PDF Summary:Bottoms Up and the Devil Laughs, by Kerry Howley

In the modern digital age, as our lives become increasingly digitized and surveilled, Bottoms Up and the Devil Laughs by Kerry Howley examines the growing power of government agencies to monitor citizens' private communications and activities. The book delves into how pervasive surveillance has eroded the traditional boundaries between public and private spheres, diminishing individual privacy and civil liberties.

Howley also exposes the harsh legal consequences whistleblowers face for exposing government misconduct. The author explores how intelligence agencies operate with limited oversight, often classifying information more to conceal embarrassing details than for genuine security reasons. Ultimately, Howley questions whether the normalization of constant surveillance poses a threat to the foundations of democracy itself.

(continued)...

• The court system allows for the possibility of appeals, where barriers faced in initial trials can be reassessed and potentially overcome in higher courts.
• There may be alternative avenues outside of the legal framework, such as public opinion or media coverage, where whistleblowers can highlight their intentions and the societal importance of their disclosures, even if the court system does not allow this defense.
• The assertion that the government protects wrongdoers is not universally true, as there are instances where individuals within the government who have committed misconduct have been held accountable through internal investigations, legal proceedings, or other mechanisms.

The stringent handling of whistleblowers deters would-be informants, consequently solidifying governmental power over information dissemination.

Howley contends that the aggressive governmental crackdown on whistleblowers sends a clear deterrent message to potential future informants: revealing information carries significant personal dangers. The author argues that this chilling effect has grave consequences for democracy, as it discourages individuals with inside knowledge from exposing wrongdoing or challenging excessive government secrecy.

Whistleblowers entangled in legal battles often confront a court system that tends to favor the government, impeding their defense by restricting access to confidential information and techniques.

Howley explores the significant obstacles in the legal system that whistleblowers face when they contest their court cases. She outlines how the incorporation of confidential data and methods in these situations leads to a lopsided contest where the government holds a clear upper hand. Defense attorneys often encounter barriers when trying to obtain essential evidence and struggle with a complex administrative system seemingly designed to obstruct their efforts, in addition to having restricted interactions with the individuals they represent. Howley underscores the challenging circumstances Reality Winner encountered, as her defense team grappled with considerable challenges stemming from limitations regarding sensitive government secrets, illustrating how such legal limitations can profoundly impede whistleblowers' capacity to put forth a robust defense, even when they are represented by competent lawyers with substantial resources.

Practical Tips

• Volunteer with or donate to organizations that provide legal support to whistleblowers. Your involvement can help bolster the resources available to those facing legal battles over confidential information. Look for non-profits or legal defense funds that specialize in whistleblower cases and consider how you can contribute, whether through time or financial support.
• Start a community discussion group focused on legal system transparency. This can be a space where laypeople come together to discuss the importance of evidence in fair trials and brainstorm community-driven solutions. An example activity could be inviting a local defense attorney to speak about their experiences, which can illuminate real-world examples of evidence-related struggles.
• Develop a personal code system for sensitive information that could be used in restricted communication scenarios. Start by identifying common phrases or information types you might need to share under constraints. Then, create a simple substitution code or a set of symbols that represent these phrases. Practice using this code with a friend in a mock scenario to get a feel for the challenges and strategies in maintaining attorney-client confidentiality under restrictions.
• Create a personal legal emergency kit that includes contact information for legal aid organizations, a list of your rights, and a prepared statement to use if you're ever detained or questioned. Having this kit ready can help you respond quickly and knowledgeably in stressful situations.
• You can enhance your understanding of legal limitations by participating in a mock trial experience. This could involve joining a community group or online platform where mock trials are held, allowing you to play the role of a defense team member facing restrictions similar to those in high-profile cases. Through this role-play, you'll gain insight into the strategic thinking required when dealing with sensitive information and the challenges that arise from such limitations.
• Create a secure document repository using encrypted services like Signal or ProtonMail for storing sensitive information. This practice ensures that if you need to share information as a whistleblower, your documents are protected and accessible only to those you trust, reducing the risk of unauthorized access and legal complications.

