The American Lefts

Originally published in El Pais, July 13 2005.

Sergio Aguayo Quezada

The fact that Latin America is now tinged with tones of red can be attributed to relationships and alliances established between the Latin American and U.S. Left. A living example of this history in progress is Chilean Jose Miguel Insulza, the new General Secretary of The Organization of American States (OAS).

For many decades the political geometry in Latin America was a simple cardboard cut-out. The Right self-interestedly adored the anticommunist U.S. The Left repudiated Yankee Imperialism, a sentiment they deemed well justified by the history of abuses perpetrated by the superpower. However, outright rejection of the U.S. failed to take into account the social tapestry of that country, which contains political and social forces that in other parts of the hemisphere would explicitly be defined as “leftist”. The reserve imposed by history has led the U.S. Left to identify themselves as “liberal”, “very liberal”, or “progressive”. For the most part they are focused on domestic issues, but some sectors bear a marked internationalism.

The relationship that has been forming between the two Lefts in the Western Hemisphere is little known. I will illustrate it by taking a look at the public life of Jose Miguel Insulza, who was part of the Popular Union government presided over by Salvador Allende between 1970 and 1973. The Chilean Road to Socialism enthused the entire world, but in the 1970’s, neither Augusto Pinochet nor Henry Kissinger, among many others, distinguished themselves for their tolerance. Wrapping themselves in the doctrine of national security, they justified coups d’état and unleashed a repression that still casts a dark shadow on the hemisphere.

That story is pretty well known. What is spoken of far less is the role played by the U.S. Left, which responded to the coup in Chile (1973) by protecting the victims in a variety of ways. Out of the Chilean tragedy was born the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), which thirty years later continues campaigning in favor of the human rights of the peoples of Latin American. Progressive activism was also expressed in the programs established by the Ford Foundation to aid and give jobs to persecuted and unemployed Latin American academics.

Jose Miguel Insulza was one of the public intellectuals who took refuge in Mexico and from there he promoted a program to study the United States. The project he became involved in transcended the academic because it started from a supposition that had the simplicity of the obvious: the duty of all Latin America committed to change was to understand the United States. The Left needed to break the monopoly held by right-wing oligarchs and dictators over the relationship with Washington and to seek to establish alliances with the U.S. Left.

This alliance both irritated and worried the Latin American Right and the proof was in the 1976 assassination in Washington, D.C. by Pinochet’s henchmen of Chilean ex-chancellor Orlando Letelier, who was conducting an effective lobbying effort against the dictator in the U.S. capital in conjunction with the Institue of Political Studies. As a symbol of the intimacy of this hemispheric relationship, the bomb that killed Letelier also cut short the life of 25-year old North American Roni K. Moffit. In memoriam, the IPS now grants the annual Letelier-Moffit prize to Latin American and U.S. citizens distinguished for their promotion of causes taken up by the Left.

The qualitative and quantitative progress in this relationship was measureable during the Central American wars of the 1980s. If the Sandinista, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan rebels succeeded in containing the aggression of a New Right headed by Ronald Reagan, it was because of international solidarity, in which activism throughout the U.S. played a considerable part. During this decade, José Miguel Insulza was one of the academics that traveled the globe combating the arguments of U.S. conservativism. Central America demonstrated that the Left no longer simply denounced Yankee imperialism; it also wanted to influence its decision-making. At the end of the 1980s, the Chile issue also began to resolve itself as some of the Chileans saved by U.S. liberals converted themselves into the intellectual nucleus known as the “Comando del No” which, in part with financial aide from the U.S., defeated Augusto Pinochet in the 1988 referendum.

Insulza is the new General Secretary of the OAS, having defeated Washington’s preferred candidates for the post. In his inaugural speech, the Chilean ex-chancellor spoke of plurality, diversity, human rights, and security. He condemned poverty and proposed that the “benefits of political citizenship” be expanded to include “social and cultural citizenship.” It was a message more conceptual than pragmatic, but one that should be taken seriously nevertheless since the value of one’s rhetoric is determined by the history and quality of one’s actions, by which Insulza has well established himself.

The OAS faces enormous challenges. It’s a body burdened with a solid tradition of irrelevancy. For that to change, Insulza must succeed in getting the governments and chancellorships of the hemisphere to take the organization seriously, and that includes the White House and the State Department. To break the stereotype that the OAS is a “governments’ club”, he must convince U.S. and Ibero-american societies to at least give the organization the benefit of the doubt.

