Security

By David Brooks

From the Mexican newspaper La Jornada

NEW YORK – The CIA has become a "paramilitary service" where more than half of the agents recruited after 2001 are devoted exclusively to military operations in the "war against terror," The New York Times reports.

The intelligence agency has carried out hundreds of attacks with drones, the remote-controlled aircraft that have become the most visible weapon in the Obama administration’s war policy. In addition, the CIA has major stations in Kabul and Baghdad, with hundreds of secret agents in what continues to be called "war zones."

In turn, the agencies of national security, in the context of the war against terror, also see the United States as a possible stage for "enemy" operations. The hawks in this war say that, despite tragic events like the Boston bombings, several plots have been thwarted in this country, thanks (they say) to the clandestine operations to track down, watch and attack possible "terrorists."

It is no coincidence that the use of surveillance cameras has multiplied everywhere: subways, banks, streets, important buildings, etc. In fact, some years ago, the fashions manufacturer Kenneth Cole used this fact for its advertising campaign, pointing out that a citizen is photographed an average of 75 times a day and suggesting that individuals "should look good" in those circumstances.

Meanwhile, the official surveillance of personal communications – the telephone, electronic mail, social networks, etc. – continues to expand.

The scandal that broke recently with the revelation that the Department of Justice, while investigating possible leaks of "secret" information by official functionaries, obtained surreptitiously the records of telephone conversations by about 100 reporters and editors of The Associated Press, the nation’s main news agency, is only one example of the new "vigilance," whose extent and dimensions are secret.

All this is justified by a constant "threat" coming from abroad that’s already inside the country: the creation of a paramilitary force, the attacks with drones (which in essence are missions of international assassination carried out long-distance) and espionage everywhere in the world and inside the United States.

Even the mistakes in intelligence (including thousands of lives in "collateral damage") are justified by saying that the United States does what it must do for "self-defense" against an enemy that wants to harm every American, as Obama said last week. All that to defend world "freedom" and the world’s self-proclaimed guardian, the United States.
In this environment of permanent threat – something fed daily by the politicians, the authorities, the media, the "experts" and an entire public-relations industry – the feeling is of a country under siege.

This benefits all kinds of interests here, such as, for example, the defenders of the sacred "right" to bearing arms. Wayne LaPierre, main spokesman of the National Rifle Association, insists that if every citizen were armed, acts like the Boston Marathon bombings could have been prevented. He also says that any attempt to control that right is nothing less than a threat to freedom.

In the struggle against gun control, LaPierre said during a recent NRA convention that "we have the opportunity to ensure our freedom for a generation, or lose it forever."

Meanwhile, several days ago, it was learned that a 5-year-old boy had shot and killed his 2-year-old sister. Worse yet, he had used his own rifle, a .22-caliber weapon manufactured just for children and sold under the motto "My First Rifle." It had been his birthday gift.

The sector of minors has been one with the greatest growth in the gun industry, because many states do not have laws setting an age limit for the possession of firearms.

Notwithstanding the threats represented by the killings of students and teachers in schools, such as the ones in Connecticut, Colorado, Oregon and other states, any attempt to reduce or limit firearms (and wars, of course) is considered not only anti-patriotic but even treasonable.

In the investigation and court action against anyone who discloses the official secrets that enable those shady wars, the most renowned case is that of Wikileaks. Soldier Bradley Manning will be tried in June for, among other charges, "aiding the enemy" by revealing secrets about the wars perpetrated by the United States.

Several other functionaries and journalists are being investigated for leaking secret "official" information to the public. In fact, no other U.S. administration has conducted as many investigations in this regard as Obama’s.

And whoever is publicly opposed is also under suspicion and must be punished. Some weeks ago, Megan Rice, an 83-year-old nun, was convicted – along with Michael Walli, 64, and Greg Boertje-Obed, 56 – of "invasion of a nuclear installation." They face a 20-year prison sentence.

Their crime: entering the only U.S. facility that stores conventional radioactive weapons, where they spattered human blood as the symbol of the blood spilled in wars. They never came even close to the nuclear materials.

Shortly before being convicted, Rice told the jury that she was only sorry that she didn’t carry out more direct actions during her first 70 years.

Why is it that I feel so insecure despite so much security?