1. The
Metropolitan
Transportation
Authority
in
Times
of
War
An
analysis
on
the
“If
you
See
Something,
Say
Something”
campaign
interms
of
Quotidian
War,
notion
of
the
enemy,
intelligence
gathering
technology,
fear,
and
surveillance
resistance.
Gertrudis
Ordenana

2.
2
Gertrudis
Ordenana
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority in times of war: an analysis on the “If you See
Something Say Something” Campaign in terms of Quotidian War, notion of the enemy,
intelligence gathering technology, fear and surveillance resistance
A 16-second Public service announcement by the MTA displays a crowded train that the
familiar female voice from the train speakers identifies as 42 Street-Times Squares. The shot
taken from below as if the camera was on the floor, pointing upwards captures the multitude
leaving the train car, among the people a man that seems to be blending with the others by
wearing jeans and Converse shoes, places his messenger bag under the train seats and exits the
train without the bag. On the 10th
second the now familiar male voice says, “Don’t assume it was
left by accident.” And the next phrase is accompanied by the written words “IF YOU SEE
SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING”. Although the voice doesn’t say anymore the graphic with
the phrase also says to “tell a cop or an MTA employee” and provides with a phone number and
the logos of the MTA, the NYPD, and The Department of Homeland Security along with the
source of the funds for the campaign; the Department of Homeland Security.
The image of the baggage, the use of transportation, cameras that allude to security
cameras are all reflection of the counter- terrorism era the US is going through, or also know as
the War on Terror, this images awaken the “archives of memory” (Hesford 2004) that reminds us
of 9/11 and the images that we saw when the Twin Towers collapsed as people tried to save their
lives. In this way the PSA released by the MTA, as Hesford explains, “give[s] trauma a
presence” that all New Yorkers identify with; the attacks of September 11, 2001. In this case the
camera serves as second witness, besides the man with glasses, an omnipresent that is alludes to
the attacks, without explicitly mentioning it, and yet interpolates the viewer through the memory
of the 9/11 attacks that led to the war on terror.

3. Immediately after the first second of the PSA made for the “If You See Something, Say
Something” campaign, the camera gives a glimpse of the assumed terrorist’s face, and yet
because of the accelerated speed and course of events in the video, it is almost impossible to see
the face of the symbolic terrorist. The inability to identify him is a reflection of the war on terror
and the type of war this is, thus mapping the enemy in the war on terror. The enemy is unknown,
it could be two passengers on an airplane, or two brothers in Harvard, and it is Al Qaida, the
Taliban, ISIS, or a group of young girls trying to join the self-proclaimed Islamic state. As
Kinsella poses, the war is not a war of nation state against nation state but it is a war that
maintains a social order. It could be a war of the West against the East to maintain an order of
imperialism, and yet the “If You See Something, Say Something” campaign seems to offer blur
the notion of the War on Terror by engaging in a form of surveillance. Although its images insist
on reenacting the attacks of 9/11 and call for civilians to engage in counter-terrorism acts - its
low-tech approach are typical of local policing, reflecting traditional propaganda. This has
produced mixed local reactions that disengage civilians from the War on Terror to witness their
own quotidian war against surveillance and their state, as well as those who still feel engage on
the war on terror and experience the effects of social order through fear of the unknown enemy.
The MTA overtly maps the war through the enemy, although the enemies are these
unknown groups and individuals, one thing is clear, the enemy could be a neighbor, and the
message overtly commands civilians to exercise, “per-operational surveillance” and to be the
“eyes an ears’ of the system”. As the Deputy Chief Vince Marino states that the officials do not
expect the public to become heroes, but rather something that Gumpert (2012) identifies as fear
and paranoia. As Kenneth (et la. 2004) explain the repetition of images post 9/11 promote the
fear of civilians as a result of the “cultural trauma”. And yet people have learned to live with the

