Sociology 002S Final Examination Fall 2020 Dr. Kposowa Instructions: To answer the questions, use only lectures at ilearn and notes taken after listening to lectures. Please upload your responses at ilearn no later than 11:59 pm on Thursday December 17. To answer a question, write directly in the space under the question. Please use only Microsoft Word as other software do not open at ilearn. Be sure to write your name in the space below and SID. While a couple of questions require one or two words, most require a sentence. Some questions carry heavier weights than others. NAME________________________________ SID________________ 1. In his Farwell address to the nation in the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the country about two institutions that now dominate the US? What was the name he gave to the institutions? [5%] 2. “The ability to impose ones will on others, even without their consent” defines what? [5%] 3. According to C. Wright Mills? Which groups comprise the Power Elite? [10%] 4. In a 1991 book, Philomena Essed identified three forms of everyday racism. What are they? (15%] 5. There is a US ideal that people have the right to vote. From the lecture on race/ethnicity, it was pointed out that this ‘right to vote’ is in name only for minorities because one political party (Republican) consistently tries to do what about voting? [10%] 1 6. In popular discussions about race and the prevalence of prejudice, discrimination and racism in the US, and especially about white police treatment of African Americans, what do these abbreviations stand for: DWB, LWB, JWB, WWB? [15%]. 7. When White terrorists bombed a Black church in Birmingham, Alabama, and killed five black children, the act was deplored by most elements of U.S. society. At the same time, when hundreds of Black babies die each year in Birmingham because of the effects of racism, no one in the power structure gets upset and calls this violence. Which two black authors and civil rights leaders made the above comments? [10%] 8. Offenses such as alcoholism, excessive gambling and prostitution fall under which type of offenses or crimes? [10%] 9. Outgoing president Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from a treaty that was signed several decades with the Soviet Union/Russia. What was that treaty? [10%] 10. If the CIA, the National Security Agency or Department of Homeland Security deliberately listen to phone calls, capture text messages, or extra emails of anti-government protesters, such actions would fall under what category of crimes discussed in lecture? [10%] 2 Sociology 002S Dr. Kposowa CRIMES: INDIVIDUALS, ELITES AND GOVERNMENT Lecture XI Fall 2020 Defining Crime: Not so Easy Within a given society, individuals and groups differ in how they define crime. Some people equate crime with all deviant or antisocial behavior. Others argue that crimes are acts such as racism and imperialism that violate basic human rights. There are others that employ moral rather than legal criteria to define what is or is not a crime. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr., and civil rights leaders believed laws enforcing racial segregation were morally wrong, so to violate them was not a crime but a virtue. Anti-abortion activists believe that abortion is a crime regardless of what the formal law says. There is no universally accepted definition of crime. The most common practice in criminology is to define as behavior that violates or breaks a law. This type of definition officially labels people and separates society into criminal and noncriminal categories. In other words, criminality is a social status determined by how an individual is perceived, evaluated, and treated by legal authorities. We must be careful about accepting official or government sanctioned definitions of crime. Generally, the law designates as criminal any behaviors that violate the strongly held norms of society. There is common agreement in the United States, for example, that the law should protect property from theft and vandalism. There is also universal agreement that society must protect its citizens from bodily harm (rape, assault, and murder). Although there may be consensus in society on certain laws, the political nature of the lawmaking and enforcement process has important negative implications for the individuals caught up in the system. Consider, for example, how local and federal authorities treated antiwar protesters, amount of property in a demonstration whose goal was to change the system: the acts would be defined as criminal and the police called to restore order by force if necessary. Think of the anti-racism protests in spring and summer 2020; the emphasis by some was not the just cause for which people were protesting, but minimal looting that broke out in some places. American system tends to place more value on property damage than on human lives, especially non white lives. Thus, violence is condoned or condemned through political pressures and decisions. The basic criterion is whether the act supports or threatens existing social and political arrangements. If they are not supportive, then by definition the acts are to be condemned and punished [government’s position; law and order types in society]. A related implication of the political nature of crime is that the design of laws is influenced by a class bias. Sheldon (2001, p. 15) notes that “The law and the legal order especially favor the very wealthy, but they favor enough of the rest of the population to appear to be equal. Yet the law clearly has never done a good job supporting the most marginalized sectors of the population: the poor in general, …African Americans, and other minorities” This view pervades the criminal justice system. Given that the definition of a crime depends on the current law, as society changes and as new interest groups become powerful, the laws and interpretations of the laws regarding criminal behavior may also change. Many behaviors once considered criminal no longer are, such as marrying someone of another race or selling liquor. Crimes are also defined by those with power in society. Due to this fact, the organization and priorities of society are never regarded as harmful to human life. Yet the order of society itself can be very destructive to some categories of people. Stokely Carmichael & Hamilton (1967) showed in their classic book, Black Power that when White terrorists bombed a Black church in Birmingham, Alabama, and killed five black children, the act was deplored by most elements of U.S. society. At the same time, when hundreds of Black babies die each year in Birmingham because of the effects of racism, no one in the power structure gets upset and calls this violence. Despite the fact that high infant mortality and rates for preventable disease, which are perpetuated through discrimination, take many more lives than civil disorder or street crimes, the term violence is not applied to these crimes (Carmichael & Hamilton, 1967, p. 4). Forty years later, the infant mortality rate was still twice as high for Blacks as for Whites (Washington Post, 2007), but this is not labeled a moral crime by the dominant society. What the powerful consider criminal depends, in fact, on what they perceive to be the intent of the individuals they observe. In the US, society does not always forbid or condemn some acts of force that injure people or destroy property. Property damage during the celebration of sports victories, Halloween, or Mardi Gras is often overlooked or trivialized. Even 10,000 beer-drinking, noisy, and sometimes destructive college students on the beaches of Florida during spring break are allowed to go on such a binge because “kids will be kids.” But if the same 10,000 college students were to destroy the same amount of property at another place and time, their actions may be viewed as crime. Figure 1: Violent and Property Victimization, US 1993-2014 Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey 1993-2014 Types of Crime The Federal Bureau of Investigations publishes an annual report of all crimes known to police called the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The report focuses on traditional types of crime, which tend to be concentrated among the young and the poor. The focus on traditional (street) crime ignores other types that may actually be more costly to society in terms of lives and property such as white-collar, corporate, and political crime. Another type of crime—moral order crime—is significant in enforcement costs but not necessarily in human costs. Traditional Street Crimes These are the crimes emphasized by the police, the government, and the media. They are the FBI’s index crimes of burglary, larceny, auto theft, robbery, rape, assault, and murder. These are serious crimes against property or violence against people that many people consider to be the whole of crime. People accused of these crimes typically clog the courts and prisons. The perpetrators of these types of crimes are disproportionately people on the economic margins of society: the poor, the uneducated, the unemployed, the homeless, and racial minorities. In evaluating this type of rime, we need to consider two types of offenders. One type is a habitual offender, who, for whatever reason, continues his or her criminal patterns. For all seven major traditional crime categories, the majority of those arrested are repeaters. The career criminal must be converted to a new way of life, to a