1AC VERSION 1.

0
This years resolution provides the perfect opportunity to justify a
political action centered on the discussion of RACE as surveillance
mechanisms funded by the federal government and carried out by
local law enforcement agents have disproportionately targeted
public dissent of racialized injustice. We offer a TOPICAL discursive
performance to speak out through the 1AC and start our protest with
OBSERVATION ONE: RACISM ABOUNDS
white supremacy is the UNAMED political system that guides the modern world. It is not
seen as political yet serves as the background against which other systems we see as
political are highlighted. What is needed is a GLOBAL THEORETICAL framework for
situating discussion of race and white racism that CHALLENGE white political philosophy.
We must recognize the POLITICAL SYSTEM of WHITE SUPREMACY
Mills, 97--Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy at Northwestern
University(Charles W., Racial Contract, p. 1)//AK

White supremacy is the unnamed political system that has made the modern world
what it is today. You will not find this term in introductory, or even advanced, texts in political
theory. A standard undergraduate philosophy course will start off with Plato and Aristotle, perhaps say something
about Augustine, Aquinas, and Machiavelli, move on to Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Marx, and then wind up with Rawls
and Nozick. It will introduce you to notions of aristocracy, democracy, absolutism, liberalism, representative
government, socialism, welfare capitalism, and libertarianism. But though it covers more than two thousand years

there will be no mention

of the basic political system that has shaped the world for the past several hundred
years. And this omission is not accidental. Rather, it reflects the fact that standard textbooks and
courses have for the most part been written and designed by whites, who take their racial privilege so
much for granted that they do not even see it as political, as a form of domination.
Ironically, the most important political system of recent global history -the system of
of Western political thought and runs the ostensible gamut of political systems,

domination by which white people have historically ruled over and, in certain important ways, continue to rule over
nonwhite people-is

not seen as a political system at all. It is just taken for granted; it is

the background against which other systems, which we are to see as political are
highlighted. This book is an attempt to redirect your vision, to make you see what, in a sense, has been there
all along. Philosophy has remained remarkably untouched by the debates over multiculturalism, canon reform, and
ethnic diversity racking the academy; both demographically and conceptually, it is one of the "whitest" of the
humanities. Blacks, for example, constitute only about 1 percent of philosophers in North American universities-a
hundred or so people out of more than ten thousand-and there are even fewer Latino, Asian American, and Native
American philosophers! Surely this underrepresentation itself stands in need of an explanation, and in my opinion it
can be traced in part to a conceptual array and a standard repertoire of concerns whose abstractness typically
elides, rather than genuinely includes, the experience of racial minorities. Since (white) women have the
demographic advantage of numbers, there are of course far more female philosophers in the profession than
nonwhite philosophers (though still not proportionate to women's percentage of the population), and they have
made far greater progress in developing alternative conceptualizations. Those African American philosophers who
do work in moral and political theory tend either to produce general work indistinguishable from that of their white
peers or to focus on local issues (affirmative action, the black "underclass") or historical figures (W. E. B. Du Bois,

What is needed is a global

theoretical framework for situating discussions of race and white racism, and
thereby challenging the assumptions of white political philosophy, which would correspond
Alain Locke) in a way that does not aggressively engage the broader debate.

to feminist theorists' articulation of the centrality of gender, patriarchy, and sexism to traditional moral and political

What is needed, in other words, is a recognition that racism (or, as I will argue, global
white supremacy) is itself a political system, a particular power structure of formal
or informal rule, socioeconomic privilege, and norms for the differential distribution
of material wealth and opportunities, benefits and burdens, rights and duties. The
theory.

notion of the Racial Contract is, I suggest, one possible way of making this connection with mainstream theory,
since it uses the vocabulary and apparatus already developed for contractarianism to map this unacknowledged
system. Contract talk is, after all, the political lingua franca of our times.

THAT UNAMED SYSTEM OF WHITE SUPREMACY IS SERVED UP

THROUGH OUR SYSTEM OF SURVEILLANCE
Racial equality victories are BITTERSWEET with SILENT COVENANTS that
disguise the pernicious disease of white supremacy with the cloak of race
neutrality while criminal justice policies justify EXCESSIVE SURVEILLANCE in
the name of crime control that really serves the ongoing exclusion of Blacks
from civic life and the PERSISTENT CONDEMNATION of Blackness.

Heitzeg 15 (Nancy A. Professor of Sociology & Critical Studies of Race and Ethnicity at St. Catherine
University. On The Occasion Of The 50th Anniversary Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964: Persistent White Supremacy,
Relentless Anti-Blackness, And The Limits Of The Law Hamline University's School of Law's Journal of Public Law
and Policy Volume 36 Issue 1 Article 3 http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1011&context=jplp 7/18/15

The Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) is often used as the
benchmark for chronicling the start of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. 39 The Courts unanimous rejection of Plessys
separate but equal provided a new Federal framework with which to challenge Jim Crow segregation on the state and local levels. It offered the
back drop for the Montgomery bus boycott, the resistance in Birmingham, Bloody Sunday, the voter registration drives of Freedom Summer, and
ultimately, passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Right Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and the 24th Amendment to the
Constitution.40While there was hope again that the law itself could be pressed into the service

of racial equality, those victories now seem bittersweet. Bell argues that the Brown
decision and the ensuing Federal legislation were silent covenants of interestconvergence, where perceived self-interest of whites rather than the racial
injustices suffered by Blacks have been the major motivation in racial-remediation
policies. 41 Judge Robert L. Carter, one of the attorneys who argued Brown goes further, . . .the fundamental vice was
not legally enforced racial segregation itself; this was a mere by- product, a symptom
of the greater and more pernicious disease -white supremacy. 42 Legally supported
segregation was uprooted without dislodging either white supremacy or antiBlackness, now cloaked in race-neutral rhetoric of color-blindness. The colorblind Constitution and the race-neutral requirement of Federal Civil Rights
legislation now serves as convenient cover for the persistence of institutionalized
racism. Racially coded but race-neutral rhetoric is widely used in debates over welfare reform,
affirmative action, and particularly law and order criminal justice policy; 43 in all these cases, the coded racial sub-text reads
clearly, and the resultant policies, while purportedly race neutral, have resulted in disproportionate harm to
people of color, especially African Americans . While race is now widely the
text/subtext of political debate, systemic racism still remains largely
absent from either political discourse or policy debates of all sorts, including those
related to criminal injustice. In the Post-Civil Rights Era, there has been a corresponding shift from de jure racism codified
explicitly into the law and legal systems to a de facto racism where people of color, especially African Americans, are
subject to unequal protection of the laws, excessive surveillance, police terror,
extreme segregation, a brutal and biased death penalty, and neo-slave labor via
incarceration all in the name of crime control . 44 Law and order criminal justice policies are all guided by
thinly coded appeals to white fears of high crime neighborhoods, crack epidemics, gang proliferation, juvenile super predators, urban unrest,
school violence, and more. In all these case, the sub-text reads clearly fear of brown and especially Black people. As before, law,

policing and punishment are central to the ongoing exclusion of Blacks from civic
life. Post slavery, the criminalizing narrative was a cultural feature of on-going efforts at oppression; from convict lease/plantain prison farms to
the contemporary prison industrial complex the control of black bodies for profit has been furthered by the criminal justice system. Slave
Codes become Black Codes and now Black Codes become gang legislation, three-strikes and the War on Drugs in the persistent

condemnation of Blackness. 46

As before, the criminal legal system is the primary mechanism for undoing the promised
protections of Federal Civil Rights legislation and constitutes again, the major affront to the fulfillment of the 13th, 14th and 25th Amendments.
The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world , with a population of 2.3 million

behind bars that constitutes 25% of the worlds prisoners . 47 The increased rate of incarceration can be
traced to the War on Drugs and the rise of lengthy mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug crimes and other felonies. These policies have
proliferated, not in response to crime rate or any empirical data that indicates their effectiveness, due to newfound sources of profit for prisons. 48
As Brewer and Heitzeg (2008) observe: 45 The prison industrial complex is a self-perpetuating

machine where the vast profits (e.g. cheap labor, private and public supply and construction contracts, job creation,
continued media profits from exaggerated crime reporting and crime/punishment as entertainment) and perceived political
benefits (e.g. reduced unemployment rates, get tough on crime and public safety rhetoric, funding increases for police, and criminal
justice system agencies and professionals) lead to policies that are additionally designed to insure an
endless supply of clients for the criminal justice system (e.g. enhanced police
presence in poor neighborhoods and communities of color; racial profiling ; decreased
funding for public education combined with zero-tolerance policies and increased rates of expulsion for students of color; increased rates of adult
certification for juvenile offenders; mandatory minimum and three-strikes sentencing; draconian conditions of incarceration and a reduction of
prison services that contribute to the likelihood of recidivism; collateral consequences-such as felony disenfranchisement, prohibitions on
welfare receipt, public housing, gun ownership, voting and political participation, employment- that nearly guarantee continued participation in
crime and return to the prison industrial complex following initial release.) The 13th Amendment claim of abolition remains unfulfilled, as the
neo- slavery of the prison industrial complex becomes the current vehicle for controlling Black bodies for political and economic gain. The

trend towards mass incarceration is marred by racial disparity . While 1 in 35 adults

is under correctional supervision and 1 in every 100 adults is in prison , 1 in every 36 Latino
adults ,1 in every 15 black men, 1 in every 100 black women, and 1 in 9 black 49 men
ages 20 to 34 are incarcerated.50 Despite no statistic differences in rates of offending, approximately 50%
of all prisoners are black, 30% are white, and 20% are Latino ;.51 These disparities are
indicative of differential enforcement practices rather than an differences in criminal
participation. This is particularly true of drug crimes, which account for the bulk of the increased prison
population. Even though Blacks and whites use and sell drugs comparable rates, African
Americans are anywhere from 3 to 10 times more likely to be arrested, and
additionally likely to receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts.
52

Racism makes all forms of violence inevitable, it must be rejected in

every instance.

Memmi 2k - MEMMI Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ Unv. Of Paris Albert-;

RACISM, translated by Steve Martinot, pp.163-165
The struggle against racism will be long, difficult, without intermission, without
remission, probably never achieved, yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be
undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be
indulgent toward racism. One cannot even let the monster in the house,
especially not in a mask. To give it merely a foothold means to augment
the bestial part in us and in other people which is to diminish what is
human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest degree is to endorse
fear, injustice, and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the dark history in which we
still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be a possible victim (and which [person] man
is not [themself] himself an outsider relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable
negativity of the condition of the dominated; that is it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human
condition.

The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is

one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to

humanity. In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it
nevertheless

remains true that ones moral conduct only emerges from a choice: one has to want it. It is a choice
among other choices, and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let us say, broadly
speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for the establishment of a human order for

One cannot found a moral order,

let alone a legislative order, on racism because racism signifies the exclusion of the
other and his or her subjection to violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if
one can deploy a little religious language, racism is the truly capital sin.fn22 It is not an
which racism is the very negation. This is almost a redundancy.

accident that almost all of humanitys spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or
strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows or strangers. It is
not just a question of theoretical morality and disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of

we have an interest in
banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of
the other suggests the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered,

course, this is debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and
oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest. One day,

All unjust society contains within itself the

seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that they treat you with
perhaps, the roles will be reversed.

respect. Recall, says the bible, that you were once a stranger in Egypt, which means both that you ought to
respect the stranger because you were a stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is

In short,
the refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical
morality. Because, in the end, the ethical choice commands the political
choice. A just society must be a society accepted by all. If this contractual
principle is not accepted, then only conflict, violence, and destruction will
be our lot. If it is accepted, we can hope someday to live in peace. True, it is a wager, but the
stakes are irresistible.
an ethical and a practical appeal indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be.

This means that within the political calculations of policy justifications our
REVOLUTIONARY stance against racial injustice should prevail
WE EMBRACE THE CONCEPT OF REVOLUTIONARY SUICIDE TO
REDEFINE THE IMPACT CALCULUS TO EVALUATE THE DEBATE
The role of the judge is a revolutionary in the constant struggle of liberation
for oppressed groups and the role of the ballot is to embrace the possibility
of death to achieve the best hope for radical social change within the defined
community.
Revolutionary suicide is DISTINCT from reactionary suicide. One is selfmurder in response to social conditions that deprive one of human dignity
after being CRUSHED by oppressive forces that deny the right to live as
PROUD and FREE human beings. IMMOBILIZED by FEAR and DESPAIR one
reacts by taking their life, it is a spiritual death, a sense of hopelessness
against the POWER of America, a feeling that resistance against the state is
suicidal, REACTIONARY SUICIDE.
The other is an assault on the ESTABLISHMENT, opposing rather than
enduring the forces that lead to self-murder. It is accepting the possibility of
death for the probability of changing INTOLERABLE conditions. It is

redefining HUMAN EXISTENCE through a sense of hope without any real

understanding of the odds. Not a DEATH-WISH, a strong DESIRE to LIVE
with hope and dignity. To RISK death in the move against reactionary forces
that attempt to crush humanity. To understand that for the revolutionary
SURVIVAL is a miracle and the essential reality is DOOM. It is the
quintessential sacrifice for the good of humanity that Blacks always live and
whites seldom see for they dont face GENOCIDE. It is a TRY OR DIE
scenario as America has put the existence of humanity at stake, the
handwriting is on the wall. REVOLUTIONARY SUICIDE
Scholars and academics FAIL to perceive these distinctions and misconceive
certain actions as suicidal, ignoring the historical trends of resistance,
ignoring four-fifths of the world that is bent on wiping out the power of
EMPIRE. Revolutionary Suicide is COMPLEX. A revolutionary takes actions
knowing the risks, resists as a rejection of the norm to raise consciousness
as a contribution to the ongoing revolution. Revolutionary Suicide is not
fatalistic or defeatist rather the combination of DEATH and LIFE through the
imagination of HOPE and POSSIBILITY. Death comes to us all and only
varies in its SIGNIFICANCE.

NEWTON

co-founder of the Black Panther Party For Self-Defense

Huey-PhD University of California, Santa Cruz; Revolutionary Suicide;
Penguin Edition with Introduction written by Frederika Newton 2009; pp. 2-6

1973

To understand revolutionary suicide it is first necessary to have an idea of

reactionary suicide, for the two are very different. Dr. Hendin was describing reactionary
suicide: the reaction of a man who takes his own life in response to social conditions
that overwhelm him and condemn him to helplessness. The young Black men in his
study had been deprived of human dignity, crushed by oppressive forces, and denied
their right to live as proud and free human beings.
A section in Dostoevskys Crime and Punishment provides a good analogy. One of the characters, Marmeladov, a
very poor man, argues that poverty is not a vice. In poverty, he says, a man can attain the innate nobility of soul
that is not possible in beggary; for while society may drive the poor man out with a stick, the beggar will be swept
out with a broom. Why? Because the beggar is totally demeaned, his dignity lost. Finally, bereft of self-

respect, immobilized by fear and despair, he sinks into self-murder. This is

reactionary suicide.
Connected to reactionary suicide, although even more painful and degrading, is
a spiritual death that has been the experience of millions of Black people in the
United States. This death is found everywhere today in the Black community. Its
victims have ceased to fight the forms of oppression that drink their blood. The
common attitude has long been: Whats the use? If a man rises up against a power as
great as the United States, he will not survive. Believing this, many Blacks have
been driven to a death of the spirit rather than of the flesh, lapsing into lives of

quiet desperation.

Yet all the while, in the heart of every Black, there is the hope that life will somehow
change in the future.
I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment , which

lies at the heart of the concept of

revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to
self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is
at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions.
This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon
hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all-Black and white
alike-ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and
goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief

if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of selfrespect.
Revolutionary suicide does not mean that I and my comrades have a death wish; it

means just the opposite. We have such a strong desire to live with hope and human
dignity that existence without them is impossible. When reactionary forces crush
us, we must move against these forces, even at the risk of death. We will have to be
driven out with a stick.
Che Guevara said that

to a revolutionary death is the reality and victory the dream.

survival is a miracle. Bakunin, who spoke for the most
militant wing of the First International, made a similar statement in his Revolutionary Catechism. To him, the
first lesson a revolutionary must learn is that he is a doomed man. Unless he
understands this, he does not grasp the essential meaning of his life.
Because the revolutionary lives so dangerously, his

When Fidel Castro and his small band were in Mexico preparing for the Cuban Revolution, many of the comrades
had little understanding of Bakunins rule. A few hours before they set sail, Fidel went from man to man asking who
should be notified in case of death. Only then did the deadly seriousness of the revolution hit home. Their struggle
was no longer romantic. The scene had been exciting and animated; but when the simple, overwhelming question
of death arose, everyone fell silent.

Many so-called revolutionaries in this country, Black and white, are not
prepared to accept this reality. The Black Panthers are not suicidal; neither do we romanticize the
consequences of revolution in our lifetime. Other so-called revolutionaries cling to an illusion
that they might have their revolution and die of old age. That cannot be.

I do not expect to live through our revolution, and most serious comrades probably share my realism. Therefore,
the expression revolution in our lifetime means something different to me than it does to other people who use it.
I think the revolution will grow in my lifetime, but I do not expect to enjoy its fruits. That would be a contradiction.
The reality will be grimmer.

I have no doubt that the revolution will triumph. The people of the world will prevail,
seize power, seize the means of production, wipe out racism, capitalism,
reactionary inter-communalism-reactionary suicide. The people will win a new
world. Yet when I think of individuals in the revolution, I cannot predict their
survival. Revolutionaries must accept this fact, especially the Black
revolutionaries in America, whose lives are in constant danger from the evils of a
colonial society. Considering how we must live, it is not hard to accept the
concept of revolutionary suicide. In this we are different from white radicals.
They are not faced with genocide.
The greater, more immediate problem is the survival of the entire world. If the
world does not change, all its people will be threatened by the greed, exploitation,
and violence of the power structure in the American empire. The handwriting is
on the wall. The United States is jeopardizing its own existence and the existence
of all humanity. If Americans knew the disasters that lay ahead, they would
transform this society tomorrow for their own preservation. The Black Panther Party is in
the vanguard of the revolution that seeks to relieve this country of its crushing burden of guilt. We are determined
to establish true equality and the means of creative work.

Scholars and academics,

fail to perceive differences. Jumping off a
bridge is not the same as moving to wipe out the overwhelming force of an oppressive army. When scholars
call our actions suicidal, they should be logically consistent and describe all
historical revolutionary movements in the same way. Thus the American colonists, the French
Some see our struggle as a symbol of the trend toward suicide among Blacks.

in particular, have been quick to make this accusation. They

of the late eighteenth century, the Russians of 1917, the Jews of Warsaw, the Cubans, the NLF, the North
Vietnamese-any people who struggle against a brutal and powerful force-are suicidal.

the whole Third World is

suicidal, because the Third World fully intends to resist and overcome the ruling
class of the United States. If scholars wish to carry their analysis further, they
must come to terms with that four-fifths of the world which is bent on wiping out the
power of the empire. In those terms the Third World would be transformed from suicidal to homicidal,
Also, if the Black Panthers symbolize the suicidal trend among Blacks, then

although homicide is the unlawful taking of life, and the third World is involved only in defense. Is the coin then
turned? Is the government of the United States suicidal? I think so.

With this redefinition, the term revolutionary suicide is not as simplistic as it

might seem initially. In coining the phrase, I took two knowns and combined them to make an unknown, a
neoteric phrase in which the word suicide into an idea that has different dimensions and meanings, applicable to
a new and complex situation.
My prison experience is a good example of revolutionary suicide in action, for prison is a microcosm of the
outside world. From the beginning of my sentence I defied the authorities by refusing to cooperate; a result, I was
confined to lock-up, a solitary cell. As the months passed and I remained steadfast, they came to regard my
behavior as suicidal. I was told that I would crack and break under the strain. I did not break, nor did I retreat from
my position. I grew strong.
If I had submitted to their exploitation and done their will, it would have killed my spirit and condemned me to a
living death. To cooperate in prison meant reactionary suicide to me. While solitary confinement can be physically
and mentally destructive, my actions were taken with an understanding of the risk. I had to

resistance told them that I rejected all they stood

for. Even though my struggle might have harmed my health, even killed me, I looked upon it as a way of
raising the consciousness of the other inmates, as a contribution to the ongoing
revolution. Only resistance can destroy the pressures that cause reactionary
suicide.
The concept of revolutionary suicide is not defeatist or fatalistic. On the
contrary, it conveys an awareness of reality in combination with the possibility of
hope-reality because the revolutionary must always be prepared to face death,
and hope because it symbolizes a resolute determination to bring about change.
Above all, it demands that the revolutionary see his death and his life as one
piece. Chairman Mao says that death comes to all us, but it varies in its significance: to
die for the reactionary is lighter than a feather; to die for the revolution is heavier
than Mount Tai.
suffer through a certain situation; by doing so, my

PLAN:
The United States Federal Government shall CURTAIL any and all involvement in its
surveillance tactics initiated through FUSION CENTERS.

OBSERVATION 2: THE PLAN IS JUSTIFIED AS A REVOLUTIONARY

STANCE AGAINST RACIALIZED SURVEILLANCE
THE FBI IS CURRENTLY IN VIOLATION OF ITS OWN CODE TO
INVESTIGATE COLOR OF LAW VIOLATIONS AND IS INSTEAD
PROHIBITING THE EXERCISE OF FIRST AMENDMENT PROTEST
CREATING A CHILLING EFFECT ON GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS
MOBILIZATION

STEPHAN

writer, artist, activist, and organizer in NYC

2k15

The FBIs Response To Another Killer Cop Set Free? More Surveillance of Protestors; May 24; FBI gives ominous
press conference detailing their monitoring of #BlackLivesMatter; ALTERNET.ORG
http://www.alternet.org/fbis-response-another-killer-cop-set-free-more-surveillance-blacklivesmatter
The FBI's Response To Another Killer Cop Set Free? More Surveillance of Protestors FBI gives ominous
press conference detailing their monitoring of #BlackLivesMatter. On Thursday, FBI Deputy

Director Mark Giuliano gave a press conferenceabout how his agency was
preparing for the soon-to-be announced verdict for Michael Brelo, the white
Cleveland Police Officer charged with two counts of voluntary homicide for
shooting 49 bullets at two unarmed black victims, Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams, at least
two of which were fatal shots for each victim and many of which were fired as he stood on the hood of their car.

However, Giuliano mentioned nothing about the details of this case or how the FBI
may be mandated to investigate the state agents involved depending on the
outcome. Instead, he mentioned other activities in which the FBI was engaged in
the lead up to the Brelo verdict that are far outside of the FBIs mandates, and
possibly in violation of those mandates, against U.S. citizens engaged in First Amendment activity.
The FBI is charged with investigating Color of Law violations to prevent abuse of
authority by law enforcement officers and other officials like judges. In November of last
year, the Department of Justice announced that it had found the Cleveland Police
Department guilty of a pattern or practice of unreasonable and unnecessary use
of force. Considering this, one would think the FBI should have been preparing an
investigation into Color of Law violations by Officer Brelo and Judge John
ODonnell, who yesterday announced his decision that Officer Brelo was guilty of no
crime, before that verdict was announced. After all, police departments cannot establish patterns or practices of
unreasonable and unnecessary use of force without the entire criminal justice system being complicit in such
behavior. If the FBI had any such plan, Guiliano didnt mention it at his press

conference. What he did mention was that the FBI has been tracking the
movements of people protesting these types of miscarriages of justice around the
country, and that if the FBI became aware of any of those protesters going to
Cleveland, they would tell the Cleveland Police: When asked about local law enforcement's

concerns over protesters coming to Cleveland, Giuliano said, "It's outsiders who tend to stir the pot. If we have that
intel we pass it directly on to the PD, we have worked with Ferguson. We've worked with Baltimore and we will work
with the Cleveland PD on that very thing. That's what we bring to the game. The fact that the FBI is

tracking U.S. Citizens engaged in First Amendment activity is problematic, outside

of their mandate, and possibly a violation of the law. Furthermore, the methods
with which the FBI has lately been caught tracking U.S. Citizens, from warrantless
wiretaps, to tracking devices on vehicles, to Stingray cellphone towers and planes
have been ruled unconstitutional by an increasing number of courts. Most
concerning was an additional piece of information that Giuliano provided without solicitation: Giuliano added
that the FBI will be a significant support role for security when the [Republican National Convention] comes to
Cleveland: "I feel very good that this will be a well protected event. I believe Cleveland will be very well prepared.
In addition to the widespread monitoring of #BlackLivesMatter, it appears the FBI has admitted to

using these infiltration measures as a sort of testing ground for the upcoming Republican
National Convention next year. Again, despite the throw-away assertions about how the FBI
respects "lawful first amendment activity" (it's unclear what unlawful first amendment activity
would be), their ethos is clear: prevent unrest at all costs and assuring Cleveland's
largely white power classes that everything will be business as usual regardless of
how many killer cops go free. It is now well documented that the FBI embedded
an informant named Brandon Darby in activist networks across the country in the lead
up to the 2007 Republican National Convention in Michigan to gather intel on, and
track the movements of, protesters: Mr. Darby carried out a thorough surveillance operation that
dated back to at least 18 months before the Republican gatheringprovided descriptions of meetings with the
defendants and dozens of other people in Austin, Minneapolis and St. Paul. He wore recording devices at times,
including a transmitter embedded in his belt during the convention. He also went to Minnesota with Mr. Crowder
four months before the Republican gathering and gave detailed narratives to law enforcement authorities of several
meetings they had with activists from New York, San Francisco, Montana and other places. Since then, within

activist communities it has been considered a given that the FBI embeds

informants within local organization in the run-up to large events such as the RNC, and
leaves them in place long after these events have left town to collect information
and to disrupt organizing efforts in other, more damaging ways. The chilling effect
that spying has on First Amendment activity is hard to overstate. People who worked
closely with Brandon Darby said that, The emerging truth about Darbys malicious involvement in our communities
is heart-breaking and utterly ground-shattering. The revelation that Darby was a federal informant sent
shockwaves through activists circles across the country, not just because he had worked with many groups in
various cities, but because it made the idea that other activists with whom we work may be informants,
provocateurs, or undercovers that much more real. After the 2004 RNC was held in NYC, many activists believed
that others activists were informants who were involved in protests exclusively to gather information and disrupt.
Those who have been deeply involved in activism in NYC since then know that this created a toxic

environment for organizing that was, at times, completely debilitating. By planting

one confirmed informant and thousands of other seeds of doubt, the FBI
effectively limited the ability of activists to peaceably gather and work with those
with whom they would otherwise organize, severely restricting the power to plan
effective political speech, a crucial component of a healthy democracy. This brings us to
the last mandate that the FBI failed to fulfill and likely violated in their preparations for the Brelo verdict and the
2015 RNC as outlined by Giuliano: the FBI has a mandate to protect civil rights. In this

case, that would mean actively protecting citizens rights to travel between cities
with the intent of engaging in First Amendment activity, not tracking their
movements by legally dubious means that have a chilling effect on the First
Amendment and conveying those movements to a police force that the
Department of Justice has found guilty of a pattern or practice of unreasonable
and unnecessary use of force. Anyone traveling to Cleveland to protest the Brelo verdict is seeking to
gather in public space to reproach the government for civil rights grievances. For the FBI to interfere
with civic act through their information-gathering techniques and by passing that
information to police forces that cannot be trusted to use it without infringing on
peoples First Amendment rights is a clear violation of the FBIs own mandate. Had
the FBI wanted to help keep the peace after the Brelo verdict, they could have
lived up to their own mandates to publicly investigate the Cleveland criminal
justice system for its Color of Law violations and to protect the peoples right to
protest those violations against a proven, unnecessarily violent police force.

THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF BLACK BODIES:

THE FBI DISSEMINATES INFORMATION TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ON BLACK
ACTIVISTS DENYING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PEACEFUL PROTEST
WHICH REVEALS A LONG HISTORY OF ANTI-BLACK STATE VIOLENCE

MOORE

Senior Editor @ MIC and co-managing editor of the Feminist Wire

2k15

Darnell-; Why Some Black Activist Believe They Are Being Watched by the
Government; June
http://mic.com/articles/119792/why-some-black-activists-believe-they-re-being-watched-bythe-government

The home of activist Patrisse Cullors was raided twice last year by law enforcement in Los Angeles. During one raid, officers told
Cullors they were looking for a suspect who had allegedly fled in the direction of her house. But neither time did Cullors believe the
officers had a strong rationale for invading her home. Instead, Cullors told Mic, she believed the raids were devised by police in
response to the public campaigning of Dignity and Power Now, a grassroots organization Cullors founded that advocates on behalf
of incarcerated people in Los Angeles. She also believes similar surveillance

methods are used to monitor

many black activists today. "Surveillance is a huge part of the state's role.
Surveillance has been used for a very long time, but some of the means, like social
media account monitoring, are new," Cullors, who is also a cofounder of Black Lives Matter, toldMic. "Local
enforcement surveils by tracking the #BlackLivesMatter hashtag, which allows law enforcement to show up at actions before they

Recent statements by FBI

deputy director Mark F. Giuliano may give credence assumptions like Cullors that black
activists are being watched. During a press conference on May 21 prior to the acquittal of Michael Brelo, a white
begin." Mic has reached out to the Los Angeles Police Department for comment.

Cleveland police officer involved in the shooting death of two unarmed black people, Giuliano addressed the potential for continued

Giuliano said. "If we have that intel

we pass it directly on to the [Cleveland Police Department]. We have worked with
Ferguson, we've worked with Baltimore and we will work with the Cleveland PD on
that very thing. That's what we bring to the game." Mic has reached out to the FBI's Office of Public
Affairs for comment. A history of black surveillance: The "game" Giuliano is referencing namely,
the intricate workings of what some law enforcement units, like New York Police
Department, employ in response to counterterrorism and protests is not novel.
Black movements have historically been watched by the state, and black activists
have long been surveilled in response to their organizing. Half a century ago, J. Edgar Hoover
protests in response to the verdict. "It's outsiders who tend to stir the pot,"

used his powers as the FBI director to spy on black activists; as part of the counterterrorism COINTELPRO program in the 1960s
and '70s, the FBI tapped phones and embedded spies in organizations and movements, including the Black Panthers. It is also now
well-known that Martin Luther King, Jr. was extensively monitored by the FBI. "American

history explodes with

examples of state surveillance of black people and black activism," Harvard University
historian Tim McCarthy told Mic. "From the Fugitive Slave Law and prohibitions on abolitionist
'propaganda' to black codes and wiretapping and the militarization of the police,
the state has always employed diverse mechanisms of control in a deliberate
effort to derail the long black freedom struggle. "Even the notion of U.S.
citizenship itself has been a site of policing based principally on race, from the
birth of the nation to the age of Obama." FBI files on black activists like James Baldwin, Lorraine
Hansberry, Amiri Baraka (LeRoi Jones), Lucille Clifton, W.E.B DuBois and Louise Thompson Patterson have recently been made
public, as part of the FB Eyes Digital Archive. But despite

the preponderance of evidence regarding

state surveillance of activists in the past, it can be difficult to prove the existence
of actions many activists assume are taking place in the present. Potentially
supporting their claims, however, are current surveillance protocols of security firms and
local police departments. In March, for example, the Intercept obtained documents revealing that security members at the Mall of
America in Bloomington, Minnesota, monitored local Black Lives Matter activists by using a fake Facebook account to "befriend
them, and obtain their personal information and photographs without their knowledge." Mall of America has previously declined to
comment on the Facebook monitoring. Mic has reached out to Mall of America's public affairs department for comment. While
unconfirmed, measures

that some activists assume are currently taking place, such as

using activists as informants in movements, have been reported before. The New
York Times reported the FBI used an Austin-based activist as an informant to
provide details about potential protests leading up to the 2008 Republican National Convention in
Minnesota, for example, though the FBI has yet to confirm or deny the allegation. Personal stories: Some activists across
the country, such as Ash-Lee Henderson, a black organizer from Tennessee, have personal testimonies of
surveillance. Last year, Henderson participated in a series of direct actions in her hometown of Chattanooga led by
Concerned Citizens for Justice, a grassroots organization that fights for black liberation and an end to police crimes, criminalization
and mass incarceration. The actions were designed to bring attention to various forms of state-sanctioned violence, including police
abuse, affecting black people across the country. Henderson was arrested while participating in a protest on the National Day of
Protest to End Police Brutality in October 2014. After her arrest, she recalled learning about a private Facebook group created by
police officers in Tennessee and those supportive of police called "Police Lives Matter." "Police and their family members were
constantly making threats and mean-spirited jokes [aimed at activists] on their page," Henderson told Mic. She said one police
officer made a meme of her, which meant her image had been shared among other officers and that they would now know her by
name and likeness. She obtained another meme of a different image of herself shortly after, and became more convinced that
activists were being watched. Henderson suspects she'd been targeted for speaking publicly about police abuse a suspicion
exacerbated by a series of events following her arrest. "During a day of action in December, my mother and 3-year-old niece were
followed by the police from our church to my house (about a 30-minute drive), because they were in my car." Henderson said she
believed "the police were attempting to see where our next action was. In the month of December alone, members of our leadership
team were pulled over and harassed by police officers at least once a week in two different states." The Chattanooga Police
Department told Mic, "While we do not routinely follow specific hashtags, we do review all forms of publicly available information
when current or anticipated events warrant it. We will continue to make every attempt to stay informed of potential exercises of free
speech in an effort to supply activists, marchers, organizers and citizens with a safe environment to express their views."
Interference: The

public must consider the long history of state surveillance and

suppression of black movements as a specific problem of anti-black state violence

and racial profiling. At stake is the extent to which state surveillance measures,
whether they mean social media monitoring or following specific activists' actions, violate activists' First
Amendment Rights, particularly the right to peacefully protest. Keegan Stephan writes at
AlterNet, "For the FBI to interfere with civic act through their information-gathering
techniques and by passing that information to police forces that cannot be trusted
to use it without infringing on people's First Amendment rights is a clear violation
of the FBI's own mandate." Despite potential surveillance, activists are determined to continue their work. Their

continued quest for liberation should encourage contemporary activists following their example. "These allegations will not curtail the
movement and only provide further evidence of the embedded institutional inequities," Monica Dennis, an organizer with Black Lives
Matter in New York City, told Mic. "Furthermore, our movements are rooted in the black radical traditions of resilience and creative
resistance which simply means we are capable of quickly adapting and shifting despite external efforts to disrupt our organizing."

The FBIs surveillance structures are designed to cement structural

racismpredictive policing disproportionately targets black people
and depends upon racial profilingthe medias focus on the white
side of the story causes black injustice to remain invisible.
CYRIL founder and executive director of the Center for Media Justice 2k15
Malkia Amala-co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots Network, a national network of 175 organizations working
to ensure media access, rights, and representation for marginalized communities; Black Americas State of
Surveillance; THE PROGRESSIVE; April; http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-statesurveillance THANKS JP; DB LOVES YA
Ten years ago, on Martin Luther King Jr.s birthday, my mother, a former Black Panther, died from complications of
sickle cell anemia. Weeks before she died, the FBI came knocking at our door, demanding that my mother testify in
a secret trial proceeding against other former Panthers or face arrest. My mother, unable to walk, refused. The
detectives told my mother as they left that they would be watching her. They didnt get to do that. My mother died
just two weeks later. My mother was not the only black person to come under the watchful eye of American law
enforcement for perceived and actual dissidence. Nor is dissidence always a requirement for being subject to
spying. Files obtained during a break-in at an FBI office in 1971 revealed that African Americans, J. Edger

Hoovers largest target group, didnt have to be perceived as dissident to warrant

surveillance. They just had to be black. As I write this, the same philosophy is driving
the increasing adoption and use of surveillance technologies by local law enforcement
agencies across the United States. Today, media reporting on government
surveillance is laser-focused on the revelations by Edward Snowden that millions
of Americans were being spied on by the NSA. Yet my mothers visit from the FBI reminds me
that, from the slave pass system to laws that deputized white civilians as enforcers
of Jim Crow, black people and other people of color have lived for centuries with
surveillance practices aimed at maintaining a racial hierarchy. Its time for
journalists to tell a new story that does not start the clock when privileged
classes learn they are targets of surveillance. We need to understand that data
has historically been overused to repress dissidence, monitor perceived
criminality, and perpetually maintain an impoverished underclass. In an era of big
data, the Internet has increased the speed and secrecy of data collection. Thanks
to new surveillance technologies, law enforcement agencies are now able to
collect massive amounts of indiscriminate data. Yet legal protections and policies
have not caught up to this technological advance. Concerned advocates see mass
surveillance as the problem and protecting privacy as the goal. Targeted
surveillance is an obvious answerit may be discriminatory, but it helps protect
the privacy perceived as an earned privilege of the inherently innocent. The
trouble is, targeted surveillance frequently includes the indiscriminate collection
of the private data of people targeted by race but not involved in any crime. For
targeted communities, there is little to no expectation of privacy from
government or corporate surveillance. Instead, we are watched, either as
criminals or as consumers. We do not expect policies to protect us. Instead, weve
birthed a complex and coded culturefrom jazz to spoken dialectsin order to navigate a world in which spying,

from AT&T and Walmart to public benefits programs and beat cops on the block, is as much a part of our
built environment as the streets covered in our blood. In a recent address, New York City
Police Commissioner Bill Bratton made it clear: 2015 will be one of the most significant years in the history of this
organization. It will be the year of technology, in which we literally will give to every member of this department
technology that wouldve been unheard of even a few years ago. Predictive policing, also known as Total
Information Awareness, is described as using advanced technological tools and data analysis to preempt crime.
It utilizes trends, patterns, sequences, and affinities found in data to make determinations about when and where
crimes will occur. This model is deceptive, however, because it presumes data inputs to be neutral. They arent. In

a racially discriminatory criminal justice system, surveillance technologies

reproduce injustice. Instead of reducing discrimination, predictive policing is a face of what author Michelle
Alexander calls the New Jim Crowa de facto system of separate and unequal application of laws, police
practices, conviction rates, sentencing terms, and conditions of confinement that operate more as a system of
social control by racial hierarchy than as crime prevention or punishment. In New York City, the predictive
policing approach in use is Broken Windows. This approach to policing places an undue focus on

quality of life crimeslike selling loose cigarettes, the kind of offense for which
Eric Garner was choked to death. Without oversight, accountability, transparency,
or rights, predictive policing is just high-tech racial profilingindiscriminate data
collection that drives discriminatory policing practices. As local law enforcement
agencies increasingly adopt surveillance technologies, they use them in three primary ways:
to listen in on specific conversations on and offline; to observe daily movements of individuals and groups; and to
observe data trends. Police departments like Brattons aim to use sophisticated technologies to do all three. They
will use technologies like license plate readers, which the Electronic Frontier Foundation found to be
disproportionately used in communities of color and communities in the process of being gentrified. They will use

which the FBI has now rolled out as a

national system, to be adopted by local police departments for any criminal justice purpose. They intend
facial recognition, biometric scanning software,

to use body and dashboard cameras, which have been touted as an effective step toward accountability based on
the results of one study, yet storage and archiving procedures, among many other issues, remain unclear. They will
use Stingray cellphone interceptors. According to the ACLU, Stingray technology is an invasive cellphone
surveillance device that mimics cellphone towers and sends out signals to trick cellphones in the area into
transmitting their locations and identifying information. When used to track a suspects cellphone, they also gather
information about the phones of countless bystanders who happen to be nearby. The same is true of domestic
drones, which are in increasing use by U.S. law enforcement to conduct routine aerial surveillance. While drones are
currently unarmed, drone manufacturers are considering arming these remote-controlled aircraft with weapons like
rubber bullets, tasers, and tear gas. They will use fusion centers. Originally designed to increase interagency
collaboration for the purposes of counterterrorism, these have instead become the local arm of the intelligence
community. According to Electronic Frontier Foundation, there are currently seventy-eight on record. They are the
clearinghouse for increasingly used suspicious activity reportsdescribed as official documentation of observed
behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or other criminal activity. These
reports and other collected data are often stored in massive databases like e-Verify and Prism. As anybody whos
ever dealt with gang databases knows, its almost impossible to get off a federal or state database, even when the
data collected is incorrect or no longer true .

Predictive policing doesnt just lead to racial

and religious profilingit relies on it. Just as stop and frisk legitimized an initial, unwarranted
contact between police and people of color, almost 90 percent of whom turn out to be innocent of any crime,

suspicious activities reporting and the dragnet approach of fusion centers

target communities of color. One review of such reports collected in Los Angeles shows
approximately 75 percent were of people of color. This is the future of policing in America , and it
should terrify you as much as it terrifies me. Unfortunately, it probably doesnt, because my life is at far greater risk
than the lives of white Americans, especially those reporting on the issue in the media or advocating in the halls of
power. One of the most terrifying aspects of high-tech surveillance is the invisibility
of those it disproportionately impacts. The NSA and FBI have engaged local law enforcement
agencies and electronic surveillance technologies to spy on Muslims living in the United States. According to FBI
training materials uncovered by Wired in 2011, the bureau taught agents to treat mainstream Muslims as
supporters of terrorism, to view charitable donations by Muslims as a funding mechanism for combat, and to view
Islam itself as a Death Star that must be destroyed if terrorism is to be contained. From New York City to Chicago
and beyond, local law enforcement agencies have expanded unlawful and covert racial and religious profiling
against Muslims not suspected of any crime. There is no national security reason to profile all Muslims. At the same
time, almost 450,000 migrants are in detention facilities throughout the United States, including survivors of
torture, asylum seekers, families with small children, and the elderly. Undocumented migrant communities enjoy
few legal protections, and are therefore subject to brutal policing practices, including illegal surveillance practices.

According to the Sentencing Project, of the more than 2 million people

incarcerated in the United States, more than 60 percent are racial and ethnic
minorities. But by far, the widest net is cast over black communities. Black people

alone represent 40 percent of those incarcerated. More black men are

incarcerated than were held in slavery in 1850, on the eve of the Civil War. Lest some misinterpret
that statistic as evidence of greater criminality, a 2012 study confirms that black defendants are at least 30 percent
more likely to be imprisoned than whites for the same crime. This is not a broken system, it is a

system working perfectly as intended, to the detriment of all. The NSA could not
have spied on millions of cellphones if it were not already spying on black people ,
Muslims, and migrants. As surveillance technologies are increasingly adopted and
integrated by law enforcement agencies today, racial disparities are being made
invisible by a media environment that has failed to tell the story of surveillance in
the context of structural racism. Reporters love to tell the technology story. For
some, its a sexier read. To me, freedom from repression and racism is far sexier than the newest gadget
used to reinforce racial hierarchy. As civil rights protections catch up with the technological
terrain, reporting needs to catch up, too. Many journalists still focus their
reporting on the technological trends and not the racial hierarchies that these
trends are enforcing. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, Everything we see is a shadow cast by that which
we do not see. Journalists have an obligation to tell the stories that are hidden from
view. We are living in an incredible time, when migrant activists have blocked
deportation buses, and a movement for black lives has emerged, and when
women, queer, and trans experiences have been placed right at the center. The
decentralized power of the Internet makes that possible. But the Internet also
makes possible the high-tech surveillance that threatens to drive structural
racism in the twenty-first century. We can help black lives matter by ensuring that
technology is not used to cement a racial hierarchy that leaves too many people
like me dead or in jail. Our communities need partners, not gatekeepers. Together, we
can change the cultural terrain that makes killing black people routine. We can
counter inequality by ensuring that both the technology and the police
departments that use it are democratized. We can change the story on
surveillance to raise the voices of those who have been left out. There are no
voiceless people, only those that aint been heard yet. Lets birth a new norm in
which the technological tools of the twenty-first century create equity and justice
for allso all bodies enjoy full and equal protection, and the Jim Crow surveillance
state exists no more. - See more at: http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americasstate-surveillance#sthash.5PHCKHgM.dpuf

FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE AGAINST PROTEST GROUPS IS LARGELY STRUCTURED

WITHIN FUSION CENTERS

The Federal Government is heavily invested into Fusion Centers, and

provides funding.

ACLU 7 American Civil Liberties Union, a national, non-profit organization

dedicated to upholding constitutional rights, over 500,000 members, and a legal
assistance provider. (ACLU, Whats wrong with Fusion Centers? 2007,
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/fusioncenter_20071212.pdf)//RP
One problem with fusion centers is that they exist in a no-mans land between the
feder- al government and the states, where policy and oversight is often uncertain
and open to manipulation. There appears to be at least some conscious effort to
circumvent public oversight by obscuring who is really in charge of these fusion
centers and what laws apply to them. In struggling to answer the seemingly simple
question of who is in charge of fusion centers at a recent congressional hearing, a
Department of Homeland Security official could only offer that fusion centers are in
charge of fusion centers.16 One ana- lyst reportedly described his fusion center as
the wild west, where officials were free to use a variety of technologies before

politics catches up and limits options.17 Federal involvement in the centers

continues to grow. Most fusion centers developed as an extension of existing law
enforcement intelligence units and as a result they have sometimes been described
as state police intelligence units on steroids.18 But exactly who is providing those
steroids is key to determining who will control them in the future. Fusion centers are
still primarily staffed and funded by state authorities, but: The federal
government is playing an essential role in the development and networking of fusion centers by providing financial assistance, sponsoring
security clearances, and providing personnel, guidance and training.19
The FBI has over 200 agents and analysts assigned to 36 fusion centers
and plans to increase this commitment in the future.20 As of December
2006, the DHS alone has provided over $380 million in federal funds to
support fusion centers.21 At least one fusion center, the Maryland
Coordination and Analysis Center (MCAC), was initiated and led by federal
authorities and was only recently turned over to the control of state
officials. Thirty percent of ostensibly state-controlled fusion centers are
physically located within federal agency workspace.22 Federal authorities
are happy to reap the benefits of working with the fusion centers without officially
taking ownership. Fusion center supporters argue that the federal government can use the 800,000 plus law enforcement officers across the
country to function as the eyes and ears of an extended national
security community.23 Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff, while
denying that the federal government had any intention of controlling fusion centers,
declared that what we want to do is not create a single [fusion center], but a
network of [centers] all across the country.24
FEDERAL FUNDING IS KEY TO FUSION CENTERS FUNCTIONING AT THE HEART OF
DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

The plan SOLVES as fusion centers have generated controversy over loss of privacy
and the chill of free expression due to OVERREACH that is based on clever legal
strategies to avoid extant strictures on information sharing that CIRCUMVENT
traditional accountability measures. The BLAME GAME between Federal and State
law enforcement has allowed Congress to fund FUSION CENTERS to the tune of 500
million in federal grants

Citron et al. 11 [Danielle Keats, professor at University of Maryland school of

Law, Frank Pasquale, professor at Seton Hall University School of Law, Network
Accountability for the Domestic Intelligence Apparatus, http://goo.gl/Edpe8k,
Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 62, 1442, 2011] MG
A new domestic intelligence network has made vast amounts of data available to
federal and state agencies and law enforcement officials . The network is
anchored by "fusion centers," novel sites of intergovernmental
collaboration that generate and share intelligence and information . Several
fusion centers have generated controversy for engaging in extraordinary measures
that place citizens on watch lists, invade citizens' privacy, and chill free expression.
In addition to eroding civil liberties, fusion center overreach has resulted in wasted resources

without concomitant gains in security. While many scholars have assumed that this network
represents a trade-off between security and civil liberties, our study of fusion centers suggests these goals are, in

Too often, fusion centers' structure has been based on clever

legal strategies for avoiding extant strictures on information sharing, rather than on
objective analysis of terror threats. The "information sharing environment" created
by fusion centers has short-circuited traditional modes of agency accountability. Our
fact, mutually reinforcing.

twentieth-century model of agency accountability cannot meaningfully address twenty-first-century agency

coordination. A new concept of accountability - "network accountability" - is needed to address the shortcomings of
fusion centers. Network accountability has technical, legal, and institutional dimensions. Technical standards can
render data exchange between agencies in the network better subject to review. Legal redress mechanisms can
speed the correction of inaccurate or inappropriate information. A robust strategy is necessary to institutionalize

domestic intelligence is daily generated and

shared. n5 Federal agencies, including the DHS, gather information in conjunction with
state and local law enforcement officials in what Congress has deemed the
"information sharing environment" ("ISE"). n6 The ISE is essentially a network, with
hubs known as "fusion centers" whose federal and state analysts gather and share
data and intelligence on a wide range of threats. The network's architects have assured
these aspects of network accountability. Nevertheless,

congressional panels, journalists, and concerned citizens that interagency communications accord with relevant
laws and that information gathering is targeted and focused. n7 They claim that fusion centers raise few new privacy
concerns, n8 and that any privacy problems are well in hand. n9 They reason that any [*1444] given fusion center
employee must simply follow the privacy and civil liberties policy of his or her employer - be it a local, state, or
national agency.n10 DHS and local fusion center leaders claim their network only menaces criminals and terrorists,
not ordinary citizens. n11 Unfortunately, a critical mass of abuses and failures at fusion centers over the past few
years makes it impossible to accept these assurances at face value. Fusion centers facilitate a domestic
intelligence network that collapses traditional distinctions between law enforcement and foreign wars, between
federal and state authorities, and between government surveillance and corporate data practices. By operating at

circumvent traditional accountability measures.

Inadequate oversight of fusion centers has led to significant infringements on civil
liberties. Years after they were initiated, advocates of fusion centers have failed to
give more than a cursory account of the benefits they provide. Were fusion center abuses
the seams of state and federal laws, they

consistently associated with anti-terror accomplishments, the new ISE might pose a tragic, yet necessary, choice
between security and liberty. However, a critical mass of cases, explored in detail in Part I, suggests that the lack of

In
2008, Minnesota law enforcement, working with the state's fusion center, engaged in
intelligence-led policing to identify potential threats to the upcoming Republican
National Convention ("RNC"). n12 Police deployed infiltrators to report on political
groups and tapped into various groups' information exchanges. n13 The fusion center spent
oversight of fusion centers is both eroding civil liberties and wasting resources. Consider two recent cases.

more than 1000 hours analyzing potential threats to the RNC. n14 A fusion center report, distributed to more than
1300 law enforcement officers, identified bottled water, first-aid supplies, computers, and pamphlets as potential
evidence of threats. n15 Another report warned law enforcement that demonstrators would "collect and stockpile
items at various locations ... . Anything that seems out of place [*1445] for its location could indicate the stockpiling
of supplies to be used against first responders." n16 Because the fusion center had advised police to be on the
lookout for feces and urine that protestors might attempt to throw during clashes on the street, police pulled over a
bus after noticing that it contained two five-gallon buckets in the rear. n17 What they found was chicken feed, not
feces. n18 Days later, at the convention, police arrested 800 people: Most of the charges were dropped or

Ginned up to confront a
phantom terror threat, the fusion center-led operations did little more
than disrupt a peaceful political protest. Fusion center overreach is not limited to Minnesota
downgraded once prosecutors reviewed the police allegations and activity.

n19

or notable events like those involving RNC. Over a nineteen-month period in 2004 and 2005, Maryland state police
conducted surveillance of human rights groups, peace activists, and death penalty opponents.

n20

As a result,

fifty-

three nonviolent political activists were classified as "terrorists ," including two Catholic nuns

and a Democratic candidate for local office. n21 A Maryland fusion center shared the erroneous terrorist
classifications with federal drug enforcement and terrorist databases, as well as with the National Security
Administration (NSA). n22 The ISE has yet to provide a systematic redress mechanism to remove misinformation from
databases spread throughout the networked environment or to address the stigma that can result from
misclassifications. Had the ACLU of Maryland not fortuitously discovered the fusion center's activities in connection
with an open records request, the political activists might have remained on these watch lists. In response to these
and other similar incidents, Bruce Fein, an associate deputy attorney general under Ronald Reagan, argued that
fusion centers conceive the business of gathering and sharing intelligence as "synonymous with monitoring and

disparaging political dissent and association protected by the First Amendment." n23 A fusion center official
confirmed Fein's concern by noting: [*1446] You can make an easy kind of a link that, if you have a protest group
protesting a war where the cause that's being fought against is international terrorism, you might have terrorism at

If a domestic
intelligence agency conducted such outrageous surveillance of innocent political
activists, ordinary institutions of oversight familiar from administrative law - such as judicial review and costbenefit analysis - could directly address the problem. n25 Yet misdirected surveillance
remains a concern, because it is unclear who exactly is responsible for these abuses
that protest. You can almost argue that a protest against [the war] is a terrorist act. n24

- state and local police or federal funders of fusion centers? The structure of the ISE poses important new
challenges to administrative law, a body of law built to address actions of individual agencies rather than the
interactions of a network of agencies. Since it focuses on individual agencies, traditional administrative law is illequipped to assure a network's accountability. Participants in fusion centers have often attempted to shift blame for

DHS officials insist that state and local authorities are ultimately
responsible for fusion center activities, even as they distribute grants and guidelines
that shape fusion center activity. n26 As state and municipal budgets contract due to
declining tax revenues and fiscal retrenchment, local officials may feel pressed to
feed information and find threats in order to maintain the flow of federal funding.
their shortcomings.

There are many reasons to worry about the types of influence and information exchange this relationship betokens.
Unlike centralized programs to which the privacy and civil liberties community could rapidly respond, fusion centers

fusion centers have so far

evaded oversight from watchdogs focused on traditional law enforcement
institutions. n27 This Article examines the new ISE, in which privacy invasions, chilled speech,
and costly distractions from core intelligence missions increasingly emanate from
dysfunctional transactions within networks of agencies rather than from any
particular entity acting unilaterally. We argue that basic administrative law principles of due process
are diffuse and difficult to monitor. More a network than an institution,

should apply just as forcefully to agency interactions as they do to agency actions. Certain exchanges of
information between agencies should be monitored, even in a general environment of openness and collaboration.
[*1447] The argument proceeds as follows: Part I offers a comprehensive description of fusion centers, based on a
wide range of primary and secondary sources and litigation materials. Part II critiques the current operations of
fusion centers, concluding that the centers have eroded privacy and civil liberties without concomitant gains in
security. Fortunately, officials at the DHS (the main agency funding fusion centers) have begun to realize the scope
of these problems, as we describe in Part III.A. They are even beginning to recognize one of the central arguments
of this piece: that liberty and security are mutually reinforcing, because nearly all the problematic abuses at fusion
centers are distractions from their central anti-crime and anti-terror missions. However, there are still critical
shortcomings in DHS oversight of fusion centers, as we demonstrate in III.B: The agency is trying to apply a
twentieth-century model of agency accountability to twenty-first-century interagency coordination. The solution, we
argue in Part IV, is network accountability: technical and legal standards that render interactions between the parts
of the ISE subject to review and correction. n28 We advance protocols for auditing fusion center activities, including
"write-once, read-many" technology and data integrity standards. Legal redress mechanisms for inaccurate or
inappropriate targeting can be built on this foundation of data. Finally, in Part V, we promote standards of
interagency governance designed to hold the ISE accountable. Without objective performance standards, fusion
centers may consume an ever larger share of our security and law enforcement budget without demonstrating their
worth. Advances in interagency governance in other fields suggest new paths for network accountability in the
context of fusion centers. As they are presently run, fusion centers all but guarantee further inclusion of innocents
on watch lists and wasteful investigation of activists with no connections to crime or terrorism. n29 Fusion centers'
actions inconvenience both civilians and law enforcers, unfairly tarnish reputations, and deter legitimate dissent. In
this Article, we propose a framework for identifying and preventing future abuses. Principles of open government
inform our analysis throughout. A policy of de facto total information awareness by the government should be
complemented [*1448] by increasing accountability - specifically, the network accountability we define and defend
in this Article. I. Domestic Surveillance Partnerships: Fusion Centers and Beyond After 9/11, policymakers argued
that government agencies could have prevented the attacks if they had "connected the dots" by synthesizing and
analyzing available information. n30 Accused of incompetence, officials defended themselves by arguing that law
prevented cooperation among domestic law enforcement officials and military and foreign intelligence personnel. n31
In response, Congress established an "information sharing environment" that would anticipate threats and improve
the exchange of "terrorism information" among all levels of government, tribal entities, and the private sector. n32 To
orchestrate the ISE, the Department of Homeland Security, along with the Department of Justice (DOJ), coordinates
with state, local, and regional fusion centers to share, access, and collaborate on terrorism-related information. n33
According to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, fusion centers play a crucial role in "analyzing
intelligence ... sharing information, getting information out, and receiving information from" the public and private
This Part describes the central role that fusion centers play in our domestic surveillance
apparatus. [*1449] A. Fusion Center Operations State and federal law enforcement rarely
sectors.

n34

shared information and intelligence before 9/11. n35 Since then, Congress has
allocated over $ 500 million in grants to fusion centers to encourage
collaboration. n36 Fusion centers "co-locate under one roof" representatives of state and federal agencies to
"collect and share" information and intelligence. n37Although states and localities run fusion
centers, the federal government provides additional analysts, often from the DHS, the
FBI, the National Guard, and the Coast Guard.n38 Private entities have close ties with fusion centers as well. In DHS
Secretary Janet Napolitano's view, private firms "need to be prepared and trained and co-located" at fusion centers.
n39
Increasingly, this has meant that private firms send employees to work at fusion centers. n40 A Boeing intelligence
analyst, for instance, is employed full-time at the Washington Joint Analytical Center ("WJAC"). n41 Boeing enjoys
"real-time access to information from the fusion centers," while the center obtains Boeing's "mature intelligence
capabilities." n42 According to a [*1450] Boeing executive, the company hopes "to set an example of how private
owners of critical infrastructure can get involved in such centers to generate and receive criminal and anti-terrorism
intelligence." n43 Starbucks, Amazon, and Alaska Airlines have expressed interest in placing analysts at the WJAC. n44

fusion centers now

typically devote themselves to the detection and prevention of "all hazards, all
crimes, all threats." n45 Their central functions involve intelligence gathering and
information sharing. Fusion centers produce operational and strategic intelligence. n46 In their operational
B. Core Functions Originally conceived as part of the country's anti-terrorism efforts,

role, they generate analyses on particular suspects or crimes. n47 In their strategic role, fusion centers use predictive
data-mining tools that search datasets to identify crime trends and patterns. n48 For example, the Dallas fusion
center analyzes "vast quantities of information" to "understand crime patterns and identify individuals and locations
that represent the highest threat to the community." n49 [*1451] Fusion centers' guiding principle is "the more data,
the better." n50 As fusion center officials note, "There is never ever enough information ... . That's what post-9/11 is
about." n51 To that end, fusion centers access public-and private-sector databases of traffic tickets, property records,
identity-theft reports, drivers' license listings, immigration records, tax information, public-health data, criminal
justice sources, car rentals, credit reports, postal and shipping services, utility bills, gaming, insurance claims, databroker dossiers, and the like. n52 Fusion centers mine information posted online n53 and footage from video cameras
installed by law enforcement, transportation, and corporate security departments. n54 For instance, the Port of Long
Beach's fusion center analyzes real-time videos from public and private cameras deployed at truck sites,
warehouses, and rail corridors. n55 An Arizona fusion center hopes to use "facial recognition technology" so that
fusion centers can analyze surveillance tapes. n56 Fusion centers assess tips from citizens n57 and suspicious activity
reports ("SARs"). n58

Without guidelines, and with rampant abuse occurring, the only

remaining option is to defund Fusion Centers.

ACLU no date but cites 2012 American Civil Liberties Union, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to upholding constitutional rights, over 500,000
members, and a legal assistance provider. (ACLU, More About Fusion Centers,
2012, https://www.aclu.org/more-about-fusion-centers?redirect=spy-files/moreabout-fusion-centers)//RP
Fusion centers are also the focal point for growing suspicious activity reporting
programs that encourage public reporting of innocuous everyday activities. The
Colorado Information and Analysis Center even produced a fear-mongering
public service announcement asking the public to report innocuous
behaviors such as photography, note-taking, drawing and collecting
money for charity as "warning signs" of terrorism. The George Washington
University Homeland Security Policy Institute published a survey of fusion center
employees in September 2012, which characterized suspicious activity reports as
white noise that impeded effective intelligence analysis. There is some good
news, however. The 2010 DHS Homeland Security Grant Program established a
requirement that fusion centers certify that privacy and civil liberties protections are
in place in order to use DHS grant funds. This is the first time DHS has
acknowledged its authority to regulate fusion center activities and it coincides with
the establishment of a new DHS Joint Fusion Center Program Management Office to
oversee DHS support to fusion centers. While these are only small steps, they are

important advances toward establishing an effective governance and oversight

structure over fusion centers. But reforms are not taking place fast enough
and fusion centers and the risks they pose only continue to grow. In October
2012, the Senate Homeland Security Committee Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations released a highly critical report on fusion centers, revealing that
public officials claims about their effectiveness were not accurate, that federal
funds designated for fusion centers were not properly accounted for, and
that intelligence analysts and reports officers lacked sufficient training
and often produced reports that infringed on civil rights. In response, the
conservative Heritage Foundation called for cutting back the number of fusion
centers. With ample evidence of abuse, the time has come for Congress and
your local government representatives to act by cutting off funds to fusion
centers that do not have a narrowly-tailored law enforcement mission,
strict guidelines to protect Americans privacy, and independent oversight
to prevent abuse.

2AC CASE EXTENSIONS

2AC CASE OVERVIEW

A systematic brick by brick dismantling of racism is key.

BARNDT

Director of Crossroads, a non profit organization

2k7

Joseph-has been a parish pastor and an antiracism trainer and organizer for
thirty years, much of the latter work being done with Crossroads Ministry,
Chicago, which he directed for eighteen years; Understanding and
Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-First Century Challenge To White America;
pp.219-220
To study racism is to study walls. In every chapter of this book, we have looked at barriers and fences,

We have examined a prison

of racism that confines us all-people of color and white people alike. Victimizers as well
as victims are in shackles. The walls of the prison forcibly separate communities of color
and white communities from each other, as well as divide communities of color from each other.
In our separate prisons we are all shut off from each other. The constraints imposed on people
restraints and limitations, ghettos and prisons, bars and curtains.

of color by subservience, powerlessness, and poverty are inhuman and injust; but the effects of
uncontrolled power, privilege, and greed that are the marks of our white prison inevitably destroy
white people as well.

To dismantle racism is to tear down walls . The walls of racism can be dismantled. We
are offered the vision and the possibility of
freedom. Brick by brick, stone by stone, the prison of individual, institutional, and
cultural racism can be destroyed. It is an organizing task that can be accomplished .
are not condemned to an inexorable fate, but

You and I are urgently called to join the efforts of those who know it is time to tear down, once and for
all the walls of racism.

Facing up to these realities offers new possibilities,

but refusing to face them threatens yet great dangers. The results of centuries of national
and worldwide colonial conquest and racial domination , of military buildups and violent
aggression, of over-consumption and environmental destruction may be reaching a point of no return.
The moment of self-destruction seems to be drawing every more near, nationally and globally . A small and
predominately white minority of the global population derives its power and privilege
from the sufferings of the vast majority of peoples of color. For the sake of the
world and ourselves, we dare not allow it to continue.
Dismantling racism also means building something new. It means building an antiracist
society. The bricks that were used to build the walls of the prison must now be used for a better
purpose. Just as we must tear down wall brick by brick, so also we must build new
structures of power and justice. Although we still need many more reminders that we cannot
The walls of racism must be dismantled.

build a multiracial and multicultural society without tearing down the walls of racism, this negative

we cannot tear down the walls

without building new antiracist structures of power in our institutions and
communities. Transforming and building anti-racist institutions is the path to a racism-free society.
reminder must be turned around and stated in reverse:

AFFIRMATION OF THE 1AC IS THE BRICK OF RACISM TO BE

REMOVED
We can help BLACK LIVES MATTER by ensuring technology does not CEMENT
a racial hierarchy, changing the cultural terrain that makes killing Black
people routine. We can change the story of SURVEILLANCE through the
discourse of voices unheard and birth a new norm of equity and justice so
that the JIM CROW SURVEILLANCE STATE exists no more.

CYRIL

founder and executive director of the Center for Media Justice 2k15
Malkia Amala-co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots Network, a national network of 175 organizations working
to ensure media access, rights, and representation for marginalized communities; Black Americas State of
Surveillance; THE PROGRESSIVE; April; http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-statesurveillance THANKS JP; DB LOVES YA

We can help black lives matter by ensuring that technology is not used to cement
a racial hierarchy that leaves too many people like me dead or in jail. Our communities
need partners, not gatekeepers. Together, we can change the cultural terrain that makes
killing black people routine. We can counter inequality by ensuring that both the technology and the
police departments that use it are democratized. We can change the story on surveillance to
raise the voices of those who have been left out. There are no voiceless people,
only those that aint been heard yet. Lets birth a new norm in which the
technological tools of the twenty-first century create equity and justice for allso
all bodies enjoy full and equal protection, and the Jim Crow surveillance state
exists no more.

