National Security and Society

The last blog entry demonstrated how under a framework of security, basic rights such as freedom of speech could be curtailed. That is, not only curtailed, but also justified by government officials under a security context. In this entry, I just wanted to further develop the idea that was developing in the last entry. While the group discussed last week (APEC-Alert!) had a very different objective than the group that will be discussed this week (Peace Fresno), some commonalities can be drawn surrounding the circumstances in which violations of basic rights such as freedom of speech and privacy were violated.

To that end, the related document for this week is:
American Civil Liberties Union, The letter to Attorney General Bill Lockyer, (2004) < http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11191lgl20040421.html > [17 November 2008].

In every blog entry that has been made thus far, it has been crucial to keep in mind the ideological nature of the term “national security” and more specifically, look at who is defining that term and to see if that definition serves to further any underlying interests. Hence, because the term is ideological in nature, the definition can expand and contract depending on the situation.

As the scope of national security expands however, many groups that aren’t traditionally considered a threat become the target of surveillance. At the same time, if the scope of national security is expanded too far, certain government measures become very difficult to rationalize, whether it is under the framework of security or not. This was the case with Peace Fresno. A community organization based out of Fresno, California, the group’s goal was the promotion of non-violence, peace, and social justice. As well, unlike APEC-Alert!, it can be argued that their methods of trying to achieve social change were less at odds with any government officials. That is, there is no indication that Peace Fresno engaged in the scale of confrontation with police and government officials like APEC-Alert! did. Their activities were mainly surrounding the distribution of flyers and street protests in order to achieve social change, like the end of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The only reasonable explanation of the Fresno County Sheriff Department's Anti-Terrorism unit’s infiltration of the peace group is that they were openly against the U.S.’s invasion and occupation of Iraq. The group was openly protesting the actions of the state and attempting to change the status quo. Hence, in order to deal with the situation, state officials had to take action against the group.

However, it could not just outright censor or outlaw the group. The convenient action for the state to take then was to define them as a national security threat so that it would justify the Anti-Terrorism unit’s infiltration and surveillance of the group. Therefore, what the infiltration of Peace Fresno demonstrates is not that the group was a threat to national security, but that national security served as a way to normalize the curtailment of speech and privacy rights.

The lack of definition for what national security entails means that it can be defined very freely. As well, the ability to define national security is often left up to those who are in power to define, not the citizens. Once a particular group falls within the realm of national security, those that are in power are therefore in a better position to justify any limitations on basic rights. This is because national security, however it is defined, is often portrayed in a manner that makes it seem more important than and trumps individual rights.

This conception of national can be seen at work with the Peace Fresno example. The umbrella of national security was extended by the state in order to incorporate the peace group. Once the group was under the umbrella of national security, their infiltration and surveillance could be rationalized under this national security framework. Thus, far from being objective in nature and protecting its citizens, national security is often used as a measure by the state against its own citizens. All of this can be justified as part of a national security agenda and at the same time serve two main purposes for the state. The possibility of infiltration and surveillance serves to intimidate any groups that could be dissenting against the status quo and second, the framework of national security serves to justify any curtailment of basic rights like free speech.