legitimate career that offers all the gratifications received through criminality, if rehabilitation is to be successful. The other type is a one-time-only criminal (the accidental or incidental criminal). Progressives maintain that such people should not be punished harshly, for that would be counterproductive. E.G. locking up a one-time offender might have the unintended consequence of hindering a person’s employment prospects and perhaps creating a career criminal. Conservatives, on the other hand, argue for swift and severe punishment to deter the person from a life of crime and to send a message to the rest of society that crime does not pay. The US criminal justice system has mainly approached criminality from the conservative perspective. This growth in punitiveness was accompanied by a shift in thinking about the basic purpose of criminal justice. Prior to the 1970s, the corrections system was viewed as a way to prepare offenders to rejoin society. Since then, the focus has shifted from rehabilitation to punishment and stayed there. Criminals are no longer persons to be supported, but are risks to be punished and dealt with. One way to deal with the risk they allegedly pose is to lock them up for as long as possible. The US criminal justice has moved away from rehabilitation, which was the purpose of justice as written by classical criminologists of the 18th and 19th centuries (e.g. Quetelet). The tough on crime rhetoric has been traditionally used by conservative politicians to gain votes. Bill Clinton ran on this theme and won; Joe Biden was in that league by passing the Crime Bill. Since the Great Recession of 2007 to 2009, we are starting to see a change in this philosophy. Because it costs states a large amount to put offenders in prison, cash-strapped states are increasingly turning to alternative sentencing methods and streamlined probation and parole for low-level offenders. It costs approximately $79 a day to keep an inmate in prison but $3.50 a day to monitor the same person on probation or parole (Richburg, 2009). Crime Against the Moral Order To enforce the morality of the majority, laws define certain acts as criminal if they are deemed offensive. Violations of these laws are moral order crimes. Example include gambling, recreational drug use, and prostitution. These acts are also called victimless crimes because, even though they may offend the majority, they do not harm other people. The argument for such laws is that the state has a right to preserve the morals of its citizens in the interest of promoting social stability and consensus. Should an individual have the right to choose among alternative forms of behavior without fear of social sanction if that behavior does not harm other people? The answer to this question is not as unqualified as it may seem; many so-called victimless crimes in fact hurt other people, at least indirectly. The family members of an alcoholic, drug addict, or compulsive gambler are affected both materially and emotionally by his or her habit. Overindulgence in alcohol or a drug increases the probability of automobile accidents. What about Prostitution? It is a victimless crime, except that some people are unwillingly forced to become prostitutes. A fundamental problem with legislating morality, aside from putting limitations on individual freedoms, is that it labels people as “criminals” on the basis of the tastes of those in power. Thus, secondary deviance may result not because someone harmed another but because his or her act was presumed by powerful others to be harmful to them. The detection, arrest, and prosecution of victimless criminals is an enormous and expensive task. More than half the arrests and roughly 80 percent of the police work in the United States are related to the regulation of private morals (alcohol abuse, pornography, juvenile runaways, drug use, prostitution, and gambling). Is this a fair use of tax payer money? Could such money be better spent on job creation, better pay for workers, health care, and less police? In 2010, 51 percent of federal inmates were serving time for drug offenses (Guerino et al. 2011). If these private acts were legalized, then the police, the courts, and the prisons would be free for other, more important duties. Formerly illicit activities (e.g. decriminalization of certain drug use, including marijuana) could become legitimate businesses providing tax revenues to local and state governments. Most important, organized crime, which now acquires most of its income from providing illegal goods and services, would no longer be able to hide its investments and profits. It could be argued that laws against victimless crimes are indirectly responsible for maintaining organized crime. Moral order crimes also contribute to the corruption of the police and courts. Although many police officers are unwilling to accept bribes from murderers and thieves, they may accept them from the perpetrators of victimless crimes using the justification that they believe these crimes are harmless and impossible to control anyway. This rationale opens the way for people involved in organized crime to buy protection for their illicit activities. White Collar Crime Due to undue influence by the media and police, especially the FBI’s UCR, the public focuses its fears on traditional street crimes such as assault and robbery. Even though these are legitimate concerns, crime of the street variety (typically by the young, poor minority person) is much less significant in cost and social disruption than are white collar crimes: those committed by middle-class and upper-middle-class people in their business and social activities (such as theft of company goods; embezzlement; bankruptcy fraud; swindles; tax evasion; forgery; theft of property by computer; passing bad checks; illicit copying of computer software, movies, and music; and fraudulent use of credit cards, automatic teller machines, and telephones). Here are some examples of the magnitude of white-collar crimes: (1)Telephone marketing swindlers cheat U.S. consumers out of an estimated $40 billion annually. (2)Time theft by employees (e.g., faked illness, excessive breaks, and long lunches) costs U.S. businesses as much as $200 billion annually. (3)Surveys by the Internal Revenue Service consistently find that three of ten people cheat on their income taxes. The IRS estimated that Americans underpaid their taxes by $400 billion in 2006 (Time, 2006). This does not include the monies received from the selling of goods and services for cash and tips that go unreported to the government (that if reported would generate an estimated $345 billion in taxes annually). (4) Otherwise law-abiding citizens routinely copy or purchase pirated computer software, videos, and music. Many also engage in cable TV theft. Others photocopy copyrighted materials, even though these activities are against the law. (5)A poll of workers found that they had seen 37 percent of their co-workers take office supplies or shoplift, 25 percent steal product or cash, and 18 percent claim falsely that they had worked extra hours (Business Week, 2002). (6)According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2010, 7.0 percent of American households (8.6 million) had at least one member who was a victim of identity theft (2012). (7)Executives at major corporations such as Enron, Global Crossing, and WorldCom, knowing that their companies were soon to lose much of their value, sold stock for personal gain worth about $5 billion from 1999 to 2005. (8) In what remains the largest securities fraud in history, Wall Street financier Bernard Madoff used a Ponzi scheme to con investors out of approximately $65 billion. He was sentenced to 150 years in prison in 2009. Ponzi scheme: It is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors (rather than from any legitimate investment activity). [Similar to pyramid scheme] Bernie Madoff, New York City, 2009 Corporate Crime Business enterprises can also be guilty of crimes, which are known as corporate crimes. The list of illegal acts committed in the name of corporate good includes fraudulent advertising, unfair labor practices, noncompliance with government regulations regarding employee safety and pollution controls, price-fixing agreements, stock manipulation, copyright infringement, theft of industrial secrets, marketing of adulterated or mislabeled food or drugs, bribery, swindles, selling faulty merchandise, and overstating earnings to increase the value of company stock. The magnitude of such crimes far surpasses the human and economic costs from street crimes. Some examples: (1)The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration has recorded 203 deaths and more than 700 injuries, amid thousands of complaints, involving rollover-prone Ford Explorers that crashed following sudden tread separation on factory installed Firestone tires. Internal corporate memos at the two corporations reveal that Ford and Firestone “willfully and knowingly kept unsafe products on the market” (Milchen & Power, 2001, p. 9). (2) In 2000, the world’s largest auction houses, Sotheby’s and Christie’s, agreed to pay $512 million to settle claims that they cheated buyers and sellers in a price fixing scheme dating back to 1992. (3) Bayer sold a blood-clotting medicine for hemophiliacs, a medicine that carried a high risk of transmitting AIDS, in Asia and Latin America while selling a new, safer product in the West (Bogdanich & Koli, 2003). (4)In 