Deep down, the main challenge of the OAS is to make itself one of the bridges for easing understanding between the Latin America that is covering the map with reddish tones and a U.S. drowning in conservatism. For starters there is the thorny Cuba question. It is right to condemn the human rights violations, but we also need to combat the absurd and criminal U.S. embargo on the island. A new trend is that due to the failure of the “policies of structural adjustment” imposed by Washington, the Left is coming into government like never before in history. In addition to Chile, Brazil, Argentina, and Venezuela, geopolitically vital Mexico can incorporate itself into this wave in 2006. All are experimenting with new forms of organization: economically, socially, and in their foreign relations. Thirty-two years ago the U.S. reacted by strengthening the national security states. How will it react now?

It is, of course, possible that the OAS will continue in a state of irrelevancy, although there are signs that Insulza seeks to stamp it with a new activism. It is logical that he should do so, since one of his life goals has been the bridging of the Latin American and U.S. Lefts. While it is true that the great transformations take place in the streets and minds of Latin America, it is crucial that what happens in Washington be taken into account. That is the lesson history has taught and that Insulza now applies as he presides over this international body that has, for so long, been an instrument of power and influence in the Western Hemisphere.

Sergio Aguayo Quezada is a professor at the College of Mexico
Translated by Jac

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
US: Pentagon prepares for “use of force” on Mexican border
By Bill Van Auken
18 May 2006

Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

In the wake of President George W. Bush’s White House speech on immigration Monday night announcing the deployment of National Guard troops to the Mexican border, the Pentagon has revealed that the US military, the federal government and state authorities have drawn up a policy under which guard units will be allowed to use deadly force against undocumented immigrants seeking to enter the US.

While in the speech from the Oval Office Bush insisted that his plan did not entail the militarization of the border or the use of soldiers in an enforcement role, a statement Tuesday by the general who heads the US National Guard suggested just the opposite. Gen. Steven Blum, director of the guard, spelled out that the military and local authorities are working out “rules of engagement” and regulations governing the “use of force” by the troops deployed to the border, underscoring that the threat posed to immigrants by Bush’s plan is hardly hypothetical.

In his prime-time address from the White House, Bush combined the announcement of the National Guard deployment with a call for changes in US immigration law. It appears increasingly likely, however, that the use of armed force on the border—together with other repressive action against undocumented immigrants—will be the sole initiatives that will be put into effect, at least for the foreseeable future.

Republicans in the leadership of the House of Representatives remain adamantly opposed to Bush’s call for a temporary “guest worker” program and the introduction of a path—punitive and protracted as it may be—for at least those undocumented immigrants who have been in the US the longest to legalize their status.

Fearful that if they follow the president’s lead they will alienate their right-wing anti-immigrant base on the eve of the November midterm elections, it is highly doubtful that the House Republicans will reach any compromise on what they generally refer to as an “amnesty” proposal.

Last December, the House voted in favor of an immigration bill that would turn all 12 million undocumented workers in the US into criminal felons, while threatening anyone who aids them with basic services, like healthcare, education or shelter, with being criminally prosecuted as well.

In an attempt to make the temporary worker and legalization proposals more palatable, the Senate voted on Wednesday in favor of an amendment that would exclude any undocumented immigrant convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors from any chance of remaining in the US.

However, the amendment targeting what Republican senators referred to as “the criminal element”—together with other repressive measures in the Senate bill—appeared to have little impact on the intransigence of the House Republicans. “It’s not the kind of issue you can compromise on. Either you’re giving amnesty to people who are here illegally, or you aren’t,” declared Representative Peter King (Republican, New York), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

A press conference jointly organized by the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security Tuesday gave the lie to Bush’s claims that the National Guard will merely be present as a supporting force, performing tasks such as office work and construction. It made clear that the thousands of troops that are being sent to the border will be armed and will have definite orders allowing them to employ deadly force.

The head of the National Guard, General Blum, told the media that intensive discussions have already been carried out on allowing the soldiers deployed to the border to carry arms and to use them.

“The rules of engagement and the rules of use of force are absolutely essential,” declared Blum. “Any time you put uniformed military personnel in an operational role in the United States of America, they have to meet the intent of the Constitution.”

Blum appeared before the press together with Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, Paul McHale, the assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense, and other officials to flesh out Bush’s plans for the military deployment, which is expected to begin early next month.

“The four Attorney Generals of the affected states are working with the Judge Advocate and my General Counsel and the Department of Defense General Counsel and others to make sure that we have rules of use of force and a rules of engagement that are appropriate,” Blum declared, adding, “It’s very important that soldiers know what the expectations are and what the rules are for the area they’re operating in.”