SYSTEM IS RACIST
Prisons are the new Plantations, industry explodes after abolition of
slavery with the okay of 13 Amendment

Heitzeg 15 (Nancy A. Professor of Sociology & Critical Studies of Race and Ethnicity at St. Catherine
University. On The Occasion Of The 50th Anniversary Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964: Persistent White Supremacy,
Relentless Anti-Blackness, And The Limits Of The Law Hamline University's School of Law's Journal of Public Law
and Policy Volume 36 Issue 1 Article 3 http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1011&context=jplp 7/18/15
In the aftermath of the Civil War, the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments seemed to promise an end the abolition of slavery, due process
and equal protection at both state and federal levels, and full citizenship via the franchise (at least for Black men). Angela Y. Davis, in Are
Prisons Obsolete?, traces

the initial rise of the penitentiary system to the abolition of slavery ;

[I]n the immediate aftermath of slavery, the southern states hastened to develop a
criminal justice system that could legally restrict the possibilities of freedom for the newly
released slaves. 28 There was a subsequent transformation of the Slave Codes into the
Black Codes and the plantations into prisons . Southern states quickly passed laws that
echoed the restrictions associated with slavery, re-inscribed the property interests of whiteness , and
criminalized a range of activities of the perpetrator was black. 29 These laws were
enforced by former slave patrols turned police agencies, with the assistance of
extra-legal militias, and the white citizenry in general, who are merely protected by these same police, but per
Wilderson not simply protected by the police, they are in their very corporeality the police.30All this becomes
possible because the 13th Amendment Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude
shall exist in the United States contained a dangerous loophole- except as a punishment for crime. This
allowed for the conversion of the old plantations to penitentiaries the 18,000 acre
Louisiana Penitentiary at Angola is a case in point and the creation of prison farms such as Parchmann in
Mississippi and the infamous Tucker Prison Farm and Cummins Prison Farm in Arkansas.31 Sheriffs, jailors and wardens
leased out entire prisons to private contractors who literally worked thousands of
prisoners to death in labor camps, on chain gangs, and in prison farms . These
prisoners were largely black; in the post-Civil War South the racial composition of prison and jail populations shifted
dramatically from majority White to majority Black, and in many states increased ten-fold. 32 As Davis notes, the expansion of
the convict lease system and the county chain gang meant that the antebellum criminal justice system, defined
criminal justice largely as a means for controlling black labor.33

Colorblind Policies fuel racial discrimination in the Criminal Justice

System- War on Drugs

Heitzeg 15 (Nancy A. Professor of Sociology & Critical Studies of Race and Ethnicity at St. Catherine
University. On The Occasion Of The 50th Anniversary Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964: Persistent White Supremacy,
Relentless Anti-Blackness, And The Limits Of The Law Hamline University's School of Law's Journal of Public Law
and Policy Volume 36 Issue 1 Article 3 http://digitalcommons.hamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1011&context=jplp 7/18/15

The Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954) is often used as the
benchmark for chronicling the start of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. 39 The Courts unanimous rejection of Plessys
separate but equal provided a new Federal framework with which to challenge Jim Crow segregation on the state and local levels. It offered the
back drop for the Montgomery bus boycott, the resistance in Birmingham, Bloody Sunday, the voter registration drives of Freedom Summer, and
ultimately, passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Right Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and the 24th Amendment to the
Constitution.40While there was hope again that the law itself could be pressed into the service

of racial equality, those victories now seem bittersweet . Bell argues that the Brown
decision and the ensuing Federal legislation were silent covenants of interestconvergence, where perceived self-interest of whites rather than the racial

injustices suffered by Blacks have been the major motivation in racial-remediation

policies. 41 Judge Robert L. Carter, one of the attorneys who argued Brown goes further, . . .the fundamental vice was not legally enforced
racial segregation itself; this was a mere by- product, a symptom of the greater and more pernicious disease -white supremacy.42 Legally
supported segregation was uprooted without dislodging either white supremacy or anti-Blackness, now cloaked in
race-neutral rhetoric of color-blindness. The color-blind Constitution and the
race-neutral requirement of Federal Civil Rights legislation now serves as
convenient cover for the persistence of institutionalized racism . Racially coded but
race-neutral rhetoric is widely used in debates over welfare reform, affirmative action, and particularly law and order
criminal justice policy; 43 in all these cases, the coded racial sub-text reads clearly, and the resultant policies, while purportedly race neutral,

have resulted in disproportionate harm to people of color, especially African

Americans. While race is now widely the text/subtext of political debate,
systemic racism still remains largely absent from either political discourse
or policy debates of all sorts, including those related to criminal injustice. In the Post-Civil Rights Era, there has been
a corresponding shift from de jure racism codified explicitly into the law and legal systems to a de facto racism where people of color, especially

African Americans, are subject to unequal protection of the laws, excessive

surveillance, police terror, extreme segregation, a brutal and biased death penalty,
and neo-slave labor via incarceration all in the name of crime control . 44 Law and order

criminal justice policies are all guided by thinly coded appeals to white fears of high crime neighborhoods, crack epidemics, gang proliferation,
juvenile super predators, urban unrest, school violence, and more. In all these case, the sub-text reads clearly fear of brown and especially
Black people. As before, law, policing and punishment are central to the ongoing exclusion of Blacks from civic life. Post slavery, the
criminalizing narrative was a cultural feature of on-going efforts at oppression; from convict lease/plantain prison farms to the contemporary
prison industrial complex the control of black bodies for profit has been furthered by the criminal justice system. Slave Codes become Black
Codes and now Black Codes become gang legislation, three-strikes and the War on Drugs in the persistent condemnation of Blackness. 46 As
before, the criminal legal system is the primary mechanism for undoing the promised protections of Federal Civil Rights legislation and
constitutes again, the major affront to the fulfillment of the 13th, 14th and 25th Amendments. The United States has the highest

incarceration rate in the world, with a population of 2.3 million behind bars that constitutes
25% of the worlds prisoners. 47 The increased rate of incarceration can be traced to the War on Drugs and the rise of lengthy
mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug crimes and other felonies. These policies have proliferated, not in response to crime rate or any
empirical data that indicates their effectiveness, due to newfound sources of profit for prisons. 48 As Brewer and Heitzeg (2008) observe: 45

The prison industrial complex is a self-perpetuating machine where the vast profits
(e.g. cheap labor, private and public supply and construction contracts, job creation, continued media profits from exaggerated crime reporting
and crime/punishment as entertainment) and perceived political benefits (e.g. reduced unemployment rates, get tough on
crime and public safety rhetoric, funding increases for police, and criminal justice system agencies and professionals) lead

to policies
that are additionally designed to insure an endless supply of clients for the
criminal justice system (e.g. enhanced police presence in poor neighborhoods and
communities of color; racial profiling; decreased funding for public education combined with zero-tolerance policies
and increased rates of expulsion for students of color; increased rates of adult certification for juvenile offenders; mandatory minimum and
three-strikes sentencing; draconian conditions of incarceration and a reduction of prison services that contribute to the likelihood of
recidivism; collateral consequences-such as felony disenfranchisement, prohibitions on welfare receipt, public housing, gun ownership,
voting and political participation, employment- that nearly guarantee continued participation in crime and return to the prison industrial
complex following initial release.) The 13th Amendment claim of abolition remains unfulfilled, as the neo- slavery of the prison industrial
complex becomes the current vehicle for controlling Black bodies for political and economic gain. The trend towards mass

incarceration is marred by racial disparity. While 1 in 35 adults is under correctional

supervision and 1 in every 100 adults is in prison , 1 in every 36 Latino adults ,1 in every 15
black men, 1 in every 100 black women, and 1 in 9 black 49 men ages 20 to 34 are
incarcerated.50 Despite no statistic differences in rates of offending, approximately 50% of all prisoners are
black, 30% are white, and 20% are Latino ;.51 These disparities are indicative of
differential enforcement practices rather than an differences in criminal
participation. This is particularly true of drug crimes, which account for the bulk of the increased prison
population. Even though Blacks and whites use and sell drugs comparable rates, African
Americans are anywhere from 3 to 10 times more likely to be arrested, and
additionally likely to receive harsher sentences than their white counterparts.
52

Legal System Designed to Discriminate against African Americans

White supremacy relies on Colorblind Legal Language that masks
Anti-blackness, Fighting Anti-blackness must go beyond the Law

Brewer and Heitzeg 08 (Rose- PhD in Afro-American & African Studies, professor at University of
Minnesota, Nancy A. Professor of Sociology & Critical Studies of Race and Ethnicity at St. Catherine University. The
Racialization of Crime and Punishment: Criminal Justice, Complex Color-Blind Racism, and the Political Economy of
the Prison Industrial American Behavioral Scientist Volume 51 Number 5. Jan. 2008
http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/5/625 7/19/15)
Indeed, if so-called civil justice is at the foundation of the persistent White supremacist

economic and political structure, then it is futile to call for only macro-level political
and legal remedies. It is, we will argue, this very civil justice that has been used in the service of a series of racial projects. It has
been used to enslave, to segregate, to mete out unequal punishments for comparable crimes on the basis of race. In the past, it has been used to
explicitly reify via the law the essentialist White supremacist paradigm. At present, civil justice has been at the

center of legal claims of color-blindness, forwarding the notion that if race is no

longer the basis for legalized discrimination, then it is no longer relevant to the law
at all. It is civil justice that currently claims that when explicit racial discrimination is removed from the language of the law, it is magically
removed from any societal impact and any subsequent legal remedy. Social justice requires that the role of civil
justice in racialization be made transparent. This requires social justice projects that
emanate from the micro level, from stories and struggle. Using the theory and methods of Critical Race
Theory (CRT), this article will attempt to begin this work. CRT proceeds from the premise that racial privilege and related oppression are deeply
rooted in both our history and our law, thus making racism a normal and ingrained feature of our landscape (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000, p.
xvii). CRT acknowledges the myriad ways in which the legal constructions of race have produced and reproduced systemic economic, political,
and social advantages for Whites. Challenges to racism require micro-level efforts to expose the deep

structures of racism first made possible by the legal benefits of what Harris (1993) called whiteness as property. Whiteness
produced both tangible and intangible value to those who possessed it: The concept of whiteness was premised on white supremacy rather than
mere difference. White was defined and constructed in ways that increased its value by reinforcing its exclusivity. Indeed, just as whiteness as
property embraced the right to exclude, whiteness as a theoretical construct evolved for the very purpose of racial exclusion. Thus, the concept of
whiteness is built on both exclusion and racial subjugation. This fact was particularly evident during the period of the most rigid racial exclusion,
as whiteness signified racial privilege and took the form of status property. (Harris, 1993, p. 116) Removing White

supremacy from the law did not, of course, erase its property benefits, nor
did a shift to color-blindness in the law eradicate racism. CRT offers a
critique of civil rights legal reforms by noting that they failed to
fundamentally challenge racial inequality. As Bell (2000) noted, the subordination of
blacks seems to reassure whites of an unspoken, but no less certain, property right in their
whiteness (p. 7). In the postcivil rights era, this subordination continues via color-blind
legal mechanisms, particularly criminal justice. (It should be noted that whereas all communities of color suffer from racism in
general and its manifestation in criminal justice in particular, Black has been the literal and figurative
counterpart of White. Anti-Black racism is arguably at the very
foundation of White supremacy [Bonilla-Silva, 2001, 2006; Feagin, 2000]. For this reason, in combination with the
excessive overrepresentation of African Americans in the criminal justice system and the prison industrial complex, our analysis will largely
focus on the ways in which the law has been a tool for the oppression of African Americans.)

Black as a label is seen as Deviant, therefore increase in Negative

attention from Media shapes policies and creates policing
disparities- Leads to Mass Incarceration

Heitzeg 2011(Nancy A. Professor of Sociology & Critical Studies of Race and Ethnicity at St. Catherine
University Differentials in Deviance: Race, Class, Gender and Age the International Handbook of Deviant Behavior
http://minerva.stkate.edu/people.nsf/files/mina82vm3a/$file/differnetialsindeviancel.pdf 7/18/15
An alternative tradition in the sociology of deviance focuses on the relationship between deviant labeling and race, class, gender and age. The
concern here is less with differentials in deviant behavior but rather with differentials in social control. This approach begins with the questions

Who is labeled deviant and who has the power to create and apply the labels? Race,
class, gender and age are key components of the answer; these statuses give rise to power

or oppression and are central to labeling and social control. It is this theoretical tradition that provided
the most insight into the role that race, class gender and age play in the definition and control of deviance. This analysis has its roots in the early
works of both Marx and Durkheim as well as the later perspectives of Critical/Conflict theory, labeling, and functional-labeling theory, The initial
work relied heavily on the examination of the social class/class interests in shaping the law and its enforcement against the poor and created the
framework for further examination of inequality, power and labeling (Black 1989; Quinney 1970; Lauderdale 2003), Goofmans classic Stigma;
Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity (1963) expanded the discussion to race, and gender and age were included in analyses soon after.
These foundational perspectives lay the groundwork for understanding race,

class, gender and age as stigmatized

statuses that are subject to social control by those with the power to create and
apply deviant labels. To the extent that the privileged and empowered norm is white,
male, financially well off, heterosexual and adult, then systems of social control
maintain their interests, while people of color, women, the poor, GLBT persons, and the
young become the Other and abnormal, the deviant. (Goffman 1963; Bonilla-Silva 2001). These
stigmatized Others have been subject to labeling and social control based on the intersection of race, class, gender and age. And, while there are
deviants of all classes, all races, all genders and ages, the ways they are controlled reflect their relative social status. A substantial literature on
stigma and related stereotypes explored how these statuses alone or in combination give rise to informal, medical and legal social control; the
homeless, female athletes, AIDS patients, style subcultures, and the young, black male all have been examined through the lens of stigma (Gans
1995; Lynwiler and Gay 2000; Perry 2001; Weitz 2002; Zellner 1995). The

informal stigmas of race, class gender

and age often provide the foundation for escalations in social control . Much current literature
focuses attention on the systems of social control and how they operate to create and enforce rules that direct attention to select deviants
relative to race, class, gender and age. Increasingly, media is cited as a force in shaping public perceptions of deviance. Corporate crime and
governmental deviance is minimized, re-framed or ignored, while street crime and various epidemics of deviance rule the air waves. Media
perpetuates stereotypes and fuels moral panics and the culture of fear (Fyrmer 2009; Glassner 1999; McCorkle

and Miethe
1998) Media stereotypes relative to race, class gender and age become precursors
to social policies that escalate social control, leading to the medicalization of the redeemable
while middle and upper classes and criminalization for the poor and communities of color (Conrad and
Schneider 1998; Heitzeg 2009) Media has furthered the medicalization of deviance; epidemics of Disorders of Infancy Childhood and
Adolescence, Eating Disorders, self-mutilations, addictions, depression and suicide are a news cycle staple raising concerns especially for
youthful and females deviance (Birkland and Lawrence 2009; Ferrell and Websdale 1999; Males 1996; Weitz 2003). Perhaps mostly significantly

media endlessly regales the public with stories of crime -- drug epidemics, schoolshooting sprees, gang proliferation, and exaggerated accounts of violent crime,
most often with young men of color as the perpetrator . The research indicates that violent crime
and youth crime is dramatically over-represented, crime coverage has increased in
spite of falling crime rates, African Americans and Latinos are over-represented as
offenders and under-represented as victims, and inter-racial crime, especially crimes
involving white victims, is over-reported (Hancock 2001; Walker, Spohn, and Delone 2007). A large body of work
documents the relationship between race, class, gender and age and formal social control by the juvenile and adult
criminal justice systems. Topics of study include: racial profiling, increased police attention to youth gangs, the War on
Drugs, the proliferation of zero tolerance policies in schools and the shift towards punitive policies in juvenile justice, the school to prison
pipeline, the rise of mass incarceration and the prison industrial complex , the death penalty, and the proliferation of collateral
consequences for many felony convictions such as voter disenfranchisement, denial of Federal welfare, medical, housing or educational benefits,
accelerated time-lines for loss of parental rights, and exclusion from any number of employment opportunities (Brewer and Heitzeg 2008;
Heitzeg 2009; Mauer and Chesney-Lind 2002; Sheldon, Tracy and Brown, 2001; Zatz and Krejicker 2003). It is clear from the research that these
variables are indeed better predictors of arrest, criminal processing, sentencing, incarceration and execution than actual participation in criminal

A
brief glimpse into criminal justice statistics immediately reveals these intersections.
Despite no real statistical differences in rates of offending, the poor, the undereducated, the young and people of color are over-represented in at every phase of
the criminal and juvenile justice systems from arrest to death row . While 1 in 35
adults is under correctional supervision and 1 in every 100 adults is in priso n, 1 in every 36
Latino adults, one in every 15 black men, 1 in every 100 black women, and 1 in 9 black
men ages 20 to 34 are incarcerated (Pew 2008). The number of women incarcerated has increased tenfold during the
past two decades, and they are overwhelmingly women of color (BJS 2007). The race and class disparities are even greater for youth. Black
youth are two times more likely than white youth to be arrested, to be referred to
behavior may be. Again, the best analyses examine the intersection of race, class, gender and age and their relationship to social control.

juvenile court, to be adjudicated as delinquent or referred to the adult justice

system, and they are three times more likely than white youth to be sentenced to out-of home residential placement. And while boys are
five times as likely to be incarcerated as girls, girls are at increasing risk (Walker, Spohn and Delone 2007). Race, class, gender and age collide
and combine to create these extreme disparities of formal social control. Race, class, gender and age then are major factors in the social control of
deviance. These variables and their intersection are powerful indicators of both stigma and subsequent social control. While

race,
class gender and age may play a role in creating opportunities for deviant behavior,
their real significance is in shaping the differential direction of power and social
control. The intersection

F/C RACIST INTERNALS

The suspicious activity reports perpetuated by Fusion Centers are
racist, and target non-whites a vast majority of the time.

Kayyali 14 Boardmember of the National Lawyers Guild S.F. Bay Area, former
member of the 2012 Bill of Rights Defense Committee Legal Fellow, and member of
the EFF activism team. (Nadia Kayyali, Why Fusion Centers Matter: FAQ, April 7,
2014, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/why-fusion-centers-matter-faq)//RP
Do fusion centers increase racial and religious profiling? The weak
standards around SAR are particularly concerning because of the way they
can lead to racial and religious profiling. SARs can originate from
untrained civilians as well as law enforcement, and as one woman pointed out at
a BCOT event people who might already be a little racist who are 'observing' a
white man photographing a bridge are going to view it a little differently
than people observing me, a woman with a hijab, photographing a bridge.
The bottom line is that bias is not eliminated by so-called observed behavior
standards. Furthermore, once an investigation into a SAR has been initiated,
existing law enforcement bias can come into play; SARs give law enforcement a
reason to initiate contact that might not otherwise exist. Unsurprisingly, like most
tools of law enforcement, public records act requests have shown that people
of color often end up being the target of SARs: One review of SARs
collected through Public Records Act requests in Los Angeles showed that
78% of SARs were filed on non-whites. An audit by the Los Angeles Police
Department's Inspector General puts that number at 74%, still a shockingly high
number. A review of SARs obtained by the ACLU of Northern California also
show that most of the reports demonstrate bias and are based on
conjecture rather than articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Some of the
particularly concerning SARs include titles like "Suspicious ME [Middle Eastern]
Males Buy Several Large Pallets of Water" and "Suspicious photography of Folsom
Dam by Chinese Nationals." The latter SAR resulted in police contact: "Sac[ramento]
County Sheriffs Deputy contacted 3 adult Asian males who were taking photos of
Folsom Dam. They were evasive when the deputy asked them for identification and
said their passports were in their vehicle." Both of these SARs were entered into
FBI's eGuardian database. Not only that, there have been disturbing examples
of racially biased informational bulletins coming from fusion centers. A
2009 "North Central Texas Fusion Center Prevention Awareness Bulletin "
implies that tolerance towards Muslims is dangerous and that Islamic
militants are using methods such as "hip-hop boutiques" and "online social
networks" to indoctrinate youths in America.

Inherent racism exists within surveillance.

Rodack 12 Former member of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania department

of Public Welfare, Regulatory technician from the Bureau of Human Services.
(Kristen Rodack, Securing the Masses: An Analysis of the Inequalities of U.S.
Surveillance and Documentation Systems, April 8, 2012

https://pittfemtheorys12.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/securing-the-masses-ananalysis-of-the-inequalities-of-u-s-surveillance-and-documentation-systems/)//RP
My Imagine Otherwise project seeks to analyze and deconstruct the national
security system in the United States. Specifically, my project critiques surveillance
systems, and in particular, identity documents, that are used as a means of
securing the nation. Identity documents, and surveillance systems in general, are
used as a means of regulation of bodies. The current surveillance systems that
are being used are laden with racist and sexist ideologies, which hinder many
people. The inherent racism, sexism, and classism embedded in the
national security system does not allow for the security of bodies. Rather,
the current system allows for specific bodies to feel more secure, while
further marginalizing the majority of bodies. Through the current system,
people that hold socially and culturally powerful positions of race, class, gender, and
sexuality are free to move as they please, while other bodies that do not meet
the standards of American normativity are forced into specific spaces of
relative powerlessness. Surveillance systems, as well as the enforcement of
identity documents, are most prevalent in spaces of mobility. Spaces of mobility,
especially those of a transnational nature, are especially important to those
monitoring national security. It is assumed that national security is most threatened
in spaces of mobility, therefore, the regulation of such spaces are much higher than
may be true of a space that does not have the movement of bodies in and out of
the country. The hyperregulation of spaces of mobility, in terms of surveillance and
identity documents, leads to the marginalization of certain bodies from moving into
and out of countries. Through this project, I seek to reimagine a surveillance system
that does not focus on specific races, genders, sexualities, or classes, but that treats
all people in an equal manner. In doing so, I hope to create a system that will enable
a safer environment for all bodies as opposed to one that one protects one specific
type of body, and in doing so harms any body that does not meet the standards of
American normativity.

RACISM IMPACTS
Racism necessitates genocide and multiple forms of oppression.

Katz 97 - Katheryn Katz, Professor of Law, 1997, "The Clonal Child: Procreative
Liberty and Asexual Reproduction," Lexis-Nexis
It is undeniable that throughout human history dominant and oppressive
groups have committed unspeakable wrongs against those viewed as
inferior. Once a person (or a people) has been characterized as subhuman, there appears to have been no limit to the cruelty that was or will
be visited upon him. For example, in almost all wars, hatred towards the enemy
was inspired to justify the killing and wounding by separating the enemy
from the human race, by casting them as unworthy of human status. This
same rationalization has supported: genocide, chattel slavery, racial
segregation, economic exploitation, caste and class systems, coerced
sterilization of social misfits and undesirables, unprincipled medical
experimentation, the subjugation of women, and the social Darwinists'
theory justifying indifference to the poverty and misery of others.

Racism causes structural violence, leading to genocide.

Vorster 2 - J.M. Vorster 2 (Prof. of Ethics, writer on religious fundamentalism and

human rights, Advisor to the U.N. Human Rights Council, Racism, xenophobia, and
Human Rights, The Ecumenical Review
Although these three causes of racism can be logically distinguished, they are
mostly inter-related. Ideology can be the basis of fear, and greed can be justified by
ideology and even fear. One of the major manifestations of racism is
structural violence. State-organized genocide was a well-known
phenomenon in the centuries of colonialism. Several nations disappeared
altogether, or were reduced to tiny minorities, during the 19th century by the
United States and by European powers in Africa, Latin America, Australia and New
Zealand. (16) Nowadays the international community witnesses state organized
"ethnic" cleansing in Central Africa and Eastern Europe. (17) This "ethnic cleansing"
includes methods such as deportation, terror and so-called "legal forms" of
exclusion from the state concerned. However, structural violence based on racism
can have a more subtle form than state-organized terror and genocide. The
philosophy of liberation proved in the 1960s that systems--even democratic
systems--can become inherently violent. (18) In the maintenance of law
and order, and sometimes even under the guise of human rights, a
political and economic structure can exert violence to its subjects or a
group of them. This usually happens when the system is one-dimensional, that is,
when the system controls all spheres of life. The South African system in the period
1948-94 is a good example of a one-dimensional state. All spheres of life (even
morality, sexuality and marital life) were controlled by the state. This provides the
authorities with the means to discriminate in a "legitimate" way by introducing
social stratification. This concept, and the usual pattern of its development, require
further reflection. Social stratification is a system of legitimated, structured

social inequality in which groups receive disproportionate amounts of the

society's wealth, power and prestige and are socially ranked accordingly .
(19) Social stratification flows from the supposition that society consists of
irreconcilable groups and the premise that a unitary government with a general
franchise cannot govern these groups. The maintenance of division is, according to
this view, necessary for good and orderly government. The viewpoint in South Africa
since colonization in the 17th century was that whites and blacks should be kept
"apart" in order to have peace and prosperity for all. In this case the dividing
principle was along racial lines, but it can also, in other cases and regions, be along
ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious lines. This premise denies the fact that
pluralism can be maintained in a unitary state (in South Africa a unitary state was
seen as a danger for white and indigenous futures), and is based on the conviction
that nation-states are the only way to deal with pluralism. The dialectical
principle must lead to the "us-them" social attitude and structure, with (as
has been proven historically) total division and conflict developing according
to a particular pattern. In the "us-zone" the uniqueness of the own group is
idolized, and maintenance of one's own uniqueness is then of absolute importance.
To stimulate the "we feeling" and maintain a strong sense of solidarity, a community
will start with a reconstruction of its own history. (20)

There is no value to life in a racist society.

Mohan 93 - (Brij, Professor at LSU, Eclipse of Freedom: The World of Oppression,

Praeger Publishers p. 3-4)
Metaphors of existence symbolize variegated aspects of the human reality.
However, words can be apocalyptic. "There are words," de Beauvoir writes, "as
murderous as gas chambers" (1968: 30). Expressions can be unifying and explosive;
they portray explicit messages and implicit agendas in human affairs and social
configurations. Manifestly the Cold War is over. But the world is not without nuclear
terror. Ethnic strife and political instabilities in the New World Order -- following the
dissolution of the Soviet Union -- have generated fears of nuclear terrorism and
blackmail in view of the widening circle of nuclear powers. Despite encouraging
trends in nuclear disarmament, unsettling questions, power, and fear of terrorism
continue to characterize the crisis of the new age which is stumbling at the
threshold of the twenty-first century. The ordeal of existence transcends the
thermonuclear fever because the latter does not directly impact the day-to-day
operations if the common people. The fear of crime, accidents, loss of job, and
health care on one hand; and the sources of racism, sexism, and ageism
on the other hand have created a counterculture of denial and disbelief
that has shattered the faade of civility. Civilization loses its significance
when its social institutions become counterproductive. It is this aspect of the
mega-crisis that we are concerned about

Racism transcends physical murder, it destroys the spirit.

Williams 87 Associate Professor of Law at City University of New York
[Patricia, Spirit-murdering the messenger: the discourse of finger-pointing as the

laws response to racism, University of Miami Law Review, Sep, 42 U. Miami L. Rev.
127, LN]
The second purpose of this article is to examine racism as a crime, an offense
so deeply painful and assaultive as to constitute something I call "spiritmurder." Society is only beginning to recognize that racism is as devastating, as costly,
and as psychically obliterating as robbery or assault; indeed they are
often the same. Racism resembles other offenses against humanity whose structures are so deeply embedded in culture as to prove
extremely resistant to being recognized as forms of oppression. 7 It can be as difficult to prove as [*130] child abuse or rape, where the victim is forced to
convince others that he or she was not at fault, or that the perpetrator was not just "playing around." As in rape cases, victims of racism must prove that
they did not distort the circumstances, misunderstand the intent, or even enjoy it. On October 29, 1984, Eleanor Bumpurs, a 270-pound, arthritic, sixtyseven year old woman, was shot to death while resisting eviction from her apartment in the Bronx. She was $ 98.85, or one month, behind in her rent. 8
New York City Mayor Ed Koch and Police Commissioner Benjamin Ward described the struggle preceding her demise as involving two officers with plastic
shields, one officer with a restraining hook, another officer with a shotgun, and at least one supervising officer. All of the officers also carried service
revolvers. According to Commissioner Ward, during the course of the attempted eviction Mrs. Bumpurs escaped from the restraining hook [*131] twice and
wielded a knife that Commissioner Ward says was "bent" on one of the plastic shields. At some point, Officer Stephen Sullivan, the officer positioned
farthest away from her, aimed and fired his shotgun. It is alleged that the blast removed half of her hand, so that, according to the Bronx District
Attorney's Office, "[I]t was anatomically impossible for her to hold the knife." 9 The officer pumped his gun and shot again, making his mark completely
the second time around. 10 In the two and one-half year wake of this terrible incident, controversy raged as to whether Mrs. Bumpurs ought to have
brandished a knife and whether the officer ought to have fired his gun. In February 1987, a New York Supreme Court justice found Officer Sullivan not
guilty of manslaughter. 11 The case centered on a very narrow issue of language pitted against circumstance. District Attorney Mario Merola described the
case as follows: "Obviously, one shot would have been justified. But if that shot took off part of her hand and rendered her defenseless, whether there was
any need for a second shot, which killed her, that's the whole issue of whether you have reasonable force or excessive force." 12 My intention in the
following analysis is to underscore the significant task facing judges and lawyers in undoing institutional descriptions of what is "obvious" and what is not,
and in resisting the general predigestion of evidence for jury consumption. Shortly after Mr. Merola's statement, Officer Sullivan's attorney, Bruce Smiry,
expressed eagerness to try the case before a jury. 13 Following the heavily publicized attack in Howard Beach, however, he favored a bench trial. In
explaining his decision to request a nonjury trial, he stated: I think a judge will be much more likely than a jury to understand the defense that the
shooting was justified. . . . The average lay person might find it difficult to understand why the police were there in the first place, and why a shotgun was
employed. . . . Because of the climate now in the city, I don't want people perceiving this as a racial case. 14 Since 1984, Mayor Koch, Commissioner Ward,
and a host of [*132] other city officials repeatedly have described the shooting of Mrs. Bumpurs as completely legal. 15 At the same time, Commissioner
Ward has admitted publicly that Mrs. Bumpurs should not have died. Mayor Koch admitted that her death was the result of "a chain of mistakes and
circumstances" that came together in the worst possible way, with the worst possible circumstances. 16 Commissioner Ward admitted that the officers
could have waited for Mrs. Bumpurs to calm down, and that they could have used teargas or mace instead of gunfire. According to Commissioner Ward,
however, these observations are made with hindsight. As to whether this shooting of a black woman by a white police officer had racial overtones, he
stated that he had "no evidence of racism." 17 Commissioner Ward pointed out that he is sworn to uphold the law, which is "inconsistent with treating
blacks differently," 18 and that the shooting was legal because it was within the code of police ethics. 19 Finally, city officials have resisted criticism of the
police department's handling of the incident by remarking that "outsiders" do not know all of the facts and do not understand the pressure under which
officers labor. The root of the word "legal" is the Latin word lex, which means law in a fairly concrete sense -- law as we understand it when we refer to
written law, codes, and systems of obedience. 20 The word lex does not include the more abstract, ethical dimension of law that contemplates the
purposes of rules and their effective implementation. This latter meaning is contained in the Latin word jus, from which we derive the word "justice." 21
This semantic distinction is not insignificant. The word of law, whether statutory or judicial, is a subcategory of the underlying social motives and beliefs
from which it is born. It is the technical embodiment of attempts to order society according to a consensus of ideals. When society loses sight of those
ideals and grants obeisance to words alone, law becomes sterile and formalistic; lex is applied without jus and is therefore unjust. The result is compliance
[*133] with the letter of the law, but not the spirit. A sort of punitive literalism ensues that leads to a high degree of thoughtless conformity. This literalism
has, as one of its primary underlying values, order -- whose ultimate goal may be justice, but whose immediate end is the ordering of behavior. Living
solely by the letter of the law means living without spirit; one can do anything as long as it comports with the law in a technical sense. The cynicism or
rebelliousness that infects one's spirit, and the enthusiasm or dissatisfaction with which one conforms is unimportant. Furthermore, this compliance is
arbitrary; it is inconsistent with the will of the conformer. The law becomes a battleground of wills. The extent to which technical legalism obfuscates and
undermines the human motivations that generate our justice system is the real extent to which we as human beings are disenfranchised. Cultural needs
and ideals change with the momentum of time; redefining our laws in keeping with the spirit of cultural flux keeps society alive and humane. In the
Bumpurs case, the words of the law called for nonlethal alternatives first, but allowed some officer discretion in determining which situations are so
immediately life endangering as to require the use of deadly force. 22 This discretionary area was presumably the basis for the claim that Officer Sullivan
acted legally. The law as written permitted shooting in general, and therefore, by extension of the city's interpretation of this law, it would be impossible
for a police officer ever to shoot someone in a specifically objectionable way. [*134] If our laws are thus piano-wired on the exclusive validity of literalism,
if they are picked clean of their spirit, then society risks heightened irresponsibility for the consequences of abominable actions. Accordingly, Jonathan
Swift's description of lawyers weirdly and ironically comes to life: "[T]here was a Society of Men among us, bred up from their Youth in the Art of proving by
words multiplied for the Purpose, that White is Black and Black is White, according as they are paid. To this Society all the rest of the People are Slaves."
23 We also risk subjecting ourselves to such absurdly empty rhetoric as Commissioner Ward's comments to the effect that both Mrs. Bumpurs' death and
racism were unfortunate, while stating "but the law says . . . ." 24 Commissioner Ward's sentiments might as well read: "The law says . . . and therefore
the death was unfortunate but irremediable; the law says . . . and therefore there is little that can be done about racism." The law thus becomes a shield
behind which to avoid responsibility for the human repercussions of both governmental and publicly harmful private activity. 25 A related issue is the
degree to which much of the criticism of the police department's handling of this case was devalued as "noisy" or excessively emotional. It is as though
passionate protest were a separate crime, a rudeness of such dimension as to defeat altogether any legitimacy of content. We as lawyers are taught from
the moment we enter law school to temper our emotionalism and quash our idealism. We are taught that heartfelt instincts subvert the law and defeat the
security of a well-ordered civilization, whereas faithful adherence to the word of law, to stare decisis and clearly stated authority, would as a matter of
course lead to a bright, clear world like the Land of Oz, in which those heartfelt instincts would be preserved. Form is exalted over substance, and cool
rationales over heated feelings. But we should not be ruled exclusively by the cool formality of language or by emotions. We must be ruled by our
complete selves, by the intellectual and emotional content of our words. Governmental representatives must hear the full range of legitimate concerns, no
matter how indelicately expressed or painful they may be to hear. [*135] But undue literalism is only one type of sleight of tongue in the attainment of
meaningless dialogue. Mayor Koch, Commissioner Ward, and Officer Sullivan's defense attorneys have used overgeneralization as an effective rhetorical
complement to their avoidance of the issues. For example, allegations that the killing was illegal and unnecessary, and should therefore be prosecuted,
were met with responses such as, "The laws permit police officers to shoot people." 26 "As long as police officers have guns, there will be unfortunate
deaths." 27 "The conviction rate in cases like this is very low." 28 The observation that teargas would have been an effective alternative to shooting Mrs.
Bumpurs drew the dismissive reply that "there were lots of things they could have done." 29 Privatization of response as a justification for public
irresponsibility is a version of the same game. Honed to perfection by President Reagan, this version holds up the private self as indistinguishable from the
public "duty and power laden" self. Public officials respond to commentary by the public and the media as though it were meant to hurt private, vulnerable
feelings. Trying to hold a public official accountable while not hurting his feelings is a skill the acquisition of which would consume time better spent on
almost any conceivable task. Thus, when Commissioner Ward was asked if the internal review board planned to discipline Officer Sullivan, many seemed
disposed to accept his response that while he was personally very sorry she had died, he could not understand why the media was focusing on him so
much. "How many other police commissioners," he asked repeatedly, "have gotten as much attention as I have?" 30 Finally, a most cruel form of semantic
slipperiness infused Mrs. Bumpurs' death from the beginning. It is called victim responsibility. 31 It is the least responsive form of dialogue, yet apparently
the [*136] easiest to accept as legitimate. All these words, from Commissioner Ward, from the Mayor's office, from the media, and from the public
generally, have rumbled and resounded with the sounds of discourse. We want to believe that their symmetrical, pleasing structure is the equivalent of
discourse. If we are not careful, we will hypnotize ourselves into believing that it is discourse. In the early morning hours of December 20, 1986, three
young black men left their stalled car on Cross Bay Parkway, in the New York City borough of Queens, and went to look for help. They walked into the
neighborhood of Howard Beach, entered a pizzeria, ordered pizzas, and sat down to eat. An anonymous caller to the police reported their presence as

"black troublemakers." A patrol car came, found no trouble, and left. After the young men had eaten, they left the pizzeria and were immediately
surrounded by a group of eight to ten white teenagers who taunted them with racial epithets. The white youths chased the black men for about three
miles, catching them at several points and beating them severely. One of the black men died as a result of being struck by a car as he tried to flee across
a highway. Another suffered permanent blindness in one eye. 32 In the extremely heated public controversy that ensued, as much attention centered on
the community of Howard Beach as on the assailants themselves. A veritable Greek chorus formed, comprised of the defendants' lawyers and resident
after resident after resident of Howard Beach, all repeating and repeating and repeating that the mere presence of three black men in that part of town at
that time of night was reason enough to drive them out. "They had to be starting trouble." 33 "We're a strictly white neighborhood." 34 "What were they
doing here in the first place?" 35 [*137] Although the immensely segregationist instincts behind such statements may be fairly evident, it is worth making
explicit some of the presuppositions behind such ululations. Everyone who lives here is white. No black could live here. No one here has a black friend. No
white would employ a black here. No black is permitted to shop here. No black is ever up to any good. These presuppositions themselves are premised on
lethal philosophies of life. "Are we supposed to stand around and do nothing while these blacks come into our area and rob us?" 36 one woman asked a
reporter in the wake of the Howard Beach attack. A twenty year old, who had lived in Howard Beach all of his life, said, "We ain't racial. . . . We just don't
want to get robbed." 37 The hidden implication of these statements is that to be safe is not to be sorry, and that to be safe is to be white and to be sorry is
to be associated with blacks. Safety and sorrow, which are inherently alterable and random, are linked to inalterable essences. The expectation that
uncertain conditions are really immutable is a formula for frustration; it is a belief that feeds a sense of powerlessness. The rigid determinism of placing in
the disjunctive things that are not in fact disjunctive is a set up for betrayal by the very nature of reality. The national repetition that white neighborhoods
are safe and blacks bring sorrow is an incantation of powerlessness. And, as with the upside-down logic of all irrational incantations, it imports a concept of
white safety that almost necessarily endangers the lives as well as the rights of blacks. It is also an incantation of innocence and guilt, much related to
incantations that affirmative action programs allow presumably "guilty" blacks to displace "innocent" whites. 38 (Even assuming that "innocent whites"
were being displaced by blacks, does that make [*138] blacks less innocent in the pursuit of education and jobs? If anything, are not blacks more innocent
in the scheme of discrimination?) In fact, in the wake of the Howard Beach incident, the police and the press rushed to serve the public's interest in the
victims' unsavory "guilty" dispositions. They overlook the fact that racial slurs and attacks "objectif[y] people -- the incident could have happened to any
black person who was there at that time and place. This is the crucial aspect of the Howard Beach affair that is now being muddied in the media. Bringing
up [defendants' past arrest records] is another way of saying, 'He was a criminal who deserved it.'" 39 Thus, the game of victim responsibility described
above is itself a slave to society's stereotypes of good and evil. It does no good, however, to turn race issues into contests for some Holy Grail of
innocence. In my youth, segregation and antimiscegenation laws were still on the books in many states. During the lifetimes of my parents and
grandparents, and for several hundred years before them, laws prohibited blacks from owning property, voting, and learning to read or write. Blacks were,
by constitutional mandate, outlawed from the hopeful, loving expectations that being treated as a whole, rather than three-fifths of a human being can
bring. When every resource of a wealthy nation is put to such destructive ends, it will take more than a few generations to mop up the mess. 40 [*139] We
have all inherited that legacy, whether new to this world or new to this country. It survives as powerfully and invisibly reinforcing structures of thought,
language, and law. Thus, generalized notions of innocence and guilt have little place in the struggle for transcendence; there is no blame among the living
for the dimension of this historic crime, this national tragedy. 41 There is, however, responsibility for never forgetting one another's histories, and for
making real the psychic obliteration which lives on as a factor in shaping relations, not just between blacks and whites, 42 or blacks and blacks, 43 but
also between whites and whites. Whites must consider how much this history has projected onto blacks the blame for all criminality, and for all of society's
ills. It has become the means for keeping white criminality invisible. 44 The attempt to split bias from violence has been this society's most enduring and
fatal rationalization. Prejudice does hurt, however, just as the absence of prejudice can nourish and shelter. Discrimination can repel and vilify, ostracize
and alienate. White people [*140] who do not believe this should try telling everyone they meet that one of their ancestors was black. I had a friend in
college who having lived her life as a blonde, grey eyed white person, discovered that she was one-sixteenth black. She began to externalize all the
unconscious baggage that "black" bore for her: the self-hatred that is racism. She did not think of herself as a racist (nor had I) but she literally wanted to
jump out of her skin, shed her flesh, and start life over again. She confided in me that she felt "fouled" and "betrayed." She also asked me if I had ever felt
this way. Her question dredged from some deep corner of my suppressed memory the recollection of feeling precisely that, when at the age of three or so,
some white playmates explained to me that God had mixed mud with the pure clay of life in order to make me. In the Vietnamese language, "the word 'I'
(toi) . . . means 'your servant'; there is no 'I' as such. When you talk to someone, you establish a relationship." 45 Such a concept of "self" is a way of
experiencing the other, ritualistically sharing the other's essence, and cherishing it. In our culture, seeing and feeling the dimension of harm that results
from separating self from "other" requires more work. 46 Very little in our language or our culture encourages or reinforces any attempt to look at others
as part of ourselves. With the imperviously divided symmetry of the marketplace, social costs to blacks are simply not seen as costs to whites, 47 just as
blacks do not share in the advances whites may enjoy. [*141] This structure of thought is complicated by the fact that the distancing does not stop with
the separation of the white self from the black other. In addition, the cultural domination of blacks by whites means that the black self is placed at a
distance even from itself, as in the example of blacks being asked to put themselves in the position of the white shopkeepers who view them. 48 So blacks
are conditioned from infancy to see in themselves only what others who despise them see. 49 It is true that conforming to what others see in us is every
child's way of becoming socialized. 50 It is what makes children in our society seem so gullible, so impressionable, so "impolitely" honest, so blindly loyal,
and so charming to the ones they imitate. 51 Yet this conformity also describes a way of being that relinquishes the power of independent ethical choice.
Although such a relinquishment can have quite desirable social consequences, it also presumes a fairly homogeneous social context in which values are
shared and enforced collectively. Thus, it is no wonder that western anthropologists and ethnographers, for whom adulthood is manifested by the exercise
of independent ethical judgment, so frequently denounce tribal cultures or other collectivist ethics as "childlike." By contrast, our culture constructs some,
but not all, selves to be the servants of others. Thus, some "I's" are defined as "your servant," some as "your master." The struggle for the self becomes
not a true mirroring of self-in-other, but rather a hierarchically-inspired series of distortions, where some serve without ever being served, some master
without ever being mastered, and almost everyone hides from this vernacular domination by clinging to the legally official definition of "I" as meaning
"your equal." In such an environment, relinquishing the power of individual ethical judgment to a collective ideal risks psychic violence, an obliteration of
the self through domination by an all powerful other. In such an environment, it is essential at some stage that the self be permitted to retreat into itself
and make its own decisions with self-love and self-confidence. What links child abuse, the mistreatment of [*142] women, and racism is the massive
external intrusion into psyche that dominating powers impose to keep the self from ever fully seeing itself. 52 Because the self's power resides in another,
little faith is placed in the true self, that is, in one's own experiential knowledge. Consequently, the power of children, women and blacks is actually
reduced to the "intuitive," rather than the real; social life is necessarily based primarily on the imaginary. 53 Furthermore, because it is difficult to affirm
constantly with the other the congruence of the self's imagining what the other is really thinking of the self, and because even that correlative effort is
usually kept within very limited family, neighborhood, religious, or racial boundaries, encounters cease to be social and become presumptuous, random,
and disconnected. This peculiarly distancing standpoint allows dramas, particularly racial ones like Howard Beach, to unfold in scenarios weirdly unrelated
to the incidents that generated them. At one end of the spectrum is a laissez faire response that privatizes the self in order to remain unassailably
justified. At the other end is a pattern that generalizes individual or particular others into terrifyingly uncontrollable "domains" of public wilderness, against
which proscriptive barriers must be built to protect the eternally innocent self. The prototypical scenario of the privatized response is as follows: Cain:
Abel's part of town is tough turf. 54 [*143] Abel: It upsets me when you say that; you have never been to my part of town. As a matter of fact, my part of
town is a leading supplier of milk and honey. 55 Cain: The news that I'm upsetting you is too upsetting for me to handle. You were wrong to tell me of your
upset because now I'm terribly upset. 56 Abel: I felt threatened first. Listen to me. Take your distress as a measure of my own and empathize with it. Don't
ask me to recant and apologize in order to carry this conversation further. 57 This type of discourse is problematic because Cain's challenge in calling
Abel's turf "tough" is transformed into a discussion of the care with which Abel challenges that statement. While there is certainly an obligation to be
careful in addressing others the obligation to protect the feelings of those others gets put above the need to protect one's own. The self becomes
subservient to the other, with no reciprocity, and the other becomes a whimsical master. Abel's feelings are deflected in deference to Cain's, and Abel
bears the double burden of raising his issue properly and of being responsible for its impact on Cain. Cain is rendered unaccountable for as long as this
deflection continues because all the fault is assigned to Abel. Morality and responsiveness thus become dichotomized as Abel drowns in responsibility for
valuative quality control, while Cain rests on the higher ground of a value neutral zone. Caught in conversations like this, blacks as well as whites will
[*144] feel keenly and pressingly circumscribed. Perhaps most people never intend to be racist, oppressive, or insulting. Nevertheless, by describing zones
of vulnerability and by setting up fences of rigidified politeness, the unintentional exile of individuals as well as races may be quietly accomplished.
Another scenario of distancing self from the responsibility for racism is the invention of some great public wilderness of others. In the context of Howard
Beach, the specter against which the self must barricade itself is violent: seventeen year old, black males wearing running shoes and hooded sweatshirts.
It is this fear of the uncontrollable, overwhelming other that animates many of the more vengefully racist comments from Howard Beach, such as, "We're a
strictly white neighborhood. . . . They had to be starting trouble." 58 These statements set up angry, excluding boundaries. They also imply that the
failure to protect and avenge is bad policy, bad statesmanship, and an embarrassment. They raise the stakes beyond the unexpressed rage arising from
the incident itself. Like the Cain and Abel example, the need to avenge becomes a separate issue of protocol and etiquette -- not a loss of a piece of the
self, which is the real cost of real tragedies, but a loss of self-regard. By self-regard, I do not mean self-concept as in self- esteem; I mean that view of the
self that is attained by the self stepping outside the self to regard and evaluate the self. It is a process in which the self is watched by an imaginary other,
a self-projection of the opinions of real others, where "I" means "your master" and where the designated other's refusal to be dominated is felt as
personally assaultive. Thus, the failure to avenge is felt as a loss of self-regard. It is a psychological metaphor for whatever trauma or original assault that

constitutes the real loss to the self. 59 It is therefore more abstract, more illusory, more constructed, and more invented. Potentially, therefore, it is less
powerful than "real" assault, in that with effort it can be unlearned as a source of vulnerability. This is the real message of the attempt to distinguish
between prejudice and violence: names, as in the old "sticks and stones" ditty, [*145] although undeniably and powerfully influential, can be learned or
undone as motivation for future destructive action. 60 As long as they are not unlearned, however, the exclusionary power of such free-floating emotions
makes its way into the gestalt of prosecutorial and jury decisions and into what the law sees as crime, or as justified, provoked or excusable. 61 Law
becomes described and enforced in the spirit of our prejudices. 62 The following passage is a description of the arraignment of three of the white
teenagers who were involved in the Howard Beach beatings: The three defense lawyers also tried to case doubt on [the prosecutor's] account of the
attack. The lawyers questioned why the victims walked all the way to the pizza parlor if, as they said, their mission was to summon help for their car,
which broke down three miles away. . . . At the arraignment, the lawyers said the victims passed two all-night gas stations and several other pizza shops
before they reached the one they entered. [*146] A check yesterday of area restaurants, motels and gas stations listed in the Queens street directory
found two eating establishments, a gas station and a motel that all said they were open and had working pay phones on Friday night. A spokesman for the
New York Telephone Company, Jim Crosson, said there are six outdoor pay telephones . . . on the way to the pizzeria. 63 In the first place, lawyers must
wonder what relevance this has. Does the answer to any of the issues the defense raised serve to prove that these black men assaulted, robbed,
threatened or molested these white men? Does it even prove that the white men reasonably feared such a fate? The investigation into the number of
phone booths per mile does not reveal why the white men would fear the black men's presence. Instead, it is relevant to prove that there is no reason a
black man should walk or just wander around the community of Howard Beach. This is not semantic detail; it is central to understanding burdensomeness
of proof in such cases. It is this unconscious restructuring of burdens of proof into burdens of white over black that permits people who say and who
believe that they are not racist to commit and condone crimes of genocidal magnitude. It is easy to rationalize this as linguistically technical, or as
society's sorrow. As one of my students said, "I'm so tired of hearing the blacks say that society's done them wrong." Yet these gyrations kill with their
razor-toothed presumption. Lawyers are the modern wizards and medicine people who must define this innocent murderousness as crime. Additionally,
investigations into "closer" alternatives eclipse the possibility of other explanation. They assume that the young men were not headed for the subway
(which was in fact in the same direction as the pizzeria), and further, that black people must have documented reasons for excursioning into white
neighborhoods and out of the neighborhoods to which they are supposedly consigned. It is interesting to contrast the implicit requirement of
documentation imposed on blacks walking down public streets in Howard Beach with the implicit license of the white officers who burst into the private
space of Mrs. Bumpurs' apartment. In the Bumpurs case, lawmakers consistently dismissed the availability of less intrusive options as presumption and
idle hindsight. 64 This dismissal ignored the fact that police officers have an actual burden of employing the least harmful alternatives. In the context of
Howard Beach, however, such an analysis invents and imposes a burden on nonresidents to stay [*147] out of strange neighborhoods. It implies harm in
the presence of those who do not specifically "own" something there. Both analyses skirt the propriety and necessity of public sector responsibility. Both
redefine public accountability in privatized terms. Whether those privatized terms act to restrict or expand accountability is dichotomized according to the
race of the actors. Finally, this factualized hypothesizing was part of a news story, not an editorial. "News," in other words, was reduced to hypothesis
based on silent premises: they should have used the first phone they encountered; they should have eaten at the first "eating establishment;" they should
have gone into a gas station and asked for help; surely they should have had the cash and credit cards to do any of the above or else not travel in strange
neighborhoods. In elevating these to relevant issues, however, The New York Times did no more than mirror what was happening in the courtroom. In an
ill-fated trip to the neighborhood of Jamaica, in the borough of Queens, Mayor Koch attempted to soothe tensions by asking a congregation of black
churchgoers to understand the disgruntlement of Howard Beach residents about the interracial march by 1400 protesters through "their" streets. He asked
them how they would feel if 1400 white people took to the streets of the predominantly black neighborhood of Jamaica. 65 This remark, from the chief
executive of New York City, accepts and even advocates a remarkable degree of possessiveness about public streets. This possessiveness, moreover, is
racially rather than geographically bounded. In effect, Koch was pleading for the acceptance of the privatization of public space. This is the de facto
equivalent of segregation. It is exclusion in the guise of deep-moated private property "interests" and "values." In such a characterization, the public
nature of the object of discussion, the street, is lost. 66 Mayor Koch's question suggests that 1400 black people took to the streets of Howard Beach. In
fact, the crowd was integrated -- blacks, browns, and whites, residents and nonresidents of Howard Beach. Apparently, crowds in New York are subject to
the unwritten equivalent of Louisiana's race statutes (which provide that 1/72 black [*148] ancestry renders a person black) and to the Ku Klux Klan's
"contamination by association" standard ("blacks and white-blacks" was how one resident of Forsythe County, Georgia described an interracial crowd of
protesters there). On the other hand, if Mayor Koch intended to direct attention to the inconvenience, noise, and pollution of such a crowd in those small
streets, then I am sympathetic. My sympathy is insignificant, however, compared to my recognition of the necessity and propriety of the protestors'
spontaneous, demonstrative, peaceful outpouring of rage, sorrow, and pain. If, however, Mayor Koch intended to ask blacks to imagine 1400 angry white
people descending on a black community, then I agree, I would be frightened. This image would also conjure up visions of 1400 hooded white people
burning crosses, 1400 Nazis marching through Skokie, and 1400 cavalry men riding into American Indian lands. These visions would inspire great fear in
me, because of the possibility of grave harm to the residents. But there is a difference, and that is why the purpose of the march is so important. That is
why it is so important to distinguish mass protests of violence from organized hate groups that openly threaten violence. By failing to make this
distinction, Mayor Koch created the manipulative specter of unspecified mobs sweeping through homes in pursuit of vague and diffusely dangerous ends.
From this perspective, he appealed to thoughtlessness, to the pseudoconsolation of hunkering down and bunkering up against the approaching hoards, to
a glacially overgeneralized view of the unneighborhooded "public" world. Moreover, the Mayor's comments reveal that he is ignorant of the degree to
which the black people have welcomed, endured, and suffered white marchers through their streets. White people have always felt free to cruise through
black communities and to treat them possessively. Most black neighborhoods have existed only as long as whites have permitted them to exist. Blacks
have been this society's perpetual tenants, sharecroppers, and lessees. Blacks went from being owned by others, to having everything around them
owned by others. In a civilization that values private property above all else, this effectuates a devaluation of humanity, a removal of blacks not just from
the market, but from the pseudospiritual circle of psychic and civic communion. As illustrated in the microcosm of my experience at the store, 67 this
limbo of disownedness keeps blacks beyond the pale of those who are entitled to receive the survival gifts of commerce, the [*149] property of life, liberty,
and happiness, whose fruits our culture places in the marketplace. In this way, blacks are positioned analogically to the rest of society, exactly as they
were during slavery or Jim Crow. 68 There is a subtler level to the enactment of this dispossession. The following story may illustrate more fully what I
mean: Not long ago, when I first moved back to New York after some twenty years, I decided to go on a walking tour of Harlem. The tour, which took place
on Easter Sunday, was sponsored by the New York Arts Society, and except for myself, was attended exclusively by young, white, urban, professional, real
estate speculators. They were pleasant looking, with babies strapped to their backs and balloons in their hands. They all seemed like very nice people.
Halfway through the tour, the guide asked the group if they wanted to "go inside some churches." The guide added, "It'll make the tour a little longer, but
we'll probably get to see some services going on . . . Easter Sunday in Harlem is quite a show." A casual discussion ensued about the time that this
excursion might take. What astonished me was that no one had asked the people in the churches if they minded being stared at like living museums. I
wondered what would happen if a group of blue-jeaned blacks were to walk uninvited into a synagogue on Passover or St. Anthony's of Padua in the
middle of High Mass. Just to peer, not pray. My overwhelming instinct is that such activity would be seen as disrespectful. Apparently, the disrespect was
invisible to this well-educated, affable group of people. They deflected my observations with comments such as, "We just want to look"; "No one will
mind"; "There's no harm intended." As well intentioned as they were, I was left with the impression that no one existed for them whom their intentions
could not govern. 69 Despite the lack of apparent malice in their demeanor, 70 it seemed to me that to live so noninteractively is a liability [*150] as much
as a luxury. To live imperviously to one's impact on others is a fragile privilege, which depends ultimately on the inability of others to make their
displeasure known. Reflecting on Howard Beach brought to mind a news story from my fragmentary grammar school recollections of the 1960's: a white
man acting out of racial motives killed a black man who was working for some civil rights organization or cause. The man was stabbed thirty-nine times, a
number which prompted a radio commentator to observe that the point was not just murder, but something beyond. What indeed was the point, if not
murder? I wondered what it was that would not die, which could not be killed by the fourth, fifth, or even tenth knife blow; what sort of thing that would
not die with the body but lived on in the mind of the murderer. Perhaps, as psychologists have argued, what the murderer was trying to kill was a part of
his own mind's image, a part of himself and not a real other. After all, statistically and corporeally, blacks as a group are poor, powerless, and a minority. It
is in the minds of whites that blacks become large, threatening, powerful, uncontrollable, ubiquitous, and supernatural. There are certain societies that
define the limits of life and death very differently than our own. For example,

death may occur long before the

body ceases to function,

and under the proper circumstances, life may continue for some time after the body is carried to
its grave. 71 These non-body-bound, uncompartmentalized ideas recognize the power of spirit, or what we in our secularized society might describe as the

part of ourselves
is beyond the control of pure physical will and resides in the
sanctuary of those around us. A fundamental part of ourselves and
dynamism of self as reinterpreted by the perceptions of [*151] other. 72 These ideas comprehend the fact that a

of our dignity is dependent upon the uncontrollable, powerful,

external observers who constitute society. 73 Surely a part of socialization ought to include a sense
of caring responsibility for the images of others that are reposited within us. 74 Taking the example of the man who was stabbed thirty-nine times out of
the context of our compartmentalized legal system, and considering it in the hypothetical framework of a legal system that encompasses and recognizes
morality, religion, and psychology, I am moved to see this act as not merely body murder but spirit-murder as well. I see it as spirit-murder, only one of
whose manifestations is racism -- cultural obliteration, prostitution, abandonment of the elderly and the homeless, and genocide are some of its other

. I see spirit-murder as no less than the equivalent of body

murder. One of the reasons that I fear what I call spirit-murder, or disregard for others whose lives qualitatively depend on our regard, is that
its product is a system of formalized distortions of thought. It
produces social structures centered around fear and hate; it
provides a tumorous outlet for feelings elsewhere unexpressed. 75 For
guises

example, when Bernhard Goetz shot four black teenagers in a New York City subway, an acquaintance of mine said that she could understand his fear
because it is a "fact" that blacks commit most crimes. What impressed me, beyond the factual inaccuracy of this statement, 76 was the reduction of
Goetz' crime to "his fear," which I translate to mean her fear. The four teenage victims became all blacks everywhere, and "most crimes" clearly meant
that most blacks commit crimes.

Everyday White privilege oppressing Blacks, preventing an equal

play field.

Bonilla-Silva 01 (Eduardo, PhD, professor of sociology at Duke University. White Supremacy and Racism in the Post-Civil
Rights era Page 195 Lynne Rienner Publisher 2001
The theory and analyses advanced here are an anathema to many whites (and to color-blind minorities as well as honorary whites). Agreeing with
my theory and substantive claims implies recognizing that all whites receive unearned benefits by virtue of being white and thus develop
defensive beliefs. Naysayers will rebuke my claims by arguing that they are not racist, by stating that I am making a fictitious category- that
of race- real, or by marshaling survey work showing whites tolerant racial attitudes or data comparing the status of blacks in the past with their
status today. Some may even suggest that blacks are racist too: or that the racial gap in the United States is fundamentally shaped by blacks
own cultural practices. Lastly, a group of commentators will point out that my analysis is divisive, arguing, Wouldnt it make more sense to
develop an argument based on class as the unifying factor? Although political disputes are never settled with data or rational arguments, I will
attempt to answer each of the counterarguments. First, from a structural point of view, race relations are not rooted in the balance between
good (non-racist) and bad (racist) whites or even in the struggle between racist actors (conscious of their racial interest) and race
militants (conscious of the need to oppose the racial status quo). The reproduction of racial inequality

transpires every day through the normal operation of society. Like capitalists and men, whites
have been able to crystalize their victories in institutions and social practices . This
implies that they do not need to be individually active in the maintenance of racial
domination. Instead by merely following the everyday rituals of the postmodern, whitesupremacist United States-living in a segregated neighborhood, sending their children to segregated
schools, interacting fundamentally with their racial peers, working in a mostly segregated job or if in an integrated setting, maintaining
superficial relation with the nonwhites etc.- they help reproduce the racial status quo. Of course, this does not mean that some actors in any
racialized social system are significantly more prejudiced than others. My point is that the reproduction of white supremacy does

not depend on individual racist behavior. Second, although all social categories are
constructed, after they emerge they become real in their consequences . The fact
that race, as with all social categories, is fluid does not mean that it does not
become a social fact. Crying that you are not white, or male, or black, or female does not change the fact of your social reality as
white, male, black, or female. Even those who claim to be race traitors receive advantages (many of which are invisible to them) just because of
the racial uniform they wear every day. The mean streets of the social world have a way of letting you know rather

quickly what you are rather than what you think or theorize you are. Hence, Tiger Woods may insist that
he is not black by Fuzzy Zellers joke when he won the Augusta Open was based on the stereotypes about blacks and not on Cablasasians.
Third, as I pointed out in Chapters 3 and 5, survey data on whites attitudes may be conveying false sense of racial tolerance and harmony. The
combination of socially acceptable speech and old questions that no longer tackle our contemporary racial dilemmas has produced an artificial
increase in racially tolerant responses among whites. Nonetheless, the same whites who state in surveys they have no problems with blacks and
do not care if blacks move in their neighborhoods and that it is great to have children from all racial backgrounds interacting in schools have very
limited and superficial relationships with blacks, live in white neighborhoods and more when blacks move in, and they have objected for over 40
years to almost all the government plans to facilitate school integration. Fourth, as far as the issue of black progress, I pointed out in Chapter 1
and in Chapter 4 that it is undeniable that blacks are better off today than during the slavery

or Jim Crow period of race relations. Nevertheless, by solely focusing on blacks

gains in the post-World War II era, analysts miss the boat because the appropriate
way to measure the standing of a racial group (or any other group) in any society is to compare
the statistics and status of that group with those of the majority group . When analysts
do this comparison in the United States they find that blacks have not improved that much over the

past 30 years. Therefore, my point is not to deny that blacks have improved their standing in the United States but to draw attention to
the fact the new mechanisms that have emerged to maintain white privilege and which account for much of the contemporary black-white gaps.
Fifth, those who insist that blacks are poorer than whites because of their cultural

practices ought to consider the power dimension in the racial equation. Although
blacks can be prejudiced (many are anti-white, anti-Latino, or anti-Asian), since racial inequality is
based on systemic power and blacks do not have it in the United States, they are not
racist in this systemic sense. There is no theoretical reason why blacks (the socially constructed group of people that has
endured 500 years of white supremacy) could not become racist in this sense. However, substantively, this is an extremely unlikely event.
Given the global nature of white supremacy, it is almost impossible for an anti-white or black supremacy order to operate successfully. Even in
African countries where whites have lost political power (e.g. South Africa, Namibia, and Congo), the dictates of the global white supremacy (I
borrow the term from Charles W. Mills) and the economic might of Western nations limit these regimes and severely constrain their possibilities.

Racism has become disguised to the people who do not directly

experience it.

BARNDT

Director of Crossroads, a non profit organization

2k7

(Joseph-has been a parish pastor and an antiracism trainer and organizer for thirty
years, much of the latter work being done with Crossroads Ministry, Chicago, which he
directed for eighteen years; Understanding and Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-First
Century Challenge To White America; p.42)//AK
Thus, from the perspective of communities of color, the continuing presence of
racism in the twenty-first century is easy to detect. For those who do not directly
experience it, however, its presence is not so easily perceived . Whether it is described as
Bigfoot or as a velvet glove covering an iron fist, racism has become more hidden and
disguised, so that it is easy for white people to become convinced that it has gone
away, or at least that it is rapidly diminishing and disappearing . In fact, the very

effectiveness of the twenty-first century forms of racism is measure by its not being seen at work. So, the question
is how to expose racisms new disguises?
The critically important question for this book is how is it possible to see the new forms of the old racism that are

How does a person see the velvet glove

and detect the old iron fist that is being covered and disguised by a velvet glove? How can a
society measure the presence and the effects of racism? In the chapters that follow, the goal
operating in ways that still devastate peoples lives?

is to reveal the ways in which new forms of racism comprise the powerful continuation of racism in the twenty-first
century. Only as the eyes of each of us are opened as we begin to understand how racism functions in our society
today will we be able to devise new ways to oppose racism and dismantle it.
To put the question another way, How can we really know whether racial conditions are getting better or
worse? How can we know that racism is present, and how will we know when it is truly disappearing? Or, more
simply put, how do we measure change from racial injustice to racial justice? Are there common criteria and
standards of measurement that will produce agreement on the status of racial equality and inequality in our
society? It is important to have effective and consistent means of quantifying he presence, absence, and intensity

Since some people claim racism is

disappearing, and others claim that it is as strong as ever, it is important that we
use common methods of measuring.
of racism, as well as its increase or decrease over a period of time.

Racism confines all of us to participate in its workings

BARNDT

Director of Crossroads, a non profit organization

2k7

Joseph-has been a parish pastor and an antiracism trainer and organizer for thirty years,
much of the latter work being done with Crossroads Ministry, Chicago, which he directed
for eighteen years; Understanding and Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-First Century
Challenge To White America; pp.81-82)//AK
Racism takes all of us prisoner. Its ultimate design is to control and destroy everyone. Power3 is the third
and most powerful expression of racism. This is the most devastating and destructive power of
racism, because it subjects all of us to its will, people of color and white people alike.
You cannot cut the body of humanity in half and not have both halves bleed to death. The results of
racism are far more devastating and destructive than its hurting of people of color
(Power1) and benefiting of white people (Power2). In this, the greatest and worst expression of

racisms power, we can see its ability to make everyone serve its purposes, and to destroy everyones humanity in
the process. In Power3 we can see that racism is far more than actions of evil and greedy people; it is an evil and
destructive power in itself that has taken on its own self-controlling and self-perpetuating characteristics. At its
deepest level, racism is a massive system of intertwining and choking roots that wrap and wind themselves around
every person, institution, and manifestation of society. We need t explore how all of us-white people and people of
color alike-are imprisoned by this power and cannot easily set ourselves free. We need to see how all of us face
destruction as long as this evil power is at work to divide and take life from us.

Racism is able to make all of us-white people and people of color alike-cooperate
with it and participate in its workings. Each and every one of us is socialized to
become the person that racism wants us to become and to perform the function
that racism wants us to perform. Racism actually claims the power to shape our identity, to tell all of us
who we are, white people and people of color alike.

This socializing process is part of the identity formation that starts at the very beginning of each of our lives. Every white person is taught to behave
according to a racist societys standards for white people, and every person of color is taught to behave according to a racist societys standards for

In our further exploration of Power3 in chapter 4, we will call these identity-shaping

processes the internalization of racist superiority and the internalization of racist
oppression. And, in chapter 5 and 6, we will see that this same identity-shaping power of racism has
deeply affected the nature of our institutions and our collective culture in society.
people of color.

As we examine Power3 more closely we will see the ways in which all of us-people of color and white people-are

Although racism is
destroying us all, it is designed to make people of color feel uncomfortable and hurt,
and to make white people feel comfortable and good. But ultimately, we are all
deceived, dehumanized, and destroyed by racism. To paraphrase Malcolm X, weve all been
imprisoned by racism. But we will also be clear that our prisons are very different.

misled, weve been had, weve all been took, hoodwinked, and bamboozled. We are all defined and controlled in
ways that threaten to destroy our very being. We will not fully understand racism until we recognize how all of us,
including white people and white society, are destroyed by white racism.