2004, Schering-Plough settled with the government for $345 million because it charged private insurers much lower prices on Claritin than it charged the government programs of Medicare and Medicaid (Schmit, 2004). (5) In recent years Exxon, International Paper, United Technologies, Weyerhaeuser, Pillsbury, Ashland Oil, Texaco, Nabisco, and Ralston-Purina have been convicted of environmental crimes. (6) Cosco failed to tell the Consumer Product Safety Commission of the more than 200 children who had been injured by its tandem stroller and did not recall the stroller until more than a year after it began receiving what turned out to be 3,000 complaints. Product manufacturers often conduct internal investigations but remain publicly silent as complaints about alleged defects pile up. In the past three years, 75 percent of the most dangerous problems that led to recalls were never voluntarily reported to the government (O’Donnell, 2000, p. 1B). Political Crimes Political crimes are illegal acts intended to influence the political system. The key term in this definition is illegal. Is it illegal to disobey unjust laws such as laws supporting racial segregation? Is it illegal to oppose tyranny? If the answer to these questions is yes, then Martin Luther King, Jr., and George Washington must be considered political criminals. Definition above assumes that the political system is always right and that any attempt to change it is wrong. Although antithetical to the heritage of the early American colonials and the Declaration of Independence, such thinking is typical of how those in power interpret any attempt to change the existing political system. Another way to conceive of political crime is to concentrate on the deviance of the people in power. One example of this type of political crime is the imprisonment or other punishment by the powerful of those who act against established authority. Such acts include the jailing of Martin Luther King, Jr., FBI eavesdropping on Dr. King in hotels; sending an audio to his wife to break up their marriage, blackmailing Dr. King to commit suicide or else would reveal recordings of affairs, the FBI’s infiltration of dissident groups, the Internal Revenue Service’s intimidation of people on President Nixon’s “enemies list,” the firing or ‘termination’ by President Trump of people not viewed as loyal to him personally; pressure put on election officials and GOP governors to overturn election results and declare him the winner of the 2020 general election; detention of migrant families at the border without providing them due process of applying for asylum (stay in Mexico policy), the punishment of people (by DHS) involved in providing housing, transportation, and jobs to refugees escaping political repression in Guatemala and El Salvador (the Sanctuary Movement). What about deliberate obstruction by Sen McConnell of KY in his determination to make former Pres Barack Obama a one term president? Government itself can be engaged in illicit activities. Some examples are the involvement in covert actions to overthrow legitimate governments, such as the Reagan administration’s policy to aid the Contra effort in Nicaragua; the U.S. attack on Panama to capture its leader, Manuel Noriega; the suppression of popular revolts in countries favorable to the US; the use of secrecy, lying, and deceit; the use of people as unwilling and unknowing guinea pigs in medical experiments; war crimes as in Iraq; invading other countries without congressional authorization and under false pretenses. For example: (1) The government revealed in 1995 that the Department of Energy conducted 435 human radiation experiments involving 16,000 people during the Cold War. Included among these experiments was one in which eighteen people were injected with plutonium without their knowledge or consent (Eisler, 2000). (2) From 1932 to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service followed 400 African American men with syphilis without treating them. The purpose of the research was to determine the natural course of syphilis. In 1947, when penicillin was found to be an effective treatment for syphilis, it too was withheld from the men and their families (Washington, 2006). In summary political crimes are illegal acts intended to influence the political system. They include abuse of authority by those in power. Actions by governments that are illegal or immoral fall under political crimes, along with violations of international law, treaties signed with foreign governments or international organizations, such as the Geneva Conventions or the Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Treaty (signed with former Soviet Union/Russia). Trump has unilaterally withdrawn from that treaty leaving the US vulnerable to Russian deployment of weapons in that range (threatening US troops in Europe). Sociology 002S Dr. Kposowa PROBLEMS OF WAR, NATIONAL DEFENSE AND WEAPONS SYSTEMS Lecture IX Fall 2020 According to the US Defense Department [DoD] (2014) the mission of the US military strategy is to protect the American people and advance the nation’s interests. In this regard, every four years the Pentagon reviews the Mission of the military in the light of changes in international and domestic environments. The 2014 Quadrennial Review provides priorities in three pillars of US national security: (1) Defending the homeland (2) Building security globally by projecting U.S. influence and deterring aggression (3) Remaining prepared to win against any adversary The Military Establishment of the US Nation-states organize to defend their national security by protecting borders, guarding their national interests, and shielding their citizens and businesses abroad with armies, military bases, intelligence networks, embassies, and consulates. National security in the US is a responsibility of the president and the cabinet members who run the departments of State, Justice, Defense, and Homeland Security. National defense does not necessarily mean involvement in a war, but it often has. While the numbers vary based on the inclusion or exclusion of certain conflicts, different media sources report that America has been involved in some war or conflict for 222 out of 239 years, or 93 percent of the time (WashingtonsBlog, 2015). How Large is the US Military? The size of the U.S. military establishment is enormous. (1)DoD employs more than 3 million people in 5,000 different locations. (2) In 2015 there were 1,309,239 active military personnel. This is an all-volunteer military. Conscription can be enacted by request of the president and approval of Congress. Conscription ended with the various protests surrounding the end of the Vietnam War in the mid-1970s (3)The military operates 865 military bases and other facilities in 135 nations located on every continent. The cost to maintain these bases exceeds $100 billion a year. (4)The headquarters of the DoD is the Pentagon in Washington, DC. It is one of the world’s largest office buildings, with 17.5 miles of corridors. (5)The military has a worldwide satellite network providing constant intelligence, surveillance, and communication. (6)The United States has recently had the world’s largest navy, larger than the next thirteen navies combined (Pena, 2010). Included in the fleet are fifty-seven nuclearpowered attack and cruise-missile submarines, more than the rest of the world combined (Ramirez, 2010). Recent reports by Jane’s suggests that China now has the largest navy in the world, an expansion driven by Beijing’s aspirations to ‘return’ the country to a position of strength and leadership on the world stage. In its 2020 report on military and security developments involving China, China Military Power Report, DoD states that the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) now has “a battle force of approximately 350 platforms, including major surface combatants, submarines, ocean-going amphibious ships, mine warfare ships, aircraft carriers, and fleet auxiliaries”, compared with the US Navy’s (USN’s) 293 ships using the same measure. The report notes progress in the construction of the PLAN’s third carrier, which in comparison with the two already in service “will be larger and fitted with a catapult launch system”. It assesses that the third carrier will enter service in 2023 and be operational by 2024 and also reports that development continues on the fifth-generation FC-31/J-31 multi-role fighter aircraft “for export or as a future naval fighter for the PLAN's next class of aircraft carriers.” National security The ways nations organize to protect borders, guard their national interests, and shield their citizens and businesses abroad with armies, military bases, intelligence networks, embassies, and consulates. US gov. outsources some military operations to private firms. More nonmilitary personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan than military personnel. 2015: about 22 million military veterans. 