Militarization and Intelligence Gathering

Especially during the past 70 years 1st world militaries have concentrated on developing what they call counter intelligence and counter insurgency models to combat the need for freedom oppressed peoples around the world have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate.

For 3rd and 4th world liberation fighters the abstracts of time, space and will are emphasized over the logistic and production power industrialized nations rely on in developing their theories of total warfare. We see that a power tool was created and as a result colonized countries around the globe were able to throw off those chains of military conquest and free themselves in

It is these models of counter insurgency and counter intelligence programs developed by the military that should be of particular interest to Xicano and Indigenous activist today. One of the main reasons this is true is the increasing use of military models, mentality and theory by the police on U.S. soil when interacting with non combatants (civilians). So while the we don't have the Army patrolling the streets of this country the police who do patrol, watch and gather information are being trained by the military to run the same types of programs here we are in other counties.

Militarization doesn't just mean weaponry it also speaks directly to attitude and scope of powers. According to Kristian Williams author of 'Our Enemies in Blue: police and police power in the United States' militarizing the police 'affects not only police paraphernalia, but the police mission, the roles of violence and intelligence, police ideology, rhetoric, training, and organization' (p. 197). By examining the list directly below we can see how this happening now in our society.

Peter Kraska a scholar on militarization defines the process in this way, 'militarization...can be defined in its broadest terms as the soical process in which society organizes itself for the production of violence or the threat thereof' (Williams). Kraska makes the following list:

1. A blurring of external and interanl securtiy fucntions leading to a targeting of civilian populations, internal 'security' threats, and a focus on aggregate populations as potential interal 'insurgents'.

2. An avoidance of overt or lethal violence, with a greater emphasis placed on information gathering and processing, surveillance work, and less than than lethal technologies..

3. An ideology and theoretical framework of militarism that stresses the effective problem solving requires state force, technology, armament, intelligence gathering, aggressive suppresion efforts, and other assorted activities commensurate with modern military thinking and operation.

4. Criminal justice practices guided by the idlologcal framework of the militarism, such as the use of special-operations paramilitary teams in policing and corrections, policing activities that emphasize military tactics such as drug, gun, and gang suppression, and punishment models based on the military boot camp.

5. The purchasing, loaning, donation, and use of actual material products that can be characterized as militaristic, including a range of military armaments, transportation devices, surveillance equipment, and military-style garb.

6. A rapidly developing collaboration, at the highest level of the governmental and corporate worlds, between the defense industry and the crime control industry.

7. The use of military language within the political and popular culture, to characterize the social problems of drug, crime and social disorder.

One of the main ways to gather information is the use of undercover agents below are some suggestions for individuals involved in political work today.

Remember: A typical way for a professional undercover agent to initially contact a suspect (group or individuals) is to be introduced by a non-professional informer already known but not suspected by the suspects.

Here are a few ways undercover agents may tip their hands:

Seeking information they do not need under “need to know” rules.

Trying to get people to repeat incriminating statements made at an earlier meeting (so they can be recorded). If you are suspicious, say you were just joking when you made the earlier remark.

Repeatedly casting suspicion on others without basis. This maybe a smoke screen to keep suspicion off themselves.

Undercover cops many times will show an extremely shallow understanding of the issues. An undercover cop may know only what they have been briefed on. Some, however, are good talkers and can sound knowledgeable without really know an issue in depth.

Making boisterous demands for action and belittling more timid members of the group. Because many cops have authoritarian, even violent personalities they may reveal this inadvertently.

Showing extreme nervousness, such as looking around constantly during an action. They may be looking for surveillance or back up teams.

Slipping away to phone or meet supervisors or control agents. Such meetings may be brief, in a car or at a public parking lot maybe at a department store. Long meetings, such as ‘debriefing’ might be held in motel rooms.

Constantly ‘managing’ the conversation to guide it in directions they wish.

Mentioning another person’s name when you refer obliquely to that person. For the record, since the agent is probably recording the conversation likewise the next two.

Working the time, date and/or location into conversations.

Explicitly stating the incriminating things in response to vague comments from you and others.

Manipulating conversations to try and get some kind of affirmation form you in response to their incriminating statements.

Regularly asking about other individuals - particularly supposed leaders.

Initiating conversations back to illegal acts or conspiracies when the conversation moves on to legal and unrelated matters.

Claiming to be a recovering alcoholic. This gives them excuses not to drink with you and possibly slip up on their covers while under the influence.

