Terrorism has long been a useful term for the state. Recently, the state has widened its applications so that nearly anything can be considered terrorism. New brands of terrorism have emerged such as eco-terrorism and cyber-terrorism. The FBI has labeled anti-globalization groups and others like the ELF and ALF “special interest extremists? The legal definition of terrorism is broadening in many states and countries (for example, the new British terrorism law). Here in San Francisco, simply putting up posters lead to a felony charge and be labeled as a terrorist threat. At the same time the military is expanding its use further and further into domestic affairs here in the US. The typical media image of terrorism is not limited to the usual racist anti Arab hype but now it is just as often the enemy within: the Eugene anarchists, the Unabomber, Timothy Mc Veigh. The division between spheres of control is changing: foreign affairs are treated as domestic and domestic affairs are treated as foreign. Hence the labeling of wars as police actions. The U.S. military's spheres of control encompass situations as varied as the Kosovo war and local anti-globalization protests: rubber bullets in Seattle and uranium shells in Kosovo. The military is finding crisis everywhere.

From Manifest Destiny to the Monroe Doctrine the US has always aimed to expand its domain. The US has been a dominant world power sine W.W.II, however the form of US hegemony has recently changed. The classic unilateral Latin American invasions and CIA organized coups (Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Chile, Granada, Panama), occurred in the context of the Monroe Doctrine: a US dominated western hemisphere. US military intervention in far-flung corners of the globe is becoming more common than before and necessitates less of a pretext. These interventions are now rarely unilateral US actions. The US elicits the help of other countries through NATO and the UN when it can, this is a logical maneuver that accompanies a move from a specific sphere of geopolitical control (kept in check by the Soviet Union) to a global sphere of control. Of course, the US acts alone when it fails to achieve support for multilateral action. As Madeline Albright described the situation, the US is able to act "multilaterally whenever possible, unilaterally whenever necessary." The addition of NATO and the UN changes the form of US hegemony from one nation’s imperialism towards the creation of a one global empire ruled by a US dominated complex of states and financial organizations (such as the WTO, IMF, the World Bank).

Recently, the military quickly appeared at major demonstrations. Nerve gas that was used in the gulf war was used in Seattle. In DC during the A17 protests US Army and Security Command helped the DC police in their surveillance of protesters. According to the Intelligence Newsletter report hundreds of Army intelligence operatives were present during the DC demo. According to the military's own documents, during the 90s “[the US Army Intelligence and Security Command] INSCOM was drawn into contingency operations other than war all over the globe?or domestic operations that are “law enforcement ‘support missions?in civil disturbance suppression.?Apparently, according to INSCOM the difference between Seattle and Somalia is simply a question of tactics.

While violent attacks on Mexicans trying to cross our borders continue, there is more and more talk of a globalized world of porous borders. Openness is more virtual than real. Information and capital cross borders more easily while the movement of people is more easily tracked and restricted. The government's creation of the term cyber-terrorism is the perfect answer to the legal glitches of increased military snooping in domestic affairs. The internet crosses borders, therefore cyber-terrorism control is legally placed within the sphere of military affairs. What this meant for the year 2000 budget was that millions of defense budget dollars were spent on wiretaps. It used to be the FBI’s job to spy on us but now the military is stepping up its surveillance. The defense department can now quite easily wiretap your house in NJ in the name of stopping terrorism. The lines between old spheres of control as blurring but in this case this merely results in the widening of the domains of both the FBI and the military.

Lately American democracy is showing its true face more clearly. As civil society shrinks the state's uglier functions become more visible as they spread throughout society. Prison budgets grow while school budgets shrink and rubber bullets in Seattle tarnish the image of Officer friendly as the military becomes the police and the police more military like. Slowly, the image of a free society is fading while the image of the criminal or terrorist "enemy within" multiplies endlessly in a house of mirrors. In spite of diminishing crime rates, images of violent crime are more and more common helping to justify the imprisonment of 2 million people in the US. There is more and more talk about California the police state, yet the middle class feels safe in the midst of the mass arrests because the criminal is always assumed to be someone else: someone poorer, browner, less moral. A police state and the militarization of society become possible along with the disappearance of a "civil society" while people sit at home, isolated, watching "society" on TV. The televised image of the enemy within (criminal or terrorist) is aiding the state in its assault of surveillance and imprisonment which in the end effects even the middle class that supports the disappearance of the carrot of personal freedoms that the state used to offer. When the middle class no longer believes that they live in the land of the free, the state will need to fill the ideological vacuum, it will need to justify itself. Will the anti-crime and anti-terrorism rhetoric be enough to fill the void?