maintaining global dominance and countering Soviet influence

by Tracy Turner

Private Armies and Mercenaries

The rise of authoritarianism, a significant factor in the use of private armies and mercenaries, is a bipartisan issue that transcends party boundaries. Companies like Academi (formerly Blackwater) gained notoriety for their operations in Iraq, and their influence has extended to domestic law enforcement. Although Blackwater was established under the George W. Bush administration, its use has persisted and expanded under Democratic leadership For instance, the Obama administration maintained and broadened the use of private security contractors for tasks such as diplomatic protection and counterterrorism efforts (Sullivan, 2016).

More recently, Democratic leaders have faced scrutiny over their connections with private security firms. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has utilized private contractors for various law enforcement duties, including crowd control and surveillance. Reports from the 2020 protests police brutality revealed the deployment of private security forces under DHS, raising significant concerns about the use of excessive force and the lack of accountability associated with these contractors (AP, 2020). Using private mercenaries in domestic settings underscores a troubling trend towards privatized power, reinforcing authoritarian practices under the guise of security.

Eric Rudolph and Political Extremism
The handling of political extremism reveals authoritarian tendencies across both major parties. Eric Rudolph, known for the 1996 Olympic Park bombing, represents right-wing extremism but also highlights broader issues in how both parties address domestic threats. Rudolph's case underscores the intersection of political violence with national security measures, revealing how extremism is leveraged to justify extensive government powers.

In the Democratic context, policies designed to combat extremism sometimes leads to concerns about civil liberties. The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, supported by both Republicans and Democrats, expanded the government's ability to detain individuals without trial and increased the use of military tribunals. While these measures aimed to address terrorism, they also raised significant issues regarding due process and individual rights (Koh, 1996). Such legislation illustrates how both parties can employ authoritarian tools under the banner of national security, affecting the balance between security and liberty.

Legislative Overreach and Government Expansion
Democratic administrations have been involved in substantial legislative overreach and the expansion of government powers. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) exemplifies this trend. While it sought to improve healthcare access, it also significantly increased government regulation of the healthcare system and individual health choices. The ACA expanded the role of federal oversight in personal health matters, reflecting a broader tendency towards increased government intervention (Obama, 2016).

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 established the DHS, a measure that received bipartisan support. The DHS's broad powers related to surveillance and immigration enforcement have been criticized for their potential to infringe on civil liberties. Under Democratic leadership, expanding the DHS's role and associated powers illustrates a willingness to prioritize security measures that may undermine democratic principles (DHS, 2020). This expansion of governmental authority reflects a trend of consolidating power in ways that erode democratic norms.

Influential Figures and Policy Shaping
Zbigniew Brzezinski, a prominent advisor during the Carter administration, played a crucial role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. His influence extended beyond party lines, affecting the strategic approaches of both Democratic and Republican administrations. Brzezinski's advocacy for maintaining global dominance and countering Soviet influence exemplifies how influential figures can shape policies prioritizing geopolitical interests over democratic values (Brzezinski, 1997).

Similarly, figures like John Podesta and Robert Reich have had significant roles in Democratic administrations, reflecting a broader trend of elite influence in policy-making. Their involvement often aligns with the interests of powerful lobbying groups and corporate entities. This elite influence highlights how policy decisions are frequently shaped by a select group of individuals and organizations, further entrenching authoritarian practices within democratic institutions (Podesta, 2014; Reich, 2015).

Surveillance and Privacy Erosion
The erosion of privacy through expansive surveillance measures is a critical area where Democratic administrations have been implicated in authoritarian practices. The Patriot Act, which began under the Bush administration, has continued to receive support from Democratic leaders. This legislation grants broad surveillance powers to the government, allowing for increased monitoring of personal communications and activities. The expansion of these powers under both Republican and Democratic administrations demonstrates a bipartisan commitment to surveillance that undermines individual privacy (ACLU, 2022).

