National Security and Society

One element that is necessary in the ideological exercise of national security is often a fear of an unknown. An earlier post discussed how the threat to national security is defined. However, it is often the case that a lack of distinction in terms of who or what is the threat serves to strengthen the government’s ability to wield its power under the framework of national security. Rather than having a specific threat, where citizens perhaps know where the danger is coming from, a threat from an unknown creates an atmosphere of fear and unrest. In this sense, the threat must be ideological in nature in much of the same way as national security is ideological in nature. If the threat to national security is defined in an open-ended manner, then the definition of who can be deemed a threat can be expanded or contracted in order to fit the needs of the state.

To that end, this blog entry is based on the following news item:
AFP, “Terrorist 'tweets'? US Army warns of Twitter dangers” Breitbart.com (2008) < http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081025182242.js2g2op8&show_article=1 >

There are many other news articles that discuss the same topic. Just Google the following key terms to find other news articles relating to the same topic: U.S. Army and Twitter

Before I get into the substantive part of my commentary, I want to give a brief backgrounder on Twitter for those who are unfamiliar with it. Twitter is essentially part of the Web 2.0 developments in the World Wide Web. That is, the new Internet developments of the past couple of years that look to enhance interactivity and networking between users. In essence, Twitter can be seen in the same category as other web developments like Facebook, Youtube, MySpace, and Flickr. In this case, Twitter is a micro-blogging service. Thus, it is much like my blog, except Twitter entries are very short in nature, usually a sentence or a phrase that an individual will post via cell phone or on the Twitter website. Like the RSS feed from my blog, Twitter users can “follow” other Twitter users and get instant updates via cell phone when someone who they are following posts a micro-blog update, called a “tweet.” Thus, the US Army’s intelligence report states a fear that a potential terrorist could send out a tweet to mobilize thousands of followers to carry out a terrorist act.

The U.S. Army’s intelligence report on how Twitter can be used as a tool of subversion is very telling of how a state institution is able to define threats to national security in such a way that it is very much all encompassing of all groups that are looking to change the status quo.

As quoted in the article, “Twitter has also become a social activism tool for socialists, human rights groups, communists, vegetarians, anarchists, religious communities, atheists, political enthusiasts, hacktivists and others to communicate with each other and to send messages to broader audiences.” As well, “Twitter is already used by some members to post and/or support extremist ideologies and perspectives.”

The way that the news article conveys the report, it seems as if the intelligence report is suggesting that there is somewhat of an implicit relationship between extremist groups and socialists, human rights groups, communists, vegetarians, anarchists, religious communities, atheists, political enthusiasts, and hacktivists. Amusingly, while the political enthusiasts and communists have always been seen as groups who were critical of or in opposition to the status quo, this is the first time that I have seen vegetarians classified as a threat to law and order. In this case, we can relate the underlying reasons for the classification of vegetarians as a security threat back to why Peace Fresno was classified as a security threat. In classifying them as a security threat, it provides rationalization for the surveillance of the group and the curtailment of members’ rights, not because they present a legitimate threat to national security, but because they possess views that are contrary to the national order.

Besides stating that vegetarians are a group actively working against the status quo, the U.S. Army intelligence report seems to list off a never-ending list of groups who could use Twitter as a tool for disrupting the national order. In avoiding any precision in defining who is actually presenting a threat to national security, it creates two consequences. First, the state can pick and choose who they want to target as national security threats. Lack of definition leaves it up to the state to start defining threats. Second, the seemingly endless list of threats to the national order listed in the report presents an image of an omnipresent threat.

The perception of an omnipresent threat creates an atmosphere of fear and sometimes hysteria. In times of fear and hysteria, citizens often look to the state to take action. These actions often involve the wielding of law enforcement power in opposition to basic individual freedoms. However, such adverse effects on basic rights are accepted because it is seen as a necessity in order to protect citizens from that omnipresent threat. It is in this way that those in power are able to consolidate that power. The perception that any group, perhaps even vegetarians, could at any point in time subvert the existing national order and instill their explicit ideologies onto others generates fear amongst the general population. This fear is often to such an extent that the population in general hopes that the state can offer them the protection that they desire.

What underlies this fear however, is the ability of the state and its institutions to be able to effectively generate this fear. Once the population perceives that there is a national security threat from some kind of omnipresent force, it is the state again that is able to roll up, quash the activities of these groups seen as threats to national security, and ultimately uphold the nation's security. In doing all of this, those in power are able to maintain and consolidate their power and their hold on the national ideologies as well.

Side note: I noticed a somewhat unrelated deficiency in the intelligence report. As quoted from the news article, the intelligence report stated that, "Terrorists may or may not be using voice-changing software..." I am not sure where the intelligence sources are coming from, however, it should be noted that voice changing software has been available since the early 1990's. For instance, the Talkboy, a rudimentary voice changing device, was used by Macaulay Culkin's character Kevin McCallister in Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. If U.S. intelligence officials are just now discussing the potential uses of voice changing technologies, it may be a sign that they are severely lagging behind developments in society.