The culture prevalent in intelligence agencies is characterized by an excessive penchant for secrecy and a lack of accountability.

Howley contends that the secretive operations within the intelligence community have cultivated a setting overwhelmed by overclassification and a lack of responsibility. Government bodies often classify vast amounts of information, typically more to protect themselves from the fallout of questionable or illegal activities than to secure genuine national security interests. The lack of transparency impedes scrutiny and debate of these issues by the public, which in turn complicates the task of holding these entities accountable for their actions.

The intelligence community frequently labels a wide range of details as classified, more often to conceal potentially embarrassing or illegal activities than to protect genuine national security interests.

The intelligence community employed confidentiality not only to safeguard crucial details pertinent to national security but also to evade scrutiny from outside entities. The writer underscores examples like the CIA's clandestine interrogation techniques, the extensive surveillance of communications by a national security agency, and the use of drone strikes, arguing that these actions were hidden not to protect against foes but rather to prevent government activities from being exposed to the citizens. This extreme confidentiality, Howley suggests, permits such organizations to operate without consequences, fostering an environment conducive to the proliferation of power abuses.

Overclassification hampers the public's ability to supervise and discuss a range of matters, leading to intelligence agencies operating with diminished openness and accountability.

Howley argues that the excessive categorization of information severely impedes democratic processes by limiting the public's ability to monitor and engage in substantial dialogue regarding matters vital to national security. The writer argues that labeling details as confidential essentially removes them from the realm of public discourse, which hinders the public's capacity to understand the decisions of the powerful, assess their outcomes, and insist on transparency from their elected officials. The lack of transparency grants the intelligence agencies a worrisome degree of independence, enabling them to operate with minimal external supervision.

Other Perspectives

• Overclassification can be seen as a temporary measure; while it may restrict public discussion in the short term, it can be argued that it preserves the integrity of long-term strategic operations that ultimately serve the public interest.
• Excessive transparency could lead to information overload, where the public is unable to discern what is important among the vast amounts of data, potentially leading to confusion or misinformation.
• Transparency is not always positively correlated with independence; agencies can be independent yet still operate within a framework of oversight and legal accountability.
• The complexity of national security decisions often means that even if information were not classified, the public might still struggle to understand the decisions without the context and expertise that intelligence analysts and officials have.

The broad classification of information significantly hinders whistleblowers in determining which disclosures are permissible.

Howley posits that the wide-ranging and frequently subjective categorization of data within intelligence agencies poses a conundrum for onlookers who are disturbed by their observations and feel compelled to disclose them. She argues that the difficulty for potential informants is in discerning truly confidential information from that which is deemed classified simply to protect governmental standing or conceal actions that could be embarrassing. This may result in individuals holding back important information due to concerns about potential legal consequences, despite their good intentions.

Other Perspectives

• The challenge for whistleblowers is not necessarily the classification itself but the lack of clarity and transparency in the classification process, which could be addressed through reforms rather than suggesting the classification system is inherently problematic.
• Some intelligence agencies have internal mechanisms and oversight bodies that can be approached by whistleblowers to report concerns, which can mitigate the risk of disclosing sensitive information inappropriately.
• The legal repercussions feared by potential whistleblowers may actually serve as a check to ensure that only serious and considered disclosures are made, which could protect against frivolous or harmful leaks.

Agencies tasked with intelligence gathering often operate without adequate oversight or consequences, even when they overstep legal limits.

The intelligence community has functioned with considerable shielding from intense examination or consequences for its actions. Kerry Howley contends that the core problem remains unresolved as the executive and legislative branches of government consistently shirk their responsibility to enforce openness and responsibility upon these organizations.

Intelligence officials who authorize or participate in illegal surveillance, torture, or other abuses often face no serious repercussions, which perpetuates an environment where accountability is lacking.