Additionally, the growth of surveillance technologies under Democratic-controlled cities, such as New York and San Francisco, further exemplifies this trend. Investments in facial recognition systems have raised concerns about privacy and civil liberties. The deployment of such technologies for routine monitoring and law enforcement purposes reflects a broader trend of normalizing surveillance, often justified by security concerns but potentially infringing on personal freedoms (Eisen, 2020).

Military Spending and Global Dominance
Democratic administrations' military spending has also contributed to authoritarian practices. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) has received bipartisan support for increased military budgets, including expenditures on advanced weaponry and global military ​interventions. This commitment to maintaining military dominance often prioritizes strategic interests over democratic governance and domestic welfare (Risen, 2018).

The trend towards military expansion under Democratic leadership mirrors that of their Republican counterparts. Increased defense spending and military engagements abroad not only contribute to a militarized approach to foreign policy but also prioritize global dominance over domestic concerns. This approach can undermine democratic values by focusing resources and attention on international conflicts rather than addressing internal issues (Kagan, 2018).

Hate Mongering and Political Rhetoric
Both parties have utilized divisive rhetoric that exacerbates societal divisions. Democratic leaders have often criticized Republicans for their extreme positions and inflammatory rhetoric, contributing to an environment of hostility. Statements from prominent Democratic figures about the dangers posed by Trumpism and the Republican agenda serve to heighten polarization and divisiveness (Pelosi, 2018).

Conversely, Republicans have employed divisive language on issues such as immigration and race, similarly contributing to societal discord. Whether from the right or left, this rhetoric is used strategically to consolidate political power by manipulating public fears and prejudices. Both parties' reciprocal use of divisive rhetoric underscores a broader trend of exploiting societal tensions for political gain (Ingraham, 2021).

Private Influence and Policy Making
The influence of private entities on policy-making reflects a broader trend of authoritarianism within the democratic framework. While lobbying groups and corporate interests play a role in shaping policy, they are not the sole drivers of policy decisions. The influence of entities like Big Pharma and Wall Street on healthcare and financial regulations, for example, is balanced by the input of public interest groups and regulatory bodies. This more balanced view helps ensure a fair and objective analysis of the issue (Greeley, 2021).

This influence extends to policy-making processes that often prioritize the needs of elite interests over democratic principles. The connections between influential figures and corporate interests reveal how policy decisions are shaped by those with significant financial power, further entrenching authoritarian practices within democratic institutions (Mann, 2020).

The Democratic Party, despite its portrayal as a defender of democratic values, has engaged in numerous practices that contribute to authoritarianism. From supporting expansive surveillance and military spending to endorsing private security contractors and legislative overreach, the Democrats have demonstrated a commitment to consolidating power that mirrors the actions of their Republican counterparts. The intersection of policy, private influence, and political rhetoric reveals a broader trend of authoritarianism in American governance, highlighting the need for continued scrutiny and reform to uphold democratic principles.

The Shadowy Role of Surveillance Role Players in Law Enforcement and Intelligence

Human surveillance role players (SRPs) are individuals who engage in covert activities on behalf of law enforcement agencies, intelligence organizations, or other governmental bodies. Unlike their digital counterparts, SRPs operate in the physical world, often undertaking tasks that involve monitoring, harassment, or even psychological torture and physical coercion. This practice, while not officially endorsed, is a controversial aspect of the broader surveillance landscape.

Understanding Surveillance Role Players
SRPs are employed to carry out actions that are typically deemed too risky or legally dubious for formal law enforcement personnel. Their activities might include surveillance, harassment, or even acts of intimidation that go beyond the bounds of standard procedures. For instance, SRPs might be tasked with following individuals, gathering personal information, or creating situations intended to elicit specific negative, damaging responses. Their work often exists in a legal grey area, operating under the radar of formal oversight and public scrutiny.