It is obvious that, if the Pentagon is discussing “rules of engagement” and “use of force” with both state and federal officials, it is because the military anticipates National Guard troops opening fire on immigrants along the US-Mexican border.

Outrage in Mexico

The plan announced Monday night by George Bush to send National Guard troops to the US southern border has provoked widespread protest and outrage in Mexico.

While the government of President Vicente Fox has publicly accepted Washington’s contention that this military deployment does not represent the “militarization” of the US-Mexican border, representatives of virtually every Mexican political party—including Fox’s own PAN—together with large sections of the media have denounced it as precisely that.

In statements Tuesday, the Fox government emphasized Bush’s claim that the thousands of soldiers being sent to the Rio Grande would only be playing a “support” role—a position that was ridiculed by many of the government’s critics.

The secretary of the government, Carlos Abascal Carranza, argued for this claim, insisting that he had received a “guarantee” from US Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff that the National Guard troops would not carry out the enforcement operations presently performed by the Border Patrol.

For his part, Mexico’s Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez stressed his optimism that Bush’s plan would yield a genuine immigration reform. He added, however, that in light of the US troop deployment, “the first thing that we have to do is redouble the efforts of all of our consular representatives to assure that the protection and the guarantee of due respect of the rights of our co-nationals is the primary question.”

The Mexican foreign minister added, “If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people...we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates.” This remark drew sharp criticism from the right-wing media in the US, such as Fox News, which attempted to whip up anti-immigrant racism and anti-Mexican nationalism, while defending the “right” of US authorities to do whatever they like with immigrant workers.

The deployment of the US military on the Mexican border has swiftly become a major issue in the elections scheduled in Mexico in July. Opponents of the government have condemned incumbent President Fox for bowing to Washington, while questioning why the Bush administration unilaterally declared a major change on border policy little more than a month after a meeting of the bi-national commission on border issues, and a little more than a week before Fox’s scheduled trip to the US.

The presidential candidate of the PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party), Roberto Madrazo Pintado, said that the US militarization of the border exposed the failure of the Fox government’s foreign policy. “I don’t like to talk about walls, about a government on its knees, which faces the militarization of the border and applauds it,” he said. “The migrant is unprotected in the face of the border patrol.”

Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador, the candidate of the PRD (Party of the Democratic Revolution), denounced the Fox government, declaring that it enjoyed no respect because it lacked a foreign policy “based on principles.” He stressed, “If there were jobs, development, investment and respect here, those abroad would take us into account, but none of this has happened.”

Even the candidate of Fox’s own PAN party, Felipe Calderón, declared that “it is neither with soldiers nor with the army that you solve the problem of immigration.”

One of the sharpest critiques by the Mexican media of the Fox government’s sanguine reaction to the policy announced by the Bush White House came from the leading Mexican daily, El Universal.

In an editorial published Wednesday, the newspaper stated: “It would be regrettable if the government of President Vicente Fox would try to disguise something that, obviously, is in plain sight: the virtual militarization of the border between the United States and Mexico.”

The editorial continued: “It is unacceptable that Fox attempts to hide the truth, which is before us all. The northern border will be blocked to Mexican immigrants by the National Guard, the same force that, it should be recalled, shot to death four students at Kent State University in Ohio on May 4, 1970, for protesting against the widening of the Vietnam War to Cambodia. Another nine students were wounded. A later investigation proved that the National Guard had never been in danger, even though some students had thrown rocks at them.

“If they acted so nervously against their own young compatriots, we do not even want to imagine what they would do against defenseless Mexican and Central American immigrants who cross the Rio Bravo, jump over fences and search for work in that country, crossing deserts in sealed trucks.”

Basing itself on the narrowest political calculations, the Bush administration has set into motion a policy that poses the threat of an international crisis and potential human tragedy on the US-Mexican border. Attempting to bridge the conflicting interests and ideologies of the US Chamber of Commerce and the fascistic elements like the Minutemen, who form an essential part of the Republican base, the only concrete proposal advanced by the administration—as with so many other issues—is one of repression and military force.

The only opposition from the Democratic Party to Bush’s plan to militarize the border and potentially place immigrant workers in the line of fire has been from politicians lamenting the fact that guard units are already stretched too thin by multiple deployments to Iraq.

Typical was the reaction of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, the Democrats’ presidential candidate in 2004, who said that “putting another burden on the backs of men and women who are serving their second tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t the right answer.”

