The Uses of Sexual Humiliation

Naomi Wolf has written a terrific article in The Guardian that sums up the truly scary Florence ruling and all its implications:

The political use of forced nudity by anti-democratic regimes is long established. Forcing people to undress is the first step in breaking down their sense of individuality and dignity and reinforcing their powerlessness....

I interviewed the equivalent of TSA workers in Britain and found that the genital groping that is obligatory in the US is illegal in Britain. I believe that the genital groping policy in America, too, is designed to psychologically habituate US citizens to a condition in which they are demeaned and sexually intruded upon by the state--at any moment.

I am so grateful for Wolf's article. More people need to be saying things like this.

Why No One Cares

I've been trying to figure out why so few people in this country care about civil liberties. (I was going to add "anymore," but that's assuming they ever did, and I'm not convinced that's true.) Almost every day, it seems, there's a new law, executive order, policy shift, or Supreme Court decision that violates our ostensibly sacred Constitutional rights or the dictates of international law, all in the name of national security or law enforcement. Police officers spy on law-abiding Muslim students, pepper-spray non-violent protesters, conduct stop-and-frisk and "suspicionless" searches (talk about an Orwellian phrase), and Taser people at traffic stops. The no-fly list is so monstrous as to be useless, and electronic strip-searches have become ubiquitous. The DHS monitors social-networking sites for criticism of its policies. (Hi, guys!) The FAA is changing its rules to allow unmanned drones in U.S. airspace. The NSA is building a "spy center" in the Utah desert five times the size of the U.S. Capitol. Nowadays, even indefinite detention and targeted assassination elicit responses ranging from vociferous support to an apathetic shrug. Not to worry, though: apparently a private meeting in the Oval Office qualifies as "due process." Of course, government officials would prefer to keep their Constitution-shredding policies as quiet as possible and will relentlessly pursue anyone who tries to tell the American people what their own public servants are doing. But at least we still have the right to free speech...as long as we stay within the confines of the "free speech zones" the authorities so graciously provide for us.

What's happening here? I wait for the outrage, but it never comes. Some of the above items made it into the headlines of major news outlets for a day or two before they disappeared. Each story follows a predictable pattern:

1. The administration enacts the policy quietly, usually on a Friday afternoon to avoid press scrutiny.
2. Civil libertarians react with an angry and/or bewildered: "Say, what?"
3. Supporters of the policy (wealthy defense contractors, politicians angling for re-election, etc.) fear-monger about terrorism, opine that "everything changed on 9/11," and marginalize said civil libertarians as radical, unhinged, anti-government whack-jobs or long-haired hippie Occupyers who can't face reality.
4. The story vanishes from the headlines and the public consciousness, quickly normalized and incorporated into the National Security State.

Not a peep of protest from anyone in a position to do anything, Democrat or Republican. The halls of Congress resound with the usual chest-pounding and saber-rattling by politicians eager to shore up their anti-terrorism bona fides. Cite the Constitution and discuss implications as much as you like, your words will fall on deaf ears. Sometimes a lawsuit works its way through the courts, only to be quashed by the uber-conservative judiciary. Maybe a celebrity or other public figure comes up against the policy, makes a YouTube video detailing their experiences, and it briefly makes headlines again. But read the articles closely: most of the People on the Street^TM interviewed for the article have already accepted the new normal. They are quoted saying things like: "Well, as long as it keeps us safe..." or "I'm not doing anything wrong, so what's the big deal?" The blind trust boggles my mind.

I was thinking about this pattern again recently when I read about the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders that a person arrested, even for a minor offense, may be strip-searched at will, regardless of whether prisons officials "suspect the presence of contraband." Justice Anthony Kennedy, once again the deciding vote, apparently thinks courts shouldn't "second-guess" the decisions of corrections officers. I'd love the opportunity to ask Justice Kennedy and the other four pro-strip-search justices of that illustrious body a series of questions:

1. Who should second-guess the decisions of corrections officers, if not you? What the hell are courts for, anyway?
2. Do you believe corrections officers should be given the same free rein we've given to law-enforcement officers, national security agencies, private military companies, etc.?
3. How can I get in on that action?
4. Are there any government entities which should be subject to oversight?
5. Have you ever been strip-searched? Would you consent to a strip-search before deciding to inflict the procedure on other people, many of them innocent?

Of course, I know the answers to these questions, but I'd love to ask them just the same. What I don't know is what, if anything, will happen next. I certainly don't expect much in the way of checks and balances from either of the other two branches of government. In fact, Barack Obama's Justice Department urged the Court to rule in favor of the strip-search law. Congress, meanwhile, is populated by self-serving politicians desperate to keep their jobs and therefore averse to taking any unpopular stand. And let's face it, civil libertarians are a distinct minority.

The humiliation suffered by Albert Florence, the plaintiff in the case (and innocent of the crime for which he was arrested, by the way!), is heartbreaking. And now all arrestees will be subject to the same treatment, without the requirement of "probable cause" and without any legal recourse. This includes not just men and women charged with murder, rape, assault, or drug offenses, but also those detained for trespassing or protesting or living in this country without legal documentation. The threat of a degrading strip search in front of an audience will no doubt be an effective tool for intimidation, along with the others I've already mentioned. Is there any line that, if crossed, will finally make people sit up and take notice?