Despite reforms, the fundamental American construct of racism

remains unchanged.
BARNDT Director of Crossroads, a non profit organization 2k7
Joseph-has been a parish pastor and an antiracism trainer and organizer for thirty years,
much of the latter work being done with Crossroads Ministry, Chicago, which he directed
for eighteen years; Understanding and Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-First Century
Challenge To White America; pp.69-71)//AK
The United States was born as a child of the European colonial enterprise , one of those
hundreds of global sites that Europeans discovered in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and claimed ownership of the people, the land, and the
resources. As with all the colonial enterprises of the time, the colonialists carried their primary assumptions and worldviews from the old land to the new,
including the newly developing concept of race. When the earliest settlers came to North America and began to create colonies, they brought with them a
racial hierarchy, with all its rationalizations and justifications. And at the top of the racial hierarchy was a deep belief in European/Caucasoid superiority.
In one sense, therefore, it is important to emphasize that the race-based structure of the United States was not invented here, but is a product imported
from Europe.

But in another, far greater sense, race is not a European import, but an American
invention. Race may not have been born here, but it came as an immigrant child, was adopted while still in
swaddling clothes, and raised from childhood as an American citizen. It was in the context of the
American colonial experience that race and racism were developed into the
uniquely American understanding we now have . Moreover, this made in America product was
to be then later exported worldwide with earth-shaping and earth-shaking implications and consequences.

From the beginning, the American colonies were designed in every aspect as
race-based societies, with all power and privilege belonging to European people,
who would soon thereafter be legally denoted as white. The ideology of race
evolved one step at a time, just one step ahead of the need to defend the rights and
privileges of white people and to deny the rights and privileges of all other s. A century
and a half later, when the colonies became the United States of America, this same
concept of race was nationalized and constitutitonalized.
Of course, race was not the only oppressive social classification in the colonies. There were other dominating
and repressive categories in this new society, transplanted and enhanced from the old. A rigid class system and
male authoritarianism were also automatically assumed and institutionalized. In addition, a religious hierarchy was
clearly established that resulted in various expressions of Christianity being placed in the top positions, and nonChristians, particularly Jews, at the very bottom. But the first qualifications for the elite and ruling class was white

skin, and while there was a powerful white hierarchy of men with money at the top, the vast majority of other white
people-both men and women-who did not find themselves on top identified with and maintained their loyalty to the
white ruling elite.
Red, Brown, Yellow, Black, and White. The shaping of the concept of race in the
American colonies, and later in the nation of the United States, produced our own
unique racial language, ideology, and practices . Colors were used not only to designate European

people as white people, but to name all the other races as they came into legal recognition. The European
designations previously known as Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, and Australoid became red, brown, yellow, black,
and white.
It is important to understand that the use of color-coding to describe racial identity was (and still is) politically
motivated and not literally or scientifically based on the color of individuals or groups. We have already stated
above that race cannot be defined by color. No individual matches any of the five colors in any literal sense, and no
group is consistently of one shade or hue.
But the use of colors to describe race accomplished quite effectively the political purpose that was intended.
That political purpose, encased in the legal structures and cultural worldview of our nation, was to enforce the clear
understanding that the resources of this country were reserved exclusively for white people. The other races-the
nonwhite people-existed for the sole purpose of serving the interests of white people. As has already been
described in greater detail in chapter 1, there were at first during the colonial period only three races, three colors:
white, red, and black. The American concept of race evolved primarily around these three:
European immigrants, soon to be known as white people, with a clear ideology of white supremacy
Indigenous natives, to be called red people and clearly denoted as nonhuman, uncivilized savages;
Imported African slaves, named black people and legally defined as less than human, merely property in
the context of chattel slavery.
Later, during the nineteenth century, after the United States became a nation, two more colors-yellow and brownwere incorporated into the national racial vocabulary
Brown, referring at first Mexicans and Puerto Ricans at the time of reterritorial annexantion, and later to
immigrants from other countries in Central and South America, and still later to Arab/Middle Eastern
peoples;
Yellow, describing at first Chinse laborers, and then to immigrants from all countries of Asia or from any
Pacific island west of San Francisco.

This color-coded construct of race that began in colonial America was then written
into the legal codes of the United States when we became a nation . They were enforced
by the courts, and became deeply imbedded in the social fabric of our nation . Everything

about life in the United States took on racial connotations and was separated by color. Then (as I already have
referred to in chapter 1) in 1790, two years after the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the first Naturalization Act
was passed, which limited new citizenship to white people. The act stated that: any alien, being a free white
person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States
From that year until 1952, when the naturalization act was repealed, the United States was legally defined as a

the
court understood race as a scientifically determined designation . In the early 1920s,
when this no longer seemed viable, they changed to the basis of common
knowledge to establish the category of whiteness. During all this time, from the
standpoint of the Supreme Court, the five races of the United States were more
often than not reduced to two races: white and nonwhite . These two legal expressions clearly
white nation. The Supreme Court was given the responsibility of defining whiteness. Until the early 1920s,

meant that white stood for something and non-white stood for nothing. To be white was to have an identity of
worth to be nonwhite was to be worthless.
Before moving to some conclusions and to a proposed definition race for the reader to consider, there is one
final historical point to be made. It is extremely important to note that while many other changes took place during
the civil rights era in the 1960s and 1970s, the legal concept of race did not change .

Although civil rights

laws and other laws ended discrimination by race, they did not attempt to challenge
or change the concept of race; nor did they seek to end classification and
categorization by race. And since that time, although there have been many other legal efforts to change
how the different races are treated, the fundamental construct of race has been left
untouched, and in many ways has even been strengthened.

People of Color are the victims of perpetual holocausts.

Omolade, 89 - (Barbara, 1989. 'We Speak for the Planet', in Adrienne Harris and
Ynestra King (eds.), Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics,
pp. 171-89.Boulder, CO: Westview Press)//AK

People of color were and are victims of holocausts-that is, of great and widespread
destruction, usually by fire. The world as we knew and created it was destroyed in a
continual scorched earth policy of the white man. The experience of Jews and other
Europeans under the Nazis can teach us the value of understanding the totality of
destructive intent, the extensiveness of torture, and the demonical apparatus of war
aimed at the human spirit. A Jewish father pushed his daughter from the lines of
certain death at Auschwitz and said, "You will be a remembrance--You tell the story-You survive." She lived. He died. Many have criticized the Jews for forcing non-Jews
to remember the 6 million Jews who died under the Nazis and for etching the names
Auschwitz and Buchenwald, Terezin and Warsaw in our minds. Yet as women of
color, we, too, are "remembrances" of all the holocausts against the people of the
world. We must remember the names of concentration camps such as Jesus, Justice,
Brotherhood, and Integrity, ships that carried millions of African men, women, and
children chained and brutalized across the ocean to the "New World." We must
remember the Arawaks, the Taino, the Chickasaw, the Choctaw, the Narragansett,
the Montauk, the Delaware, and the other Native American names of thousands of
U.S. towns that stand for tribes of people who are no more. We must remember the
holocausts visited against the Hawaiians, the aboriginal peoples of Australia, the
Pacific Island peoples, and the women and children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We
must remember the slaughter of men and women at Sharpeville, the children of
Soweto, and the men of Attica. We must never, ever, forget the children disfigured,
the men maimed, and the women broken in our holocausts-we must remember the
names, the numbers, the faces, and the stories and teach them to our children and
our children's children so the world can never forget our suffering and our courage.
Whereas the particularity of the Jewish holocaust under the Nazis is over, our
holocausts continue. We are the madres locos (crazy mothers) in the Argentinian
square silently demanding news of our missing kin from the fascists who rule. We
are the children of El Salvador who see our mothers and fathers shot in front of our
eyes. We are the Palestinian and Lebanese women and children overrun by Israeli,
Lebanese, and U.S. soldiers. We are the women and children of the bantustans and
refugee camps and the prisoners of Robbin Island. We are the starving in the Sahel,
the poor in Brazil, the sterilized in Puerto Rico. We are the brothers and sisters of
Grenada who carry the seeds of the New Jewel Movement in our hearts, not daring
to speak of it with our lipsyet.

Peace is not the absence of a nuclear conflict for the comfort of the
white middle classPeople of Color face the holocaust daily

Omolade, 89 - (Barbara, 1989. 'We Speak for the Planet', in Adrienne Harris and
Ynestra King (eds.), Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics,
pp. 171-89.Boulder, CO: Westview Press)//AK
Pacifists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who have used
nonviolent resistance charged that those who used violence to obtain justice were
just as evil as their oppressors. Yet all successful revolutionary movements have
used organized violence. This is especially true of national liberation movements
that have obtained state power and reorganized the institutions of their nations for
the benefit of the people. If men and women in South Africa do not use organized

violence, they could remain in the permanent violent state of the slave. Could it be
that pacifism and nonviolence cannot become a way of life for the oppressed? Are
they only tactics with specific and limited use for protecting people from further
violence? For most people in the developing communities and the developing world
consistent nonviolence is a luxury; it presumes that those who have and use
nonviolent weapons will refrain from using them long enough for nonviolent
resisters to win political battles. To survive, peoples in developing countries must
use a varied repertoire of issues, tactics, and approaches. Sometimes arms are
needed to defeat apartheid and defend freedom in South Africa; sometimes
nonviolent demonstrations for justice are the appropriate strategy for protesting the
shooting of black teenagers by a white man, such as happened in New York City.
Peace is not merely an absence of 'conflict that enables white middleclass comfort,
nor is it simply resistance to nuclear war and war machinery. The litany of "you will
be blown up, too" directed by a white man to a black woman obscures the
permanency and institutionalization of war, the violence and holocaust that people
of color face daily. Unfortunately, the holocaust does not only refer to the mass
murder of Jews, Christians, and atheists during the Nazi regime; it also refers to the
permanent institutionalization of war that is part of every fascist and racist regime.
The holocaust lives. It is a threat to world peace as pervasive and thorough as
nuclear war.

BARDNT INTERNALS
Racism is an evil seed--historical context of its growth is essential in
understanding racism and taking the right steps toward reform

BARNDT

Director of Crossroads, a non profit organization

2k7

(Joseph-has been a parish pastor and an antiracism trainer and organizer for thirty
years, much of the latter work being done with Crossroads Ministry, Chicago, which he
directed for eighteen years; Understanding and Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-First
Century Challenge To White America; pp.13-15)
Racism is an evil weed sown long ago in the garden of humanity. Over centuries,
the evil weed has grown wildly, ensnaring healthy plants and covering the
landscaped pathways, creating a great maze, a labyrinth with twists and turns that
have led humanity astray. The complex and bewildering tangle of racism that still
entwines and traps us all today is rooted in the past, long before any reader of
these words was born.
The purpose of this book is to describe how racism functions in the United States in the twenty-first century, and

how it is possible to dismantle racism and build an antiracist, multicultural society.

If we wish to

understand racism today, however, we must begin with history.

Before we can begin to define and

dissect how racism functions in our nation in this present day, it is essential to realize how deeply the roots of
racism are embedded and intertwined in the life and history of our world, and especially of our nation. In the words
of Pastor Johnny Ray Youngblood, speaking of the need to go back into this painful history : The only
way out is back through. In order to get well, you have to go back through what made you sick in the first place.
Have you ever heard this disclaimer by a white person: Slavery and segregation happened a long time ago;

no
one can be blamed today for the evils perpetuated by their foreparents. However,
why should I be held responsible for what people did before I was born? There is a sense in which this is true;

there are other questions that need to be asked.

To what degree are the actions of the past still influencing our lives today
Have the evils of the past been eradicated, or are they still affecting all of us today?
How does the racism of the past continue to handicap people of color or reward white people?

We may not be responsible for the past, but how are we responsible for what is
happening now?
We cannot know the answers to these questions unless we know our history. It is simply impossible to understand
the role of that race and racism play in our lives today unless we know how we got here.

We are a people whose memories have been shortened by amnesia and anesthesia and whose
knowledge of history has been distorted. New generations of people have reached adulthood since
1960. Many have little awareness of the civil rights movement or of the legal system of institutional racism that
existed before that time. They have never known separate toilets and water fountains, segregated buses,
restaurants and accommodations, and all of the other insulting and exploitative indignities. This history dare not be
forgotten, particularly since it still exerts such a powerful influence over all of us.
In this initial chapter I want to lead readers through a bare outline of this history-a skeletal framework. Then, as
this book progresses, I will put flesh on these bones in a way of building an understanding of the path that leads
from the past to the present. Throughout this book readers will be asked to probe this history, learn more, and seek
to interpret it. We will explore how racism has gone thorough many changes and adaptions as it moved from its

We will discover,
however, that underneath the growing sophistication, the basic foundations
of racism have remained unchanged. The very same evil weed that was sown
centuries ago in the garden of humanity is still threatening us today.
brutal beginnings to a far more sophisticated, subtle, and dangerous means of oppression.

A Path of Struggle for Freedom and Justice

While not ignoring the pain of the past, there is also a good side to this history; the evil of racism is only half the
story. The other half is the tireless and heroic resistance by those who refused to tolerate evil. Through the
courageous organizing efforts of millions of people who lived befre our time, a path of justice has been opened
through the maze of racism-the very same path many of us are now struggling to maintain and widen. To
understand more fully our place in history as we stand now in the early years of the twenty-first century, and in
order to better understand efforts to combat racism and build an antiracist, multicultural society, we need to
acknowledge, celebrate, and build on the heroic work of those who have been on this path before us. Let us move
forward with courage to look at our shameful history of racism, and with joy to look at our history of resistance to
racism and our movement toward justice.

We incorrectly indetify the effects of racism rather than the

instituions, this needs to change.

BARNDT

Director of Crossroads, a non profit organization

2k7

Joseph-has been a parish pastor and an antiracism trainer and organizer for thirty years,
much of the latter work being done with Crossroads Ministry, Chicago, which he directed
for eighteen years; Understanding and Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-First Century
Challenge To White America; pp.40-41)
To change the metaphor, these new forms of racism can also be described as a kicking foot. The Peoples
Institute for Survival and Beyond, the antiracism organization in New Orleans that I described in the introduction to
this book, has developed a Foot Identification exercise that demonstrates the power of racism. The purpose of
the exercise is to do a power analysis: that is, to portray how people of color experience the power of racism in
their daily lives.

The Foot Identification exercise is a vivid portrayal of contemporary racism at

work. In the exercise, academic or social-work language is replaced with street language. A person being interviewed in a local
neighborhood might not say, I am feeling powerless as a result of my being oppressed by racism, but rather, I am getting my ass

The goal of the exercise is to reveal the power of racism by identifying

the feet that are kicking people every day of their lives. The feet are identified as the
systems and institutions that function differently within communities of color than
they do in our white, middle-class communities-the banks and financial institutions,
kicked every day of my life.

the school system, retail stores, the employment system, the criminal justice system-the police, courts, and prisons-the health-care
system, the social service system, the church, the media, and so forth. Each of these systems is felt as a kicking foot, partly
because of the poor services they provide, but even more so because each of these systems and institutions is controlled from

Racism is seen and felt as

Bigfoot, the mysterious monster that can only be detected by its footprint, by the
effect of its kicking foot in the lives of people of color every day of their lives.
outside communities of color and is in no way accountable to these communities.

Whether or not the community of color in this Foot Identification exercise is an African American ghetto, a
Latino/Hispanic barrio, a Native American reservation, an Asian American Chinatown or Little Saigon, or an Arab

The Bigfoot of
racism is quite real. The decision-making power that determines the daily life of
communities of color comes from the outside, and it decidedly disadvantages the people who
American Little Beirut, the results of the Foot Identification exercise are always the same.

are trapped in their poor communities.

The unfinished task of the movement is an opportunity for a new

beginningone that starts with racial justice

BARNDT

Director of Crossroads, a non profit organization

2k7

(Joseph-has been a parish pastor and an antiracism trainer and organizer for thirty
years, much of the latter work being done with Crossroads Ministry, Chicago, which he
directed for eighteen years; Understanding and Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-First
Century Challenge To White America; pp.48-49)
This portrait of U.S. society depicts us as a people more conflicted than ever over the
subject of race and racism. Our nations inconsistent behavior is obvious, but not easy to comprehend or explain.

On the one hand, we pridefully describe our forward movement.

With great satisfaction we

make lists of improvements, not only on levels of personal relationships, but also in areas of changed laws and

On the other hand, we express deep seated hostility to those who

expose continuing racism and repeatedly resist acknowledging the need for further
changes. This contradictory behavior reveals schizophrenia that lies just below the surface of our collective
equal opportunity.

psyche. It is schizophrenia that leads us again and again into unresolved cyclical patterns of behavior.
In this first chapter I have sought to describe this continuously replaying cycle in the history of our nation. From
1492 to the present, this cycle moves repeatedly from racism, to resistance to racism, to new efforts to become a
racially just people, and then the cycle of the evil of racism begins again. Our present situation cannot be
understood outside of this cyclical history and all that it brings to our current situation. Our nation is today what
our history has made us; each component of this repetitive cycle is still playing out among us. The unfinished task
of resolving these contradictions is before us.

What does it mean for the United States to be faced with this unfinished task and
the dynamic of the cycle once again turning inexorably toward us? It can be seen as a
depressing repetition of history, holding little promise or possibility. Or it may be perceived as the sign of new

opportunities for struggle and change. It depends on where we stand. For those who have hoped and prayed for

these
are not so much indications of defeat as they are opportunities for a new beginning.
an end to complacency and longed for a new commitment to racial justice in our country and in our world,

The circles of history do not have to be vicious cycles in which we are condemned to face the same problems
and make the same mistakes over and over again. The continuing challenge to all of us, but especially to white
America, is to come to grips with this unfinished task and with the forces that seek to prevent us from taking the
next steps forward. Our challenge in this book is to analyze and understand, and to equip ourselves with what is
needed for a new way forward.

A new beginning for our nation starts with a renewed struggle for racial justice .
Looking back at the last half-century of reversals and regression, looking at the present moment of continuing racial
divisions and racism, and looking ahead to the call for a new moment in history, it is time for us to turn once again
to the reopening and creating of a yet wider path, a broad highway of justice through the maze of racism in
America.

Racism must be addressed at a majority, institutional level. The

problem is white racism.
BARNDT Director of Crossroads, a non profit organization 2k7
Joseph-has been a parish pastor and an antiracism trainer and organizer for thirty years,
much of the latter work being done with Crossroads Ministry, Chicago, which he directed
for eighteen years; Understanding and Dismantling Racism: The Twenty-First Century
Challenge To White America; pp.78-81)
Fixing People of Color. As I stated at the beginning of this chapter, the way we define a problem
will determine our solution to it. If the limit to what we know about racism is the
way that it hurts people of color, then the solution will focus only on people of color
and the need to change them. We will seek to help people of color, to change people of color, to heal
people of color, to minister to people of color, or to rescue people of color. Whatever descriptive
language we use for our activity, our solution will be driven by the assumption that
they are the problem, and they are the ones who need to be changed.
Take a look at our nations attempts to solve the problem of racism. They are
mainly based on the diagnosis that people of color have been broken by racism and they need to
be fixed. The primary thrust of almost all of our nations social and political initiatives for solving racial problems is to attempt
to change the victims of racism and the conditions within their communities. Virtually every program sponsored by government,
universities, foundations, and churches, even though they are created by concerned people who firmly believe that racial problems
must be solved and racial conflicts reconciled, are designed to focus time, effort, and money on efforts to help African Americans,
Native Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Arab Americans with their problems.

Every program
imaginable has been created to help and heal people of color-everything from soup

kitchens to Head Start, all the programs of charity, all the programs of empowerment, and all the programs of equal opportunity,
inclusiveness and diversity.

Changing the Wrong People. There is no question that most, if not all, of these programs
accomplish some good. The question is whether they change the underpinnings of
systemic racism. Our erroneous fundamental assumption has been that if we pour enough money into
changing the victims of racism, they will catch up with us and will achieve a state of equality. But it isnt
happening. Why? Because we are trying to change the wrong people.

Focusing on changing people of color requires little or no change of white people

or the white society. Moreover, it requires no essential change in the power relationships between people of
color and the white society. IT is still we who have the power to help them change . Instead of being
identified as part of the problem, the white society is identified as the solution . While
we are working to help them change, we are avoiding the need to change ourselves. If we are going to understand
and solve the problem of racism, we need to go further and deeper than dealing with the hurts of people of color.
POWER2-RACISM PROVIDES POWER FOR WHITE PEOPLE

Racism is not only power over people of color. Racism also provides power for white
people. If we define racism as the misuse of systemic and institutional power, then the bottom-line question are:
Whos got the power? and Who is misusing power? The answer is obvious. In the United States, only one racial
group has the power to claim the major part of the land and resources for itself, as well as to impose its will upon
and exploit other racial groups. Power2 is racism at work for white people.

The most important issue in understanding racism is not what it does to hurt people of
what it does to help white people. Oppressing people of color is not the end goal of racism,

color, but

but only a means to its primary end of enriching white people. Providing power and privilege for the white society
is racisms central function and the main reason racism exists. Power 2 is the name I am giving to this second
aspect of racisms misue of power, and it is exponentially more powerful than Power 1. Power2 is the principal reason
racism exists.
For many white people, seeing racism from the perspective of Power 2 is quite new and often shocking. It is a
major turning point in understanding racism to become aware that the primary purpose and end-goal of racism is
not to hurt people of color, but to provide and maintain power and privilege for white people. Power 2 turns the focus
away from the victims of racism to a new focus on the people and institutions who are not only the cause of hurt for
people of color, but who also benefit from it. Power2 moves us from the question of how can we help them change
to the question of how we ourselves can be changed.
The Purpose of Oppression: To Gain Power and Privilege.

power and privilege.

The goal of any oppression is to gain

Oppression takes place in order to establish dominance, to gain the benefits of

dominance, and to make certain that those who are oppressed serve the purposes of those who dominate .

For
example, the purpose of class oppression is to establish an elite societal group with
economic power and privilege, and to organize the rest of society so that the
energies of the lower classes support and help to maintain those with class
privilege. Likewise, the purpose of gender oppression, which in our society translates as male dominance, is to
establish power and privilege for men and to define the role of women in ways that their energies enforce and
support male power and privilege. The same is true of the oppression of one nation against another nation, which
serves the purpose of establishing the dominating nations power and riches, and using the energies of the
dominated nation to strengthen and serve the power and privilege of the oppressive nation.
Just as this is true of all other forms of oppression, it is also true of racism. The purpose of racism is to gain and
maintain, perpetuate and enforce power and privilege of one race over another. As we have seen in the history of
the evolving of the concept of race in the previous chapter, white racial supremacy was established as a means of
accruing control, authority, advantages, and benefits for members of the white race.
Those of us who are white find it very hard to recognize and acknowledge this, because we are accustomed to
our own happiness and lifestyle depending on these institutions and structures in their present form. Remember
the story of the Happiness Machine and the problem of its dross? No one has made us see that the forces
responsible for the problems of people of color in our society are the same forces that sustain our own lives. No one
has made us see that the condition of the minority of our citizens is a direct product of the majoritys struggle for
happiness. It is therefore not surprising that all of our effort to solve the problems in our communities of color have
caused so much frustration and met with so little success. We have tried to limit the effects of the dross of the
Happiness Machine without cutting off its flow. We have tried to help others to change without realizing that it
requires change in ourselves.
Solving the Right Problem. We have been trying to solve the wrong problem. In the United States, racism is
primarily a white problem. This conclusion will be traumatic for many readers of this book. It is difficult for us as
white people to grapple with the assertion that racism is a disorder of white people and not of people of color. If
this assertion is true, however, it changes dramatically the way we look at and attempt to solve the problem of
racism.

For years, we have been trying to change the wrong people. Even when we had
the best of intentions we were aiming in the wrong direction. The racial problem of
the United States is not a minority problem. It is a majority problem . The cause is in the
white society. The effects of racism that are felt in communities of color-the problems of African Americans, Native
Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, Asian Americans, and Arab Americans-are only the symptoms of our nations
sickness. Treating the symptoms without treating the cause will not heal the disease. All the programs in the world
aimed at changing the victims of racism will ultimately be useless if the institutions and structures that create and
control the conditions in the first place are not changed.
It is not, of course, that people of color do not need to change or do not want to change. Just the opposite is
true. However, we all too often assume their problems are caused by the victims themselves rather than the
institutions of victimizers. And we assume that the cure for their illnesses begins with them and needs to be

And then, to add the final blow, the cure is attempted by the very
institutions that created the problem in the first place.
administered by us.

It is as though an airplane were spraying poison gas over a city, causing the inhabitants to sicken and die. The
owners of the airplane neither admit to the poisoning nor promise to stop. They do, however, sign a contract to
develop an antidote for the gas. While the antidote is being developed, the gassing continues. When the antidote
is ready, the pilots are directed to spray it, together with the poison gas, when they fly over the city.
If we were to double or triple our efforts to bring about change for the victims of racism through increased
housing, better education, more employment, and other social improvements, we might achieve some statistical
progress. However, we would set two forces in the white society into even greater contradiction with each other:
the one that creates and perpetuates inhuman conditions, and the one that tries to correct the results.

The name of the problem that must be dealt with is white racism. It is the
misuse of power by systems and institutions in order to perpetuate white power and
privilege. And the only way to deal with it is by changing the systems and institutions of the United States that

Simply
changing attitudes are not enough. Helping the victims of racism is not enough .
are structured to benefit the white society and to dominate, control, and exploit people of color.

by changing and transforming white power and privilege will it be possible to make significant progress in
dismantling white racism.

Only

FUSION CENTERS TARGET BLACK

BODIES
FUSION CENTERS HAVE BEEN AIMED AT PEACEFUL PROTESTORS
Black Lives Matter has been monitored by FEDERALLY FUNDED fusion centers will
organizing protests in FERGUSON after the non-indictment of Officer Wilson. Paid
informants posing as protestors and anti-terror tactics, without oversight, are being
used on peaceful domestic activism. Ferguson protestors are now ENEMY FORCES
justifying without hestitation the FBI HAMMER of coordinated mass surveillance.

Johnson 4/27/15 [Adam, associate editor at Alternet, a noncommercial liberal

news service, 5 Examples of Our Government Treating BlackLivesMatter Movement
Like a Terrorist Group, Alternet, April 27th, 2015, http://www.alternet.org/news-amppolitics/5-examples-our-government-treating-blacklivesmatter-movement-terroristgroup] MG
California Highway Patrol used counterterror units to monitor #BlackLivesMatter in
Bay Area. A cache of emails revealed by Darwin BondGraham of the East Bay
Express two weeks ago revealed the California Highway Patrol were using its antiterrorism apparatus, including fusion centers like Northern California Regional
Intelligence Center to monitor #BlackLivesMatter activists on social media. As
BondGraham would lay out: An email sent on December 12 illustrates how counterterrorism officials working out of fusion centers helped CHP monitor protesters. At
12:12 p.m. that day, Elijah Owen, a senior intelligence advisor with the California
State Threat Assessment Center (Cal STAC) sent CHP officer Michael Berndl a copy
of a protest flier calling for a speak-out and march against the CHP the next day.
"Just so it's on your folks' radar," wrote Owen. Cal STAC officers appear in other CHP
emails as sources of information, or recipients of intel gathered by the Oakland
Police Department, Alameda County Sheriff's Office, and other agencies. Earlier this
year, the California Highway Patrol would also casually drop in the LA Times how
they used fake twitter profiles to monitor protesters: Despite Wednesday's incident,
Browne said he will continue to deploy plainclothes officers to gather intelligence
from protesters. Officers have also been creating Twitter accounts, on which they
don't identify themselves as police, in order to monitor planned demonstrations. Its
unclear to what extent these two approaches - using anti-terror apparatus to
monitor #BlackLivesMatter social media and the use of fake online profiles to
monitor #BlackLivesMatter- overlapped. 3. Massachusetts Counterterror fusion
centers were used to monitor #BlackLivesMatter protesters in Boston. Similarly,
fusion centers were used to monitor #BlacklivesMatter protests in Massachusetts.
As the ACLUs Kade Crockford noted last November: Law enforcement officials at the
Department of Homeland Security-funded Commonwealth Fusion Center spied on
the Twitter and Facebook accounts of Black Lives Matter protesters in Boston earlier
this week, the Boston Herald reports. The reference to the so-called fusion spy
center comes at the very end of a news story quoting Boston protesters injured by
police in Tuesday nights demonstrations, which was possibly the largest Ferguson
related protest in the country the day after the non-indictment of Darren Wilson was

announced. The state police Commonwealth Fusion Center monitored social media,
which provided critical intelligence about protesters plans to try to disrupt traffic
on state highways, state police said. Though it was buried at the end of the Boston
Herald story, the use of fusion centers - deliberately set up for the purposes of
stopping terrorism - are, once again, being used to monitor peaceful domestic
dissent. 4. FBI Joint Terror Task Force was used to track #BlackLivesMatter
Minnesota. Just as with the California Highway Patrol, internal emails between local
police departments and federal authorities revealed the extent to which the
counter-terror apparatus was casually - and entirely turn-key - used on
#BlackLivesMatter. The Intercepts Lee Fang revealed in March: Why Was an FBI
Joint Terrorism Task Force Tracking a BlackLives Matter protest? Members of an FBI
Joint Terrorism Task Force tracked the time and location of a Black Lives Matter
protest last December at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota, email
obtained by The Intercept shows The email from David S. Langfellow, a St. Paul
police officer and member of an FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force, informs a fellow task
force member from the Bloomington police that CHS just confirmed the MOA
protest I was talking to you about today, for the 20th of DEC @ 1400 hours. CHS is
a law enforcement acronym for confidential human source. In other words, these
emails revealed that not only was the FBI using its Joint Terror Task Force - an
entity that exploded post-9/11 in the name of fighting terrorism - but also using
paid informants who were undercover posing as protestors. Once again,
tactics and legal allowances created in the name of stopping terrorism are being
used, without any oversight or public debate, on entirely peaceful domestic
activism. 5. Emails reveal Missouri National Guard viewed Ferguson protestors as
enemy forces. The most haunting revelation may just be the latest, from CNN:
Missouri National Guard's term for Ferguson protesters: 'Enemy forces' As the
Missouri National Guard prepared to deploy to help quell riots in Ferguson, Missouri,
that raged sporadically last year, the guard used highly militarized words such as
"enemy forces" and "adversaries" to refer to protesters, according to documents
obtained by CNN. CNNs use of military speak aside (quell riots), the report clearly
shows those in charge viewed both rioter and protester alike as enemy combatants
and Ferguson as a war zone. What makes this, and the other above examples, so
pernicious isnt just the use of anti-terror language, legal authority, and apparatuses
on peaceful domestic activism, its the entirely casual nature with which its done.
Beyond a few PR tweaks, there doesnt seem to be, in any of these internal
documents, an ounce of doubt or hesitation as to whether or not using systems set
up ostensibly to combat al-Qaeda should be so quickly turned on domestic activism.
If all you have is a hammer, as the cliche goes, everything looks like a nail. Weve
given our hyper-militarized police and the FBI the hammer of coordinated mass
surveillance, infiltration, and monitoring in the name of fighting a phenomenon that
kills fewer people a year than bee stings, It was only a matter of time, therefore,
that mass protests would begin to look like a nail in the eyes of our paranoid, overequipped security officials.

FBI surveillance structures have historically targeted blacksfusion

centers recreate a discriminatory system that cements the racial
hierarchy
CYRIL founder and executive director of the Center for Media Justice 2k15
Malkia Amala-co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots Network, a national network of 175 organizations working
to ensure media access, rights, and representation for marginalized communities; Black Americas State of
Surveillance; THE PROGRESSIVE; April; http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-statesurveillance (THANKS JP, DB LOVES YA)
Ten years ago, on Martin Luther King Jr.s birthday, my mother, a former Black Panther, died from complications of
sickle cell anemia. Weeks before she died, the FBI came knocking at our door, demanding that my mother testify in
a secret trial proceeding against other former Panthers or face arrest. My mother, unable to walk, refused. The
detectives told my mother as they left that they would be watching her. They didnt get to do that. My mother died
just two weeks later. My mother was not the only black person to come under the watchful eye of American law
enforcement for perceived and actual dissidence. Nor is dissidence always a requirement for being subject to
spying. Files obtained during a break-in at an FBI office in 1971 revealed that

African Americans, J. Edger Hoovers largest target group, didnt have to be

perceived as dissident to warrant surveillance. They just had to be black. As I write
this, the same philosophy is driving the increasing adoption and use of surveillance
technologies by local law enforcement agencies across the United States. Today, media
reporting on government surveillance is laser-focused on the revelations by Edward
Snowden that millions of Americans were being spied on by the NSA. Yet my mothers
visit from the FBI reminds me that, from the slave pass system to laws that deputized white
civilians as enforcers of Jim Crow, black people and other people of color have
lived for centuries with surveillance practices aimed at maintaining a racial
hierarchy. Its time for journalists to tell a new story that does not start the clock
when privileged classes learn they are targets of surveillance. We need to
understand that data has historically been overused to repress dissidence,
monitor perceived criminality, and perpetually maintain an impoverished
underclass. In an era of big data, the Internet has increased the speed and
secrecy of data collection. Thanks to new surveillance technologies, law
enforcement agencies are now able to collect massive amounts of indiscriminate
data. Yet legal protections and policies have not caught up to this technological advance. Concerned
advocates see mass surveillance as the problem and protecting privacy as the
goal. Targeted surveillance is an obvious answerit may be discriminatory, but it
helps protect the privacy perceived as an earned privilege of the inherently
innocent. The trouble is, targeted surveillance frequently includes the
indiscriminate collection of the private data of people targeted by race but not
involved in any crime. For targeted communities, there is little to no expectation
of privacy from government or corporate surveillance. Instead, we are watched,
either as criminals or as consumers. We do not expect policies to protect us.
Instead, weve birthed a complex and coded culturefrom jazz to spoken dialectsin order
to navigate a world in which spying, from AT&T and Walmart to public benefits programs and beat
cops on the block, is as much a part of our built environment as the streets covered in
our blood.

FBI Predictive policing is the New Jim Crow fusion centers

disproportionately target people of color
CYRIL founder and executive director of the Center for Media Justice 2k15
Malkia Amala-co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots Network, a national network of 175 organizations working
to ensure media access, rights, and representation for marginalized communities; Black Americas State of
Surveillance; THE PROGRESSIVE; April; http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-statesurveillance THANKS JP; DB LOVES YA
In a recent address, New York City Police Commissioner Bill Bratton made it clear: 2015 will be one of the most
significant years in the history of this organization. It will be the year of technology, in which we literally will give to

Predictive
policing, also known as Total Information Awareness, is described as using
advanced technological tools and data analysis to preempt crime. It utilizes
trends, patterns, sequences, and affinities found in data to make determinations
about when and where crimes will occur. This model is deceptive, however,
because it presumes data inputs to be neutral. They arent. In a racially
every member of this department technology that wouldve been unheard of even a few years ago.

discriminatory criminal justice system, surveillance technologies

reproduce injustice. Instead of reducing discrimination, predictive policing
is a face of what author Michelle Alexander calls the New Jim Crow a de
facto system of separate and unequal application of laws, police practices,
conviction rates, sentencing terms, and conditions of confinement that operate
more as a system of social control by racial hierarchy than as crime prevention or
punishment. In New York City, the predictive policing approach in use is Broken Windows. This
approach to policing places an undue focus on quality of life crimeslike selling
loose cigarettes, the kind of offense for which Eric Garner was choked to death.
Without oversight, accountability, transparency, or rights, predictive policing is
just high-tech racial profilingindiscriminate data collection that drives
discriminatory policing practices. As local law enforcement agencies increasingly adopt
surveillance technologies, they use them in three primary ways: to listen in on specific conversations on
and offline; to observe daily movements of individuals and groups; and to observe data trends. Police departments
like Brattons aim to use sophisticated technologies to do all three. They will use technologies like license plate
readers, which the Electronic Frontier Foundation found to be disproportionately used in
communities of color and communities in the process of being gentrified. They will use facial recognition,
biometric scanning software, which the FBI has now rolled out as a national system, to be
adopted by local police departments for any criminal justice purpose. They intend to
use body and dashboard cameras, which have been touted as an effective step toward accountability based on the
results of one study, yet storage and archiving procedures, among many other issues, remain unclear. They will use
Stingray cellphone interceptors. According to the ACLU, Stingray technology is an invasive cellphone surveillance
device that mimics cellphone towers and sends out signals to trick cellphones in the area into transmitting their
locations and identifying information. When used to track a suspects cellphone, they also gather information about
the phones of countless bystanders who happen to be nearby. The same is true of domestic drones, which are in
increasing use by U.S. law enforcement to conduct routine aerial surveillance. While drones are currently unarmed,
drone manufacturers are considering arming these remote-controlled aircraft with weapons like rubber bullets,
tasers, and tear gas. They will use fusion centers. Originally designed to increase interagency
collaboration for the purposes of counterterrorism, these have instead become the
local arm of the intelligence community. According to Electronic Frontier Foundation, there are
currently seventy-eight on record. They are the clearinghouse for increasingly used

suspicious activity reportsdescribed as official documentation of observed

behavior reasonably indicative of pre-operational planning related to terrorism or
other criminal activity. These reports and other collected data are often stored in
massive databases like e-Verify and Prism. As anybody whos ever dealt with gang databases knows,
its almost impossible to get off a federal or state database, even when the data collected is incorrect or no longer
true. Predictive policing doesnt just lead to racial and religious profilingit relies on it.

Just as stop and frisk legitimized an initial, unwarranted contact between police
and people of color, almost 90 percent of whom turn out to be innocent of any
crime, suspicious activities reporting and the dragnet approach of fusion centers
target communities of color. One review of such reports collected in Los Angeles shows approximately
75 percent were of people of color. This is the future of policing in America, and it should
terrify you as much as it terrifies me. Unfortunately, it probably doesnt, because my life
is at far greater risk than the lives of white Americans, especially those reporting
on the issue in the media or advocating in the halls of power.

Racial disparities are masked by a media focus on technologythis

justifies (normalizes??) targeted surveillance of blacks and
reinforces structural racism
CYRIL founder and executive director of the Center for Media Justice 2k15
Malkia Amala-co-founder of the Media Action Grassroots Network, a national network of 175 organizations working
to ensure media access, rights, and representation for marginalized communities; Black Americas State of
Surveillance; THE PROGRESSIVE; April; http://www.progressive.org/news/2015/03/188074/black-americas-statesurveillance THANKS JP; DB LOVES YA

One of the most terrifying aspects of high-tech surveillance is the invisibility of

those it disproportionately impacts. The NSA and FBI have engaged local law enforcement agencies
and electronic surveillance technologies to spy on Muslims living in the United States. According to FBI training
materials uncovered by Wired in 2011, the bureau taught agents to treat mainstream Muslims as supporters of
terrorism, to view charitable donations by Muslims as a funding mechanism for combat, and to view Islam itself as
a Death Star that must be destroyed if terrorism is to be contained. From New York City to Chicago and beyond,
local law enforcement agencies have expanded unlawful and covert racial and religious profiling against Muslims
not suspected of any crime. There is no national security reason to profile all Muslims. At the same time, almost
450,000 migrants are in detention facilities throughout the United States, including survivors of torture, asylum
seekers, families with small children, and the elderly. Undocumented migrant communities enjoy few legal
protections, and are therefore subject to brutal policing practices, including illegal surveillance practices.

According to the Sentencing Project, of the more than 2 million people

incarcerated in the United States, more than 60 percent are racial and ethnic
minorities. But by far, the widest net is cast over black communities. Black people
alone represent 40 percent of those incarcerated. More black men are
incarcerated than were held in slavery in 1850, on the eve of the Civil War. Lest some misinterpret
that statistic as evidence of greater criminality, a 2012 study confirms that black defendants are at
least 30 percent more likely to be imprisoned than whites for the same crime.
This is not a broken system, it is a system working perfectly as intended, to the
detriment of all. The NSA could not have spied on millions of cellphones if it were
not already spying on black people, Muslims, and migrants. As surveillance technologies
are increasingly adopted and integrated by law enforcement agencies today,

racial disparities are being made invisible by a media environment that

has failed to tell the story of surveillance in the context of structural
racism. Reporters love to tell the technology story. For some, its a sexier read.
To me, freedom from repression and racism is far sexier than the newest gadget
used to reinforce racial hierarchy. As civil rights protections catch up with the
technological terrain, reporting needs to catch up, too. Many journalists still focus
their reporting on the technological trends and not the racial hierarchies that
these trends are enforcing. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, Everything we see is a shadow cast by that
which we do not see. Journalists have an obligation to tell the stories that are hidden
from view. We are living in an incredible time, when migrant activists have blocked
deportation buses, and a movement for black lives has emerged, and when women,
queer, and trans experiences have been placed right at the center. The
decentralized power of the Internet makes that possible. But the Internet also
makes possible the high-tech surveillance that threatens to drive structural
racism in the twenty-first century.

The suspicious activity reports perpetuated by Fusion Centers are

racist, and target non-whites a vast majority of the time.

Kayyali 14 Boardmember of the National Lawyers Guild S.F. Bay Area, former
member of the 2012 Bill of Rights Defense Committee Legal Fellow, and member of
the EFF activism team. (Nadia Kayyali, Why Fusion Centers Matter: FAQ, April 7,
2014, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/why-fusion-centers-matter-faq)//RP
Do fusion centers increase racial and religious profiling? The weak
standards around SAR are particularly concerning because of the way they

can lead to racial and religious profiling. SARs can originate from
untrained civilians as well as law enforcement, and as one woman pointed out at
a BCOT event people who might already be a little racist who are 'observing' a
white man photographing a bridge are going to view it a little differently
than people observing me, a woman with a hijab, photographing a bridge.
The bottom line is that bias is not eliminated by so-called observed behavior
standards. Furthermore, once an investigation into a SAR has been initiated,
existing law enforcement bias can come into play; SARs give law enforcement a
reason to initiate contact that might not otherwise exist. Unsurprisingly, like most
tools of law enforcement, public records act requests have shown that people
of color often end up being the target of SARs: One review of SARs
collected through Public Records Act requests in Los Angeles showed that
78% of SARs were filed on non-whites. An audit by the Los Angeles Police
Department's Inspector General puts that number at 74%, still a shockingly high
number. A review of SARs obtained by the ACLU of Northern California also
show that most of the reports demonstrate bias and are based on
conjecture rather than articulable suspicion of criminal activity. Some of the
particularly concerning SARs include titles like "Suspicious ME [Middle Eastern]
Males Buy Several Large Pallets of Water" and "Suspicious photography of Folsom
Dam by Chinese Nationals." The latter SAR resulted in police contact: "Sac[ramento]
County Sheriffs Deputy contacted 3 adult Asian males who were taking photos of
Folsom Dam. They were evasive when the deputy asked them for identification and
said their passports were in their vehicle." Both of these SARs were entered into
FBI's eGuardian database. Not only that, there have been disturbing examples
of racially biased informational bulletins coming from fusion centers. A
2009 "North Central Texas Fusion Center Prevention Awareness Bulletin "
implies that tolerance towards Muslims is dangerous and that Islamic
militants are using methods such as "hip-hop boutiques" and "online social
networks" to indoctrinate youths in America.
Fusion centers perpetuate racial profiling.
Monahan 10, (Torin Monahan is a Professor of Communication Studies at The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on institutional
transformations with new technologies, with a particular emphasis on surveillance
and security programs, The Future of Security? Surveillance Operations at
Homeland Security Fusion Centers, June 2010,
http://publicsurveillance.com/papers/FC_Social_Justice.pdf)//JK
A terrorism threat assessment produced by Virginias fusion center surfaced in
2009 and sparked outrage because it identified students at colleges and universities
especially at historically black universitiesas posing a potential terrorist threat
(Sizemore, 2009). In the report, universities were targeted because of their diversity,
which is seen as threatening because it might inspire radicalization. The report says: Richmonds history as the
capital city of the Confederacy, combined with the citys current demographic concentration of African-American
residents, contributes to the continued presence of race-based extremist groups...[and student groups] are
recognized as a radicalization node for almost every type of extremist group (Virginia Fusion Center, 2009: 9).
Although the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others have rightly decried the racial-profiling implications
of such biased claims being codified in an official document ,

the report itself supports the

interpretation that minority students will be and probably have been targeted for
surveillance. The report argues: In order to detect and deter terrorist attacks, it is essential that information
regarding suspected terrorists and suspicious activity in Virginia be closely monitored and reported in a timely

Other groups identified as potential threats by the Virginia fusion

center were environmentalists, militia members, and students at Regent University,
the Christian university founded by evangelical preacher Pat Robertson (Sizemore,
manner (Ibid: 4).

2009). Another threat-assessment report, compiled by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), found the
modern militia movement to be worthy of focused investigation. The 2009 report predicted a resurgence in rightwing militia activities because of high levels of unemployment and anger at the election of the nations first black
president, Barack Obama, who many right-wing militia members might view as illegitimate and/or in favor of
stronger gun-control laws (Missouri Information Analysis Center, 2009). The greatest stir caused by the report was
its claim that militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups.... These members are
usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr (Ibid.: 7). When the
report circulated, many libertarians and Tea Party members took great offense, thinking the document argued
that supporters of third-party political groups were more likely to be dangerous militia members or terrorists. In
response, libertarian activists formed a national network called Operation Defuse, which is devoted to uncovering
and criticizing the activities of fusion centers and is actively filing open-records requests and attempting to conduct
tours of fusion centers. Operation Defuse could be construed as a counter-surveillance group (Monahan, 2006)
that arose largely because of outrage over the probability of political profiling by state-surveillance agents. Fusion
centers have also been implicated in scandals involving covert infiltrations of nonviolent groups, including peace-

The most
astonishing of the known cases involved the Maryland Coordination and Analysis
Center (MCAC). In response to an ACLU freedom of information lawsuit, it came to
light in 2008 that the Maryland State Police had conducted covert investigations of
at least 53 peace activists and anti-death penalty activists for a period of 14
months. The investigation proceeded despite admissions by the covert agent that
she saw no indication of violent activities or violent intentions on the part of
group members (Newkirk, 2010). Nonetheless, in the federal database used by the
police and accessed by MCAC, activists were listed as being suspected of the
primary crime of Terrorismanti-government (German and Stanley, 2008: 8). Although it
is unclear exactly what role the fusion center played in these activities, they were
most likely involved in and aware of the investigation . After all, as Mike German and Jay Stanley
(2008: 8) explain: Fusion centers are clearly intended to be the central focal point for
sharing terrorism-related information. If the MCAC was not aware of the information the state police
activist groups, anti-death penalty groups, animal-rights groups, Green Party groups, and others.

collected over the 14 months of this supposed terrorism investigation, this fact would call into question whether the
MCAC is accomplishing its mission.

Police spying of this sort, besides being illegal absent

reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, could have a chilling effect on free speech
and freedom of association. The fact that individuals were wrongly labeled as
terrorists in these systems and may still be identified as such could also have
negative ramifications for them far into the future. Another dimension of troubling
partnerships between fusion centers and law enforcement was revealed with the
2007 arrest of Kenneth Krayeske, a Green Party member in Connecticut. On January 3, 2007,
Krayeske was taking photographs of Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell at her inaugural parade. He was not
engaged in protest at the time. While serving as the manager of the Green Partys gubernatorial
candidate, he had publicly challenged Governor Rell over the issue of why she would not debate his candidate

At the parade, police promptly arrested Krayeske (after he took 23

photographs) and later charged him with Breach of Peace and Interfering with Police
(Levine, 2007).

(Ibid.). Connecticuts fusion center, the Connecticut Intelligence Center (CTIC), had conducted a threat assessment
for the event and had circulated photographs of Krayeske and others to police in advance (Krayeske, 2007). The
police report reads: The Connecticut Intelligence Center and the Connecticut State Police Central Intelligence Unit
had briefed us [the police] on possible threats to Governor Rell by political activist [sic], to include photographs of
the individuals. One of the photographs was of the accused Kenneth Krayeske (quoted in Levine, 2007). Evidently,
part of the reason Krayeske was targeted was that intelligence analysts,

most likely at the fusion center,

were monitoring blog posts on the Internet and interpreted one of them as
threatening: Who is going to protest the inaugural ball with me?... No need to make
nice (CNN.com, 2009). According to a CNN report on the arrest, after finding that blog post, police began
digging for information, mining public and commercial data bases. They learned Krayeske had been a
Green Party campaign director, had protested the gubernatorial debate and had
once been convicted for civil disobedience. He had no history of violence (Ibid.). The
person who read Krayeske his Miranda rights and attempted to interview him in custody was Andrew Weaver, a
sergeant for the City of Hartford Police Department who also works in the CTIC fusion center (Department of

These few examples demonstrate some of

the dangers and problems with fusion centers. Fusion center threat assessments
lend themselves to profiling along lines of race, religion, and political affiliation.
Their products are not impartial assessments of terrorist threats, but rather betray
biases against individuals or groups who deviate fromor challengethe status
quo. According to a Washington Times commentary that became a focal point for a congressional hearing on
Emergency Management and Homeland Security, 2008).

fusion centers, as long as terrorism is defined as coercive or intimidating acts that are intended to shape

Evidence
from the Maryland and Connecticut fusion center cases suggests that their
representatives are either involved in data-gathering and investigative work, or are
at least complicit in such activities, including illegal spying operations (German and
Stanley, 2008). The Connecticut case further shows that individuals working at fusion
centers are actively monitoring online sources and interviewing suspects, a
departure from the official Fusion Center Guidelines that stress exchange and
analysis of data, not data acquisition through investigations (U.S. Department of Justice,
2006). One important issue here is that fusion centers occupy ambiguous organizational positions . Many of
them are located in police departments or are combined with FBI Joint Terrorism
Task Forces, but their activities are supposed to be separate and different from the
routine activities of the police or the FBI. A related complication is that fusion center
employees often occupy multiple organizational roles (e.g., police officers or National Guard
government policy, any dissidence or political dissident is suspect to fusion centers (Fein, 2009).

members and fusion center analysts), which can lead to an understandable, but nonetheless problematic, blurring
of professional identities, rules of conduct, and systems of accountability. Whereas in 2010 DHS and the
Department of Justice responded to concerns about profiling by implementing a civil liberties certification
requirement for fusion centers, public oversight and accountability of fusion centers are becoming even more
difficult and unlikely because of a concerted effort to exempt fusion centers from freedom of information requests.

Virginia legislators were coerced into passing a 2008

law that exempted its fusion center from the Freedom of Information Act; in this
instance, federal officials threatened to withhold classified intelligence from the
states fusion center and police if they did not pass such a law (German and Stanley, 2008).
For example, according to a police official,

Another tactic used by fusion center representatives to thwart open-records requests is to claim that there is no
material product for them to turn over because they only access, rather than retain, information (Hylton,
2009). Although it may be tempting to view these cases of fusion center missteps and infractions as isolated

A handful of other cases has surfaced

recently in which fusion centers in California, Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvania, and
Georgia have recommended peace activists, Muslim-rights groups, and/or
environmentalists be profiled (German, 2009; Wolfe, 2009). The Texas example reveals the ways in which
examples, they are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

the flexibility of fusion centers affords the incorporation of xenophobic and racist beliefs. In 2009, the North Central

Fusion System produced a report that argued that the United States is
especially vulnerable to terrorist infiltration because the country is too tolerant and
accommodating of religious difference, especially of Islam. Through several indicators, the
Texas

report lists supposed signs that the country is gradually being invaded and transformed: Muslim cab drivers in
Minneapolis refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol in their possession; the Indianapolis airport in 2007
installed footbaths to accommodate Muslim prayer; public schools schedule prayer breaks to accommodate Muslim

students; pork is banned in the workplace; etc. (North Central Texas Fusion System, 2009: 4). Because the threats
to Texas are significant,

the fusion center advises keeping an eye out for Muslim civil
liberties groups and sympathetic individuals, organizations, or media that might
carry their message: hip-hop bands, social networking sites, online chat forums,
blogs, and even the U.S. Department of Treasury (Ibid.). Recent infiltration of peace
groups seems to reproduce some of the sordid history of political surveillance of
U.S. citizens, such as the FBI and CIAs COINTELPRO program, which targeted civil
rights leaders and those peacefully protesting against the Vietnam War, among others
(Churchill and Vander Wall, 2002). A contemporary case involves a U.S. Army agent who infiltrated a nonviolent,
anti-war protest group in Olympia, Washington, in 2007. A military agent spying on civilians likely violated the Posse
Comitatus Act. Moreover, this agent actively shared intelligence with the Washington State Fusion Center, which
shared it more broadly (Anderson, 2010).

According to released documents, intelligence

representatives from as far away as New Jersey were kept apprised of the spying: In
a 2008 e-mail to an Olympia police officer, Thomas Glapion, Chief of Investigations
and Intelligence at New Jerseys McGuire Air Force Base, wrote: You are now part of
my Intel network. Im still looking at possible protests by the PMR SDS MDS and
other left wing antiwar groups so any Intel you have would be appreciated.... In
return if you need anything from the Armed Forces I will try to help you as well (Ibid.:
4). Given that political surveillance under COINTELPRO is widely considered to be a
dark period in U.S. intelligence history, the fact that fusion centers may be
contributing to similar practices today makes it all the more important to subject
them to public scrutiny and oversight

CHILLING EFFECT EXTNS

FBI INTIMIDATION TACTICS HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON PEACEFUL PROTEST

The FBIs intimidation and interrogation of peaceful protesters MISUSE funds

established to fight terrorism, targeting activist planning to protest at major national
political events has had a CHILLING effect on free speech as the FBI has trained
local law enforcement agencies how to justify surveillance under the guise of
terrorism with the DOJ condoing this atrocity. In short Peaceful Protestors should not
be treated as TERRORISTS.
ACLU 4 [ACLU Denounces FBI Tactics Targeting Political Protestors, American
Civil Liberties Union, nonpartisan and non-profit civil rights organization, 8/16/04,
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-denounces-fbi-tactics-targeting-political-protesters]
MG
NEW YORK-The

American Civil Liberties Union today denounced the FBI's use of the
Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) to monitor, interrogate and suppress anti-war and other
political protesters and called on individuals who have been targeted for investigation to come forward. The
ACLU issued the public statement after an article in today's New York Times detailed actions taken by FBI agents
in Missouri, Kansas and Colorado to spy on and interrogate activists in advance of the
Democratic and Republican national conventions. "The FBI's intimidation and
interrogation of peaceful protesters brings back eerie echoes of the days of J. Edgar
Hoover," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Resources and funds established to
fight terrorism should not be misused to target innocent Americans who have done
nothing more than engage in lawful protest and dissent." According to reports from
ACLU offices, law enforcement officials throughout the U.S. have been monitoring
the daily activities of various activists they believe are planning to protest major
national political events, including the upcoming Republican National Convention in New York, which is
expected to draw hundreds of thousands of protesters. In the days leading up to the Democratic National

officials identifying themselves as JTTF agents made "visits" to the homes

of several activists as well as their friends and family members. In Missouri, three young
Convention,

men in their early 20's were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury on July 29, the same day they
planned on protesting the Democratic convention. The men, who planned to drive to Boston with an activist group
based in St. Louis, first realized they were being targeted by the FBI when agents visited the homes of their parents
a week before the subpoenas. In addition to asking about easily accessible information such as current addresses,
the agents also asked the parents for information on their sons' political activities. The very next day, agents visited
the three men directly and asked them if they had any knowledge of individuals planning "criminally disorderly
behavior" at the national conventions, the presidential debates, the election or any other event. According to the
men, the surveillance increased after the visits, and conditions did not improve until after they contacted the ACLU.
"These young men are quite terrified by the experience of being targeted by the Joint Terrorism Task Force because
of their protest activities," said Denise Lieberman, Legal Director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. "The

interrogations have had a chilling effect on free speech."

FBI

JTTF officials conducted

similar investigations on individuals in Denver and Fort Collins, Colorado, including 21-year-old Sarah Bardwell.
Bardwell, an intern with the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group dedicated to nonviolence, was
approached at her home by four FBI agents and two Denver police officers asking questions consistent with those in
Missouri: Are you planning to be involved in any criminal acts at the national conventions? Do you know anybody
who is? Are you aware that if you assist or know anybody planning any criminal acts and do not report them, it's a
crime? According to Bardwell, the officials at first jokingly told her and her housemates that they were there to do
"community outreach," but then clarified they were "doing some preventive measures and investigating." Bardwell
and her housemates believe they were targeted because of their past participation in protests, including anti-war
demonstrations. Last year, the Denver Police Department agreed to stop its practice of monitoring and recording
the peaceful protest activities of local residents in a settlement reached in the ACLU's landmark "Spy Files" lawsuit.

JTTF visits
are an abuse of power, designed to intimidate these kids from exercising their
constitutional right to protest government policies and associate with others who want to protest
Despite the settlement, Denver's intelligence unit contributes two fulltime officers to the JTTF. "These

government policies," said Mark Silverstein, Legal Director of the ACLU of Colorado. The ACLU denounced JTTF

a classified FBI intelligence memorandum, which

gave police detailed instructions on how to target and monitor lawful political
demonstrations under the rubric of fighting terrorism. As reported in today's Times,
a previously undisclosed DOJ legal opinion condoned the controversial tactics
outlined in the memorandum. The opinion was issued in response to an internal complaint by an
employee who charged that the tactics blurred the line between lawfully protected speech
and illegal activity. "It is troubling that the FBI continues to advocate spying on
peaceful protesters," said the ACLU's Romero. "But even protesters who engage in civil
disobedience or other disruptive acts should not be treated like potential terrorists."
tactics last November after the publication of

The ACLU said that there has been a noticeable increase in domestic spying on political protesters in recent years.
One of the most famous cases is the infiltration of the anti-war group Peace Fresno by a member of the Fresno
County Sheriff Department's Anti-Terrorism unit in 2003. Peace Fresno discovered one of its members had actually
been a government agent through an obituary published after his death in a motorcycle accident. The incident is
portrayed in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 as an example of civil liberties violations in the post-September 11th
climate. The ACLU said it is continuing to monitor incidents of FBI intimidation and interrogation.

By rapidly spreading data concerning activist groups, fusion centers

chill whistleblowers and activists.

Kayyali 14 Boardmember of the National Lawyers Guild S.F. Bay Area, former
member of the 2012 Bill of Rights Defense Committee Legal Fellow, and member of
the EFF activism team. (Nadia Kayyali, Why Fusion Centers Matter: FAQ, April 7,
2014, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/why-fusion-centers-matter-faq)//RP
Do fusion centers facilitate political repression?
Fusion centers have been used to record and share information about First
Amendment protected activities in a way that aids repressive police
activity and chills freedom of association.
A series of public records act requests in Massachusetts showed: "Officers
monitor demonstrations, track the beliefs and internal dynamics of
activist groups, and document this information with misleading criminal
labels in searchable and possibly widely-shared electronic reports." The
documents included intelligence reports addressing issues such internal
group discussions and protest planning, and showed evidence of police
contact.
For example, one report indicated that "Activists arrested for trespassing at a
consulate were interviewed by three surveillance officers 'in the hopes
that these activists may reach out to the officers in the future.' They were
asked about their organizing efforts and for the names of other
organizers."

THE USE OF FUSION CENTERS TARGETS BLACK PROTEST CAUSING A

CHILLING EFFECT

Monahan 10,

(Torin Monahan is a Professor of Communication Studies at The University of North Carolina

at Chapel Hill. His research focuses on institutional transformations with new technologies, with a particular
emphasis on surveillance and security programs, The Future of Security? Surveillance Operations at Homeland
Security Fusion Centers, June 2010, http://publicsurveillance.com/papers/FC_Social_Justice.pdf)

A terrorism threat assessment produced by Virginias fusion center surfaced in

2009 and sparked outrage because it identified students at colleges and universities
especially at historically black universitiesas posing a potential terrorist threat
(Sizemore, 2009). In the report, universities were targeted because of their diversity,
which is seen as threatening because it might inspire radicalization. The report says: Richmonds history as the
capital city of the Confederacy, combined with the citys current demographic concentration of African-American
residents, contributes to the continued presence of race-based extremist groups...[and student groups] are
recognized as a radicalization node for almost every type of extremist group (Virginia Fusion Center, 2009: 9).
Although the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others have rightly decried the racial-profiling implications
of such biased claims being codified in an official document ,

the report itself supports the

interpretation that minority students will be and probably have been targeted for
surveillance. The report argues: In order to detect and deter terrorist attacks, it is essential that information
regarding suspected terrorists and suspicious activity in Virginia be closely monitored and reported in a timely

Other groups identified as potential threats by the Virginia fusion

center were environmentalists, militia members, and students at Regent University,
the Christian university founded by evangelical preacher Pat Robertson (Sizemore,
manner (Ibid: 4).

2009). Another threat-assessment report, compiled by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), found the
modern militia movement to be worthy of focused investigation. The 2009 report predicted a resurgence in rightwing militia activities because of high levels of unemployment and anger at the election of the nations first black
president, Barack Obama, who many right-wing militia members might view as illegitimate and/or in favor of
stronger gun-control laws (Missouri Information Analysis Center, 2009). The greatest stir caused by the report was
its claim that militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups.... These members are
usually supporters of former Presidential Candidate: Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr (Ibid.: 7). When the
report circulated, many libertarians and Tea Party members took great offense, thinking the document argued
that supporters of third-party political groups were more likely to be dangerous militia members or terrorists. In
response, libertarian activists formed a national network called Operation Defuse, which is devoted to uncovering
and criticizing the activities of fusion centers and is actively filing open-records requests and attempting to conduct
tours of fusion centers. Operation Defuse could be construed as a counter-surveillance group (Monahan, 2006)
that arose largely because of outrage over the probability of political profiling by state-surveillance agents. Fusion
centers have also been implicated in scandals involving covert infiltrations of nonviolent groups, including peace-

The most
astonishing of the known cases involved the Maryland Coordination and Analysis
Center (MCAC). In response to an ACLU freedom of information lawsuit, it came to
light in 2008 that the Maryland State Police had conducted covert investigations of
at least 53 peace activists and anti-death penalty activists for a period of 14
months. The investigation proceeded despite admissions by the covert agent that
she saw no indication of violent activities or violent intentions on the part of
group members (Newkirk, 2010). Nonetheless, in the federal database used by the
police and accessed by MCAC, activists were listed as being suspected of the
primary crime of Terrorismanti-government (German and Stanley, 2008: 8). Although it
is unclear exactly what role the fusion center played in these activities, they were
most likely involved in and aware of the investigation . After all, as Mike German and Jay Stanley
(2008: 8) explain: Fusion centers are clearly intended to be the central focal point for
sharing terrorism-related information. If the MCAC was not aware of the information the state police
activist groups, anti-death penalty groups, animal-rights groups, Green Party groups, and others.

collected over the 14 months of this supposed terrorism investigation, this fact would call into question whether the
MCAC is accomplishing its mission.

Police spying of this sort, besides being illegal absent

reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, could have a chilling effect on free speech
and freedom of association. The fact that individuals were wrongly labeled as
terrorists in these systems and may still be identified as such could also have
negative ramifications for them far into the future. Another dimension of troubling

partnerships between fusion centers and law enforcement was revealed with the
2007 arrest of Kenneth Krayeske, a Green Party member in Connecticut. On January 3, 2007,
Krayeske was taking photographs of Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell at her inaugural parade. He was not
engaged in protest at the time. While serving as the manager of the Green Partys gubernatorial
candidate, he had publicly challenged Governor Rell over the issue of why she would not debate his candidate

At the parade, police promptly arrested Krayeske (after he took 23

photographs) and later charged him with Breach of Peace and Interfering with Police
(Levine, 2007).

(Ibid.). Connecticuts fusion center, the Connecticut Intelligence Center (CTIC), had conducted a threat assessment
for the event and had circulated photographs of Krayeske and others to police in advance (Krayeske, 2007). The
police report reads: The Connecticut Intelligence Center and the Connecticut State Police Central Intelligence Unit
had briefed us [the police] on possible threats to Governor Rell by political activist [sic], to include photographs of
the individuals. One of the photographs was of the accused Kenneth Krayeske (quoted in Levine, 2007). Evidently,

most likely at the fusion center,

were monitoring blog posts on the Internet and interpreted one of them as
threatening: Who is going to protest the inaugural ball with me?... No need to make
nice (CNN.com, 2009). According to a CNN report on the arrest, after finding that blog post, police began
digging for information, mining public and commercial data bases. They learned Krayeske had been a
Green Party campaign director, had protested the gubernatorial debate and had
once been convicted for civil disobedience. He had no history of violence (Ibid.). The
part of the reason Krayeske was targeted was that intelligence analysts,

person who read Krayeske his Miranda rights and attempted to interview him in custody was Andrew Weaver, a
sergeant for the City of Hartford Police Department who also works in the CTIC fusion center (Department of

These few examples demonstrate some of

the dangers and problems with fusion centers. Fusion center threat assessments
lend themselves to profiling along lines of race, religion, and political affiliation.
Their products are not impartial assessments of terrorist threats, but rather betray
biases against individuals or groups who deviate fromor challengethe status
quo. According to a Washington Times commentary that became a focal point for a congressional hearing on
Emergency Management and Homeland Security, 2008).

fusion centers, as long as terrorism is defined as coercive or intimidating acts that are intended to shape

Evidence
from the Maryland and Connecticut fusion center cases suggests that their
representatives are either involved in data-gathering and investigative work, or are
at least complicit in such activities, including illegal spying operations (German and
Stanley, 2008). The Connecticut case further shows that individuals working at fusion
centers are actively monitoring online sources and interviewing suspects, a
departure from the official Fusion Center Guidelines that stress exchange and
analysis of data, not data acquisition through investigations (U.S. Department of Justice,
2006). One important issue here is that fusion centers occupy ambiguous organizational positions . Many of
them are located in police departments or are combined with FBI Joint Terrorism
Task Forces, but their activities are supposed to be separate and different from the
routine activities of the police or the FBI. A related complication is that fusion center
employees often occupy multiple organizational roles (e.g., police officers or National Guard
government policy, any dissidence or political dissident is suspect to fusion centers (Fein, 2009).

members and fusion center analysts), which can lead to an understandable, but nonetheless problematic, blurring
of professional identities, rules of conduct, and systems of accountability. Whereas in 2010 DHS and the
Department of Justice responded to concerns about profiling by implementing a civil liberties certification
requirement for fusion centers, public oversight and accountability of fusion centers are becoming even more
difficult and unlikely because of a concerted effort to exempt fusion centers from freedom of information requests.

