
Mission Creep: When Everything Is Terrorism - nealabq
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/mission-creep-when-everything-is-terrorism/277844/
======
zeteo
While I'm not claiming that the US is currently close to totalitarianism,
there are some comparisons that have become quite disturbing:

1\. A regime that justifies itself by claiming to protect the populace from a
vague but grave danger. The USSR had the specter of returning robber barons;
Nazi Germany, the Jews; and current-day US, terrorists.

2\. A secret police that collects everyone's metadata and uses it to
investigate suspicious activity. (Stasi didn't record everything all the time;
they kept files of who communicated with whom, and assigned surveillance
assets to the most promising leads.)

3\. A heavy-handed, militarized regular police that apprehends nonviolent
suspects with overwhelming force.

I could go on, but the combination of these three is more than enough cause
for worry.

~~~
kaonashi
> While I'm not claiming that the US is currently close to totalitarianism

A useful line of thought: what would it take for you to say that it was?

~~~
alan_cx
Yeah, I wonder that too.

Im not being clever here, I think that the US is getting like that, but really
deep down it doesn't feel like a Nazi Germany (or the like), but it sure is
displaying signs of it. So, I'm not even sure what I think, and what the
tipping point is where you can say that the US is in that group.

One thing I wonder about is whether its simply presentation? Its is simply
that the US has a veil of democracy? Which people can vote, will it ever be
seen as a totalitarian state, or stasi like, etc?

One problem I have is that Americans voted for this and previous government
and there for must approve of what the USG does. "USA, USA, USA", and all
that. Then I wonder if Americans are basically brain washed with this "best
country in the world" nonsense, and this "they hate our freedoms" line, which
is a contradiction in its self.

Perhaps the US is something new? A democratic fascist state, or something? I
mean, the US people have no problem with the likes of Bush threatening
countries with bombing back to the stone age to get their own way. No problem
with killer flying robots murdering suspects on foreign soil with out
permission of that country. No problem with CIA kidnapping and torture for
dirty worthless foreigners.

Only when Americans feel the USG is threatening them do they get upset. But
frankly, screw non Americans, they are not human or equal. Seems to me
Americans enjoy their world power, love licking every one else around, but
suddenly, when its them.....

I think what the US is today is very much like bad countries in the past who
had disproportionate power and use it to further their own ambition at the
expense of every one else. But unlike previous states, the US does it with its
own democratic vote that makes it all just fine.

What name you give that, I don't know.

The one single thing that does worry me though is this notion that Americans
are some how more valuable, more human, more important that any other people.
That different rights apply. To Americans, we are not all human first.

YES I know not ALL Americans think like that. But the democratic results and
opinion poles suggest that in the main, most Americans do. I have to say there
does seem to be a huge difference between Americans who travel abroad and
those who don't. I also include those who spend a lot of time professionally
interacting with the rest of the planet too.

The internet has expanded that, just like here, on this site. I see hope here.
I see Americans with a far better world view. HN, IMHO, has really helped me
with that.

~~~
Spearchucker
Nazi Germany never felt like Nazi Germany at the time, either. Besides having
first-hand accounts of what the lead-up to WWII felt like (my grandfather
wrote extensively about it, and his experiences during the war), if it _felt_
like it, Jews would've left.

The really amazing thing about it is that everyone in Germany (Jewish or not)
just thought it was a lot of hot air, and would blow over.

It's _really_ worth reading some history books.

The part that scares me most is that while things look benign enough (as they
do now), anyone in power can manufacture evidence, present it to a secret
court and thus efficiently side-line and silence an adversary. For no other
reason than not liking your face, for saying the wrong thing, being too good
at something, sleeping with the wrong person...

You just disappear. No court, no recourse. Life destroyed.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
>if it felt like it, Jews would've left

Many did.

"The United States was another destination for German Jews seeking to leave
the country (in the 1930s)"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany)

"In February 1933 while on a visit to the United States, Einstein decided not
to return to Germany due to the rise to power of the Nazis"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)

"(in 1938) Interrogation of Anna Freud by the Gestapo finally convinced Freud
it was time to leave Austria."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud)

~~~
glesica
I think the correct assertion would have been that _more_ Jews would have
left. Even the information you linked to suggests that, at least as of 1938,
many Jews weren't convinced they had to leave yet.

~~~
Spooky23
Emmigration is difficult, especially if you're in the middle class.

What would need to happen for you to abandon your job/business, home, extended
family and friends and home to move to another country? I don't know what the
answer is, but I think in a similar circumstance my first instinct would be to
hunker down and wait for things to blow over.

If you're poor and striving, I think these decisions are a bit easier. My
grandparents all immigrated to the US from Ireland between 1929-1946. For
them, the complete lack of opportunity made it the only decision that made
sense.

------
revscat
A thought that is worth possibly spreading: despite protests to the contrary,
terrorism does not pose an existential threat. Governments use terrorism to
justify almost anything, on the basis that if they don't then the terrorists
will destroy everything.

This is ridiculous. They're criminals, and should be treated as such. This
modern security state is ridiculous.