A genuinely democratic and egalitarian answer to the issues posed by immigration to the United States can come only through the independent political mobilization of American working people, based on a perspective of uniting workers internationally against global capitalism.



Copyright 1998-2006
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved

OK you mindless dick wads, you allow a mental midget like Lou Dobbs to form you opinions, WAKE UP!

You fascist little pigs, and yes I said FASCIST! Let us see, a fascist is a rabid racist, with an extreme jingoism and a level of national chauvinism. Now that sounds like LOU. Let us not forget the attacks on the working class. Immigrants are workers and they are under attack.

What is not normally talked about by Mister Dobbs is the causes of the mass exodus. NAFTA and others are the causes and the USA is the perputrator.

What woulod happen if the immigrants stopped working in the fields, construction sites and etc. The economy would crap out.

The immigrants are necessary to Amwerica and they need to be left the fuck alone.

Protest Killing of Steel Workers

The letter sent by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) appears below. Please feel free to use it as a model or to draft your own and send it by fax to 011-52-55-52-77-23-76 or email: egoicoecheal@presidencia.gob.mx, gpilgram@presidencia.gob.mx,
foxcontigo@presidencia.gob.mx, FAT@laneta.apc.org

The addresses we originally used were rapidly blocked by government officials, so sending it to the FAT will permit them to ensure delivery.

Police shot and killed two workers, another was crushed to death in a melee, and over 40 others were wounded, most by gunshots, when authorities launched an assault to expel striking workers occupying the SICARTSA steel mill in L á zaro C á rdenas, Michoac á n, Mexico on April 20. Reports from the scene suggest that others may also have been killed or may die from their wounds. Workers and townspeople retook the plant, but were then besieged by the police. Parts of the plant have been taken over by the Mexican Army and the Mexican Navy.

The new National Front for Union Unity and Autonomy (FNUAS) composed of the UNT, the Mine Workers Union and others have called for the resignation of the Mexican Secretary of Labor, Francisco Xavier Salazar, the impeachment of President Vicente Fox Quezada, punishment of those who are guilty, and recognition of the elected leader of the mine workers union.

The Frente Autentico del Trabajo has requested that we circulate this information as widely as possible and urgently request that letters of protest be sent to the President of Mexico and Secretary of Labor.

The letter sent by the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) appears below. Please feel free to use it as a model or to draft your own.

Vicente Fox Quezada, President of the Republic

Francisco Xavier Salazar, Secretary of Labor

Dear President Fox and Secretary Salazar,

I am writing to you on behalf of the officers and members of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) to express our grave concern about the events unfolding in Mexico at the SICARTSA plant.

We have been advised that several workers have been killed, some forty more have been injured, and that parts of the plant have been taken over by the Mexican Army and Navy.

It appears that what began as a strike is rapidly becoming far more serious. We urge you to take immediate steps to ensure that the repression at the plant ceases, that a peaceful solution is sought to resolve the confrontation, and that the underlying controversy is addressed by restoring the elected leader of the mine-workers union, Napoleon Gómez Urrutia, to the office to which he was elected.

Sincerely,

John H. Hovis, Jr., General-President

It is imparitive that we support our comrades in their struggle.

World Socialist Web Site www.wsws.org

WSWS : News & Analysis : North America
US government continues to escalate domestic spying
By Joe Kay and Marge Holland
5 May 2006

Back to screen version | Send this link by email | Email the author

Nearly five months after the secret National Security Agency spying program was first revealed in the media, the US government continues its unchecked expansion of domestic spying powers. Several recent reports document this expansion, which is taking place on many fronts, involving the military, federal intelligence agencies, and local police forces.

The NSA program, which involves the warrantless monitoring of emails and other communications in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), has received the most attention. In spite of its blatant illegality, the program continues, with no serious move by either political party to stop it. The Bush administration has openly flouted decisions by Congress and the courts, asserting that warrantless spying on US citizens is part of the president’s powers as commander-in-chief in the “war on terror.”

The NSA program is only one component of a much broader policy undermining basic democratic and constitutional rights in the United States, all justified by a supposedly ubiquitous terrorist threat. However, their real purpose is to vastly expand the powers of the government to monitor and repress internal dissent under conditions of mounting social tension and political opposition to the policies of the Bush administration.

Taken together, these developments provide a picture of a government that is systematically laying the foundations for a police state.

On Monday, May 1, the Justice Department released statistics documenting a sharp increase in the number of court-approved warrants the FBI has sought and received as part of the procedures established by the FISA Act. In 2005, the FBI received 2,072 warrants from the FISA court to conduct searches and electronic surveillance, up 18 percent from 2004.

