquish things they value in the physical world--privacy, security, personal data--in order to gain the benefits that come with being connected to the virtual world.  In turn, should they feel that these benefits are being withheld, they'll use the tools at their disposal to demand accountability and drive change in the physical world.

The case for optimism lies not in sci-fi gadgets or holograms but in the check that technology and connectivity bring against the abuses, suffering and destruction in our world.  When exposure meets opportunity, the possibilities are endless.  The best thing anyone can do to improve the quality of life around the world is to drive connectivity and technological opportunity.  When given the access, the people will do the rest.  They already know what they need and what they want to build, and they'll find ways to innovate with even the meagerest set of tools.  Anyone passionate about economic prosperity, human rights, social justice, education or self-determination should consider how connectivity can help us reach these goals and even move beyond them.  We cannot eliminate inequality or abuse of power, but through technological inclusion we can help transfer power into the hands of individual people and trust that they will take it from there.  It won't be easy, but it will be worth it.

That next to the last sentence seems very Congregationalist!

The New Digital Age: The Future of Reconstruction

They are most hopeful of the role that new digital technology will play in reconstructing a country after war or a natural disaster.  If the rest of the book depressed you, this chapter is encouraging.  

After a disaster, there will be a "mobile-first mentality."  Traditionally telecommunications came late in the process, now getting networks functioning will be primary, even before search and rescue, as the mobile technology will facilitate that task.  This new mentality has already been developing in places such as Haiti.

This chapter reads as a great analysis of what has worked and not worked in recent major disasters.

"Thanks to connectivity, exiles will be far less estranged from the population than their predecessors."  Exiles can develop support structures for their home country, maybe even governments-in-exile that can step in after a dictator is removed.  There could even be on-line elected parliaments.

Corruption after a disaster could be lessened as inventories and donations could be more easily tracked with mobile technology.  Even arms could have implanted tracking devices, so that weapons didn't get beyond the intended recipients.

In the reconstruction of Rwanda, it was learned that one of the best things to do when disarming combatants was to give them a mobile phone, which gave them connections, opportunities, and status.  It also meant they could be tracked and could have access to money and be paid, rather than being given one lump sum.

Capturing images of violence will lead to perpetrators being caught and convicted, but it could also mean that healing is more difficult.  They write that after any conflict, healing requires "a certain collective memory loss.  With much more evidence, there will be much more to forgive."

The New Digital Age: The Future of Conflict

In the future, states will more easily be able to target minorities and deny them access to the digital age.  They label this "virtual genocide."

Wars will now have a marketing component, as each side attempts to persuade the international community.  The marketing will also likely begin before the war even starts.

Crowds may push for military involvement based upon videos and photos, this without having the detailed, classified information that leaders have.  Something like America's involvement in Somalia could result.

Data permanence will affect future conflicts, as perpetrator's records will not be wiped out and war criminals could be brought to justice or tried in the court of public opinion.  They believe, hopefully, "The collective power of the online world will serve as a tremendous deterrent to potential perpetrators of brutality, corrupt practices and even crimes against humanity."

Robots will forever alter how we fight wars.

They write that the current budget and contract procedures of the American military are preventing innovation and adequate adaptation to contemporary technology.  America's technical superiority could be lost if the political process is not reformed.

"With more combat options that do not inflame public opinion [drones, etc.], the government can pursue its security objectives without having to consider declaring war or committing troops, decreasing the possibility of outright war."

The New Digital Age: The Future of Terrorism

They predict the "proliferation of sophisticated homemade explosive devices."  This was written before Boston, of course.  They predict that bombing-making will not be something you need an organization or only an expert for.  I wonder if the media and investigators have read this, as it seems that so many people are puzzled by the idea that the Tsarnaev brothers could have manufactured their own bomb.

Their big worry though is "everyman drones."  Even remote-control toys can become drones.  They imagine a number of frightening scenarios, including those that combine physical drones and cyberattacks to bring down response systems.  They believe scenarios like those they describe are inevitable.

"There will be fewer terrorist masterminds altogether.  But those that do exist will be even more dangerous."  Traditional solutions will be increasingly ineffective at responding to terror and more likely to generate more terrorists (as we've already seen in the last 20 years).

Intelligence communities will need to find ways to reach out to and recruit hackers, a group notoriously non-conformist.  They have some hope that this will be difficult for rogue states and terrorist groups.

An irony of Bin Laden's capture is that it was "his lack of Internet access in a large urban home that helped identify him."  Though being on-line would have made him even more easily discoverable.

"The silver lining of cyber terrorism is that, in almost every way, its practitioners will have less room for error. . . .  It takes only one mistake or weak link to compromise an entire network."

They imagine that in the future, governments will not allow, or at least not like, for people to be hidden, and that unconnected people will be on a list that will receive greater scrutiny at airports, etc., because the government will worry what people have to hide.  

So, if you are frightened by this book, and think you should stay or get off-line.  Well, that might not work.

"The only remedies for potential digital tyranny are to strengthen legal institutions and to encourage civil society to remain active and wise to potential abuses of this power."