2016: budget for Veterans Affairs= $168.8 billion. There are 1,271 government agencies and 1,931 outside contractors devoted to Counterterrorism (USA Today, 2010). High Cost of Maintaining Military Superiority Since the end of the last war (Second World War) military might has been the typical security strategy of nations. Since the war ended, the US has spent more than $20 trillion (adjusted for inflation) on military defense. The defense budget represents the government’s spending plan for the military. For fiscal year 2015 it was $598.5 billion (54 percent of the total discretionary spending budget). Not included in the military budget are the indirect costs of war: veterans benefits, including health care and disability costs, federal debt payments due to military expenditures, covert intelligence operations, federal research on military and space programs, cleaning up toxic waste from the development and production of nuclear weapons, and homeland security, and upgrading land based ballistic nuclear weapons begun under the Obama Administration. The United States outspends all other nations on national security. In 2019 the U.S. spent roughly the same amount as the next nine largest military budgets around the world combined. US outspends its nearest rivals in military expenditures, China, by three times, and Russia, the world’s third military power, by six times (IISS 2020). Source: ISSS, 2020 Why is US military spending so huge? Why does it continue to grow even after the collapse of the former Soviet Union? Four reasons: (1) ongoing fear of nuclear weapons. Russia, which has a huge nuclear arsenal, although much less a threat than before 1990, remains a potential threat to U.S. security. China has been developing very advanced weapons systems, expanding in the South China Sea, flexing its muscle, and is on track to become a global military power. (2) Even without threats from China and Russia, unsafe world; US feels compelled to confront or contain terrorism and aggression. Many nations, including regimes with expansionist agendas and hated enemies, have nuclear weapons They also have chemical and biological weapons. Several nations are suspected of supporting terror and working to develop weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons capable of large-scale deaths and destruction). (3) Third, US defense expenditures bring profits to corporations, create jobs, and generate growth in the economy. For example, many corporations benefited from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as DoD contracts more than doubled from 2000 to 2009. The three largest contractors in 2014 were Lockheed Martin ($30.6 billion), Boeing ($20.9 billion), and Raytheon ($13 billion) (U.S. Department of Defense, 2015). With huge contracts available, these corporations spend millions on lobbying. Political sociologist, Parenti argued in 2008 (p. 80) that corporate military contractors are eager to get more contracts from DoD, for the following reasons: (1) Unlike manufacturers who must worry about selling the goods they produce, defense corporations have a guaranteed contract. (2)Almost all contracts are awarded without competitive bidding and at whatever price the corporation sets. If the cost exceeds the bid (cost overruns), then the government (tax payers) pick(s) up the tab. (3)The Pentagon directly subsidizes defense contractors with free research and development, public lands, buildings, and renovations. (4)Defense spending does not compete with the consumer market. Moreover, the market is virtually limitless, as there are always more advanced weapons systems to develop and obsolete weaponry to replace. (5) Members of Congress are eager to support an expansive military budget for two reasons. First, no politician campaigns to reduce military spending (unpatriotic and electoral risk). Second, politicians gain support from their constituents if they bring military money to their corporations, communities, and state. The corporations supplying military supplies exploit this by distributing their operations across many states and many congressional districts within those states. Legislatures in DC team up with defense contractors to fight for certain targeted programs even when the Pentagon says it does not need the weaponry in question. For example, every year from 2006 through 2009, the Pentagon argued that it had enough C-17 cargo planes (Boeing charges $250 million per plane). But every year, Congress overruled the military and authorized more funds for these planes ($2.5 billion in the 2010 budget) (Elgin & Epstein, 2009, p. 47). In 2014, Virginia had defense contract expenditures in totaling $19.1 billion. California was second ($15.1 billion) and Texas was third ($13.8 billion). Corporations, labor, the states, Congress, and academia combine to present a unified voice supporting massive and increasing military expenditures. Opposing this giant system are only small voices from individuals and groups seeking to reduce the huge costs of the military-industrial complex. The disproportionate amount spent by US on weapons is based on the assumption that by having the world’s costliest military force and being so far ahead of other nations in military strength and technology, no one would dare challenge US militarily. It is argued by many that although other nations may have more people (China and India), they do not have sophisticated weaponry, weapons delivery systems, and nuclear stockpile that US has. The United States chooses to retain this superiority because its leaders believe there is “peace through strength.” This strategy succeeded for the most part during the Cold War years, as the US and the Soviet Union engaged in an expensive arms race to strike first if necessary and to scare the other side into not attacking first. Should this strategy continue in the 21st century? Are we wasting money that could otherwise go into social programs to improve the human condition, banish hunger and poverty, reduce student loans. Alternatives to War and Defense Spending The United States spends as much on military spending as the next nine nations combined. By itself, the United States accounts for 37 percent of all global military spending. In effect, the United States and its friends and allies account for more than two-thirds of the military spending worldwide (Lindorff, 2010). When is enough enough? Are we overspending on defense at the expense of other crucial societal concerns? Because we spend so much on the military, is it reasonable to assume that the US could reduce its spending on defense without jeopardizing national security? President Eisenhower said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” Similarly, Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed out: “When a nation becomes obsessed with the guns of war, social programs must inevitably suffer” Could policymakers reduce the military budget by onefourth or so or even more and put that money to work on mass transit, low-cost housing, job training, green jobs, subsidized education, infrastructure projects, and the like? If so, we could produce more jobs than when we create military projects. Supporters of increased defense budget argue that military spending is more productive than most industries in creating jobs. Research findings contradict this view. Evidence shows that for each $1 billion spent, more than 17,000 jobs would be created in clean energy, or about 20,000 in health care, and more than 29,000 in education, compared to that same $1 billion spent in the military, resulting in only 11,600 jobs (GarrettPeltier, 2010). If we take the formal military budget of about $598.5 billion (not including veterans’ benefits), a reduction of 25 percent (roughly $150 billion) could be achieved immediately by withdrawing from Afghanistan, cutting weapons systems that the Pentagon has deemed unnecessary, and closing half of the 800 U.S. military bases worldwide. The $150 billion could be used to reduce the national debt, to provide funding for schools, or to provide a safety net for those in poverty, among other social problems. The Threat of Nuclear Weapons Nuclear weapons involve are most destructive technology on Earth. During the cold War (the intense tension and arms race between the US and the Soviet Union that lasted from the end of the last war until 1990, the two superpowers had most of the nuclear weapons). For the US, there is a triad: land based ballistic missiles; sea based; and air based (B-52; stealth) Some are single targeted Others have multiple independently targeted re-entry vehicles (MITRV). At start, both sides lose war. The United States spent almost 8 trillion in 2012 dollars on nuclear weapons in the last half of the twentieth century. That nuclear budget was more than half-century’s federal combined spending on Medicare, education, disaster relief, social services, non-nuclear research, environmental protection, highway maintenance, and prisons (Maddow, 2012, p. 219). In 2009, the United States and Russia had 96 percent of the world’s nuclear warheads, each aimed at the other. Other nuclear power holders were France, Britain, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, and North Korea (Guardian, 2009). The year 1998 was a turning point, as the world entered a new nuclear era when India tested five bombs, followed two weeks later by its rival neighbor, Pakistan. In our globalized world, we face a threatening situation in which as many as 40 countries have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons in a very short time span. Micro Militarisms Great empires have risen and fallen as a result of micro militarisms: Rome, Greece, Ottoman, British. Is the US at risk for becoming a victim? References Elgin, Ben, & Keith Epstein. (2009). It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane, It’s Pork. Business Week (November 9): 46–48. Garrett-Peltier, Heidi (2010) Is Military Keynesianism the Solution? Dollars and Sense 287 (March/April):7. International Institute for Strategic Studies (ISSI) 2020. The Military Balance. London: Author Janes Defense Intelligence (2020). https://www.janes.com/land-forces-news Lindorff, Dane. (2010). Your Tax Dollars at War. Commondreams.org (April 13). Online: http://www.commondreams.org/54890. Maddow, Rachel. (2012). Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. New York: Crown. Parenti, Michael. (2008). Democracy for the Few, 8th ed. Boston: Thomson Higher Education Pena, Charles V. (2010). A Penny Saved Is a Dollar Spent on Defense. Wichita Eagle (May 18):9A. Ramirez, Jessica. (2010). You and Whose Army? Newsweek (June 28/July 5):84. WashingtonsBlog. (2015). “America Has Been at War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776,” (February 20). Online: http://www. washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/america-war-93-time-222-239-years-since1776.html. Sociology 002S Dr. Kposowa PROBLEMS OF RACE AND RACISM Lecture VIII Fall 2020 Since its organization (1789), the US has been a nation with a ‘race problem.’ In 2020, racial divisions are changing, but they are not disappearing. Three benchmarks show the extent of population change in the nation: (1) By 2001, more than half of the largest cities had more Blacks, Latinx, Asians, and other minorities than Whites (Camarillo, 2010). (2) In 2012, for the first time in history, more than half of newborn children belonged to a racial or ethnic minority group. (3) Today, one in three U.S. residents is a minority. The US is moving from being predominantly White to being a global society of diverse racial and ethnic peoples. As this occurs, blatant forms of racism from the past have given way to new, more subtle practices. With the growth of racially defined minority groups, racial disparities persist even though they are sometimes hidden from view. There are likely millions of Americans that think race no longer matters in the way it once did. After all, President Barack Obama, a multiracial man, held the nation’s highest office, and racial and ethnic minorities are visible in numerous public positions. These changes are important, they do not mean we now live in a post-racial society. US society remains structured along the lines of race, ethnicity, and color. Race is a powerful force in shaping our institutions. This means that minority groups lack the same opportunities as everyone else. Keep in mind that minorities are not to blame for the race problem. Instead, the cause lies in our racebased system of social rights and resources. Keep in mind that this emphasis on racial inequality does not mean that minorities are passive victims of oppression. Their histories are filled with human agency and for centuries, racial minorities in the US have fought against oppression, both as individuals and in groups. Defining Race and Ethnicity We define race, in accord with the U.S. Census Bureau, as a group of people who are distinguished from other groups by their origin in a particular part of the world. As such, they tend to share a particular skin color (blacks originated in Africa, whites in Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa, etc.). solely on skin color is arbitrary. Many people use the single biological characteristic of skin color to identify races, but there are so many shades of skin color that classifying someone as a member of one or another race soon turns out to be an exercise in futility. Is white the same in US as in Nigeria? Is black the same in US as in Brazil? What about the Coloured in South Africa? How would they be classified in the US? In addition, if race were a purely biological phenomenon, a number of other biological characteristics could be used: blood type. All human beings belong to one biological species—Homo sapiens. The breakdown of that species into subcategories is arbitrary. As Jefferson Fish (1995, p.55) sums it up: “The short answer to the question ‘What is race?’ is: There is no such thing. Race is a myth. And our racial classification scheme is loaded with pure fantasy.” Despite what Fish stated, we continue to identify different races primarily on the basis of skin color; the inequalities people experience follow directly from that identification. We rely on categories of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, which uses people’s self-identification to place them into one of the following: white or non-Hispanic white, black, Asian/Pacific Islander, American Indian/Eskimo/Aleut, other, and two or more races. In addition, the Census Bureau collects data on one ethnic group: Hispanic origin, which includes people of any race. The term ethnic group (from Greek, ethno): people who have a shared historical or cultural background that leads them to identify with each other. Although the Census Bureau routinely gathers data only for Hispanics, numerous ethnic groups have been involved in the growth of the nation. Irish, Polish, German Catholics, Jewish, Syrians (Turkish) have faced problems of acceptance. At present, Hispanics are the largest ethnic group struggling with integration into US. Keep in mind that all people have more shared than different characteristics, and no group is biologically superior to another. Nevertheless, racism, the belief that some racial groups are inherently inferior to others, is common and is often used to justify discrimination and inequality. Race: group of people distinguished from other groups based on their origin in a given part of the planet. Essed (1991) has identified three forms of “everyday” racism: Marginalization: making people of other races feel excluded and unimportant. Problematization: imputing racial problems to those of other races rather than to one’s own race. Containment: refers to efforts to deny the existence of racism. Racial minorities and Hispanics make up more than a third of the US total population, and their proportion continues to grow. By the middle of the 21st century, they will comprise half the population (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Both the Hispanic and Asian American population are growing faster than the population as a whole. In 2010 the Asian population was the fastest growing. From 2000 to 2010, the Asian population grew 43%, more than four times faster than the overall population (US Census Bureau 2012). Why the rapid growth in the minority population? Fertility and immigration. In 1960, 75 percent of the foreign-born population was from Europe and 9.4 percent was from Latin America; by 2007, only 13.1 percent was from Europe and 53.6 percent was from Latin America (Grieco 2010). In addition to the changing proportions of various racial/ethnic groups, the United States is becoming more diverse. We see this in greater mixing of Americans of color; saw this in the composition of protesters for black lives in spring Racism: the belief that some racial groups are inherently inferior to others. Why does racism persist in the US? Why do problems exist among the various races and ethnic groups in the US, the supposed “melting-pot” nation of the world? In part, the problems stem from historical circumstances. E.g. high rates of poverty and other problems among American Indians cannot be separated from events that began with the European colonization of the Americas. The colonists decimated both the population and the culture of the various Indian groups. Indians were defrauded of, or forced off, their traditional lands. Solemn treaties between tribes and the American government were repeatedly broken by the Americans with little or no compensation to the Indians. Granting tribes a certain autonomy on reservations is a mixed bag at best. They are free from much federal law, but they are also isolated to a considerable extent from the mainstream of the nation’s economy. The problems of African Americans cannot be separated from their historical experience of slavery and segregation. The first Africans to arrive, in 1619, were indentured servants, not slaves. Colonies soon passed laws that legitimated slavery, and those brought here as slaves were legally defined as property, not as persons. Their enslavement was justified by various kinds of ‘evidence’ of the inherent inferiority of the black race. The system of slavery ultimately gave way to a caste like system. In a caste system, people are categorized into groups according to some characteristic over which they have no control, such as their race or the status of their parents. The groups have differing amounts of power, status, and access to those things that are valued. In the US, whites formed one caste and African Americans another, with the whites having the bulk of the power, status, and financial resources. There were also within-race variations. Even lowerclass whites could be better off than higher class blacks. The two races were like two separate class systems. The great majority of African Americans in the lower levels of their class system; the black upper class was at roughly the same level as the white middle class in terms of material advantages. Segregation in such things as housing, schools, and public accommodations helped maintain the system. In the 1950s, black leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., John Lewis, Stokely Carmichael led a civil rights movement designed to break down segregation and give African Americans all the rights and privileges enjoyed by whites. They fought the notion of inferiority, rejected discrimination and prejudice, and insisted upon nothing less than full equality of opportunity for all of America’s citizens. Their efforts resulted in many significant gains. Nevertheless, severe problems of racial and ethnic inequality continue to tarnish the ‘American dream’ of freedom and justice for all. Despite the American ideology of equal opportunity for all, racism or ethnic hostility confronts many people who hope to take advantage of the American dream. The US is not a melting pot. Someone has suggested that a more appropriate metaphor is a salad bowl, since the various groups tend to retain their identity even as they mix together in the society. Race, Ethnicity, and Life Chances What does it mean to be a minority in America? How does being a minority affect the quality of life? We will look at four areas in which all Americans are supposed to have equal rights and then determine if this is in fact the case: 1. Certain rights as citizens. 