Hell Freezes Over: Even Erik Prince thinks the NSA's Multiple Spying Programs have Gone Too Far---
(Really Good Read to bookmark)
By PETER LUDLOW, professor of philosophy at Northwestern University
January 19, 2014
However, since 9/11 leaders of both political parties in the United States have sought to consolidate power by leaning not just on the danger of a terrorist attack, but on the fact that the possible perpetrators are frightening individuals who are not like us. As President George W. Bush put it before a joint session of Congress in 2001: “They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” Last year President Obama brought the enemy closer to home, arguing in a speech at the National Defense University that “we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States” — radicalized individuals who were “deranged or alienated individuals — often U.S. citizens or legal residents.”
The Bush fear-peddling is usually considered the more extreme, but is it? The Obama formulation puts the “radicalized individuals” in our midst. They could be American citizens or legal residents. And the subtext is that if we want to catch them we need to start looking within. The other is among us. The pretext for the surveillance state is thus established.
And let there be no mistake about the consolidation of power in the form of the new surveillance state. Recent revelations by Edward Snowden have shown an unprecedented program of surveillance both worldwide and on the American population. Even Erik Prince, the founder of the private military contractor Blackwater Worldwide thinks the security state has gone too far:
The widespread outrage over the new surveillance state has been great enough that President Obama announced on Friday that he would scale back some of its programs, but he remained strident in his overall support for aggressive surveillance.
The interesting thing about the security measures that are taken today is that they provide, as Prince puts it, the “illusion of security”; another way to put it is that they provide “security theater.” Or perhaps it is actually a theater of fear.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/blogs/opinionator/2014/01/19/fifty-states-of-fear/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
and possibly is responsible for the murder of foreign citizens? That guy? 
He's scum who wouldn't think twice about bidding on a contract to 'control' (shoot, detain) those "radicalized individuals who were 'deranged or alienated individuals'" (even if Americans) if the government was taking such bids. His bottom line is money and he can spout all the outrage he wants, won't change who or what he is.
His concern, if it exist, is that sane people would consider him an extremist (an "other"
and he fears what his (former) company did to people could happen to him.
People like Prince suddenly see the dangers only after they've harmed people and worry the tables could be turned. He felt justified in his company's contract killing because he can get behind the idea of killing the "other", as long as that "other" isn't him.
He profited from the use of fear as a means of control under Bush. His objection now isn't the use of fear - it's who is using it and how it could be used against him.
And just do a search of what Prince is involved with now. Or his former company Academi/Xe/Blackwater.
That said, I enjoyed the article and it is well worth the read. But, seriously, fuck Prince.