4.
4
Gertrudis
Ordenana
fear that was felt on 9/11 by reminding the public the vulnerability for repeated attacks. Then it
would be absurd to think that the MTA is using fear to control its riders, in that case reminding
riders of a possible attack in the subway system would be harmful for the system. However, the
subway system saw the need to alert people of possible threat after 9/11, and in 2002 it sought
the help of their ad agency to create something that would express the concern of the agency for
the security of New Yorkers. The creation of the campaign was a product of the Manhattan
advertising agency Korey Kay & Partners; the author of the slogan “If You See Something, Say
Something.” It was affirmed that he created the slogan because he wanted to “prevent another
disaster”.
Infusing fear is, arguably, a means of the state to control its population, as per De Landa
“They [secret service organizations] need to keep to society in constant alert, in a generalized
state of fear and paranoia, in order to sustain themselves” resulting in the intelligence industry.
Based in De Landa’s analysis on the intelligence industries and the production of enemies, the
campaign is used to by the secret service to keep their power to produce fear. And yet wouldn’t it
be the obligation of citizens in remaining alert to prevent another attack. Is De Landa’s argument
outdated? Why is this necessarily bad? What is the role of the MTA? And what is its connection
to De Landa’s secret service domination?
De Landa would argue that the images in the campaign, the PSA’s, the posters, and the
messages played in loudspeakers in the subway car are a form of simulacra, by using this term
De Landa explains that the purpose of these forms of communication are also “elements of social
domination”. Therefore, De Landa’s rejection of using the word propaganda and replacing it
with simulacra adds connotations to the campaign and rejecting the campaign as simulacra. The
reason for De Landa to make such a distinction could be explained by the Jowett 7 O’Donnell

5. (2012) explanation of the term in which propaganda “serves an informative function in that it
tells people what to think about and how to behave” to which people “become willing or naïve
supporters.” In other words, the campaign has served as an informative tool to encourage
civilians to cooperate with the police and report “suspicious activities”. On the other hand, the
campaign is a strategy for the secret service to maintain its power, in which the MTA has been
used as a “civilian institution” for the benefit of the agency.
As a New Yorker posted in the NY Times page “I realized that this a specific targeted
anti-terrorism ad campaign” the user of the page also explained that there is nothing wrong with
being alert after the attacks and that she is aware that the 9/11 trauma is also a tool for political
purposes. This contradiction claims that people are machines that are controlled by a switch that
turns fear on. According to “ A Phrase for Safety After 9/11 Goes Global” (2010) The New York
Times reported that 27,127 calls were received by police officers in 2008, while in 2009 only
16,191 were received. This shows that the people have decided whether or not they deemed
necessary to call authorities. Another user wrote that this kind of alert is necessary due to the fact
that the country is vulnerable to attack and, in fact, criticized the people that stand for privacy
rights, and that their opposition to the campaign would be regretted if another attacked was to
happen. Thus the campaign has succeeded mapping the enemy, by the terrorist materialized in
anyone, the campaign has succeeded in in legitimizing the war on terror, therefore legitimizing
national surveillance.
Technology companies and data analyst exercise a type of surveillance described by De
Landa as the panspectron, in which “ a multiplicity of sensors is deployed around all bodies”.
Although De Landa seems to be outdated by neglecting the willingness of citizens to be surveyed
by the NSA, he succeeds in foreseeing the reach of the NSA in engaging in domestic

6.
6
Gertrudis
Ordenana
surveillance. While the use of high technology by the NSA was unknown to civilians, the Patriot
Act had already given the government and the secret services organizations the power to exercise
surveillance over anyone suspected to be a terrorist. This same concept of the “anyone” of the
unknown terrorist is deeply connected in the quotidian war, as if the war on terror was used to
legitimize a quotidian war in which the enemy is a non-traditional enemy, which in this case acts
as a civilian and therefore justifies the use of national surveillance.
In the era post- 9/11, it seemed impossible not to pass the bill as both Democrats and
Republicans agreed on the bill by 337 to 79 votes, as reported by New york Times there was
“little debate” as federal law enforcement warned the country of a possible attack. While in the
era post-Snowden, questions in regards to privacy rose with anger, De Landa foresaw the
function of data analysts and their use of technology. However, De Landa does focus in this state
of the art technology and in a competition/partnership of the human and machine, and although
he does mention a juxtaposition of the military and civilian forces, he does this as an essential
part in history where machines seems to be taking over. Yet the need for traditional forms of
surveillance and forms of convincing people are rooted in the first two forms of simulacra, which
De Landa explains that suggest that the machine is not the actual technology but the state itself.
While the MTA campaign calls for the an anti-terrorist alert, the way the message has
been received has found resistance with mixed reactions not in terms of the government using
fear to control the acts of the people, but in the re-enforcement of a hierarchy, which highlights
the importance of the police and also finds opposition in the abuse of the police. While, some do
embrace a responsibility as citizens to report suspicious activity in the train, a user identified as
Mechanicalbu11 calls for citizens to resist, he states,

