Time To Halt The Russian Hacking Hysteria - Fact: We Don't Know WHO Launched Yesterday's Cyber Attack

Almost like clockwork as news of the denial of service attack on the internet spread, out came media dunderheads and propagandists blaming it on the Russians.  But as I pointed out several months ago, in respect of the DNC hack (also blamed on the Russians) there isn't a scintilla of hard, incontrovertible evidence.

I cited tech sources that noted the sheer difficulty about actually positively identifying the source of the hack, indeed any hack. As one expert put it (on the site techdirt.com), : "Just because you find an AK -47 lying around doesn't mean a Russian was responsible". Same thing with a system hack bearing  "Russian Cyrillic letters in the code". Ever heard of spoofing a hack? When did we see this before? Well with the claimed Sony  hack by N. Korea three years earlier. (Which turned out to be due to a disaffected, former  Sony employee).

Worse, the cyber security firms (like 'CrowdStrike')  and resident "experts" that make these wild claims are often the beneficiaries of   "faith-based attribution"  whereby they skate and are never held accountable when they are wrong. SO pardon me if I didn't bite then about "the Russians and Putin doing it" and don't now with this massive hack attack yesterday. Indeed, too many Americans have the memories of gnats and appear to forget there is a perfectly capable group out there ("Anonymous")  that has done denial of service attacks before and isn't connected to any "Russians". See e.g.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/08/masked-avengers

As the techdirt.com line in the preceding paragraph points out (and I implore readers to read the entire account):

"It’s important to know that the process of attributing an attack by a cybersecurity company has nothing to do with the scientific method. Claims of attribution aren’t testable or repeatable because the hypothesis is never proven right or wrong. Neither are claims of attribution admissible in any criminal case, so those who make the claim don’t have to abide by any rules of evidence (i.e., hearsay, relevance, admissibility).

The closest analogy for a cybersecurity company’s assignment of attribution is an intelligence estimate, however intelligence analysts who write those estimates are held accountable for their hits and misses. If the miss is big enough (No WMDs in Iraq, missed India’s five nuclear bomb tests in ’98, missed Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, etc.), there are consequences, and perhaps a Congressional investigation.

When it comes to cybersecurity estimates of attribution, no one holds the company that makes the claim accountable because there’s no way to prove whether the assignment of attribution is true or false unless (1) there is a criminal conviction, (2) the hacker is caught in the act, or (3) a government employee leaked the evidence."

The last paragraph is especially important about no one holding the cyber bunch making the original  claim to account because there's no way to prove the assignment of attribution is true. Thus, Crowdstrike and its sister corporate companies - even the FBI - can make all the rash claims they want about "the Russians" but no one will hold them to account given the lack of proof.

It's analogous to a rash physicist making a claim, say that heat generated in a one-off experiment arose from "cold fusion".  But he has no way to replicate it,  no way to prove it. He has succumbed to "faith based attribution".  But given with these recent hacks, rash claims against nation states put us in a geopolitical arena, it is reckless to assign blame without 100 % hard proof. This is given that any consequences could be severe.

For example, launching a U.S. cyber attack on Russia could provoke a full scale cyber war. Let us also, for reference, note that the Stuxnet worm that was released to attack Iranian centrifuges back in 2012  was known to have the potential to be "re-purposed" by just about any adept hacker. See, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/who-made-flame-virus-same-bunch-that.html

In terms of faith -based attribution, recall James R. Clapper Jr. (the same character who lied before the Senate Intelligence Committee  denying the U.S. had  any mass surveillance of its citizens) recently said in a statement on Oct. 7 that "high-level Russian officials were trying to interfere with American elections."

But to refer back to the previous tech link again:

"the closest profession to the attribution estimate of a cyber intelligence analyst is that of a religious office like a priest or a minister, who simply asks their congregation to believe what they say on faith. The likelihood that a nation state will acknowledge that a cybersecurity company has correctly identified one of their operations is probably slightly less likely than God making an appearance at the venue where a theological debate is underway about whether God exists"

In other words, Clapper is more playing the role of a padre citing religious   dogma than a cyber intelligence analyst or authority. It simply doesn't hold water, it's merely faith based attribution that serves the purpose of spreading anti-Russian propaganda.

Perhaps the biggest slam on today's cyber companies hurling these attributions is that their methodology is largely passe. Thus:

"Many of the cyber intelligence analysts who work at companies like CrowdStrike, FireEye, and Mandiant have come out of the military or the Intelligence Community with prior analytic training."