~~~
jacques_chester
Yes, it's funny how badly perspectives have been skewed. The USSR was a much
more serious threat. Either they could've participated in a nuclear war
leading to billions of deaths, or precipitated a land war in Europe that would
have led to mere tens of millions of deaths the old-fashioned way.

Terrorists simply don't have that kind of destructive capacity. It requires a
modern industrial state; they don't have that. And once a modern industrial
state is acquired, governing elites are curiously reluctant to sacrifice it on
the altar of pure ideology.

So why more money is spent on terrorists than communists is a bit of a mystery
to me.

~~~
ekianjo
> So why more money is spent on terrorists than communists is a bit of a
> mystery to me.

That's because terrorism is used as an excuse to further push the Power of the
State.

~~~
brazzy
That, and because terrorism works: it causes terror, and people want to be
protected from this terrifying threat, even if in reality it's not a very big
threat.

------
jacques_chester
PJ O'Rourke once observed that "Giving money and power to government is like
giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys".

No matter how noble the intentions, no matter how vociferously the teenage
boys swear, _swear_ that their motives are and shall remain unimpeachably pure
... it eventually goes wrong.

I'm what you might think of as an ex-libertarian, not quite so rule-bound as I
used to be. But on the topic of continuously fighting the granting of powers
and capabilities I think they're right: the historical examples just pile on
top of each other. Governments can't resist mission creep. You need to prevent
the rot before it starts.

~~~
PavlovsCat
_Governments can 't resist mission creep._

True, but it's not like people or corporations are _that_ much better at
resisting it, is it? Show me a big organization, and I will show you a whole
lot of fingers in a whole lot of unrelated pies.

~~~
jacques_chester
Agreed.

However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on
violence and the ability to set the rules. Special cases deserve special
treatment.

edit: it's a small world, I recognise your username from LP.

~~~
dredmorbius
It's not as if private companies or entrepreneurial off-books
pharmaceutically-oriented import-export fraternal organizations haven't
resorted to violence. And they're hardly the only ones.

Standard Oil literally blew up the competition. Homestead Steel hired the
Pinkertons to bash heads (and kill a few). Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and
Aetna kill indirectly by denying shelter, access to finances, or healthcare
coverage.

The Libertardian arguments are getting more than a little tired, and we've
heard them repeated a few too many times.

~~~
jacques_chester
Is this a relevant line of argument? Yes, historically, companies have acted
violently and even taken on state-like roles (I listed the EIC as an example
elsewhere in this thread).

But these case are remarkable because they are rare, not common. And because
in all such cases they predate the settlement of an uncontested government
monopoly on violence in some geographical area.

I suppose you are mistaking me for a Rothtard, an anarcho-capitalist who
believes in a free market in violence. Not so; it's been pretty well shown by
now that centralising the social violence function is, on the whole, a better
strategy.

But it comes with the downside that you've centralised a lot of power and it
needs particular supervision and constraint.

~~~
dredmorbius
_Is this a relevant line of argument?_

Well, let's refer to your initial claim:

"However, government is a special case: it reserves to itself a monopoly on
violence and the ability to set the rules."

Now, either you're tautalogically defining any organization which sets rules
and exacts violence in pursuit of its ends as a government (which is a
meaningless distinction), or you're making a nonsense argument. Actually, both
are nonsense arguments. Note too that I've included a number of other
organizations other than state-registered corporations, though I include
those.

 _Yes, historically, companies have acted violently_

Sure. Where historically was:

July 6 when Montreal Maine & Atlantic declared total war on the town of Lac-
Megantic, Quebec: [http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-
lawsuit-i...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/15/us-train-lawsuit-
idUSBRE96E0U520130715)

April 17, when West Fertilizer Company declared war on West, Texas:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explos...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Fertilizer_Company_explosion)

Ongoing corporate war through the 2000s carried out by the Gulf Cartel
subsidiary Los Zetas in Neuvo Lardo, Mexico, with death tolls running to the
100s annually:
[http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html](http://www.pro8news.com/news/96625619.html)

Ongoing petro-religious corporate warfare in Iraq, with a death toll in the
10s to 100s of thousands:
[http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-a...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/07/15/police-
attacks-around-iraq-kill-9-people/2517543/)

May 15,2 2013, Wells Fargo's war against individuals who were not even its
mortgage holders: [https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-
wron...](https://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/05/15/wells-fargo-wrongful-
foreclosure-kills-elderly-homeowner/)

November 25, 2012, war on behalf of American and other clothing manufacturers
and retailers against Bangladeshi garment workers:
[http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-
factory-...](http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/25/world/asia/bangladesh-factory-
fire/)

December 2-3, 1984, war by Union Carbide against the citizens of Bhopal,
India:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)

All of these are cases in which violence was used by companies directly or
through conscious and deliberate disregard for human safety and consequences
in the aim of profit. The use of force to secure control or direct gains.

Or perhaps you'd like to address companies such as Blackwater (now Xe), armed
affiliates of oil, gas, mineral, and diamond operations, forestry operators,
and others, who transact directly in death and force?

The distinction you're drawing simply doesn't exist.

------
tnuc
I enjoy statistics :)

Toddlers Killed More Americans Than Terrorists Did This Year.

[http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-
killed-...](http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/toddlers-killed-more-
americans-terrorists-did-year)