Howley underscores a pattern of impunity among organizations tasked with collecting confidential data, stressing that individuals at the helm or participating in unsanctioned activities, such as surveillance lacking legal sanction, cruel methods of interrogation, or drone strikes, often avoid significant repercussions despite these actions leading to civilian fatalities. The author posits that this absence of responsibility sets a perilous standard, fostering an environment in which officials are inclined to overstep their power, comforted by the understanding that they will probably not be answerable for their conduct.

Other Perspectives

• Legal and ethical training for intelligence officials is continuously improved to ensure a better understanding of the boundaries of their work, aiming to prevent abuses and illegal activities.
• The challenges in holding intelligence officials accountable are sometimes due to the difficulty in proving intent or knowledge of illegality in covert operations, rather than a systemic disregard for accountability.
• The concept of responsibility in intelligence work can be subjective and may vary depending on the legal framework and oversight mechanisms in place, which can evolve and adapt to new security challenges.
• International laws and conventions, as well as bilateral agreements between nations, can also provide a framework for accountability and discourage officials from acting beyond their authority.

The clandestine and self-sufficient nature of intelligence operations grants them a considerable degree of autonomy, frequently escaping external scrutiny or alteration.

Howley contends that the secretive and autonomous configuration of intelligence organizations allows them to operate with a significant degree of freedom, frequently resistant to external scrutiny or alteration. The author suggests that the often-referred-to "deep state" has transformed into a powerful force capable of influencing policy-making, shaping public opinion, and operating with a considerable level of autonomy from standard democratic checks and balances. This absence of openness, Howley contends, severely hampers efforts to contest existing conditions or push for significant changes within these organizations.

Other Perspectives

• The effectiveness of intelligence operations can depend on inter-agency collaboration and sharing of information, which contradicts the notion of complete self-sufficiency.
• Legal frameworks and charters define and limit the scope of activities that intelligence organizations can engage in, which imposes restrictions on their operational freedom.
• The term "deep state" is often used pejoratively and lacks a clear definition, which can lead to overestimating the influence of intelligence agencies.
• Public opinion is shaped by a multitude of factors, such as media, education, culture, and personal experiences, reducing the extent to which intelligence agencies can singularly shape it.
• The democratic process can influence the functioning of intelligence agencies through the election of officials who set priorities and appoint leaders within these organizations.

Society is broadly affected by the escalating concealment of governmental actions and the continuous diminishment of individual freedoms.

Howley argues that society suffers greatly when individuals who reveal secrets are persistently surveilled and targeted, as this erodes the core democratic principles upon which the United States was founded. The expansion of government power has eroded the trust between the governed and their governors, creating a climate in which secrecy thrives and fundamental liberties gradually diminish.

Unchecked government monitoring, along with the targeting of individuals who disclose information, erodes the fundamental democratic values of openness, responsibility, and the uninhibited exchange of thoughts.

The writer believes that the health of a democracy relies on transparency and the free flow of information, which empowers citizens to participate in informed dialogue and oversight. She argues that the continuous expansion of secretive operations by the authorities, along with their aggressive pursuit of individuals who reveal confidential information, sharply conflicts with the fundamental tenets of a democratic society, creating an environment that discourages citizens from asking challenging questions or opposing governmental authority.

As trust diminishes, citizens grow more estranged from their government, with the pervasive sense of surveillance diminishing their sense of personal liberty.

Howley contends that the lack of restrictions on governmental surveillance, coupled with the lack of repercussions for individuals who misuse their power, has resulted in a deep rift between the citizens and their governing institutions. As people grow more conscious of the pervasive surveillance in their daily existence, their confidence wanes in the entities that should have safeguarded their well-being. This distrust, argues Howley, can lead to apathy, cynicism, and a decline in civic engagement, eroding the foundations of a healthy democracy.

