General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow Cash Secretly Rules Surveillance Policy
The success of that pressure is exemplified by the title of yesterdays congressional hearing with the head of the NSA, Gen. Keith Alexander. The hearing doesnt ask why Alexander lied to Congress or whether the NSA has engaged in illegal acts. No, a Congress bankrolled by firms like Booz Allen predictably calls the hearing How Disclosed NSA Programs Protect Americans & Why Disclosure Aids Our Adversaries the two preconceived assumption being that 1) the NSAs surveillance programs, which generate huge profits for companies like Booz, are beneficial to Americans security and 2) critics of those programs hurt the country.
None of this, by the way, is exclusive to debates over domestic national security policy. As Booz Allens business model suggests, there are also foreign policy implications to the pay-to-play culture.
As The New York Times notes, the firm is expanding its profit potential by marketing its surveillance and security services to Middle East dictatorships that want to strengthen their grip on power. According to the Washington Business Journal, that includes Kuwait, Qatar, Omar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other countries working to crush democratic dissent associated with the Arab Spring. That means American politicians who are financed by Booz and other firms with a similar multinational business model not only have a vested campaign-contribution interest in shilling for the domestic surveillance state that their donors profit from. They also have a similar interest in denigrating the democratic protest movements that challenge Mideast surveillance states that make those donors big money, too.
Obviously, this kind of moneyed influence should be a critical focus of the political reporting on politicians declarations about Snowden, the NSA, foreign policy and surveillance in general. When, for instance, a journalist reports on a politician slamming critics of the surveillance state, the public should be told whether that politician has taken money from firms that make their money off the continued expansion of that surveillance state. But that isnt happening thanks to the aforementioned No Money Rule in the Washington press and that rule isnt just about etiquette. On national security issues, it is often about the elite agenda-setting Washington media outlets which also financially rely on an ever-expanding national security state.
http://billmoyers.com/2013/06/19/how-cash-secretly-rules-surveillance-policy/
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)make public our lending institutions.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)midnight
(26,624 posts)Locrian
(4,522 posts)Another industry that will grow like a weed and choke us
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)reform.
midnight
(26,624 posts)computers.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)It's just that we have too many ostriches, and not enough eagles in this country.
Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)If, Booz Allen in order to secure security contracts, made promises about the levels of security we should expect. I say they failed to meet those promises and we should demand a full refund. Of every dollar paid to Booz Allen by the United States of America.
If the Democratic party, as one of the major political parties ergo a legitimate client, filed a class action lawsuit for such refund. Could the sales pitches be subpoenaed?
If Booz Allen, a respected subcontractor, could fail so spectacularly, are not any/all subcontractors equally vulnerable? I'd say a full Congressional review was called for. Lets give D. Issa something constructive to do. He apparently loves rooting through conspiracies.
When I ran spell check, it suggested I replace Booz (Booz Allen) with Bozo. I think it might be right.
midnight
(26,624 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)...is kick them square in the wallet.
Then jump up and down on their fingers, staple their ears together, push pebbles in their nose, and tie their shoelaces together.
midnight
(26,624 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)The bottom line is that it is all about protecting wealthy private interests, and keeping them, and laissez faire capitalism, safe from democratic control.
The imperialists need to be able to freely plunder the planet and be free from interference by the people they exploit, as they greedily ravage the globe and wantonly desolate the human condition for profit.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Where money trumps peace.