guardian | why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented capacity to spy on their own domestic populations?
Since the 2008 economic crash, security agencies have increasingly
spied on political activists, especially environmental groups, on behalf
of corporate interests. This activity is linked to the last decade of
US defence planning, which has been increasingly concerned by the risk
of civil unrest at home triggered by catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic crisis - or all three.
Just last month, unilateral changes to US military laws formally granted the Pentagon extraordinary powers to intervene in a domestic "emergency" or "civil disturbance":
"Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances."
Other
documents show that the "extraordinary emergencies" the Pentagon is
worried about include a range of environmental and related disasters.
In 2006, the US National Security Strategy warned that:
"Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response."
Two years later, the Department of Defense's (DoD) Army Modernisation Strategy
described the arrival of a new "era of persistent conflict" due to
competition for "depleting natural resources and overseas markets"
fuelling "future resource wars over water, food and energy." The report
predicted a resurgence of:
"... anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability."
In the same year, a report
by the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute warned that a series of
domestic crises could provoke large-scale civil unrest. The path to
"disruptive domestic shock" could include traditional threats such as
deployment of WMDs, alongside "catastrophic natural and human disasters"
or "pervasive public health emergencies" coinciding with "unforeseen
economic collapse." Such crises could lead to "loss of functioning
political and legal order" leading to "purposeful domestic resistance or
insurgency...
"DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."
That
year, the Pentagon had begun developing a 20,000 strong troop force who
would be on-hand to respond to "domestic catastrophes" and civil unrest
- the programme was reportedly based on a 2005 homeland security strategy which emphasised "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents."
The following year, a US Army-funded RAND Corp study called for a US force presence specifically to deal with civil unrest.