Technological engagement should lead to more open societies, and be a way of dissuading people from becoming radicalized.  This is their hope for the 52% of world population which is under 30, a vast majority of whom are "socioeconomically at risk."  General Stanley McChrystal said, "What defeats terrorism is really two things.  It's rule of law and then it's opportunity for people."

The New Digital Age: The Future of Revolution

There can be little doubt that the near future will be full of revolutionary movements, as communication technologies enable new connections and generate more room for expression. . . .  But despite seeing more revolutionary movements, we'll see fewer revolutionary outcomes -- fully realized revolutions resulting in dramatic and progressive political turnover.

They have a complex argument for this conclusion.  Successful, sustainable revolutions take years of development and maturing of leadership.  Much contemporary revolutionary activity is the result of the crowds that can be generated using social networking.  The fast moving movements of today don't seem to be developing the organization and leadership to administer the new states.

They quote Henry Kissinger, "It is hard to imagine de Gaulles and Churchills appealing in the world of Facebook."  Instead we will get media celebrities -- they cite Herman Cain as an example.

There is danger if a group cannot shift from online activism to actually organizing, "If society at large loses faith in a rising movement and its ability to deliver, that's enough to stifle a transformative opportunity."

I wondered about some of the activism I've been a part of in recent years.  We have been victorious over our opponents largely because of our mastery of social networking and using it to mobilize supporters to show up, make calls, send e-mails and letters, and to vote.  Are we also developing strong leaders and organizational structures in the process?  I hope so.

One of the benefits of the new digital age is that "Citizens will no longer experience injustice in isolation or solitude."  We've seen this recently in Omaha, where video of a controversial police arrest went viral and led to investigations, firing, and indicts against some police officers.

They predict that dissident and activist groups will now need to compete for attention with one another, so marketing and branding will become essential skills.

Lee Hsien Loong, Singapore's prime minister, worries that "The danger we face in the future is that it will be far easier to be against something than for it."

I see all sorts of people posting their political views on-line, but I wonder how many of them match that with real world political organizing and activity?

Le Carre retrospects

John Le Carre writes about The Spy Who Came in from the Cold and what he has learned over the last fifty years.  It is an essay about writing, publicity, secrecy, national security, and Western values.  The tone is cynical, and the sentences are well crafted.

This excerpt from the conclusion should entice you, if you haven't yet clicked the link:

The bad dream turned out to be one that a lot of people in the world were sharing, since it asked the same old question that we are asking ourselves fifty years later: How far can we go in the rightful defense of our Western values without abandoning them along the way? My fictional chief of the British service — I called him Control — had no doubt of the answer:

I mean, you can’t be less ruthless than the opposition simply because your government’s policy is benevolent, can you now?

Today, the same man, with better teeth and hair and a much smarter suit, can be heard explaining away the catastrophic illegal war in Iraq, or justifying medieval torture techniques as the preferred means of interrogation in the twenty-first century, or defending the inalienable right of closet psychopaths to bear semiautomatic weapons, and the use of unmanned drones as a risk-free method of assassinating one’s perceived enemies and anybody who has the bad luck to be standing near them. Or, as a loyal servant of his corporation, assuring us that smoking is harmless to the health of the Third World and great banks are there to serve the public.

 

Divided America

A depressing Washington Post column on the divided politics of the United States.

But the red-state/blue-state fissure seems to be turning into a chasm in the months since President Obama won reelection. After theNewtown massacre, Connecticut and Maryland enacted sweeping bans on assault weapons and other gun-control measures. South Dakota enacted a bill authorizing school employees to carry guns.

Use "Terror" carefully

As a philosopher one of the things I am trained in is the careful use of terms and concepts.  When we are imprecise or inaccurate in our application of terms and concepts, then our thinking becomes muddled and we might take inappropriate action.

Yesterday, the news media immediately began to use the word "terror" in reporting on the bombings in Boston.  I was bothered by this, for we did not have enough information to begin using the term.

I first learned about terrorism from an ex-girlfriend in college who was then working on counter-terrorism as an academic speciality.  She has made a career out of it, writing many books and working for the government and in prominent institutions.

Terrorism is an act by a group attempting to achieve political or ideological goals.  An act of mass murder is not necessarily an act of terror.  Wikipedia, while admitting that there are multiple definitions in current use, gives this clarification: "Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians)."  Terrorism is intended to draw attention, including media attention, to the cause.

It may be that the bombings in Boston do turn out to be terror, but they may be mass murder.  So far it does not appear that any politically or ideologically motivated group has taken responsibility, which suggests that it was not an act of terror, because one purpose of terrorism is to draw media attention to your cause.  Now there is the media attention on the event, but no cause has claimed involvement.  

It is also odd to consider what political or ideological issue the Boston Marathon would symbolically represent.

At this point, one can only safely and correctly claim that an act of attempted mass murder was perpetrated by bombings in Boston.  We should wait for other information before we use the term terror.

And one reason to be careful with that term in particular is that since Sept. 11, 20o1 that word and concept have been particularly charged, leading to a set of responses -- curtailment of civil liberties, military action, drones, etc.  None of those responses may be entailed by these circumstances.  Let us be cautious.

"The white South's last defeat"

A fascinating article on Salon.com about the changing demographics of the South and how that is impacting culture and politics.

The article also links to this fascinating map: