A “S--hole” of an Orwellian Law Was Just Passed, But No One Spoke Out

Last week Democrats and Republicans couldn’t agree whether or not President Donald Trump used the term “s--hole countries” in describing Haiti and El Salvador during a meeting about immigration. But with the help of a compliant media and a gaggle of corporate lobbyists, they did agree on one thing: a “sh--hole of an Orwellian law that wreaks of hyper state vigilance and warrantless prosecution.

Cure for Terrorism Worse Than Its Illness
By rallying around the National Security Agency’s FISA Act, their cure for terrorism is now worse than it’s illness.[1] Not only will the state monitor and track private phone calls and electronic communications, including emails, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, browsing histories, images, and interface recognition, but they’ll seize and store personal information in a data base for further scrutiny without a search warrant.

In his book “1984,” George Orwell warned of the potential misuse of power. To say nothing of the dangers introduced by human error, it’s now terrifyingly high with data-driven inferences and false positives or just simple curiosity. In fact, some sources claim data inputs and software is already “predicting” human behavior, granting authorities “probable cause” to pre-arrest someone before committing a crime or act of terror.

Adoring Technologies That Undo the Capacity to Think
Democrats and Republicans also “codified” the FISA Act, rejecting measures that normally would’ve protected Americans from dangerous authoritarian laws that the President, State Department, DOJ, CIA, and FBI can utilize. Given that surveillance laws won’t expire-ever, what’s to say the current state isn’t already a totalitarianism society that doesn’t so much promise an age of faith as an age of psychopaths and schizophrenia?

George Orwell would meanwhile agree that such invasive laws are simply too powerful for anyone to handle responsibly. Moreover, once built, these kinds of systems will never be dismantled. And even if a dire security situation were to improve, what government would willingly give up such a powerful law- and political-enforcement tool? Is it plausible as well that people will believe what technology tells them to believe?

The State Is Always Right
For now, the government plans to use secret information as evidence, like they did against foreigners and “suspected” terrorists. They don’t have to divulge in details to the accused; only a government “summary” that’s provided to protect the identity of “informers” who provide information. Informers in this case are tele- and electronic communication giants, and the owners and monitors of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Cookies, Google, etc…

George Orwell envisioned such a state ruling class that would cling to power by force and fraud. In fact, the government’s used summary evidence to distort the past and against some suspected terrorists, and in the long run, demanded a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. Since data mined information can be distorted and every image repainted, to the extent that reality is no more, what does this mean for citizens?

The Lie Is Finally the Truth
Though Congress claimed the Kafkaesque law deals with only a few cases, emergencies have always been a time when the niceties of law have been most vulnerable to the demands of national security and national hysteria. Just recall how World War II produced Internment Camps for Japanese, Italian and German Americans, or how primitive patriotism led to secret rendition sites and GITMO - including false arrests.

Stepped up public surveillance may also lead to a national identification card-if it’s not already here. For instance, last year’s Super Bowl spectators and recent protesters - AntiFa and Black Lives Matter - had their faces secretly scanned with cameras that instantly matched their face prints against photographs of wanted criminals a suspected terrorists. In the case of protesters, leaders were tracked and arrested before future demonstrations

One Man’s Citizen Is Another Man’s “Potential” Terrorist or Criminal
It seems there’s no difference if Republicans or Democrats are in control. Nor is there any caution or responsibility with the totally integrated information systems that are in their hands-and the hands of the Deep State. Together with the connectivity of living in both the physical and virtual worlds, neither is it so far-fetched to wonder who really controls and influences virtual identities-and thus citizens themselves.[2]

With the air of inevitability around technology’s future proliferation, the only remedies for potential digital tyranny are to strengthen legal institutions and encourage civil society to remain active and wise and resistant to potential abuses of power. Consequently, it should start with last week’s “s--hole” of an Orwellian law that was passed, and forces most Americans to lose many of their protections and liberties they’ve rely upon thus far.

Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, And Consumerism in the Context of John’s Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.WN.com. You can read more of Dallas’ writings at www.beverlydarling.com and www.WN.com//dallasdarling.)

[1] “The Challenge of Terrorism.” Evanston, Illinois: McDougal and Houghton Mifflin Company, 2002., p. 181.
[2] Schmidt, Eric and Jared Cohen. “The New Digital Age: Reshaping The Future Of People, Nations And Businesses.” New York, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013., p. 81.