Why don't people care? The first and easiest answer is fear. The collective PTSD from which this country has been suffering since the 9/11 attacks clearly hasn't abated. Since that day, the American people have seen existential threats around every corner. But I think the answer is a little more nuanced than that. The truth is, most people's lives will not be affected by the Florence ruling or by the PATRIOT Act, illegal wiretaps, indefinite detention, or any of the other manifestations of the National Security State. The vast majority of People on the Street^TM will never be more than a little inconvenienced by our massive military, intelligence, and law-enforcement apparatus (aside from economically, of course), while those directly affected are, for the most part, powerless to do anything about it. And it's easy to discount the rights of powerless minorities: prisoners, the poor, immigrants, Muslims. Americans who loudly proclaim their love of the Constitution in the abstract often start to equivocate when it comes to specifics. "Free speech!" is soon qualified with "...as long as you don't burn a flag or criticize Israel or join a protest march..." People who soliloquize about freedom and small government and personal liberty aren't always prepared to extend those privileges to everyone. Why do red-light cameras make some people angry enough to join an anti-government militia and fight the coming police state, while extraordinary rendition and extrajudicial assassination barely register? Because those things are happening to somebody else. Somebody who probably deserves it, right?

Albert Florence didn't.

Recommended Reading

January 23, 2011 "Domestic use of aerial drones by law enforcement likely to prompt privacy debate"
April 26, 2011 "Free Bradley Manning"
September 27, 2011 "Even Those Cleared of Crimes Can Stay on F.B.I.'s Watch List"
September 30, 2011 "CIA Drone Slays American Citizen in Yemen"
October 20, 2011 "Is the National Security Complex Too Big to Fail?"
October 21, 2011 "The Iraq War Ain't Over, No Matter What Obama Says"
October 21, 2011 "About that Iraq withdrawal"
October 24, 2011 "Government Could Hide Existence of Records under FOIA Rule Proposal"
October 28, 2011 "Police Disguise Protest Sabotage As Public Safety"
October 29, 2011 "U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq"
November 3, 2011 "Pakistani civilian victims vent anger over US drones"
November 4, 2011 "CIA Drones Kill Large Groups Without Knowing Who They Are"
November 27, 2011 "Idea of civilians using drone aircraft may soon fly with FAA"
November 29, 2011 "Senate Approves Requiring Military Custody in Terror Cases"
December 1, 2011 "Congress endorsing military detention, a new AUMF"
December 2, 2011 "A Little Straight Talk on National Defense"
December 12, 2011 "The growing menace of domestic drones"
December 15, 2011 "Obama to sign indefinite detention bill into law"
December 20, 2011 "VIPR: TSA extends policy that preys on the innocent"
December 20, 2011 "TSA Seeks to Expand the Airport Experience Into Everyday Life"
December 21, 2011 "Local police stockpile high-tech, combat-ready gear"
December 23, 2011 "2011 in Review: The Year Secrecy Jumped the Shark"
December 27, 2011 "TSA Agents On Patrol at Union Station to Conduct 'Suspicionless' Spot Searches"
December 28, 2011 "Report: Scant Oversight in Obama's Drone War"
December 31, 2011 "With reservations, Obama signs act to allow indefinite detention of U.S. citizens"
January 23, 2012 "Supreme Court: Warrants needed in GPS tracking"

Security Theater to a "T"

Bostonians are a unique breed of human being. They have many admirable qualities, but among their not-so-admirable qualities is a distinct blend of impatience, high-strung self-importance, a tendency to overreact, and a perennial inferiority complex toward a certain large city located approximately 220 miles to the southwest. Having lived here many years now, I think I can say all this with some accuracy.

For example, Logan Airport was among the first airports in the country to implement full-body scanners and "enhanced" pat-downs, to which have recently been added the Israeli-style Q&As that have made that country's airport security so famous. Notice I said added. Each new security measure is simply piled on top of all the previous ones; thus, in order to get on a plane at Logan, a hypothetical traveler will be required not only to take off her shoes, put her toiletries into plastic baggies, remove her laptop from its case, pass through a metal detector, and all the rest of the usual rigmarole, but she may also be strip-searched, frisked, and now interrogated. Feel like a criminal yet? Depending on where you're going, you might spend more time at the security checkpoint than in the air.

Another case in point: the Boston subway, commonly referred to as the "T" (short for MBTA, or Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority), has spent the last few years climbing onto the security bandwagon. Not to be outdone by the National Security State formerly known as the New York subway, officials at the T have instituted a nexus of security policies that involves random bag searches, glowering police officers (often with dogs), a perpetual loop of public-service announcements, and CCTV surveillance cameras. Clearly it's important that we passengers never forget that we're in imminent danger of a terrorist attack. Because apparently we are.