The problem is these companies are still using unstructured analysis as opposed to structured. This difference was explained by Maj. Robert D. Folker, Jr. (USAF) in his January, 2000 paper “Intelligence Analysis In Theater Joint Intelligence Centers: An Experiment In Applying Structured Methods” published by the Joint Military Intelligence College. He believed that adding structure would vastly reduce the conjecture component and yield "superior results". It remains to be seen whether any of these cyber security outfits have upped their game, and until they do we simply can't accept their conclusions any more than a religious dogma.

Until real evidence manifests, citizens would be well advised not to jump to conclusions,  especially when assorted "authorities" insist they have identified  the culprits for the hack. No they have not. Again, read the full account in the "faith based attribution" link.

For the person grounded in deep politics, these unproven accusations from the Neoliberal and Neocon national security state fetishists are especially disturbing as we've seen this before. The spread of propaganda prior to an attack on the specified "enemy".  One can only hope this isn't leading up to a full scale cyber attack on the Russians, followed by the folly of trying to implement a "no fly zone" over Syria after HRC is elected. As one observer put it on Chris Hayes' All In several nights ago, that would be a harbinger of nuclear war.

Temperatures are soaring with this general election. It is important the nation and its people keep their cool and operate within the province of evidence and reason - not "faith" - when it is finished.

See also:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160724/17512435054/whether-not-russians-hacked-dnc-means-nothing-concerning-how-newsworthy-details-are.shtml

And:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/07/25/experts-hard-prove-russians-behind-dnc-hack/87529230/

Will Obama Pardon Edward Snowden? Not Bloody Likely!

Neoliberal security fetishists are unlikely to want Edward Snowden pardoned, despite the fact he's performed a public service in exposing surveillance overreach.

Today, with the opening of Oliver Stone's biopic film  'SNOWDEN', props and kudos must go out to The New York Times for its bold editorial calling for Obama to issue an executive pardon.  As the Times puts it, embodying the hopes and desires of civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, Amnesty International and Humans Rights Watch:
------

“Edward J. Snowden, the American who has probably left the biggest mark on public policy debates during the Obama years, is today an outlaw. Mr. Snowden, a former National Security Agency contractor who disclosed to journalists secret documents detailing the United States’ mass surveillance programs, faces potential espionage charges, even though the president has acknowledged the important public debate his revelations provoked.

Mr. Snowden’s whistle-blowing prompted reactions across the government.  Courts found the government wrong to use Section 215 of the Patriot Act to justify mass phone data collection. Congress replaced that law with the USA Freedom Act, improving transparency about government surveillance and limiting government power to collect certain records. The president appointed an independent review board, which produced important reform recommendations.

That’s just in the American government. Newspapers that published Mr. Snowden’s revelations won the Pulitzer Prize. The United Nations issued resolutions on protecting digital privacy and created a mandate to promote the right to privacy. Many technology companies, facing outrage at their apparent complicity in mass surveillance, began providing end-to-end encryption by default. Three years on, the news media still refer to Mr. Snowden and his revelations."
--------------------

This should be a veritable no brainer given it's one case, laced by so much controversy, that it literally calls out for a presidential pardon.  But as the Times also went on to document,  the grievances and retribution mindset of the Neoliberal security statists live on, and they have the memory of a metaphorical elephant.  In Snowden's case, these hard heads (including the two current presidential candidates) focus not on the man's public service but the importance of prosecuting him. Hillary Clinton, who played fast and loose with her emails - putting them on 19 different devices  - had the audacity to say Snowden "needed to face the music". This despite the fact the FBI and Justice Dept. let her off with a slap on the wrist. As for Trump,  this is a guy who - despite receiving a confidential briefing 2 weeks ago -blabbed its content to the frickin media.  All this, even - as the Times observed how  Eric Holder struck  a more measured tone in May, upon leaving office as Mr. Obama’s attorney general. He even acknowledged Snowden had performed a "public service'.

What about Barack Obama? Can he strike a similar tone to Mr. Holder's?  Alas, the man who eight years ago defined "hope and change" has now devolved (evolved?)  to become basically a keeper of the Neoliberal state establishment - and is unlikely to be so gracious.  Meanwhile on Wednesday Snowden thanked supporters who launched a campaign for his pardon and affirmed that for the sake of democracy, future whistleblowers must not be silenced.