7. De Landa is correct in the sense that he identifies that the use of institutions is a means to
reinforce the interests of the government. He claims that “military methods” have “permanently
affected nonmilitary institutions” and this has created a “blurring of the line between military and
civilian institution”. And we can see that when the MTA an institution, which main purpose is to
transport the bodies of civilians form one place to another in their everyday lives becomes
militarized and at the same time militarizes civilians by engaging them in military activities by
the surveillance of another. And yet the claim that this is a “blurred line” seems to be a
deliberately uttered statement, when looking at the agency in a factual way, we are able to see
that the MTA is a state-run-agency (Fitzsimmons, “M.T.A. Chairman Asks New York City for
More Money”). In the interview to Deputy Chief Vinnie DeMarino of the NYOD Transit
Bureau, he acknowledges that the participation of the Police Department with the MTA in which
he expresses his expectations for the campaign that include the participation of the riders. He
mentions that that with the help of civilians by reporting “unattended objects”, civilians are
helping in stop terrorism in the pre-operational phase (Groce). In this way the associations of the
MTA, the Police Department, and the Department of Homeland security, the logo is visible in
the MTA PSA, shows that Kraska’s explanation indicators go beyond policing and reaches
civilian through the MTA, which to some riders is seen as a “public space” (qto. in Fitzsimmons,
“M.T.A. Board Votes to Ban Political Ads on Subways and Buses”). This might the advantage of
the MTA, or using the MTA to convey a message, while the MTA is a state-run agency, it also
becomes a the “public space” which promotes a sense of a proud locality and sees the it as the
New York Transit System, in which the words New York are used to emphasize the city, and the
the users of the transportation system along with their cultural commonalities. While the users of
the MTA refers to it as the “system”, the New York Times also refers to it as the agency and the

8.
8
Gertrudis
Ordenana
“authority”, which seems to be the most appropriate since it’s in the MTA’s name. However, the
militarization of civilians is not blurred as De Landa claims, but militarization is precisely overt
in the war on terror, authorities continuously express their interest in the community to be part of
anti-terrorism activities.
The MTA is directly connected to Department of Homeland Security. The Department of
Homeland security provided with grants to the MTA to cover for the advertising expenses of the
“If You See Something Say Something” campaign. The MTA spends $7 million to $8 million
dollars on advertising (Elliot, The M.T.A. “Switches Ad Agencies After 22 Years”) from which
$4 million go to this campaign that are granted by the Department of Homeland Security (Elliot,
Do You Know Where Your Slogan Is?; Chan and Wald). However for the purpose to analyze the
way in which the blurred lines of militarization of civilian institutions have been pretty much
conceptualized we need to observe the organizational chart of the Department of Homeland
Security that directly connects it to the MTA. First, by looking at the chart, we can see that the
Department of Homeland Security is in charged of the Office of Police the Office of Policy, this
department engages in activities such as, “ [to] Lead the coordination, integration, and
development of DHS-wide policies, programs, strategies, and plans” (www.dhs.gov). The
Department of Homeland Security clearly states that on of its purposes is to implement their

