Defending the Homeland, Pt. II


From controversial military affairs analyst William Arkin, writing in today's Los Angeles Times:

Under the banner of "homeland security," the military and intelligence communities are implementing far-reaching changes that blur the lines between terrorism and other kinds of crises and will break down long-established barriers to military action and surveillance within the U.S.

NEXT: Student Power

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If I was a great deal brighter, I could correlate this with Sydney Freedberg’s excellent article _Forget Vietnam_ in National Journal.

    When the bad guys destroy the somwhat artificial line between “crime” and “war” — we are going to have some nasty difficulties pretending it’s there.

  2. None of this can make “the Homeland” completely safe. It is likely to have the opposite result. Our internal factions will attack each other, first in courts then in the countryside, as the environment of mistrust leads to open hostility.

    Like destroying a dam, a small attack from without creates an imbalance of tensions within. No more outside force is required. Eventually, the whole structure crumbles. The bad guys laugh as they watch us eat ourselves.

    Emotionally I feel the appeal of an old-fashion war, against a tyrant or an invader. I would know that upon “Unconditional Surrender”, my sacrifice would both be validated and begin to diminish. If only today’s world could be defined by yesterday’s terms…

  3. Frank Morales. “U.S. Military Civil Disturbance Planning: The War at Home” Covert Action Quarterly 69, Spring-Summer 2000, at

    Alfonso Chardy. “Reagan Aides and the ‘Secret’ Government” Miami Herald 5 July 1987, at

    Paul Rosenberg. “The Empire Strikes Back: Police Repression of Protest From Seattle to L.A.” L.A. Independent Media Center 13 August 2000, at

    Alexander Cockburn. “The Jackboot State: The War Came Home and We’re Losing It” Counterpunch 10 May 2000, at

  4. “The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home”
    James Madison

  5. Rick,

    Why does James Madison hate America?

    He is manifestly a traitor.

  6. If you think this is bad, just look at Singapore’s anti-cyberterrorism law:

    New laws allowing Singapore to launch pre-emptive strikes against computer hackers have raised fears that Internet controls are being tightened and privacy compromised in the name of fighting terrorism.

    The city-state’s parliament has approved tough new legislation aimed at stopping “cyberterrorism,” referring to computer crimes that are endanger national security, foreign relations, banking and essential public services.

    Security agencies can now patrol the Internet and swoop down on hackers suspected of plotting to use computer keyboards as weapons of mass disruption.

    Violators of the Computer Misuse Act such as website hackers can be jailed up to three years or fined up to S$10,000 ($5,800).

    But a vocal opposition fear the law will be abused.

    “It could be misused to invade into the privacy of citizens to gather information,” said Sinapan Samydorai, president of Think Centre, a civil liberties group. He said the new laws could be used as an “instrument of oppression” by the government.

    An online poll by popular Internet portal Yahoo Singapore showed that 70 per cent of respondents felt the new laws gave the authorities too much power, and they were afraid they were being watched.

    But the Ministry of Home Affairs said that, “any measures to be deployed will be non-intrusive in nature.”

    More at:,00030010.htm

  7. the price of liberty is eternal viganlence

    the death of liberty is infernal exaggeration

  8. further query: why does the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit hate America? Since it has recently *reversed* an effort to staunch this effort to blur lines and all, at least insofar as it relates to wiretapping.

    manifest treason, man. all these governmental outfits is deeply infected with the cancer. exec, legislative, judicial…alla em. makes you, like, want to vote for Howard Dean or sump’n.

    [pithy ye olde time quote here from Tom Paine or somebody about about liberty and getting what we deserve and what all]


  9. WLC,

    What’s too far? How ’bout forcing its population to work 5 months a year for its benefit? Would that be *too* far?

    Since we’re past that point, everything else is gravy.

  10. Anon,

    Rhetorical nonsense aside, do you think the government can ever go “too far” and if so what would it entail? Spare me the Tim McVey, Khyer Rouge, and all that happy horseshit, I’m not talking about responding with violence.

    Be succinct.

  11. Frin the linked article about Arkin:

    “I continue to suspect that there is much in the Boykin transcripts that would undercut Arkin’s story line, and thus that he intends to conceal. The Los Angeles Times, so much ridiculed in recent weeks, doesn’t appear in a hurry to produce the full transcripts either.”

    The best way to settle this issue is to release the transcripts. If, as many argue, Gen. Boykin’s remarks aren’t in any way mitigated by the context, then Arkin, et. al., would have nothing to lose by releasing the transcripts. If they don’t release the full transcripts, why not? Are they hiding something?

    Also, the General might consider releasing the transcripts. If he doesn’t, then his opponents could say that there’s nothing exculpatory in them.

  12. NotJoe

    Basically, that’s what I was asking. Anon likes to hurl strawmen at Libertarians; I was just asking the good Tory what too far was in his book. Christ, you’re not still pissed at me citing Gore Vidal are you (damn, cite one joker outside the canon….)

  13. EMAIL:
    DATE: 01/26/2004 03:13:00
    Nature is not anthropomorphic.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.