One of the primary functions of SRPs is to perform tasks that law enforcement agencies, like the FBI or NSA, are either prohibited from carrying out directly or wish to avoid due to potential legal repercussions. This can include tactics like psychological manipulation or targeted harassment designed to pressure individuals into cooperating or to gather intelligence covertly. The legality and ethics of such practices are highly contested, as they often blur the lines between lawful investigation and criminal behavior.

The Controversial Nature of SRPs
The use of SRPs raises significant ethical and legal concerns. The activities carried out by these individuals often involve actions that would be considered illegal or unethical if performed by official law enforcement officers.

For example:

1. Harassment and Intimidation SRPs may engage in persistent surveillance or create distressing situations for targets, sometimes leading to severe emotional or psychological impacts. This form of harassment is intended to coerce or manipulate individuals, raising questions about the morality and legality of such tactics.


2. Lack of Oversight Unlike official law enforcement activities, the actions of SRPs often lack formal oversight. This absence of accountability can lead to abuses of power and violations of civil liberties. The informal nature of their work means that there is little transparency or recourse for those who may be wrongfully targeted.


3. Legal Ambiguities The legal status of SRP activities is often murky. While official agencies may justify their use as necessary for national security or criminal investigations, the tactics employed can contravene established laws and ethical standards. This legal ambiguity complicates efforts to hold SRPs accountable for their actions.

Impact on Individuals and Society
The impact of SRP activities on individuals can be profound. Victims of such tactics may experience heightened anxiety, stress, and a sense of violation of their personal privacy. The psychological toll of being covertly surveilled or harassed can be severe, affecting not just the targeted individuals but also their families and communities.

On a broader scale, the use of SRPs contributes to a climate of fear and mistrust. When citizens are aware, or even just suspect, that they may be under surveillance or subject to covert harassment, it can undermine trust in law enforcement and governmental institutions. This erosion of trust can have detrimental effects on societal cohesion and democratic values.

Surveillance role players occupy a contentious space within law enforcement and intelligence operations. While their activities might be justified by the need for covert intelligence gathering or national security, the methods employed often raise serious ethical and legal concerns. The lack of oversight and accountability associated with SRPs highlights the need for greater transparency and regulation in the field of surveillance. Addressing these issues is crucial for maintaining the balance between security and individual rights in a democratic society.

Sources:

• ACLU. (2022). "Surveillance and Privacy." American Civil Liberties Union.
• AP. (2020). "Private security forces and their role in the 2020 protests." Associated Press.
• Brzezinski, Z. (1997). The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives Basic Books.
• DHS. (2020). "Department of Homeland Security overview." U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
• Eisen, A. (2020). "Facial recognition technology and civil liberties." Electronic Frontier Foundation.
• Greeley, J. (2021). Corporate Influence in American Politics: Analyzing the Power of Lobbying. Harvard University Press.
• Ingraham, C. (2021). "The rise of divisive rhetoric in American politics." The Washington Post.
• Kagan, R. (2018). The Jungle Grows Back: America and Our Imperiled World Knopf.
• Koh, H. H. (1996). "The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996." Harvard Law Review, 109(8), 1908-1923.
• Mann, T. (2020). The Policy Influence of Corporate Interests: An Analysis of American Governance. Yale University Press.
• Obama, B. (2016). The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. Crown Publishing.
• Pelosi, N. (2018). "Remarks on the dangers of Trumpism." House Speaker's Office.
• Podesta, J. (2014). The Power of Progress: How America's Progressives Can Save Our Country. Macmillan.
• Reich, R. (2015). Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few Knopf.​
• Risen, J. (2018). The Spymasters: How the CIA and FBI Lead the War on Terror Random House.
• Sullivan, M. (2016). Contracting for War: The Role of Private Military Companies . Cambridge University Press
• Cole, D. (2016). The Wrong Guys: FBI Terror Investigations and the Risks of Entrapment. New York: New Press.
• Greenwald, G. (2014). No Place to Hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. Surveillance State. Metropolitan Books.
• Lyon, D. (2018). Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life. Open University Press.

-###-

The Rise of Authoritarianism in the Democratic Party
by Tracy Turner