2. Equal economic opportunities. 3. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 4. The right to dignity as a human being. In each of the four areas, being white is a distinct advantage, although the advantage is not as great as it once was in the past. The Rights of Citizenship Mass media often remind us of the rights and privileges attached to your citizenship: (1). This is a nation governed by laws rather than by individuals. (2). As a citizen, you have both the privilege and the responsibility of participating in the political process to ensure that laws reflect the will of the people. (3). The people do not exist to serve the government; the government exists to serve the people, and to serve all equally. All these statements break down when we consider minority groups. The Right to Vote. If you don’t like the way things are going, it is said that you can express your disapproval at the polls. Voting is the responsibility of every citizen because one way that Americans are presumably able to change things is by exercising their right to vote. However, this right and privilege, basic as it is to our notions of government, has often eluded African Americans and was long withheld from American Indians. People have had to bleed or die to get voting rights. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridge by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (XV) When the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1870, all male Americans over age 21 had the right to vote, regardless of their race, creed, color, or prior condition of servitude. In the latter part of the century, however, various steps were taken to keep African Americans from voting. Southern states passed laws that effectively disfranchised black voters. Some of the laws required literacy and property tests. Others imposed a poll tax. Such laws excluded poor whites as well as African Americans. Loopholes were created. One loophole was the ‘understanding clause.’ It allowed a registrar to enroll an individual who could give a ‘reasonable’ explanation of a part of the state constitution that was read to him. Similarly, you had ‘grandfather clause’ which exempted from the literacy test those who descended from pre-1865 voters. Intimidation was also used to keep African Americans from registering and voting. At times the threat of violence/actual violence (lynching) discouraged African Americans. The pressure of economic intimidation was applied as well. They faced the possibility of losing their jobs or of being refused supplies at local stores. Rather than violence, a tactic more likely to be used today gerrymandering: drawing electoral district lines in a way that neutralizes the power of minority votes. For example, splitting areas with heavy concentrations of minorities into separate districts so that whites are in the majority in each of the areas. This ensures that a white candidate (typically Republican) will be elected for a decade. Various other measures may be used at the state and local level. Laws have been enacted in recent years that make it more difficult to register and/or to vote. Registration has become a more rigorous process with particular kinds of required identification. With regard to voting, over 15 states have enacted laws requiring voters to show photo ID before they are allowed to cast their ballots (Richey 2012). Proponents of such laws claim they are necessary to prevent voter fraud. Although no one has yet presented evidence of any significant voter fraud, proponents argue that the laws are a preventive measure and that they enhance voter confidence in the electoral process. Opponents counter that the laws essentially function to disfranchise certain segments of the population: the poor, seniors, and racial/ethnic minorities. Less likely than others to have a government-issued photo IDs. The Rule of Law. Another right and privilege of citizenship is to live in a land governed by laws rather than by individuals. The laws, however, have failed to fully protect minority rights in the areas of housing and school desegregation. With regard to housing, the laws forbid discrimination in the sale, rental, or financing of any housing. Legally, a home that is for sale should be available to anyone who can afford it. However, some white property owners have restrictive covenants in their deeds that bar racial minorities from purchasing their homes. A certain amount of racial steering and redlining still occur. The result of all the above is continuing racial and residential segregation in the US. Even if minorities don’t encounter obstacles in obtaining the kind of housing they prefer, they find themselves at a disadvantage in the financing process. In a study of 20 major metropolitan areas, Ross & Turner (2005) reported that Hispanics got less help in obtaining financing. Lending agents reject minority applicants at a higher rate than whites; exact higher interest rates from minorities than from whites (Williams & Nesiba 2005). In the early part of this century minorities appeared to be getting help in housing by securing subprime mortgages. These mortgages became available as government regulations eased. They were a high risk for investors. They were also a high risk for those obtaining them, because most were adjustable rate mortgages. When the housing market changed in 2006, and the economy came crashing down in 2008, refinancing became more difficult and many homeowners could no longer afford to pay their mortgages. People of color were particularly affected by the situation because mortgage brokers tended to target them as customers for the risky subprime loans (Rugh & Massey 2010). In 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled (in Brown v Board of Education) that segregated educational facilities are inherently unequal and against the US Constitution. Despite that 1954 ruling, schools today are far more segregated than they were in 1960. Schools would be less segregated if all parents regardless of race sent their children to nearby public schools, but an increasing percent (especially white middle class parents) send their kids to private, magnate, or charter schools. This leaves public schools even more segregated. Equality before the Law. All Americans are supposed to stand as equals before the law. We all quickly recognize that this sort of statement is not true, but mere propaganda. Not all Americans are treated equally. The rich are rarely accorded the harsh treatment endured by the poor. Blacks, Latinx and Native Americans receive unequal treatment in virtually every aspect of civil and criminal proceedings. The books are thrown at us far more often than we recognize. Police are more likely to be verbally abusive and to use excessive force against Hispanics and African Americans. Most of us witnessed this in spring (2020) when George Floyd was murdered by white police; Breana Taylor was murdered in Louisville, KY, several other killings that took place after that. These killings of black and brown have been going on for centuries. Yet it was never an issue for whites. For many of them, the police do no wrong. Hispanic and black youth are more likely to be detained by the police and the courts than are white youth. White, black, and Hispanic youth report using drugs at similar rates, but black youth are detained at nearly five times the rate, and Hispanic youth at twice the rate, of white youth (Bell et al. 2009). Federal courts give out harsher penalties for black & Hispanic than for white offenders Minorities are more likely than whites to be stopped while driving and to be imprisoned, even for the same offense. Expressions such as DWB, LWB, JWB, WWB, and others have become commonplace—all showing the prevalence of prejudice, discrimination and enduring racism in US institutions. Due to these types racism in society, there is a disproportionate number of African Americans and Hispanics in jails and prisons. Two sociologists (Pettit & Western 2004) estimate that for men born between 1965 and 1969, 3% of whites and 20% of African Americans serve time in prison by their early thirties. Another researcher (Bonczaar 2003) estimates that about 1 in 3 black males, 1 in 6 Hispanic males, and 1 in 17 white males will spend time in prison over their lifetime References Alexander, M. (2010). The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press. Bell, J., Ridolfi, L.J., Finley, M, & Lacey, C. (2009). The Keeper and the Kept. San Francisco: W. Burns Institute. Bonczaar, T.P. (2003). Prevalence of Imprisonment in the US Population, 1974-2001. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Press Camarillo, Albert M. (2010). Going Back to Compton: Real Estate, Racial Policies, and Black-Brown Relations. In Hazel Rose Marcus and Paula M.L. Moya (eds.), Doing Race: 21 Essays for the 21st Century. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., pp. 274–294. Essed, P. (1991). Understanding Every Day Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Fish, J. M. 1995. Mixed blood. Psychology Today, November–December, pp. 55–61. Grieco, E.M. (2010). Race and Hispanic Origin of the Foreign born Population in the United States: 2007. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Petit, B., & Western, B. (2004). Mass imprisonment and the life-course: Race and class inequality in US mass incarceration. American Sociological Review, 69, 151-169 Richey, W. (2012). In voter ID case, South Carolina fights back against Obama Administration Christian Science Monitor, February 8. Ross, S.L., & Turner, M.A. (2005). Housing discrimination in metropolitan areas. Social Problems 52, 152-180. US. Bureau of the Census (2012). Race and Hispanic Origin of the Foreign Born Population in the United States. Available online at www.census.gov Williams, R., and R. Nesiba. 2005. “The changing face of inequality in home mortgage lending.” Social Problems 52:181–208. Sociology 002S Dr. Kposowa WARS AND SURVEILANCE Lecture X Fall 2020 The Legacy of Wars The US chose to respond to the September 11 terrorist attacks by invading Afghanistan and later Iraq. That response has had enormous consequences for the US, for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, for the Middle East, and for international relations. US involvement in the Middle East continues; end results are unknown. This past week, a leading scientist in Iran’s nuclear program was assassinated outside Tehran. It is conceivable that Israel (most likely with US support) carried out this crime. The Bush Doctrine was the first attempt at a grand strategy since the end of the Cold War. But did it work? Did it eliminate the threat from terrorist networks and rogue states? Did it spread democracy to the Middle East? Did it unify fractured nations in the region? Supporters of the wars argued that Saddam Hussein had been captured, tried, and executed and bin Laden assassinated. While the deaths of these men were symbolically significant, they did not destroy Al-Qaeda and prevent future acts of terrorism. The long-term consequences of US military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq appear to be serious and far-reaching. It is unknown what the full extent of the consequences are, but we have some clues. Invasion began what became known as the ‘war on terror’ and this led to significant violations of human rights in the nations involved, and undue limitations on civil liberties within the US. Invasion: More Harm than Good The US did ‘liberate’ Iraq from Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is dead, but in the process, the wars destroyed much of Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, buildings, private homes, and the means for providing essential services such as electricity and water). The US was held responsible for this destruction, which was compounded by the slow rebuilding of infrastructure owing to resistance to US occupation, bureaucratic mismanagement, scandal, profiteering, and insufficient funds. As the New York Times editorialized, “The United States’ failure to restore utilities and rebuild schools and hospitals has turned once sympathetic Iraqis against the American presence in their country” (New York Times, 2006: para. 2). The war on terrorism has not been won. Actually, U.S. involvement in the Middle East has caused resentment among local populations. In effect, U.S. violence and occupation increased the threat of terrorism (McGovern, 2012). Late historian Howard Zinn asked: “Is our war on terrorism ending it or provoking it?” It provokes terrorism as a consequence of the U.S. meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations but also because of the collateral damage (deaths and injuries to civilians) from indiscriminate shelling or drone attacks. Muslims were outraged by videos showing Marines urinating on Taliban bodies, the burning of the Koran, and soldiers holding up body parts of their enemies as trophies. These acts enhanced the threat of terrorism rather than diminished it. Even President Obama admitted in an interview, “ISIL is a direct outgrowth of Al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion, which is an example of unintended consequences.” US Violation of the Geneva Conventions The Geneva conventions are international agreements on humane treatment of combatants and civilians by opposing governments and military forces during times of war. The first of these treaties dates back to 1864, and since then, the agreements evolved so that nearly every nation was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions at the beginning of America’s war on terror. The Bush administration never suggested that the US withdraw from the core provisions of international law, but it began a pattern of circumventing them. The pattern began after the 2001 military campaign in Afghanistan, which netted thousands of captive Taliban supporters and suspected AlQaeda operatives. Many of them were imprisoned and subjected to barbaric treatment in “defiance of American and international law” (Conason, 2007, p.12). Rendition. The practice continued during the Obama administration, as suspects were kidnapped and taken to prisons around the world for months and years at a time. Under US law, these acts were illegal. Military Commissions Act Congress passed the Military Commissions Act in 2006. Some Key Provisions: (1) The Act significantly broadens the definition of “enemy combatant” and makes it a matter of presidential discretion. An “enemy combatant” is defined as a person who is designated by the commander-in-chief as someone who has engaged in hostilities against the United States. (2) Removes habeas corpus rights of noncitizens. Habeas corpus, is a human right considered fundamental to the Western world since the Magna Carta (1215 BC). It prevents the police from arresting and holding someone without cause. In other words, enemy combatants are denied the right to challenge their detentions in civil courts. Actuality, began with Clinton (in 1996): Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (foreigners) (3) Permits aggressive interrogations in secret prisons. The act does not list acceptable and unacceptable “methods of interrogation.” The legislation keeps methods open-ended and subject to the president’s interpretation of the Geneva Conventions. “Enhanced” interrogation techniques came to vogue (including waterboarding by CIA and operatives in black sites). (4) Suspends normal rules of evidence and due process. The act, unlike the procedures in U.S. courts, permits the use of hearsay and coerced evidence and evidence obtained in warrantless searches, and it fails to allow prisoners on trial ensured access to the evidence against them. Maybe a future US Supreme Court will some day declare the Military Commissions Act unconstitutional because it violates the Bill of Rights. In the interim the U.S. reaction to terrorism was a major transformation from beacon of freedom and democracy to an autocratic torture state. It paved the way for the rise of reactionary extremist groups fueled by anti-American sentiment. It also led to the emergence of extremist groups within the US that increasingly target immigrants, and individuals of Muslim or Middle Eastern backgrounds. The Surveillance State One of the consequences of the ‘war on terror’ was increased erosion of civil liberties within the US and widespread surveillance of the population. Surveillance was thrown into high gear when Congress passed a piece of legislation in 2001, immediately following the attacks of September 11. Due to concerns about ‘terrorism,’ the president sought, and Congress passed, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism). The Act was hailed by supporters as a crucial piece of legislation giving the nation’s law enforcement and intelligence gathering personnel the “tools they need” to catch terrorists and stop another 9/11. Let us look at some provisions and evaluate the effects on US society. (1) expanded the ability of law enforcement personnel to conduct secret searches and conduct phone and Internet surveillance and to access a wide range of personal financial, medical, mental health, and student records. Government can monitor communication between federal detainees and their lawyers. Act reduced judicial oversight of these investigation activities. (2) It expanded the legal definition of terrorism beyond previous laws in a manner that subjects ordinary political and religious organizations to surveillance, wiretapping, and criminal action without any evidence of wrongdoing. (3) The Act permits FBI agents to investigate any American citizen without probable cause of crime if they say it is for ‘intelligence purposes.’ As a result, some American citizens, mostly of Arab and South Asian origin, have been held in secret federal custody for weeks or months, many without any charges filed against them and without access to lawyers. (4) Allows noncitizens to be jailed based on suspicion, even without evidence. Suspects can be detained indefinitely without judicial review, and hundreds have been detained. Immigration hearings for post–9/11 noncitizen detainees are conducted in secret. There are some law and order or ‘tough on crime’ folks who argue that ordinary law-abiding folks have nothing to fear from laws like the USA PATRIOT Act unless they are involved in some kind of clandestine activity. Is this a valid argument in favor of such wholesale intrusion? The notion that people who have nothing to fear should not be afraid of the Patriot Act miss important points about what the Bush administration did to the US. The USA PATRIOT Act is only one of hundreds of laws and legal regulations rewritten by the Bush administration to create barriers to the possibility of terrorists penetrating U.S. borders. More than any other legal change, it points out the uncanny contradiction of the war on terror policies. Under the Bush administration, the US conducted aggressive military campaigns to liberate Afghans and Iraqis and bring democracy to “the greater Middle East.” Yet, the actions of the government have restricted civil liberties that are the foundation of the US Constitution and democracy. How can the US expand democracy in the wider world when it does not practice it within the US or civil liberties are eroded? Does the US practice what it preaches to other countries? Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. His rationale delivered to his colleagues was, There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where the police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government was entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they were up to no good, the government would probably discover and arrest more terrorists, or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally. But that would not be a country in which we would want to live, and it would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that country would not be America (2001: 2). To conduct the war on terror, the FBI, the Defense Department, Homeland Security, and the National Security Agency conduct domestic surveillance programs. Here are some examples of domestic spying: (1)The departments of Justice, State, and Homeland Security buy commercial databases that track Americans’ finances, phone numbers, and biographical information (Woellert & Kopecke, 2006). (2) Using a ‘national security letter,’ the FBI can demand that an Internet provider, bank, or phone company turn over records of who you call and email; where you work, fly, and vacation; and the like. No judge has to approve the demand. To make things worse, the person under surveillance is unaware of what is happening because it is classified (USA Today, 2005). (3) The Department of Homeland Security recruited utility and telephone workers, cable TV installers, postal workers, delivery drivers, and others who regularly enter private homes to become federal informants, informing of suspicious persons, activities, and items that they observed (Conason, 2007, p. 194). (4) To qualify for federal homeland security grants, states must assemble lists of ‘potential threat elements. These are individuals or groups suspected of ‘possible’ terrorist activity. (5) The Justice Department funded a private contractor, Matrix (Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange), that used “data mining” technology to search public records and matched them with police files to identify some 120,000 “ suspects” with “high terrorist factor” scores. Supporters of the surveillance tactics and the Patriot Act argue that the dangers are serious, and these and other security measures are needed to make the nation secure by making it easier to identify, prevent, and punish terrorists. Critics argue that these measures go too far in expanding the government’s abilities to intrude on citizens’ lives, thereby weakening individual rights. Citizens have guarantees from the Constitution that protect them from government surveillance, reading the mail, and listening to phone conversations of its citizens—in short, Americans have the right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. There is also a high probability that the invasion of privacy will not be randomly distributed but more likely will be directed to noncitizens, Muslims, and people who look “Middle Eastern” or foreigners in general. Critics point out that there is a fine line between what is needed for security and protecting the freedoms that characterize the US. If we stray too far toward restricted freedoms, we end up, ironically, terrorizing ourselves. Another irony is that President Bush declared on the night of the assault on the World Trade Center and Pentagon that “America is the brightest beacon for freedom in the world and no one will keep that light from shining,” yet the domestic antiterrorism actions taken by the government “darken that very beacon of freedom by making a new attack on our own people’s already endangered civil liberties” (Hightower, 2001, p. 1). Shielding the Public from the Grief of War The public has been shielded from the loss of American lives in the wars of the 21st century. From 2003 to 2008, for example, the Bush administration banned news photographers from the ceremonies when flag-draped caskets were removed from planes at Dover Air force Base in Delaware. President Bush and vice President Cheney did not attend military funerals. The DoD banned images of wounded troops when it required news agencies to get signed consent forms from soldiers photographed after they were wounded (Maddow, 2012). Instead of shared grief and national honor for the loss of American lives, the grief was privatized to the families of the fallen. Among Rachel Maddow’s recommendations, after reviewing the various aspects of wars as they are now fought, is that “going to war, being at war, should be painful for the entire country, from the start” (Maddow, 2012, p. 249). This is not how wars are prosecuted in the 21st century anymore. Americans have been systematically made oblivious to the grisly human price of war (Shane, 2012). This makes it too easy for leaders to lead the nation into endless wars. War by Drones Drone strikes have became very common during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Drones are unmanned aerial vehicles used for surveillance and bombing strategic targets. The US has deployed over 7,000 drones in six countries. The CIA and the U.S. military operate the drones but a far distance from the strikes (as far away as Langley, Virginia). Combatants are removed from the enemy. Drone operations are classified and thus cannot be openly debated in Congress, so the program is shielded from public view and responsibility (Cole, 2012). Drones are used to assassinate those responsible for terrorist attacks. This has meant strikes in sovereign nations without their permission (acts that Americans would not tolerate if they were directed at the United States). The US, for example, conducted over 300 drone strikes in Pakistan from 2004 to 2012, over the strong objections of the Pakistani government. These stealth attacks have assassinated suspected terrorist leaders, but their collateral damage has also killed innocents, leading to intense hatred of the United States and increasing support of the terrorists (The Nation, 2012). In particular, drone strikes lead many Pakistanis and Yemenis, driven by hatred and revenge, to join militant groups opposed to the United States (Mothana, 2012). Drones and other new technologies have freed the executive branch from seeking approval of Congress. Presidents Bush and Obama and their administrations unilaterally ordered the killing of foreigners located far from the battlefield without the oversight of the other branches of government (New York Times, 2012). This trend of presidents bypassing Congress on matters of war began with Kennedy and Johnson in the Vietnam War and later with Reagan, and continuing to the present, with an ever-greater convergence of power in the executive branch (Maddow, 2012). References Bush, George W. 2001. “Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People.” Office of the Press Secretary, The White House (September 20). Online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html. Conason, Joe. (2007). It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush. New York: Thomas Dunne Books. Eitzen, S.D., Zinn, M., & Smith, K. (2010). In Conflict and Order: Understanding Society, 12th ed. Boston: Pearson pp. 521–522. Hightower, Jim. (2001). “Stand Up for your Democracy.” AlterNet (September 19). Online: www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11537. Kaplan, David E. (2006). “Spies Among Us.” U.S. News & World Report (May 8):40–49. Maddow, Rachel. (2012). Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power. New York: Crown. McGovern, Ray. 2012. “The Obama Team Just Doesn’t Get It; U.S. Violence and Occupation Spark Terrorism.” Alternet (May 3). Online: http://www.alternet.org/moedule/155246. Mothana, Ibrahim. 2012. “How Drones Help Al Qaeda.” CommonDreams.org (June 14). Online: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/06/14–7. New York Times. (2012). “Too Much Power for a President.” (May 30). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/opinion/too-much-power-fora-president Shane, Scott. 2012. “Executive Overreach.” New York Times (April 13). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/books/review/drift-by-rachelmaddow.html. Woellert, Lorraine, and Dawn Kopecke. (2006). “The Snooping Goes Beyond Phone Calls.” Business Week (May 29):38.
Purchase answer to see full attachment