Context

• Modern technology, such as smartphones and the internet, has made it easier for governments to collect data on individuals, often without their knowledge or consent.
• The knowledge or suspicion of being watched can lead to self-censorship and altered behavior, affecting how individuals express themselves and engage in society.
• When trust in government erodes, communities may become more insular, relying on smaller, more trusted networks. This can lead to a fragmented society where collective action is difficult, further reducing civic engagement.
• Apathy can lead to lower voter turnout and reduced participation in political processes, which are essential for representing diverse voices and interests in a democracy.

The pervasive habit of surveilling and punishing dissent might shift the relationship between the state and its people, potentially threatening the endurance of democratic governance.

Howley cautions that the widespread acceptance of constant monitoring, coupled with the increasing tendency to treat opposition as criminal, is profoundly altering the dynamic between citizens and government. The author suggests that this shift toward an increasingly authoritarian, surveillance-driven society could have dire consequences for the future of democracy, as it undermines the very principles of individual liberty, autonomy, and self-governance. She encourages her audience to consider the possibility that what we are going through may not signal the beginning of a completely new epoch, but rather arise from an extended phase of deliberate neglect.

Context

• There are numerous movements and organizations dedicated to resisting surveillance and protecting civil liberties, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Amnesty International. These groups work to raise awareness and influence policy changes.
• Throughout history, authoritarian regimes have often used surveillance as a tool to suppress dissent and control populations. Examples include the Stasi in East Germany and the KGB in the Soviet Union, where extensive monitoring was used to maintain power and stifle opposition.
• The idea of prolonged intentional negligence can be linked to historical instances where governments have gradually eroded civil liberties, often under the guise of security or stability, leading to authoritarian regimes.

The consolidation of power within the presidency and intelligence agencies has undermined the checks and balances system, allowing government activities to continue with inadequate supervision.

The intelligence community's unchecked expansion and the executive branch's augmented power after September 11th, as Howley observes, have led to a dangerous accumulation of power that endangers the essential equilibrium of supervision necessary for a democracy to function properly.

The expansion of covert activities and the marginalization of whistleblowers are intensifying obstacles that obstruct the public's capacity to insist on transparency from authorities, consequently reinforcing the accumulation of authority in the hands of the administrative arm of the government.

Howley contends that the escalating shroud of concealment surrounding issues of national defense, along with the stern chase by officials against individuals disclosing secret information, has markedly increased the difficulty for citizens to insist on their government's accountability for its actions. The writer posits that this opacity strengthens the executive's ability to operate independently, devoid of significant supervision or limitations, thereby solidifying its power and eroding the principles of democracy.

Practical Tips

• Create a personal transparency report to keep yourself accountable. At the end of each week, write down instances where you found yourself withholding information or being less transparent with others, and reflect on the reasons and outcomes. This self-assessment can help you understand your own tendencies towards opacity and encourage more open communication habits.
• You can start a blog to analyze and discuss declassified documents. By doing so, you'll be engaging with primary sources of information and fostering a culture of transparency. For example, after a document is declassified, summarize its contents, provide analysis, and discuss its implications for government accountability. This can be a platform for education and discussion among citizens who are interested in understanding the nuances of national defense and government transparency.
• Create a social media campaign that shares stories of how government transparency has positively impacted societies. Use hashtags to spread awareness and engage with others who support the cause, thereby creating a collective voice that can influence policy makers to value openness.
• You can delegate a project to a team member without offering step-by-step guidance to foster their decision-making skills. Start by setting clear objectives and outcomes for the project, then allow the team member to plan and execute their approach. This hands-off method can lead to innovative solutions and a sense of ownership.
• Create a personal journal to reflect on instances where you see authority being exercised in everyday life. Write down observations from news stories, workplace experiences, or community interactions. This practice will sharpen your awareness of authority dynamics and may inform your future actions and decisions.
• Create a habit of submitting Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to gain firsthand experience with transparency obstacles. Choose a topic you're curious about that involves executive branch agencies. Submit a FOIA request through the agency's website or a platform like MuckRock, which simplifies the process. Track the response time, the completeness of the information provided, and any reasons given for redactions or denials. This personal engagement will provide you with practical insights into the transparency challenges and the power dynamics at play.