Virginia legislators were coerced into passing a 2008

law that exempted its fusion center from the Freedom of Information Act; in this
instance, federal officials threatened to withhold classified intelligence from the
states fusion center and police if they did not pass such a law (German and Stanley, 2008).
For example, according to a police official,

Another tactic used by fusion center representatives to thwart open-records requests is to claim that there is no
material product for them to turn over because they only access, rather than retain, information (Hylton,
2009). Although it may be tempting to view these cases of fusion center missteps and infractions as isolated

A handful of other cases has surfaced

recently in which fusion centers in California, Colorado, Texas, Pennsylvania, and
examples, they are probably just the tip of the iceberg.

Georgia have recommended peace activists, Muslim-rights groups, and/or

environmentalists be profiled (German, 2009; Wolfe, 2009). The Texas example reveals the ways in which
the flexibility of fusion centers affords the incorporation of xenophobic and racist beliefs. In 2009, the North Central

Fusion System produced a report that argued that the United States is
especially vulnerable to terrorist infiltration because the country is too tolerant and
accommodating of religious difference, especially of Islam. Through several indicators, the
Texas

report lists supposed signs that the country is gradually being invaded and transformed: Muslim cab drivers in
Minneapolis refuse to carry passengers who have alcohol in their possession; the Indianapolis airport in 2007
installed footbaths to accommodate Muslim prayer; public schools schedule prayer breaks to accommodate Muslim
students; pork is banned in the workplace; etc. (North Central Texas Fusion System, 2009: 4). Because the threats
to Texas are significant,

the fusion center advises keeping an eye out for Muslim civil
liberties groups and sympathetic individuals, organizations, or media that might
carry their message: hip-hop bands, social networking sites, online chat forums,
blogs, and even the U.S. Department of Treasury (Ibid.). Recent infiltration of peace
groups seems to reproduce some of the sordid history of political surveillance of
U.S. citizens, such as the FBI and CIAs COINTELPRO program, which targeted civil
rights leaders and those peacefully protesting against the Vietnam War, among others

(Churchill and Vander Wall, 2002). A contemporary case involves a U.S. Army agent who infiltrated a nonviolent,
anti-war protest group in Olympia, Washington, in 2007. A military agent spying on civilians likely violated the Posse
Comitatus Act. Moreover, this agent actively shared intelligence with the Washington State Fusion Center, which
shared it more broadly (Anderson, 2010).

According to released documents, intelligence

representatives from as far away as New Jersey were kept apprised of the spying: In
a 2008 e-mail to an Olympia police officer, Thomas Glapion, Chief of Investigations
and Intelligence at New Jerseys McGuire Air Force Base, wrote: You are now part of
my Intel network. Im still looking at possible protests by the PMR SDS MDS and
other left wing antiwar groups so any Intel you have would be appreciated.... In
return if you need anything from the Armed Forces I will try to help you as well (Ibid.:
4). Given that political surveillance under COINTELPRO is widely considered to be a
dark period in U.S. intelligence history, the fact that fusion centers may be
contributing to similar practices today makes it all the more important to subject
them to public scrutiny and oversight

The chilling effect is realdefers citizens to speaking out on

different issues

Redden 13 (Molly Redden is a writer for the New Republic which years of
journalism experience, Is the Chilling Effect Real New Republic,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113219/doj-seizure-ap-records-raises-questionchilling-effect-real)
Since news broke Monday that the Justice Department had secretly accessed the
phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors over a two-month period
likely as a result of its anonymously sourced story on a foiled al Qaeda plot to blow
up a U.S.-bound planeno watchwords have gotten more exercise than chilling
effect. A bevy of lawmakers, such as Sen. Mark Udall, of the Select Committee on
Intelligence, and Sen. Richard Blumenthal, of the Judiciary
Committee, have invoked the phrase in calling for the DOJ to justify its actions,
while pundits have used it to denounce the same actions as unconscionable: Not
only is it chilling, it is stupid, the National JournalsRon Fournier told the hosts of
MSNBC's Morning Joe. The APs own story on the probe paraphrases an ACLU
lawyer saying that journalists may be cowed out of chasing down national security

leads in the face of government scrutiny. But does federal overbearance really have
a chilling effect? Apparently so. New York Times reporter Eric Lichtblau told me in
an email that, after writing a Pulitzer Prizewinning series of stories with James
Risen that revealed major clandestine counterterrorism programs under Bush,
like warrantless wiretaps, I heard from various news sources that the FBI had been
monitoring my phone and Internet communications with certain people as part of its
leak investigation into our NSA story. Nearly every national security reporter
reached Tuesday had a similar story to tell, as do plenty of their peers. Lichtblau
said that subpoena threats from the DOJ were the trigger that caused him to quit
writing national security stories in the closing days of the Bush administrati on.
When I initially moved off the Justice Department beat in 2009, part of the thinking
there was the threat of the subpoena, he said, adding to what hed written in his
email: While the Justice Department never made good on the threat, it certainly
made it more difficult to do my job in dealing with confidential sources when you
realize you may be forced to testify before a grand jury or risk going to jail to
protect a source. Rather than roll the dice with incoming Attorney General Eric
Holder, Lichtblau decided to cover money-and-politics instead.

Surveillance causes chilling effectscares away activists

Flaherty 12, (Jordan Flaherty is an award-winning journalist, producer, and

author. He has appeared as a guest on a wide range of television and radio shows,
including CNN Morning, Anderson Cooper 360, and Notes on NPR, The NYPDs File
on Me, The progress, August 2012,
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/pqrl/docview/1033210015/DBE0A03
15871449EPQ/2?accountid=14667) JK

I KNEW ABOUT COINTELPRO AND its infiltration of the Black Panthers and the
American Indian Movement. I followed the revelations of recent NYPD spying
on Muslim communities and activists. And in New Orleans, I had directly
experienced the damage created by Brandon Darby an FBI informant who
posed as an activist and created conflict when he moved here shortly after
Hurricane Katrina. Still, finding out that the NYPD had a file on me didn't
exactly make my day It was invasive. It was wrong. And it made me want to
fight back. Here's what happened. Back in 2008, a People's Summit was
organized in New Orleans as a grassroots response to a meeting here of the
leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Canada where they pledged to
expand "security cooperation" as part of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). Activists from across the hemisphere came together to
present an alternative vision of globalization, one that empowered
communities rather than corporations. Local groups also participated,
including an anti-racist training organization called the People's Institute for
Survival and Beyond, the New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice,

and the local chapter of the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. The gathering
consisted mostly of panels, workshops, and discussions, with a couple
of protest marches. There was street theater from local day laborers,
testimony from Mexican and Canadian workers, and links drawn between the
profiteering after Hurricane Katrina and the exploitation that NAFTA
encouraged. Although there were some street protests, none had more than
a few hundred participants, and there were no arrests, not even
of the symbolic kind. It was an exciting and educational gathering, but there
was nothing to justify the involvement of any police force. The only danger
was the threat of ideas. And yet the NYPD sent agents down to watch people
and write up a report. They mentioned me by name, saying I led a discussion
on Palestine and called for an international boycott of Israeli goods. They also
cited organizations I had worked with in the past, such as the International
Solidarity Movement. The NYPD report was inaccurate: It described me as an
organizer of the protests, when, in fact, I was just another participant. It
identified me as one of the main speakers, when, in fact, I introduced a film
at an arts festival that ran concurrently with the summit. I couldn't help
wondering, "Why me? And why this gathering?" I also wondered, "What else
about me is buried in files somewhere?" My mind went back
to the undercover cop Darby. He pitted longtime organizers against each other.
He seemed to reserve special scorn for women and LGBTQ activists. He undermined
organizing, usurping projects from others and working to redirect funding away from
local community leaders. I was not particularly close to Darby, but I had many
interactions with him and should have seen - and stood against - the effect he was

having on local activism. The conflicts Darby instigated came at a time of

extreme crisis for our city, when we needed unity among those calling for a
just reconstruction. These dubious tactics of law enforcement - monitoring
surveillance, harassment, and infiltration-have a chilling effect on not just
social justice movements but freedom of speech in general. They scare away
those people whose voices we most need to hear from - those from
communities most at risk. The Associated Press has documented a wide
array of excesses the NYPD has engaged in. An undercover officer took a
whit e wat er raft ine trip with Muslim college students, and the department
aggressively monitored and infiltrated mosques and Muslim
businesses. The NYPD operates in at least nine foreign countries, and it
apparently has no hesitation about traveling anywhere in the world to find
information. Suppressing dissent involves more than just arrests and pepper
spray, although those are also powerful deterrents. It is now standard
practice for police to film demonstrations. The New Orleans Police
Department routinely films people's license plates as well. Step by step, we
have seen any idea of privacy disappear: Everything we do is the business of
our government and an increasingly militarized police. This has always been
true for communities of color; now the scope has simply gotten wider. While

law enforcement representatives defend the aggressive presence of officers

in military gear at almost every protest around the country as harmless
public safety measures, there is no doubt this has had a chilling effect on
dissent.

VIOLATES 4TH AMENDMENT

The method of reporting used by Fusion Centers clearly violates the
4th amendment, and maintains easily abusable standards. (Note: SAR
= Suspicious activity reporting, what fusion centers use)

Kayyali 14 Boardmember of the National Lawyers Guild S.F. Bay Area, former
member of the 2012 Bill of Rights Defense Committee Legal Fellow, and member of
the EFF activism team. (Nadia Kayyali, Why Fusion Centers Matter: FAQ, April 7,
2014, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/why-fusion-centers-matter-faq)//RP
SARs do no meet legally cognizable standards for search or seizure under
the Fourth amendment. Normally, the government must satisfy reasonable
suspicion or probable cause standards when searching a person or place
or detaining someone. While SARs themselves are not a search or seizure, they
are used by law enforcement to initiate investigations, or even more
intrusive actions such as detentions, on the basis of evidence that does
not necessarily rise to the level of probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
In other words, while the standard for SAR sounds like it was written to
comport with the constitutional standards for investigation already in
place, it does not.
In fact, the specific set of behaviors listed in the National SAR standards include
innocuous activities such as:
taking pictures or video of facilities, buildings, or infrastructure in a manner that
would arouse suspicion in a reasonable person, and demonstrating unusual
interest in facilities, buildings, or infrastructure beyond mere casual or professional
(e.g. engineers) interest such that a reasonable person would consider the activity
suspicious. Examples include observation through binoculars, taking notes,
attempting to measure distances, etc.
These standards are clearly ripe for abuse of discretion.

VIOLATES PRIVACY
Fusion Centers majorly violate America privacy in five ways.

ACLU no date but cites 2012 American Civil Liberties Union, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to upholding constitutional rights, over 500,000
members, and a legal assistance provider. (ACLU, More About Fusion Centers,
2012, https://www.aclu.org/more-about-fusion-centers?redirect=spy-files/moreabout-fusion-centers)//RP
Fusion centers were designed to organize localized domestic intelligence
gathering into an integrated system that can distribute data both horizontally
across a network of fusion centers and vertically, down to local law enforcement
and up to the federal intelligence community. These centers can employ officials
from federal, state and local law enforcement and homeland security agencies, as
well as other state and local government entities, the federal intelligence
community, the military and even private companies, to spy on Americans in
virtually complete secrecy.
We found that while fusion centers vary widely in what they do, but five
overarching problems with these domestic intelligence operations put
Americans' privacy and civil liberties at risk:
1

Ambiguous Lines of Authority. In a multi-jurisdictional environment

it is unclear what rules apply, and which agency is ultimately
responsible for the activities of the fusion center participants.

2 Private Sector Participation. Some fusion centers incorporate

private-sector corporations into the intelligence process, potentially
undermining privacy laws designed to protect the privacy of
innocent Americans, and increasing the risk of a data breach.
3 Military Participation.Some fusion centers include military personnel
in law enforcement activities in troubling ways.
4 Data Mining. Federal fusion center guidelines encourage wholesale
data collection and data manipulation processes that threaten
privacy.
5 Excessive Secrecy. Fusion centers are characterized by excessive
secrecy, which limits public oversight, impairs their ability to acquire
essential information and impedes their ability to fulfill their stated
mission, bringing their ultimate value into doubt.
We urged policymakers to examine this emerging network of fusion centers closely
and, at a minimum, to put rigorous safeguards in place to ensure that they would
not become the means for a new era of police intelligence abuses. There were 40
fusion centers when the report was published. Six months later there were 58 fusion
centers and a growing number of news reports illustrating the problems we

identified, so in July 2008 we published a follow-up report. Today there are at least
77 fusion centers across the country receiving federal funding.
Since these ACLU reports were published, a number of troubling intelligence
products produced by fusion centers have leaked to the public:

A Texas fusion center released an intelligence bulletin that described

a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations,
lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, a former U.S.
Congresswoman, the U.S. Treasury Department and hip hop bands to
spread Sharia law in the U.S.

The same month, but on the other side of the political spectrum, a Missouri
Fusion Center released a report on "the modern militia movement" that
claimed militia members are "usually supporters" of third-party presidential
candidates like Ron Paul and Bob Barr.

In March 2008 the Virginia Fusion Center issued a terrorism threat

assessment that described the state's universities and colleges as
"nodes for radicalization" and characterized the "diversity"
surrounding a Virginia military base and the state's "historically
black" colleges as possible threats.
A DHS analyst at a Wisconsin fusion center prepared a report about
protesters on both sides of the abortion debate, despite the fact
that no violence was expected.
These bulletins, which are widely distributed, would be laughable except that
they come with the imprimatur of a federally backed intelligence operation,
and they encourage law enforcement officers to monitor the activities of
political activists and racial and religious minorities.
Fusion centers are also the focal point for growing suspicious activity reporting
programs that encourage public reporting of innocuous everyday activities. The
Colorado Information and Analysis Center even produced a fear-mongering
public service announcement asking the public to report innocuous
behaviors such as photography, note-taking, drawing and collecting
money for charity as "warning signs" of terrorism. The George Washington
University Homeland Security Policy Institute published a survey of fusion center
employees in September 2012, which characterized suspicious activity reports as
white noise that impeded effective intelligence analysis.
There is some good news, however. The 2010 DHS Homeland Security Grant
Program established a requirement that fusion centers certify that privacy and civil
liberties protections are in place in order to use DHS grant funds. This is the first
time DHS has acknowledged its authority to regulate fusion center activities and it
coincides with the establishment of a new DHS Joint Fusion Center Program
Management Office to oversee DHS support to fusion centers. While these are only
small steps, they are important advances toward establishing an effective
governance and oversight structure over fusion centers. But reforms are not

taking place fast enough and fusion centers and the risks they pose only
continue to grow.
In October 2012, the Senate Homeland Security Committee Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations released a highly critical report on fusion centers,
revealing that public officials claims about their effectiveness were not accurate,
that federal funds designated for fusion centers were not properly accounted for,
and that intelligence analysts and reports officers lacked sufficient training and
often produced reports that infringed on civil rights. In response, the conservative
Heritage Foundation called for cutting back the number of fusion centers. With
ample evidence of abuse, the time has come for Congress and your local
government representatives to act by cutting off funds to fusion centers that do not
have a narrowly-tailored law enforcement mission, strict guidelines to protect
Americans privacy, and independent oversight to prevent abuse.

VIOLATES 1ST AMENDMENT

Surveillance creates a chilling effect that harms and prohibits first
amendment rights
Richards 13 Professor of Law of Washington University School of Law (Neil M.
Richards, Perspectives in Surveillance, THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE, 2013,
http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_richards.pdf)//JM
A basic principle of free speech law as it has developed over the past century is that free
speech is so important that its protection should err on the side of caution. Given
the uncertainty of litigation, the Supreme Court has created a series of procedural
devices to attempt to ensure that errors in the adjudication of free speech cases
tend to allow unlawful speech rather than engage in mistaken censorship. These
doctrines form what Professor Lee Bollinger calls the First Pillar of First Amendment law the [e]xtraordinary

Such doctrines take various forms, such as those of prior

restraint, overbreadth, and vagueness, but they are often characterized under the idea of the
chilling effect. This idea maintains that rules that might deter potentially valuable
expression should be treated with a high level of suspi- cion by courts. As the Supreme
[p]rotection against [c]ensorship.85

Court put it in perhaps its most important free speech decision of the twentieth century, New York Times Co. v.

the importance of uninhibited public debate means that, although

erroneous statement is inevitable in free debate, . . . it must be protected if the
freedoms of expression are to have the breathing space that they need . . . to
survive.87 As Professor Frederick Schauer explains, the chilling effect doctrine recognizes the
fact that the legal system is imperfect and mandates the formulation of legal rules
that reflect our preference for errors made in favor of free speech .88 Although the
chilling-effect doctrine has been criticized on grounds that it overprotects free
speech and makes empirically unsupported judgments,89 such criticisms miss the
point. The doctrines encapsulated by the chilling effect reflect the substantive value
judgment that First Amendment values are too important to require scrupulous
proof to vindicate them, and that it is (constitutionally speaking) a better bargain to allow more speech,
Sullivan, 86

even if society must endure some of that speechs undesirable consequences. Intellectual-privacy theory explains
why we should extend chillingeffect protections to intellectual surveillance, especially traditional-style surveillance

If we care about the development of eccentric individuality and freedom of

thought as First Amendment values, then we should be especially wary of
surveillance of activities through which those aspects of the self are constructed. 90
by the state.

Professor Timothy Macklem argues that [t]he isolating shield of privacy enables people to develop and exchange

For
better and for worse, then, privacy is sponsor and guardian to the creative and the
subversive.91 A meaningful measure of intellectual privacy should be erected to
shield these activities from the normalizing gaze of surveillance. This shield should
be justified on the basis of our cultural intuitions and empirical insights about the
normalizing effects of surveillance. But it must also be tempered by the chillingeffect doctrines normative commitment to err on the side of First Amendment
values even if proof is imperfect. Despite often displaying an intuitive understanding
that surveillance might be potentially harmful, courts have struggled to understand
why. This absence of clarity has led to courts misunderstanding and diminishing privacy
interests that conflict with other values. When faced with balancing a vague and poorly
articulated privacy right against state interests such as the prevention of terrorist
ideas, or to foster and share activities, that the presence or even awareness of other people might stifle.

attacks, surveillance tends to win. Courts also make the mistake that the ACLU v.
NSA court made and cast surveillance as solely a Fourth Amendment issue of crime
prevention, rather than as one that also threatens intellectual freedom and First Amendment
values of the highest order.92 Other decisions mirror the mistake of the Al-Haramain court in concluding that
preventing secret surveillance is less important than inconveniencing the executive branch.93 Additionally, some
courts can make the mistake that the Clapper Court made, refusing to recognize as justiciable harms the costly
measures that people must adopt to shield their communications from government surveillance.94 Shadowy
regimes of surveillance corrode the constitutional commitment to intellectual freedom that lies at the heart of most

Secret programs of wide-ranging intellectual

surveillance that are devoid of public process and that cannot be justified in court
are inconsistent with this commitment and illegitimate in a free society . My argument is
not that intellectual surveillance should never be possible, but that when the state seeks to learn what
people are reading, thinking, and saying privately, such scrutiny is a serious threat
to civil liberties. Accordingly, meaningful legal process (that is, at least a warrant supported by probable
cause) must be followed before the government can perform the digital equivalent of
reading our diaries. But we must also remember that in modern societies, surveillance fails to
respect the line between public and private actors. Intellectual privacy should be
preserved against private actors as well as against the state. Federal prosecutions based on
theories of political freedom in a democracy.

purely intellectual surveillance are thankfully rare, but the coercive effects of monitoring by our friends and
acquaintances are much more common. We are constrained in our actions by peer pressure at least as much as by
the state. Moreover, records collected by private parties can be sold to or subpoenaed by the government, which
(as noted above) has shown a voracious interest in all kinds of personal information, particularly records related to

the problem of intellectual privacy

transcends the public/private divide, and justifies additional legal protections on
intellectual privacy and the right to read freely .96
the operation of the mind and political beliefs.95 Put simply,

FBI Surveillance is used to blackmail minorities to stop protest and restrict

first amendment rights empirics prove
Richards 13 Professor of Law of Washington University School of Law (Neil M.
Richards, Perspectives in Surveillance, THE DANGERS OF SURVEILLANCE, 2013,
http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_richards.pdf)//JM
Information collected surreptitiously can be used to blackmail or discredit opponents by
revealing embarrassing secrets. American political history over the past hundred years
furnishes numerous examples of this phenomenon, but perhaps the most
compelling is the treatment of Martin Luther King, Jr., by the FBI. Concerned that Dr. King
was a threat to public order, the FBI listened to his private telephone conversations in order
to seek information with which to blackmail him. As the official government
investigation into the Dr. King wiretaps concluded in 1976: The FBI collected
information about Dr. Kings plans and activities through an extensive surveillance
program, employing nearly every intelligence-gathering technique at the Bureaus
disposal. Wiretaps, which were initially approved by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, were
maintained on Dr. Kings home telephone from October 1963 until mid-1965; the SCLC
headquarters [sic] telephones were covered by wiretaps for an even longer period.
Phones in the homes and offices of some of Dr. Kings close advisers were also
wiretapped. The FBI has acknowledged 16 occasions on which microphones were
hidden in Dr. Kings hotel and motel rooms in an attempt to obtain information
about the private activities of King and his advisers for use to completely
discredit them.100 Imagine a dissident like Dr. King living in todays information age. A government (or
political opponent) that wanted him silenced might be able to obtain not just access to his telephone conversations,

This critic could be blackmailed outright, or he could

be discredited by disclosure of the information as an example to others. Perhaps he
has not been having an affair, but has some other secret. Maybe he is gay, or has a medical
but also to his reading habits and emails.

condition, or visits embarrassing web sites, or has cheated on his expenses or his taxes. All of us have secrets we
would prefer not be made public. Surveillance allows those secrets greater opportunities to come out, and it gives
the watchers power that can be used nefariously. The risk of the improper use of surveillance records persists over
time. Most of the former communist states in Eastern Europe have passed laws strictly regulating access to the
surveillance files of the communist secret police. The primary purpose of such laws is to prevent the blackmail of
political candidates who may have been surveilled under the former regime.101 The experience of these laws
reveals, moreover, that the risk of such blackmail is one that the law cannot completely prevent after the fact.
Professor Maria Los explains that [s]ecret surveillance files are routinely turned into a weapon in political struggles,
seriously undermining democratic processes and freedoms.102

Fusion Centers blatantly violate the 1st amendment and intrude on

American Privacy. The DHS has reportedly dodged these accusations.

Jaycox and Timm 12 Legislative Analyst for EFF concerning civil liberties
and surveillance law, and co-founder/executive director/journalist of the Freedom
Press Foundation. (Mark Jaycox and Trevor Timm, New Senate Report:
Counterterrorism "Fusion Centers" Invade Innocent Americans Privacy and Dont
Stop Terrorism, October 9, 2012 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/new-senatereport-confirms-government-counterterrorism-centers-dont-stop)//RP
An entire section of the Senate report is dedicated to Privacy Act
violations and the collection of information completely unrelated to any
criminal or terrorist activity in the HIRs. In one instance, a DHS intelligence
officer filed a draft report about a US citizen who appeared at a Muslim organization
to deliver a day-long motivational talk and a lecture on positive parenting. In
another, one intelligence officer decided to report on two men who were fishing at
the US-Mexican border. A reviewer commented, Ithink that this should never
have been nominated for production, nor passed through three reviews. A report
was even initiated on a motorcycle group for passing out leaflets informing
members of their legal rights. A reviewer commented, "The advice given to the
groups members is protected by the First Amendment."
Over and over again the Senate report quotes reviewers chastising DHS
officials for recording constitutionally protected activities and for
publishing such reports. One reviewer wrote, The number of things that
scare me about this report are almost too many to write into this [review]
form." In some cases, DHS retained cancelled draft reports that may have
contained information in violation of the Privacy Act for a year or more
after the date of the reports' cancellation. Worse, the intelligence officials
responsible "faced no apparent sanction for their transgressions."
While its commendable the Senate exposing these civil liberties violations, the
problems detailed in the report are not new. Since the government started its
various information sharing programs after 9/11, media organizations have

extensively documented how, when theyre not being outright abused by

local law enforcement, are overwhelmingly used for ordinary
investigations that had nothing to do with terrorism. EFF has long warned
that completely innocent Americans privacy has become collateral damage in
the governments thirst to collect more and more digital information on its
own citizens.
Even DHS own internal audits of the fusion centers showed they didn't work,
according to the Senate report. The privacy disaster is also a boondoggle for
taxpayers: DHS cant account for much of the money it spent on the program,
estimating they spent between $289 million and $1.4 billiona discrepancy of more
than $900 million dollars.
Despite these facts, Attorney General Eric Holder issued new guidelines in
March for the National Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) that dramatically
expanded the NCTCs information sharing powers. The NCTC can now
mirror entire federal databases containing personal information and hold
onto the information for ten times longer than they could beforeeven if
the person is not suspected of any involvement in terrorism. Journalist
Marcy Wheeler summed up the new guidelines at the time, saying, Sothe data
the government keeps to track our travel, our taxes, our benefits, our identity? It
just got transformed from bureaucratic data into national security intelligence.
Now that the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has issued this
unusually harsh report lambasting the same type of information sharing centers,
Eric Holder should also rescind his new data retention guidelines for NCTC
counterterrorism centers until new safeguards are put in place. EFF also joins the
ACLUs call for full Congressional hearings on the DHS fusion centers. In fact, the
government should issue a moratorium on all fusion centers until this problem is
fixed. Local governments can also prevent their law enforcement agencies from
participating.
While information sharing centers were sold to the American people as
providing "a vital role in keeping communities safe all across America," its clear all
theyve done is play a vital role in violating American's civil liberties.

Surveillance causes chilling effectdestroys First Amendment rights

Youn 13 (Monica Youn is a Yale law school grad who formerly directed the
campaign finance reform project at the Brennan Center for Justice and is a member
of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chilling Effect and the
Problem of Private Action 10/29/13,
http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2013/10/Youn_66_Vand_L_Rev_1
473.pdf)

First, the positive-rights account of the chilling effect concept tends to understate
the extent to which governmental chill cases embody and advance the negative
values of the First Amendment. In those cases, as explained above, the chilling

effect stems from the governments violation of a First Amendment rule. Thus, as
the concept of the chilling effect in governmental chill cases has developed, it has
not merely helped advance such positive values as autonomy and self-government.
It has also, crucially, performed a negative-rights function, providing a means for
courts to police and prevent governmental violations of First Amendment norms. As
we saw in our brief survey of the McCarthy-era and civil rightsera cases, invidious
governmental motivation that we would now consider viewpoint discrimination was
apparent on the record in many of these seminal governmental chill cases. But even
in cases where no such animus was present, the Court repeatedly emphasized the
principle that defective laws violate the First Amendment, not merely because they
unnecessarily impoverish public discourse, but also because they provide tools by
which unscrupulous officials might suppress disfavored viewpoints or groups. The
McCarthy era and the civil rights era provided ample historical examples that
governmental officials should not be trusted with such tools, even where such tools
were neutral on their face and did not purport to regulate expression. Even beyond
the possibility of invidious or potential chill, there are good reasons for rules against
government actions that inadvertently deter disproportionate amounts of speech.
We do not want governmental regulators to be so insensitive to First Amendment
values that they indirectly impose disproportionate burdens on speech; nor do we
want the drafters of regulatory rules to be so careless that they unintentionally
sweep significant amounts of protected speech in with other targets of regulation.
Although in a governmental chill case a court may not necessarily be shielding the
exercise of First Amendment rights against direct regulation or suppression, the
court still has an important negative role to play in such regulation or suppression
through indirection or inadvertence.

2AC ADD-ONS: MUSLIMS

FBI informants and fusion centers are targeted at Muslim activists

Hanley 9 [Delinda, news editor of WRMEA, FBI Agent Provocateurs and Fusion
Centers, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a non-partisan news
publication, July 2009, http://www.wrmea.org/2009-july/fbi-agent-provocateurs-andfusion-centers-boys-gone-wild.html] MG
AMT chairman Dr. Agha Saeed cited provocative domestic practices and civil rights
abuses which began during the Bush administration but which continue today.
These abuses include mistreating Muslim activists, including Dr. Sami Al-Arian (see
p. 58); labeling as unindicted co-conspirators such respected mainstream Muslim
organizations as CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America in connection with
trials of Muslim charities; and sending FBI agents and informants into mosques to
spy on worshippers. In one notorious case, the FBI hired convicted felon Craig
Monteilh to spy on mosques in Orange County, California from early 2006 through
late 2007. (While he was collecting thousands of dollars for his FBI work inside
mosques, Monteilh conned two women he met at the gym out of nearly $150,000 in
elaborate pharmaceutical scams.) Ahmadullah Niazi, a 34-year-old Afghan
immigrant, and another member of the Islamic Center in Irvine, CA, reported the
con artist to the FBI in June 2007, claiming that Monteilh was espousing terrorist
rhetoric and trying to draw them into a plot to blow up shopping malls and other
buildings. When the FBI refused to investigate, Islamic Center leaders realized
Monteilh must be an agent provocateur, and won a restraining order to prevent him
from returning to the mosque. An FBI agent allegedly told Niazi that the agency
would make his life a living hell if he did not become an informant. Sure enough,
the FBI arrested Niazi on Feb. 20 of this year and charged him with perjury and
passport fraud. The following day Monteilh bragged to the Los Angeles Times that
he was the paid informant who had helped nab Niazi. Another recent FBI sting,
which captured headlines and fueled Islamophobic fires across the country,
involved the June 23, 2006 arrest of the Liberty City Seven, named for the poor,
predominantly Haitian and African-American Miami suburb where the targeted men
lived. Prosecutors accused the seven radical African-American Muslims of
plotting to attack Chicagos Sears Tower and other U.S. buildings. The defendants,
who turned out to belong to a Moorish religion blending Christianity and Islam, said
they thought they were tricking an al-Qaeda member into giving them $50,000.
Defense lawyers portrayed the case as a FBI sting operation and the ensuing arrests
as a play for publicity to highlight the governments campaign against domestic
terrorism. The arrests were announced in Washington, DC at a press conference
hosted by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, giving them maximum news
exposure. It took three trials, three juries and nearly three years, but on May 12
federal prosecutors finally succeeded in gaining convictions of five of the men. What
other elaborate sting operations are under way? Who else is providing special
surveillance of Muslim Americans? In May 2006, seeking to allay fears of FBI spying
in their community, 11 Muslim American leaders, mosques and local organizations
filed a joint Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. They asked for all FBI

records of the agencys surveillance and investigations of themselves and other

groups since January 2001. A year later the agency turned over only four pages of
documents. In 2007, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California
filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Muslim-American leaders and groups who had made
the FOIA request, seeking a court order that the FBI comply. Since then, the
government has provided hundreds of heavily redacted pages of documents which
show that the FBI has conducted surveillance on lawful First Amendment activities
of Muslim Americans. The FBI documents describe Muslim fund-raising activities in
support of earthquake relief, work for immigration reform, and public speeches
advocating nonviolence at conferences and Muslim student meetings. On April 20,
2009 a federal judge ordered the FBI to release nearly 100 more documents that
detail the bureaus surveillance of Muslim leaders and organizations in Southern
California. Soon it may not just be FBI agents gone wild who are watching and
reporting on the activities of Muslim Americans. Big Brother may also include
private sector agencies, including health care workers, credit card and telephone
companies, banks or meter maids, building inspectors, or postal workers and
librarians who help compile information on American citizens for the government
agencies. Since 2006, the federal government and the Department of Homeland
Security have helped states and major cities set up a network of some 58 fusion
centers. These institutions were originally created to improve the sharing of antiterrorism intelligence among various state, local and federal law enforcement
agencies. Their mission has quickly expanded to include the collection and analysis
of information from law enforcement agencies, the private sector and the
intelligence community on all crimes and all hazards. According to a 2007
ACLU report, these new fusion centers raise very serious privacy issues at a time
when new technology, government powers and zeal in the war on terrorism are
combining to threaten Americans privacy at an unprecedented level. The
Maryland State Police Departments covert surveillance in 2005 and 2006 of local
peace and anti-death penalty groups, including the American Friends Service
Committee, caused a local uproar last summer, when the ACLU of Maryland
obtained local police files. According to a Texas fusion centers Prevention
Awareness Bulletin produced on Feb. 19, 2009, it is imperative that law
enforcement officers report the activities of lobbying groups, Muslim civil rights
organizations and anti-war protest groups in their areas. Also suspect are
supporters of former Congress members and presidential candidates Cynthia
McKinney and Bob Barr, peace activists and hip hop bands. According to its Web
site, North Central Texas Fusion System bulletins are disseminated to thousands of
people in more than a hundred different agencies. A Missouri report says that law
enforcement officers may be able to spot potential terrorists by their political
bumper stickers, such as those for U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, or by their subversive
literature. A 200-page Virginia fusion center report notes that terrorists are likely to
use Twitter, podcasts and social networking sites as communication tools. Im not
making up this stuff. Critics, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, accuse the centers of
collecting uncorroborated allegations and, on occasion, inaccurate and incomplete
information on individuals and organizations. Anything might find its way into fusion
center computers, including agenda-driven information supplied by hysterical
Islamophobes or self-proclaimed terrorism experts like Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes,

Frank Gaffney, Joe Kaufman, or Alan Dershowitz. Are reports generated by think
tanks like the Center for Security Policy, the Middle East Forum, the Israel Project,
and Hudson Institute feeding fusion centers? Just who and what countries have
access to fusion center computer systems? This writer doesnt want to offend the
Department of Homeland Security, the FBI or even fusion centers (and end up with
a hefty personal file). Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, staff appreciated
being able to call on the FBI when our offices were broken into and a safe destroyed
in November 2006. Staff also asked, and received, FBI help when we received a
threatening e-mail during the recent AIPAC conference in Washington, DC. However,
most Americans believe authorities should stick to investigating criminal and violent
activities, and not wage a war on Muslim Americans and others engaged in
constitutionally protected civil rights advocacy and peaceful political activities.
President Obama would be well advised to visit an American mosque and listen to
the Muslims next door.

Fusion Centers Fail

Fusion centers are expensive and endanger civil libertiesSenate
review

Walker 12 [Jesse, books editor of Reason magazine, published in the New York
Times and The Washington Post, Fusion Centers: Expensive, Practically Useless,
and Bad For Your Liberty, Reason magazine, libertarian publication, 10/3/12,
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/fusion-centers-expensive-practically-use] MG
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has just
released a report [pdf] on the "fusion centers" that pepper the law-enforcement
landscape -- shadowy intelligence-sharing shops run on the state and local level but
heavily funded by the federal Department of Homeland Security. It is a devastating
document. When a report's recommendations include a plea for the DHS to "track
how much money it gives to each fusion center," you know you're dealing with a
system that has some very basic problems. After reviewing 13 months' worth of the
fusion centers' output, Senate investigators concluded that the centers' reports
were "oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens' civil
liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published
public sources, and more often than not unrelated to terrorism." One report offered
the vital intelligence that "a certain model of automobile had folding rear seats that
provided access to the trunk without leaving the car," a feature deemed notable
because it "could be useful to human traffickers." Others highlighted illegal
activities by people in the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE)
database, which sounds useful until you hear just what those people did that
attracted the centers' attention. One man was caught speeding. Another shoplifted
some shoes. TIDE itself, according to the Senate report, is filled not just with
suspected terrorists but with their "associates," a term broad enough to rope in a
two-year-old boy. Nearly a third of the reports were not even circulated after they
were written, sometimes because they contained no useful information, sometimes
because they "overstepped legal boundaries" in disturbing ways: "Reporting on First
Amendment-protected activities lacking a nexus to violence or criminality; reporting
on or improperly characterizing political, religious or ideological speech that is not
explicitly violent or criminal; and attributing to an entire group the violent or
criminal acts of one or a limited number of the group's members." (One analyst, for
example, felt the need to note that a Muslim community group's list of
recommended readings included four items whose authors were in the TIDE
database.) Interestingly, while the DHS usually refused to publish these problematic
reports, the department also retained them for an "apparantly indefinite" period.
Why did the centers churn out so much useless and illegal material? A former
employee says officers were judged "by the number [of reports] they produced, not
by quality or evaluations they received." Senate investigators were "able to identify
only one case in which an official with a history of serious reporting issues faced any
consequences for his mistakes." Specifically, he had to attend an extra week of
training. Other issues identified in the Senate report: Some of the fusion centers
touted by the Department of Homeland Security do not, in fact, exist. Centers

have reported threats that do not exist either. An alleged Russian "cyberattack"
turned out to be an American network technician accessing a work computer
remotely while on vacation. DHS "was unable to provide an accurate tally of how
much it had granted to states and cities to support fusion centers efforts." Instead it
offered "broad estimates of the total amount of federal dollars spent on fusion
center activities from 2003 to 2011, estimates which ranged from $289 million to
$1.4 billion." When you aren't keeping track of how much you're spending, it
becomes hard to keep track of what that money is being spent on. All sorts of
dubious expenses slipped by. A center in San Diego "spent nearly $75,000 on 55
flat-screen televisions," according to the Senate report. "When asked what the
televisions were being used for, officials said they displayed calendars, and were
used for 'open-source monitoring.' Asked to define 'open-source monitoring,' SDLECC officials said they meant 'watching the news.'" The report is also filled with
signs of stonewalling. A "2010 assessment of state and local fusion centers
conducted at the request of DHS found widespread deficiencies in the centers' basic
counterterrorism information-sharing capabilities," for example. "DHS did not share
that report with Congress or discuss its findings publicly. When the Subcommittee
requested the assessment as part of its investigation, DHS at first denied it existed,
then disputed whether it could be shared with Congress, before ultimately providing
a copy." And then there's the matter of mission creep. Many centers have adopted
an "all-crime, all-hazards" approach that shifts their focus from stopping terrorism
and onto a broader spectrum of threats. You could make a reasonable case that this
is a wiser use of public resources -- terrorism is rare, after all, and the DHS-driven
movement away from the all-hazards approach in the early post-9/11 years had
disastrous results. Unfortunately, the leading "hazards" on the fusion centers'
agenda appear to be drugs and illegal aliens. At any rate, the DHS should stop citing
the centers as a key part of America's counterterrorism efforts if those centers have
found better (or easier) things to do than trying to fight terror.

Fusion centers gather virtually useless information, and accomplish

almost nothing.

Isikoff 12 NBC Reporter graduated from Washington University in St. Louis with
a B.A. and received a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University's
Medill School of Journalism. (Michael Isikoff, Homeland Security 'fusion' centers spy
on citizens, produce 'shoddy' work, report says, October 2, 2012,
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/02/14187433-homeland-securityfusion-centers-spy-on-citizens-produce-shoddy-work-report-says?lite)//RP
The ranking Republican on a Senate panel on Wednesday accused the
Department of Homeland Security of hiding embarrassing information
about its so-called "fusion" intelligence sharing centers, charging that the
program has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars while contributing
little to the country's counterterrorism efforts. In a 107-page report released
late Tuesday, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said that
Homeland Security has spent up to $1.4 billion funding fusion centers -- in
effect, regional intelligence sharing centers-- that have produced "useless"
reports while at the same time collecting information on the innocent

activities of American Muslims that may have violated a federal privacy

law. Fusion centers rarely gather any pertinent information, waste money buying
trinkets, and file useless reports. OHarrow Jr. 12 - Reporter with the
investigative unit of The Washington Post who has focused on privacy, national
security, federal contracting and the financial world. (Robert OHarrow Jr. DHS
fusion centers portrayed as pools of ineptitude and civil liberties intrusions,
October 2, 2012, http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dhs-fusion-centersportrayed-as-pools-of-ineptitude-and-civil-liberties-intrusions/2012/10/02/100144400cb1-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html)//RP An initiative aimed at improving
intelligence sharing has done little to make the country more secure,
despite as much as $1.4 billion in federal spending, according to a twoyear examination by Senate investigators. The nationwide network of offices
known as fusion centers was launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to
address concerns that local, state and federal authorities were not sharing
information effectively about potential terrorist threats. But after nine
years and regular praise from officials at the Department of Homeland Security
the 77 fusion centers have become pools of ineptitude, waste and civil
liberties intrusions, according to a scathing 141-page report by the Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on
investigations. The creation and operation of the fusion centers were promoted by
the administration of President George W. Bush and later the Obama administration
as essential weapons in the fight to build a nationwide network that would keep the
country safe from terrorism. The idea was to promote increased collaboration and
cooperation among all levels of law enforcement across the country. But the report
documents spending on items that did little to help share intelligence,
including gadgets such as shirt button cameras, $6,000 laptops and bigscreen televisions. One fusion center spent $45,000 on a decked-out SUV
that a city official used for commuting. In reality, the Subcommittee
investigation found that the fusion centers often produced irrelevant, useless
or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no
intelligence reporting whatsoever, the report said. The bipartisan report,
released by subcommittee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and ranking minority
member Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), portrays the fusion center system as
ineffective and criticizes the Department of Homeland Security for poor
supervision. In a response Tuesday, the department condemned the report and
defended the fusion centers, saying the Senate investigators relied on out-of-date
data. The Senate investigators examined fusion center reports in 2009 and
2010 and looked at activity, training and policies over nine years, according
to the report. The statement also said the Senate investigators misunderstood the
role of fusion centers, which is to provide state and local law enforcement analytic
support in furtherance of their day-to-day efforts to protect local communities from
violence, including that associated with terrorism. The DHS statement also said
that all of the questioned expenses were allowable under the rules. Department
officials have defended the fusion centers in the face of past criticism from the news
media and internal reviews. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and other senior
officials have praised the centers as centerpieces of U.S. counterterrorism strategy.

Mike Sena, president of the National Fusion Center Association, an advocacy

organization, called the report unfair. Sena, who manages the center in the San
Francisco Bay area, said fusion centers have processed more than 22,000
suspicious activity reports that have triggered 1,000 federal inquiries or
investigations. He said they also have shared with the Terrorist Screening Center
some 200 pieces of data that provided actionable intelligence. The Senate
report challenged the value of the training and much of the information produced by
the centers. It said that DHS analysts assigned to the fusion centers received
just five days of basic training for intelligence reporting. Sena said they
received an array of other training as well. Some analysts at the departments
Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which received the fusion center reports, were
found to be so unproductive that supervisors imposed quotas for reports, knowing
those quotas would diminish the quality of the intelligence, according to the Senate
report. Many of those analysts at the DHS intelligence office were contractors.
Investigators found instances in which the analysts used intelligence
about U.S. citizens that may have been gathered illegally. In one case, a
fusion center in California wrote a report on a notorious gang, the Mongols
Motorcycle Club, that had distributed leaflets telling its members to behave when
they got stopped by police. The leaflet said members should be courteous, control
their emotions and, if drinking, have a designated driver. There is nothing illegal or
even remotely objectionable [described] in this report, one supervisor wrote about
the draft before killing it. The advice given to the groups members is protected by
the First Amendment. Financial questions were pervasive, with the report saying
oversight has been so lax that department officials do not know exactly how much
has been spent on the centers. The official estimates varied between $289 million
and $1.4 billion. A DHS official, who insisted on not being identified because he was
not authorized to talk to the news media, acknowledged that the department does
not closely track the money but said it conducts audits of the fusion spending. The
official said that just under half of the fusion centers budgets comes from the
department. In the statement, the department said its Federal Emergency
Management Agency, which administers the grants, provides wide latitude for
states to decide how to spend the money. All of the expenditures questioned in the
report are allowable under the grant program guidance, whether or not they are
connected with a fusion center, the statement said. The Senate report said local
and state officials entrusted with the fusion center grants sometimes spent lavishly.
More than $2 million was spent on a center for Philadelphia that never
opened. In Ohio, officials used the money to buy rugged laptop computers
and then gave them to a local morgue. San Diego officials bought 55 flatscreen televisions to help them collect open-source intelligence
better known as cable television news. Senate investigators repeatedly
questioned the quality of the intelligence reports. A third or more of the
reports intended for officials in Washington were discarded because they
lacked useful information, had been drawn from media accounts or
involved potentially illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens, according to the
Senate report.

A vast majority of fusion center information reports contain no

security information, worsening counter terrorism efforts, and even
falsifying the existence of certain fusion centers.

Sanchez 12 Former Washington Editor for Ars Technica, Senior Fellow at the
Cato Institute, graduate in Political Science from New York University. (Julian
Sanchez, Our Broken Panopticon: Senate Report Finds Fusion Centers Expensive &
Useless, October 4, 2012, http://www.cato.org/blog/our-broken-panopticon-senatereport-finds-fusion-centers-expensive-useless)//RP
For years, top officials at the Department of Homeland Security have touted fusion
centersdesigned to share security information between state, local, and federal
government agencies as a vital tool for strengthening homeland security, a
proven and invaluable tool, and one of the centerpieces of our counterterrorism
strategy. But a blistering new bipartisan Senate report paints a radically
different picture, exposing these centers as a costly boondoggle that
flouted civil liberties safeguards, lacked basic accountability, and
produced intelligence that was overwhelmingly useless or irrelevantor
as one particularly candid official put it, a load of crap.
How costly are they? Incredibly, DHS cant even say for certain: Estimates of
federal spending on the centers range from $289 million to $1.4 billion.
Given that most states had a distinct shortage of real terrorists to keep tabs on,
much of that money went to purposes utterly unrelated to actual
counterterrorism analysis. One center blew $75,000 on dozens of flat-screen
televisions, supposedly for an intelligence training program that never materialized.
Now the TVs are being used to display calendars, and for open-source
monitoringalso known as watching the news. Other popular purchases
included Sport Utility Vehicles, laptops, and high tech surveillance toys for ordinary
law enforcementmany of which were then given away to other local government
agencies.
How useless are they? One official estimated that 85 percent of the
reports they produced were of no benefit whatever, and the large majority
of reports were unrelated to terrorism. Most of these werent published or
circulated for months, and they often just regurgitated information from
public press reports. Almost all these reports came from centers in just three
states: Most of the 77 fusion centers produced little or nothing at all. Sorry,
make that 68 fusion centersit turns out the official DHS tally included
several that didnt actually exist.
Unsurprisingly, DHS struggled to identify a clear example in which fusion
center intelligence helped identify any actual terroristsand indeed, may
have hampered effective counterterrorism by clogging the intelligence
arteries with predominantly useless information. To keep justifying those
millions of taxpayer dollars, however, DHS touted bogus success stories, like a
report that sowed panic over a Russian cyberattack on a citys water systema
cyberattack that had never happened. When internal assessments began to reveal

the ineffectuality of fusion centers years ago, DHS hid the results from Congress
and kept on praising them publicly.
Of course, civil liberties groups have been warning for years that fusion centers
are more likely to facilitate improper monitoring of citizens than
legitimate security goals. And the Senate report shows they had reason to worry.
One key DHS official revealed a disturbing view of he value of intra-agency
cooperation when he noted that We had fire [departments] one of the few
people who can enter your home without a warrant is a firefighter. One notorious
fusion center report suggested that Libertarian Party members, Ron Paul supporters,
and individuals flying the Gadsden Flag popular with Tea Partiers were likely to be
violent extremists. Many reports were shelved because they documented only
innocent, protected First Amendment activitybut the information in them was
often retained anyway, in potential violation of the Privacy Act.

SURVEILLANCE BAD
FBI Surveillance a Suicide Pact Which Destroys the US Government
and the FBI
Cooper 09 He is a graduate of Amherst College and Duke University Law School, he served as a federal
district court judicial clerk, practiced law, and was a teaching assistant at Harvard University, he has taught
Constitutional Law, Criminal Procedure, Criminal Law, and Race, Gender & Law. ( "Surveillance and Identity
Performance: Some Thoughts Inspired by Martin Luther King" 4-1-2009 )

http://lsr.nellco.org/suffolk_fp/55 //DJ

A novel way of thinking about the FBIs surveillance of King is that the FBI had a
suicide pact with King. The FBI had offered King a onesided deal : destroy yourself
or we will use our surveillance to destroy you . It may be, however, that this suicide
pact was not so one-sided. The FBI may have been destroying itself at the same
time it tried to destroy King.1 In the mid-1970s, the Church Committee would reveal the nature of the
FBIs 1960s surveillance activities. Revelation of the FBIs surveillance of King was a centerpiece of the Church
Committees criticisms of the FBI.

As a result of the Church Committees report, Congress

attempted to seriously curtail the FBIs surveillance powers. 3 The FBIs suicide pact
with King wound up being mutual : we will destroy ourselves in an attempt to
destroy you. The dynamics of this suicide pact may well be reproduced in the United
Statess contemporary surveillance regime. The surveilled are encouraged to
destroy themselves in order to avoid surveillance. Meanwhile, the FBI destroys
itself, whether it is eventually curtailed or not, in the process of surveying its
citizenry. The surveilled are encouraged to destroy themselves in at least two ways.
First, surveillance chills.4 When we believe our expressions or associations might be
surveilled, we curtail our activities by a wider berth than is necessary in order to
assure we are in compliance with official norms. 5 Second, and more relevant to
performativity theory, pervasive surveillance encourages people to perform their
identities in certain ways and discourages them from performing their identities in
other ways.6 Surveillance curbs dissenters more than those in the mainstream and
thus maintains the status quo.7 Meanwhile, the government destroys itself by
means of its own surveillance. This is so assuming that what makes our form of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

government special is its commitment to the self-actualization of its citizens .8 Selfactualization is the process whereby people create their own identity by means of experimenting with different
behaviors. It is possible for people to live in an environment that is more or less alienating to the way in which they
perform their identities. Performativity scholars such as Devon Carbado and Mitu Gulati say that people can have
an internal sense of self that is distinct from the identity that others attribute to them. 9 Kenji Yoshino emphasizes
that individuals may self-actualize but only when they are generaally free to perform their external identity in ways
that are consistent with their internal senses of self without fear of repercussions. 10 I argue that while the internal
sense of self is not more real than the performance of the self, allowing people to make their internal and performed

Our government is at its best when it

maximizes the ability of individuals to self-actualize through identity performance.
selves consistent will make people feel more selfactualized.

Surveillance in the squo will kill Democracy, Freedom of

Speech, and US Heg
Burkhart, Haubert, Thorley 04

(The Effect of Government Surveillance on Social Progress,

Laurie Burkhart, Michael Haubert, and Damon Thorley) http://www.ethicapublishing.com/5CH1.htm

As technology increase so is the power of the government. One thing is very clear
that, overspying will dampen the growth of the nation and of an individual. The
effect of surveillance will now be more effective as compare to earlier attempts of
surveillance. The people will feel safe. But the biggest disadvantage is as the power
of the government increase due to developments in the field of the technology ,
there are much more chances of any kind of societal change being halted . If the
government can monitor and stop one major movement they can influence and
deter the masses from further radical ideology. In this lies the ethical violation .
Government of every state should try to work in accordance with the lines of proper
and ethical surveillance. The democratic system needs free political participation
and radical movements in order to progress. People should also understand the
importance of surveillance in the modern society. If the unethical practices of
government surveillance are not kept in check into the future, the ideologies of
freedom of speech and the power of the people be lost forever. Government has the
ultimate responsibility for the protection of its citizen and upholding the values of
the country on which it was founded upon.

Government Surveillance Shuts down Social Movements

Shrivastava 13 College of Legal Studies (CoLS), University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES)
(Surveillance: from history till present, Rishabh Shrivastava) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2351996 //DJ
The second claim in the theory of privacy is a practical one; it states that, surveillance inclines us to majority and
the boring.

It is a claim that when we are watched while engaging in intellectual

activities like reading, web-surfing, or private communications- we are prevented
from engaging in thoughts or deeds that others might find deviant. Surveillance
perils, therefore, our foundational commitments to logical diversity and eccentric
individuality. Intensive surveillance by government agencies can successfully stop
8
9
10

the chance of social and political change. The status quo has been set and history
has shown near-perfect success of intrusion and destruction of political and social
movements by a number of surveillance maneuvers and programmes. Not only
does wide-ranging government surveillance dampen political participation but also
presents ethical desecrations

SOLVENCY EXTNS

A2: CANT SOLVE ALL RACISM

Addressing the racial history of surveillance is crucial to solving the
issues of racism, other methods are insufficient.

Kundnani and Kumar 15 -- Adjunct Professor of Media, Culture, and

Communication at New York University, teaches terrorism studies at John Jay
College, has been a Visiting Fellow at Leiden University, Netherlands, an Open
Society Fellow, and the Editor of the journal "Race and Class." And a journalist on
Muslim surveillance.(Arun Kundnani and Deep Kumar, Race, Surveillance, and
Empire, March 21, 2015, http://www.kundnani.org/2015/03/21/race-surveillanceand-empire-2/) //RP
What brings together these different systems of racial oppressionmass
incarceration, mass surveillance, and mass deportationis a security logic
that holds the imperial state as necessary to keeping American families
(coded white) safe from threats abroad and at home. The ideological work
of the last few decades has cultivated not only racial security fears but also
an assumption that the security state is necessary to keep us safe. In
this sense, security has become the new psychological wage to aid the reallocation
of the welfare states social wage toward homeland security and to win support for
empire in the age of neoliberalism. Through the notion of security, social and
economic anxieties generated by the unraveling of the Keynesian social compact
have been channeled toward the Black or Brown street criminal, welfare recipient,
or terrorist. In addition, as Susan Faludi has argued, since 9/11, this homeland in
need of security has been symbolized, above all, by the white domestic hearth of
the prefeminist fifties, once again threatened by mythical frontier enemies, hidden
subversives, and racial aggressors. That this idea of the homeland coincides
culturally with the denigration of capable women, the magnification of manly men,
the heightened call for domesticity, the search for and sanctification of helpless
girls points to the ways it is gendered as well as racialized. 67
The post-Snowden debate
The mechanisms of surveillance outlined in this essay were responses to political
struggles of various kindsfrom anticolonial insurgencies to slave rebellions, labor
militancy to anti-imperialist agitation. Surveillance practices themselves have
also often been the target of organized opposition. In the 1920s and 1970s,
the surveillance state was pressured to contract in the face of public
disapproval. The antiwar activists who broke into an FBI field office in Media,
Pennsylvania, in 1971 and stole classified documents managed to expose
COINTELPRO, for instance, leading to its shut down. (But those responsible for this
FBI program were never brought to justice for their activities and similar techniques
continued to be used later against, for example in the 1980s, the American Indian
Movement, and the Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador. 68)
Public concern about state surveillance in the 1970s led to the Church committee
report on government spying and the Handschu guidelines that regulated the New
York Police Departments spying on political activities. Those concerns began to be

swept aside in the 1980s with the War on Drugs and, especially, later with the War
on Terror. While significant sections of the public may have consented to
the security state, those who have been among its greatest victimsthe
radical Left, antiwar activists, racial justice and Black liberation
campaigners, and opponents of US foreign policy in Latin America and the
Middle Eastunderstand its workings. Today, we are once again in a period of
revelation, concern, and debate on national security surveillance. Yet if real
change is to be brought about, the racial history of surveillance will need
to be fully confrontedor opposition to surveillance will once again be
easily defeated by racial security narratives. The significance of the Snowden
leaks is that they have laid out the depth of the NSAs mass surveillance with the
kind of proof that only an insider can have. The result has been a generalized
level of alarm as people have become aware of how intrusive surveillance
is in our society, but that alarm remains constrained within a public
debate that is highly abstract, legalistic, and centered on the privacy
rights of the white middle class. On the one hand, most civil liberties
advocates are focused on the technical details of potential legal reforms
and new oversight mechanisms to safeguard privacy. Such initiatives are
likely to bring little change because they fail to confront the racist and
imperialist core of the surveillance system. On the other hand, most
technologists believe the problem of government surveillance can be fixed
simply by using better encryption tools. While encryption tools are useful in
increasing the resources that a government agency would need to monitor an
individual, they do nothing to unravel the larger surveillance apparatus. Meanwhile,
executives of US tech corporations express concerns about loss of sales to foreign
customers concerned about the privacy of data. In Washington and Silicon Valley,
what should be a debate about basic political freedoms is simply a question of
corporate profits. Another and perhaps deeper problem is the use of images of
state surveillance that do not adequately fit the current situationsuch as George
Orwells discussion of totalitarian surveillance. Edward Snowden himself remarked
that Orwell warned us of the dangers of the type of government surveillance we
face today. 70 Reference to Orwells 1984 has been widespread in the current
debate; indeed, sales of the book were said to have soared following Snowdens
revelations. 71 The argument that digital surveillance is a new form of Big Brother
is, on one level, supported by the evidence. For those in certain targeted
groupsMuslims, left-wing campaigners, radical journalistsstate
surveillance certainly looks Orwellian. But this level of scrutiny is not faced by
the general public. The picture of surveillance today is therefore quite different from
the classic images of surveillance that we find in Orwells 1984, which assumes an
undifferentiated mass population subject to government control. What we have
instead today in the United States is total surveillance, not on everyone,
but on very specific groups of people, defined by their race, religion, or
political ideology: people that NSA officials refer to as the bad guys. In
March 2014, Rick Ledgett, deputy director of the NSA, told an audience: Contrary
to some of the stuff thats been printed, we dont sit there and grind out metadata
profiles of average people. If youre not connected to one of those valid intelligence
targets, you are not of interest to us. 72 In the national security world,

connected to can be the basis for targeting a whole racial or political

community so, even assuming the accuracy of this comment, it points to
the ways that national security surveillance can draw entire communities
into its web, while reassuring average people (code for the normative
white middle class) that they are not to be troubled. In the eyes of the
national security state, this average person must also express no political views
critical of the status quo. Better oversight of the sprawling national security
apparatus and greater use of encryption in digital communication should be
welcomed. But by themselves these are likely to do little more than
reassure technologists, while racialized populations and political
dissenters continue to experience massive surveillance. This is why the
most effective challenges to the national security state have come not
from legal reformers or technologists but from grassroots campaigning by
the racialized groups most affected. In New York, the campaign against the
NYPDs surveillance of Muslims has drawn its strength from building alliances with
other groups affected by racial profiling: Latinos and Blacks who suffer from hugely
disproportionate rates of stop and frisk. In Californias Bay Area, a campaign against
a Department of Homeland Security-funded Domain Awareness Center was
successful because various constituencies were able to unite on the issue, including
homeless people, the poor, Muslims, and Blacks. Similarly, a demographics unit
planned by the Los Angeles Police Department, which would have profiled
communities on the basis of race and religion, was shut down after a campaign that
united various groups defined by race and class. The lesson here is that, while the
national security state aims to create fear and to divide people, activists can
organize and build alliances across race lines to overcome that fear. To the extent
that the national security state has targeted Occupy, the antiwar movement,
environmental rights activists, radical journalists and campaigners, and
whistleblowers, these groups have gravitated towards opposition to the national
security state. But understanding the centrality of race and empire to
national security surveillance means finding a basis for unity across
different groups who experience similar kinds of policing: Muslim,
Latino/a, Asian, Black, and white dissidents and radicals. It is on such a
basis that we can see the beginnings of an effective multiracial opposition
to the surveillance state and empire.

Changing focus from crime solves Racism in Justice Systemrequires Policy and Grassroots Organizations

Brewer and Heitzeg 08 (Rose- PhD in Afro-American & African Studies, professor at University of
Minnesota, Nancy A. Professor of Sociology & Critical Studies of Race and Ethnicity at St. Catherine University. The
Racialization of Crime and Punishment: Criminal Justice, Complex Color-Blind Racism, and the Political Economy of
the Prison Industrial American Behavioral Scientist Volume 51 Number 5. Jan. 2008
http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/51/5/625 7/19/15)
The call for social justice is an implicit call for solutions, a call for remedies, a call for action (Coates, 2004, p.
850). As we have seen, the

call for social justice cannot rely on civil justice or macro-level

remedies alone; law has been the handmaiden of what hooks (1992) has termed the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy in the
ever-evolving political and economic exploitation of persons of color. o paraphrase Bell (1992), the 14th Amendment cannot
save us. The call for social justice requires more . As the latest project in racialization, criminal justice
and the prison industrial complex have fundamentally racist and classist roots that must be

exposed and abolished. Reform is insufficien t; there can be no compromise with capitalism.... There can be no
compromise with racism, patriarchy, homophobia and imperialism (Marable, 2002, p. 59). The work of justice must begin
at the micro level; it must emerge from the grass roots . Drawing links between the movements to abolish
slavery and segregation, Davis (2003) asked us to imagine the abolition of prisons and the creation of
alternatives to mass incarceration with all its racist and classist corollaries. Davis (1998b)
identified three key dimensions of this workpublic policy, community organizing, and
academic research: In order to be successful, this project must build bridges between academic work, legislative and other policy
interventions, and grassroots campaigns calling, for example for the decriminalization of drugs and prostitution, and for the reversal of the present
proliferation of prisons and jails. (pp. 71-72) Much of this work is in progress. Organizations such as The Sentencing Project
(http://www.sentencingproject.org/), the Prison Moratorium Project (http://www.nomoreprisons.org), Critical Resistance
(http://www.criticalresistance.org), Families Against Mandatory Minimum Sentencing, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the
Prison Activist Resource Center (http://www.prisonactivist.org) have successfully linked a large and growing body of research with a critique of
current practices and a call for legislative and policy change. But this latest abolition movement faces a unique challenge. The paradigm

of color-blind racism must be exposed before the deep connections between race,
crime, and political economy become transparent . Hegemonic media coverage and misrepresentations about
the reality of crime and criminal justice must be countered by multiple voices (Davis, 2003; Entman & Rojecki, 2000; Sussman, 2002). As
long as the public course centers on crime not race, class, or gendered racismthe true role of
criminal justice and the prison industrial complex in preserving White supremacy in the context of advanced
capitalism remains invisible.

Key to Democracy
Capitalism Drives world- Prevents Questioning of governments and
Corporations Actions- Iraq/Afghanistan War Proves

Giroux 15 (Henry A. Doctorate in Education McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest.
Domestic terrorism, youth and the politics of disposability Philosophers for Change April 21, 2015
http://philosophersforchange.org/2015/04/28/domestic-terrorism-youth-and-the-politics-of-disposability/ 7.19.2015
The danger is that a global, universally interrelated civilization may produce barbarians from its own midst by forcing millions of people into
conditions which, despite all appearances, are the conditions of savages. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism Following Hannah
Arendt, a dark cloud of political and ethical ignorance has descended on the United States .[1] Thoughtlessness has
become something that now occupies a privileged, if not celebrated, place in the political landscape and the mainstream cultural apparatuses. A
new kind of infantilism now shapes daily life as adults gleefully take on the role of unthinking children and children are taught to be adults,
stripped of their innocence and subject to a range of disciplinary pressures designed to cripple their ability to be imaginative.[2] Under such
circumstances, agency devolves into a kind of anti-intellectual cretinism evident in the babble of banality produced by Fox News, celebrity
culture, schools modeled after prisons and politicians who support creationism, argue against climate change and denounce almost any form of
reason. The citizen now becomes a consumer; the politician, a slave to corporate money and power; and the burgeoning army of anti-public
intellectuals in the mainstream media present themselves as unapologetic enemies of anything that suggests compassion, a respect for the
commons and democracy itself. Education is no longer a public good but a private right, just as critical thinking is no longer a fundamental
necessity for creating an engaged and socially responsible citizenship. Neoliberalisms disdain for the social is no longer a quote made famous by
Margaret Thatcher. The public sphere is now replaced by private interests, and unbridled individualism rails against any viable notion of
solidarity that might inform the vibrancy of struggle, change, and an expansion of an enlightened and democratic body politic. One outcome is
that we live at a time in which institutions that were designed to limit human suffering and indignity and protect the public from the boom and
bust cycles of capitalist markets have been either weakened or abolished.[3] Free market policies, values and practices, with their now
unrestrained emphasis on the privatization of public wealth, the denigration of social protections and the deregulation of economic activity,
influence practically every commanding political and economic institution in North America. Finance

capitalism now drives

politics, governance and policy in unprecedented ways and is more than willing to sacrifice the future of young people for
short-term political and economic gains, regardless of the talk about the need to not burden future generations with hopelessly heavy tuition
debt.[4] It gets worse. Under market fundamentalism, there is a separation of market values, behavior and practices from ethical considerations
and social costs giving rise to a growing theater of cruelty and abuse throughout North America. Public spheres that once encouraged progressive
ideas, enlightened social policies, democratic values, critical dialogue and exchange have been increasingly commercialized. Or, they have been
replaced by corporate settings whose ultimate fidelity is to increasing profit margins and producing a vast commercial and celebrity culture that
tends to function so as to erase everything that matters.[5] Since the 1980s, the scale of human suffering, immiseration and hardship has
intensified, accompanied by a theater of cruelty in which violence, especially the daily spectacle of Black men being brutalized or killed by the
police, feeds the 24-hour news cycle. The tentacles of barbarism appear to be reaching into every aspect of daily life. Domestic terrorism has
come home and it increasingly targets the young. Given these conditions, an overwhelming catalogue of evidence has come into view that
indicates that nation-states organized by neoliberal priorities have implicitly declared war on their children, offering a disturbing index of
societies in the midst of a deep moral and political catastrophe.[6] Too many young

people today live in an era of foreclosed

hope, an era in which it is difficult either to imagine a life beyond the dictates of a market-driven society or to transcend the fear that any
attempt to do so can only result in a more dreadful nightmare. As Jennifer Silva has pointed out, this generation of especially young workingclass men and women are trying to figure out what it means to be an adult in a world of disappearing jobs, soaring education costs and
shrinking social support networks. They live at home longer, spend more years in college, change jobs more frequently and start families
later.[7] Youth today are not only plagued by the fragility and uncertainty of the present; they are the first post war generation facing the
prospect of downward mobility [in which the] plight of the outcast stretches to embrace a generation as a whole.[8] It is little wonder that these
youngsters are called Generation Zero: A generation with Zero opportunities, Zero future and Zero expectations.[9] Or to use Guy Standings
term, the precariat,[10] which he defines as a growing proportion of our total society forced to accept a life of unstable labour and unstable
living.[11] Beyond exposing the moral depravity of a society that fails to provide for its youth, the symbolic and real violence waged against
many young people suggests nothing less than a perverse collective death wish especially visible when youth protest their conditions. As Alain
Badiou argues, we

live in an era in which there is near zero tolerance for democratic protest and infinite
tolerance for the crimes of bankers and government embezzlers which affect the lives of millions.[ 12] This
is certainly true of the United States. How else to explain the FBIs willingness to label as a terrorist threat youthful
activists speaking against corporate and government misdeeds, while at the same time the Bureau refuses to press
criminal charges against the banking giant HSBC for laundering billions of dollars for Mexican drug cartels and terrorist groups linked to alQaeda?[13] If youth were once the repository of societys dreams, that is no longer true. Increasingly, young people are viewed as a public
disorder, a dream now turned into a nightmare. Many

youth live in a post-9/11 social order that positions them as a

prime target of its governing through the crime-control complex. This is made obvious by the many get
tough policies that now render young people as criminals , while depriving them of basic health care, education and social
services. Punishment and fear have replaced compassion and social responsibility as the most important modalities for mediating the relationship

of youth to the larger social order, all too evident by the upsurge of zero-tolerance laws, along with the expanding reach of the punishing state in
both the United States and Canada.[14] When

the criminalization of social problems becomes a mode of governance

and war its default strategy, youth are reduced to soldiers or targets not social investments. As anthropologist Alain
Bertho points out, Youth is no longer considered the worlds future, but as a threat to its present .[15] Increasingly,
the only political discourses available for many young people are either a disciplinary one or one of emotional self-management.[16] Youth are
now removed from any talk about democracy. Their absence is symptomatic of a society that has turned against itself, punishes its children and
does so at the risk of crippling the entire body politic. Too many youth now represent the absent present in any discourse about the contemporary
moment, the future and democracy itself, and increasingly fall prey to what I call the war on youth, a war that can be traced back to the 1970s.
[17] The war on youth emerged when the social contract, however compromised and feeble, came crashing to the ground around the time
Margaret Thatcher married Ronald Reagan. Both were hard-line advocates of a market fundamentalism, and announced respectively that there
was no such thing as society and that government was the problem, not the solution to citizens woes. Within a short time, democracy and the
political process were hijacked by corporations and the call for austerity policies became cheap copy for weakening the welfare state, public
values and public goods. The results of this emerging neoliberal regime included a widening gap between the rich and the poor, a growing culture
of cruelty and the dismantling of social provisions. One result has been that the promise of youth has given way to an age of market-induced
angst, and a view of many young people as a threat to short-term investments, privatization, untrammeled self-interest and quick profits. Under
such circumstances, all bets are off regarding the future of democracy. Besides a growing inability to translate private troubles into social issues,
what is also being lost in the current historical conjuncture is the very idea of the public good, the notion of connecting learning to social change
and developing modes of civic courage infused by the principles of social justice. Under the regime of a ruthless economic Darwinism, we are
witnessing the crumbling of social bonds and the triumph of individual desires over social rights, nowhere more exemplified than in the gated
communities, gated intellectuals and gated values that have become symptomatic of a society that has lost all claims to democracy or for that
matter any modestly progressive vision for the future. As one eminent sociologist points out, Visions

have nowadays fallen into

disrepute and we tend to be proud of what we should be ashamed of .[18] For instance, politicians such as former Vice
President Dick Cheney not only refuse to apologize for the immense suffering and displacement they have imposed on the Iraqi people, but they
seem to gloat in defending such policies. Doublespeak takes on a new register as President Obama

employs the discourse of

national security to sanction a surveillance state, a kill list and the ongoing killing of young children by
drones. This expanding landscape of lies has not only Politics has become an extension of war, just as systemic economic insecurity and
anxiety and state-sponsored violence increasingly find legitimation in the discourses of privatization and demonization, which promote anxiety,
moral panics and fear, and undermine any sense of communal responsibility for the well-being of others. Too

many young people

today learn quickly that their fate is solely a matter of individual responsibility, irrespective of wider
structural forces. This is a much promoted hyper-competitive ideology, which includes a message that surviving in a society demands
reducing social relations to forms of social combat. Young people today are expected to inhabit a set of relations in which the only
obligation is to live for oneself and to reduce the responsibilities of citizenship to the demands of a consumer
culture. Yet, there is more at work here than a flight from social responsibility, if not politics itself. Also lost is the importance of
those social bonds, modes of collective reasoning, public spheres and cultural apparatuses crucial to the
formation of a sustainable democratic society produced an illegal war and justified state torture; it also
provided a justification for the United States slide into barbarism after the tragic events of 9/11. Yet, such
acts of state violence appear to be of little concern to the shameless apostles of permanent war.

Grassroots Movements of Young People vital to Re-instating

Democracy

Giroux 15 (Henry A. Doctorate in Education McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest.
Domestic terrorism, youth and the politics of disposability Philosophers for Change April 21, 2015
http://philosophersforchange.org/2015/04/28/domestic-terrorism-youth-and-the-politics-of-disposability/ 7.19.2015
In North America, we

have seen important, though inconclusive, attempts on the part of

young people to break the hold of power. This was evident in the Occupy movement,
the Quebec student movement, the Idle No More opposition and the recent Black Lives Matter protests . What
all of these movements have made clear is that young people aligning with others can be a vibrant
source of creativity, possibility and political struggle. Moreover, these movements in their
various contemporary manifestations point to a crucial political project in which young people have raised
new questions about anti-democratic forces in the U nited States and Canada that are threatening the
collective survival of vast numbers of people. Evident in the legacy of these political movements, however slow their progression or setbacks, is a
cry of collective indignation over economic and social injustices that pose a threat to humankind. They also make clear how young

people and others can use new technologies, develop democratic social formations,
and enact forms of critical pedagogy and civil disobedience necessary for addressing the antidemocratic forces that have been corrupting North American political culture since the 1970s. Young people have shown
that austerity policies can be defeated; state violence can be held accountable;
collective struggles are worthwhile; and specific and isolated protests can be transformed into broad social movements
that pose a fundamental challenge to neoliberal ideologies and modes of governance.[39] Current protests among young
people in the United States, Canada and elsewhere in the world make clear that demonstrations
are not indeed, cannot be only a short-term project for reform. Young people need to enlist all generations to
develop a truly global political movement that is accompanied by the reclaiming of public spaces, the progressive use of digital technologies, the
development of new public spheres, the production of new modes of education and the safeguarding of places where democratic expression, new
civic values, democratic public spheres, new modes of identification and collective hope can be nurtured and developed . A formative

culture must be put in place pedagogically and institutionally in a variety of spheres

extending from churches and public and higher education to all those cultural
apparatuses engaged in the production of collective knowledge, desire, identities
and democratic values.

Social movements are a necessity to democracy

Donatella della Porta, 1/14/13,

Donatella Della Porta is professor of Sociology in

the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the European University Institute, where
she directs the centre on Social Movement Studies, (Democracy and Social Movements
The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, Published Online: 14
JAN 2013,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm065/full#wbespm065bib-0002)
Democracy is usually defined as a specific method of decision making, in which elected representatives are
accountable to the citizens through regular elections .

Social movements have always been

concerned with democracy, keeping governors accountable, but also in many cases
advocating and practicing alternative conceptions of democracy than the dominant,
representative ones. Several studies have indicated that the increasing challenges to representative
democracy are accompanied by the (re)emergence of other conceptions and practices of democracy. Empirical
research on political participation has stressed that, while some more conventional
forms of participation (such as voting or party-linked activities) are declining,
protest is increasingly used. While some traditional types of associations are
decreasing in popularity, social movement organizations are growing in resources,
legitimacy, and members. What is more, historical and normative research has pointed at the presence of
different conceptions of democracy, which pose different emphases on different democratic qualities. According to

while the dominant conception of

democracy focuses on a set of rules oriented to implement electoral accountability,
in the historical evolution of democratic regimes, a circuit of surveillance, anchored
outside of state institutions, has developed side by side with representative
institutions. Citizens' attentive vigilance upon powerholders is thus defined as a
specific, political modality of action, a particular form of political intervention,
different from decision making, but still a fundamental aspect of the democratic
process (Rosanvallon 2006: 40). Actors such as independent authorities and judges,
but also mass media, experts, and social movements, have traditionally exercised
this function of surveillance. Control from below is all the more important given the crisis of
Pierre Rosanvallon's influential volume on Counterdemocracy (2006),

representative, electoral democracy. In another influential theorization, Bernard Manin observed that the

democracy of the modernsthat is, contemporary democracy as a system that governs territories of large
dimensionsis fundamentally representative democracy: decisions are made by representatives, through
standardized procedures, that are supposed to guarantee equality among citizen-voters and (electoral)

Participation beyond elections is, however,

essential also for modern democracies that gain legitimacy not only through the
principle of majority decision-making, but also through their ability to submit
decisions to the test of the discussion (Manin 1995). The main actors that perform this function of
accountability of those who represent them.

control change in time: while in party democracy, participation happened mainly within and throughout political
parties (Manin 1995), in a contemporary democracy of the public, social movements acquire increasing relevance

Empirical research has indicated that social movement

organizations take the democratic function of control seriously, mobilizing to put
pressure on decision-makers, as well as developing counterknowledge and open
public spaces. If electoral accountability has long been privileged over the power of
control in the historical evolution of representative democracy, social movements
contribute to stress the importance of extra-electoral forms of accountability. While
stressing the need for more public and less private, more state and less market,
they define themselves especially as autonomous from institutions and as
performing democratic control of the governors. By creating public spaces, they contribute to the
as actors of democratic participation.

development of ideas and practices of democracy (della Porta 2009a). Democratic control acquires a special
meaning given the perceived challenge of adapting democratic conceptions and practices to the increasing shift of

In this respect, social movement organizations

contribute to the debate on global democracy, not only by criticizing the lack of
democratic accountability and even transparency of many existing at local, national,
and transnational level, but also by asking for a globalization of democracy and
actually constructing a global public sphere that could hold IGOs accountability
competence toward the transnational level.

(Marchetti 2008; della Porta 2009b). Social movements, however, do not only ask to increase transparency; they

Normative theorists of democracy (especially, Pateman 1970) have

suggested that if institutional decision making is mainly controlled by a restricted
class of professional politicians, the healthy functioning of democracy is linked to
the presence of multiple arenas that allow for the participation of citizens. While
also ask for more participation.

theories of representative democracy have focused on electoral arenas, theories of participatory democracy have

In this vision, citizens should be

provided with as many opportunities to participate as there are spheres of decision
making. In these conceptions, the actors of participatory democracy are mainly outside the public institutions.
Research on social movements has in fact stressed that, as highly reflexive actors,
far from limiting themselves to presenting demands to decision-makers, they in fact
address a meta-political critique to representative democracy (Offe 1985). The
alternative they propose has usually been conceptualized in terms of participatory
democracy, referring to an ancient element of democratic theory that calls for an
organisation of collective decision making referred to in varying ways as classical,
populist, communitarian, strong, grass-roots, or direct democracy against a
democratic practice in contemporary democracies labelled as realist, liberal, elite,
republican, or representative democracy (Kitschelt 1993: 15). At least since the 1960s, new
social movements have in fact criticized delegation as well as oligarchic and
centralized power, and instead supported forms of direct participation and
grassroots, horizontal, egalitarian organizational models. Recent studies observed that
participation acquires different meanings in different social movements (Polletta 2002; Reiter 2009). In the Old
Left, participation and delegation are seen as highly compatible, and the stress on
participation appears as a recovery of the original values of democratic centralism.
stressed the importance of involving citizens beyond elections.

For the New Left, the emphasis is on direct democracy and self-organization, while
the solidarity groups and new social movement organizations stress the
prefigurative role of participation as a school of democracy. Similarly, searching for
coherence between their criticism of existing democratic institutions and their internal practices, the organizations
emerging with the Global Justice Movement elaborate counter-models that combine concrete proposals of reform

At the same time, social movement

organizations interact with public institutions at various territorial levels. In many
cases, especially but not only at the local level, they collaborate with public
institutions, both on specific problems and in broader campaigns. Participation is a
value also in conceptions of deliberative democracy that acquired support in
contemporary social movements. Although representative procedural democracy is mainly based on
with a utopian orientation to build alternative, free spaces.

principles of delegation and majority votes, conceptions of democracy have always balanced such principles with
respect for high-quality debate oriented toward the public good. With some different emphasis, in normative
political theory, deliberative democracy refers to decisional processes in which, under conditions of equality,
inclusiveness, and transparency, a communicative process based on reason (the strength of a good argument) is
able to transform individual preferences, leading to decisions oriented to the public good (della Porta 2005). In the
conception of deliberative democracy, particular attention is given to the discursive quality of democracy with an
emphasis on four elements: the transformation of preferences, the orientation to the public good, the use of
arguments, and the development of consensus. While representative democracy is based upon the aggregation
(through vote or negotiation) of exogenously generated preferences, deliberative democracy is defined as oriented
to preference (trans)formation. In deliberative processes, initial preferences are transformed during the
confrontation with the points of view of others in order to reach a common understanding of the public good (Young
1996). This requires the deliberative process to take place under conditions of plurality of values, where people
have different perspectives but face common problems. This should be achieved through rational argumentation,
based on the exchange of reasons: people should be convinced not by the use of hard power, but by the force of
the better argument (Elster 1998). In particular, deliberation should be facilitated by horizontal flows of
communication, multiple contributors to discussion, wide opportunities for interactivity, confrontation on the basis
of rational argumentation, and attitude to reciprocal listening (Habermas 1996). Recognition of others' reasons
allows for the building of consensus, so that decisions can be reached by convincing others of one's own argument.
They are therefore legitimate in as far as they are approvable by all participantsin contrast with majority-rule

Also in this perspective, democracy

develops (also or mainly) outside of public institutions in voluntary groups and
social movement organizations, presented as enclaves, free from institutional power
democracy, where decisions are legitimated by votes.

(Mansbridge 1996). Sometimes explicitly but more often not, many social movement organizations have adopted
deliberative norms (della Porta 2009a, 2009b). First of all, they stress that, given a complex reality, no easy solution
is at hand or can be derived from big ideologies. Many conflicts must therefore be approached by reliance on the

The notion of a
common good is often recalled (for example, water as a common good), but also democracy
should be constructed through communication, exchanges of ideas, and knowledge
sharing. The value of discussion among free and equal citizens is mirrored in the
positive emphasis on diversity and inclusion, but also in the attention paid to the
development of structured arenas for the exchange of ideas, with the
experimentation with some rules that should allow for horizontal flows of
communication and reciprocal listening. In particular, consensus is increasingly mentioned as a
general value as well as an organizational principle in internal decision making (della Porta 2009a). In fact,
even though social movements have stressed conflict as a dynamic element in
society, they tend increasingly to balance it with a commitment to values such as
respect for diversity, dialogue, and mutual understanding. Consensus is presented
as an alternative to majoritarian decision making, which is accused of repressing
and/or alienating the minorities. Through consensual decision making, instead, not
only would legitimacy increase with participants' contributions to decisions, but the
awareness of different points of view would also help in working on what unites,
constructing a shared vision while respecting diversity. In particular in the Global Justice
potential for mutual understanding that might develop in an open, high-quality debate.

Movement, consensus spread transnationally, thanks to the symbolic impact and concrete networks built around
the Zapatistas' experience, and the successive adoption of consensual principles and practices in the Social Forum
process (Smith et al. 2007; della Porta 2009b). Dedicated publications, workshops, and training courses helped the
diffusion of consensual practices. Here as well, multiple meanings attached to consensus. In particular, when
coupled with an assembleary, horizontal tradition, consensual decision making is perceived as a way to reach a
collective agreement that reflects a strong communitarian identity. This vision, particularly widespread among small
and often local groups within the autonomous tradition, resonates with an antiauthoritarian emphasis and an
egalitarian view. Group life assumes here mainly a prefigurative value. An alternative, more pragmatic view is
spread in the emerging networks. Here, consensual decision making is accompanied especially by an emphasis on
diversity and the need to respect it, but also to improve mutual understanding through good communication.

SHOULD DEFUND FUSION CENTERS

NOW IS THE TIME TO DEFUND UNJUST SURVEILLANCE BY FUSION CENTERS

Time has long passed to DEFUND fusion centers that use their SURVEILLANCE to
target INNOCENT individuals and peaceful protestors. Fusion Centers are the
HEART of unjust in-community covert persecution of social justice movements
which is an abuse of power and corruption of democracy

Before Its News 15 Freelance online reporting organization, citing a ACLU

report, and a Partnership for Civil Justice Fund Report concerning more than 4000
government documents. (Before Its News, Targeted Individuals Breakthrough:
Fusion Center Abusing TIs Exposed, May 18, 2015, http://beforeitsnews.com/spiesand-intelligence/2015/05/targeted-individuals-breakthrough-fusion-center-abusingtis-exposed-2447250.html)//RP
Department of Homeland Security-funded Fusion Centers used their vast
anti-terrorism, anti-crime authority and funding to conduct nationwide,
hour-by-hour surveillance efforts to target innocent individuals including
peaceful protestors in the Occupy Movement. This spying effort was
exposed in a report issued today by Partnership for Civil Justice Fund
(PCJF) based on 4,000 pages of government documents the non-profit
organization obtained. Fusion Centers are supposedly targeting terrorists
planning catastrophic acts of violence. Instead, they target peaceful dissent,
stated stated Carl Messineo, PCJF Legal Director. Rather than being a challenge to
terrorism, the Fusion Centers are a threat to civil liberties, democratic dissent and
the social and political fabric of this country. The time has long passed for the
centers to be defunded. Messineo and Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of Partnership
for Civil Justice Fund released today the bombshell report, Out From the
Shadows in conjunction with a major New York Times story based on the 4,000
pages of government documents PCJF uncovered during a two-year
investigation. The newly published documents reveal actual workings of
Fusion Centers. These center were created after 9/11 attacks ostensibly to
coordinate anti-terrorism efforts in collecting and providing surveillance information
on peaceful protestors. While Occupy Movement protesters and others groups such
as PCJF are named in the report, most American targeted individuals realize that
Fusion Centers are near the heart of their unjust in-community covert
persecution. Until today, these TIs have had no where to turn for desperately
needed support nor advocacy. TIs also recognize that anyone can have their
named turned into such centers for a life of unjust treatment being
covertly applied throughout every level of society by government tops and
contractors at computers somewhere and in local communities to ensure
lives are made miserable if ruined enough to cause violence against self or
others, according to their reports and news stories such as that of victim Aaron
Alexis. An ACLU report on Fusion Centers stated that 800,000 operatives
were to be working throughout every American city and town, These ops
now report on even the most common everyday behaviors that go into fusion

centers data bases. [Read the PDF] Civil servants, firefighters, police officers,
corporate employees and others are being paid to collect data by spying every day
on innocent people. All that information then goes into the secret data bases. They
communicate in code, according to the ACLU, as TIs have been saying for over a
decade. YOU ARE BEING MONITORED 24/7/365. EVERYTHING you say,
describes a TI on the website Tortured America. EVERY MOVEMENT you make.
EVERY phone call. EVERY internet/electronic communication and activity.
EVERY transaction. EVERY breath you take. All of your habits have been
analyzed. EVERYTHING about you is being analyzed. THIS IS LITERALLY THE
MOVIE Eagle Eye and YOU are the target. Secretary of Homeland Security
Napolitano testified that DHS is committed to having an officer in each fusion
center. Most fusion centers work with representatives of the private sector,
particularly industries related to so-called critical infrastructure and key resources.
Most fusion centers have not even identified their physical location. Instead, many
simply provide a mailing address that leads to a post office box or generic
government building. Think your state and thus your community is immune to this
hidden abuse and that TIs are fabricating their persecution. Think again. One
gangstalking website has listed fusion centers and their addresses. The U.S..
Fusion Centers are using their vast counter-terrorism resources to target
the domestic social justice movement as a criminal or terrorist
enterprise, said PCJF Executive Director Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. This is an
abuse of power and corruption of democracy.

Without guidelines, and with rampant abuse occurring, the only

remaining option is to defund Fusion Centers.

ACLU no date but cites 2012 American Civil Liberties Union, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to upholding constitutional rights, over 500,000
members, and a legal assistance provider. (ACLU, More About Fusion Centers,
2012, https://www.aclu.org/more-about-fusion-centers?redirect=spy-files/moreabout-fusion-centers)//RP
Fusion centers are also the focal point for growing suspicious activity reporting
programs that encourage public reporting of innocuous everyday activities. The
Colorado Information and Analysis Center even produced a fear-mongering
public service announcement asking the public to report innocuous
behaviors such as photography, note-taking, drawing and collecting
money for charity as "warning signs" of terrorism. The George Washington
University Homeland Security Policy Institute published a survey of fusion center
employees in September 2012, which characterized suspicious activity reports as
white noise that impeded effective intelligence analysis.
There is some good news, however. The 2010 DHS Homeland Security Grant
Program established a requirement that fusion centers certify that privacy and civil
liberties protections are in place in order to use DHS grant funds. This is the first
time DHS has acknowledged its authority to regulate fusion center activities and it
coincides with the establishment of a new DHS Joint Fusion Center Program
Management Office to oversee DHS support to fusion centers. While these are only

small steps, they are important advances toward establishing an effective

governance and oversight structure over fusion centers. But reforms are not
taking place fast enough and fusion centers and the risks they pose only
continue to grow.
In October 2012, the Senate Homeland Security Committee Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations released a highly critical report on fusion centers,
revealing that public officials claims about their effectiveness were not accurate,
that federal funds designated for fusion centers were not properly
accounted for, and that intelligence analysts and reports officers lacked
sufficient training and often produced reports that infringed on civil
rights. In response, the conservative Heritage Foundation called for cutting back
the number of fusion centers. With ample evidence of abuse, the time has
come for Congress and your local government representatives to act by
cutting off funds to fusion centers that do not have a narrowly-tailored law
enforcement mission, strict guidelines to protect Americans privacy, and
independent oversight to prevent abuse.

AT: Terrorism Disad

Fusion centers HAVE NEVER identified a terrorist attack.

Jaycox and Timm 12 Legislative Analyst for EFF concerning civil liberties
and surveillance law, and co-founder/executive director/journalist of the Freedom
Press Foundation. (Mark Jaycox and Trevor Timm, New Senate Report:
Counterterrorism "Fusion Centers" Invade Innocent Americans Privacy and Dont
Stop Terrorism, October 9, 2012 https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/new-senatereport-confirms-government-counterterrorism-centers-dont-stop)//RP
The Department of Homeland Securitys 70 counterterrorism "fusion centers"
produce "predominantly useless information," "a bunch of crap," while
"running afoul of departmental guidelines meant to guard against civil
liberties" and are "possibly in violation of the Privacy Act."
These may sound like the words of EFF, but in fact, these conclusions come from
a new report issued by a US Senate committee. At the cost of up to $1.4 billion,
these fusion centers are supposed to facilitate local law enforcement sharing
of valuable counterterrorism information to DHS, but according to the report,
they do almost everything but.
DHS described its fusion centers as "one of the centerpieces of [its]
counterterrorism strategy" and its database was supposed to be a central repository
of known or "appropriately suspected" terrorists. In theory, local law enforcement
officers, in conjunction with DHS officials, conduct surveillance and write up a report
known as a Homeland Intelligence Report (HIR)for DHS to review. If credible,
DHS would then spread the information to the larger intelligence community.
Yet, the Senate report found the fusion centers failed to uncover a single
terrorist threat. Instead, like so many post-9/11 surveillance laws passed under
the vague guise of national security, the system was overwhelmingly used for
ordinary criminal investigations, while at the same time facilitating an egregious
amount of violations of innocent Americans rights.

Activists are unjustly labeled as terrorists, allowing fusion centers to

appear as though theyve stopped terrorist attacks.
McLoughlin, 13author (Kyle, Emergency as Security: The Liberal Empire at
Home and Abroad, based on seminar at Concordia University, ed. By Kyle
McLoughlin and Maximilian C. Forte, p. 95)
The threat assessments generated by fusion centres enable extensive
political and racial profiling by the security state which is then followed up by
on the ground investigations. One such operation in Maryland included the
sustained surveillance of peace activists and anti-death penalty advocacy
organizations for months followed by covert investigation and infiltration
of these groups by law enforcement; this is despite officers reporting no
signs of violent intent or activity throughout the course of the investigation
(Monahan, 2010-2011, p. 89). The activists under surveillance were then

listed in federal databases under suspicion of anti-government related

terrorist activity. Through the application of the terrorist label the state is able
to try and further marginalize subversion by setting the parameters of
acceptable political expression. As is evident in the threat parameters of
acceptable political expression. As is evident in the threat assessments
generated by fusion centres, acceptable expression increasingly excludes forms
of advocacy and criticism of state policy.

A vast majority of fusion center information reports contain no

security information, worsening counter terrorism efforts, and even
falsifying the existence of certain fusion centers.

Sanchez 12 Former Washington Editor for Ars Technica, Senior Fellow at the
Cato Institute, graduate in Political Science from New York University. (Julian
Sanchez, Our Broken Panopticon: Senate Report Finds Fusion Centers Expensive &
Useless, October 4, 2012, http://www.cato.org/blog/our-broken-panopticon-senatereport-finds-fusion-centers-expensive-useless)//RP
For years, top officials at the Department of Homeland Security have touted fusion
centersdesigned to share security information between state, local, and federal
government agencies as a vital tool for strengthening homeland security, a
proven and invaluable tool, and one of the centerpieces of our counterterrorism
strategy. But a blistering new bipartisan Senate report paints a radically
different picture, exposing these centers as a costly boondoggle that
flouted civil liberties safeguards, lacked basic accountability, and
produced intelligence that was overwhelmingly useless or irrelevantor
as one particularly candid official put it, a load of crap.
How costly are they? Incredibly, DHS cant even say for certain: Estimates of
federal spending on the centers range from $289 million to $1.4 billion.
Given that most states had a distinct shortage of real terrorists to keep tabs on,
much of that money went to purposes utterly unrelated to actual
counterterrorism analysis. One center blew $75,000 on dozens of flat-screen
televisions, supposedly for an intelligence training program that never materialized.
Now the TVs are being used to display calendars, and for open-source
monitoringalso known as watching the news. Other popular purchases
included Sport Utility Vehicles, laptops, and high tech surveillance toys for ordinary
law enforcementmany of which were then given away to other local government
agencies.
How useless are they? One official estimated that 85 percent of the
reports they produced were of no benefit whatever, and the large majority
of reports were unrelated to terrorism. Most of these werent published or
circulated for months, and they often just regurgitated information from
public press reports. Almost all these reports came from centers in just three
states: Most of the 77 fusion centers produced little or nothing at all. Sorry,
make that 68 fusion centersit turns out the official DHS tally included
several that didnt actually exist.

Unsurprisingly, DHS struggled to identify a clear example in which fusion

center intelligence helped identify any actual terroristsand indeed, may
have hampered effective counterterrorism by clogging the intelligence
arteries with predominantly useless information. To keep justifying those
millions of taxpayer dollars, however, DHS touted bogus success stories, like a
report that sowed panic over a Russian cyberattack on a citys water systema
cyberattack that had never happened. When internal assessments began to reveal
the ineffectuality of fusion centers years ago, DHS hid the results from Congress
and kept on praising them publicly.
Of course, civil liberties groups have been warning for years that fusion centers
are more likely to facilitate improper monitoring of citizens than
legitimate security goals. And the Senate report shows they had reason to worry.
One key DHS official revealed a disturbing view of he value of intra-agency
cooperation when he noted that We had fire [departments] one of the few
people who can enter your home without a warrant is a firefighter. One notorious
fusion center report suggested that Libertarian Party members, Ron Paul supporters,
and individuals flying the Gadsden Flag popular with Tea Partiers were likely to be
violent extremists. Many reports were shelved because they documented only
innocent, protected First Amendment activitybut the information in them was
often retained anyway, in potential violation of the Privacy Act.

Activists are unjustly labeled as terrorists, allowing fusion centers to

appear as though theyve stopped terrorist attacks.
McLoughlin, 13author (Kyle, Emergency as Security: The Liberal Empire at
Home and Abroad, based on seminar at Concordia University, ed. By Kyle
McLoughlin and Maximilian C. Forte, p. 95)
The threat assessments generated by fusion centres enable extensive political and
racial profiling by the security state which is then followed up by on the ground
investigations. One such operation in Maryland included the sustained surveillance
of peace activists and anti-death penalty advocacy organizations for months
followed by covert investigation and infiltration of these groups by law enforcement;
this is despite officers reporting no signs of violent intent or activity throughout the
course of the investigation (Monahan, 2010-2011, p. 89). The activists under
surveillance were then listed in federal databases under suspicion of antigovernment related terrorist activity. Through the application of the terrorist label
the state is able to try and further marginalize subversion by setting the parameters
of acceptable political expression. As is evident in the threat parameters of
acceptable political expression. As is evident in the threat assessments generated
by fusion centres, acceptable expression increasingly excludes forms of advocacy
and criticism of state policy.

The terrorist label makes these activist groups an enemy of the state

McLoughlin, 13author (Kyle, Emergency as Security: The Liberal Empire at

Home and Abroad, based on seminar at Concordia University, ed. By Kyle
McLoughlin and Maximilian C. Forte, p. 95)
Targeting anarchist networks has become increasingly salient to the
investigations of the DHS. The Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC)
produced a strategic report on anarchist movement and their activities made up
largely of open source data (see MIAC, 2008). Despite a heading informing readers
that the report should not serve as the basis for further investigations, the MIAC
document concluded that: The MIAC is aware of a number of anarchist networks
within Missouri. With their past clashes with the white supremacist movements in
our area, we believed it to be important for all Law Enforcement Officers to be
aware of the many ideologies and splinter groups that are present within the
anarchist movement. Although they have not all been listed, we believe the
groups discussed pose a significant domestic terrorist threat at this time.
(MIAC, 2008, p.5) Groups detailed in the MIAC report include Cop Watch, a noninterventionist police counter surveillance organization, and Anti-Racist Action, a
decentralized anti-fascist and anti-racist activist group. This report shows the
links law enforcement make between certain forms of political organizing
and terrorist activity. Regardless of whether or not organizations like
those listed in the MIAC report do break laws in their activities, to conflate
their actions as domestic terrorism is the expression of institutionalized
political behavior. The label of terrorist designates an enemy for law
enforcement to pursue; attacking terrorism provides ample justification
for pre-emptive aggression and heavy-handed prosecution. In the age of the
War on Terror, to be labelled a terrorist is to become an enemy of the U.S. to be met
by all the power that such a state can muster. This power, stemming from an
integrated intelligence network and a militarized police apparatus, was used by law
enforcement in pursuing the Republican National Convention Welcoming Committee
in St Paul and will undoubtedly be used again in the future.

Murky International Definition of Terrorism Allows FBI to label Nonviolent Protesters as Terroristsand to legally subject them to
Domestic Surveillance in the Name of National Security

Greenberg 03 (Ivan, PhD, author of "The FBI and the Making of the Terrorist Threat." Everyone is a
Terrorist Now: Marginalizing Protest in the U.S. Radical Criminology: No 2 (2013)
http://journal.radicalcriminology.org/index.php/rc/article/view/23/html 7/20/15 LP)

Political policing (or state "high policing") usually is defined as activity which is directed, through surveillance
and counterinsurgency, to control particular groups and communities . It is not deviant behavior but a core
function of government to protect a political regime. In the U.S. context, the practice has deep historical roots and almost
always is done secretly because it undermines the intention of the First
Amendment, which protects free speech and assembly . Until the mid-1970s, most American political policing was directed against
actors identified as "subversive." Afterwards, the category of "terrorism" became the legal basis for most
domestic security investigations.2 While this change from subversion to terrorism was intended to reduce government spying, one effect has been stigma and marginalization:
the labeling of protest as terrorism undermines the legitimacy of a wide range of
political expression. In the era of the "war on terror" against radical Islam, the concept of what constitutes terrorist activity is thoroughly confused. The American

state deliberately makes little distinction between fighting violent terrorism with
overseas roots and fighting peaceful, legal, domestic political activity . In the FBI's
view, terrorists are found everywhere there is disagreement and conflict in society .
Indeed, the very act of criticizing the government outside of a protest movement can
result in being labeled a terrorist. Even though American radicals rarely commit crimes, the FBI claims they pose a major challenge to peaceful order in society. The

The level of political violence in the

U.S. is very low regardless of whether it originates overseas or at home. Yet, despite the
terrorist label so broadly has been misapplied that it has lost most significance and meaning.

the U.S. government touts the threat as a top danger to the nation. It needs terrorists to exist and wants
America to face a terrorist threat. If there is no real threat, they must fabricate one.
This fabrication allows the FBI to surveil and attack oppositional political formations .
absence of violent acts,

Since there are so few real terrorists, the government has built up a phony threat, a ghost of a menace, a "scare" that does not have much grounding in reality. It serves conservative political interests. In its effort to contain dissent, the
American government benefits that definitions of terrorism vary widely. In both academic and government discourse, a consensus does not exist about what terrorism involves, which has allowed powerful interests to distort terrorism
debates. In academic discourse, Lisa Stampnitzky notes, "One of the most oft-noted difficulties has been the inability of researchers to establish a suitable definition of the concept of 'terrorism' itself, with the result that practically

Meanwhile, in governmental politics the U nited Nations,

, cannot agree on a definition. Since 9/11, the U.N. has proved unable to gain consensus on any comprehensive statement or action on the issue. Since
no universally accepted definition exists within the international community, antiterror measures vary widely by nation. Indeed, in the decade after 9/11 more than 140 nations passed new anti-terrorism laws. In many
cases, the new legislation justified increased repression toward domestic
populations. Human Rights Watch points to the "dangerous expansion of powers to
detain and prosecute people, including peaceful political opponentsthe tendency
of these laws to cover a wide range of conduct far beyond what is generally
understood as terrorist. More often than not, the laws define terrorism using broad
and open-ended language." The threat to domestic dissent is real. "In dozens of countries, acts of political dissent that result in property damage, such as demonstrations, may be
prosecuted as terrorism where the element of terrorist intent is broadly defined (for example, to 'disrupt the public order' or 'endanger public safety')." More than 50 of the new
counter-terror laws in the U.S. place new restrictions on speech by criminalizing
expression that encourages terrorism absent any charge of incitement to violence,
and more than 120 laws vastly expand police surveillance and detention powers.
every book, essay, and article on the topic has been compelled to take on this so- called 'problem of definition.'"
for example

Moreover, governments in several nations "redefined longstanding armed conflicts as part of the 'global war on terror' for internal political purposes or to gain international support." For example, Russia views the conflict in Chechnya

as a struggle against international terrorists, not as a separatist conflict. In considering the U.S. conflation of dissent with terrorism, it is useful to consult the new field of Critical Terrorism Studies (CTS). CTS adopts the view that
existing counter-terror policies often serve the interests of hegemonic power structures to maintain the status quo. Terrorism is a social construction and different groups and forces in society conceptualize it differently. CTS casts a
critical eye on state power both as a perpetrator of political violence and for manufacturing ideas contrary to emancipatory objectives. In the debut issue of Critical Studies on Terrorism in 2008, the editors outlined a series of topics
that had received scant attention, including: the role of state terrorism; the effects of the war on terror on poor peoples; the cultural construction of terrorism; and the "ideographic qualities" of the terrorism label.

A major reason the

the FBI is instructed to respect

is forbidden to investigate the politics of Americans unless they
can be linked to advocacy of violence or efforts to organize violent acts . "These Guidelines do not authorize
FBI calls nonviolent protestors terrorists is related to official FBI Guidelines for investigation developed by the U.S. Department of Justice. According to these Guidelines,
the First Amendment and civil liberties. The Bureau

investigating or collecting or maintaining information on United States persons solely for the purpose of monitoring activities protected by the First Amendment or the lawful exercise of other rights secured by the Constitution or laws

A fuller statement of the FBI's alleged respect for legal and Constitutional rights is contained in a Bureau document distributed to its personnel: the Domestic
Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). Strong civil liberty protections are outlined, as if an attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) had written these sections. Nearly 20 pages of DIOG are devoted to "Privacy and Civil Liberties, and Least Intrusive Methods." The document states: Protecting the public includes protecting their rights and
of the United States."

liberties. FBI investigative activity is premised upon the fundamental duty of government to protect the public, which must be performed with care to protect individual rights and to ensure that investigations are confined to matters of

Race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin alone can never constitute

the sole basis for initiating investigative activity Employ the least intrusive means that do not otherwise compromise FBI operations.
legitimate government interest

Assuming a lawful intelligence or evidence collection objective, an authorized purpose, strongly consider the method (technique) employed to achieve that objective that is the least intrusive available (particularly if there is the

A
second important FBI document, the "FBI Agents Legal Handbook," outlines
restrictions on uses of informers. This is not a minor matter since informers function as a key undercover spying
tool. The FBI cannot direct these "human assets" to act in ways that are forbidden
for other FBI personnel. The Handbook states: Although informers are private individuals in the sense that they are not commissioned representatives of the government, they are considered
potential to interfere with protected speech and association, damage someone's reputation, intrude on privacy, or interfere with the sovereignty of foreign governments) while still being operationally sound and effective.

agents of the government when performing informant-related tasks.As such, they are subject to the same legal restrictions that govern the conduct of Special Agents. It follows that if the informant's contemplated action would be

illegal or unconstitutional if performed by a Special Agent, it is also impermissible if performed by the informant. FBI public documents echo these private ones. In the document, "Our Responsibility to Protect Civil Liberties," the
FBI states: The FBI is committed to carrying out its mission in accordance with the protections provided by the Constitution. FBI agents are trained to understand and appreciate that the responsibility to respect and protect the law is
the basis for their authority to enforce it. The FBI puts a premium on thoroughly training our special agents about their responsibility to respect the rights and dignity of individuals.

An article titled "Domestic Terrorism," which is

It's only when actions by groups or

individuals cross the line into threats, the actual use of force or violence, or other
law-breaking activities that we can investigate . 10 Thus, the limitations on FBI spying seem significant. But in practice
posted on the FBI website, asserts: Hate and anger are not crimes; neither are hard-line and poisonous ideologies.

these Guidelines, Handbooks, and public pronouncements carry little weight . The FBI
subverts them by calling everyone terrorists and by claiming the threat is severe or
imminent. It is official dishonesty in secret documents that few outside the FBI can
access. Unaccountability is integral to the mislabeling of political activity. As part of the "criminalization of dissent,"
associating speech and writing, as well as peaceful social action, with terrorism
functions to discredit subjects. The state smears political opponents as dangerous
and disloyal in order to marginalize them. Although subjects of FBI terrorism investigation often are not arrested, the investigations allow the government to
collect intelligence to be used to undermine social movements based, for example, on anti-war, anti-capitalist, or anti-globalization politics. The USA Patriot Act (2001) codified a loose definition of terrorism
in federal law. Section 802 created the federal crime of "domestic terrorism " to cover "acts
dangerous to human life that are in violation of the criminal laws of the U nited States or of
any State." A terrorist act consisted of any effort "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population" or "to influence the policy of government by intimidation or coercion." The precise meaning of intimidation and coercion
11
remains unclear. The FBI has viewed peaceful civil disobedience as terrorism .
Despite the Patriot Act, disagreement exists
within the government about what constitutes terrorist behavior. In 2010, the Office of the Inspector General at the Justice
Department reviewed FBI surveillance of five domestic political advocacy groups
and found the FBI misapplied the terrorism classification. The Bureau "relied upon
potential crimes that may not commonly be considered as 'terrorism' (such as trespassing or vandalism)
and that alternatively have been classified differently , such as under the classification for crimes on government reservations." 12
Moreover, the vast majority of criminal charges brought by the FBI for terrorism do not
hold up in court. In 2008, government prosecutors declined to bring charges against
73 percent of the criminal cases referred to them for terrorism, up from 61 percent
in 2005. Syracuse University's TRAC research group found: "Federal agencies can't seem to agree on who is a terrorist and who is not. The failure has potentially serious implications, weakening efforts to use the criminal
13
law to combat terrorism and at the same time undermining civil liberties."
This uneven approach points to a pattern of abuse. Falsely charging
a person with terrorism, even if prosecution fails, is a form of state harassment . It also is one
way the FBI manipulates public opinion to build up the gravity of the threat. Arrests make headlines and the public is led to believe a
grave danger exists. By contrast, the dismissal of charges rarely makes headlines ; and
the pattern of overcharging rarely is discussed in popular media discourse. Under the banner of fighting terrorism, U.S. intelligence agencies monitor popular websites, blogs, and message boards unrelated to specific groups and

DHS) has taken the lead in a program called "Social Networking/Media Capability." DHS
tracked dozens of popular sites to identify criticism of U.S. policies. They call it
"situational awareness": popular opinion about news events that "reflect adversely"
on the U.S. government. As one prominent example, DHS conducted mass monitoring of Facebook to "capture public reaction" regarding the possible relocation of Guantanamo terror
individuals. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (

detainees to a prison in Michigan. DHS also monitored the comments section to articles in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the HuffingtonPost looking to identify criticism of the intelligence community. Other websites
under surveillance include: Twitter, Hulu, MySpace, YouTube, Flickrm Wikileaks, Drudge Report, ABC News, Wired, Cryptome, Jihad Watch, and Informed Comment. DHS employs analytical computer software in its monitoring,
which relies on hundreds of key words and search terms to detect controversial political expression. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) reports that the list includes "vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech
that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters."

15

Fifty-six words or terms are listed under the category of "domestic security."

16

(See Tables 1-3,

Most political intelligence gathered

by DHS is made available to the FBI. The same sharing of information characterizes the Counter-Terrorism Unit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Author Will
Potter obtained government documents revealing this Unit maintains files about journalists whose writings, interviews, and lectures are critical of government repression. Potter found multiple references to his own book,
Green is the New Red, about government attacks on the environmental and animal rights movement. Several of Potter's public lectures also were monitored. In one lecture, he spoke about how
'terrorists' have become the new enemy of the hour and a rhetorical tool to excuse
all manner of harassment, intimidation, and surveillance What does it say about our government and our culture's understanding
below.) When these terms appear in a domestic communication, the whole message or article may be flagged for further inspection.

17

of 'terrorism threats' that these dossiers included articles, speeches, and books?
The state strategy of calling everyone a terrorist is underappreciated in U.S popular consciousness. On the one hand, there may be general timidity to
directly challenge the dominant ideas and practices of the intelligence community, fearful that such criticism might prompt state countermeasures. The FBI, for example, has a long history of tracking its critics. On the other hand, it is

In 2012, a major U.S. Senate

report found significant ineffectiveness in domestic anti-terror efforts related to
official "fusion centers." The DHS runs about 70 such centers across the nation to consolidate and analyze regional political intelligence. While the Congressional
report referred to "wasteful" spending and "irrelevant" and "useless" intelligence
reporting, it did not acknowledge political policing as a function of government. 18 Yet, there is little doubt protest movements in
America continue to be subject to state scrutiny . Recent revelations about
government spying on the Occupy movement in more than 15 cities demonstrates ,
once again, that DHS and the FBI labeled homegrown protestors as terrorists. FBI memos
refer to "domestic terrorism" and note local Joint Terrorism Task Forces helped in
"counterterrorism preparedness" and "WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] preparedness." In Los Angeles, the social control function explicitly was
difficult for dissidents to advance ideas on this subject because the mainstream media rarely allows such questioning of the intelligence community.

The government worried about Occupy alliances with the

homeless. [Text redacted] stated that transit-related crime in Los Angeles County has gone up recently[Text redacted] blames the rising crime rate on mostly economic factors. In tough economic times, many
articulated after a legal, nonviolent Occupy protest in the subway system.

shelters and care facilities for mentally ill individuals and drug users either close or have to turn people away. The aforementioned people account for a large percentage of the transit crime in the County of Los Angeles On 10-19-

a peaceful protest by the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement occurred on a Blue Line
train. [Text redacted] stated the protesters had all purchased tickets and were all cooperative . [Text
redacted] is concerned however about what may happen if the 'Occupy Wall Street'
protesters mix with the more violent individuals upset about the alleged
mistreatment of prisoners in the LASD jails . 19 In retrospect, the eventual police
crackdown on the Occupy movement seems predictable since authorities have
come to view protest through a prism of terrorism . The prospect of widespread repression in America hangs large before the people.
2011

Terror is used as an excuse by local police to surveil activists

protest groups are mislabeled as terrorist organizations

Washington Post 8 [Lisa Rein, Md. Police Put Activists' Names On Terror
Lists, Washington Post, 10/8/08, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/10/07/AR2008100703245.html?sid=ST2008100703347]
MG
The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered
their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track
terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday. Police Superintendent Terrence B.
Sheridan revealed at a legislative hearing that the surveillance operation, which targeted opponents of the death
penalty and the Iraq war, was far more extensive than was known when its existence was disclosed in July. The
department started sending letters of notification Saturday to the activists, inviting them to review their files before
they are purged from the databases, Sheridan said. "The names don't belong in there," he told the Senate Judicial

The surveillance took place over 14 months in

2005 and 2006, under the administration of former governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). The former state
police superintendent who authorized the operation, Thomas E. Hutchins, defended the program in
testimony yesterday. Hutchins said the program was a bulwark against potential violence and called the
activists "fringe people." Sheridan said protest groups were also entered as terrorist
organizations in the databases, but his staff has not identified which ones. Stunned senators pressed Sheridan
Proceedings Committee. "It's as simple as that."

to apologize to the activists for the spying, assailed in an independent review last week as "overreaching" by law
enforcement officials who were oblivious to their violation of the activists' rights of free expression and association.

the state police have "no

evidence whatsoever of any involvement in violent crime" by those classified as
terrorists. Hutchins told the committee it was not accurate to describe the program as spying. "I doubt anyone
The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, does not apologize but admits that

who has used that term has ever met a spy," he told the committee. "What John Walker did is spying," Hutchins
said, referring to John Walker Jr., a communications specialist for the U.S. Navy convicted of selling secrets to the
Soviet Union. Hutchins said the intelligence agents, whose logs were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union
of Maryland as part of a lawsuit, were monitoring "open public meetings." His officers sought a "situational
awareness" of the potential for disruption as death penalty opponents prepared to protest the executions of two
men on death row, Hutchins said. "I don't believe the First Amendment is any guarantee to those who wish to
disrupt the government," he said. Hutchins said he did not notify Ehrlich about the surveillance. Ehrlich spokesman
Henry Fawell said the governor had no comment. Hutchins did not name the commander in the Division of
Homeland Security and Intelligence who informed him in March 2005 that the surveillance had begun. More than a
year later, after "they said, 'We're not getting much here,' " Hutchins said he cut off what he called a "low-level
operation." But Sen. James Brochin (D-Baltimore County) noted that undercover troopers used aliases to infiltrate
organizational meetings, rallies and group e-mail lists. He called the spying a "deliberate infiltration to find out
every piece of information necessary" on groups such as the Maryland Campaign to End the Death Penalty and the
Baltimore Pledge of Resistance. When Hutchins called their members "fringe people," the audience of activists who
filled the seats in the hearing room in Annapolis sighed. Laura Lising of Catonsville, a member of the Baltimore Coalition Against
the Death Penalty, received her notification yesterday. She said she wants a hard copy of her file, because she does not trust the police to purge it.

"We need as much protection as possible," she said. Both Hutchins and Sheridan said the activists' names were entered into the state police

The police also entered the

activists' names into the federal Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
database, which tracks suspected terrorists. One well-known antiwar activist from Baltimore, Max
Obuszewski, was singled out in the intelligence logs released by the ACLU, which described a "primary
crime" of "terrorism-anti-government" and a "secondary crime" of "terrorism-antiwar protesters."
database as terrorists partly because the software offered limited options for classifying entries.

Terror Turns
The war on terror has worsened U.S. security it was an effort of
the military industrial complex, has cultivated resentment of the US
and resulted in more terrorism
Johnson, Professor and CIA consultant, 04
(Chalmers, "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire", Edition 2,
p. 30//ejh)
The two wars that the United States launched preemptively were the pet projects of
special interest groups that used the attacks of 9/11 as a cover to hijack American
foreign policy and implement their private agendas. These interest groups include
the military-industrial complex and the professional armed forces, close American
supporters of and advisers to the Likud Party in Israel, and neoconservative
enthusiasts for the creation of an American empire. This latter group, concentrated
in right-wing foundations and think tanks in Washington D.C., is composed of
chicken-hawk war lovers (that is, soi-disant military strategists with no experience
of either the armed forces or war) who seized on the national sense of bewilderment
after 9/11 to push the Bush administration into conflicts that were neither relevant
to nor successful in destroying al-Qaeda. Instead, the wars accelerated the
recruitment of more suicidal terrorists and promoted nuclear proliferation in
countries hoping to deter similar preemptive attacks by the United States. Two
years after 9/11, America is unquestionably in greater danger of serious terrorist
threats than it has ever been before.

The War on Terror is founded on a fantasythe government creates

terror plots against itself

Rashi, 14freelance journalist and writer for the Huffington Post (Tanjil, 3/16/14,
"The Muslims are Coming!, by Arun Kundnani", Financial Times,
www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/af5ef4c6-aa15-11e3-8bd6-00144feab7de.html)//twemchen
**edited for language
In The Muslims are Coming!, a critique of counterterrorism policy by Arun Kundnani, the wests domestic war on
terror at times resembles a Greene novel populated by a cast of counterterrorism warriors even unlikelier than a

Shahed Hussain, an American petrol pump attendant with a

whom the Federal Bureau of Investigation roped into ensnaring
Muslims into terror plots against US targets planned and financed by the US
government itself. As Judge Colleen McMahon stated in 2011 when sentencing one of Mr
Hussains catches: Only the government could have made a terrorist out of [James]
Cromitie, a man whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope . It is a pity the
judgment is not quoted in full, for it succinctly exemplifies Kundnanis argument. [The
government] created acts of terrorism out of his [its] fantasies of bravado and
bigotry, she said, and then made those fantasies come true. Kundnani, a fellow of the
Soros Foundation, believes the wider war on terror at home to be founded on a fantasy.
The west, he says, is dedicating tens of billions of dollars a year to fighting a
domestic threat of terror violence that is largely imagined. Based on years of research from
hawker of Hoovers in Havana. Take, for example,
trade in fake drivers licences,

Dallas to Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, this book is the most rigorous account yet of this familiar argument, which
British film-maker Adam Curtis called the power of nightmares. Kundnani shares Curtiss view, too, that

Muslims have replaced communists as the phantasm of policy makers and

conspiracy theorists, a conceptual scaffolding inherited from the cold war . But to
imply vast chunks of government policy are built on fables itself rings of conspiracy theory.

The War on Terror Desensitizes Public to Police Brutality and

Racism- Tamir Rice, Ferguson

Giroux 15 (Henry A. Doctorate in Education McMaster University Chair for Scholarship in the Public Interest.
Domestic terrorism, youth and the politics of disposability Philosophers for Change April 21, 2015
http://philosophersforchange.org/2015/04/28/domestic-terrorism-youth-and-the-politics-of-disposability/ 7.19.2015

the war on terror comes home, public spaces have been transformed into war
zones, and the militarized police forces have taken on the role of an occupying
army, especially in poor neighborhoods of color. Acting as a paramilitary force, the police
have become a new symbol of domestic terrorism, shaking down youth of
color by criminalizing a multitude of behaviors. This was especially true in the stop-and-frisk
policies so widespread under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York City. In Ferguson, Missouri, the
entire population was criminalized in what can only be described as a racist
shakedown. As David Graeber puts it, The Department of Justices investigation of the
Ferguson Police Department has scandalized the nation, and justly so. But the departments
institutional racism, while shocking, isnt the reports most striking revelation.
More damning is this: in a major American city, the criminal justice system
perceives a large part of that citys population not as citizens to be
protected, but as potential targets for what can only be described as a shake-down
operation designed to wring money out of the poorest and most vulnerable by any
means they could, and that as a result, the overwhelming majority of Fergusons citizens
had outstanding warrants.[29] The rise of the punishing state and the war on
terror has emboldened police forces across the United States, and in doing so feeds their use of
racist violence against young people resulting in what has been called an
epidemic of police brutality. Sadly, even young children of color are not
immune from such violence, as the killing of Tamir Rice on November 22,
2014, by a White policeman has made clear. Even more tragic is the fact that the City of Cleveland tried
to blame the 12-year-old boy for his own death.[30] Rice was holding a BB gun
when he was shot to death by a police officer judged unfit for duty in 2012. The killing of Black men
has taken on the image of a cruel sport promoted by police forces
that now hype the lawlessness and extreme violence that has
replaced any viable notion of democratic idealism. Between January 2012 and
December 2014, 38 unarmed Black men have been killed by the police.[31] Many people in the United
States now live in a culture that is not only being increasingly militarized, but
also supports a growing indifference to such cruelty, reinforced by a notion of
exaggerated self-reliance, rugged individualism and privatization, all of which
As

renders group solidarities repugnant and reinforces the idea that care for the other is both a pathology and a

it should come as no surprise that the United States currently has more
police, prisons, spies, weapons and soldiers than at any other time in its
liability. Hence,

history

this coupled with a growing army of the unemployed and incarcerated. In addition, the militaryindustrial complex now joins hands with the entertainment industry in producing everything from childrens toys to
video games that both construct a militarized form of masculinity and serve as an enticement for recruitment. In
fact, more than 10 million people have downloaded Americas Army and its various updates, including the more
recent, Americas Army: Proving Grounds, a first-person shooter computer game the US Army uses as a

representations of masculinity and aggression mimic

fascisms militarization of the public sphere, through which violence becomes
the ultimate language, referent and currency. This machinery of
normalization makes it more difficult to understand how war becomes a
source of pride rather than alarm, just as violence becomes mythologized
and the war on terror is transformed into a war on society itself and the
political order. But this culture of militarized hardness is not confined to the United States.
recruitment tool.[32] Such

Islamophobia breeds homegrown terrorism.

Kundnani, 1/14 (Arun, Professor at NYU, The Muslims Are

Coming!: Islamophobia, extremism, and the Domestic War on

Terror, 1/1/14, http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/2099arun-kundnani-on-rethinking-radicalisation-and-extremismsince-7-7)//AK
Islamic movements like HT, founded in Jordan in the 1950s, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt, and the Jamaati-Islami (JI) in South Asia, which had emerged in the context of decolonization in the midtwentieth century, were
essentially attempts to respond to the legacy of colonialism at the cultural level. Frantz Fanon, the psychiatrist from

Colonial domination, because it is

total and tends to oversimplify, very soon manages to disrupt in spectacular fashion
the cultural life of a conquered people.( 1) Like all colonized peoples, Muslims in the Middle East
and South Asia recognized that formal political independence did not by itself resolve the issue
of how to reconstruct identity. Leaving the nation-state structures established by
colonialism in place and simply replacing Europeans with native leaders was
insufficient: it ignored the more complex question of what kinds of political
subjectivity they would need to create to sustain newly decolonized states , what Fanon
Martinique who joined the Algerian anticolonial struggle, had noted:

described as the demand for not only the disappearance of colonialism but also the disappearance of the colonized

the answer was to be found in

turning Islam into a form of identity politics . It was as Muslims, rather than as
nationals of a colonially defined territory, that a sense of shared belonging was to
be established and a more fundamental breach with European cultural domination
enacted. In this respect, these Islamic movements were similar to groups mobilizing
other religious identities in decolonizing settings such as the Hindu nationalist Rashtriya
man.(2) For the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the JI in Pakistan,

Swayamsevak Sangh in India. In practice, as these movements began to increase their influence in the 1970s, they
tended toward stabilizing the social inequalities left behind by colonialism. They campaigned for conservative
positions on gender relations and mobilized support through agitation against minorities, whether it was the
Ahmadiyya minority in Pakistan or the Copt minority in Egypt. They bore little resemblance to Fanons hopes of

The
appeal of these movements to some young Muslims who were living as minorities in
Britain in the 1990s therefore seems hard to explain at first . The political program of HT, for
setting afoot a new man in the aftermath of colonialism that would offer new models for humanity.(3)

instance, had little to say about Britain itself. Before the Rushdie affair, HTs UK-based leadership did not even
target British-born Muslims for recruitment, preferring to focus on visiting Arab students and professionals who
might participate in an HT-led coup dtat on their return home. Such a program was of little practical relevance to
minority Islam in a secular Western state such as Britain.(4) HTs success in this period rested not on its political
program as such but on its ability to act as a vehicle for a new kind of globalized Islamic identity. As the French
scholar Olivier Roy has argued, this notion of a globalized Islam is not the product of any specific Islamist

organization but a broad sociological trend that has developed across Europe as a result of racism, migration, and
globalization.(5) Young Muslims felt alienated not only from the racism of the wider society, but also from the
inward-looking mosque life of their parents, which was centered upon specific ethnic identities (for example,
Sylheti, Gujarati, or Mirpuri) and mingled Islam with South Asian folk traditions. The idea of identifying with the
global ummah proved an attractive third alternative to either assimilating into a racist society or following the
inherited religio-cultural traditions of their parents. The version of Islam that suited this approach was one that was
delinked from the ethnic folk practices drawn from South Asia (such as reverence for holy men, or pirs); these were
to be stripped away on the grounds of their being impure accretions that had contaminated the original universal
message of Islam. While their parents had imbibed their religion through an oral tradition bound up with South
Asian languages and poetry, the new, globalized Islam was at home in English and on the printed page (and later,
the Internet). It was this concept of a globalized Islam rather than a Pakistani Islam or a Bangladeshi Islam that
appealed to some young British Asian Muslims in the 1990s, whether it led to the ranks of HT or, as for Farasat, to

Through these new Islamic movements, young Muslims thus carried out their
own globalization, transcending inherited ethnic and national belongings in favor of
an allegiance to the global Islamic community . As new immigrant communities from Somalia,
Salafism.

Afghanistan, Algeria, and Iraq began to form in the UK during the 1990s, the idea of a global Islam, as opposed to a
mosaic of ethnicities, made all the more sense. The world was now pictured differently.
The South Asian neighborhoods of Britain and the original towns and villages of South Asia from which communities
had migrated remained the central axes of young Muslims mental geography. But alongside them came a growing
knowledge of other parts of the world where the ummah was oppressed: Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, Bosnia,
Kosovo, and Iraq. In principle, all the struggles for justice of Muslims around the world were to be regarded as
equally important. Ultimately, there was no homeland and no diaspora but a global Islamic consciousness
unbounded by geography. This new sense of identity was fundamentally political: It provided a new language for
describing injustice and offered a way of filling the void opened up by the decline of the Left. It countered the
globalization of capitalism not with a return to local tradition but with a transnationalism of its own.There was a
range of ways in which this trend manifested. For some, having stripped Islam of South Asian cultural accretions, it
was easier to establish a sense of belonging as a Muslim in Western society. This was the model offered by
reformists such as the Swiss philosopher Tariq Ramadan, who emphasized the need to apply Islams universal
principles to the specific context of when and where one lived. By going back to the original sources, Ramadan
argued, universal Islamic values, after being separated from the particular immigrant cultures with which they had
become bound up, are found to be broadly compatible with liberalism. This then provided an Islamic basis for active
citizenship and engagement for social justice rather than isolation or a one-sided adaptation to British cultural
norms.(6) The unities between Muslims and others in the movement against the 2003 Iraq war rested on this
assumption, that Islamic and liberal values could be aligned on specific political struggles. For others, like Farasat
Latif, the path led to literalism and the attempt to model ones life as closely as possible on the Prophets. While
both of these approaches involved issues of identity, they could only be fully understood in the context of a political
history of racism, the decline of leftist politics, and Western neocolonialism.

AT: Fusion Centers Solve Natural

Disasters
Fusion centers focus on terrorism, NOT natural disaster recovery
distinct from EOCs

DHS 15 [Department of Homeland Security, Fusion Centers and Emergency

Operations Centers, DHS.gov, 7/6/15, http://www.dhs.gov/fusion-centers-andemergency-operations-centers] MG
State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion

centers) and emergency operations centers

serve distinct, but complementary roles in supporting the countrys homeland
security efforts. Fusion centers share information across all levels of government to
support homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and
responding to crime and terrorism, while EOCs primarily provide information and
support to incident management and response/recovery coordination activities.
(EOCs)

Collaboration between fusion centers and EOCs enables both to carry out their individual missions more efficiently.
Fusion Center Overview As described in the National Strategy for Information Sharing ,

fusion centers serve

as focal points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of
threat-related information among federal and state, local, tribal, territorial (SLTT) and private sector
partners. They produce actionable intelligence for dissemination. Owned and operated by state and local entities,
fusion centers serve the specific needs of their jurisdictions while supporting the broader homeland and national
security enterprise. Fusion centers overlay national intelligence with local, state, and regional information,
enhancing understanding of the threat environment across all levels of government. They augment the federal
governments analytic capability and enhance situational awareness in order to protect the nation. Fusion centers
leverage trusted relationships within the SLTT environment to assist law enforcement and homeland security
partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism. They support the implementation
of risk-based, information-driven prevention, response, and consequence management programs within their
respective communities. Further, fusion centers across the nation form a National Network that bridges
jurisdictional boundaries to provide effective communication channels and collaborative opportunities. Emergency
Operations Centers Overview Multi-agency coordination of information and resources to support incident

Unlike fusion centers, which primarily focus on crime

and terrorism prevention, EOCs focus on the response to and the short-term
recovery from an incident or natural disaster. The core functions of an EOC include coordination,
management activities occurs at EOCs.

communication, resource allocation and tracking, and information collection, analysis and dissemination related to a
specific incident. EOCs help form a common operating picture during an incident, provide external coordination to
on-scene command, and secure additional resources. EOCs also facilitate the sharing of all-hazards operational
information and other subject matter expertise in support of incident management and response activities. While
EOCs generally coordinate activities related to specific incidents, fusion centers support ongoing prevention
activities and maintain situational awareness of the threat environment.

AT: Success Stories

The DHS falsifies success stories in order to justify wasting billions
on Fusion Centers.

Sanchez 12 Former Washington Editor for Ars Technica, Senior Fellow at the
Cato Institute, graduate in Political Science from New York University. (Julian
Sanchez, Our Broken Panopticon: Senate Report Finds Fusion Centers Expensive &
Useless, October 4, 2012, http://www.cato.org/blog/our-broken-panopticon-senatereport-finds-fusion-centers-expensive-useless)//RP
How useless are they? One official estimated that 85 percent of the
reports they produced were of no benefit whatever, and the large majority
of reports were unrelated to terrorism. Most of these werent published or
circulated for months, and they often just regurgitated information from
public press reports. Almost all these reports came from centers in just three
states: Most of the 77 fusion centers produced little or nothing at all. Sorry,
make that 68 fusion centersit turns out the official DHS tally included
several that didnt actually exist.
Unsurprisingly, DHS struggled to identify a clear example in which fusion
center intelligence helped identify any actual terroristsand indeed, may
have hampered effective counterterrorism by clogging the intelligence
arteries with predominantly useless information. To keep justifying
those millions of taxpayer dollars, however, DHS touted bogus success
stories, like a report that sowed panic over a Russian cyberattack on a
citys water systema cyberattack that had never happened. When internal
assessments began to reveal the ineffectuality of fusion centers years ago, DHS
hid the results from Congressand kept on praising them publicly.
Of course, civil liberties groups have been warning for years that fusion centers
are more likely to facilitate improper monitoring of citizens than
legitimate security goals. And the Senate report shows they had reason to worry.
One key DHS official revealed a disturbing view of he value of intra-agency
cooperation when he noted that We had fire [departments] one of the few
people who can enter your home without a warrant is a firefighter. One notorious
fusion center report suggested that Libertarian Party members, Ron Paul supporters,
and individuals flying the Gadsden Flag popular with Tea Partiers were likely to be
violent extremists. Many reports were shelved because they documented only
innocent, protected First Amendment activitybut the information in them was
often retained anyway, in potential violation of the Privacy Act.