Significantly, the FISA court did not reject any of the government’s applications for warrants. The supposed difficulty of receiving warrants through the FISA procedures has been cited as one of the principal justifications for the warrantless NSA spying program, which is being carried out outside of any judicial oversight.

In addition to the FISA warrants, the government reported that the FBI issued 9,254 “national security letters” to US businesses and institutions to demand information on over 3,500 US citizens and residents. National security letters are used by the FBI to get personal records, including everything from Internet activity to records of purchases. They do not require any court review. The ability of the FBI to issue these letters was significantly expanded by the Patriot Act, passed shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

A Washington Post article published last year reported that the FBI is now issuing 30,000 national security letters every year, an enormous increase over previous years. However, unlike the figure of 9,254 reported by the government, the Post’s numbers included a type of subpoena that only requests limited information such as a person’s name. It is therefore impossible to say whether the 2005 figure represents an increase over the figure reported by the Post.

No information has been provided by the government as to who it has targeted with these secret subpoenas, or what information has been collected.

Draconian intelligence bill passes US House of Representatives

The House passed the Fiscal Year 2007 Intelligence Authorization Bill on April 26, allocating $44 billion to the various US intelligence agencies.

Republicans in the House blocked various amendments placing minor restrictions on the NSA spying program, including one that would require that classified reports on the program be given to the full House Intelligence and Judiciary committees. This hardly would have hampered the illegal spying on US citizens, as the government has already given regular reports for years to a smaller group of legislators of both parties, who have helped keep the program secret from the American people.

The intelligence bill must pass the Senate before becoming law. Republican Senator Arlen Specter, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has suggested that he might file an amendment that would block spending for the NSA program. However, Specter has already assured the White House that he won’t actually seek a vote on the amendment at this time.

In addition to massive spending and the rejection of any constraints on the NSA program, the intelligence authorization bill also includes several measures that would significantly increase the spying and policing powers of the CIA and the NSA. Sections 423 and 432 of the bill would give certain personnel responsible for security within the CIA and the NSA authority to “make arrests without a warrant for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of such personnel, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States.” Section 432 also gives NSA officials explicit authority to carry firearms.

In an April 24 letter sent to Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Peter Hoekstra and ranking Democrat on the panel Jane Harman, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) noted that the majority of illegal acts committed by the CIA in the 1960s and 1970s were done in the name of CIA security powers to protect its facilities—the powers that are now being expanded to allow the agency to arrest anyone, anywhere in the country.

“As the 1976 Church Committee report noted,” POGO wrote, “the stated basis for the creation of programs that resulted in the improper investigation of US citizens and US political groups, such as Projects RESISTANCE and MERRIMAC, was a dubious reading of statutes authorizing the Director of Central Intelligence to ‘be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.’ This was expansively interpreted by the CIA as ‘authorization for the protection of CIA personnel and facilities against any kind of “security threat” including the possibility of violent demonstrations by the public.’ The application of this interpretation resulted in the proactive infiltrating by CIA operatives into student and political groups.”

The intelligence bill not only gives the CIA increased powers needed to engage in such activities again, but grants the same powers to the NSA at a time when the agency has been implicated in massive illegal spying of US citizens. The NSA police forces, which currently have the power to arrest people within a 500-foot perimeter of NSA facilities, have also been recently involved in collaborating with local police forces to monitor peace groups planning protests of the NSA.

These measures are further steps in the establishment of a secret intelligence/police agency in the United States that is able to monitor virtually any communications between US citizens and rapidly make arrests of individuals deemed to be engaging in illegal activities, including protesters who are designated as “threats” to intelligence or defense facilities.

The bill also includes a measure that would require the director of national intelligence to study the possibility of revoking the pensions of intelligence agents who leak classified information without authorization. The section is a transparent response to a number of significant leaks in recent months that have revealed aspects of the criminal activities of the government, including the NSA spying program and the CIA’s use of secret torture and detention centers in Europe.

The administration has threatened to criminally prosecute intelligence agents as well as journalists for their role in publishing classified information.

The intelligence authorization bill passed the House by a vote of 327-96, with overwhelming bipartisan support.

On the same day that the intelligence bill passed the House, the government filed a motion in a federal court in San Francisco to dismiss a lawsuit brought against AT&T by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. EFF, an organization that promotes electronic privacy, has brought a class-action civil lawsuit against the telecommunications giant, charging it with collaborating with the NSA in violating the privacy of its customers by giving the government access to emails and other communications.