Again, this ought to be a no-brainer but to the Neoliberal state and its gate keepers, information keepers, it bears the mark of a treasonous contempt.  The "contempt"  of a genuine citizen who demands transparency from his government and doesn't seek to keep its people in the dark- or to use various rationalizations to spy and catalog their every move. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/between-skeleton-key-and-cog-how-close.html


Speaking by video link from Moscow, where he has been in exile since 2013, Snowden said that while the Founding Fathers created checks and balances to guard against government abuses, “whistleblowers, acting in the public interest, often at great risk to themselves, are another check on those abuses of power, especially through their collaboration with journalists.”


Snowden addresses supporters at video conference.

He said whistleblowing “is democracy’s safeguard of last resort, the one on which we rely when all other checks and balances have failed and the public has no idea what’s going on behind closed doors.”

The 33-year-old addressed a New York City news conference where advocates from the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International announced an online petition drive to urge President Barack Obama to pardon Snowden before he leaves office. The supporters called Snowden a hero for exposing the extent of government surveillance by giving thousands of classified documents to journalists. The documents disclosed the extent of unconstitutional mass surveillance conducted without adherence to the 4th amendment's demand for individual warrants.

Meanwhile, Justice Department spokesman Marc Raimondi has insisted:

"It is important to remember Mr. Snowden is not a whistleblower. He is accused of leaking classified information, and his actions have inflicted serious harm on our national security."

But, truly, if a citizen - even under contract with the NSA-  reveals the government has committed serious constitutional violations (in this case of the Fourth Amendment) clearly that must be whistle blowing and the violation itself must trump in importance the means used to expose it. Indeed, our Constitution's Fourth Amendment states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Clearly showing that only individual warrants are acceptable and one cannot have mass warrants issued out of laziness, disrespect for the Constitution or mere expedience and efficiency provided by technology. Moreover, Snowden was ultimately vindicated when a  300-page report     was released last year by a commission appointed by Obama himself .

The very issuance of that report by an Obama-appointed commission, I would argue, shows unimpeachably the whistle blower status of Snowden.

As for Raimondi's claim of "harm to our national security", I would argue that emerged not with the Snowden disclosures but with the egregious use of the Stuxnet computer worm over a year earlier to create havoc with Iran's centrifuges - used in its nuclear program.  Sean McGurk - former head of cyber defense at The Department of Homeland Security, in charge of protecting critical infrastructure in the U.S.  interviewed on a March 4, 2012 '60 Minutes' pointedly remarked:

"You can download the actual source code of Stuxnet now and you can repurpose it and repackage it and then, you know, point it back towards wherever it came from."

And that has undoubtedly been done, as evidenced in the recent DNC hacks as well as others, e.g. of Colin Powell, attributed to "Russians" - but in any case with the aid of a repurposed and redirected Stuxnet code.

Edward Snowden was not responsible for wreaking any of the havoc later caused by Stuxnet's repurposing, and hence is not culpable for any measurable national security harm. The only "harm" was to programs (e.g. PRISM, MUSCULAR, XKeyscore) that never should have been implemented to  begin with, given they trampled on 4th amendment rights.

These facts also should be processed by the misnamed House Intelligence Committee - dominated by fascist Reeptard lackeys-  which sent a strong letter to Obama insisting he not pardon Snowden. But they approved wholeheartedly when Bush Jr. let Luis Posada Carriles have safe haven in Miami ten years ago. Recall Posada Carriles, eg.

was the Venezuelan terrorist who - along with Orlando Bosch - engineered the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 just off Barbados' SW coast on October 6, 1976, killing all 73 innocents aboard, in the worst plane terror act before 9/11.

Posada is still wanted by VZ authorities for his role, as he was ten years ago, when Bush Jr. let him live freely in Miami's "Little Havana"  as the Reepo House Reeptards cheered. So, I'd say they've lost all credibility over any security matters now.

Speaking more cogently after the Snowden video conference was ACLU Executive Directot Anthony Romero, in whose words:

“Cases like Edward Snowden’s are precisely why the presidential pardon power exists, There is widespread consensus that Edward Snowden’s actions catalyzed an unprecedented debate about the proper limits of government surveillance, and his actions resulted in widespread reforms both in law and in technology that protect Americans and individuals across the globe.”

If George Bush Sr. could pardon a terrorist like Orlando Bosch, responsible for planning the bombing of Cubana Airlines Flight 455 off Barbados on Oct. 6, 1976 - killing all 73 on board- then certainly the least Obama could do is commute the sentence of a man who followed his conscience and constitutional law with respect for the highest moral imperatives.  The question then becomes  whether Obama has the cojones to do it and transcend his fear of wingnut narratives, e.g.  "extending his apology  terror tour" .  He'd also have to dismiss the concerns of dim-witted advisors whispering in his ear about being seen as "weak on national security".  In addition, what would Hillary and her campaign  think if he did it? This,  given she wants Snowden to "face the music" - never mind she won't for her own security failures with her personal email server.