COURTS SOLVENCY
Current constitutional interpretations on the justifications of
surveillance is outdated judicial action is key
Rushin 11 PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program; J.D., University of California, Berkeley Law School
(Stephen Rushin, Perspectives of judicial actions for Surveillance, THE JUDICIAL
RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, 2011, http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Rushin.pdf)//JM
Law enforcement technology has become ubiquitous in the urban landscape. Closed
circuit surveillance cameras indiscriminately record individuals physical
movements.1 Facial recognition software compares images of passing pedestrians with extensive databases of
suspected criminals.2 Red light cameras capture photographs of traffic violations. The National Security
Agency (NSA) logs phone calls made by millions of citizens across the country in
hopes of identifying suspected terrorist activity.3 And automatic license plate
recognition (ALPR) systems, already in use in various jurisdictions across the country, digitally read
and record the license plates of passing automobiles into expansive databases. 4
Indeed, we live today in an increasingly digitally efficient investigative state a state
where law enforcement can both observe and record information about our
whereabouts in an unprecedentedly efficient manner. The retention of surveillance
data raises many serious constitutional concerns. But Fourth Amendment doctrine
on search and seizures reflects outdated assumptions about the once-limited
capabilities of public surveillance technologies and is, therefore, ill-equipped to deal
with the challenges posed by the digitally efficient investigative state. The existing
Fourth Amendment doctrine on surveillance technologies focuses primarily on three
issues: (1) whether a person had a subjective expectation of privacy, (2) the socially
objective reasonableness of that expectation of privacy, and (3) the relative
intrusiveness of the supposed privacy violation.5 The Supreme Court has also drawn
a distinction between presumptively constitutional technologies that merely
improve the efficiency of legitimate law enforcement, like digital tracking devices, and
unconstitutional technologies that give law enforcement an intrusive, extrasensory ability, like heat sensors.6

Under this framework, the warrantless use of most surveillance technologies and
the collection of personal data fits comfortably within constitutional doctrine after all,
a person does not have an objectively reasonable expectation to privacy when driving her car or walking on a public
sidewalk. The recording of a persons movements in public is not especially intrusive and certainly does not provide
police with any intrusive, extrasensory abilities beyond mere observation. A recent Seventh Circuit case engaged in
just this type of analysis, when it found that the warrantless use of global position system (GPS) surveillance by law
enforcement did not violate the Fourth Amendment.7 There, Judge Posner and the Seventh Circuit concluded that
GPS monitoring of a single suspect without a warrant does not amount to wholesale surveillance. 8 But Posner
quickly pointed out, Technological progress poses a threat to privacy by enabling an extent of surveillance that in
earlier times would have been prohibitively expensive . . . . Should government someday decide to institute a

it will be time enough to decide whether the

Fourth Amendment should be interpreted to treat such surveillance as a search. 9
That time has come. The digitally efficient investigative state comes dangerously
close to wholesale surveillance. The unregulated use of these emerging
technologies may incentivize police fishing expeditions, facilitate racial profiling,
and corrode any notion of public anonymity. And the legislative branch has not
acted to address the tangible harms posed by this new technological order. In wake of
program of mass surveillance of vehicular movements,

it is finally time for the courts to break from the previous

doctrinal trend and act decisively to regulate the efficiency of police surveillance
technology. While a judicial response may help ameliorate some of the pressing concerns raised by the digitally
the legislative inactivity, I argue that

efficient investigative state, it should only be the beginning of a broader re-conceptualization of our Fourth
Amendment doctrine. I argue, in particular, that we ought to reassess our presumption that individuals have no
reasonable expectation to privacy in their public actions. In total, I hope to make two contributions with this Article,
one descriptive and one normative. Descriptively, I build a comprehensive account of the digitally efficient
investigative state, and normatively I contend that the courts must establish a new doctrinal path to regulate this
technological order

The plan is the only way to solve for violations of minorities rights
and inadequate laws concerning domestic surveillance
Rushin 11 PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program; J.D., University of California, Berkeley Law School
(Stephen Rushin, Perspectives of judicial actions for Surveillance, THE JUDICIAL
RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, 2011, http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Rushin.pdf)//JM
the courts should
craft a judicial response that permits the use of surveillance technologies for some
criminologically advantageous activities like observational comparison, but limits
the unregulated data retention without reasonable suspicion. Further, I contend that the
judiciary is well positioned to make this careful calculation, which admittedly
requires the balancing of social values such as privacy and law enforcement
efficiency. Overall, I conclude a judicial solution handed down by the courts would best
safeguard citizenry, particularly certain discrete and insular minorities , from
the threats posed by other emerging surveillance technologies. A. The Judicial Response
The courts should craft a regulation that limits surveillance technologies in three
ways. First, the courts should require police to have a legitimate, articulable law
enforcement purpose before identifying any surveillance data. This would require police to
Given the ominous implications of the digitally efficient investigative state, I argue that

identify a legitimate purpose for cross-referencing license plate data or facial recognition photographs with other

Second, the courts should

require police departments to articulate and justify clear policies that limit the
length of time police may retain surveillance data obtained through indiscriminate
data collection practices without individualized, reasonable suspicion of criminal
wrongdoing. Reasonable suspicion is a lower evidentiary standard than probable cause and merely requires
government databases to ascertain the personal identity tied to the data.

law enforcement to demonstrate a particularized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing based on specific and
articulable facts combined with rational inferences. 323 Conversely, the courts should continue to permit the
use of surveillance technologies for observational comparison, given that observational comparison only identifies
an individual in surveillance data when the data has been digitally matched to a database of known or suspected
criminals.324 Hence, this recommended response would distinguish between mere observational comparison and

Third, the judiciary should

carefully analyze the relationships between private data aggregators and law
enforcement. A default rule permitting law enforcement to use any information obtained through voluntary
information flows with private companies has understandable doctrinal appeal. Nonetheless, the courts
should be vigilant in carefully determining whether a private party substantially
collaborated and coordinated with law enforcement sufficient to transform that
private party into a state actor. This judicial response can be better understood
when applied to ALPR. As discussed earlier, ALPR has two unique capabilities: an observational comparison
the creation of indiscriminate digital dossiers 325 on personal movements.

capability and an indiscriminate data retention capability.326 Police use the observational comparison capability to
read passing license plates and then search for matches with active hotlists. 327 Once the ALPR system matches a

license plate to a known offender, the ALPR system can cross-reference this plate with other databases to identify
the suspected culprit. Observational comparison does not implicate any particular Fourth Amendment concerns
data is only retained and identified for cars matching a criminal database.328 Conversely, the indiscriminate data
collection capability allows some ALPR systems to record the license plate, time, and location of every passing
vehicle into an expansive database.329 This information can then be cross-referenced to other databases to
identify the suspected driver of each car, and record that drivers movements into a surveillance database. It is not
inconceivable that, with an extensive network of ALPR cameras in a given community, law enforcement could

by limiting the
retention of data and requiring a legitimate law enforcement purpose before crossreferencing license plate numbers to identify drivers, this judicial response would
prevent ALPR from transforming into a tool of mass surveillance. In my view, this
judicial regulation recognizes both the potential harms and benefits of the digitally
efficient investigative state and strikes a fair balance. First, this proposed regulation
ensures that the these technologies will not be utilized to unfairly target unpopular
minoritiesin fact, by distinguishing between observational comparison and
indiscriminate data collection, the courts could ensure that these technologies are
used primarily to reign in police discretion, thereby limiting implicit bias. As discussed
supra Part I.D.1, when limited to observational comparison, ALPR and facial recognition
software can actually reduce the likelihood of racial or ethnic profiling. But, as detailed
compile a fairly comprehensive record of an individuals day-to-day movements. Thus,

supra Part I.D.2, indiscriminate data collection capabilities of the digitally efficient investigative state can permit

limiting the identification and

retention of surveillance data, this regulation fights both profiling and the targeting of
unpopular minorities. Second, this proposed regulation is reasonably consistent with
actual and recommended solutions proposed by legislatures, international courts,
and domestic law enforcement organizations . Various legislatures have independently authored
fishing expeditions and the targeting of politically unpopular minorities. By

similar regulations on police technologies. The proposed judicial response bears some resemblance to legislative
limits on surveillance technologies passed in Virginia, Maine, and New Hampshire. The New Hampshire law limits
law enforcement surveillance to specific investigations of criminal wrongdoing and bars the retention of surveillance
data except for a few, specific situations.330 Maine, by contrast, has regulated ALPR technology explicitly by
limiting data retention to 21 days and regulating ALPR usage more broadly.331 This response also closely mirrors a
recent German Federal Constitutional Court decision, which found that some parts of a German law authorizing the
use of ALPR violated the right to privacy.332 The German court held that the retention of any digital data that was
not predestined for a specific use was too indiscriminate as to violate German Law.333 The German court expressed
concern that without limitations, the use of ALPR amounted to complete surveillance. 334 Law enforcement
organizations, namely the IACP, have also recommended that departments take steps, like transparent data
retention policies, to ameliorate privacy concerns over surveillance data aggregation. 335 Once more, this judicial
response mirrors the principles laid out in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
privacy guidelines. 336 Namely, this proposal requires that digital data collection on public movements abide by the
OECDs purpose specification principle, which states that the purposes for which personal data are collected
should be specified not later than at the time of data collection. 337 Thus, there is both domestic and international

Third, the
distinction between observational comparison and indiscriminate data aggregation
comports with the underlying values of the Fourth Amendment. Regardless of the eventual
precedent for this kind of judicial response to limit the efficiency of investigative technologies.

holding in Jones, the Maynard decision offers persuasive application of the Katz doctrine to surveillance
technologies.338 The court first determined that the totality of a persons movements in public were not actually
exposed to the public.339 As the court explained, in determining whether something is exposed to the public[,]
as that term was used in Katz[,] we ask not what another person can physically and may lawfully do, but rather
what a reasonable person expects another might actually do. 340 Put differently, a person might reasonably
expect a stranger to view any discrete action taken in public, but, the whole of a persons movements over the
course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those
movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. 341 In applying a mosaic theory, the D.C. Circuit noted that
that long-term surveillance of an individual reveals important and intimate details about their behaviors.342 And
because GPS surveillance is incredibly efficientthe marginal cost of each additional day of data aggregation with
GPS tracking is effectively zeroGPS technology is thus a heretofore unknown type of intrusion requiring
judicial regulation.343 The Maynard courts reasoning, while controversial in the context of the surveillance of a
single individual, is extremely compelling when applied dragnet technologies like ALPR and surveillance cameras
with facial recognition. As data collection costs decrease, law enforcement has every incentive to aggregate as

much potentially useful data as possible. Indeed, as the Maynard court recognized, Prolonged surveillance reveals
types of information not revealed by short-term surveillance, such as what a person does repeatedly, what he does
not do, and what he does ensemble. 344 Just as a person does not reasonably expect that the totality of her
movements within an automobile to be monitored by GPS, she also reasonably expects to be free from continuous
and pervasive monitoring by ALPR or facial recognition software. Even in public, we carry an expectation that our
movements remain disconnected and anonymous.345 Hence,

this recommended solution aligns with

by protecting a persons socially recognized, reasonable expectation to privacy,
and follows the persuasive reasoning of the Maynard decision. Fourth, the proposed
limitation on data retention protects the criminological and evidentiary benefits of
limited data retention, while also recognizing the retained datas loss of value over
time. The recommended judicial response is admittedly vagueI do not specify an exact length of time the courts
Katz

ought to permit law enforcement to retain data. This is omission is purposeful. As the IACP has properly recognized,
any policy limiting data retention raises serious public policy concerns.346 For example, we may prefer more liberal
data retention policies for surveillance around national monuments and critical infrastructures in recognition of the
threat posed by terrorism.347 Further, there is a dearth of social science research on the changing usefulness of
surveillance data over time. Nonetheless, without regulation, departments have little incentive to self-regulate.
While it may be difficult for the courts to craft a uniform national rule on data retention, the courts can at least
require that departments, or conversely state legislatures, articulate clear data retention policies. This would permit
states and localities to consider the unique criminological needs for data retention in their jurisdiction in crafting
regulations, while preventing the indiscriminate collection of all data. Admittedly, this suggested judicial response is
a major doctrinal shift and requires the courts to break away from established Fourth Amendment doctrine. But the
digitally efficient investigative state poses too many serious and constitutionally relevant threats for the judiciary to
simply defer to legislative arrangements. Scholars have often argued that the legislature is better suited to assess
the proper balance between privacy and security.348 At least in the narrow field of police surveillance technologies,
I disagree. In the next section, I argue that the courts are the best-positioned actor to address the issues implicated
by mass data collection.

Only the courts can solve

Rushin 11 PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program; J.D., University of California, Berkeley Law School
(Stephen Rushin, Perspectives of judicial actions for Surveillance, THE JUDICIAL
RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, 2011, http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Rushin.pdf)//JM
First, the courts are structurally well positioned within our decentralized federal
system to address the national concern of mass surveillance. The courts are the
most nonpartisan actor capable of protecting the rights of the disadvantaged and
politically unpopular. If the courts defer to legislative arrangements, surveillance
technologies will be regulated inconsistently across jurisdictions. The digitally efficient
investigative state is no longer a localized phenomenon, but an increasingly national, centralized system. The judiciary is
the most appropriate branch to develop a national solution that would be applicable
to all law enforcementlocal, state, and national. By grounding the judicial remedy in the
Fourth Amendment, the judiciary can ensure that every person has a reasonably
consistent expectation to privacy in the aggregation and sharing of personal data
across jurisdictional lines. 348. See, e.g., Orin S. Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional
Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 MICH. L. REV. 801, 807 (20032004). 349. Id. 350. Id. at 807, 85787. 351. Id. at 886
(discussing Dripps theory); Donald A. Dripps, Criminal Procedure, Footnote Four, and the Theory of Public Choice; Or, Why Dont
Legislatures Give a Damn About the Rights of the Accused? 44 SYRACUSE L. REV. 1079, 108890 (1993). 352. Dripps, supra note

Once more, legislative

efforts to regulate surveillance may reify majoritarian preferences and insufficiently
protect the privacy of certain politically unpopular minorities, like MuslimAmericans. There is a cogent argument to be made that, in the current heated and divisive political environment, Muslim
351, at 1081. 353. Kerr, supra note 348, at 875. No. 2] MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE 323

Americans are the individuals most at risk of indiscriminate surveillance data collection and subsequent fishing expeditions.

Admittedly, Kerr points out that Congress has frequently acted on its own initiative to protect privacy against the threat of new
technology. 354 This descriptively suggests that Congress has been more receptive to the evolving privacy concerns than the
courts. No doubt, Kerr is correctcourts have been predictably deferential and restrained in regulating law enforcement
technologies. But this does not mean that the courts are not institutionally competent to create Fourth Amendment policy,
particularly when data collection and surveillance raise delicate majoritarian concerns that cannot be adequately addressed by the
legislature. Kerr rejects the majoritarian critiques of legislative arrangements by claiming that since [p]rivacy and security may be
considered public goods, shared equally by the public, and both law enforcement interests and victims of crime may lobby the
legislature, the judicial arrangements offer no substantial benefits over legislative arrangements.355 Kerr also dismisses Drippss
majoritarian concern by noting that new technologies will tend to target users of new technologies. 356 These users are
disproportionately elite, meaning that their interests should be well represented in the legislature. Hence, Kerr believes that Drippss
concern that minorities will be underrepresented and marginalized in the political process is unwarranted. But Kerrs logic, while

In the political hysteria

surrounding the War on Terrorism, those most likely to be targeted by mass
surveillance, indiscriminate data collection, and subsequent fishing expeditions may
be politically unpopular minorities like Muslim-Americans. There is, undoubtedly,
tremendous pressure on the Executive Branch and law enforcement to use any
means legally available to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that law enforcement has targeted Muslim-Americans, in
particular, for surveillance over the last decades. For example, a group of Muslim-Americans in
applicable in most situations, is unpersuasive in the current political environment.

California has accused the FBI of targeting religiously devout Muslim-Americans for surveillance, without any particularized suspicion

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a class action
complaint against the FBI in the Central District of California alleging that the FBI
used an informant to indiscriminately collect personal information on hundreds
and perhaps thousands of innocent Muslim Americans in Southern California . . . . [T]he
of wrongdoing.357

FBI did not gather the information based on suspicion of criminal activity, 354. Id. at 855. 355. Id. at 88485. 356. Id. at 887. 357.
See, e.g., Patrik Jonsson, Muslim Group Sues FBI over Surveillance at California Mosque, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR (Feb. 23, 2011),
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0223/Muslim-groupsues-FBI-over-surveillance-at-California-mosques; see also Jennifer
Medina, Suit Accuses F.B.I. of Spying at Mosques in California, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 25, 2011, at A17. 324 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY

it seems
highly improbable that elites in the legislature will be responsive to the privacy
concerns of these unpopular minority needs. Muslim Americans, as an example, are also chronically
underrepresented in the legislative branch. 359 Unpopular minorities are, therefore, unable to protect
their right to be free from pervasive surveillance through legislative compromises.
This represents a structural flaw in our decentralized federal system, one that can
only be remedied by judicial action. The judiciary is the most institutionally
competent actor to address the majoritarian concerns raised by mass surveillance
and data collection.
& POLICY [Vol. 2011 [but] instead it gathered the information simply because the targets were Muslim. 358 Further,

Concerns that the courts cant solve are illegitimate they still wont
undermine the courts ability to solve
Rushin 11 PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program; J.D., University of California, Berkeley Law School
(Stephen Rushin, Perspectives of judicial actions for Surveillance, THE JUDICIAL
RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, 2011, http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Rushin.pdf)//JM
Second, the so-called judicial information deficit 360 should not deter the courts
from creating policy to address mass surveillance concerns. The proliferation and
use of mass surveillance technologies has stabilized to a point that judicial action
would be appropriate. In arguing that the judiciary lacks the skills and competence to create broad Fourth
Amendment policy, skeptics have commonly levied three arguments: (1) unlike the legislature, the courts lack the
physical and administrative resources to craft a comprehensive policy; (2) judges are not technologically
sophisticated enough to create technology policy; and (3) once crafted, judicial technology policies rarely hold up in
different factual scenarios.361 As I demonstrate below, the limited judicial response offered in this Article will hold

up against these three legitimate critiques. To begin with, skeptics allege that legislations can more carefully
analyze a problem, investigate potential solutions, impanel experts, and make farreaching, nuanced policies.362
Unlike the legislature, which may command the resources of an extensive bureaucracy . . . a judge is generally
limited to a secretary and one or two recent law school . . . [graduate clerks]. 363 Kerr has thus argued that the
courts simply do not have the resources to engage in this kind of careful analysis necessary to develop a
comprehensive and responsive policy on Fourth Amendment technologies.364 On its face, this type of analysis is
persuasive, especially considering the fact that the courts lack the funding to do sweeping investigations into the
efficacy of an emerging technology. Nonetheless, this logic ignores a pivotal tactic used by courts in previous
iterations of successful policymakingthe adoption of standards already implemented by other institutions.365
Malcolm Feeley and Edward Rubin explained that when the courts attempted to create extensive judicial policy 358.
Class Action Complaint at 1, Fazaga v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. SACV11-00301 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011).
359. See Ellison to Swear on Jeffersons Quran, MILWAUKEE J. SENTINEL, Jan. 4, 2007, at 6A (stating that
Congressman Keith Ellison was the first and only Muslim American elected to Congress in U.S. history in 2006). 360.
Kerr, supra note 348, at 875. 361. Id. at 87577. 362. Id. at 88182. 363. MALCOLM M. FEELEY AND EDWARD L.
RUBIN, JUDICIAL POLICY MAKING AND THE MODERN STATE 307 (1998). 364. Kerr, supra note 348, at 85859. 365.
MALCOLM M. FEELEY & EDWARD L. RUBIN, supra note 363, at 307. No. 2] MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE 325
regulating American prisons, judges turned to the American Correctional Association and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons.366 Indeed, [F]ederal judges turned to these standards because they wanted to impose detailed,
administrative-style rules of any sort but lacked the resources to design the rules themselves. 367 Unlike the
prison reform context described by Feeley and Rubin, where the courts created extensive and detailed policy, the
judicial response I argue for in this Article does not require extensive investigation or uniform implementation. I
merely argue for a judicially mandated floor, which establishes the minimum amount of regulation required for

Additionally, there is domestic and international precedent , most

notably in Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Germany, that the courts could use as a model to
craft a broad solution.368 Once the courts lay out a broad policy objective, police
departments and local legislatures would be incentivized to develop their own,
individual policies to implement this judicially mandated, regulatory floor. States
would be free to develop more complex, detailed, and even more stringent
protections against data collection. Some states have already done just that.369
This pattern can be seen in other areas of criminal judicial policymaking, such as
Miranda requirements. The Court handed down broad general requirements
departments, in implementing the Miranda decision, often went above and beyond
the Courts minimal requirements. Next, critics of judicial regulation of emerging technologies have
surveillance technologies.

argued that judges are not as technically sophisticated as the legislature. Judges often rely on the crutch of
questionable metaphors to aid their comprehension of complex technology cases, meaning that it is easy for
judges to misunderstand the context of their decisions and their likely effect when technology is in flux. 370 But

in

the unique situation outlined in this Article, judges do not need to be experts in
these technological fields to understand the capabilities of technologies like ALPR
and facial recognition software. The danger I discuss in this article is that police will keep a digital
dossier of every single persons movements. This type of monitoring would facilitate fishing expeditions, increase

There is
little reason to believe that, with the assistance of knowledgeable advocates, judges
could not sufficiently understand the potential harms posted by digitally efficient
investigative technologies to develop a coherent constitutional floor of protection.
And even though the legislature has a broader array of resources at its disposal, the
legislature is an unsatisfactory avenue to protect the unique countermajoritarian
issues at stake. Finally, some scholars have contended that judicial regulations of 366. Id. 367. Id. 368. See
the likelihood of corrupt behavior by law enforcement, and facilitate some types of racial profiling.

supra Part V.A. (describing judicial responses to legislative limits on police technologies). 369. See H.B. 454, 2002
Gen. Assemb., 2002 Sess. (Va. 2002) (implementing the restricted use of facial recognition technology in Virginia);
see also Facial Scan: Beachs Use Restricted Under Bill Approved by House, THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT & LEDGER STAR,
Feb. 13, 2002, at B4 (describing Virginias facial recognition technology bill). 370. Kerr, supra note 348, at 87576.
326 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & POLICY [Vol. 2011 emerging technologies rarely hold up in different factual
scenarios. Under this rationale, critics of this judicial response may contend that while this protection could work
when applied to ALPR or facial recognition software, it would not necessarily be a workable standard for future
technological developments. This view certainly has merit. By the time the courts decide how a technology should
be regulated . . . the factual record of the case may be outdated, reflecting older technology rather than more

recent developments. 371 Stuart Benjamin has argued that rapidly changing facts weaken the force of stare
decisis by undermining the stability of precedents. 372 This provides a forceful case against judicial
micromanagement of emerging technologies. But the judicial response argued for in this Article is sufficiently broad
to avoid the predictable antiquation of other, narrower judicial solutionsit merely distinguishes between
observational comparison and indiscriminate data collection, while broadly regulating the identification of data and
interactions with private data aggregators. The collection of extensive, indiscriminate surveillance data is a

The development
of digital dossiers is not a trending fad that will simply disappear in the near future.
We should not expect the legislature to step in and address a problem that may
disproportionately affect unpopular minorities. The Court has long recognized that,
when making policy in the field of emerging technologies, the rule we adopt must
take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in
development. 373 The judicial response presented does not prevent the use of
surveillance technologies for observational comparison, but merely offers a
sufficiently broad and generalized constitutional limit on indiscriminate data
collection, which can be reasonably exported and applied to future, more
sophisticated technologies. Once more, critics of judicial policymaking seem tacitly concerned that the
widespread, pervasive occurrence common amongst countless investigative technologies.

limited applicability of judicial rules in the future will weaken the force of stare decisis, thereby undermining the
judiciarys legitimacy. But nothing could further de-legitimize the judiciary more than a failure to serve its

The courts are, therefore,

the best-positioned actor within our decentralized federal system to protect against
the threat of extensive, indiscriminate data collection. Concerns about the
judiciarys institutional competence seem misplaced. And though the courts have
limited resources, there is not enough convincing evidence of a judicial
information deficit 374 so as to overcome the judiciarys important role as
protectors of discrete and insular minorities.
fundamental role as a protector against the tyranny of majoritarian preferences.

2AC IMPACT CALCULUS

Peace is not the absence of a nuclear conflict for the comfort of the
white middle classPeople of Color face the holocaust daily

Omolade, 89 - (Barbara, 1989. 'We Speak for the Planet', in Adrienne Harris and
Ynestra King (eds.), Rocking the Ship of State: Toward a Feminist Peace Politics,
pp. 171-89.Boulder, CO: Westview Press)//AK
Pacifists such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi who have used
nonviolent resistance charged that those who used violence to obtain justice were
just as evil as their oppressors. Yet all successful revolutionary movements have
used organized violence. This is especially true of national liberation movements
that have obtained state power and reorganized the institutions of their nations for
the benefit of the people. If men and women in South Africa do not use organized
violence, they could remain in the permanent violent state of the slave. Could it be
that pacifism and nonviolence cannot become a way of life for the oppressed? Are
they only tactics with specific and limited use for protecting people from further
violence? For most people in the developing communities and the developing world
consistent nonviolence is a luxury; it presumes that those who have and use
nonviolent weapons will refrain from using them long enough for nonviolent
resisters to win political battles. To survive, peoples in developing countries must
use a varied repertoire of issues, tactics, and approaches. Sometimes arms are
needed to defeat apartheid and defend freedom in South Africa; sometimes
nonviolent demonstrations for justice are the appropriate strategy for protesting the
shooting of black teenagers by a white man, such as happened in New York City.
Peace is not merely an absence of 'conflict that enables white middleclass comfort,
nor is it simply resistance to nuclear war and war machinery. The litany of "you will
be blown up, too" directed by a white man to a black woman obscures the
permanency and institutionalization of war, the violence and holocaust that people
of color face daily. Unfortunately, the holocaust does not only refer to the mass
murder of Jews, Christians, and atheists during the Nazi regime; it also refers to the
permanent institutionalization of war that is part of every fascist and racist regime.
The holocaust lives. It is a threat to world peace as pervasive and thorough as
nuclear war.

TOPICALITY ANSWERS

T: ITS
WE MEET: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS FUSION CENTERS TO
SECRETLY COORDINATE INTEL GATHERING AND THEN SENDS OUT
TO LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTS TO ACT UPON
Waxman 9 [Matthew, American law professor at Columbia University, Police and
National Security: American Local Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism After
9/11, Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Vol. 3, p. 377] MG
While the decentralized structure of U.S. policing offers several advantages when it comes to combating terrorism,
it also creates organizational challenges. To begin with, that local police agencies command large numbers of
personnel intimately familiar with their local communities makes them a valuable asset for fulfilling
counterterrorism functions but creates an enormous complication in return. How should these resources be
coordinated across thousands of local agencies and with the federal government? Counterterrorism cooperation

local police agencies need to

need to communicate and
collaborate with state and federal agencies. Information must then flow along these axes.
Information about threats or investigative leads must radiate from the
center (often through federal agencies such as the FBI or Department of Homeland
Security) out to local agencies that can act on that information. Those local
agencies at the periphery must direct information toward the center, where it can be
acted upon immediately by the federal government or aggregated to help shape policy.46
Besides informational coordination, which needs to be achieved quickly and often secretly,
operations by law enforcement agencies (such as arrests and surveillance) need to be
coordinated across multidimensional jurisdictional lines. 47 The problem of how to link
among police agencies requires horizontal and vertical coordination. Horizontally,
communicate and collaborate with other local police agencies. Vertically, they

thousands of separate agencies together efficiently is not simply one of scale. Heterogeneity also magnifies the
complexity. Local police jurisdictions differ greatly in features such as population size and density, ethnic
composition, geography, urbanization, sitting of high-profile targets, civic culture, and political orientation.48 Local
police forces vary in terms of size, resources, capability, operating procedures, equipment, and day-to-day
priorities, not to mention variations in local laws, including those regulating police conduct.49 In terms of size, for
example, the 46 largest metropolitan police forces (out of a total of over 13,000 state and local forces) account for
over a third of all police officers nationwide, while there are also nearly 800 local police agencies that have just one
officer.50 Consider also the unique threats that New York City faces, for example, as a densely populated, ethnically
diverse home to much of the U.S. and global private financial system.51 In countries with national police forces,
such as France, the organizational challenge of coordinating local counterterrorism police efforts is eased through
centralized and hierarchical command.52 Although the United Kingdom does not have a single national police force,
its local police forces are linked to each other and to national counterterrorism efforts through standardized
institutional mechanisms. Each individual police force in the United Kingdom, for example, until recently had a
special branch whose primary duties were to prosecute and assist in counterterrorism and counterintelligence
operations. Before recent reforms further centralized British counterterrorism policing,53 these units interacted
directly with MI5 (the Security Service, which deals with domestic intelligence) and MI6 (the Secret Intelligence
Service, which deals with intelligence abroad).54 The United States cannot rely on such formal hierarchical
command or uniform institutional mechanisms to link together the countrys massive policing network. The
Constitution was designed so that the federal government may not directly control local law enforcement agencies.
In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a federal statutory provision that required local
law enforcement officials to assist in conducting background checks prior to issuance of gun permits. The case

the federal government cannot commandeer local police forces into

service,55 which means that it must use other tools to align the efforts of state and
local police agencies with federal initiatives. These tools include information-sharing
arrangements, financial grants, and training programs designed to help bolster and
unify local capabilities.56 The U.S. policing system has dealt with similar challenges in confronting other
clarifies that

law enforcement issues, such as narcotics trafficking and gang or organized crime activity, that have national and
international dimensions, and require information sharing and coordination among federal and local police
agencies.57 Counterterrorism, however, differs in size and complexity.

The federal government has

established several platforms for sharing terrorism-related information among local

police forces and between local and federal agencies. The FBI has spearheaded the
expansion over recent years of Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) in local areas. Other
federal, state, and local agencies have assigned officers to the JTTFs to help coordinate intelligence and law

the JTTFs allow the federal government

to exert considerable control over any operations that run through them . There were
about three dozen such FBI-led task forces before September 11, 2001, compared
with over 100 today.58 The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, as amended in 2007 by the
enforcement operations across bureaucratic lines. In effect,

9/11 Commission Act, requires the President to take action to facilitate sharing of terrorism-related information

The Department of Homeland Security funds stateoperated fusion centers to synthesize law enforcement and investigative
information. Unlike the JTTFs, which help manage operations of participating agencies, the fusion
centers operate as information clearinghouses. Similarly, the Justice Department has established
new programs such as a National Data Exchange, to enable federal law enforcement
and intelligence officials to examine quickly huge quantities of state and
local public records.60 The FBI recently launched a new system for sharing tips
about possible terror threats with local police agencies .61 The idea behind these
programs is to build an information sharing framework that supports an effective
and efficient two-way flow of information enabling officials at all levels of
government to counter and respond to threats. 62 The problem is not merely to collect and
pass on more informational dots, but to make sense of them in ways that can be
acted on effectively. Indeed, the more dots that are collected, the harder it may
be to analyze and prioritize them. It remains to be seen how effective these information networking efforts will
among federal, state, and local entities.59

be. They are not yet fully developed; technology continues to change rapidly; and reliable data on their use are
sparse. Some dangers are evident already, however. First, the expansion of an information-sharing network
magnifies some privacy risks, especially personal information collected in one locale is distributed more widely and
to other levels of government.63 In some jurisdictions, civil liberties advocates have complained about the lack of
adequate mechanisms to regulate government information-fusion activities, and this has sometimes helped to
prompt oversight reforms.64

The Federal Government is heavily invested into Fusion Centers, and

provides funding.

ACLU 7 American Civil Liberties Union, a national, non-profit organization

dedicated to upholding constitutional rights, over 500,000 members, and a legal
assistance provider. (ACLU, Whats wrong with Fusion Centers? 2007,
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/fusioncenter_20071212.pdf)//RP
One problem with fusion centers is that they exist in a no-mans land between the
feder- al government and the states, where policy and oversight is often uncertain
and open to manipulation. There appears to be at least some conscious effort to
circumvent public oversight by obscuring who is really in charge of these fusion
centers and what laws apply to them. In struggling to answer the seemingly simple
question of who is in charge of fusion centers at a recent congressional hearing, a
Department of Homeland Security official could only offer that fusion centers are in
charge of fusion centers.16 One ana- lyst reportedly described his fusion center as
the wild west, where officials were free to use a variety of technologies before
politics catches up and limits options.17
Federal involvement in the centers continues to grow. Most fusion centers
developed as an extension of existing law enforcement intelligence units and as a

result they have sometimes been described as state police intelligence units on
steroids.18 But exactly who is providing those steroids is key to determining who
will control them in the future. Fusion centers are still primarily staffed and funded
by state authorities, but:
The federal government is playing an essential role in the

development and net- working of fusion centers by providing

financial assistance, sponsoring security clearances, and providing
personnel, guidance and training.19
The FBI has over 200 agents and analysts assigned to 36 fusion

centers and plans to increase this commitment in the future.20

As of December 2006, the DHS alone has provided over $380 million

in federal funds to support fusion centers.21

At least one fusion center, the Maryland Coordination and Analysis

Center (MCAC), was initiated and led by federal authorities and was
only recently turned over to the control of state officials.
Thirty percent of ostensibly state-controlled fusion centers are

physically located within federal agency workspace.22

Federal authorities are happy to reap the benefits of working with the fusion centers
without officially taking ownership. Fusion center supporters argue that the
federal gov- ernment can use the 800,000 plus law enforcement officers
across the country to function as the eyes and ears of an extended
national security community.23 Homeland Security Director Michael
Chertoff, while denying that the federal government had any intention of
controlling fusion centers, declared that what we want to do is not create a
single [fusion center], but a network of [centers] all across the country.24

T: SURVEILLANCE
Fusion Centers are a major aspect of the surveillance state.

Kayyali 14 Boardmember of the National Lawyers Guild S.F. Bay Area, former
member of the 2012 Bill of Rights Defense Committee Legal Fellow, and member of
the EFF activism team. (Nadia Kayyali, Why Fusion Centers Matter: FAQ, April 7,
2014, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/04/why-fusion-centers-matter-faq)//RP
While NSA surveillance has been front and center in the news recently, fusion
centers are a part of the surveillance state that deserve close scrutiny.
Fusion centers are a local arm of the so-called "intelligence community," the
17 intelligence agencies coordinated by the National Counterterrorism Center
(NCTC). The government documentation around fusion centers is entirely focused
on breaking down barriers between the various government agencies that collect
and maintain criminal intelligence information.
Barriers between local law enforcement and the NSA are already weak. We know
that the Drug Enforcement Agency gets intelligence tips from the NSA which are
used in criminal investigations and prosecutions. To make matters worse, the source
of these tips is camouflaged using parallel construction, meaning that a different
source for the intelligence is created to mask its classified source.
This story demonstrates what we called one of the biggest dangers of the
surveillance state: the unquenchable thirst for access to the NSA's trove of
information by other law enforcement agencies. This is particularly concerning
when NSA information is used domestically. Fusion centers are no different.
In fact, in early 2012, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved the
sharing of raw NSA data with the NCTC. The intelligence community overseen by
the NCTC includes the Department of Homeland Security and FBI, the main federal
fusion center partners. Thus, fusion centersand even local law enforcement
could potentially be receiving unminimized NSA data. This runs counter to the
distant image many people have of the NSA, and it's why focusing on fusion centers
as part of the recently invigorated conversation around surveillance is important.

Counter-Interpretation, Surveillance means a Group observing

another Group
Shrivastava 13 College of Legal Studies (CoLS), University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES)
(Surveillance: from history till present, Rishabh Shrivastava) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2351996 //DJ
The dictionary meaning of the word surveillance means close observation of a person or a group. But today this

According to me Surveillance means A

group of people, organization or an individual observing some another group of
people, organization or an individual with the use of highly technical tools, with the
objective to trace some kind of information which is of their interest. If you observe this
definition needs a more elaborative and formal structure.

definition carefully, you will able to understand clearly what surveillance actually is and what their features are. This
definition can be divided into three parts, they are

Domestic
Fusion Centers are used for domestic intelligence gathering.

ACLU no date but cites 2012 American Civil Liberties Union, a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to upholding constitutional rights, over 500,000
members, and a legal assistance provider. (ACLU, More About Fusion Centers,
2012, https://www.aclu.org/more-about-fusion-centers?redirect=spy-files/moreabout-fusion-centers)//RP
Fusion centers were designed to organize localized domestic intelligence
gathering into an integrated system that can distribute data both horizontally
across a network of fusion centers and vertically, down to local law enforcement
and up to the federal intelligence community. These centers can employ
officials from federal, state and local law enforcement and homeland security
agencies, as well as other state and local government entities, the federal
intelligence community, the military and even private companies, to spy on
Americans in virtually complete secrecy.

All Fusion Centers are located in within the United States.

DHS 15 (Deparment of Homeland Security, National Network of Fusion Centers

Fact Sheet, July 6, 2015, http://www.dhs.gov/national-network-fusion-centers-factsheet)//RP
State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion centers) serve as primary focal
points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering,
and sharing of threat-related information among federal, state, local, tribal, and
territorial (SLTT) partners. Located in states and major urban areas
throughout the country, fusion centers are uniquely situated to empower frontline law enforcement, public safety, fire service (PDF - 22 pages, 2.21 MB),
emergency response, public health, critical infrastructure protection (PDF - 30
pages, 3.54 MB) and private sector security personnel to lawfully gather and share
threat-related information. They provide interdisciplinary expertise and
situational awareness to inform decision-making at all levels of government.
Fusion centers conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing, assisting law
enforcement and homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and
responding to crime and terrorism. Fusion centers are owned and operated by state
and local entities with support from federal partners in the form of: Deployed
personnel, Training, Technical assistance (PDF - 40 pages, 2.43 MB), Exercise
support (PDF - 1 page, 577 KB), Security clearances, Connectivity to federal
systems, Technology (PDF - 22 pages, 1.1 MB), and Grant funding

Curtail
A reduction of a programs budget is a curtailment.

Dembling, 78 General Counsel, General Accounting Office; (Paul, OVERSIGHT

HEARING ON THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL ACT OF 1974 HEARING BEFORE THE
TASK FORCE ON BUDGET PROCESS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES NINETY-FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 29, 1978, Hein
Online)
Application of curtailment procedure.-The review procedure is triggered by an
executive branch decision to 'curtail" a program which has been made subject to
the bill. The definition of "curtail" (subsection (a)(3)) requires that the executive
branch decision result in a reduction of budget authority applied in
furtherance of the program. As noted above, the level of budget authority for this
purpose would be the amount so specified in an appropriation act. The reduction
relates to the use of funds "in furtherance of the program." Thus, although the full
amount of budget authority may be spent in some manner, e.g., to pay contract
termination costs or other liabilities incident to the curtailment, such a use of funds
still involves a reduction in funding for affirmative program purposes which triggers
the review provisions. Curtailment review procedure.-The review procedure would
generally be similar to the procedure for reviewing deferrals of budget authority
under the Impoundment Control Act, except that congressional disapproval would
take the form of a concurrent resolution. The President would report a proposed
curtailment decision to Congress, together with appropriate information (subsection
(b)), and supplementary reports would be made for any revisions (subsection (c)
(3)). The proposal, and any supplementary reports, would be printed in the Federal
Register (subsection (c)(4)).

POLITIX ANSWERS
T:

THE SENATE HAS ISSUED REPORTS QUESTIONING THE FUNDING OF FUSION CENTERS

Walker 12 [Jesse, books editor of Reason magazine, published in the New York
Times and The Washington Post, Fusion Centers: Expensive, Practically Useless,
and Bad For Your Liberty, Reason magazine, libertarian publication, 10/3/12,
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/03/fusion-centers-expensive-practically-use] MG
The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has just released a report [pdf]
on the "fusion centers" that pepper the law-enforcement landscape -- shadowy intelligence-sharing shops
run on the state and local level but heavily funded by the federal Department of Homeland
Security. It is a devastating document. When a report's recommendations include a plea
for the DHS to "track how much money it gives to each fusion center," you know you're
dealing with a system that has some very basic problems. After reviewing 13 months' worth of the fusion centers'

Senate investigators concluded that the centers' reports were "oftentimes

shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens' civil liberties and Privacy Act
protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and more
often than not unrelated to terrorism." One report offered the vital intelligence that "a certain model
output,

of automobile had folding rear seats that provided access to the trunk without leaving the car," a feature deemed
notable because it "could be useful to human traffickers." Others highlighted illegal activities by people in the
Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE) database, which sounds useful until you hear just what those
people did that attracted the centers' attention. One man was caught speeding. Another shoplifted some shoes.
TIDE itself, according to the Senate report, is filled not just with suspected terrorists but with their "associates," a
term broad enough to rope in a two-year-old boy. Nearly a third of the reports were not even circulated after they
were written, sometimes because they contained no useful information, sometimes because they "overstepped
legal boundaries" in disturbing ways: "Reporting on First Amendment-protected activities lacking a nexus to
violence or criminality; reporting on or improperly characterizing political, religious or ideological speech that is not
explicitly violent or criminal; and attributing to an entire group the violent or criminal acts of one or a limited
number of the group's members." (One analyst, for example, felt the need to note that a Muslim community group's
list of recommended readings included four items whose authors were in the TIDE database.) Interestingly, while
the DHS usually refused to publish these problematic reports, the department also retained them for an "apparantly
indefinite" period. Why did the centers churn out so much useless and illegal material? A former employee says
officers were judged "by the number [of reports] they produced, not by quality or evaluations they received."
Senate investigators were "able to identify only one case in which an official with a history of serious reporting
issues faced any consequences for his mistakes." Specifically, he had to attend an extra week of training. Other
issues identified in the Senate report: Some of the fusion centers touted by the Department of Homeland Security
do not, in fact, exist. Centers have reported threats that do not exist either. An alleged Russian "cyberattack"

DHS
"was unable to provide an accurate tally of how much it had granted to states and
cities to support fusion centers efforts." Instead it offered "broad estimates of the total
amount of federal dollars spent on fusion center activities from 2003 to 2011, estimates which ranged from
$289 million to $1.4 billion." When you aren't keeping track of how much you're spending, it becomes
turned out to be an American network technician accessing a work computer remotely while on vacation.

hard to keep track of what that money is being spent on. All sorts of dubious expenses slipped by. A center in San
Diego "spent nearly $75,000 on 55 flat-screen televisions," according to the Senate report. "When asked what the
televisions were being used for, officials said they displayed calendars, and were used for 'open-source monitoring.'
Asked to define 'open-source monitoring,' SD-LECC officials said they meant 'watching the news.' "

The report

is also filled with signs of stonewalling. A "2010 assessment of state and local fusion centers
conducted at the request of DHS found widespread deficiencies in the centers' basic counterterrorism informationsharing capabilities," for example. "DHS did not share that report with Congress or discuss its findings publicly.
When the Subcommittee requested the assessment as part of its investigation, DHS at first denied it existed, then
disputed whether it could be shared with Congress, before ultimately providing a copy."

matter of mission creep.

And then there's the

Many centers have adopted an "all-crime, all-hazards" approach that shifts their
focus from stopping terrorism and onto a broader spectrum of threats. You could make a reasonable case that this is

a wiser use of public resources -- terrorism is rare, after all, and the DHS-driven movement away from the allhazards approach in the early post-9/11 years had disastrous results. Unfortunately, the leading "hazards" on the

the DHS should stop citing the

centers as a key part of America's counterterrorism efforts if those centers have found better
fusion centers' agenda appear to be drugs and illegal aliens. At any rate,
(or easier) things to do than trying to fight terror.

Obama wanted the freedom act. A bilateral victory gave him political
capital.

New York Times 15, American daily newspaper, won 117 Pulitzer Prizes,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-program-own.html,

Obama's NSA Reforms Are Going to Tick Off Everyone, 6/3/15

Now, after successfully badgering Congress into reauthorizing the program, with
new safeguards the president says will protect privacy, Mr. Obama has left little
question that he owns it. The new surveillance program created by the USA
Freedom Act will end more than a decade of bulk collection of telephone records by
the National Security Agency. But it will make records already held by telephone
companies available for broad searches by government officials with a court order.
Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, walking to the Senate floor on
Tuesday. The Senate has cleared the final procedural hurdle blocking a bill meant to
rein in government surveillance. U.S. Surveillance in Place Since 9/11 Is Sharply
Limited JUNE 2, 2015 Senator Richard Burr, a Republican from North Carolina and
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, in Washington on Monday. Surveillance Bill
Awaits Verdicts on Amendments From Hawks in Senate JUNE 1, 2015 The reforms
that have now been enacted are exactly the reforms the president called for over a
year and a half ago, said Lisa Monaco, the presidents top counterterrorism adviser.
She called the bill the product of a robust public debate and said the White House
was gratified that the Senate finally passed it.

Obama passing the freedom act was a gain in political capital.

Passing another curtailment on surveillance will also be perceived as
a victory and gain political capital.

New York Times 15, American daily newspaper, won 117 Pulitzer Prizes,
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/winning-surveillance-limits-obama-makes-program-own.html,

Obama's NSA Reforms Are Going to Tick Off Everyone, 6/3/15

What emerged from that debate was a rare bipartisan victory for the president,
whose approach was met with approval by Republicans and Democrats in the House
and Senate. Even some of the presidents most ardent critics in the Republican
Party endorsed the approach. This is a good day for the American people, whose
rights will be protected, Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, told CNN last week
a rare example of Mr. Lee, a Tea Party lawmaker, agreeing with Mr. Obama. The
compromise on the telephone collection program is part of a broader tug-and-pull
for Mr. Obama, who inherited a vast national security infrastructure from Mr. Bush.

STATE COUNTERPLAN EXTENSIONS

A2: INTELLIGENCE GATHERING IS A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY

POST 9-11 POLICING HAS BECOME DECENTRALIZED AND LOCALIZED
TO COMBAT TERRORISM
Waxman 9 [Matthew, American law professor at Columbia University, Police and
National Security: American Local Law Enforcement and Counterterrorism After
9/11, Journal of National Security Law & Policy, Vol. 3, p. 377] MG
The subject of police and national security in the United States often conjures fears
of aggressive snooping and overbroad sweeps of political dissidents. In the years
following World War I, a period now remembered for overblown alarm about radical leftist activity, J. Edgar Hoovers
Bureau of Investigation (the forerunner of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or FBI) enlisted local police agencies
to conduct a series of raids called the Palmer Raids for Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer on suspected
radicals.4 On two occasions in November 1919 and January 1920 the government violently seized thousands of
immigrants across the United States without arrest warrants and targeted them for deportation based on suspicion

In the 1950s and 1960s, the FBI requested local police

agencies assistance in its Counter-Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO), aimed at allegedly
subversive political groups, eventually including wide swaths of the civil rights movement
membership.5 In the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks, local police again
mobilized in support of nationwide efforts to combat national security threats, this time
jihadist terrorism. Some observers see this as a necessary precaution; others see parallels to past law
that they held radical political beliefs.

enforcement abuses.6 Both views were displayed, for instance, when the New York City Police Department (NYPD)
prepared for the 2004 Republican National Convention by deploying undercover officers across the country to
conduct covert surveillance of suspected protesters, including members of religious groups and anti-war
organizations. David Cohen, a former deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and now Deputy New
York City Policy Commissioner for Intelligence, proclaimed that [g]iven the range of activities that may be engaged
in by the members of a sleeper cell in the long period of preparation for an act of terror, the entire resources of the
NYPD must be available to conduct investigations into political activity and intelligence related issues.7 Civil
liberties groups expressed outrage and brought suits against the city alleging widespread rights abuses and political

This tension between civil liberties and state security measures lies at the
heart of national security law. By national security law, I mean regulation of coercive government
harassment.8

powers wielded to protect the state, including against external military threats as well as internal efforts to
undermine government. While there are some particular features that pertain to local policing, the substantive issue
of balancing investigatory and coercive state powers against rights and freedoms is certainly not unique to local

What makes the issue of U.S. policing and national security so

interesting and complex is the decentralized and localized nature of most law
enforcement in this country.9 A recent National Research Council study estimates that there are about 13,500
police, nor is it unique to U.S. policing.

local police departments across the country.10 Another source puts the number of state and local police agencies

Sub-federal police agencies include state, county, city, or town, and

tribal organizations. These sub-federal agencies are responsible for the vast bulk of
crime fighting and community protection in this country, and they are as heterogeneous and
closer to 19,000.11

geographically dispersed as the local populations they serve. Terrorism was by no means a new problem for the
United States in 2001, nor were state and local governments uninvolved in the counterterrorism effort before then.
The 1990s alone saw the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the series of attacks
by Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski. Many states in the 1990s enacted criminal statutes against terrorist activity
that mirror federal criminal laws.12 Until the September 11 attacks, however, terrorism within the United States
was not a priority issue at any level of government .

Terrorism fell largely within the jurisdiction of

the FBI, and even there it was generally of secondary importance to fighting federal crimes such as white-collar
and narcotics offenses.13 Following the 1993 World Trade Center attack, FBI Director Louis Freeh tried to reorient
the Bureaus priorities toward counterterrorism, including through the creation of a counterterrorism division, but
his efforts failed to alter significantly the agencys dominant focus on investigating and solving other federal
crimes.14 Meanwhile, one survey in the mid-1990s found that less than 40 percent of state law enforcement
agencies and

only about half of local police agencies had contingency plans for dealing

with terrorist threats. About 40 percent of municipalities reported never having had contact with federal
agencies regarding terrorism issues.15 The September 2001 attacks, followed soon after by anthrax
attacks in the postal system, generated new urgency in counterterrorism efforts and stimulated
information-sharing throughout the U.S. government system . Changed threat
perceptions also resulted in major federal and state bureaucratic restructuring. At the
federal level this mobilization included vastly increasing the FBIs emphasis
on domestic counterterrorism through structural changes and increasing the
personnel dedicated to this mission.16 Congress created the new Department of Homeland Security, which
consolidated nearly two dozen federal agencies and assumed responsibility for protecting U.S. territory from
terrorist attacks and responding to natural disasters.17 Perhaps most controversially, even the Department of
Defense expanded its efforts to identify suspected terrorists and other threats within the United States, until civil

At the local level, too, governments shifted emphasis

to preventing and preparing for potential terrorist attacks .19 It was not just the magnitude of
liberties objections prompted curtailment.

the perceived terrorist threat after September 11 that pushed the counterterrorism agenda down to local levels of
government, including to within the police agencies; it was also the sense that major national vulnerabilities once
again existed at home, with threats materializing or operating inside U.S. borders. The September 11 attacks left
the government at all levels federal, state and local worried about gaps in their capabilities to piece together
and neutralize terrorist plots. Many of the dots comprising the September 11 plot sequence occurred within the
United States, including flight instruction by several of the eventual hijackers and traffic violation stops of two of
them by state police. Perhaps, it followed, the attacks could have been averted with better systems and policies to
discern, analyze, and act on such dots throughout the country, ultimately uncovering the plot.20 The September
11 attacks also created a national sense of fear that al Qaeda and its allies were in the process of unleashing a
campaign of additional attacks using sleeper cells embedded in American communities, and awaiting orders or
opportunities to strike.21 A number of alleged al Qaeda cells in the United States have been arrested and
prosecuted in the years since the September 11 attacks, including the Lackawanna 6 (a half-dozen YemeniAmericans living near Buffalo, New York, convicted of providing material support to al Qaeda)22 and a Miami-based
group allegedly bent on destroying Chicagos Sears Tower.23 Most recently, federal agencies arrested and charged
Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan immigrant who allegedly trained in an al Qaeda camp in Pakistan and planned to
detonate bombs within the United States.24 In retrospect, the sophistication and potential effectiveness of many of
the thwarted cells has been called into doubt, and the partial disruption of al Qaedas leadership apparatus in
Afghanistan and Pakistan has sewn doubt as to whether al Qaeda still poses a major threat of attack inside the
United States.25 But the reduced worry of centrally commanded or supported al Qaeda cells inside the United
States has been replaced by additional concerns about locally rooted, organizationally autonomous radical
extremists who might plan and carry out terrorist attacks in the name of a broader al Qaeda-inspired agenda.26 As
a result of these emerging threats, local police agencies have played a number of expanded counterterrorism roles
in recent years.27 These include criminal law enforcement, public protection, emergency response, and intelligence
gathering. Most criminal prosecutions for crimes directly related to terrorism are investigated and prosecuted at the
federal level.28 Federal investigative and prosecutorial capabilities are vast and sophisticated, while federal
antiterrorism statutes and the high profile of such crimes push the prosecution of terrorism crimes at the federal

local police agencies efforts to prevent and deter

crime also aim to establish an environment inhospitable to terrorism-related activities a role
that many local forces have internalized since 2001.29 Besides these law enforcement roles, local
rather than state and local levels. However,

police agencies responsibilities for providing protection of possible target sites, public education and awareness,
and emergency response have grown considerably.30 An extensive survey in 2002 by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors details the significant financial and personnel costs of these efforts at the municipal level, especially within
local police departments.31 A 2005 survey of state and local police agencies by the International Association of
Chiefs of Police further documents significant changes in operational capacity, mission focus, and program

the most important as well as controversial national security role for police,
however, is intelligence collection.33 Following exposure of abusive law enforcement surveillance
resourcing.32 Perhaps

tactics during the 1950s to 1970s, many police agencies dismantled their intelligence collection units altogether.34

After September 11, many of these agencies scrambled to reconstitute or expand

their intelligence units, though research data on the extent of this transformation remains slim.35 It was
often the feeling at local law enforcement prior to 9/11 that intelligence gathering
was a Federal responsibility, noted Miami Police Chief John F. Timoney in 2006 congressional testimony.
[B]ut the events in Madrid and London and some events recently here in the United States are
highlights that local law enforcement can have a very important role. 36 Many police

agencies created intelligence analyst positions and assembled new units dedicated
to countering terrorism.37 The difficult organizational, accountability and functional challenges this role
creates for the nationwide policing system are explored in the next three Parts.

A2: CAPITALISM K

T/: Occupy Movement

Fusion centers are predominantly used to surveil peaceful protests
specifically, the Occupy Movement

Verheyden-Hilliard et al. 15 [Mara, co-founder of the Partnership for Civil

Justice Fund, attorney for the International Action Center, Carl Messineo, co-founder
of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, The Hidden Role of the Fusion Centers in
the Nationwide Spying Operation against the Occupy Movement and Peaceful
Protest in America, Global Research, 7/20/15, http://www.globalresearch.ca/thehidden-role-of-the-fusion-centers-in-the-nationwide-spying-operation-against-theoccupy-movement-and-peaceful-protest-in-america/5383571] MG
This report, based on documents obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, provides highlights and analysis

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)-funded Fusion Centers used their

vast anti-terrorism and anti-crime authority and funds to conduct a sprawling, nationwide
and hour-by-hour surveillance effort that targeted even the smallest activity of
peaceful protestors in the Occupy Movement in the Fall and Winter of 2011. It is being released in
of how the

conjunction with a major story in the New York Times that is based on the 4,000 pages of government documents
uncovered by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) during a two-year long investigation. The newly published
documents reveal the actual workings of the Fusion Centers created ostensibly to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts
following the September 11, 2001, attacks in collecting and providing surveillance information on peaceful

The new documents roll back the curtain on the Fusion Centers and show the
communications, interactions and emails of a massive national web of federal agents,
officials, police, and private security contractors to accumulate and share
information, reporting on all manner of peaceful and lawful political activity that
took place during the Occupy Movement from protests and rallies to meetings and
protestors.

educational lectures. This enormous spying and monitoring apparatus included the Pentagon, FBI, DHS, police

There is now, with the release of

incontrovertible evidence of systematic and not incidental conduct and
practices of the Fusion Centers and their personnel to direct their sights against a peaceful
movement that advocated social and economic justice in the U nited States. It bears noting
departments and chiefs, private contractors and commercial business interests.
these documents,

also that while these 4,000 pages offer the most significant and largest window into the U.S. intelligence and law
enforcements coordinated targeting of Occupy, they can only be a portion of what is likely many more tens of
thousands of pages of materials generated by the nationwide operation. Until now the role of the Fusion Centers in
their application of anti-terrorism authority and resources has been shrouded in secrecy. In 2012, the Senate issued
an investigative report on the Fusion Centers that The Washington Post described as revealing pools of ineptitude,
waste and civil liberties intrusions. The Department of Homeland Security immediately dismissed and condemned
the report and defended the fusion centers, saying the Senate investigators relied on out-of-date data, from 2009
and 2010, and prior years of materials. The public was not privy to the records underlying that investigation,
however, the documents that the Senate reviewed predated the documents that the Partnership for Civil Justice
Fund has obtained and made public. The newly released documents show that the Department of Homeland
Securitys representations were far from true, that the conduct of the Fusion Centers continued unabated. The

the U.S. government and the Department of

Homeland Security are spending hundreds of millions of dollars of their money in
Fusion Center operations. These documents, along with materials previously released by the PCJF
that exposed the FBI and other domestic intelligence and law enforcement agencies targeting of Occupy, reveal
a U.S. surveillance-industrial apparatus charging forward in willful disregard for the
fundamental civil liberties and political freedoms of the people. Targeting a peaceful
social justice movement as a criminal or terrorist enterprise is incompatible with a
American people can now see for themselves how

constitutional democracy. These documents show that the Fusion Centers

constitute a menace to democracy. This gross misuse of U.S. taxpayers money also
demonstrates that the Fusion Centers are a colossal rat hole of waste. The Fusion
Centers should be defunded and ended immediately. Coinciding with the publication of these
new documents and this report, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund has initiated a nationwide campaign to End the
Fusion Centers! The campaign includes a mass email and letter-writing effort to President Obama and all members
of Congress calling on them to defund and end the Fusion Centers. As part of the End the Fusion Centers campaign
and to broaden awareness of the dangers posed by the Fusion Centers, the PCJF has also made the new documents
fully available to the public and to the media in searchable format at BigBrotherAmerica.org. Anti-Terrorism
Resources Devoted to Spy on Occupy Movement; Major City Police Chiefs Used Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism
Center to Produce Regular National Reports on Occupy Movement Although the Fusion Centers existence is justified
by the DHS as a necessary component in stopping terrorism and violent crime, the documents show that

the

Fusion Centers in the Fall of 2011 and Winter of 2012 were devoted to
unconstrained targeting of a grassroots movement for social change that was
acknowledged to be peaceful in character. The documents reveal that the police chiefs of
major U.S. cities created an Emerging Issues Subcommittee to identify, research
and document trends or activities that may threaten public safety for
communication to the nationwide network of Fusion Centers and that The first
issue the committee is working is the Occupy Movement . The documents show that the Major
Cities Chiefs (MCC) efforts to increase situational awareness and promote public safety required twice a weekproduced bulletins on the Occupy Movement. At the present time it is our intention to utilize the services of the
Southern Nevada Counter Terrorism Center to collect, analyze and disseminate bulletins twice a week. The
distribution list for these Fusion Center-issued bulletins includes virtually every single Fusion Center in the United
States. Investigating Terrorism in Boston: The Boston Regional Intelligence Center Monitored and Catalogued
Occupy-Associated Activities from Student Organizing to Political Lectures In the Fall of 2011, the Boston Regional
Intelligence Center (BRIC) devoted significant resources including deployment of intelligence analysts to a detailed
monitoring and cataloging operation, issuing twice-daily Situation Awareness Bulletins on Occupy Boston. We
have obtained over 1,200 pages of these bulletinswhich have not been previously disclosed. We need your help!
PCJF attorneys have worked for years to expose the governments use of counter-terrorism authority to carry out
illegal spying on peace and social justice movements, including the Occupy movement. Please make an urgently
needed tax-deductible contribution to support these efforts in defense of freedom, dissent and constitutional rights.
The BRIC intelligence analysts monitored Occupy activists Twitter accounts and poured over Facebook pages
constantly reporting and then repeatedly providing updates on the number of people who may have indicated they
would be attending any event or lecture. The BRIC documents catalogued plans and meetings, including labor
rallies and activities by nurses, the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts (AFL-CIO), and Verizon workers;
student organizing and meetings at Boston University, Suffolk, Harvard, Tufts and throughout the area (Analyst
Notes: Tufts students are organizing a group to go to Dudley Square to show support for the Occupy the Hood As
of 3:00 p.m. on 20 October 2011, 35 people are listed as attending, 9 maybes on the Facebook event page);
speakers, authors, personalities and lecturers, including Noam Chomsky, writer/director David Rothauser (Analyst
note: It is unknown at this time if Rothauser is a known/respected figure within the anarchist movement), Bill
McKibben (Analyst note: [he] organized a sit-in near the White House in August of this year to protest
construction of a pipeline.), Russell Simmons, Van Jones, Brian Wilson of VFP, representatives from the National
Lawyers Guild, the National Police Accountability Project and the ACLU-Mass. From musical concerts to womens
caucus meetings, to yoga, to meetings and lectures on college campuses nothing was outside the purview of the
Boston Fusion Centers supposed anti-terrorism and anti-crime mandate and vast resources. The PCJF had
previously obtained and exposed a handful of documents of a different nature showing BRICs reporting on Occupy,
which investigative reporter Michael Isikoff of NBC News noted in an article Unaware of Tsarnaev warnings, Boston

What was less known from the earlier documents but revealed in the
new massive BRIC document release was the immense scope and intensity of hour-by-hour
reporting on the Occupy Movement indicating not only an interest but an actual
preoccupation with intelligence gathering on all manner of political
speech, meeting, thought and expression affiliated with Occupy. The Boston Police
counterterror unit tracked protesters.

Department stated in 2012, according to The Boston Globe, that the Boston Regional Intelligence Center does
not conduct surveillance on protest groups without reason to believe they are tied to crime or terrorism. An email,
in the newly released documents, from a high level official in the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis Center
(D.C. Fusion Center) in December of 2011, and sent to D.C. police officials, states: I just received a call from the
City of Boston. I was informed that a group of 15-20 Occupy Boston members and other activist group members
departed Boston by bus this morning on their way to the District for a Week of Action. According to the caller, none

of the people are known to be troublemakers. Pentagon and Dept. of Defense Worked Through Fusion Centers to

the Pentagon and the Department of Defense

personnel were conducting their own surveillance on the Occupy Movement and
also used the infrastructure of the Fusion Centers to provide information to local and
federal law enforcement agencies. Involved in the monitoring and reporting operation on Occupy Wall
Target Occupy Movement The documents show that

Street was the Pentagons agency that specializes in countering weapons of mass destruction worldwide. The
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), whose official mission is to address the entire spectrum of chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear and high yield explosive threats, regularly used the Fusion Centers as the vehicle to
share information on the Occupy Movement. This Pentagon agency that exists to counter threats from weapons of
mass destruction circulated material on Occupy including, for example, one document with the subject line: FW:
Alert Update! Chicago What Police Should Be Learning From The Occupy Protests. This document shows in an
email chain that this article was initially circulated through the subscription website activistmap.com, which is billed
as the Domestic Terrorism Tracking System. The keywords associated with this Domestic Terrorism Tracking
System include: anarchist(s), animal rights, environmentalist, protesters, socialist(s), communist(s), civil
disobedience, social justice and global justice, among others. Another example of information circulated from the
Pentagons WMD agency was about plans for peaceful protests in Washington, D.C, in early December 2011
including a national prayer vigil with unemployed folks and faith leaders that was to be followed by a mass
march on Congressional leaders. In one document, an Intelligence Research Specialist with the Threat Analysis
Center at the Pentagons Force Protection Agency forwards the advice that anyone having an Occupy Wallstreet
type problem in their city could set up a surveillance operation using social media to maintain constant review of
all Twitter tweets and Facebook postings about Occupy Wall Street. Her email circulates the advice that to
constantly monitor the social media communications of Occupy activists: you set up a computer and someone to
monitor it, they simply type in site:twitter.com occupy city here and they will get feeds of people posting about
the occupy movement in that city. Same goes for Facebook. Use facebook.com occupy city here and all of the
facebook postings appear. A very handy intel gathering tool. If they have a dual screen set up like I do you can have
both open and simply hit refresh every so often and you get the new tweets and postings from the sites. The

Fusion
Centers and their personnel even conflate their anti-terrorism mission with a need for
intelligence gathering on a possible consumer boycott during the holiday season.
Terrorist Threat to U.S. National Security: Black Friday Consumer Boycotts The documents reveal that

There are multiple documents from across the country referencing concerns about negative impacts on retail sales.
The Executive Director of the Intelligence Fusion Division, also the Joint Terrorism Task Force Director, for the D.C.
Metropolitan Police Department circulated a 30-page report tracking the Occupy Movement in towns and cities
across the country created by the trade association the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC). He
directed that the recipients of the document, who included top staff at the Washington, D.C. Fusion Center,
develop a one page product that we can send to our District Commanders to make them aware of the potential
threat. The ICSC report detailing Occupy Black Friday threats includes images of Sample Anti-Black Friday Icons
and Posters with slogans urging people to buy local or do your shopping at a small independent merchant. The
report identifies among Specific Known Threats buy nothing day tactics which might be used by Occupy and
other protesters including credit card cut ups, free non-commercial street parties, and alternative mass green
transport activities. Additional Specific Known Threats in the report are identified by individual Occupy locations
from Occupy Bee Cave, Texas (Assessment Aim: to educate how military spending has affected the economy
consistent with anti-war agenda of the group) to Occupy Seattle (Assessment leafleting likely in order to draw
attention). The intelligence reporting and communications apparatus was in full throttle over potential Occupy
Black Friday boycotts. One sample document issued from the Baltimore police shows a distribution list ranging from
the Maryland Fusion Center, the FBI, the DHS, the Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement
Network, the Secret Service, the NYPD and other city and state law enforcement, the manager of corporate security
for an energy company, university personnel, and the Federal Reserve. The counter-terrorism documents contain
multiple references to Black Friday boycotts as well as potential negative impacts on retails sales. Lets Go Down to
Occupy Encampment to hear some tunes and get laid: Communication from Washington, D.C. Fusion Center
Official to Maryland Fusion Center Official One document reveals the shared communications about Occupy
between an anti-terrorism official from the Baltimore Police Department who is assigned to the Maryland Fusion

and an official (and private contractor) with the Washington Regional Threat Analysis
Center. The Baltimore police official, who also circulated through the Fusion Centers hostile and false anti-Occupy
Center

materials published by a politically conservative group, says in response to the D.C. officials suggestion that they
should go to Baltimore Occupy events and hear some tunes and get laid that Im all over thatfor Halloween I
am going as a Occupy protestorBaltimore Sunday and Annapolis Monday [ellipsis in original]. Scared When the

Fusion Centers spying operations on First

Amendment protected activity and peaceful protest is contrary to their stated antiterrorism mission, the documents reveal the sense of alarm communicated by Fusion Center officials when
Watched Start Watching the Watchers Aware that

Occupy activists speculate about the role of the Fusion Centers in the crackdown on Occupy through social media.