As part of the suit, the EFF has filed documents obtained by a former technician at AT&T proving that the company set up a separate room for the NSA and allowed the agency to monitor all the communications passing through its routers. The agreement with AT&T was part of the NSA’s secret spying program. Administration officials have claimed that the program is intended to monitor only calls involving someone in another country who is suspected of having ties to Al Qaeda. The documents obtained by the EFF, however, indicate that the NSA has access to vast databases of communications that include purely domestic emails and calls between US residents and citizens.

The government, which is not named in the suit, has appealed for the case to be dismissed on the grounds that it could reveal state secrets. William Weaver, a law professor and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, told Wired News that the government’s intervention will almost certainly end the EFF case and ensure that any documents in the case remain sealed. “There has never been an unsuccessful invocation of the state secrets privilege when national security is involved,” he said. “The suit is over.”

If the case is dismissed, it will close one of the few avenues available for challenging the illegal domestic spying.

Military steps up role in domestic spying

A report in the Wall Street Journal on April 27 (“Pentagon Steps Up Intelligence Efforts Inside US Borders” by Robert Block and Jay Solomon) documents the military’s role in the surveillance of opposition groups in the Untied States.

“After 9/11,” the newspaper reported, “the Bush administration declared the continental US a theater of military operations for the first time since the Civil War.... Now several parts of the vast Pentagon bureaucracy are building large databases of information from sources including local police, military personnel and the Internet. In doing so, the military is edging toward a sensitive area that has been off-limits to it since the 1970s: domestic surveillance and law enforcement.”

The military has focused on antiwar protesters and according to the Journal, “the Pentagon has monitored more than 20 antiwar groups’ activities around the country over the past three years. It has reviewed photographs and records of vehicles and protesters at marches to see if different activities were being organized by the same instigators.”

The military database is connected to the program run by the NSA, as well to initiatives that were originally part of the Pentagon’s now officially abandoned Total Information Awareness program. After a public outcry over TIA, which was to involve the accumulation of vast databases to help the government spy on the American people, the program was renamed and several of its components were moved around, but the basic plan has remained in place.

According to the Journal, some of the TIA components ended up in the hands of the Army’s 902nd Military Intelligence Group, “the military’s largest counterintelligence unit [which] has hundreds of soldiers stationed around the country.” The 902nd makes extensive use of the Joint Regional Information Exchange System, “which gathers information collected by civilian law enforcement agencies around the country,” the newspaper reported. “The Pentagon and local authorities including the New York Police Department and California’s justice department set it up in December 2002,” but it “got a boost when the Department of Homeland Security took it over and expanded it to include information from all 50 states and major urban areas.”

Meanwhile, according to an article appearing in the May 8 issue of US News and World Report (“Spies Among Us,” by David E. Kaplan), the Justice Department is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to fund state and local police intelligence units. Additional funds have gone into the development of regional law enforcement databases.

The newest intelligence units are called “fusion centers,” which pool information from multiple local jurisdictions. These centers now exist in 31 states, with more on the way. There are plans to eventually have 70 such centers across the nation, providing what US News calls “a coast-to-coast intelligence blanket.”

According to the US News article, Jack Tomarchio, the new deputy director of the Department of Homeland Security, told a law enforcement conference in March that the department intends to embed as many as three DHS agents and intelligence analysts at every site, adding that “the states want a very close synergistic relationship with the feds.”

The New York Police Department (NYPD) has the largest number of officers assigned to homeland security—one thousand. The NYPD’s chief of intelligence is the former director of operations at the CIA and its head of counterterrorism was a counterterrorism coordinator for the State Department. In addition, the NYPD has officers posted in half a dozen other countries.

Lawsuits filed against the NYPD reveal that its undercover officers have joined antiwar rallies, among other protest gatherings, and that they have acted as agents provocateurs in order to provoke arrests at at least one demonstration. Investigations also have been launched against undercover agents elsewhere, including in Fresno, California, where a sheriffs’ department officer infiltrated a local peace group.

US News also reported that in order to qualify for federal homeland security grants, local authorities are now required, to report on how many “potential threat elements” or “PTEs” exist in their jurisdictions. “The definition [given by the Department of Homeland Security] of suspected terrorists was fairly loose,” the magazine reported. “PTEs were groups or individuals who might use force or violence ‘to intimidate or coerce’ for a goal ‘possibly political or social in nature.’”



Copyright 1998-2006
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved