The Security-Industrial Complex
by
Paul Craig Roberts
by Paul Craig Roberts
DIGG THIS
The War on
Terror is a marketing campaign for security industries and terrorism
experts. The latter are pulling in the consulting fees, and the
former are rapidly inventing new products that enable "our"
government to watch our every move and to know our location at every
moment.
Although it
should be working on its corporate ethics, BAE
Systems is working on an "Onboard Threat Detection System."
The system consists of tiny cameras and microphones implanted in
airline seats. The Onboard Threat Detection System records every
facial expression and every whisper of every passenger, allowing
watchful eyes and ears to detect terrorists before they can strike.
BAE says its system is so sophisticated that it can differentiate
between nervous flyers and real terrorists.
Think about
this for a moment. Aside from the Big Brother aspect, the Onboard
Threat Detection System is either redundant or the security authorities
have no confidence in the expensive and intrusive airport security
through which passengers are herded.
We have reached
the point where we can no longer fly with more than three ounces
of lotions, shampoo, toothpaste, and deodorants, because the government
pretends that we might concoct a bomb out of the ingredients. Three
ounces of shampoo is safe, but three and one-half ounces blows the
airliner to smithereens.
We must shed
coats, shoes, and belts to pass through airport security. We are
wanded and patted down. Luggage is X-rayed and searched. IDs and
boarding passes are endlessly checked as we proceed from check-in
to gate. And we still need an Onboard Threat Detection System to
monitor our expressions and words.
Other firms
are developing chip implants that identify a person to scanning
machines and allow our movements to be monitored by GPS systems.
Still others are developing ID cards that have retina scans and
our DNA. No doubt we will be required to have both.
All of this
is to protect us from terrorists.
No thought
is given to whether the intrusion from the protection is a greater
threat than possible terrorist acts by foreigners protesting American
hegemony over their own lives. If American hegemony has this big
a price, I can do without it.
Some of us
remember when it was possible to read a book in an airport while
waiting on a flight. Today it can’t be done without ear plugs. TVs
blaring the latest propaganda compete with incessant repetitive
terrorist warnings interrupted by announcements of flight cancellations
and gate changes. The cacophony of sound is maddening. If only we
could go back to the days of crying babies and screaming children.
Once a terrorist
warning is produced, it lives forever. Every US airport endlessly
plays the same ancient warning from decades ago instructing passengers
to carefully watch their luggage and not to accept items from other
people to carry aboard flights. This warning dates from pre-security
days when the explosion of an airliner in flight was blamed on a
passenger accepting a parcel from a stranger to carry to a person
waiting at the flight’s destination. Allegedly, the parcel was a
bomb.
To hear this
warning today thirty or forty times after passing through security
makes a person wonder about the efficiency of airport security.
Were all those warrantless searches pointless?
The greatest
problem confronted by marketers of anti-terrorist products is the
shortage of terrorist attacks. The only terrorist events Americans
have experienced are the attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon. As for 9/11, we still don’t have a good explanation of
how so much security failed in one morning.
To prime the
market for anti-terrorism products, the Bush administration used
9/11 to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The Bush administration has
been attempting to occupy both countries for several years at a
cost to taxpayers estimated at 1,000 billion dollars.
The main result
of the military action has been to stir up resentment among Muslims
in the hopes that the resentment will find expression in terrorist
acts in the US. We have been made less safe in order that entrepreneurs
can make big bucks protecting us with new security products. It
would have been much better just to give the 1,000 billion dollars
to the security firms and not invaded the two countries.
Keep
that in mind when you are being monitored in your airliner seat
and are blinking too much because you still wear the old hard contact
lenses or are suffering from allergies. Excessive blinking is a
telltale sign of stress and means that the blinker is about to commit
a terrorist act. When you are arrested don’t bother arguing with
the foolproof Onboard Threat Detection System. Just be thankful
that your senators and representative received enough campaign donations
from security firms to be concerned with your security.
April
12, 2007
Paul
Craig Roberts [send
him mail] wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary
of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor
of the Wall
Street Journal
editorial page and Contributing Editor of National
Review. He
is author or coauthor of eight books, including The
Supply-Side Revolution
(Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments,
including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center
for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and
Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before
Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's
Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was
a reviewer for the Journal
of Political Economy
under editor Robert Mundell. He
is the co-author of The
Tyranny of Good Intentions.
He is also coauthor with Karen Araujo of Chile: Dos Visiones
– La Era Allende-Pinochet (Santiago: Universidad Andres Bello,
2000).
Copyright
© 2007 Creators Syndicate
Paul
Craig Roberts Archives
|