Those imperatives have also made nations and peoples more aware of their rights and the threat of surveillance in violating them. As Naureen Shah, Amnesty International's Director of Human Rights for the U.S. put it:

"I think it's no exaggeration to say this man has changed the world"

Indeed, and for the time being - more people are freer in their web surfing, emailing, Google searching  than they had been before Snowden.  TO lend your voice in support, go to:

www.pardonsnowden.org


See also:

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/would-obama-pardon-edward-snowden/500105/

Melissa Harris -Perry Allows Her Ego To Betray Her Common Sense

By now most MSNBC viewers know that Melissa Harris -Perry is no longer with the network and her weekend morning show is gone. Since 2012 this self-titled show "had a small but loyal audience averaging 400,000 viewers" according to a Feb. 29 WSJ piece by Joe Flint ("MSNBC - Host Part Ways After Pre-Emptions').  This referred to her pique on learning her opinion show (from 10 a.m.- 12 noon ET on Saturday, Sunday) would be pre-empted in parts for the Dem SC primary.

According to the WSJ report, Harris-Perry blew a gasket and asserted in an email she wasn't going to tolerate appearing "for four inconsequential hours" - when she could, of course,  be opinionating on this, that and the other. She instead demanded the network "return editorial control and authority that makes MHP distinctive".

Adding for effect in her staff email (ibid.)  that she "would not be used as a 'tool for their purpose' nor would she be 'a token mammy or little brown bobblehead"

Seriously? A "little brown bobblehead"? You are, or were, one of the few black women to have her own show and now want to piss that away out of some misplaced pique at election coverage pre-emption of your precious show? Really?

I admit I watched Harris-Perry on occasion and she sometimes hit the right notes at the right time, as in the case of the Baltimore cops beating up on Freddie Gray and also the bogus voter ID laws in many states, used to set up roadblocks to many black voters (especially older ones who may lack the credentials, i.e. birth certificates, to establish  a basis for a state ID. A fact many of the voter fraud boneheads don't get)

On the downside, Melissa - like other media blacks (Joy Reid, Michael Eric Dyson) -  often carried water for Obama and the Neoliberal state. This frequently caused mixed feelings in many African-Americans who on the one hand found the defense of Neoliberalism offensive (especially to justify SNAP cuts in the Obama-promoted "sequester" program) but on the other hand found it comforting to see a popular black commentator on the tube.

As one blogger (Margaret Kimberly) on smirkingchimp.com put it:

"Like Obama, Harris-Perry marketed herself as a progressive but spoke against the interests of black people in order to keep the rulers from feeling uncomfortable. While doing a story on the closing of public schools in major cities like New York, Chicago and Philadelphia she and her guests debated the role of race in this policy. They did so without ever mentioning the elephant in the room. The very goal of the Obama administration Race to the Top initiative demanded that public schools be closed and replaced by charters. The woman who now says that she isn’t a “token” was very happy to be one if doing so would relieve the president of any blame."

Harris-Perry also aroused my ire and that of many 4th amendment defenders (who are as avid in our own way as 2nd amendment defenders) when she came down on NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.  I was especially enraged after "MHP" -  adopting the indignant pose of a Neoliberal security state fetishist -  insisted that Snowden should turn himself in and face a long prison sentence.  It was at that point I realized she was no liberal but rather another Neolib mouthpiece shilling for the elites and their hacks.

At the same time, unlike her denying and trashing Snowden's rights (such as not to have to face a rigged, kangaroo court) I allowed that Melissa had the right to bloviate on her show. I applauded that a well-educated, university prof African -American had such a stage as few do - especially to editorialize on events.

Alas, MHP took one step too far and the network took her up on her desire to instantly vacate - making it mutually acceptable- as in saying 'Hasta la vista!'

Margaret Kimberly in her article noted that MHP was likely hired in the first place because of attracting viewers during the reign of the first black President.   But she added that given this is Obama's last year in office, "the pressure to keep token black supporters on as talking heads has dropped."    Thus, if they erupt like MHP did - at having election coverage preemptions (which MSNBC said have occurred with all its various shows) - then they can expect quick exits. At least MSNBC host Al Sharpton understands which side his media bread is buttered on and is not going to make the same rash move as Harris-Perry.

