The Specter of 'Economic Terrorism'

A very dangerous precedent has been set. I’ve talked about this in the past. I’ve joked about it, too, but frankly enough is enough. The calls may be coming from Republicans today, but here’s a liberal author  using the phrase “economic terrorism” to describe the actions of  Republicans and TEA party members. This is in the context of President  Obama’s “economic patriotism.”

“Economic patriotism says that instead of making it tougher for  middle-class families to get ahead, let’s reward hard work for every  American.” —President Obama   

The police are already inventive in  finding ways to charge organizers and selected protestors with felonies — even going so far as to entrap them or pose as protestors to stir trouble  —  but we thankfully still have the ability to record  those exchanges, crowdsource funds for legal defense, and there are  still some attorneys who are sympathetic to our civil liberties. Until the War on Terror comes to a conclusive end, it will always allow for more crimes to be treated as terrorism; it will always facilitate perpetual warfare. Already we tread dangerous waters with the War on Terror being brought  home by the Obama Administration. The next president is going to have access to the  surveillance state and the military industrial complex. It won’t stop at economic terrorism. Every crime you can imagine will be scrutinized  under the context of terror. That means no more due process, no more  civil liberties, no more freedom of movement or speech. All of it  subject to authoritarianism.

We’re talking “financial terrorism”; “economic terrorism”; “right-wing terrorism”; “eco-terrorism”; “cyberterrorism”; “emotional terrorism”; “food terrorism”; “electoral terrorism”. The sky is the limit! Terrorism  is a vague, vacuous, and vacant word. It has no absolute meaning and is  used more often than not as a rhetorical device. The Bush Administration introduced a new, untenable (and intangible) “enemy” to the American  people. He brought us the National Security State. Obama’s presidency moderated the radicals who opposed these policies and continued to  expand upon the powers introduced by Bush to make them more tenable to the American public. Now that Trump is in office, he has to rile up the side of America that acts out of fear  of “otherness” so that he can use the powers bestowed upon him by Bush and Obama to further tighten the grip of the imperial presidency.

In 2002, Democrats and Republicans alike voted for a bill that introduced exactly what Trump has claimed to want to do: put millions of Muslims already here with temporary visas or permanent residency under explicit monitoring. This was called the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS). [See, there’s that “national security” vaguery again]. This  program wasn’t “officially” disbanded until  2011. But its existence is now being touted as the necessary precedent for reintroducing the policy. In fact, several constitutional scholars have argued in favor of its legality.

In addition, the Obama Administration, with the support of the Democratic Party, also voted and signed laws on  bipartisan lines that increased the number of agents working for the Border Patrol and  “modernized” them with new gear. More fences and barriers were built. Deportations were highest between 2009 and 2016 than under any other  President. This was one of Obama’s “greatest” achievements.

But how  does border security tie into a conversation about terrorism? Because the institution tasked with maintaining that security is the same institution responsible for the expansions of our current police state: the Department of Homeland Security. Under the DHS, the borders are “secured.” The police have become militarized. Our social lives are profiled, our movements tracked, our purchases monitored. It has to stop. The DHS needs to be abolished if we ever want to hope to see our civil liberties restored.