The Deputy Director of the Washington Threat and Analysis Center sent an email to fusion center partners titled
Open Source Media Discussing Fusion Centers and Crackdowns on the Occupy Movement about articles
referencing possible fusion center involvement in coordinating police response and subsequent violence. She
warns, Although at this time these references to fusion centers and Occupy seems to be compartmentalized I
wanted to make you aware of these references in case the national news media begins speculating about fusion
center involvement. This Fusion Center director sent out an Excel file of about 2700 open source news items from
the last 24-48 hours containing Occupy created by her friend who publishes globalincidentmap.com (and the
previously described activistmap.com). A small sampling of the tweets are included in the text of the email, many of
which are about Pacifica radios flagship show Democracy Now having broadcast discussion on the possible
involvement of the Fusion Centers in the crackdown on the Occupy Movement. Watching the PCJF Documents
released to us show that one DHS Commander subscribes to the Partnership for Civil Justice Funds constituent
emails through his personal email account, forwards our emails to his Department of Homeland Security account
and then circulates them on to other law enforcement personnel. Among our emails meriting Homeland Security
importance was an announcement that filmmaker and author Michael Moore was supporting our public advocacy
campaign calling on the Manhattan District Attorney to drop the charges against the 700 peaceful protestors who
had been mass arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge on October 1, 2011 (the PCJF is also litigating the class action
constitutional rights suit from those arrests.) A Well-Funded Surveillance-Industrial Complex on a Mission to Justify
its Exponential Funding The documents reveal a feverish urgency to collect and share as much information as
possible on any manifestation of protest. The Deputy Director of the Washington Regional Threat and Analysis
Center, the Fusion Center in Washington, D.C., circulated a constituent email from the anti-war organization
ANSWER Coalition endorsing a demonstration by postal workers outside the National Press Club against layoffs and
post office closings. Other documents show the intensity of communications between the various local and regional
Fusion Centers who seem to be frantic to publish regular Occupy product that can be shared with other agency
officials, local police officials and a large seemingly duplicative network of Fusion Center POCs (Point of Contact)
who are similarly tasked to produce and receive similar reports. The focus of this large, duplicative reporting
apparatus concerns even the most trivial details about the smallest activity. For example, the Nashville-based
Fusion Center Point of Contact, in one of many such documents, asks other Fusion Centers around the country to fill
out an elaborate reporting form to compile a report to Nashville police chiefs the next day. The agent requests
information from officials in the Washington, D.C., Fusion Center because Ive been tasked to produce an overview
of Occupy movement activities in various cities around the nation, to be disseminated to all our [Nashville] Chiefs
tomorrow morning at 1000 hrs. The Nashville requestor asks for detailed information from the other cities: were
there marches in Occupy activities, were there signs and banners, identification of specific political issues raised,
did the activists give interviews to the media, did they hold regular General Assembly meetings, did local law
enforcement agencies communicate with local civil rights organizations, and did dealing directly with these

the Washington, D.C., Fusion

Center sent out a request to other Fusion Centers including to the Florida Fusion Center (Central
Florida Intelligence Exchange, Counterterrorism Unit) seeking products on the Occupy Movement
so we can take a look at what is happening around the country . The Florida Fusion
organizations result in any benefits or reveal pitfalls. At another point

Center representative replies that she is working on a product that I plan on having out by Thursday. Throughout
the documents, which contain even more information than highlighted here, the constant effort for product to be
written and reviewed is strongly suggestive that the officials themselves feel pressed to justify the large funding

The documents reveal intelligence officials in

government and police agencies partnering with each other and with a myriad of private
security contractors in a self-perpetuating and symbiotic system that provides an endless
stream of funding for the participants . The documents show the role of private intelligence and
stream that keeps them in business.

surveillance corporations that apparently have contracts with or provide subscription services to law enforcement
personnel and who also monitor and provide information on protest activities, another improper mass diversion of
taxpayers funds. Many of the private contractors have cycled in and out of government employment, and the
documents show that there are personnel using government email addresses, including fbi.gov suffixes, who

The fact that the Fusion Centers and this same cast of
government and private sector actors reflexively went into full throttle against a
peaceful protest movement demonstrates not only institutional hostility to a
grassroots movement for social justice but the hollowness of their stated mission of
combating terrorism. The Fusion Centers are Incompatible with Democracy and Must Be Ended The new
Fusion Center documents demonstrate the workings of a self-perpetuating
Surveillance-Industrial Complex. In the name of fighting terrorism, and with everregular admonitions to the American public that these institutions must be given a
blank check in the name of national security, a limitless funding stream flows from
actually are private contractors.

the American people into the pockets of those who profit and benefit from this
system. These documents reveal what our money is being wasted on and, critically,
how it is being used in derogation of our fundamental rights and liberties. The
people of the United States do not want to live as a nation under constant
surveillance, targeted by government counterterrorism and intelligence agencies
when they engage in the exercise of basic rights to free speech. The American
people have the right and ability to decide the nature of the society in which they
live. We are calling on elected officials to defend the Constitution and democratic rights by defunding and ending
the Fusion Centers. Take action and join the campaign to end the Fusion Centers now!

Fusion Centers Neg

Case

Fusion Centers Good

Crime Prevention
Turn -- Fusion centers key to crime preventionthey facilitate
intergovernmental information-sharing

DHS 15 [Department of Homeland Security, State and Major Urban Area Fusion
Centers, DHS.gov, 7/6/15, http://www.dhs.gov/state-and-major-urban-area-fusioncenters] MG
fusion centers (fusion centers) serve as focal points within the state and
for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of threat-related information
between the federal government and state , local, tribal, territorial (SLTT) and private sector
partners. Located in states and major urban areas throughout the country, fusion centers are uniquely
situated to empower front-line law enforcement, public safety, fire service,
emergency response, public health, critical infrastructure protection, and private sector security personnel
to understand local implications of national intelligence, thus enabling local officials to better
protect their communities. Fusion centers provide interdisciplinary expertise and
situational awareness to inform decision-making at all levels of government. They
conduct analysis and facilitate information sharing while assisting law enforcement and
State and major urban area
local environment

homeland security partners in preventing, protecting against, and responding to crime and terrorism. Fusion centers
are owned and operated by state and local entities with support from federal partners in the form of deployed
personnel, training, technical assistance, exercise support, security clearances, connectivity to federal systems,
technology, and grant funding. The Current Threat Environment and Role of Fusion Centers in National Security Both
at home and abroad, the United States faces an adaptive enemy in an asymmetric threat environment. Events since
May 2009 have demonstrated that the threat to the homeland is not abating. The National Network of Fusion
Centers (National Network) is uniquely situated to empower front-line law enforcement, public safety, emergency
response, and private sector security personnel to lawfully gather and share information to identify emerging
threats. The national security enterprise must reach beyond the capabilities of the federal government and national
Intelligence Community to identify and warn about impending plots that could impact the homeland, particularly
when the individuals responsible for the threats operate within the United States and do not travel or communicate
with others overseas. By building trusted relationships and collaborating with SLTT and private sector partners,

fusion centers can gather and share the information necessary to pursue and
disrupt activities that may be indicators of, or potential precursors to, terrorist activity.
With timely, accurate information on potential terrorist threats, fusion centers can directly contribute to and inform
investigations initiated and conducted by federal entities, such as the Joint Terrorism Task Forces led by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation. According to the 2010 National Security Strategy (PDF, 60 pages - 1.52 MB), the federal
government must continue to integrate and leverage fusion centers to enlist all of our intelligence, law
enforcement, and homeland security capabilities to prevent acts of terrorism on American soil. Efforts to protect the
homeland require the timely gathering, analysis, and sharing of threat-related information. Fusion centers provide a
mechanism through which the federal government, SLTT, and private sector partners come together to accomplish
this purpose. Beginning in 2003, the federal government, in cooperation with state and local entities, published
guidance to enable fusion centers to operate at a baseline level of capability and to form a robust and fully
integrated National Network. The National Network allows the federal government, SLTT, and private sector
partners to participate as full contributors to, and beneficiaries of, the homeland security enterprise. This strategic
vision can be realized only when fusion centers demonstrate institutionalized levels of capability that enable
efficient and effective information sharing and analysis across the National Network. This will help link the federal
government with SLTT and private sector entities to more effectively share information. Given the evolving threat
environment, it is vital that fusion centers quickly achieve their roles, as explained in the National Strategy for
Information Sharing (NSIS), as the focal points within the SLTT environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and
sharing of threatrelated information. Enhancing Department Resources to Support Fusion Centers The Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) has expedited the deployment of resources to fusion centers to enhance their ability to
perform their mission. The DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A), the Department's lead for support to fusion
centers, has deployed over 90 personnel, including Intelligence Officers and Regional Directors, to the field. I&A also
worked aggressively to deploy Homeland Secure Data Network (HSDN) to over 60 fusion centers. HSDN provides
SECRET-level connectivity to enhance the ability of state and local partners to receive federally generated classified
threat information. Additionally, the Department significantly expanded training and technical assistance

opportunities for fusion center personnel. Through its long-standing partnership with the Department of Justice
(DOJ), the Department has conducted more than 300 training and technical assistance deliveries, workshops, and
exchanges on topics including risk analysis, security, and privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties since 2007. By
providing these resources, the Department supports fusion centers to address some of the nation's most significant
homeland security challenges. Expanding the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI) A Call
to Action: A Unified Message Regarding the Need to Support Suspicious Activity Reporting and Training To provide
guidance regarding how and where to report suspicious activities, state, local, and federal agencies worked
collaboratively to develop a Unified Message that provides clear guidance regarding how to report suspicious
activities, encourages agencies to work with DHS to utilize the "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign,
and emphasizes the importance of training frontline personnel. The Department is working closely with the DOJ-led
Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative Program Management Office to establish a standard process to
identify and report suspicious activity in jurisdictions across the country. Under the leadership of I&A, the
Department has made it a priority to participate in and support the implementation of the NSI while also integrating
SAR processes across the National Network of Fusion Centers. The integration of NSI within both the Department
and the fusion centers is a key element of fusion center outreach to law enforcement at all levels of government.
The Department has also launched the "If You See Something, Say Something" campaign in order to engage the
public to identify and report indicators of terrorism, crime, and other threats. The Path Ahead Working closely with
interagency partners and Fusion Center Directors, the Department supports an annual nationwide, in-depth
assessment of fusion centers to evaluate their capabilities and to establish strategic priorities for federal
government support. The assessment focuses primarily on four Critical Operational Capabilities (Receive, Analyze,
Disseminate, and Gather) and four Enabling Capabilities (Privacy/Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Protections,
Sustainment Strategy, Communications and Outreach, and Security) as well as additional priority areas for the year.
Leveraging data collected from the Annual Fusion Center Assessment, the Department coordinates efforts to build

These gap mitigation efforts are designed to

assist fusion centers in becoming centers of analytic excellence that serve as focal
points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering,
and sharing of threat-related information.
fusion center capabilities and mitigate identified gaps.

Emergency Response
Fusion centers key to emergency responsemost centers have an
all-hazards focus

Masse and Rollins 7 [Todd Masse, Specialist in domestic intelligence and

counterterrorism domestic social policy, John Rollins, Specialist in Terrorism and
International Crime Defense, A Summary of Fusion Centers: Core Issues and
Options for Congress, Congressional Research Service, 9/19/07,
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/intel/RL34177.pdf] MG
Many of the first-wave centers, those created soon after 9/11, were initially solely
focused on counterterrorism. Today, less than 15% of the fusion centers interviewed
for this report18 described their mission as solely counterterrorism. Since their
inception, many counterterrorism-focused fusion centers have expanded their
mission to include all-crimes and/or all-hazards. Sometimes this shift is official, for
others it is de facto and reflected in the day-to-day operations of the center, but not
in official documentation. This shift toward an all-crimes and/or all-hazards focus
can be explained by several factors, to include desire to conform to what they see
as a national trend, the need for local and non-law enforcement buy-in, and the
need for sustainable resources. Approximately 40% of fusion centers interviewed for
this report describe their centers mission as all-crimes. However, some fusion
centers are concerned with any crime, large or small, petty or violent, while others
are focused on large-scale, organized, and destabilizing crimes, to include the illicit
drug trade, gangs, terrorism, and organized crime, which one center deemed a
homeland security focus. A little more than 40% of fusion centers interviewed for
this report describe their center as all-hazardsas well as all-crimes. It appears as if
all-hazards means different things to different people for some, all-hazards
suggests the fusion center is receiving and reviewing streams of incoming
information/intelligence from agencies dealing with all-hazards, to include law
enforcement, fire departments, and emergency management. To others, all hazards
means that representatives from the aforementioned array of public sectors are
represented in the center and/or considered partners to its mission. all-hazards At
some centers, denotes the entitys mission and scope meaning the fusion center
is responsible for preventing and helping to mitigate both man-made events and
natural disasters. For others, all-hazards indicates both a pre-event prevention
role as well as a post-event response, and possibly recovery, role.

Fusion centers key to quick disaster responsenatural disasters,

chemical weapons, weapons of mass destruction

Harris 9 [Blake, contributing editor, Fusion Centers May Strengthen Emergency

Management, Government Technology, 8/19/08,
http://www.govtech.com/security/Fusion-Centers-May-Strengthen-EmergencyManagement.html?page=3] MG

In the law enforcement and intelligence arena, the push has been to get various
agencies effectively sharing information and working in tighter coordination something they didn't always do before 9/11. This led to the creation of what the
law enforcement community calls the "fusion center." Though most think of
homeland security intelligence functions when they think of the fusion
center, the concept has always included an all-hazards approach, according
to Andrew Lluberes, director of communications for the Intelligence and Analysis
Office of Public Affairs, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). "The
concept of the fusion center is to give the federal government and the states an
opportunity to share information and intelligence, and that's not limited to
terrorism," Lluberes said. "DHS's jurisdiction obviously includes terrorism, but a lot
of other things as well: natural disasters chemical, weapons of mass destruction and
just basic law enforcement." Lluberes said some past natural disasters, such as
Hurricane Katrina, didn't have the benefit of working fusion centers. However, he
said fusion centers are beginning to mature and emergency managers will benefit
from their existence. "As a conduit to share information and intelligence, they
certainly would be used in a future natural disaster," said Lluberes. According to the
DHS, there are nearly 60 fusion centers nationwide and more are being formed.
Each has unique characteristics because of local priorities and concerns. A fusion
center in Arizona or Texas, for example, might involve Immigration and Customs
Enforcement or Drug Enforcement Administration officials because of their proximity
to the Mexican border. Though most fusion centers concentrate on law enforcement
and homeland security matter, their operations can provide lessons for EOC
managers. Fusion of Data The ultimate goal of any fusion center is to prevent
terrorist attacks and to respond to natural disasters and man-made threats quickly
and efficiently. But as a Congressional Research Service report also noted, there is
no one model for how a center should be structured. Although many of the centers
initially had purely counterterrorism goals, most have gravitated toward an allcrimes and even a broader all-hazards approach. "Data fusion involves the
exchange of information from different sources - including law enforcement, public
safety and the private sector - and, with analysis, can result in meaningful and
actionable intelligence and information," noted a Department of Justice guidelines
paper. "The fusion process turns this information and intelligence into actionable
knowledge. Fusion also allows relentless re-evaluation of existing data in context
with new data in order to provide constant updates. The public safety and privatesector components are integral in the fusion process because they provide fusion
centers with crime-related information, including risk and threat assessments, and
subject-matter experts who can aid in threat identification." Indeed, it's this
informational process that extends the role of the fusion center from an
antiterrorism focus to general law enforcement and perhaps other emergencies and
disasters. One such fusion center is Chicago's Crime Prevention Information Center
(CPIC), which works on the antiterrorism initiative, and general law enforcement.
The center allows rapid discovery of possible crimes by recording sounds, such as
gunshots, and showing police their exact locations on a computer screen. About 30
full-time detectives, police officers and supervisors staff CPIC. Each of the 35
suburban departments working with the center lends officers to help field calls for
information. Additionally representatives from the FBI, Cook County Sheriff's Office

and other federal agencies provide liaison personnel to the center. According to
Chicago Police Cmdr. David Sobczyk, head of the Deployment Operations Center, of
which CPIC is an extension, focusing both on crime and terrorism strengthens the
antiterrorism mission. Not only are everyday crimes sometimes precursors to a
terrorist attack, but more importantly, having a center that is constantly being
exercised 24/7 by responding to actual public safety incidents only makes staff
more skilled and effective in dealing with a terrorist threat. This combined mission
focus is evident as soon as one enters the CPIC room. As well as computer screens
on the walls, there are TVs that show streams of news 24/7 from American and
overseas news channels, from places like Israel, China or Arab states. While it
continues to evolve and is improving all the time, the $1 million CPIC - funded with a
homeland security grant, through seized drug money and from the Chicago PD's
operational budget - has become a model for other jurisdictions. This prompted the
DHS to engage Sobczyk to give presentations on CPIC to other law enforcement
entities around the country.

AT: Senate Report

(potentially problematic ev ununderlined portion supports the senate report)

Fusion center effectiveness is misunderstoodsenate report cites

inaccurate and out-of-date

Isikoff 12 [Michael, investigative journalist, Homeland Security 'fusion' centers

spy on citizens, produce 'shoddy' work, report says, NBC News, 10/2/12,
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/02/14187433-homeland-securityfusion-centers-spy-on-citizens-produce-shoddy-work-report-says?lite] MG
A spokesman for Homeland Security said in a statement to NBC News Tuesday that the Senate
report was "out of date, inaccurate and misleading ." Matt Chandler, a spokesman for Napolitano,
said the Senate panel "refused to review relevant data, including important
intelligence information pertinent to their findings." Another Homeland Security official, who
spoke with NBC News on condition of anonymity, said the department has made improvements to
the fusion centers and that the skills of officials working in them are evolving and
maturing. The American Civil Liberties Union also issued a statement saying the report underscores problems
that it and other civil liberity groups have been flagging for years. "The ACLU warned back in 2007 that fusion
centers posed grave threats to Americans' privacy and civil liberties, and that they needed clear guidelines and
independent oversight," said Michael German, ACLU senior policy counsel. "This report is a good first step, and we
call upon Congress to hold public hearings to investigate fusion centers and their ongoing abuses. In addition to
the value of much of the fusion centers work, the Senate panel found evidence of what it called troubling reports
by some centers that may have violated the civil liberties and privacy of U.S. citizens. The evidence cited in the
report could fuel a continuing controversy over claims that the FBI and some local police departments, notably New
York Citys, have spied on American Muslims without a justifiable law enforcement reason for doing so. Among the
examples in the report: One fusion center drafted a report on a list of reading suggestions prepared by a Muslim
community group, titled Ten Book Recommendations for Every Muslim. The report noted that four of the authors
were listed in a terrorism database, but a Homeland Security reviewer in Washington chastised the fusion center,
saying, We cannot report on books and other writings simply because the authors are in a terrorism database.
The writings themselves are protected by the First Amendment unless you can establish that something in the
writing indicates planning or advocates violent or other criminal activity. A fusion center in California prepared a
report about a speaker at a Muslim center in Santa Cruz who was giving a daylong motivational talkand a lecture
on positive parenting. No link to terrorism was alleged. Another fusion center drafted a report on a U.S. citizen
speaking at a local mosque that speculated that -- since the speaker had been listed in a terrorism data base he
may have been attempting to conduct fundraising and recruiting for a foreign terrorist group. The number of
things that scare me about this report are almost too many to write into this (form), a Homeland Security reviewer
wrote after analyzing the report. The reviewer noted that the nature of this event is constitutionally protected
activity (public speaking, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion.) The Senate panel found 40 reports -- including
the three listed above -- that were drafted at fusion centers by Homeland Security officials, then later nixed by
officials in Washington after reviewers raised concerns the documents potentially endangered the civil liberties or
legal privacy protections of the U.S. persons they mentioned. Despite being scrapped, however, the Senate report
concluded that these reports should not have been drafted at all. It also noted that the reports were stored at
Homeland Security headquarters in Washington, D.C., for a year or more after they had been canceled a potential
violation of the U.S. Privacy Act, which prohibits federal agencies from storing information on U.S. citizens First
Amendment-protected activities if there is no valid reason to do so. The report said the retention of these reports
also appears to contradict Homeland Securitys own guidelines, which state that once a determination is made that
a document should not be retained, The U.S person identifying information is to be destroyed immediately. The
investigation was led by the Republican staff of the subcommittee but the report was approved by chairman Sen.
Carl Levin, D-Mich and Coburn. It stated that much basic information about the fusion centers including exactly
how much they cost the federal government was difficult to obtain. Although the fusion centers are overseen by
Homeland Security, they are funded primarily through grants to local governments by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Although Homeland Security was unable to provide an accurate tally, the panel estimated
the federal dollars spent on the centers between 2003 and 2011 at between $289 million and $1.4 billion. The
panels criticism of the fusion centers was shared in part by Michael Leiter, the former director of the National
National Counter-Terrorism Center and now an NBC News analyst. Since 9/11, the growth of state and local fusion

centers has been exponential and regrettably in many instances it has produced an ill-planned mishmash rather
than a true national system that is well-integrated with existing organizations like the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task
Forces, Leiter wrote in an email when asked about the report. In its response to the Senate panel , Homeland
Security said that the canceled reports could still be retained for administrative purposes such as audit and
oversight. The report cited multiple examples of what it called fusion center reports that had little if any value to
counterterrorism efforts. One fusion center report cited described how a certain model car had folding rear seats to
the trunk, a feature that it said could be useful to human traffickers. This prompted a Homeland Security reviewer
to note that such folding rear seats are featured on MANY different makes and model of vehicles and there is
nothing of any intelligence value in this report. Another fusion center report, entitled Possible Drug Smuggling
Activity, recounted the experiences of two state wildlife officials who spotted a pair of men in a bass boat
operating suspiciously in the body of water off the U.S.-Mexico border. The report noted that the fishermen
avoided eye contact and that their boat appeared to be low in the water, as if it were laden with cargo with high
winds and choppy waters. The fact that some guys were hanging out in a boat where people normally do not fish
MIGHT be an indicator of something abnormal, but does not reach the threshold of something we should be
reporting, a Homeland Security reviewer wrote, according to the Senate panel. I think that this should never
have been nominated for production, nor passed through three reviews. In the Homeland Security Departments

the Senate subcommittee refused to review relevant

data, including important intelligence information pertinent to their findings. The
senior Homeland Security official who spoke to NBC News said that, while the
Senate panel reviewed fusion center reports from 2009 and 2010, a more recent
June 2011 case in Seattle shows that a fusion center played a key role in helping to
thwart a terrorist plot against a local U.S. military processing center. Chandler added:
The (Senate) report fundamentally misunderstands the role of the federal
government in supporting fusion centers and overlooks the significant benefits of
this relationship to both state and local law enforcement and the federal
government. Among other benefits, fusion centers play a key role by receiving
classified and unclassified information from the federal government and assessing
its local implications, helping law enforcement on the frontlines better protect their
communities from all threats, whether it is terrorism or other criminal activities.
response, spokesman Matt Chandler said

FBI/Police Answers

FBI/Police Not Racist

The FBI is no more racist than anybody else, and is made up of
officers who risk their lives to save people of color.

Comey 15 Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Georgeown

University, Washington D.C. (James B. Comey, Speeches, February 2, 2015,
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/hard-truths-law-enforcement-and-race) //RP
Look around and you will find
No ones really color blind.
Maybe its a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.
You should be grateful I did not try to sing that.
But if we cant help our latent biases, we can help our behavior in response to those
instinctive reactions, which is why we work to design systems and processes
that overcome that very human part of us all. Although the research may be
unsettling, it is what we do next that matters most.
But racial bias isnt epidemic in law enforcement any more than it is
epidemic in academia or the arts. In fact, I believe law enforcement
overwhelmingly attracts people who want to do good for a livingpeople
who risk their lives because they want to help other people. They dont sign
up to be cops in New York or Chicago or L.A. to help white people or black people or
Hispanic people or Asian people. They sign up because they want to help all people.
And they do some of the hardest, most dangerous policing to protect
people of color.

The police subscribe to a zero-tolerance policy, which is often

mistaken for racism.

Kaste 14 Correspondent on NPRs National Desk for law enforcement and

privacy. (Martin Kaste, Zero-Tolerance Policing Is Not Racism, Say St. Louis-Area
Cops, August 28, 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/08/28/344018633/zero-tolerancepolicing-is-not-racism-say-st-louis-area-cops
The protests that followed the shooting death this month of Michael Brown in
Ferguson, Mo., have rekindled long-standing complaints about racist policing,
especially in the St Louis area. Many male African-American residents there say
police scrutinize them unfairly. "Every time you see a cop, it's like, 'OK, am I going
to get messed with?' " says Anthony Ross. "You feel that every single time you get
behind your car. Every time." Now, police officers in and around St. Louis are
becoming more vocal about defending themselves against the charges of

bias. Erich Von Almen, a sergeant in the St. Louis County Police Department, is
assigned to the city of Jennings, right next door to Ferguson. Like Ferguson, Jennings
is predominantly African-American. "There are a few Caucasians that still live here,"
Von Almen says. Von Almen himself is white, as are most police officers here. That's
another way Jennings is like Ferguson: White cops patrol black neighborhoods. Von
Almen was keenly aware of that right after the shooting of Michael Brown. "It was a
little tense," he says, but "I was, I guess, pleasantly surprised" by the relative calm.
Did anyone call him a racist? "No," he says, then hesitates. "Well, let me say this:
No more than during, quote-unquote, normal times." Jennings has something else in
common with Ferguson. Darren Wilson, the Ferguson officer who shot Michael
Brown, used to work in Jennings. But three years ago, scandals prompted the city to
disband its police department and fire its officers including Wilson. The city then
switched to county police, and Von Almen says they're turning things around in
Jennings. "If there's a violation, whether it's something as simple as ... an
outstanding warrant or a traffic violation, there's a zero-tolerance policy,"
he says. "And the good citizens of the precinct that we patrol appreciate
that, because it has had a very positive impact on crime stats." But here's
the thing: Jennings is predominantly black, so if the cops here are showing
zero tolerance, it can't help but feel like racial profiling to the residents.
Von Almen says he gets that, but insists the zero tolerance policy is colorblind.
"For example, there's a big heroin trade down here. And a lot of white people
come, and they get stopped," he says. "And they all say the same thing: that they
were stopped because they were white in a black area." The difference is that black
people who feel under scrutiny are in their own neighborhoods, not coming in from
elsewhere. Young black men, especially, say they have to do everything perfectly to
avoid trouble with the police. That's something even some white officers say they
recognize. "Even if there's not any truth to it, the fact that the perception is out
there sort of becomes the reality," says Jeff Roorda, a retired cop. Now a business
manager for the St. Louis Police Officers Association, he's also a state
representative. "We put police where crime is, and we saturate areas where
we're trying to displace crime," Roorda says. "And through no fault of their own,
a lot of young black men are right in the middle of that."

The FBI is working to develop better community relations with

peaceful Muslims and to counter radicalization.

Kundani 11 Adjunct Professor of Media, Culture, and Communication at New

York University, teaches terrorism studies at John Jay College, has been a Visiting
Fellow at Leiden University, Netherlands, an Open Society Fellow, and the Editor of
the journal "Race and Class." (Arun Kundnani, "The FBIs Good Muslims, August
30, 2011, http://www.thenation.com/article/fbis-good-muslims/)//RP
Since 9/11, American Muslims have been subjected to an unprecedented level of
law enforcement attention. Local authorities have worked in concert with
intelligence agencies to establish widespread networks of informants, to place
mosques under surveillance and to launch pre-emptive prosecutions, frequently
involving schemes that, critics charge, have been more successful in entrapping
disaffected individuals than in netting actual terrorists. So at first blush, it might

seem encouraging that the FBI has recently begun to embrace community
partnerships as a way to counter radicalization, as recommended in a White
House strategy paper published in August. But while these partnerships provide the
FBI with another layer of intelligence, they also raise questions about who, exactly,
should represent the Muslim community in dealings with the governmentand
how those dealings affect the freedom of speech and assembly of other MuslimAmericans, including those who may object to US foreign policy and Islamist
violence alike. In May of last year, FBI agents in Houston hurriedly organized
a lunch meeting with about thirty leaders of the citys Muslim community.
Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born US citizen from Connecticut, had just
attempted to car-bomb Times Square. The agents informed the leaders
who had gathered at an Indian restaurant that, in the wake of the attempted attack
in New York, the FBI would be visiting Muslims in the Houston area to gain more
information on the potential radicalization of young people in the community. The
meeting had been coordinated by Ghulam Bombaywala, a local PakistaniAmerican businessman and close associate of the FBI. Those present were
shown FBI slides purporting to explain the process of radicalization and the warning
signs to look out for. The meeting was typical of attempts by FBI field offices across
the country to cultivate relationships with people they describe as centers of
influence in Muslim communities. In its position paper the Obama administration
heralds community partnerships as the governments chief means of countering
radicalization among American Muslims. Bombaywala is a strong supporter of a
partnership approach, and over the past few years he has built up close
friendships with local FBI agents working on counterterrorism. Having run a
successful chain of restaurants in the 1990s, he got involved in community
activism after 9/11, believing that Muslim leaders and the FBI had a
shared interest in preventing the radicalization of the young. As a key
source of private funding for mosques in the Muslim community, he encourages
imams to look out for unfamiliar young people who suddenly turn up and join the
congregation, for those who stop attending and appear to drop out of their social
network, and for those who change their appearance. The FBI is really helping
us to know what to look for, he says. If you see someone changing overnight,
growing a big beard and starting to wear different clothes, we need to find out what
is happening. Maybe that kid needs some help. Bombaywala adds, You never
know if somebody is giving him bad advice.

FBI/Police Justified/Monitored
FBI employees are law enforcement whistleblowers and recognize
their role in a democracy.

Perkins 15 Associate Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Washington D.C. (Kevin L.
Perkins, Testimony, March 4, 2015,
https://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/whistleblower-retaliation-improving-protectionsand-oversight)//RP
The FBI recognizes the important role played by whistleblowers in our law
enforcement efforts. We take very seriously our responsibilities with
regard to FBI employees who may protect disclosures under the
regulations, and we appreciate this committees longstanding interest in these
important matters. As Director Comey has told this committee, [W]histleblowers
are ... a critical element of a functioning democracy. Employees have to
feel free to raise their concerns and if they are not addressed up their chain of
command to take them to an appropriate place.
The FBI has taken considerable steps to assure that employees are aware
of whistleblower protections and of the whistleblower process. The FBI
along with the Department of Justice (DOJ) has worked and continues to work to
improve the process and employees education about the process.
The Process for Making a Claim
All FBI whistleblowers are protected by federal law from retribution. Title 5,
U.S.C. Section 2303 provides that:
Any employee of the Federal Bureau of Investigation who has authority to
take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall
not, with respect to such authority, take or fail to take a personnel action with
respect to any employee of the Bureau as a reprise for disclosure of
information by the employee...which the employee or applicant reasonably believes
evidences:
(1) a violation of any law, rule or regulation, or
(2) mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial
and specific danger to public health or safety.
The process for making a protected disclosure under the law specifies the
set of persons to whom a disclosure of wrongdoing must be made in order
to qualify as a protected disclosure. A disclosure may qualify as protected if it is
made to the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), the DOJ Office of
Inspector General (OIG), the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility (FBI OPR), the
FBI Inspection Division (FBIINSD) Internal Investigations Section (collectively,
receiving offices), the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Director
of the FBI, the Deputy Director of the FBI, or to the highest ranking official in any FBI
field office.

The quality of police training has increased in recent years; they are
being held to a standard of reasonability.

Whibey and Kille 15 Assistant director for Journalists Resource at the

Harvard Kennedy Schools Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy,
lecturer in journalism at Boston University. Research Editor at Shorenstein Center.
(John Whibey and Leighton Walter Kille, Excessive or reasonable force by police?
Research on law enforcement and racial conflict, July 1, 2015,
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/police-reasonableforce-brutality-race-research-review-statistics)//RP
Without a doubt, training for police has become more standardized and
professionalized in recent decades. A 2008 paper in the Northwestern
University Law Review provides useful background on the evolving legal
and policy history relating to the use of force by police and the
reasonableness standard by which officers are judged. Related
jurisprudence is still being defined, most recently in the 2007 Scott v. Harris
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. But inadequate data and reporting and the
challenge of uniformly defining excessive versus justified force make objective
understanding of trends difficult.

Chilling Effect Answers

Chilling Effect Improves Movements

Movements arent effective without face-to-face interaction
Stout 10 Jeffrey Stout is a contemporary scholar of religion who focuses on ethics. (Blessed are the organized pg.
149) //DJ
Why insist on the importance of face to face interaction? One answer, already mentioned at the end of chapter 3,
developed in chapter 8, and reinforced by the testimony of Ernie Cortes and Frank Pierson in chapter 10 ,

is that
when organizers take shortcuts and rely too much on more distant forms of
interaction, the organizations become less powerful. They become less powerful
because the people who claim to lead them have done less to earn the entitlement
to represent those on whose behalf they speak. This is a weakness that
governmental and corporate officials sense at once, and exploit to their advantage.
Ernie calls the power that resides in a citizens organization relational power, by
which he means power that depends on the quality of the interactions among
people, rather than on thigs like guns and money. Face to face interaction matters in
large parts because it is the main context in which representative authority in a
democratic organization can be earned.

The Chilling Effect Shuts Down Social Movements Online

Communicationthis forces face to face communication
Shrivastava 13

College of Legal Studies (CoLS), University of Petroleum and Energy Studies (UPES)
(Surveillance: from history till present, Rishabh Shrivastava) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=2351996 //DJ

In US law, the chilling effect refers to the stifling effect that vague or overbroad
laws may have on legitimate speech and activity typically protected by the First
Amendment24. In past US history the chilling effect has been used in court cases
as evidence against certain government surveillance tactics. In the Supreme Court
case25, the chilling effect was used as a basis for getting a preliminary injunction
brought against the FBI. In recent years the chilling effect has taken on a much
bigger role in American society, not only through increased government surveillance
deterring political participation, but through a broad range of social functions as
well. Simple examples will show that social internet networks such as Twitter and
Facebook are having detrimental effects to peoples willingness to present
information about themselves or their views. Some users of these networks have
lost their jobs or have been forced to censor what they publish in fear of what
ramifications it may have on their job status or future wellbeing. The enormous
amount of voluntary and involuntary personal information that can be tracked and
monitored in todays information age is causing people to give into the chilling
effect in both political and social arenas.

Turn Surveillance good and encourages protests

Joh 13

Joh is a professor of law at the U.C Davis School of Law (Privacy Protests: Surveillance evasion and
Fourth Amendment Suspicion Elizabeth E. Joh, August 1st, 2013) http://www.arizonalawreview.org/pdf/554/55arizlrev997.pdf //DJ

The police tend to think that those who evade surveillance are criminals . Yet the
evasion may only be a protest against the surveillance itself. Faced with the growing
surveillance capacities of the government, some people object. They buy burners (prepaid

phones) or freedom phones from Asia that have had all tracking devices removed, or they hide their smartphones
in ad hoc Faraday cages that block their signals. They use Tor to surf the internet. They identify tracking devices
with GPS detectors. They avoid credit cards and choose cash, prepaid debit cards, or bitcoins. They burn their

These are
all examples of what I call privacy protests: actions individuals take to block or to
thwart government surveillance for reasons unrelated to criminal wrongdoing.
Those engaged in privacy protests do so primarily because they object to the
presence of perceived or potential government surveillance in their lives. How do we tell
garbage. At the extreme end, some live off the grid and cut off all contact with the modern world.

the difference between privacy protests and criminal evasions, and why does it matter? Surprisingly scant attention
has been given to these questions, in part because Fourth Amendment law makes little distinction between ordinary
criminal evasions and privacy protests. This Article discusses the importance of these ordinary acts of resistance,
their place in constitutional criminal procedure, and their potential social value in the struggle over the meaning of
privacy

Mass Surveillance encourages protest

Gabbat 14

Adam Gabbatt is a writer/presenter for the Guardian, based in New York. He won a journalism
bursary from the Scott Trust, the company that owns the Guardian, in 2008. (Protestors Rally for the day we fight
back against mass surveillance, February 11th, 2014, Adam Gabbat)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/11/day-fight-back-protest-nsa-mass-surveillance //DJ

Tens of thousands of people and organizations were participating in a protest

against the NSAs mass surveillance on Tuesday, bombarding members of Congress
with phone calls and emails and holding demonstrations across the globe. Dubbed
The day we fight back, the action saw scores of websites, including
Reddit, BoingBoing and Mozilla host a widget inviting users to pressure elected
officials. The online demonstration saw more than 18,000 calls placed and 50,000
emails sent to US congressmen and women by midday Tuesday. Physical protests
were planned in 15 countries. The goal of the day we fight back is to stop mass
surveillance by intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency, said Rainey
Reitman, activism director at the non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation, which
helped organize the events. This is a unique political moment in the fight for
surveillance reform. The leaks of 2013 shed light on surveillance abuses really
unlike anything we had seen before that. Really it kickstarted an international
debate about privacy rights which led to major shifts in public opinion polls as well
as international pushes for surveillance reform.NSA contractor Edward Snowden
leaked documents detailing the scale of government surveillance to the Guardian in
2013. A series of stories published in 2013 showed how the US government was
collecting metadata from Americans telephone and email communications.
Participating websites carried a highly visible banner on Tuesday bearing the motif Today we fight back. The
banner encouraged readers to enter their phone numbers and email addresses to contact members of Congress
and urge them to back the Support USA Freedom Act, which would end the bulk collection of Americans records,
and oppose the Fisa Improvements Act, which seeks to legalize and extend the NSAs surveillance programs.

Reitman told the Guardian that over 100,000 people had signed an international
petition opposing mass surveillance within a few hours of its launch. Electronic Frontier
Foundation, which fights for online free speech and privacy, organized the day of protest with civil liberty
campaigners Demand Progress and a coalition of prominent organizations and websites including Reddit,
Greenpeace, ACLU, Tumblr and Amnesty International. Anonymous showed support for the action, with a lengthy
statement protesting this police state nightmare, as did, perhaps less obviously, Google, which emailed members
of its Take Action web freedom group encouraging them to take part. Google, Yahoo and Facebook revealed the
extent of the data they had been forced to hand over to US government authorities earlier this month. The
disclosures showed that between them the internet giants had disclosed details pertaining to tens of thousands of
accounts. Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft and others are behind the Reform Government Surveillance
push which calls for governments around the world to have their ability to monitor users information limited.

1St Amendment Unecessary

The First Amendment is outdated, ignored, and needs to be
repealed
OHara 14

T.J. O'Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker and strategic consultant in the
private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of
the United States.
(Is it time tor repeal the first amendment TJ OHara) http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/is-it-time-to-repealthe-first-amendment-13479/ //DJ

Repeal the First Amendment a radical suggestion? Given our ever increasing
tendency to ignore it, perhaps the suggestion is not that far-fetched. Its not as if we
havent put mistakes in the Constitution before . Prohibition is the most obvious example. The
Eighteenth Amendment was passed on January 16, 1919, and repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on
December 5, 1933. In comparison, the First Amendment has had a much longer run. The ban on alcohol was

Sadly enough, the same argument can be

made with respect to our abuse of the First Amendment. Think about it. With
respect to religion, the First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Do
we honor those protections, or do we encourage selfish interpretations of them?
Congress has never attempted to pass a law that establishes a national religion.
There has never been anything equivalent to the Church of England our Founding
Fathers had experienced and were trying to avoid. However, we seem inclined to
trample upon the free exercise of religion. In our quest to be politically correct, we
frequently engage in activities that favor one belief over another. A cross, a Star of
David, Ay-yldz, etc., are considered to be offensive if they are displayed on public
property, while their display on private property remains unsanctionable. What if we were to assume that public
abandoned because too many people were ignoring it.

property without any open presentation of religious symbols were a tacit endorsement of atheism by the
government? Since atheism is effectively an unsubstantiated belief, isnt it just a different form of religion, although

Then, we have the

incongruity of exercising our religious freedom. One political viewpoint likes to
ignore such rights by imposing its belief that faith should not be a consideration
within the context of social issues. The other side of the political spectrum clings tightly to the freedom
one in which the belief is in the non-existence of God, Allah, etc., not the existence?

to exercise its faith, but doesnt want laws passed that would permit those whose faith differs to have the choice to
exercise theirs as freely. Lets pray or not that we can resolve this dichotomy. Next, the First Amendment
states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. The more fanatical members of our
society seem to prefer to interpret this to mean that you have the right to express your opinion as long as it concurs
with theirs. Both political extremes attack each other with an embarrassing litany of derogatory names and terms.
Racist, sexist, terrorist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, anti-Semite, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Hispanic, antiimmigrant, anti-poor, anti-middle class, etc. are among the more common personal assaults we hear levied against

Wouldnt we all be better served if civil and open debate

were used to expose stupidity and prejudice rather than allowing an equal degree of
stupidity and prejudice to be used to terminate the discussion? However, our
individuals to truncate free speech.

denigration of the concept of freedom of speech does not reside singularly among
individuals. A degree of contributory negligence can be assigned to todays media.
The First Amendment provides that Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of the press. Congress, for the most part, has complied. However, an
implicit responsibility is attached to this unique freedom; an expectation that such
right be exercised with good judgment and generally without cumulative bias. With
increasing regularity, our media has chosen to ignore such responsibility. Profit has
begun to prevail over principle within the traditional press almost to the degree it
has interfered with our political system. Media outlets pander to those who pay the
bills. They struggle to present the facts and to respect our ability to form our own
opinions. Instead, they tell us what we must believe; spinning the particulars in a
way that conforms to those of the political master they have chosen to serve. Even the
non-political news we receive has drifted heavily towards improving ratings rather than disseminating information.
Stories are sensationalized and abhorrent behavior is glorified, yet we are surprised when tragic events are
repeated. We fail to see the nexus between pathological behavior and the attention we give to those who
demonstrate it. Additionally, our press enthusiastically expands upon catastrophic incidents and provides every
graphic detail possible. Then, it creates its own embellishments by trotting in experts whose tangential knowledge
of the situation is so far removed as to render their opinions meaningless. However ,

this allows the media

to exploit our fascination with scandal, other peoples misery, and drawing
speculative conclusions without sufficient facts. Perhaps we should peaceably
assemble to discuss these issues and petition the Government to rectify them. After
all, the First Amendment stipulates that Congress shall make no law abridging
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances. We often choose to ignore those freedoms as well . The major
Parties work hard to draw distinctions as to whom those freedoms should apply. No more interesting examples exist
than those of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements. Note that both of these organizations represent
movements that call for fiscal responsibility. The Tea Party focuses on fiscal responsibility within the context of our
Government, while Occupy Wall Street calls for the regulation of fraudulently exploitative behavior among certain
facets of corporate America. Their goals have more in common than they have in differences. Yet, we are led to
believe they are almost polar opposites. Certain progressives, who stand in solidarity with their Occupy brothers,
have routinely suggested that Tea Party members are uneducated racists and that the Party is akin to Nazis and
every bit as hateful and violent. Correspondingly, certain conservatives have classified members of the Occupy
movement as filthy, drug-crazed vagrants who commit random acts of rape and assault. Of course, neither
representation is remotely close to being true. However, they stir emotions and induce fear among the more
extreme elements of the major Parties constituencies, and that translates into money and votes. Lets ignore both
groups rights to peaceably assemble in favor of exploiting the Parties freedom of speech to divide and conquer

As for our ability to petition the Government for a redress of

grievance, we surrendered that freedom long ago. Consider what we have allowed
the Democratic and Republican Parties to do to our most basic form of redress:
Elections. The Parties control access to our political process at all levels (local, State, and Federal). They have
our Nation.

erected enormous economic and petitioning barriers to entry that effectively preclude anything other than an

infrequent challenge by an independent or third-party candidate. They have applied similar obstacles to the

As a result, ballot access is essentially denied to anyone or any

issue that does not contribute to maintaining the duopoly that manipulates the
rules. For those who wish to point the blame at the industrial complex and certain high net worth individuals that
introduction of issues.

greedily exert influence over the system, please recognize that the opportunity for such exploitation does not exists
without a willing person or organization on the other end of the transaction. Also keep in mind that those who
benefit from the flow of money also draft the legislation that determines whether such interference is acceptable.

It may seem ridiculous to suggest that

we repeal the First Amendment. In fact, in a free society, it should. The concept
should border upon being viewed as profane. Yet, the evidence suggests that many
of us seemingly do not care . When other rights are severely tested, when
Government agencies are utilized to further political objectives, when States rights
are casually circumvented, and when our pleas for transparency are met with
redacted responses or simply just ignored, perhaps more Amendments than just the
First have already been indirectly repealed
This is the political equivalent to a perpetual motion machine.

Grassroots Organizations/Riots
Answers

Riots Bad
Rioting solves no problems. It only harms the communities and the
people in it where the rioting is occurring. Ferguson proves.

Marshall 14 - Nationally syndicated radio host heard nationwide. Leslie is also a

Fox News contributor, seen weekly on "America's Newsroom" and "The Real Story
with Gretchen Carlson," as well as regularly on "The O'Reilly Factor," "The Kelly File"
and "Hannity.
(Leslie, Put Out the Fires in Ferguson: Vandalism and looting wont bring about
change; Nov. 26, 2014; http://www.usnews.com/opinion/lesliemarshall/2014/11/26/riots-and-looting-in-ferguson-wont-bring-about-change)//JL
The grand jury in Ferguson arrived at its decision, and the prosecutor let the world know the result. Both the city of
Ferguson and the state of Missouri braced for what might come amid the revelation that no indictment would be
brought against Officer Darren Wilson for the killing of Michael Brown in August. Yesterday, I spoke with various
people on my radio show, including journalists, legal experts, experts on race relations and civil rights, as well as
people from communities nationwide. As I drove home, one of the freeways was closed due to protesters walking on

The protests were peaceful. And, for the most part, so were
the numerous protests nationwide. But not in Ferguson . As I wrote this, the city of Ferguson and
the people of Ferguson continued to watch fires burn some of their businesses, cars
and city streets. To help further protect the citizens and the businesses from more
looting, vandalism and violence, hundreds of additional National Guard troops were
called in, nearly tripling the number of original troops requested by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon. In addition to
protecting lives and property, the governor wants peace. And so do the residents of
Ferguson. But many also want what can't be given back: their businesses, jobs and
livelihood. On my way home, I heard story after story on the radio of people in Ferguson angry
at the reaction to the grand jury's decision . One woman has worked in her business for two
the highway here in Los Angeles.

generations. Some young students, who work at a pizza chain, wonder how they'll pay for their next semester
without the part time job they had. One man cried, wondering how he would rebuild a business it took his whole life
to create. Others worried about how they would buy Christmas gifts for their children without jobs.

How would

they pay their employees or mortgages, or put food on the table? I am not an AfricanAmerican. I am white. I will never understand the anger that so many feel in the black community. I can walk in

all of this looting, vandalism and violence

won't bring about the change that people long for. There are many, some of whom I spoke to
on my radio show, who feel the violence is justified. They feel the world is watching. But what does
the world see? Angry people resorting to violence when they do not feel justice has
been served. And there are others watching, including whites who have hatred in their heart for people of
their shoes perhaps, but not their skin. But I do know that

color, and those who feel the black community is ridden with crime and violence. Why do some in the AfricanAmerican community play into the false and negative stereotypes of these hateful groups ?

The problem with

what happened in Ferguson is multifaceted. No amount of looting or burning will fix
it. There need to be more minority police officers in minority neighborhoods. There
needs to be an outreach effort by local law enforcement to listen to the concerns of

the community. There need to be officers that walk a beat again, and get to know
the people they have pledged to serve and protect. It will take time, but it is possible to repair
and restore trust lost between these two groups. Our nation, especially law enforcement, needs
to take a good hard look at racial profiling . We need to listen to the pain and the experiences of
black men, both young and old. Now, many will say that the Civil Rights movement involved great civil unrest, and
that is why the Civil Rights Act came about. But I disagree. The actions of a tiny black woman who refused to give
up her seat, and the four young men who sat down at an all-white lunch counter and refused to leave until they
were served spoke volumes, sparked a movement and, eventually, led to change. They also led to a great leader
being born, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King. The actions of Rosa Parks and those four men in Greensboro were

You can get what you want without

violence. A future with no racial profiling? A future where the black community can
trust the police? A future with less fear and less of a divide between law
enforcement and minority communities? That day can be here; it can be now. But
not by hurting your neighbors, who aren't your enemies and aren't the person who
took the life of Michael Brown. Don't react to the blood on one's hands by placing
ashes in another's.
nonviolent, as was King's message. The bottom line is:

Obama disproves of rioting and the collateral damage it causes

specifically to its own movement.

Beutler 15 A senior editor and blogger at The New Republic. He is also a

Washington correspondent for the Media Consortium and a normal contributor to
Mother Jones
(Brian, There Are Victims of the Baltimore Riots: There's no contradiction between
believing Freddie Gray was murdered by police and believing that assaulting
innocent bystanders is wrong; April 28, 2015;
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121660/baltimore-riots-over-freddie-gray-hurtblack-lives-matter)//JL
The Black Lives Matter protest movement that took shape after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson,
Missouri, draws strength from the strategic premise that where police can commit abuse with impunity, civil unrest
will follow; and that unrest is perhaps the only way citizens in those communities can impose genuine scrutiny on
law enforcers. To that point, the movement has united broad swaths of the left, which is amplifying protesters'

has also shown division by raising the question of whether

the the looting and rioting that erupted in Baltimore , Maryland, on Monday eveningthe
scourge of these protestsis a natural byproduct of the abuse, or a condemnable
phenomenon thats worthy of criticism in its own right . The schism is evident in the
response to Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Baltimores black mayor, who called the rioters
thugs and pleaded for calm. In what must be read as a response to Rawlings-Blake, among others, The
Atlantics great essayist Ta-Nehisi Coates explained why hes not impressed . When
nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political
brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with
the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is
preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of
violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that
demands for accountability. But it

rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise. There
are people who could really use to absorb this critiquemost particularly, the white conservatives who vilified
Rawlings-Blake with a lazy, ungenerous interpretation of her initial, clumsy remarks on how the criminal element
first gained a foothold among the peaceful protestors. But if youre Rawlings-Blake, or a Baltimore community
leader, let alone a member of Freddie Grays family, Coates polemic, and a profusion of similar sentiments, are

metaphorical account of
events that treats rioters and their victims as little more than reagents thrust into
contact with one another by larger forces. Most of the people whom Coates has critiqued, such as
beside the point. Coates has combined a poignant tu quoque fallacy with a

the mayor, surely share his view that what happened to Gray is a travesty, if not with his argument that it was a
consequence of a political decision to prioritize the protection of police officers charged with abuse over the
citizens who fall under its purview. To ask them, in essence, What about Freddie Gray? is to misunderstand how
Rawlings-Blake and those who share her views conceptualizeand compartmentalize the

issues of police
abuse and the violent unrest that often follows. The rioters in Baltimore didnt direct
their actions exclusively at agents of the state. In addition to targeting at least one
widely televised police car, they also vandalized property, some of which is surely
owned by supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement, and assaulted fellow
citizens, including journalists. These crimes aren't comparable to unjustified police
killings, but they are crimesnot uncontrollable, natural phenomena. There is no
contradiction between believing that Gray was murdered and believing that beating
up innocent bystanders is wrong. To suggest that Rawlings-Blake is engaged in some kind of con is to
make a category error on two levels: First, by treating the two forms of violence as if they could,
practically speaking, be combatted with similar levels of effort; and second, by
drawing a kind of equivalence between the rioters and lawless police officers . Relative
to the extremely thorny problem of police abuse, putting down a riot is easy. If it seems convenient for people like
Rawlings-Blake and President Barack Obama (who also called the rioters thugs) to train
their acute efforts on the rioters, thats in part because it is convenientwhich is to say, it's easier to address

It doesnt mean theyve lost sight of the bigger challenge of reforming

police practices, and if they have lost sight of that challenge, it isn't because they
were distracted by a few days of unrest. Nor does it mean they believe that police
killings of poor blacks are somehow a less pressing concern than the crimes that
have occurred amid the protest movement. It only means theyre exerting influence
right now where they can have the most immediate effect, which in no way detracts
from the urgent quest to determine how, and why, Freddie Gray died. To treat
abusive police and violent protesters as combatants at war means tolerating an
untold level of collateral damage, and thus weakening the moral distinctions
between abusive police and the people they're supposed to serve. Those
distinctions exist because police get away with doing terrible things at the expense
of black communities. And that makes fostering the distinctions absolutely
essential.
immediately.

Alt Cause (Not Racism)

Race riots arent brought about by racial problems, but instead by
people that just want to riot.

Shapiro 15 - An American conservative political commentator, bestselling

author, radio talk show host, attorney, and media consultant. He graduated from
the University of California, Los Angeles and Harvard Law School.
(Baltimore Riots Explode Racist Leftist Myths; April 28, 2015;
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/28/baltimore-riots-explodeleftist-race-myths/)//JL
As rioters rushed through the streets of Baltimore, torching police vehicles, looting
local stores, and attacking police officers and reporters alike, some intrepid leftists
justified the activity. Marc Lamont Hill stated on MSNBC, There shouldnt be calm
tonight. I think there can be resistance to oppression, and when resistance occurs,
you cant circumscribe resistance. He added that the riots should be called
uprisings. The city is not burning because of those protesters. The city is burning
because the police killed Freddie Gray. Sally Kohn of CNN tweeted, Looting is a
real shame. But FAR MORE shameful is pattern of police violence against black
community! Perspective, people. #BaltimoreRising. Baltimores riots have
prompted a state of emergency in the city, as well as the calling of the National
Guard. But the riots should also demonstrate conclusively that leftist myths about
what drives race riots are just that: myths. It turns out that all the excuses given for
the riots in Ferguson simply do not apply to the situation in Baltimore. The White
Police Myth. As rioters tore up Ferguson last year in the aftermath of the justifiable
shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson, media members rushed to
explain that the disproportionate whiteness of the police force was to blame. Outlet
after media outlet after media outlet after media outlet blamed the unrest on the
failure of the police department to reflect the community. But as of 2010, Half of
the sworn command staff are minorities, according to the Baltimore Sun. And in
Baltimore County, 55 percent of new applicants to the police department are
minority, a number the police department has been attempting to boost. Racially
reflecting the community, in other words, doesnt seem to be helping. The Evil
Police Chief Myth. In Ferguson, the media targeted as its chosen villain Chief
Thomas Jackson, who is white. After the Department of Justice found that the
Ferguson Police Department had serious racial problems thanks in part to its
disproportionate whiteness, Jackson stepped down. Media found Jackson particularly
galling because Jackson released footage of Michael Brown strong-arm robbing a
convenience store minutes before his confrontation with Wilson. It is difficult to
blame the riots in Baltimore on similar circumstances. The police chief, Anthony
Batts, who is black, said in February that crime should be addressed through social
justice as a whole, and added that Leadership should be focused not just on
crime-fighting, but tackling racism. He said, When I go to Baltimore, on the East
Coast, Im dealing with 1950s-level black-and-white racism. The Evil Mayor
Myth. As Ferguson burned, media focused in on Ferguson Mayor James Knowles, a
white man. They suggested that Knowles didnt understand his own

community thanks to his race, exacerbating racial tensions. Hes currently at risk of
recall. The same is not true in Baltimore, where Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
runs the show. Rawlings-Blake, who is black, said a month ago, To this day, if I go
out with a mixed crowd, people are automatically suspicious, questioning: How do
you know this person? We have a long way to goBaltimore, like many other cities,
still faces the challenges of racism. As the riots spun out of control, she infamously
commented, Its a very delicate balancing act, because, while we tried to make
sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going
on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. That didnt
stop the riots. The Disproportionate White Power Structure Myth. The nation
watched the recent local elections in Ferguson, Missouri, of the City Council with
baited breath. Thats because the media suggested that the power structure in
Ferguson, being disproportionately white, had somehow contributed to shadowy
racism within the city. The Washington Post complained, while Ferguson is 67
percent black, five of the six council members and the mayor are all white. Not so
in Baltimore, where the nine of the 15 council members are black. The mayor is
black. The police chief is black. Baltimore burns anyway. The Not Enough
Government Myth. In Ferguson, the media and governmental actors suggested that
lack of governmental intervention led to the riots. Education Secretary Arne Duncan
wrote an open letter in December 2014 suggesting just that: We should take away
from Ferguson that we need a conversation to rebuild those relationships,
throughout the country, and that need is urgent. It needs to involve everyone our
young people, our parents, our schools, our faith communities, our government
officials, and the police. It needs to happen now. Lack of government is not the
problem in Baltimore. Every single member of the Baltimore City Council is a
Democrat. All 15 of them. The mayor is a Democrat. Baltimore has not had a
Republican mayor since 1967. The tax rates in Baltimore are astronomical; the city
carries the fourth highest tax rate of any city in the nation. The poverty rate within
the city is nearly 25 percent. Households in Baltimore earn approximately 56
percent of the overall state average. Crime rates, of course, are out of control.
Modern race riots do not occur because of the supposed white superstructure or a
legacy of governmental underservice. They occur because valueless rioters act in
valueless ways. Baltimore is evidence that glossing over lack of values with leftist
pabulum about social justice doesnt stop cities from burning.

Offcase

Economy Riots DA
The U.S. has lost billions from race riots, and other countries prove it
will lose more to loss of tourism. Also, previous results prove that
rioting only makes the government pass more oppressive laws.

Simpson 15 - A freelance financial writer, investor, and consultant. He has

worked as an equity analyst for both sell-side and buy-side investment companies in
both equities and fixed income. His consulting work has focused primarily upon the
healthcare sector, while he has also written extensively for publication on topics
pertaining to investments, security analysis, and healthcare. He operates the
Kratisto Investing blog, and can be reached there.
(Stephan, CFA, How Riots Influence An Economy; July 17, 2015
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1210/how-riots-influence-aneconomy.aspx)//Jl
Sometimes economic and political tensions go beyond the boiling point and lead to
full-scale riots. Riots with clear economic proximate causes have fortunately
become very rare in the United States, though they were much more common in the
early days of industrialization and unionization and the protests that accompanied
the WTO conference in Seattle in 1999 were an uncomfortable reminder. Though
Canada and North America are fortunate to be in a position where there are multiple
nonviolent means of expressing outrage and dissatisfaction, the rest of the world is
not so lucky. Economic troubles in Greece led to actual rioting earlier in 2010 and
there were worries that Ireland would see similar problems when the government
rolled out its austerity measures. Moreover, economic protests in much of Europe
often take a violent turn (many of the strikes in France, for instance) and with many
countries still straining under large debt and deficits, the risk of future disturbances
cannot be ruled out. It is fair to wonder then what the economic impact of rioting is.
It is not hard to imagine that rioting directly damages property values and economic
activity. When people smash windows, steal things, or set buildings and property on
fire, that all has direct economic costs. Moreover, if people are rioting they are not
working, and even those who are not involved in the disturbances are affected they cannot get to work, shop or otherwise carry on with business as usual. Some
studies have suggested that the LA riots in 1992 ultimately cost the city nearly $4
billion in taxable sales and over $125 million in direct sales tax revenue - that in
addition to $1 billion in property damage and the loss of many lives. Riots also
produce a clear disincentive for business owners to locate their operations in riotprone areas. Who in their right mind builds a factory someplace where they fear
there is some reasonable risk that it will be burnt to the ground? Riots are bad for
property values, as people do not want to live in those areas and many property
owners are hesitant to rebuild or repair in the aftermath (some parts of Washington,
D.C. for instance, still carried the scars of riots in 1968 decades later). Riots also
appear to be bad for employment - businesses are not going to put valuable capital
at risk like that, so they will locate their operations in safer places. Given the
potential impact on business, it is probably not surprising that riots make investors

nervous. Rothschild supposedly said that it was wise to "buy on the sound of
cannons, sell on the sound of trumpets," but most investors to not share that
sentiment. Although the Thai stock market has recovered strongly this year,
investors saw a 10% drop while the rioting was going on. Looking at it more broadly,
rioting raises investors' uncertainty and leads them to increase the risk premium
they assign to securities in that country - all of which spells lower prices in the short
term. Moreover, while Thailand no doubt benefited from its reputation as a peaceful
and relatively orderly country, countries with chronic troubles risk getting labeled as
"basket cases" and virtually eliminated from serious consideration as investment
destinations. Rioting also has a distinct impact on tourism - a vital industry and
source of capital for many riot-prone economies. Sane vacationers do not want to
arrive in the middle of a riot and will steer clear of areas with a recent memory of
these troubles. China reported that disturbances in Xinjiang in 2009 led almost
85,000 travelers to cancel trips to the area, while Thailand has seen a big drop in
tourism since its political troubles turned violent this spring. Perversely, though,
there has been a rise in so-called "riot tourism" - activists actually seeking out
hotspots and traveling there with a hope of getting involved in disturbances. Suffice
it to say, this is certainly not the kind of tourism that countries want to see or
encourage. By and large, there is very little evidence that rioting "works" in the
sense of leading to any lasting redress of grievances. If anything, many
governments tend to respond to riots by enacting more draconian laws and beefing
up the budgets of those charged with suppressing trouble. When governments do
respond, it usually just with temporary solutions designed to pacify the protesters
and get them off the streets; vague promises of redress, government-sponsored
reforms, or temporary subsidies (particularly in the case of food or fuel riots) will
often mollify the crowds, but seldom lead to any lasting improvement in the quality
of life of the people. That said, there are some in Europe who believe that the Greek
government successfully manipulated other European governments with its riots.
Although the Greek government did not apparently encourage these riots, they
certainly did help when they brought up the issue of German war reparations, nor
were they hesitant in hinting that the riots could threaten the very stability of the
government and democracy in Greece. In contrast, Ireland was much calmer and
ended up with a much less favorable bail-out package - suggesting, perhaps, that
there could be strategic value for the next country to allow matters to get more out
of hand before finalizing a deal with the IMF. Riots are almost never the cause or
start of a problem, they are almost always the end of the story and an expression of
frustration that the government is not meeting the needs of the people (whether
those needs are realistic or not). That said, they can have serious long-term
consequences. Investors do not want to place their money in harm's way, and
businesses steer clear of areas where the safety of their capital, their employees
and their customers is at risk. All in all, riots benefit no one but the demagogues
who often egg them on, and there can be some serious economic repercussions, as
well as the unacceptable cost of human lives.

And there are more riots to come soon.

RT 15 - a Russian state-funded television network which runs cable and satellite

television, as well as Internet content directed to audiences outside the Russian
Federation.
(Long hot summer ahead: Americans expect more riots, divided as to why; 5 May,
2015; http://www.rt.com/usa/255489-poll-summer-riots-usa/)//JL
Nine out of ten Americans believe there will be more racial disturbances this
summer, and half think they will hit close to home, new polls say. Black and white
Americans have a drastically different view of what is driving the violence. An
overwhelming 96 percent believe unrest akin to what recently happened in
Baltimore is likely this summer, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released
Monday reveals. Some 46 percent of African Americans polled are less likely to think
violence would happen in a city close to them, compared to 53 percent of white
respondents. The poll was conducted last week, as protest marches followed a day
of riots in Baltimore. According to the Wall Street Journals Washington Wire blog,
the results are a signal that Americans believe Baltimores recent problems arent
a local phenomenon but instead are symptomatic of broader national problems .
Asked to choose between two possible explanations of events in Baltimore, 60
percent of black respondents said they were a reflection of long-standing
frustrations about police mistreatment of African Americans, while 27 percent said
the riot was caused by people who used the protest as an excuse to engage in
looting and violence. Among the white respondents the proportion was almost
entirely reversed, with 58 percent believing it was people using an excuse to loot,
and only 32 percent blaming the long-standing frustrations with police. Conducted
from April 28-30 on a sample of 508 adults, 111 of which were African-Americans,
the WSJ/NBC poll asked questions about Baltimore and racial disturbances. The
margin of error was plus-or-minus 4.35 percentage points overall, and higher for
sub-groups, the pollsters noted. An overwhelming majority of African-Americans, 69
percent, believe the government only pays attention to black problems when
blacks resort to violent demonstrations or riots, while only 15 percent disagree, a
survey conducted in the same timespan by the UK-based pollsters YouGov indicates.
By contrast, only 37 percent of white respondents thought the government only
paid attention to violence during times of violent unrest, while 47 percent
disagreed. The poll also found white respondents almost evenly split on whether the
death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray while in police custody was an isolated
incident (36 percent) or part of a broader pattern (38 percent). In a January poll, 56
percent of whites believed Michael Browns death in Ferguson, Missouri was an
isolated incident, and 31 percent saw a pattern.

The United States economy is on the verge of collapse.

Iyer 15 A research analyst and editor at Lombardi Financial. He currently writes

for Profit Confidential where he focuses on macroeconomics and capital markets. On
the equity side, Iyer is a fundamental analyst who focuses on company business
models and economic research and analysis has appeared in The Economist.
(Gaurav, IFC, U.S. Economic Collapse: Ron Paul Issues a Dire Warning for America;

July 14, 2015; http://www.profitconfidential.com/economy/u-s-economic-collapseron-paul-issues-a-dire-warning-for-america/)//JL

Despite the media circus in Athens lately, little is said about Greeces exorbitant
military spending and the role it played in hastening the countrys insolvency. In an
online essay, former congressman (R-TX) Ron Paul draws a parallel between the
United States and Greece, arguing that America could face a similar economic
collapse if it doesnt act quickly. Much of Greeces deficit was caused by excessive
military spending, said Dr. Paul. The Greek crisis provides a look into what awaits
us unless we stop overspending on warfare and welfare and restore a sound
monetary system. (Source: Ron Paul Institute, July 12, 2015.) The United States
spends far more on military matters than any other nation. Despite all the
handwringing over how the phony sequestration cuts have weakened Americas
defenses, the United States military budget remains larger than the combined
budgets of the worlds next 15 highest spending militaries. Dr. Paul also believes
that American policymakers should take heed from the Greeces inability to control
its own currency. By joining a monetary union, Greece had subordinated some of its
sovereignty to the European Commission and the European Central Bank. When
crisis reached its shores, Greece couldnt react independently. It couldnt inflate its
own currency or arbitrate its own debt. The countrys only option was for a bailout
from their EU partners. The United States may not be part of a currency union, but
Dr. Paul argues the dollar is distorted by its position as the worlds reserve currency.
China and Russia are already moving away from using the dollar in international
transactions, said the Tea Party favourite. It is only a matter of time before more
countries challenge the dollars reserve currency status, and, when this happens, a
Greece-style catastrophe may be unavoidable. Shocking: This Could Lead to a U.S.
Economic Collapse in 2016. If you thought whats happening in Greece could never
happen here, think again. While government officials try to soothe investors fears
with a lot of happy talk, new indicators suggest financial markets may be on the
verge of collapse. In fact, its starting to happen already. In a special investor
presentation, Profit Confidential Editor-in-Chief Michael Lombardi outlines exactly
what the next financial crisis will look like as well as how to protect your savings.

U.S. economy key to global economy through Wall Street.