  Harris-Perry ought to have exercised  more forbearance and caution and not yielded to her elitist sense of entitlement as a black prof. . She'd have fared better by not being so demanding about her official air time, or its supposedly inviolate content, realizing that shows like hers were rare in the corporate media firmament. Thus, preserving her voice and show ought to have trumped her irritations at election interruptions.

But Melissa H-P evidently let her ego and sense of entitlement get the better of her, as the campaign season heated up and more and more interruptions (especially after primaries) occurred.


See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/margaret-kimberley/66262/bye-melissa

Between 'StingRays' & Vomit Weapons - Protesters Have No Chance With Neoliberal Security State

It has taken some time for those outside of deep politics to see the connection between the morass in Baltimore,  the killing of Freddie Gray and the ensuing protests - with the rise of the Neoliberal security state.  But without sufficient background and information, just as in the case of the JFK assassination, most people are left to flounder - ultimately becoming mental hostages of corporo-media propaganda narratives.

As far as background, perhaps one of the best sources for the serious researcher is:

Army Surveillance in America: 1775-1980, Yale University Press, 1991, by J.M Jensen. And in particular Chapter 7: Watching the  Workers.

As noted therein, with the rise of trade unionism, a virulent merger of interests began to metastasize - now bringing in military and intelligence interests.  With enormous leaps in worker (Union) power, culminating in the achievement of the 40-hour week in the 1940s, the Corporate State began to feel itself under siege. Somehow a means had to be found to dilute the power of unions - and, if possible, eliminate them entirely.  The corporate state fought shrinking the work week to 40  hours, for example,  because that inflated the cost of their labor capital. They'd need to hire more workers, at the same or higher wages, to maintain the same production levels. (This is also why the corporate state looked to the day American manufacturing labor could be transferred to low wage, low regulation nations - e.g. via trade agreements)

Even before this, a wary eye of the security forces had been kept on the working classes especially, since the Haymarket Square riots in 1886. So no surprise that in its wake the Chicago police began to listen to soap box speeches, infiltrated activist meetings, arrested speakers, intimidated strikers and shot demonstrators.   By the middle of the 20th century target lists were increased from labor unions and anarchists to include communists, black radicals, neighborhood organizations and New Left groups - culminating with the 2011-12 targeting of Occupy Wall Street by actual sharpshooters, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/07/why-did-feds-look-other-way-as-ows.html

The energy, extent and power of OWS mobilized multiple security forces especially based in "fusion centers" that connected police centers across the country. But as the OWSers tried to invade Wall Street itself, the Neoliberal elites realized they had to develop powerful new communications and spy systems as well as weapons to control any major uprisings. These included a new breed of electro-magnetic weapons especially using high frequency radio signals (cf. The Economist, Oct. 15, 2011, p. 89, 'Electromagnetic Weapons: Frying Tonight')



The simplest one, and perhaps least destructive physically, emits RF (radiofrequency) radiation that directly affects the human digestive system and nervous system to trigger violent vomiting. It is estimated that one brief "spray" by such an RF device could have 99% of a violently agitating crowd reduced to paroxysms of non-stop vomiting within seconds. Unable to raise a whisper, far less a shout, the theory proposes that one burst would be enough to send most protesters running back home....and away from the zones now occupied. Make no mistake this type of crowd weapon would have been deployed had the riots in Baltimore not subsided.   But it could have been worse, and might be - if the 6 cop thugs get off after homiciding Freddie Gray!

At a more savage level, The Economist reported (ibid., p. 90) that a more intense "Active Denial System" - "developed by the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate in collaboration with Raytheon" can be up to the task of dispersing hard to manage or rioting crowds. As The Economist notes:

"It works by heating the moisture in a person's skin to the point where it feels like....opening a hot oven. People's reaction when hit by the beam is usually to flee. The beam's range is several hundred meters".

Thus, the range would have exactly covered the range in West Baltimore where most of the protesters gathered last week. Since one meter is about 3.3 feet this means a single beam could  have covered  just about all of Freddie Gray's Sandtown neighborhood.

What about the devices to target trouble makers, including working class upstarts, trade union rabble rousers and aggressive protesters? No problem!  Enter an array of techno-trackers including: StingRay, FIshHawk, Kingfish,Harpoon and Amber Jack.

StingRay is a suitcsase -size device that acts as a wiretap for the wireless age. But while a wiretap can only monitor a single line, StingRay acts like a roving cell phone tower - vacuuming in data from all nearby phones, tablets and other wireless devices.  On a porno site with your tablet? StingRay will track your position precisely and notify special security forces for a possible bust. StingRay's power is such that it can encompass call history as well as your current and previous locations as well as eavesdrop on all cell phone and smart phone calls.