Playing different roles with different people calculated to appeal specifically to each individual’s vulnerabilities or strengths. An infiltrator may play the role of just the kind of person you need in your current mental state.

Setting up a phony ‘hit’ to enhance their credibility. They may arrange a number of illegal acts while witnessed by people they wish to entrap or whose confidence they want.

(“Ecodefense – A field guide to Monkeywrenching”)

Confidential Informants, Militarization and the Police

In the United States the modern day police force finds its roots in the slave patrols of the Antebellum South (Williams, 36-46). Created to patrol roads, spy on slaves and report or suppress talk of rebellion these patrols soon expanded to include poor white (indentured servants and others) and acted to protect the boss class and their material interests.

This is one of the reason the police have become such a power lobby in our society is they "provide a mechanism by which the power of the state and eventually that of the emerging ruling class, could be brought to bear on the lives and habits of individual members of society" (Williams, 75).  For many they embody the right of the state to reserve the use of violence for itself. They are unquestioned in their dispensation of force and idea of justice. A quick look at the history of the police helps us to understand quite a bit about them.

Through the past two centuries the role of the police has evolved and become more specialized but essentially has remained the same. The protection of private property and the surrveilence and control of poor people.

The ways in which the police do this are varied. One of the main tactics law enforcement uses is the gathering of information through unofficial means. This is one aspect of control and militarization that truly represents the most dramatic departure from the ideal of the police as we think we know them. 

Author Peter Kraska writes "Militarization ... can be defined in its broadest terms as the social process in which society organizes itself for the production of violence or the threat thereof" (williams, 198).

Kraska goes one to list the following as evidence of that increasing militarization of the police in America.

1. A blurring of external and internal security functions leading to a targeting of civilian populations, internal 'security' threats, and a focus on aggregate populations as potential internal 'insurgents'.

2. An avoidance of overt or lethal violence, with a greater emphasis placed on information gathering and processing, surveillance work, and less than lethal technologies.

3. An ideology and theoretical framework of militarism that stresses that effective problem solving requires state force, technology, armament, intelligence gathering, aggressive suppression efforts, and other assorted activities commensurate with modern military thinking and operations. 

4. Criminal justice practices guided by the ideological framework of militarism such as the use of special operation paramilitary teams in policing and corrections, policing activities that emphasize military tactics such as drug, gun and gang suppression, and punishment models based on the military boot camp.

5. The purchasing, loaning, donation, and use of actual material products that can be characterized as militaristic, including a range of military armaments, transportation devices, surveillance equipment, and military style garb.

6. A rapidly developing collaboration, at the highest level of the governmental and corporate worlds, between the defense industry and the crime control industry.

7. The use of military language within political and popular culture, to characterize the social problems of drugs, crime and social disorder.

(Williams, 198)

Below is an excerpt from a very excellent book called "Eco-Defense a guide to Monkey-Wrenching" for those of you involved in what some would term radical politics this is good advice.

Confidential Informants

The confidential informant, or “CI” is possible the single most valuable tool used in law enforcement. CI’s are obtained by a number of means:

Walk-in – These are disgruntled or disenchanted members of a target organization who volunteer their services, for a variety of reasons. They may have joined a group with good intention, only to be offended by what they see as overly radical tactics. Or they may e ambitious people who have been passed over for leadership roles and decide to seek revenge against those they think have slighted them. Or they may be wackos who seek revenge against someone in the group for personal reasons, including romantic ones.

Tip offs – The future CI is indiscreet in talking of illegal exploits, and is overheard by someone not of the group, who in turn informs the police. The police obtain information about other illegal activities. This often occurs with drug busts.

Recruits – Known members of a target group may be targeted for recruitment by the police. The effort usually begins with a background check for signs of vulnerability. An individual who appears ‘weak’ might simply be interviewed repeatedly by a persuasive officer until she agrees to cooperate. A conservative employer perhaps only with a law enforcement or military background might be enlisted to help in pressuring the prospective recruits. In the past, for instance, the FBI has used interviews with employers to intimidate members of political groups.

Similarly, a spouse may be approached to aid in the recruitment. Veiled threats to children or to one’s job security have often proved effective. Also, the parents of the would be informer may be approached to secure their help. This approach may be particularly effective if the subject is say a college student receiving financial support from their parents.

People who have never been arrested, or young people heavily influenced by their families are more often susceptible to becoming CIs than those with more experience.

Excerpt from “Ecodefense – a field guide to Monkey Wrenching”

Williams, Kristian (2007) "Our Enemies in Blue police and power in America" South End Press, Cambridge, MA.