9. operational strategies to their components.
In the organizational chart of the Office of Policy, it is visible that one of their
components is the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement, This component of the
Department of Homeland Security was created in 2007 in respond to the 9/11 Commission and
the recommendations based on the war on terror discourse that seeks to increase domestic
security measures to counter-terrorism and protect civilians. The primary purpose of the
component is “ [to] Serve as the primary liaison between DHS and non-Federal law enforcement
agencies across the country” (www.dhs.com). The participation of the DHS in local law
enforcement has lead to its direct connection with the MTA, which is part of the branch of the
NYPD that takes care of the subway system (www.nyc.gov). In fact, it is known that the MTA

10.
10
Gertrudis
Ordenana
possesses a small police force (Chan).
The militarization of police has not been limited to police paramilitary units, although
Krafka offers a great analysis on how policing has been militarized and the different categories
of analysis that as the war on terror discourse embraces an enemy that could be the everyday
neighbor. The militarization of police also foments the creation of militarized operations that go
beyond PPU’s like the SWAT team but are also spread to the everyday policeman. This is
possible to the creation of programs like the State and Local Anti-Terrorism Training (SLATT)
Program, which is in charged of providing “critical training” to state, local, and tribal law
enforcement and prosecution authorities. In this way, we see the militarization expanding from
the inexperienced policeman through the aid of programs and other agencies that specialized in
counter-terrorism activities and surveillance that simultaneously extends to the regular subway
rider.

11. While anti-terrorist actions are supported by the MTA support and challenge
militarization discourses by De Landa and Kraska, the mixed reaction of the public that shows
that the public is and is not concern to the subject of militarization. The reactions that engage in
opposition of the campaign for reasons of fear incitement might agree that the militarization of
the MTA as a civilian institution and these people fear that their government is using fear to
control its population. However, the most interesting reaction is that opposes control at a local
level in many areas. For example, YouTube users reacted strongly to the campaign ad posted in
the DHS channel, they criticized discourses of racism, which this paper does not analyze, but the
reaction shows that although discourses of militarization are supported by the organizational and
operational indicators in the MTA. The overtly execution of this is at some point concentrated at
the local level, omitting the military entirely. Although the police seems to be deeply rooted in
militarization, the based on the notions discussed, this does not seems to transfer to all civilians
that don’t seem to see, or care, how the police is militarized, but do oppose the ways in which the
police possesses its own poser, independently of militarization discourses. The MTA campaign
has not only created discourses based on the war on terror but has blurred because it keeps this
discourse at the military level, but does not translate when it comes to police despite proofs of its
militarization. Also, the fact that people feel apathetic, and even feel seem to have resentment of
the police force suggests that this is not something was born out the heavy militarization of the
police happened after 9/11 but it also contains historic rational. This sentiment is accompanied
by the recent events in which the way that police force is handled, in which this has been
explained in terms of police brutality has helped to even weaken the presence of a militarization
discourse of the police within civilians, and just strengthen a police only discourse that abuses
power. While the is a result of militarization of civilian institutions which seeks to justify

12.
12
Gertrudis
Ordenana
intelligence and surveillance, and in specific to justify the acts of the NSA and the Patriot Act
based on the motives of militarization that militarization is a necessary act seems to not be
transferred to civilians, who oppose everyday to surveillance methods, and leading to different
form of warfare in which the use of technology seems to unexpectedly appear when seeing the
blurring of the war on terror, and how a traditional campaign brings questions of technology.
The campaign as a result of militarization of the police, civilians institutions, and
civilians as a means to justify surveillance and the surveillance acts by the NSA that look for
justification within the lines of the Patriot Act have blurred the war on the terror by raising other
concerns in civilians from police brutality to surveillance and privacy. The variations of
technologies have had an important role in the creation and reception of government activities,
while the state of the art technology posed by De Landa seems to put traditional technology in a
secondary place, the use of traditional simulacra seems to be an essential part of communication
while high technology seem to be limited for surveillance of civilians. While the government
seems to engage and disengage from different levels of technology to convey messages and to
accomplish goals, De Landa’s visionary scientist and hackers try to bring the different sides of
technology to the knowledge of civilians.
It is essential that a deeper analysis in the post-Snowden just has the era post 9/11 has
shaped and challenges discourse. The debate post-Snowden does offer different perspectives, in
which the evil of technology is brought to light, while communities that depend on technology
are engaged in a 24/7 mentality in which the world is a place where production does not stop,
and people need to keep producing as dependency of technology sees the Internet of Things in
the future of our lives. The way in which Snowden has complicated the way people embrace
technology in their everyday lives by depending on the experts that make these technologies, and