The other ancillary devices extend StingRay's power and range, e.g. the Amberjack antenna helps pinpoint individual phones, KingFish analyzes call patterns, and FishHawk listens in on calls. All these amplify police power to the same level of the national security state but this is no coincidence.

The U.S. military and intelligence community developed StingRay in the 1990s and police nationwide began using it as early as 2003. This nefarious technology - the ACLU asserts it violates privacy rights since it captures ALL information from every phone, not just a suspect's - emerged as part of a post 9/11 push by the feds to step up local police intelligence gathering.

Indeed, since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security has given more than $34 billion to local law enforcement - much of it for high-tech surveillance gear like StingRays and facial recognition systems.  Seventy -eight DHS funded fusion centers now exist where local police work side by side with federal agents to ferret out potential activist troublemakers, protestors and labor rabble rousers. To grasp the magnitude, nearly 18,000 local departments and federal agencies swap reports daily. Amongst the biggest outfits, with the most surveillance - mainly concentrated on the working class - is the Chicago P.D. ('In These Times', May, p. 14)

But Baltimore would not have been far behind, since the Neoliberal elites ensconced there would have recognized the threat from the poorest folk stuck in the Sandtown section of West Baltimore - faced with abandoned buildings (no one knows who owns them), no industry, no employment and public transportation so poor it takes over an hour to get from the corner of Dolphin St. and Drew Hill Ave. to get downtown for jobs. And that assumes the buses run on schedule.

As MSNBC correspondent Joy Reid pointed out on 'All In' two nights ago, West Baltimore was originally laid out as an enclave for the poorest residents of the city and only minimal investment was allowed - most was concentrated downtown. The urban decay that ensued from disinvestment and abandonment - most of the money flowing to the county and city (where it was re-directed to the upscale areas like the Inner Harbor)-  left W. Baltimore a backwater, but also a security threat. Hence, the Baltimore cops were ordered to crack down especially hard. A part of the blame, alas, must also go to former Mayor O'Malley who instituted a draconian, zero tolerance policy citywide during his reign - with citizens taken down merely for tossing a cigarette or spitting on the street. Since the cops came down hard no matter what the offense, the stage was set to ramp up hostility and mistrust.

The incarceration resulting from prosecuting multifold  "tweedle-dee" incidents also magnified the absence of fathers in the W. Baltimore area, as well as creating a vast army of unemployed. Kids were left without guidance, as well as with an axe to grind especially against the cops. Meanwhile, families were left without enough income or support to prosper or to move. Even as the Ravens' sparkling new stadium came to life with the help of taxpayer money, West Baltimoreans were left to flounder with zero investment.

Additional insights on security state and poverty connections were recently exposed in an interview between Salon.com writer Elias Isquith and  Salon alum and Intercept founding editor Glenn Greenwald - who recently received an Academy Award for 'CitizenFour', e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/02/citizen-four-documentary-every-citizen.html

Isquith asked him:

Is there a connection between the era of mass incarceration and the era of the burgeoning national security state?

And Greenwald responded:

Oh they’re completely connected and inextricably linked. There’s so many different similarities that bind them together, but the most important one is just the mentality. Part of the War on Terror is how we’re taught to think that once you have a group of people who are identified as some kind of menace or threat to security, essentially anything can be done to them. They can be killed or brutalized or imprisoned without any real due process, and that’s all justified because they’ve demonstrated themselves to be a threat.

Alas, Freddie Gray - merely by "running while black"-  presented himself as such a threat to Garret Miller, Brian Rice and Edward Nero  who throttled him to the ground in a "leg lace" then chucked him into a paddy wagon. They wanted to make sure he got bounced around in a rough ride - severing his spinal cord. As Daily Kos reported, once the cops got back to the station they bragged (over Freddie's limp body) how "they really gave him a run for his money".

See e.g.

http://dailykos.com/story/2015/05/04/1382333/-Police-at-Station-with-FreddieGray-s-Limp-Body-We-gave-him-a-run-for-his-money?detail=email


See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/62139/the-last-word-on-baltimore-its-up-to-the-state-to-stand-down

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/linn-washington/62103/black-man-warns-his-young-grandson-about-the-police-a-black-child-fears-cops-more-than-criminals

and:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/62094/the-chickens-come-home-to-roost-in-baltimore