Results of Crisis Management and Anti-Terrorist Regulations (and their connections to George Orwell’s 1984)
Examining the patterns of American democracy, and government agencies in light of mass terror events lead to a close link in 1984 and its development of a surveillance state that looks to prevent citizen dissent and foreign terrorism. The Bush/Cheney administration implemented many legislative acts and cultural reforms that altered American, and global, life in light of national security and protectionism. Using similar methods, although less severe, that were carried out in Orwell’s 1984; the restructuring of American democracy to “protect” its citizens and national prestige has lead to high moral controversy and a massive change in daily life due to surveillance and a limitation of freedom. Changes in foreign policy and involvement in the Middle East wholly altered the global political climate – concerning international involvement and political hostility, which has contributed to extremism in many forms.
“9/11 has transformed our culture” (Wright, 350) A culture of fear has been prevalent since this major terror event, fear sprouting from a breach in domestic security has lead to government actions that have caused a shift in culture; dominant government intervention overseas and domestically has greatly warped how America defines its operations as a state. Post 9/11, the need for implementation of certain security guidelines has lead to a justification of “excessive and habitual suspension of good governance” (Suri). Bush’s administration expanded the Department of Homeland Security and domestic surveillance, and militarized police forces (Suri). “Western democracies and more repressive regimes have responded to terrorism, often by strengthening the powers of the executive and employing indeterminant administrative or military detention of suspected terrorists without the due process of protections generally associated with criminal trials.” (Roach, 8) Military involvement in many Middle Eastern countries increased the already dominant national power complex. The fallout of terrorism has created a highly monitored and regulated state. Prioritized militance is often credited as a significant factor in identifying an authoritative government, and with the United States spending $892 billion on the military (Amadeo), this reliance on security as a part of national identity fundamentally guides the United States further into authoritarian territory. The speculation that Saddam Hussein’s regime was funding organizations such as Al-Qaeda gave Americans a reason for the war in Iraq to “expunge a supposed connection between the government of Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda and to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to states and terrorist groups.” (United States Institute of Peace)
Interstate conflicts in 1984 created similar government regulation in the establishment of many totalitarian Ministries, anti-terrorist programs and propaganda, and proletariat surveillance and lifestyle control. The presence of an identified political rival (Oceania vs. East Asia, Oceania vs. Eurasia) at all times validified Oceania’s need for constant surveillance, nationalist propaganda, and highly funded and publicized war efforts. John Jay expanded on the theory of modern warfare in Federalist No.4 where he warned that Executives “will often make war when their nations get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans.” (Fisher, 364) The American belief of national protectionism and upholding an image of strength to influence the masses and administer authority. The existence of fear in the individual provokes a belief in a system designed to “protect” them; mirrored in the acceptance of the recognition of Ingsoc rule and anti-terrorism efforts in the United States.
The enactment of the Patriot Act soon after the events of September 11th affected the lives of both US citizens and immigrants significantly (Effects of the Patriot Act). Harsh regulations following this act enabled the United States government to monitor the actions of its citizens more closely than ever before. With the allowance of higher surveillance and some exceptions to the Fourth Amendment, the government’s power of surveillance is increased in four key areas: record searches, secret searches, intelligence searches intelligence searches, and “trap and trace searches.” In these expansions of surveillance, the government’s ability to search one’s details expands to unnotified property searches, the release of third party information, and closer monitoring of interpersonal communications (Surveillance Under the USA/Patriot Act).
This type of surveillance is resonated thematically in 1984 with the omnipresence of Big Brother. Use of telescreens that monitor citizens every move and civil reports of possible disloyalty to the Party (carried out by organizations such as the Junior Spies) create a complete lack of privacy and the ability to act against the Party, even in your internalized thought processes. Winston Smith’s dissent comes in the form of individual thinking. His thoughtcrime stems from political speculation of the operations of the Party. Questioning of Big Brother and the Party’s ways are illegal, even in thought. Governmental implementation of widespread indoctrination eliminates the possibility of most internal and external dissent. The government actions taken in America have not escalated to the points at which surveillance is carried out in 1984 however, a democracy that preaches personal freedoms to the extent that the United States does should not have such harsh regulatory systems in place.
These systems can be argued in favor for heightened national security to prevent the aforementioned terror events and even internal crimes. There are arguments that the Patriot Act does not breach civil liberties to the extent that some believe, and the freedoms that are lost are made up for in the protection of the nation’s citizens. Unlike the free use of extreme surveillance methods in 1984, the United States has set up “elaborate safeguards against abuse (of the system)” (Sales). Limitations on the use of power are essential in upholding a liberal democracy and preventing its evolvement into a possibly authoritarian state. Validation of the Patriot Act falls short on the population of the United States, many citizens disagree with these methods and question the involvement of government in their day to day lives. The hiding or rifling through of information provokes questioning to those carrying out these measures. In 1984, Winston’s questioning of the validity of facts spread by the government and its fundamental principles set a target on him that leads to his eventual capture. Amplified surveillance efforts are used on Winston to further incriminate him in means of the democratic practice of dissent. The Party’s persistent supervision thwarts his efforts to conceal his thoughtcrime.
Hostile views towards the American government are not held only in its citizens, but also by foreigners who recognize and are affected by its involvement in their states. American participation in the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, anti-terrorism acts, heightened border security and immigration regulations, torture systems in the Middle East and Guantanamo, are attributed with creating the environments that have popularized extremism and jihadist conversion (Chomsky, 87).