Picardo 14 A Vice President-Research and a portfolio manager at Global

Securities Corporation in Vancouver, Canada. He brings a global perspective to
investment research and portfolio management, obtained through more than two
decades of international capital markets experience in Canada, India and Hong
Kong. His experience spans a wide range of asset classes equities, options, fixed
income and currencies. He is a chartered financial analyst (CFA) and holds the
Canadian Investment Manager designation; he also has a Bachelors degree in
Engineering and a Master's in Management Studies. (Why Wall Street Is A Key
Player In The World's Economy"; October 8, 2014;
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/100814/wall-streets-enduringimpact-economy.asp#ixzz3gMsAbdWb)//JL

The most important financial center in the world? A fabled place of silver spoons
and golden parachutes? A hub of cut-throat capitalism? Or all of the above. Wall
Street is many things to many people, and the perception of what it really is
depends on who you ask. Although peoples views of Wall Street may differ widely,
what is beyond dispute is its enduring impact not just on the American economy,
but on the global one. Wall Street physically takes up only a few blocks that amount
to less than a mile in the borough of Manhattan in New York City; however, its clout
extends worldwide. The term Wall Street was initially used to refer to the select
group of large independent brokerage firms that dominated the U.S. investment
industry. But with the lines between investment banks and commercial
banks having been blurred since 2008, Wall Street in current financial parlance is
the collective term for the numerous parties involved in the U.S. investment and
financial industry. This includes the biggest investment banks, commercial banks,
hedge funds, mutual funds, asset management firms, insurance companies, brokerdealers, currency and commodity traders, financial institutions and so on. Although
many of these entities may have their headquarters in other cities such as Chicago,
Boston, and San Francisco, the media still refers to the U.S. investment and financial
industry as Wall Street or simply The Street. Interestingly, the popularity of the
term Wall Street as a proxy for the U.S. investment industry has led to similar
Streets in certain cities where the investment industry is clustered being used to
refer to that nations financial sector, such as Bay Street in Canada and Dalal Street
in India. The U.S. is the worlds biggest economy, with 2013 gross domestic product
(GDP) of $16.80 trillion, comprising 22.4% of global economic output. It is almost
twice the size of the second-biggest economy, China (2013 GDP = $9.24 trillion). In
terms of market capitalization, the U.S. is the worlds biggest by some distance,
with a market value of $23.6 trillion dollars (as of September 23, 2014) that
comprises 36.3% of global market capitalization. Japans $4.6-trillion market is a
distant second, with just over 7% of global market cap. Wall Street has such a
significant impact on the economy because it is the trading hub of the biggest
financial markets in the worlds richest nation. Wall Street is home to the venerable
New York Stock Exchange (now called NYSE Euronext), which is the undisputed
leader worldwide in terms of average daily share trading volume and total market
capitalization of its listed companies. Nasdaq OMX, the second-largest exchange
globally, also has its headquarters on Wall Street. Street firms together control
trillions of dollars in financial assets, while New York is the second-largest trading
center in the foreign exchange market, where daily trading volumes exceed $5
trillion. Wall Street affects the U.S. economy in a number of ways, the most
important of which are Wealth Effect: Buoyant stock markets induce a wealth
effect in consumers, although some prominent economists assert that this is more
pronounced during a real estate boom than it is during an equity bull market. But it
does seem logical that consumers may be more inclined to splurge on big-ticket
items when stock markets are hot and their portfolios have racked up sizeable
gains. Consumer Confidence: Bull markets generally exist when economic
conditions are conducive to growth and consumers and businesses are confident
about the outlook for the future. When their confidence is riding high, consumers
tend to spend more, which boosts the U.S. economy since consumer spending
accounts for an estimated 70% of it. Business investment: During bull markets,

companies can use their pricey stock to raise capital, which can then be deployed to
acquire assets or competitors. Increased business investment leads to higher
economic output and generates more employment. The stock market and the
economy have a symbiotic relationship, and during good times, one drives the other
in a positive feedback loop. But during uncertain times, the interdependence of the
stock market and the broad economy can have a severely negative effect. A
substantial downturn in the stock market is regarded as a harbinger of a recession,
but this is by no means an infallible indicator. For example, the Wall Street crash of
1929 led to the Great Depression of the 1930s, but the crash of 1987 did not trigger
a recession. This inconsistency led Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson to famously
remark that the stock market had predicted nine of the last four recessions. Wall
Street drives the U.S. equity market, which in turn is a bellwether for the global
economy. The 2000-02 and 2008-09 global recessions both had their genesis in the
U.S., with the bursting of the technology bubble and housing collapse respectively.
But Wall Street can also be the catalyst for a global expansion, as is evident from
two examples in the current millennium. The 2003-07 global economic expansion
commenced with a huge rally on Wall Street in March 2003. Six years later, amid
the biggest recession since the 1930s depression, the climb back from the economic
abyss started with a massive Wall Street rally in March 2009. Prices of stocks and
other financial assets are based on current information, which is used to make
certain assumptions about the future that in turn form the basis for estimating an
assets fair value. When an economic indicator is relaeased, it would usually have
little impact on Wall Street if it comes in as per expectations (or whats called the
consensus forecast or analysts average estimate). But if it comes in much
better than expected, it could have a positive impact on Wall Street; conversely, if it
is worse than expectations, it would have a negative impact on Wall Street. This
positive or negative impact can be measured by changes in equity indices like the
Dow Jones Industrial Average or S&P 500, for instance. For example, lets say that
the U.S. economy is coasting along and payroll numbers to be released on the first
Friday of next month are expected to show that the economy created 250,000 jobs.
But when the payrolls report is released, it shows that the economy only created
100,000 jobs. Although one data point does not make a trend, the weak payroll
numbers may lead some economists and market-watchers on Wall Street to rethink
their assumptions about U.S. economic growth going forward. Some Street firms
may lower their forecasts for U.S. growth, and strategists at these firms may also
reduce their targets for the S&P 500. Large institutional investors who are clients of
these Street firms may choose to exit some long positions upon receiving their
lowered forecasts. This cascade of selling on Wall Street may result in equity indices
closing significantly lower on the day. Most medium to large-sized companies are
covered by several research analysts who are employed by Wall Street firms. These
analysts have in-depth knowledge of the companies they cover, and are sought
after by institutional buy side investors (pension funds, mutual funds etc.) for
their analysis and insights. Part of analysts research efforts are devoted to
developing financial models of the companies they cover, and using these models
to generate quarterly (and annual) revenue and earnings per share forecasts for
each company. The average of analysts quarterly revenue and EPS forecasts for a
specific company is called the Street estimate or Street expectations. Thus,

when a company reports its quarterly results, if its reported revenue

and EPS numbers match the Street estimate, the company is said to have met
Street estimates or expectations. But if the company exceeds or misses Street
expectations, the reaction in its stock price can be substantial. A company that
exceeds Street expectations will generally see its stock price rise, and one that
disappoints may see its stock price plunge. Some criticisms of Wall Street include: It
is a rigged market Although Wall Street operates fairly and on a level playing field
most of the time, the convictions of Galleon Group co-founder Raj Rajaratnam and
several SAC Capital Advisors on insider trading charges in one of the biggest such
scandals reinforce the perception held in some quarters that the market is rigged. It
encourages skewed risk taking The Wall Street model of business encourages
skewed risk taking, since traders can make windfall profits if their leveraged bets
are right, but do not have to bear the huge losses that would result if they are
wrong. Excessive risk taking is believed to have contributed to the meltdown in
mortgage-backed securities in 2008-09. Wall Street derivatives are WMDs Warren
Buffett warned in 2002 that the derivatives developed by Wall Street were financial
weapons of mass destruction, and this proved to be the case during the U.S.
housing collapse, when mortgage went into free-fall. Wall Street can bring the
economy to its knees As discussed earlier, and as seen in the Great Recession of
2008-09. TBTF rescues need taxpayer funds Giant Wall Street banks and firms that
are deemed Too Big to Fail would need taxpayer funds if they are in need of a
rescue. Disconnect from Main Street Many see Wall Street as a place where
unnecessary middlemen abound, who are very well paid despite not generating
value for the real economy like Main Street does. Wall Street arouses envy in some
and anger in many Million-dollar payouts that are quite common on Wall Street
arouse envy in some and anger in many, especially in the aftermath of the 2008-09
recession. For example, Occupy Wall Street claims in its manifesto that it is
fighting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational
corporations over the democratic process, and the role of Wall Street in creating an
economic collapse that has caused the greatest recession in generations. As the
trading hub of the worlds biggest economy, Wall Street has an enduring impact not
just on the American economy, but also on the global one.

Global economic collapse will end in nuclear war, and kill almost 5
billion.

Kemp 10 - Director of Regional Security Programs at the Center for the National
Interest. He served in the White House during the first Reagan administration as
Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and Senior Director
for Near East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council Staff. He
received his Ph.D. in political science at M.I.T. and his M.A. and B.A. degrees from
Oxford University. (Geoffrey, The East Moves West: India, China, and Asias Growing
Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4)//JL
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first
scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world economic
situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a
major reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a

result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets, leading to a
financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back
dramatically on expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to
political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to,
Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there
are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government
in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a
large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan
increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands
and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in
the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as
nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism
increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western
world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a further devastating collapse of the
world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario,
major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the
planets population.

Statistical analysis proves.

Royal 10 Directive of cooperative threat reduction at the U.S. Department of

Defense. (Jedidiah, Economic Integration, Economic Signalling and the Problem of
Economic Crises chapter 12 in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and
Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, Volume 4, p. 213-215, 2010)
Second, specialisation has also been linked to an increase the likelihood of financial
crises (see, for example, Krugman 1993; Fidrmuc and Batorova 2008). On an
idiosyncratic level, crisis can lead to domestic unrest and large population
movements, both of which have historically exacerbated cross-border tensions.
Blomberg and Hess find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external
conflict, particularly during period of economic downturn. They write: 53 If this
study is to convince reader and policy makers of anything, it is that the linkages
between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually
reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns
the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to
which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. However, the
ability of government organizations to stop the spread of internal conflict to external
conflict and vice versa by helping to reduce the incidence of recessions may be
quite limited. Economic aid that is to improve a nations productive capacity is likely
to be difficult to identify and implement in just such circumstances. (Blomberg and
Hess 2002, 89) Further, crises often reduce the popularity of a sitting government.
Diversionary theory suggests that, when facing unpopularity rising from economic
decline, sitting governments, particularly in democracies, have increased incentives
to fabricate external military conflicts in order to create a rally around the flag
effect. Miller (1999) suggests that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are
greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic
leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of
domestic support. Wang (1996) and DeRouen Jr. (1995) find supporting evidence

showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated.
Argentinas war in the Falkland Islands is an oft-cited example of a diversionary
tactic (Boehmer 2007; Oakes 2006). Similar to the earlier discussion on lateral
pressure theory, specialisation may also lead to asymmetric growth between
countries, impacting their respective appetites for conflict as growing economies
search for new resources to drive future growth. This particular notion has grown
popular among some US commentators sceptical of Chinas global search for
resources in recent years. This topic will be explored in later chapters.

Terror DA

Links
*Fusion centers key to solve terrorismgenerate leads for FBI
investigations and coordinate information flow

Phillips 12 [Leslie, senior intelligence advisor for the U.S. Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Fusion Centers Add Value to the
Federal Government Counterterrorism Efforts, U.S. Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, 10/3/12,
http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/media/fusion-centers-add-value-to-federalgovernment-counterterrorism-efforts] MG
WASHINGTON Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn.,
Wednesday reacted critically to a subcommittee report on fusion centers. I strongly disagree with the reports core
assertion that fusion centers have been unable to meaningfully contribute to federal counterterrorism efforts,
Lieberman said. This statement is not supported by the examples presented in the report and is contrary to the

fusion centers have played a significant role in many recent

terrorism cases and have helped generate hundreds of tips and leads that have led
to current FBI investigations. The report does include valuable findings in some areas. It cites examples
public record, which shows

of inappropriate use of homeland security grant funds and accurately notes that FEMA has struggled to account for
how homeland security grant funds are allocated and used, a longstanding concern of mine. But the report also

the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the

FBI, who have acknowledged the value fusion centers provide to the intelligence
community. Fusion centers have stepped up to meet an urgent need in the last
decade, Lieberman said. Without fusion centers, we would not be able to connect the
dots. Fusion centers have been essential to breaking down the information silos and
communications barriers that kept the government from detecting the most horrific
terrorist attack on this country - even though federal, state, and local officials each
held valuable pieces of the puzzle. Lieberman noted a number of shortcomings in the report that skew
its conclusions. Among them, the report: Makes broad assertions about the value of fusion centers but only
contradicts public statements by

examines one narrow aspect of fusion center operations, the formal intelligence reporting process. Does not
examine support provided by the Department of Homeland Security in the form of training and access to classified

Does not look at finished intelligence products produced by fusion center

personnel, or at the liaison officer programs that many centers have established to build ties with local agencies
networks.

in their state or region. Does not look at the important and positive role that the FBI plays in supporting fusion

the flow of information

from federal agencies to the state and local level through fusion centers, which has significantly
strengthened the ability of frontline law enforcement officers to detect and prevent
potential plots and made our nation safer. Fails to acknowledge progress that has been made by the
centers through the deployment of intelligence analysts. Ignores the importance of

vast majority of the fusion centers in the last few years. Some fusion centers are still underdeveloped, but the vast
majority effectively partner with federal agencies in preventing terrorism and addressing other important national
security and public safety missions. The September 11, 2001, terror attacks demonstrated the urgent need for the
federal government to improve its information sharing and coordination with state and local governments including

Examples of recent terrorism cases where fusion centers have played a

critical role include: Raleigh Jihad case. This case from 2009 involved Daniel Patrick Boyd
and six others who planned to attack Marine Base Quantico. The North Carolina fusion center
law enforcement.

partnered with the local FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force on this investigation. Rezwan Ferdaus. Ferdaus is a
homegrown violent Islamist extremist was arrested in 2010 in Boston, and planned to attack the Pentagon and the
Capitol with remote control small planes attached to explosives. The Massachusetts state fusion center was credited
with making a significant contribution to the investigation. Seattle military recruiting center plot. In 2011, two
homegrown violent Islamist extremists were arrested in Seattle for planning to attack a military recruiting center .

The initial lead in this case came from a Seattle Police Department informant, and

the investigation was jointly coordinated by the FBI and state and local agencies at
the Washington State Fusion Center.

Fusion centers are key to prevent terrorismthey overcome

interagency information gaps and coordinate responses

Johnson et al. 8 [Colonel Bart, Assistant Federal Security Director at DHS,

Shelagh Dorn, program research specialist at New York State Police, Fusion
Centers: New York State Intelligence Strategy Unifies Law Enforcement, Police Chief
Magazine, February 2008,
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?
article_id=1419&fuseaction=display&issue_id=22008] MG
As a result of the tragic terrorist attacks in New York City, in Pennsylvania, and at the Pentagon on September 11,
2001, law

enforcement agencies throughout the country realized there was an

immediate need to refocus many of their investigative and intelligence efforts on
terrorism. The New York State law enforcement community, consisting of more than 540 agencies and staffed by
over 75,000 dedicated law enforcement professionals, was well positioned to gather information, act on the

Traditionally, political and jurisdictional

divisions among local, state, and federal agencies affected law enforcement
investigations. Agencies ran independent but concurrent investigations without any
mechanism or procedures in place to share the information they developed. This
unfortunately resulted in the compartmentalization of potentially useful information.
In addition, technology gaps between agencies contributed to the inability to share
information, preventing the production of viable, actionable intelligence. Following the
terrorist events of 9/11, it became evident that such lack of communicationalong with a failure to build
a centralized and unified intelligence repository to gather, maintain, and analyze intelligence information limited
the ability of U.S. law enforcement communities to share intelligence. Across the United States,
detecting and preventing terrorism has become a law enforcement priority. Pursuing terrorists and
gathering intelligence data to thwart further terrorist attacks requires that agencies
allocate scarce resources. By working alone and relying on individual budgets,
agencies limit their ability to detect and prevent terrorism successfully. In addition, few municipal law
intelligence provided to it, and respond to acts of terrorism.

enforcement agencies can afford to dedicate units to study and track terrorist and other organized criminal
activities. Along with financial concerns, routine law enforcement caseloads normally take precedence for many
municipal agencies. Yet the importance of intelligence and the exchange of information among agencies cannot be
dismissed.

Proactive intelligence efforts are the key to inhibiting criminal networks

whether those networks are related to terrorism, drugs, or other organized criminal
enterprises. For this reason, any information-sharing solution must employ an all-crimes approach. The Solution
The IACP has recognized these challenges facing law enforcement and has convened several subcommittees to
study and propose solutions to the problems involved with implementing the exchange of criminal intelligence. This
exchange relies on regional networking and information sharing, ideally through intelligence fusion centers.

Fusion centers combine multiple agencies in one location, pooling resources and
personnel in order to share information and develop intelligence about criminal
activities. Information collected by agencies is collated and analyzed, producing
actionable intelligence for dissemination to other law enforcement agencies. An
integral part of the fusion center concept is developing and disseminating intelligence,
rather than simply collecting and storing information or serving as a case support
center. Collaboration encourages a coordinated and organized response to terrorist

and other criminal activity throughout the target jurisdiction, diminishing gaps in
interagency communication and intelligence. Specific guidance has been developed and published
to assist agencies with information sharing and with establishing fusion centers. Published documents include the
following: The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) is a blueprint for law enforcement administrators
building their intelligence capabilities.1 Law enforcement officials from local, state, tribal, and federal agencies
constructed recommendations. The National Strategy for Information Sharing, published in October 2007, focuses
on reviewing and improving the sharing of homeland security and law enforcement information related to terrorism
with federal, state, local, and tribal entities; the private sector; and foreign partners as well as protecting
information privacy and rights.2 This report outlines the current information sharing environment and the crossagency challenges of collecting, processing, and analyzing all-crimes information to develop and share intelligence
while simultaneously safeguarding civil rights. Fusion Center Guidelines: Developing and Sharing Information and
Intelligence in a New Era contains guidelines to assist in the successful development of fusion centers.3 Fusion
centers embody collaboration. They benefit the law enforcement community by providing agencies with resources,

Fusion centers are essential for engaging in crime and

intelligence analyses and can assist law enforcement with intelligence-led policing .
Focusing attention on systematically and routinely gathering and sharing
information statewide about criminal activities reduces crime and produces safer
communities. In addition, fusion centers assist jurisdictions by structuring the big picture, providing real
including organized intelligence support.

benefits to global information sharing in an environment where it can be difficult even to share information locally.
In addition to other critical functions, fusion centers provide a conduit for integrating, analyzing, and disseminating
intelligence. State fusion centers across the United States maximize local knowledge of potential terrorist suspects,
vulnerabilities, and trends, and communicate that information to the appropriate federal partners. The intelligence
component of fusion centers is the foundation for successful data integration and exchange. Fusion centers produce
results. One long-term example of a successful intelligence repository and analysis center is the New York/New
Jersey High Intensity Drug Trafficking Center, which serves as an information hub for law enforcement agencies in

Tips about drug and criminal activity in the New York City
region are tracked and analyzed by investigators and analysts. The pooling of intelligence
the New York City/New Jersey area.

data in a central location has proven to be a key factor in identifying those individuals and organizations that may
be furthering, facilitating, or carrying out criminal and terrorist activity in New York City. In particular, members of
the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Force are assigned on a full-time basis to

The success of this effort is evident

through the coordination and outreach efforts among federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies in New York City.
coordinate state and federal terrorism prevention efforts.

Politics DA

Plan Unpopular
Plan unpopular because DHS support highbipartisan support
proves

Phalen, 7/15/2015--Communications Director at House Committee on

Homeland Security (Bipartisan Support in Congress to Counter Violent Extremism:
McCauls CVE Bill Unanimously Passes Committee,
http://homeland.house.gov/press-release/bipartisan-support-congress-counterviolent-extremism)//AK
The U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security unanimously passed by voice
vote, H.R. 2899, the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Act of 2015, introduced by
Chairman Michael McCaul. In the face of mounting threats, our government is
doing far too little to counter violent extremism here in the United States, said
Chairman McCaul. Whether it is the long reach of international terrorists into our
communities or the homegrown hate spread by domestic extremist groups, we are
ill-equipped to prevent Americans from being recruited by dangerous fanatics. H.R.
2899 significantly elevates CVE as a key priority at the Department of Homeland
Security, streamlines the Departments CVE efforts under an Assistant Secretary
who reports directly to the Secretary, and provides $10 million dollars per year out
of existing funds to ramp up DHS efforts to prevent Americans from being
radicalized and recruited by terrorists. It was also amended to include, for the first
time ever, a counter-messaging grant program to push back against extremist
propaganda domestically. Amendments offered by Rep. John Katko, R-NY, Rep. Barry
Loudermilk, R-GA, and Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-SC, were adopted and included in the
Committee passed bill. More information on each amendment can be found HERE.
Every day we wait, we cede more ground to our adversaries, said Chairman
McCaul. I will not stand on the sidelinesasking for more reports and studies
while terrorists plot inside our communities, while people are murdered in their
places of worship, and while violent extremists seek to divide our nation. I did not
want to put this on the floor with Republican and Democrats fighting each other as
the enemy watches us do that. I think that is the wrong message to the terrorists,
whether they be domestic or international, concluded Chairman McCaul. The bill
was voted through the Committee with bipartisan support and moves to the House
floor with favorable recommendation.

Fusion Centers Unpopular in Congress- Bipartisan Report proves

Government Executive 12 Homeland Securitys Fusion Centers Lambasted by
Senate Report Charles S. Clark 10/2/12
http://www.govexec.com/defense/2012/10/homeland-securitys-fusion-centerslambasted-senate-report/58535/
The 72 state and local fusion centers that form a centerpiece of the Homeland Security Departments domestic anti-terrorism
strategy produce intelligence of uneven quality -- oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, [and] sometimes
endangering citizens civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, stated a Senate report scheduled for release
Wednesday. Despite spending somewhere between $289 million and $1.4 billion on the centers since 2003, DHS has not kept track of

expenditures properly and the facilities have not produced useful intelligence to support federal
counterterrorism efforts, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found.
An advance copy of the report was provided to Government Executive. Indeed, the intelligence reports that the centers provided on suspicious
behavior at the local level are occasionally taken from already published public sources and more often than not unrelated to terrorism, the
report said. The

combined majority and minority report, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Tom
Coburn, R-Okla., said a two-year committee probe Coburn led found that some fusion centers have gone years without a
physical presence -- such as a planned facility in Philadelphia -- and without filing any intelligence reports. Others have operated for
years without having DHS personnel on-site to report counterterrorism information, effectively cutting the centers off from the larger DHS
terrorism-related intelligence efforts, said the report, titled Federal Support and Involvement in State and Local Fusion Centers. Many of the
fusion centers have not made counterterrorism an explicit priority and some have de-emphasized counterterrorism in favor of more traditional
public safety and anti-crime work, the report said. Claims that DHS made did not always fit the facts and in no case did a fusion center
make a clear and unique intelligence contribution that helped apprehend a terrorist or disrupt a plot. Worse, three other incidents examined . .
.raised the possibility that

some centers have actually hindered or sidetracked federal counterterrorism efforts.

One example cited was the 2011 assassination attempt on former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and bystanders.
The report also faulted DHS for improperly keeping files on citizens, possibly in violation of the Privacy Act. And it criticized the departments
two internal assessments of the centers, one in 2010 and the other in 2011, for their secrecy and lack of follow-up on problems identified. Much
of the blame lies with DHS, which has failed to adequately implement a fusion center program that would produce the results it promised, the
report concluded. But significant responsibility for these failures also lies with Congress, which has repeatedly chosen to support and praise
fusion center efforts, without providing the oversight and direction necessary to make sure those efforts were cost effective and useful. The
Senate report offered 10 recommendations, among them: Congress should clarify the purpose of federal spending on fusion centers and better
track monies; DHS should reform its intelligence reporting between fusion centers and federal agencies; DHS should improve training of
intelligence reporters; DHS should better align grants to fusion centers with federal missions; DHS should strengthen its reporting procedures to
protect civil liberties; and DHS should keep Congress better informed of problems with the centers. Homeland

Security officials, the

report argued, too often inappropriately characterize fusion centers as successes and call them the linchpin of the U.S.
counterterrorism strategy. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, testifying in September 2011 to the Senate panel on the 10th anniversary of the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks, said, seventy-two recognized fusion centers serve as focal points for the receipt, analysis, gathering and sharing of threatrelated information among the federal government and state, local, tribal, territorial and private sector partners. She added, the intelligence
community is able to identify the common threads that can tie a seemingly minor crime to the larger threat picture -- an important step that helps
us to identify individuals such as the hijackers, many of whom were apprehended by law enforcement for routine traffic violations prior to 9/11.

Obama will push

Obama Will Fight for Fusion Centers- uses them to Negotiate for
Hostages
U.S. News and World Report 6/24/15

(Paul D. Shinkman Hostage Reforms Some Consolation to

Outcast Special Forces Soldier US News and World Report
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/24/obamas-hostage-reforms-some-consolation-to-outcast-specialforces-soldier 7.20.15)
A Special Forces officer under investigation for whistleblowing on the government's hostage negotiation policies
believes his controversial actions have paid off, following the

White House announcement Wednesday it

would streamline a currently cumbersome bureaucracy and no longer threaten to punish families for
negotiating with foreign terrorist captors themselves . Decorated combat veteran Lt. Col. Jason
Amerine remains under formal investigation by the Army for working with members of
Congress, including Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., in an attempt to reform what he considers a deadly and broken
bureaucracy incapable of saving Americans held hostage abroa d. "The things my client, Jason
Amerine, brought to light to [Hunter], and the efforts he was making in the hostage situations prior to his recent issues, were all really what laid
the foundation for this to happen," says Billy Ruhling, Amerine's attorney and himself a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserve. Amerine would
not speak on-record about Wednesday's announcement due to the ongoing investigation, Ruhling says. As a former planner on the U.S. Army
staff, Amerine was stripped of his clearance and escorted from the Pentagon in January. He has since publicly criticized what he calls an unwieldy
collection of government agencies too big or unwilling to work together to save hostages, and a system that punishes families for doing it on their
own. The deaths of multiple Americans in recent years, particularly Warren Weinstein, who was killed in an errant U.S. drone strike, and
James Foley, who was executed by his Islamic State captors, contribute to evidence of this dysfunction, he believes. Now, through a
decision from President Barack Obama

announced Wednesday, hostage negotiations will operate

ultimately through a single fusion center at the FBI , instead of independent centers there and at the
departments of State and Defense. "We are changing how we do business," Obama said . The reforms he
announced from the White House include the creation of at least three new positions: a leader for the
newly created hostage response group within the White House National Security Council, an official who will
coordinate the intelligence community's resources with the new FBI fusion center ,
and a special presidential envoy for hostage affairs to oversee diplomatic efforts . Those
who communicate directly with the families of hostages will also receive training to ensure they aren't dismissing their legitimate concerns or
denying them information. "These families are to be treated like what they are: our trusted partners and active partners in the recovery of their
loved ones," Obama said. The Justice Department has never prosecuted families for communicating with captors or even paying ransom, and will
never do so, Obama pledged. This does not, however, amount to a change in laws prohibiting financing terrorists abroad and other restrictions on
communicating with America's enemies. Obama's decision stems from a review he ordered late last year, following the deaths of American
hostages held by the Islamic State group. It also follows legislation Hunter has introduced calling for similar reforms. "[Amerine's] efforts over
the past several years, in the position he was in, and his work with Congressman Hunter is a clear indication" that his efforts
helped influence the White House's Wednesday announcement, Ruhling says. The attorney adds they are optimistic that the necessary changes are
now underway, and that the "petty jealousies" that led to the

FBI leveling serious criminal accusations against

Amerine for the purpose of "putting him in his place" will not adversely affect this
new fusion cell. Hunter, however, calls these latest reforms "window dressing" that does not address the needed wholesale government
reforms. "The changes offered up by the White House prove that neither the right questions were asked nor were any lessons learned," he said,
according to CNN. "It's a pathetic response to a serious problem that has plagued the ability of the U.S. to successfully recover Americans held
captive in the post-9/11 era." Amerine joined three other government whistleblowers to speak before Congress on June 11. In his testimony,
Amerine faulted "layers upon layers of bureaucracy" that failed America's leaders, adding that officials as high in the chain of command as
Obama and Defense Secretary Ash Carter "likely never knew the extent of agency dysfunction." "You, the Congress, were my last resort,"
Amerine told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. "But now I'm labeled a whistleblower, a term that's both
radioactive and derogatory." "I'm here because I did my duty," he said. The Pentagon declined to comment Wednesday on the substance of the
announced changes to recovering American hostages abroad.

Obama: Fusion Centers essential

Washington Post 12 (DHS fusion centers portrayed as pools of ineptitude, civil liberties intrusions Robert
OHarrow Jr 10/2/12 http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/dhs-fusion-centers-portrayed-as-pools-ofineptitude-and-civil-liberties-intrusions/2012/10/02/10014440-0cb1-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_print.html 7.21.15
An initiative aimed at improving intelligence sharing has done little to make the country more secure, despite as much as $1.4 billion in federal
spending, according to a two-year examination by Senate investigators. The nationwide network of offices known as fusion centers was
launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to address concerns that local, state and federal authorities were not sharing information effectively
about potential terrorist threats. But after nine years and regular praise from officials at the Department of Homeland Security the 77 fusion
centers have become pools of ineptitude, waste and civil liberties intrusions, according to a scathing 141-page report by the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs permanent subcommittee on investigations. The

creation and operation of the fusion centers

were promoted by the administration of President George W. Bush and later the Obama administration as
essential weapons in the fight to build a nationwide network that would keep the country safe from
terrorism. The idea was to promote increased collaboration and cooperation among all levels of law enforcement across the country. But the
report documents spending on items that did little to help share intelligence, including gadgets such as shirt button cameras, $6,000 laptops and
big-screen televisions. One fusion center spent $45,000 on a decked-out SUV that a city official used for commuting. In reality, the
Subcommittee investigation found that the fusion centers often produced irrelevant, useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and
many produced no intelligence reporting whatsoever, the report said. The bipartisan report, released by subcommittee Chairman Carl Levin (DMich.) and ranking minority member Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), portrays the fusion center system as ineffective and criticizes the Department of
Homeland Security for poor supervision. In a response Tuesday, the department condemned the report and defended the fusion centers, saying the
Senate investigators relied on out-of-date data. The Senate investigators examined fusion center reports in 2009 and 2010 and looked at activity,
training and policies over nine years, according to the report. The statement also said the Senate investigators misunderstood the role of fusion
centers, which is to provide state and local law enforcement analytic support in furtherance of their day-to-day efforts to protect local
communities from violence, including that associated with terrorism. The DHS statement also said that all of the questioned expenses were
allowable under the rules. Department officials have defended the fusion centers in the face of past criticism from the news media and internal
reviews. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and other senior officials have praised the centers as centerpieces of U.S. counterterrorism strategy.
Mike Sena, president of the National Fusion Center Association, an advocacy organization, called the report unfair. Sena, who manages the center
in the San Francisco Bay area, said fusion centers have processed more than 22,000 suspicious activity reports that have triggered 1,000 federal
inquiries or investigations. He said they also have shared with the Terrorist Screening Center some 200 pieces of data that provided actionable
intelligence. The Senate report challenged the value of the training and much of the information produced by the centers. It said that DHS
analysts assigned to the fusion centers received just five days of basic training for intelligence reporting. Sena said they received an array of other
training as well. Some analysts at the departments Office of Intelligence and Analysis, which received the fusion center reports, were found to be
so unproductive that supervisors imposed quotas for reports, knowing those quotas would diminish the quality of the intelligence, according to
the Senate report. Many of those analysts at the DHS intelligence office were contractors. Investigators found instances in which the analysts
used intelligence about U.S. citizens that may have been gathered illegally. In one case, a fusion center in California wrote a report on a notorious
gang, the Mongols Motorcycle Club, that had distributed leaflets telling its members to behave when they got stopped by police. The leaflet said
members should be courteous, control their emotions and, if drinking, have a designated driver. There is nothing illegal or even remotely
objectionable [described] in this report, one supervisor wrote about the draft before killing it. The advice given to the groups members is
protected by the First Amendment. Financial questions were pervasive, with the report saying oversight has been so lax that department officials
do not know exactly how much has been spent on the centers. The official estimates varied between $289 million and $1.4 billion. A DHS
official, who insisted on not being identified because he was not authorized to talk to the news media, acknowledged that the department does not
closely track the money but said it conducts audits of the fusion spending. The official said that just under half of the fusion centers budgets
comes from the department. In the statement, the department said its Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers the grants,
provides wide latitude for states to decide how to spend the money. All of the expenditures questioned in the report are allowable under the
grant program guidance, whether or not they are connected with a fusion center, the statement said. The Senate report said local and state
officials entrusted with the fusion center grants sometimes spent lavishly. More than $2 million was spent on a center for Philadelphia that never
opened. In Ohio, officials used the money to buy rugged laptop computers and then gave them to a local morgue. San Diego officials bought 55
flat-screen televisions to help them collect open-source intelligence better known as cable television news. S enate

investigators repeatedly questioned the quality of the intelligence

reports. A third or more of the reports intended for officials in Washington were discarded because they lacked useful information, had
been drawn from media accounts or involved potentially illegal surveillance of U.S. citizens, according to the Senate report.

AT: Plan Popular

Passing surveillance reforms upsets the public, politicians, and
various agencies which leads to loss of political capital.

Mother Jones 14 An American magazine featuring investigative and breaking

news reporting on politics, the environment, human rights, and culture.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/obama-nsa-reforms-spying-telephonemad-privacy
Obama's NSA Reforms Are Going to Tick Off Everyone
Some judges will no doubt be outraged if Obama makes any changes to the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, the top-secret spy court that approves or denies
many of the government's surveillance requests. Obama is expected to appoint a
privacy advocate to advise the court on civil liberties issues. But on January 13, US
district Judge John Bates, the former presiding judge of the FISA court, wrote in a
public letter that "a privacy advocate is unnecessary." Bates also decried the
presidential panel's recommendation that the government require judicial approval
for all National Security Letterssecret requests the FBI and other government
agencies use to force businesses to hand over records. According to Bates,
subjecting these requests to the FISA court's scrutiny would be a "detriment to [the
court's] current responsibilities." (If the FISA court emerges untouched by Obama's
reforms, privacy advocates will be irate.) Obama faces a tricky challenge. He clearly
believes some NSA reform is necessary, yet, for good or bad, he doesn't want to
alienate the intelligence community. This might lead him to a position that does not
produce sufficient change to allay the concerns of techies, civil libertarians, and
Americans who worry the surveillance state has gone too farbut still manages to
tick off the intelligence officials he counts on to defend the nation; and the national
security hawks on and off Capitol Hill who are always ready to assail the president.
Obama has often talked about the need to balance national security and civil
liberties. His effort to deal with the Snowden-prompted NSA scandal shows how
tough a political task that is for him.

Obama implementing surveillance reforms causes upset and lose of

political capital.

Mother jones 14, An American magazine featuring investigative and breaking

news reporting on politics, the environment, human rights, and culture.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/obama-nsa-reforms-spying-telephonemad-privacy
Obama's NSA Reforms Are Going to Tick Off Everyone
On Friday, President Barack Obama is expected to unveil changes to the National
Security Agency's sweeping surveillance programs. The announcement comes
weeks after a post-Snowden advisory panel appointed by the president issued a
whopping 300-plus pages of pro-transparency recommendations that, if taken up,

would radically alter how the NSA does business. But according to early reports,
Obama will only be implementing small reforms. He will punt the bigger decisions to
Congresswith the hope of partially appeasing lawmakers, voters, privacy
advocates, and the national security community. From the looks of it, pretty much
everyone is going to be mad at him.

States CP
Text: The 50 State Governments should <<do the plan>>.

States Key
Police brutality is a result of local agencies ordering themnot the
federal government

Maguire 07 - Edward R. Maguire is He received his Ph.D. in Criminal Justice

from the State University of New York at Albany in 1997. He has held previous
positions at the U.S. Department of Justice and the United Nations office in Vienna,
Austria. Professor Maguire is invited regularly to speak on topics related to crime
and justice throughout the United States and around the world. He has written or
edited three books and more than 40 articles and chapters on various themes
related to policing, crime, criminal justice, organization theory, and social science
methodology. (Criminal Justice Theory: Explaining the Nature and Behavior of
Criminal Justice p. 150)
According to this theory, police officers are least likely to take legal or coercive
action against lower-status personsespecially the poor, and racial and ethnic
minoritieswhose accusers are also of low status, but likely to take such action
against lower-status persons whose accusers are of higher status (Black, 1980: ch.
1)

There's a sign on Jonathan Stickland's desk that reads: "Don't steal. The
government hates competition." These days Stickland, a Texas state representative,
isn't spending most of his time worrying about the government "stealing" through
high taxes or onerous regulation - standard political fare for the kind of
conservatives who populate the state capitol in Austin. Instead his cause has been
what he sees as government theft of privacy - the unlawful acquisition by the
National Security Agency of personal information in the form of metadata about
electronic communications by US citizens. The particular target of his ire is the Texas Cryptologic
Center, an NSA facility located near San Antonio. He has proposed a state law cutting off the building's access to
public utilities - water and electricity - until the agency ceases what he says is unconstitutional warrantless data

"I believe the first role of government is to protect the personal rights and
liberties of its citizens," says the Republican, who has represented a district near
Dallas for two years. "Before we build a road or anything else, we have to ensure
that those exist for every Texan." "I believe that it is my responsibility as a
representative at the state level to fight against that kind of tyranny," he continues.
"Whether it's from the federal government or a foreign entity, it doesn't matter."
The Texas bill is just one of the most recent examples of a growing movement
among states - both liberal and conservative - to end government support for NSA
facilities. Last year California became the first to pass what's been called a Fourth Amendment Protection Act.
collection.

Its law prohibited the state from providing support to a federal agency "to collect electronically stored information
or metadata of any person if the state has actual knowledge that the request constitutes an illegal or
unconstitutional collection". This year 15 other states have introduced some kind of anti-NSA legislation, including
politically diverse locations like liberal Washington and Maryland and conservative Oklahoma and Mississippi. The
movement has been championed by the Tenth Amendment Center and its OffNow coalition, which provides support
and model legislation to politicians like Stickland interested in challenging the NSA. According to Mike Maharrey,
communications director for the centre, the California law, with its "actual knowledge" provision, is significantly

He says they
came up with the suggested legislation because they don't trust the US
Congress to do anything to keep the NSA in check. The Patriot Act, which
authorises the NSA surveillance programme, is up for renewal in May, and
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already
proposed that it be extended to 2020. "I'm not really faithful in things that
are going on in Washington, DC," he says. "People can make a difference
more rapidly and more readily at the state level."
weaker than they had hoped - but a good first step in the nation's most populous state.

Fusion centers are within STATE jurisdiction

DHS 15 [Department of Homeland Security, Fusion Center Locations and Contact

Information, 6/29/15, DHS.gov, http://www.dhs.gov/fusion-center-locations-andcontact-information] MG
State and major urban area fusion centers (fusion

centers) are owned and operated by state and

local entities, and are designated by the governor of their state . In accordance with the
Federal Resource Allocation Criteria (RAC) policy, which defines objective criteria and a coordinated approach for

the federal government recognizes

these designations and has a shared responsibility with state and local governments
to support the national network of fusion centers. The following includes the list of primary and
recognized fusion centers (associated contact information). Primary fusion centers serve as the focal
points within the state and local environment for the receipt, analysis, gathering, and sharing of
threat-related information and have additional responsibilities related to the coordination of
prioritizing the allocation of federal resources to fusion centers,

critical operational capabilities across the statewide fusion process with other
recognized fusion centers. Furthermore, primary centers are the highest priority for the allocation of
available federal resources, including the deployment of personnel and connectivity with federal data systems.

Federal Government Fails

The federal government will not allow for the improvement of
black lives, and in some case make them worse
Spann 93 - Girardeau A. Spann is the author of several books and articles
concerning race and the constitutional concept of equality. He has also served on
the Board of Governors of the D.C. Bar, the Ethics Committee of the D.C. Bar, and
the Administrative Conference of the United States. (Race Against the Court, pg. I)
U.S. LAW WEEK reported that [a] series of civil rights decisions by conservative
majority of the U.S. Supreme Court making it easier to challenge affirmative action
programs and more difficult to establish claims of employment discrimination
highlighted the 1988-89 terms labor and employment cases.1 LAW WEEK went on
to cite seven decisions handed down the Term alone that adversely affected
minority interests.2

States are in the processing of stopping surveillance now and

most people dont trust the government to stop either
Anthony Zurcher 04/27/15 Zurcher is the senior North American Reporter of the
BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32487971, US states take aim at
NSA over warrantless surveillance)
There's a sign on Jonathan Stickland's desk that reads: "Don't steal. The
government hates competition." These days Stickland, a Texas state representative,
isn't spending most of his time worrying about the government "stealing" through
high taxes or onerous regulation - standard political fare for the kind of
conservatives who populate the state capitol in Austin. Instead his cause has been
what he sees as government theft of privacy - the unlawful acquisition by the
National Security Agency of personal information in the form of metadata about
electronic communications by US citizens. The particular target of his ire is the Texas Cryptologic
Center, an NSA facility located near San Antonio. He has proposed a state law cutting off the building's access to
public utilities - water and electricity - until the agency ceases what he says is unconstitutional warrantless data

"I believe the first role of government is to protect the personal rights and
liberties of its citizens," says the Republican, who has represented a district near
Dallas for two years. "Before we build a road or anything else, we have to ensure
that those exist for every Texan." "I believe that it is my responsibility as a
representative at the state level to fight against that kind of tyranny," he continues.
"Whether it's from the federal government or a foreign entity, it doesn't matter."
The Texas bill is just one of the most recent examples of a growing movement
among states - both liberal and conservative - to end government support for NSA
facilities. Last year California became the first to pass what's been called a Fourth Amendment Protection Act.
collection.

Its law prohibited the state from providing support to a federal agency "to collect electronically stored information
or metadata of any person if the state has actual knowledge that the request constitutes an illegal or
unconstitutional collection". This year 15 other states have introduced some kind of anti-NSA legislation, including
politically diverse locations like liberal Washington and Maryland and conservative Oklahoma and Mississippi. The
movement has been championed by the Tenth Amendment Center and its OffNow coalition, which provides support

and model legislation to politicians like Stickland interested in challenging the NSA. According to Mike Maharrey,
communications director for the centre, the California law, with its "actual knowledge" provision, is significantly

He says they
came up with the suggested legislation because they don't trust the US
Congress to do anything to keep the NSA in check. The Patriot Act, which
authorises the NSA surveillance programme, is up for renewal in May, and
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already
proposed that it be extended to 2020. "I'm not really faithful in things that
are going on in Washington, DC," he says. "People can make a difference
more rapidly and more readily at the state level."
weaker than they had hoped - but a good first step in the nation's most populous state.

Courts CP

1NC
Text: The United States Supreme Court should substantially curtail
domestic surveillance by using judicial activism when reinterpreting
the fourth amendment doctrine.
Current constitutional interpretations on the justifications of
surveillance is outdated judicial action is key
Rushin 11 PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program; J.D., University of California, Berkeley Law School
(Stephen Rushin, Perspectives of judicial actions for Surveillance, THE JUDICIAL
RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, 2011, http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Rushin.pdf)//JM
Law enforcement technology has become ubiquitous in the urban landscape. Closed
circuit surveillance cameras indiscriminately record individuals physical
movements.1 Facial recognition software compares images of passing pedestrians with extensive databases of
suspected criminals.2 Red light cameras capture photographs of traffic violations. The National Security
Agency (NSA) logs phone calls made by millions of citizens across the country in
hopes of identifying suspected terrorist activity.3 And automatic license plate
recognition (ALPR) systems, already in use in various jurisdictions across the country, digitally read
and record the license plates of passing automobiles into expansive databases. 4
Indeed, we live today in an increasingly digitally efficient investigative state a state
where law enforcement can both observe and record information about our
whereabouts in an unprecedentedly efficient manner. The retention of surveillance
data raises many serious constitutional concerns. But Fourth Amendment doctrine
on search and seizures reflects outdated assumptions about the once-limited
capabilities of public surveillance technologies and is, therefore, ill-equipped to deal
with the challenges posed by the digitally efficient investigative state. The existing
Fourth Amendment doctrine on surveillance technologies focuses primarily on three
issues: (1) whether a person had a subjective expectation of privacy, (2) the socially
objective reasonableness of that expectation of privacy, and (3) the relative
intrusiveness of the supposed privacy violation.5 The Supreme Court has also drawn
a distinction between presumptively constitutional technologies that merely
improve the efficiency of legitimate law enforcement, like digital tracking devices, and
unconstitutional technologies that give law enforcement an intrusive, extrasensory ability, like heat sensors.6

Under this framework, the warrantless use of most surveillance technologies and
the collection of personal data fits comfortably within constitutional doctrine after all,
a person does not have an objectively reasonable expectation to privacy when driving her car or walking on a public
sidewalk. The recording of a persons movements in public is not especially intrusive and certainly does not provide
police with any intrusive, extrasensory abilities beyond mere observation. A recent Seventh Circuit case engaged in
just this type of analysis, when it found that the warrantless use of global position system (GPS) surveillance by law
enforcement did not violate the Fourth Amendment.7 There, Judge Posner and the Seventh Circuit concluded that
GPS monitoring of a single suspect without a warrant does not amount to wholesale surveillance. 8 But Posner
quickly pointed out, Technological progress poses a threat to privacy by enabling an extent of surveillance that in
earlier times would have been prohibitively expensive . . . . Should government someday decide to institute a

it will be time enough to decide whether the

Fourth Amendment should be interpreted to treat such surveillance as a search. 9
program of mass surveillance of vehicular movements,

That time has come. The digitally efficient investigative state comes dangerously
close to wholesale surveillance. The unregulated use of these emerging
technologies may incentivize police fishing expeditions, facilitate racial profiling,
and corrode any notion of public anonymity. And the legislative branch has not
acted to address the tangible harms posed by this new technological order. In wake of
the legislative inactivity, I argue that it is finally time for the courts to break from the previous
doctrinal trend and act decisively to regulate the efficiency of police surveillance
technology. While a judicial response may help ameliorate some of the pressing concerns raised by the digitally
efficient investigative state, it should only be the beginning of a broader re-conceptualization of our Fourth
Amendment doctrine. I argue, in particular, that we ought to reassess our presumption that individuals have no
reasonable expectation to privacy in their public actions. In total, I hope to make two contributions with this Article,
one descriptive and one normative. Descriptively, I build a comprehensive account of the digitally efficient
investigative state, and normatively I contend that the courts must establish a new doctrinal path to regulate this
technological order

2NC: AT Perms
The CP is the ONLY way to solve for violations of minorities rights
and inadequate laws concerning domestic surveillance
Rushin 11 PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program; J.D., University of California, Berkeley Law School
(Stephen Rushin, Perspectives of judicial actions for Surveillance, THE JUDICIAL
RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, 2011, http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Rushin.pdf)//JM
the courts should
craft a judicial response that permits the use of surveillance technologies for some
criminologically advantageous activities like observational comparison, but limits
the unregulated data retention without reasonable suspicion. Further, I contend that the
judiciary is well positioned to make this careful calculation, which admittedly
requires the balancing of social values such as privacy and law enforcement
efficiency. Overall, I conclude a judicial solution handed down by the courts would best
safeguard citizenry, particularly certain discrete and insular minorities , from
the threats posed by other emerging surveillance technologies. A. The Judicial Response
The courts should craft a regulation that limits surveillance technologies in three
ways. First, the courts should require police to have a legitimate, articulable law
enforcement purpose before identifying any surveillance data. This would require police to
Given the ominous implications of the digitally efficient investigative state, I argue that

identify a legitimate purpose for cross-referencing license plate data or facial recognition photographs with other

Second, the courts should

require police departments to articulate and justify clear policies that limit the
length of time police may retain surveillance data obtained through indiscriminate
data collection practices without individualized, reasonable suspicion of criminal
wrongdoing. Reasonable suspicion is a lower evidentiary standard than probable cause and merely requires
government databases to ascertain the personal identity tied to the data.

law enforcement to demonstrate a particularized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing based on specific and
articulable facts combined with rational inferences. 323 Conversely, the courts should continue to permit the
use of surveillance technologies for observational comparison, given that observational comparison only identifies
an individual in surveillance data when the data has been digitally matched to a database of known or suspected
criminals.324 Hence, this recommended response would distinguish between mere observational comparison and

Third, the judiciary should

carefully analyze the relationships between private data aggregators and law
enforcement. A default rule permitting law enforcement to use any information obtained through voluntary
information flows with private companies has understandable doctrinal appeal. Nonetheless, the courts
should be vigilant in carefully determining whether a private party substantially
collaborated and coordinated with law enforcement sufficient to transform that
private party into a state actor. This judicial response can be better understood
when applied to ALPR. As discussed earlier, ALPR has two unique capabilities: an observational comparison
the creation of indiscriminate digital dossiers 325 on personal movements.

capability and an indiscriminate data retention capability.326 Police use the observational comparison capability to
read passing license plates and then search for matches with active hotlists. 327 Once the ALPR system matches a
license plate to a known offender, the ALPR system can cross-reference this plate with other databases to identify
the suspected culprit. Observational comparison does not implicate any particular Fourth Amendment concerns
data is only retained and identified for cars matching a criminal database.328 Conversely, the indiscriminate data
collection capability allows some ALPR systems to record the license plate, time, and location of every passing
vehicle into an expansive database.329 This information can then be cross-referenced to other databases to
identify the suspected driver of each car, and record that drivers movements into a surveillance database. It is not
inconceivable that, with an extensive network of ALPR cameras in a given community, law enforcement could
compile a fairly comprehensive record of an individuals day-to-day movements. Thus,

by limiting the

retention of data and requiring a legitimate law enforcement purpose before crossreferencing license plate numbers to identify drivers, this judicial response would
prevent ALPR from transforming into a tool of mass surveillance. In my view, this
judicial regulation recognizes both the potential harms and benefits of the digitally
efficient investigative state and strikes a fair balance. First, this proposed regulation
ensures that the these technologies will not be utilized to unfairly target unpopular
minoritiesin fact, by distinguishing between observational comparison and
indiscriminate data collection, the courts could ensure that these technologies are
used primarily to reign in police discretion, thereby limiting implicit bias. As discussed
supra Part I.D.1, when limited to observational comparison, ALPR and facial recognition
software can actually reduce the likelihood of racial or ethnic profiling. But, as detailed
supra Part I.D.2, indiscriminate data collection capabilities of the digitally efficient investigative state can permit

limiting the identification and

retention of surveillance data, this regulation fights both profiling and the targeting of
unpopular minorities. Second, this proposed regulation is reasonably consistent with
actual and recommended solutions proposed by legislatures, international courts,
and domestic law enforcement organizations . Various legislatures have independently authored
fishing expeditions and the targeting of politically unpopular minorities. By

similar regulations on police technologies. The proposed judicial response bears some resemblance to legislative
limits on surveillance technologies passed in Virginia, Maine, and New Hampshire. The New Hampshire law limits
law enforcement surveillance to specific investigations of criminal wrongdoing and bars the retention of surveillance
data except for a few, specific situations.330 Maine, by contrast, has regulated ALPR technology explicitly by
limiting data retention to 21 days and regulating ALPR usage more broadly.331 This response also closely mirrors a
recent German Federal Constitutional Court decision, which found that some parts of a German law authorizing the
use of ALPR violated the right to privacy.332 The German court held that the retention of any digital data that was
not predestined for a specific use was too indiscriminate as to violate German Law.333 The German court expressed
concern that without limitations, the use of ALPR amounted to complete surveillance. 334 Law enforcement
organizations, namely the IACP, have also recommended that departments take steps, like transparent data
retention policies, to ameliorate privacy concerns over surveillance data aggregation. 335 Once more, this judicial
response mirrors the principles laid out in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
privacy guidelines. 336 Namely, this proposal requires that digital data collection on public movements abide by the
OECDs purpose specification principle, which states that the purposes for which personal data are collected
should be specified not later than at the time of data collection. 337 Thus, there is both domestic and international

Third, the
distinction between observational comparison and indiscriminate data aggregation
comports with the underlying values of the Fourth Amendment. Regardless of the eventual
precedent for this kind of judicial response to limit the efficiency of investigative technologies.

holding in Jones, the Maynard decision offers persuasive application of the Katz doctrine to surveillance
technologies.338 The court first determined that the totality of a persons movements in public were not actually
exposed to the public.339 As the court explained, in determining whether something is exposed to the public[,]
as that term was used in Katz[,] we ask not what another person can physically and may lawfully do, but rather
what a reasonable person expects another might actually do. 340 Put differently, a person might reasonably
expect a stranger to view any discrete action taken in public, but, the whole of a persons movements over the
course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the likelihood a stranger would observe all those
movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil. 341 In applying a mosaic theory, the D.C. Circuit noted that
that long-term surveillance of an individual reveals important and intimate details about their behaviors.342 And
because GPS surveillance is incredibly efficientthe marginal cost of each additional day of data aggregation with
GPS tracking is effectively zeroGPS technology is thus a heretofore unknown type of intrusion requiring
judicial regulation.343 The Maynard courts reasoning, while controversial in the context of the surveillance of a
single individual, is extremely compelling when applied dragnet technologies like ALPR and surveillance cameras
with facial recognition. As data collection costs decrease, law enforcement has every incentive to aggregate as
much potentially useful data as possible. Indeed, as the Maynard court recognized, Prolonged surveillance reveals
types of information not revealed by short-term surveillance, such as what a person does repeatedly, what he does
not do, and what he does ensemble. 344 Just as a person does not reasonably expect that the totality of her
movements within an automobile to be monitored by GPS, she also reasonably expects to be free from continuous
and pervasive monitoring by ALPR or facial recognition software. Even in public, we carry an expectation that our
movements remain disconnected and anonymous.345 Hence,
Katz

this recommended solution aligns with

by protecting a persons socially recognized, reasonable expectation to privacy,

and follows the persuasive reasoning of the Maynard decision. Fourth, the proposed
limitation on data retention protects the criminological and evidentiary benefits of
limited data retention, while also recognizing the retained datas loss of value over
time. The recommended judicial response is admittedly vagueI do not specify an exact length of time the courts
ought to permit law enforcement to retain data. This is omission is purposeful. As the IACP has properly recognized,
any policy limiting data retention raises serious public policy concerns.346 For example, we may prefer more liberal
data retention policies for surveillance around national monuments and critical infrastructures in recognition of the
threat posed by terrorism.347 Further, there is a dearth of social science research on the changing usefulness of
surveillance data over time. Nonetheless, without regulation, departments have little incentive to self-regulate.
While it may be difficult for the courts to craft a uniform national rule on data retention, the courts can at least
require that departments, or conversely state legislatures, articulate clear data retention policies. This would permit
states and localities to consider the unique criminological needs for data retention in their jurisdiction in crafting
regulations, while preventing the indiscriminate collection of all data. Admittedly, this suggested judicial response is
a major doctrinal shift and requires the courts to break away from established Fourth Amendment doctrine. But the
digitally efficient investigative state poses too many serious and constitutionally relevant threats for the judiciary to
simply defer to legislative arrangements. Scholars have often argued that the legislature is better suited to assess
the proper balance between privacy and security.348 At least in the narrow field of police surveillance technologies,
I disagree. In the next section, I argue that the courts are the best-positioned actor to address the issues implicated
by mass data collection.

Only the courts can solve the other branches are influenced to
much about politics
Rushin 11 PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program; J.D., University of California, Berkeley Law School
(Stephen Rushin, Perspectives of judicial actions for Surveillance, THE JUDICIAL
RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, 2011, http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Rushin.pdf)//JM
First, the courts are structurally well positioned within our decentralized federal
system to address the national concern of mass surveillance. The courts are the
most nonpartisan actor capable of protecting the rights of the disadvantaged and
politically unpopular. If the courts defer to legislative arrangements, surveillance
technologies will be regulated inconsistently across jurisdictions. The digitally efficient
investigative state is no longer a localized phenomenon, but an increasingly national, centralized system. The judiciary is
the most appropriate branch to develop a national solution that would be applicable
to all law enforcementlocal, state, and national. By grounding the judicial remedy in the
Fourth Amendment, the judiciary can ensure that every person has a reasonably
consistent expectation to privacy in the aggregation and sharing of personal data
across jurisdictional lines. 348. See, e.g., Orin S. Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and New Technologies: Constitutional
Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 MICH. L. REV. 801, 807 (20032004). 349. Id. 350. Id. at 807, 85787. 351. Id. at 886
(discussing Dripps theory); Donald A. Dripps, Criminal Procedure, Footnote Four, and the Theory of Public Choice; Or, Why Dont
Legislatures Give a Damn About the Rights of the Accused? 44 SYRACUSE L. REV. 1079, 108890 (1993). 352. Dripps, supra note

Once more, legislative

efforts to regulate surveillance may reify majoritarian preferences and insufficiently
protect the privacy of certain politically unpopular minorities, like MuslimAmericans. There is a cogent argument to be made that, in the current heated and divisive political environment, Muslim
351, at 1081. 353. Kerr, supra note 348, at 875. No. 2] MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE 323

Americans are the individuals most at risk of indiscriminate surveillance data collection and subsequent fishing expeditions.
Admittedly, Kerr points out that Congress has frequently acted on its own initiative to protect privacy against the threat of new
technology. 354 This descriptively suggests that Congress has been more receptive to the evolving privacy concerns than the
courts. No doubt, Kerr is correctcourts have been predictably deferential and restrained in regulating law enforcement
technologies. But this does not mean that the courts are not institutionally competent to create Fourth Amendment policy,
particularly when data collection and surveillance raise delicate majoritarian concerns that cannot be adequately addressed by the
legislature. Kerr rejects the majoritarian critiques of legislative arrangements by claiming that since [p]rivacy and security may be
considered public goods, shared equally by the public, and both law enforcement interests and victims of crime may lobby the
legislature, the judicial arrangements offer no substantial benefits over legislative arrangements.355 Kerr also dismisses Drippss
majoritarian concern by noting that new technologies will tend to target users of new technologies. 356 These users are

disproportionately elite, meaning that their interests should be well represented in the legislature. Hence, Kerr believes that Drippss
concern that minorities will be underrepresented and marginalized in the political process is unwarranted. But Kerrs logic, while

In the political hysteria

surrounding the War on Terrorism, those most likely to be targeted by mass
surveillance, indiscriminate data collection, and subsequent fishing expeditions may
be politically unpopular minorities like Muslim-Americans. There is, undoubtedly,
tremendous pressure on the Executive Branch and law enforcement to use any
means legally available to prevent a terrorist attack on American soil. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that law enforcement has targeted Muslim-Americans, in
particular, for surveillance over the last decades. For example, a group of Muslim-Americans in
applicable in most situations, is unpersuasive in the current political environment.

California has accused the FBI of targeting religiously devout Muslim-Americans for surveillance, without any particularized suspicion

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a class action
complaint against the FBI in the Central District of California alleging that the FBI
used an informant to indiscriminately collect personal information on hundreds
and perhaps thousands of innocent Muslim Americans in Southern California . . . . [T]he
of wrongdoing.357

FBI did not gather the information based on suspicion of criminal activity, 354. Id. at 855. 355. Id. at 88485. 356. Id. at 887. 357.
See, e.g., Patrik Jonsson, Muslim Group Sues FBI over Surveillance at California Mosque, CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR (Feb. 23, 2011),
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0223/Muslim-groupsues-FBI-over-surveillance-at-California-mosques; see also Jennifer
Medina, Suit Accuses F.B.I. of Spying at Mosques in California, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 25, 2011, at A17. 324 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY

it seems
highly improbable that elites in the legislature will be responsive to the privacy
concerns of these unpopular minority needs. Muslim Americans, as an example, are also chronically
underrepresented in the legislative branch. 359 Unpopular minorities are, therefore, unable to protect
their right to be free from pervasive surveillance through legislative compromises.
This represents a structural flaw in our decentralized federal system, one that can
only be remedied by judicial action. The judiciary is the most institutionally
competent actor to address the majoritarian concerns raised by mass surveillance
and data collection.
& POLICY [Vol. 2011 [but] instead it gathered the information simply because the targets were Muslim. 358 Further,

Concerns that the courts cant solve are illegitimate they still wont
undermine the courts ability to solve
Rushin 11 PhD student at the University of California, Berkeley, Jurisprudence
and Social Policy Program; J.D., University of California, Berkeley Law School
(Stephen Rushin, Perspectives of judicial actions for Surveillance, THE JUDICIAL
RESPONSE TO MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE, 2011, http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wpcontent/uploads/2013/10/Rushin.pdf)//JM
Second, the so-called judicial information deficit 360 should not deter the courts
from creating policy to address mass surveillance concerns. The proliferation and
use of mass surveillance technologies has stabilized to a point that judicial action
would be appropriate. In arguing that the judiciary lacks the skills and competence to create broad Fourth
Amendment policy, skeptics have commonly levied three arguments: (1) unlike the legislature, the courts lack the
physical and administrative resources to craft a comprehensive policy; (2) judges are not technologically
sophisticated enough to create technology policy; and (3) once crafted, judicial technology policies rarely hold up in
different factual scenarios.361 As I demonstrate below, the limited judicial response offered in this Article will hold
up against these three legitimate critiques. To begin with, skeptics allege that legislations can more carefully
analyze a problem, investigate potential solutions, impanel experts, and make farreaching, nuanced policies.362
Unlike the legislature, which may command the resources of an extensive bureaucracy . . . a judge is generally
limited to a secretary and one or two recent law school . . . [graduate clerks]. 363 Kerr has thus argued that the
courts simply do not have the resources to engage in this kind of careful analysis necessary to develop a
comprehensive and responsive policy on Fourth Amendment technologies.364 On its face, this type of analysis is
persuasive, especially considering the fact that the courts lack the funding to do sweeping investigations into the
efficacy of an emerging technology. Nonetheless, this logic ignores a pivotal tactic used by courts in previous

iterations of successful policymakingthe adoption of standards already implemented by other institutions.365

Malcolm Feeley and Edward Rubin explained that when the courts attempted to create extensive judicial policy 358.
Class Action Complaint at 1, Fazaga v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, No. SACV11-00301 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2011).
359. See Ellison to Swear on Jeffersons Quran, MILWAUKEE J. SENTINEL, Jan. 4, 2007, at 6A (stating that
Congressman Keith Ellison was the first and only Muslim American elected to Congress in U.S. history in 2006). 360.
Kerr, supra note 348, at 875. 361. Id. at 87577. 362. Id. at 88182. 363. MALCOLM M. FEELEY AND EDWARD L.
RUBIN, JUDICIAL POLICY MAKING AND THE MODERN STATE 307 (1998). 364. Kerr, supra note 348, at 85859. 365.
MALCOLM M. FEELEY & EDWARD L. RUBIN, supra note 363, at 307. No. 2] MASS POLICE SURVEILLANCE 325
regulating American prisons, judges turned to the American Correctional Association and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons.366 Indeed, [F]ederal judges turned to these standards because they wanted to impose detailed,
administrative-style rules of any sort but lacked the resources to design the rules themselves. 367 Unlike the
prison reform context described by Feeley and Rubin, where the courts created extensive and detailed policy, the
judicial response I argue for in this Article does not require extensive investigation or uniform implementation. I
merely argue for a judicially mandated floor, which establishes the minimum amount of regulation required for

Additionally, there is domestic and international precedent , most

notably in Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Germany, that the courts could use as a model to
craft a broad solution.368 Once the courts lay out a broad policy objective, police
departments and local legislatures would be incentivized to develop their own,
individual policies to implement this judicially mandated, regulatory floor. States
would be free to develop more complex, detailed, and even more stringent
protections against data collection. Some states have already done just that.369
This pattern can be seen in other areas of criminal judicial policymaking, such as
Miranda requirements. The Court handed down broad general requirements
departments, in implementing the Miranda decision, often went above and beyond
the Courts minimal requirements. Next, critics of judicial regulation of emerging technologies have
surveillance technologies.

argued that judges are not as technically sophisticated as the legislature. Judges often rely on the crutch of
questionable metaphors to aid their comprehension of complex technology cases, meaning that it is easy for
judges to misunderstand the context of their decisions and their likely effect when technology is in flux. 370 But

in

the unique situation outlined in this Article, judges do not need to be experts in
these technological fields to understand the capabilities of technologies like ALPR
and facial recognition software. The danger I discuss in this article is that police will keep a digital
dossier of every single persons movements. This type of monitoring would facilitate fishing expeditions, increase

There is
little reason to believe that, with the assistance of knowledgeable advocates, judges
could not sufficiently understand the potential harms posted by digitally efficient
investigative technologies to develop a coherent constitutional floor of protection.
And even though the legislature has a broader array of resources at its disposal, the
legislature is an unsatisfactory avenue to protect the unique countermajoritarian
issues at stake. Finally, some scholars have contended that judicial regulations of 366. Id. 367. Id. 368. See
the likelihood of corrupt behavior by law enforcement, and facilitate some types of racial profiling.

supra Part V.A. (describing judicial responses to legislative limits on police technologies). 369. See H.B. 454, 2002
Gen. Assemb., 2002 Sess. (Va. 2002) (implementing the restricted use of facial recognition technology in Virginia);
see also Facial Scan: Beachs Use Restricted Under Bill Approved by House, THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT & LEDGER STAR,
Feb. 13, 2002, at B4 (describing Virginias facial recognition technology bill). 370. Kerr, supra note 348, at 87576.
326 JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & POLICY [Vol. 2011 emerging technologies rarely hold up in different factual
scenarios. Under this rationale, critics of this judicial response may contend that while this protection could work
when applied to ALPR or facial recognition software, it would not necessarily be a workable standard for future
technological developments. This view certainly has merit. By the time the courts decide how a technology should
be regulated . . . the factual record of the case may be outdated, reflecting older technology rather than more
recent developments. 371 Stuart Benjamin has argued that rapidly changing facts weaken the force of stare
decisis by undermining the stability of precedents. 372 This provides a forceful case against judicial
micromanagement of emerging technologies. But the judicial response argued for in this Article is sufficiently broad
to avoid the predictable antiquation of other, narrower judicial solutionsit merely distinguishes between
observational comparison and indiscriminate data collection, while broadly regulating the identification of data and
interactions with private data aggregators. The collection of extensive, indiscriminate surveillance data is a
widespread, pervasive occurrence common amongst countless investigative technologies.

The development

of digital dossiers is not a trending fad that will simply disappear in the near future.
We should not expect the legislature to step in and address a problem that may
disproportionately affect unpopular minorities. The Court has long recognized that,
when making policy in the field of emerging technologies, the rule we adopt must
take account of more sophisticated systems that are already in use or in
development. 373 The judicial response presented does not prevent the use of
surveillance technologies for observational comparison, but merely offers a
sufficiently broad and generalized constitutional limit on indiscriminate data
collection, which can be reasonably exported and applied to future, more
sophisticated technologies. Once more, critics of judicial policymaking seem tacitly concerned that the
limited applicability of judicial rules in the future will weaken the force of stare decisis, thereby undermining the
judiciarys legitimacy. But nothing could further de-legitimize the judiciary more than a failure to serve its

The courts are, therefore,

the best-positioned actor within our decentralized federal system to protect against
the threat of extensive, indiscriminate data collection. Concerns about the
judiciarys institutional competence seem misplaced. And though the courts have
limited resources, there is not enough convincing evidence of a judicial
information deficit 374 so as to overcome the judiciarys important role as
protectors of discrete and insular minorities.
fundamental role as a protector against the tyranny of majoritarian preferences.