BEg2 ch30 paragraph 6

[rich]

you may seen this, Thomas but some pretty relevant stuff contained here and
having just re-read Vineland, whoa...

rich

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/26/us/internet-president-emergency-orders.html?searchResultPosition=16

“The bottom line is that these documents leave no doubt that the post-9/11
emergency actions documents have direct and significant implications for
Americans’ civil liberties,” said Elizabeth Goitein
<https://www.brennancenter.org/experts/elizabeth-goitein> of the Brennan
Center for Justice at New York University. “And yet, there is no oversight
by Congress. And that’s unacceptable.”

Even though it is unclear how the directives have evolved since the later
stages of the Cold War, Ms. Goitein said they have likely expanded to
include other scenarios beyond a devastating nuclear attack. The documents
show that later versions extended from one category to seven, although
their topics remain secret, and fall within the jurisdiction of agencies
with different areas of focus.

More is public about 1950s and 1960s versions of the draft emergency action
orders because some have been mentioned or described in memos that have
since been declassified. For example, they included directives
<https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/Federal%20Emergency%20Plan%20D-Minus%20%28Apr.%201959%29.pdf>
imposing
versions of martial law, censoring information crossing the border and
suspending court hearings for detained people. It is unclear whether the
current set includes similar actions.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 4:17 AM Hübschräuber via Pynchon-l <
pynchon-l at waste.org> wrote:

>
> Am 01.06.2022 um 09:01 schrieb Michael Bailey:
>
> > Some militarization occurring, and while the tone isn’t evincing or
> > recommending a “thrilled about it” attitude, it doesn’t seem to me to be
> > either surprised or greatly disapproving - except of the bus loads of
> > racially profiled arrestees, and I’m reading that into it mostly, based
> on
> > the previous paragraph and the reference to “civic imagination.”
> >
> > A Mobile Command Center near a tense locality doesn’t seem like a
> terrible
> > idea, does it?
>
> No, but...
>
> I keep reading BE against the background of VL and its explicit,
> thematic references to REX 84 and COINTELPRO, i.e. Continuity of
> Government and counterinsurgency measures.
>
> As CoG features in BE just like it did in VL, I again point to
> the fact that CoG or Continuity of Operations measures were implemented on
> September 11. To the best of my knowledge they have
> not been rescinded. The specifics are, of course, classified:
>
> "The George W. Bush administration put the Continuity of Operations plan
> into effect for the first time directly following the September 11
> attacks."
>
> "On July 18, 2007, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), a member of the U.S. House
> Committee on Homeland Security at that time, requested the classified
> and more detailed version of the government's continuity-of-operations
> plan in a letter signed by him and the chairperson of the House Homeland
> Security Committee, which is supposed to have access to confidential
> government information.
>
> The president refused to provide the information, to the surprise of the
> congressional committee. As of August 2007, efforts by the committee to
> secure a copy of the plan continued."
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_of_Operations_Plan#Continuity_of_Operations_plan_activated
>
> (We might remember that Oliver North testified about REX 84 only in closed
> session.)
>
> Perhaps more to the point, I read this passage specifically against the
> background of the Patriot Act which looms in
> the near future of the narrative present:
>
> "The Patriot Act was enacted following the September 11 attacks and the
> 2001 anthrax attacks with the stated goal of dramatically tightening
> U.S. national security, particularly as it related to foreign terrorism.
> In general, the act included three main provisions:
>
> - expanded surveillance abilities of law enforcement, including by
> tapping domestic and international phones;
> - easier interagency communication to allow federal agencies to
> more effectively use all available resources in counterterrorism
> efforts; and
> - increased penalties for terrorism crimes and an expanded list of
> activities which would qualify for terrorism charges.
>
> The law is controversial due to its authorization of indefinite
> detention without trial of immigrants, and due to the permission given
> to law enforcement to search property and records without a warrant,
> consent, or knowledge."
>
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
>
> This, I suggest, is the general political/historical background Pynchon
> evokes (this is, looking into the future of the narrative present - looking
> into the past we get DARPA, the RAND corporation, McCarthyism from
> Ernie, as well as the Cold War Command and Control Centre in the Dark Web).
>
> In the passage at hand, Pynchon describes the subtle implementation of a
> permanent state of emergency - or at least steps taken into that
> direction: Detention and imprisonment without charges, surveillance,
> roadblocks, the military patrolling the
> streets. These measures may be seen as reasonable under the circumstances
> but it is well known that once civil rights are curtailed they hardly ever
> are reinstituted once the immediate danger is over. Relatedly, like the
> whole concept of national security, the measures are of dual use as
> instruments of counterterrorism as well as of counterinsurgency.
>
> In any case, Pynchon seems to emphasise
> the fact that those "Mobile Police Command Centers" became permanent
> features.
>
> I like it how seamlessly the material from this
> context, which may be termed "parapolitical", "deep political" or simply
> "pertaining to the machinations of the national security state", blends
> in with the observational and indeed, as you say, not "surprised or
> greatly disapproving" tone of the passage. At the very least, however,
> the dangers of the counterterrorist paradigm are hinted at - not in the
> text at hand, but if one takes the historical context and Pynchon's
> various takes on the
> national security state into account.
>
> The door of the mouse trap in Maxine's dream closes "not that loudly"...
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>