~~~
gordaco
Gives a new meaning to "won't somebody please think of the children?"

------
ck2
The problem is every little thing is now being escalated on purpose.

Even small local crime, many times police try to escalate it on purpose as
much as possible to get more funding.

This is why the TSA and the NSA will never be defunded, they claim they are
stopping all the invisible elephants from attacking us and politicians are
afraid to say no.

Meanwhile the "security" industry grows to the point where it's too big to
fail and the taxpayers have to fund it forever.

~~~
oleganza
The reason of ever-growing state enterprise is the absence of real market
feedback. Any private enterprise (business or charity) has only its own money
to burn and gets new money from volunteers. In case of government, new money
is guaranteed to flow in because it is extracted from people by force. So
there is no way any government agency can ever "feel" they are spending
resources on something which people don't like.

------
vermontdevil
Politicians like to speak in generalities to justify mass overreach in terms
of law enforcement:

1) think of the children

2) think of the movie/music industry jobs

3) think of our national security

4) think of common decency (lenny bruce/george carlin were persecuted for
their raunchy comedy for example

5) the sanctity of marriage

and so on.

------
gadders
Any laws like this should always have a sunset clause, otherwise they are open
to abuse. For instance in the UK local councils have used terrorist powers to
see if people are trying to game the school catchment system to get into a
better school [1]. And also used to spy on Fisherman [2].

[1]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7343445.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7343445.stm)
[2]
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/14/law.humanrights](http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/14/law.humanrights)

------
geoka9
I hope USG does not take cue from their Russian colleagues; they routinely
prosecute all kinds of political activists as "extremists". While not the
same, that word does sound as sinister as "terrorists" does in Russian.

~~~
pyre
The US government already considers certain groups that challenge the status
quo to be terrorists. For example, animal rights activists. There is a lot of
money in the livestock/meat business, in addition to all of the large
corporations that rely on animal testing (not just medical, but cosmetics,
etc). I've heard of _lawyers_ that specialize in defending animal rights
activists get harassed incessantly by the police (e.g. getting pulled over,
forced to sit there for 30 minutes as more police cars show up, then told they
can go; no explanation as to why).

Also, look at all of the cases of police sending agent provocateurs into
protest groups to encourage radical and/or violent behaviour.

~~~
pekk
"Challenge the status quo" does include "try to get their way politically by
resorting to tactics which target civilians in order to cause terror". The
animal rights movement certainly has been involved in that kind of "challenge"
on a number of occassions. It's not merely a matter of declaring people
criminals for having a political goal, but also when they are indeed
committing crimes in the name of animal rights or the rights of the unborn or
whatever.

~~~
pyre
Committing a crime does not make one a terrorist. Bombing an abortion clinic
should probably qualify you as a terrorist, but theft/vandalism/etc in the
furtherance of a political goal is _not_ terrorism. If we _do_ want to
redefine terrorism to be this broad, then we really need to reign in all of
the extra powers that the government has to go after 'terrorists' because
those powers are predicated on the idea that terrorists are using killing
people to further their goals.

------
conformal
consider that the FBI considers potential alternatives to the US Dollar to be
a matter of "domestic terrorism":

[http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/30/bitcoin-fbi-
admits...](http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/08/30/bitcoin-fbi-admits-to-
engaging-in-infiltration-disruption-and-dismantling-of-competing-currencies/)

yeah, that seems like a reasonable application of the word "terrorist" :P

~~~
Roboprog
Hey, if it frightens "our" government's corporate clients, then it's
terrorism. Can't have corporate persons messing their corporate shorts now,
can we?

------
coldcode
I wonder if the Wayback Machine can get content from the NSA.