Let me set the stage for you. Sometimes as often as twice a week, I pass a bag-search checkpoint either on my morning or evening commute. These checkpoints consist of a folding table with perhaps as many as five or six brightly clad security officers standing ominously around it. (When I say "brightly clad," I mean that literally. They are wearing what appear to be reflective yellow vests.) On this table is an impressive-looking device that can detect residue from explosives. One of the officers will stand in the rush of oncoming commuters, pull aside each tenth person or so, and ask him to place his bag on the table. One simple swipe with a little piece of cloth along the top of your bag, a quick reading of the cloth by the machine, a little beep (they will hand-search your bag if the machine detects anything), and off you go. Congratulations, you've proven you're not a terrorist intent on blowing up the train.

If you object to this procedure--either because you think it's ridiculous and a waste of money, like I do, or because you do intend to blow up the train--you're permitted to forgo the screening and leave the station. At this point, at many of the stations, you can just cross the street and come in through a different entrance. If that's not an option, you can walk to the next station and get on the train there. In my case, the next station is just half a mile away. The only bombers that this airtight security technique is actually succeeding in keeping off the train are the really lazy ones, I guess.

The Boston subway is the oldest in the nation. To my knowledge, there has never been a bombing or a terrorist attack on the T, or even an attempted one. But that didn't stop then-governor and current presidential candidate Mitt Romney from instituting these bag searches in the summer of 2004 when the Democratic National Convention came to Boston. He cited no specific threat, but of course he didn't have to. Since then, the searches have quietly continued. Oh, and by the way, they've never actually turned anything up.

Then there are the obnoxious loudspeaker alerts: "Now, more than ever, it's important to be alert, be aware, and be ready to report any suspicious bags or packages....Remember, if you see something, say something." (It'll give you an idea of how frequently these announcements are played if I tell you that I can rattle them off from memory, inflections and all.) Now, more than ever? Really, more than ever? Again, the message is: be afraid, be very afraid. That person sitting next to you might mean to do you harm.

All that security theater like this does is create a pervasive atmosphere of wariness, if not outright fear. And "no passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear." (Edmund Burke) Each new procedure is tacked on to the last, without much fanfare or protest, and the whole thing grows by small steps into a vast and entrenched security apparatus. We've all become so desensitized to these gradual encroachments, most of them relatively harmless in and of themselves, that we take them for granted. Very few people ever bother to ask: 1) whether it's all really necessary, or 2) whether these particular methods are even effective.

Pointless so-called "security measures" like these are designed and put into place by officials who must appear to be doing something, if only to ensure that they won't be blamed in the event of an actual attack. But perfect security is, and always will be, impossible. Instead of crying "terrorism" at every turn, buying a new million-dollar gizmo, and just making a good show of it, maybe we could look at the root of the problem. Maybe we could re-evaluate our foreign policy so that we aren't creating so many enemies in the first place.

No, to suggest such a thing would be treasonous, wouldn't it?

Recommended Reading

May 15, 2011 "Osama bin Laden: Why He Won"
August 8, 2011 "Want to Sue the FBI for Spying on Your Mosque? Sorry, That's Secret."
August 14, 2011 "When does airport security become physical assault?"
August 21, 2011 "Taking the Justice Out of the Justice System"
August 26, 2011 "Obama's Illegal Assaults"
September 1, 2011 "US court case reveals CIA rendition details"
September 1, 2011 "Welcome to dragnet surveillance"
September 7, 2011 "Anti-Government Conservatism, Sort Of"
September 7, 2011 "Report - A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11"
September 7, 2011 "And Now, a Brief Word From the ACLU"
September 8, 2011 "As Muslims suffer from loss of air travel freedoms, others do, too"
September 9, 2011 "Fortress America"
September 11, 2011 "Jittery nerves disrupt flights on 9/11 anniversary"
September 13, 2011 "CIA investigates whether laws broken helping NYPD"
September 14, 2011 "Woman strip-searched after 9/11 flight landed"
September 14, 2011 "Ohio woman Shoshana Hebshi tells of detention after removal from plane"

Glenn Greenwald Tells It Like It Is

Civil liberties under Obama - Glenn Greenwald from International Socialist on Vimeo.

Recommended Reading

May 22, 2011 "Having private parts is not probable cause for TSA to grope or body scan you"
May 29, 2011 "Dancing protestors arrested at the Jefferson Memorial"
May 30, 2011 "Welcome to Post-Legal America"
May 31, 2011 "Why 'security' keeps winning out over privacy"
June 9, 2011 "The 100% Doctrine in Washington"
June 13, 2011 "The New Powers the FBI Just Granted Itself"
June 15, 2011 "Turn Off That Camera! Filming the Police At Work"
July 5, 2011 Julian Assange and Slavoj Zizek in conversation with Amy Goodman
July 17, 2011 "Post 9/11, biggest terror threat is underground"
July 28, 2011 "An un-American response to the Oslo attack"
August 1, 2011 "The Legislation That Could Kill Internet Privacy for Good"
August 8, 2011 "Three deaths in one weekend puts Taser use by cops in crosshairs"