13. how this leads to more discourses of warfare in which technology people embrace and struggle
against the ones that have the most control of technologies while depending on them and how
Snowden is the co-creator by bringing the NSA surveillance program to court while the Internet
of Things encourage us to keep track of our activities and location for our entertainment or
convenience leading to other quotidian wars.

14.
14
Gertrudis
Ordenana
Primary
sources
Kinsella,
Helen
M.
“Understanding
a
War
That
Is
Not
a
War:
A
review
Essay
De
Landa,
Manuel.
“Policing
the
Spectrum”.
War
in
the
Age
of
Intelligent
Machines.
(1991)
Jowett,
Garth
S.
and
O’Donnell,
Victoria.
Propaganda
&
Persuasion.
5th
ed.
London:
SAGE.
2012.
Print.
Kraska,
Peter
B.
“Militarization
and
Policing-­‐
Its
Relevance
of
21st
Century
Police
Hesford,
Wendy
S.
“Documental
Violations:
Rhetorical
Witnessing
And
The
Spectacle
of
Distant
Suffering.
Biography.
27.1.
2004.
Gumpert,
Matthew.
Introduction.
The
End
of
Meaning:
Studies
in
Catastrophe.
Cambridge:
Cambridge
Scholars
Publishing.
2012.
References
U.S.
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
“The
Drop
off-­‐
If
You
See
Something,
Say
Something
PSA-­‐
30
second.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qml7obNdmgk
Mtainfo.
“If
You
See
Something,
Say
Something-­‐
Subway-­‐
Spring
2011.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8eoTCEn2bY&index=15&list=PLZHkn788ZQJ
OXBFKT5xClQ-­‐x4XS1WxWMg
Chan,
Sewell.
“In
New
York,
It’s
Open
Bag
or
Find
Exits”
New
York
Times.
23
Jul,
2005,
natl.
ed.:Web
Chan,
Sewell
and
Wald,
Matthew
L.”
U.S.
Deploys
Subway
Dogs,
but
N.Y.
Declines.”
New
York
Times.
29
Sep,
2005.
natl.
ed.:Web

15.
Elliiot,
Stuart.
“
The
M.T.A.
Switches
Ad
Agencies
After
22
Years”
New
York
Times.
7
Feb,
2014.
natl.
ed.:Web
-­‐-­‐-­‐.
Do
You
Know
Where
Your
Slogan
Is?
New
York
Times.16
Mar,
2005.
natl.
ed.:Web
Fernandez,
Manny.
“A
Phrase
for
Safety
After
9/11
Goes
Global.”
New
York
Times.1
10
May,
2010.
natl.
ed.:Web
Fitzsimmons,
Emma
G.
“M.T.A.
Chairman
Asks
New
York
City
for
More
Money.”
New
York
Times.
4
May,
2015.
natl.
ed.:Web
-­‐-­‐-­‐.
M.T.A.
Board
Votes
to
Ban
Political
Ads
on
Subways
and
Buses.
New
York
Times.
29
April,
2015.
natl.
ed.:Web
Marc
Groce.
“
See
Something,
Say
Something.
Interview.
http://transittrax.mta.info/audio/ttx_transcpts/SeeSomethingSaySomething.htm
NSI
Partners.
N.p.
http://nsi.ncirc.gov/nsi_partners.aspx
Department
of
Homeland
Security.
If
You
See
Something,
Say
Something
www.dhs.gov.
http://www.dhs.gov/see-­‐something-­‐say-­‐something
The
State
of
Anti-­‐terrosidm
Training.
“About
SLATT.
N.p.
https://www.slatt.org/SLATT
“NSA
phone
data
collection
'illegal',
US
court
rules.”
BBC
News.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-­‐us-­‐canada-­‐32620742