The Cheney-Rumsfeld torture system, rooted mostly in Guantanamo Bay, was reported by the Senate to be ineffective. This infectivity was not to be said that the government did not obtain substantial information, but it was based on the fact that it did not halt terrorist activity (Chomsky, 82). “Doublethink” is relevant in the claims by George W. Bush, that he “United States does not torture,” despite the Obama administration release of the 525 page CIA torture report. Deniability of morally unjust actions is crucial in holding the faith of the commons (Ackerman). Since Obama’s executive order calling for the halt of CIA torture facilities, or “detention facilities,” in 2009, “the United States has still not repudiated the unlawful practice of extraordinary rendition… (the executive order) was reportedly crafted to preserve the CIA’s authority.” (Singh and Berry, 119) To obtain authority over its people, the United States has manipulated the legal and press systems in such a way that allows for the upholding and respect of coercion through loopholes and secrecy. The United States had denied torture while still performing these acts out of their geographical jurisdictions, legally justifying them through the need for intelligence, and morally defending them through the need for security.
Aspects of dehumanization seen in 1984’s Ministry of Love are replicated in reality through global detention centers used and operated by US agencies. Means of physical torture are used in 1984 mainly to gain confessions of crimes, with massive surveillance adding to senses of paranoia. Party members are primarily in prison for acts of conspiracy, and in the Ministry of Love immoral means of reaching ends are used regularly.
Mistrust in the government due to surveillance and falsification adds to their fear of persecution. The periodic isolation, starvation, inadequate living conditions, physical and psychological torment that Winston endured are mimicked in many accounts of life inside CIA prisons. For example, Mohammed al-Asad was “subjected to abusive conditions, including extreme isolation and absence of human contact, loud music and artificial light 24 hours a day, exposure to cold, and dietary manipulation.” (Singh and Berry, 32) In both cases, Winston and Mohammed eventually plead guilty to their respective charges after subjection to abuse and an eventual loss of self. Although it temporarily halts acts of dissent made by “terrorists” and those who have committed acts of treason, it does not stop the rise of new dissidents.
Historically – and textually – limiting people creates the conditions for dissent and the questioning of government systems, this can be seen in Winston’s curiosity towards the operation of the Party and his discovery of the resistance and Goldstein’s publication of “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.”. The anti-Party propaganda presented in the book gives Winston the hope that many other people within his society have beliefs similar to his own. However, a revolution is written to be futile in the book due to the Party’s complete control over its people, lack of structural weakness, the stupidity of the Proletariats, and the crimestop exercised by members of the inner and outer Party.
As long as a singular member of society questions the state, the states complete power over those that it governs is inherently ineffective. Even with the prosecution of terrorists, both in the novel and by American agencies, opposition to the system will still exist – and implementing control will only further aggravate the masses and lead to a gradual uprise (or in this investigation, extremist terrorist organizations). Saddam Hussein’s human rights violation trial carried out by the Iraqi Special Tribunal provides proof that testimonies against a state’s leader can render them ineffective and remove them from power in severe forms.
Hussein’s execution in 2006 after he was proven guilty for orchestrating the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi’ites that were associated with an assassination attempt against him (Saddam Hussein Executed), created a power chasm that many politicians and rebels that called for change viewed as an opportunity to change the countries administration to fit their political agendas.
Without international intervention to prevent the uprisal of the Iraqi people and its government lead to ongoing civil conflicts in the region and the ability for terror to become dominant globally. Immediately following the execution of Hussein, densely populated Shia areas of the nations erupted with various celebratory actions: “Saddam’s execution was followed by reports of a car bombing with as many as 30 dead in the Shia city of Kufa. In Sadr City, a major Shia area in Baghdad, people danced in the streets while others fired guns in the air to celebrate.” (Saddam Hussein Executed) Hussein’s vendetta against Shia Muslims created anger from members of this belief who were discriminated against. Shia radical groups who sought to obtain the power over the country believed in the strict upholding of traditional Sharia law and often resorted to violent acts to “spread the word” of their Allah.
The removal of American troops from Iraq beginning in 2007 and finishing in 2011 (Timeline: Invasion, Surge, Withdrawal; U.S. Forces in Iraq) lead to a lack of adequate peacekeeping. Ultimately, the catastrophic global abandonment of Iraq and the lack of intervention to prevent civil issues lead to the creation of disputing religious groups, higher rates of jihadist conversion, and the nature of ISIS (who have wreaked havoc globally, predominantly within its operating territories and Europe). “ISIS found supporters (in Iraq) and gained ground. And, yes, much of that could have been prevented by a big U.S. troop presence.” (Fordham) After American troops left Iraq, the Iraqi military quickly deteriorated, with a lack of regulation and interference corruption ran rampant, allowing for the spread of ISIS into the middle east. The capture of major Iraqi cities, such as Mosul, came from a flaw in domestic military organization. (Fordham) From this, an argument that American foreign policies to eliminate global terrorism have only further promoted the growth of terrorist activity despite its best efforts is established.
With the escalation of extremism and fear associated with its actions post 9/11, global culture as transformed significantly and this shift can be attributed heavily with measures taken by the United States. As the leading global superpower, actions taken by the United States generate shockwaves that transform political climates across the globe. Acts of national self-preservation have ultimately resulted in citizen scrutiny of guidelines and a global explosion of extreme fear and extreme violence. Implementation of legislative actions and militant involvement overseas in the name of national security and protectionism are largely flawed in that they promote the limitation of freedoms and have contributed to increased terrorism – despite their roots in the diminishment of terrorist activity.
Flaws in the outcomes of these measures stem from the intention to reestablish power “‘not sanctified by justice or the voices of interest by the people’” (Fisher, 364). Interest in the preservation of an image of the nation has reigned supreme over the genuine concern for the wellbeing of citizens and proper measures to appease global masses. Sacrifices in the practices of liberal democracy have been made by the United States to attempt to consolidate power and security in light of breaches in these two vital elements of a dominant global state, which can be linked to administrative practices in 1984 to obtain the same.