The state has intensified its application of force upon the populace, rationalizing such measures with the pretext of safeguarding the nation, as the lines between law enforcement, spy networks, and armed forces become ever more blurred.

Howley expresses discomfort about the blurring lines between the duties of police, intelligence agencies, and military actions in the aftermath of September 11. The writer argues that by consolidating power, the state has strengthened its ability to impose its will on the citizens, purportedly to ensure their protection. She highlights an increasing reliance on militarized law enforcement and pervasive monitoring, while pointing out the troubling trend of utilizing the Espionage Act to take legal action against individuals who disclose secret information. The writer posits that the shift towards a society focused on militarization and security poses a significant threat to civil liberties, eroding the very liberties that these organizations are tasked with safeguarding.

Practical Tips

• You can increase your awareness of local laws and regulations by regularly checking government websites and legal resources. This helps you understand the scope of state power and how it may affect you. For example, if new legislation is passed that could impact your privacy or freedom, being informed allows you to adjust your behavior or take legal precautions.
• Enhance your understanding of state rationalization by volunteering with a civil rights organization. Through this, you'll gain firsthand experience of how policies affect communities and learn to identify the gap between the state's claims and the actual outcomes. This practical involvement will provide you with a deeper insight into the dynamics between state power and individual rights.
• Stay informed about your rights by attending local community legal workshops. With the convergence of law enforcement and other agencies, it's important to understand your legal rights in various situations. Look for free or low-cost workshops offered by community centers or legal aid organizations that focus on civil liberties and privacy rights.
• You can educate yourself on the roles and responsibilities of police, intelligence agencies, and the military by reading their official mandates and recent news articles. Understanding the distinct functions of each can help you recognize when their actions might be overlapping inappropriately. For example, if you read about a local police department employing surveillance tactics typically used by intelligence agencies, you could write to your local representative expressing your concerns.
• Start a neighborhood information exchange using a social media group or an email list to share knowledge about state actions and their local implications. This grassroots approach empowers you and your neighbors to stay informed and potentially organize collective responses or support systems. For instance, if a new tax is introduced that affects your community, the group could share strategies for financial planning or organize a town hall meeting to discuss it.
• Develop a habit of questioning the intent behind new policies by discussing them with friends or family. Whenever a new measure is announced, initiate a conversation to explore its potential benefits and drawbacks. This helps to foster critical thinking and awareness about the reasons behind state actions. For instance, if a curfew is imposed, debate whether it's truly for public safety or if it could be perceived as an overreach of power.
• Engage in informed voting by researching the stances of political candidates on surveillance and law enforcement militarization. Before elections, look into the policies that each candidate supports regarding these issues and cast your vote for those who advocate for a balance between security and civil liberties.
• Develop a habit of evaluating the sensitivity of information before sharing it online or in conversations. Whenever you're about to post something on social media or discuss potentially sensitive topics, take a moment to consider the implications. Ask yourself questions like, "Could this information be used against me or someone else?" or "Is this something that should remain private?" This practice can help you become more mindful of the value and potential risks associated with the information you handle daily.
• Start a personal audit of your digital footprint to better understand privacy concerns. Use online tools to check what personal information is publicly accessible and take steps to limit exposure, such as adjusting social media privacy settings, using search engines that don't track your searches, and installing privacy-focused browser extensions.
• Engage in selective patronage by supporting businesses and technology companies that prioritize user privacy and data security. Research and compile a list of such companies, and make conscious decisions to use their services or products. Share your list with friends and family to encourage a community-wide shift towards privacy-conscious consumerism.
• You can critically evaluate the actions of civil liberty organizations by creating a personal audit checklist. Start by listing the core civil liberties you value, then track news and reports about different organizations to see if their actions align with those values. For example, if privacy is a core value, note any instances where an organization supports legislation that could infringe on personal privacy, and consider supporting alternative groups that better align with your principles.