Monday, November 09, 2015
'60
Minutes' Pushes National Security Propaganda To Cast Snowden, Manning As
Traitors
Using language that would scare everyone’s
grandparents, the CBS show used "fugitive" to
describe Edward Snowden and "convicted spy" to describe Chelsea
Manning (even though she is not) as they compared both whistleblowers to a
"mass murderer" who went on a shooting rampage at a U.S. Navy
facility. (Photo: Screenshot/CBS)
The television program, “60 Minutes,” aired a
segment on Sunday in which it assassinated the character of Chelsea Manning and
Edward Snowden, and even went so far as to question their loyalty to America.
The two whistleblowers were compared to the Washington Navy Yard shooter, who
killed twelve people.
It was part of an examination of what U.S.
government officials perceive to be serious flaws in the process by which the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) reviews security clearances granted to
government employees, but the framing made it seem like architects of “insider
threat” programs from U.S. security agencies and politicians, who support total
surveillance of government employees in the workplace and while they’re at
home, had produced the segment.
Using language that would scare everyone’s
grandparents, the CBS show used “fugitive” to describe
Snowden, “convicted spy” to describe Manning (even though she is not), and
“mass murderer” to describe the Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis. Anchor Scott
Pelley amplified the terror by adding they all had “one thing in common: U.S.
government security clearances which they turned into weapons.”
“Some believe that Snowden and Manning were
right to expose what they saw as government abuses like the NSA’s domestic
surveillance program, but few believe that all of America’s secrets should be
at risk to spies, criminals, or the mentally ill,” Pelley added. “That has
happened because of short cuts in a system that has placed American security
into dangerous hands.” Once more, “60 Minutes” primed grandmothers across the
country to tremble in their chairs while thinking of dangerous subversives
lurking in the dark corridors of American security agencies.
To make the case that Manning should have
never received a top secret security clearance, “60 Minutes” interviewed
Jihrleah Showman, who was a supervisor of Manning while she was deployed as an
Army intelligence analyst in Iraq. She was responsible for providing some of
the most dubious and vile testimony accusing Manning of disloyalty to America
during Manning’s trial, and “60 Minutes” had her repeat this fabricated
nonsense.
“60 Minutes” Trashes Manning’s
Patriotism
Pelley asked, “Did you have any reason to
doubt Manning’s loyalty to the United States?” Showman answered, “Yes.”
“I pointed to the patch of our American flag
that was on my shoulder,” Showman claimed. “I said, ‘What does this flag mean
to you?’ He said, ‘It means absolutely nothing to me. I hold no allegiance to
this country and the people in it.'”
Next, Pelley asked, “How does he get a
top-secret security clearance?” Showman answered, “That is a good question.”
(Note: The U.S. military has been ordered by a court to use female pronouns
when referring to Manning, but Pelley and “60 Minutes” apparently disregarded
this when interviewing Showman.)
Showman claimed she went directly to a “superior”
and informed this person Manning could not be “trusted with a security
clearance. We can’t deploy him and he’s most likely a spy.” And, “60 Minutes”
added that superiors maintained they could not lose someone with a “valuable
top secret clearance.”
The biggest problem with this exchange, and
the decision by “60 Minutes” to paint Manning as anti-American, is
testimony [PDF] during Manning’s military trial
proves this is not true.
Showman similarly claimed at Manning’s trial
she had said during a counseling session the “flag meant nothing to him, and he
did not consider himself to have allegiance to this country or any people.”
Yet, when Manning’s defense attorney, David Coombs, cross-examined Showman,
Coombs made it clear that Showman never documented her fears of disloyalty in a
written counseling form. In fact, she never put this allegation of disloyalty
in writing until after May 2010, when Manning was arrested for providing
documents to WikiLeaks.
Showman previously had documented in
“counseling statements” how Manning excessively consumed caffeine. She
documented how Manning was “late to formation” and lost her “military bearing.”
She even put in a monthly counseling statement a note about recommending him
for the “soldier of the month board.” But she never wrote anything down about
how she came face to face with someone with a top secret security clearance,
who she thought was anti-American and disloyal.
This may be because Manning never said the
thing Showman claims to have heard. Manning, according to Coombs, was talking
about the problem of having “blind allegiance” to the flag. She said a person
should not be an automaton. A person should have a “duty to all people
regardless of their country.” Plus, no one else was present to witness this
exchange so it is Showman’s credibility against Manning’s credibility, and she
thus far has been allowed to make these statements in courtrooms and in public
without the establishment dismissing her as a liar.
Additionally, it would seem if “60 Minutes”
had reasonably adhered to their established framing, they would have accused
Showman of failing to document Manning’s “disloyalty” so the military could
stop her from releasing classified information.
“60 Minutes” Overlooks Manning’s
Gender Identity Issues to Paint Him as a Lunatic Traitor
The program also highlighted an incident,
where Manning lost control of herself and punched Showman. Her supervisor
responded by pinning her to the ground.
This incident is presented as another signal
Manning should not have had a top secret security clearance, but the problem is
Manning was struggling with gender identity issues and the punching incident
had nothing to do with Showman’s allegations of disloyalty. Captain Michael
Worsley, a clinical psychiatrist expert and doctor who had sessions with
Manning in Iraq, counseled Manning right after the punching incident and
diagnosed Manning with gender identity disorder.
The show omitted the fact that Manning was
removed from the facility where she was working when her security clearance was
temporarily suspended after the punching incident.
Stunningly, “60 Minutes” called attention to
the fact that Manning said she joined the military to “sort out the turmoil and
mess in my life” in her enlistment papers, as if this is unusual. Working class
Americans like Manning, who struggled to hold a job, lacked money to pay for
college, and needed healthcare, are known to join the Army to help them
straighten out their life. How many other people have written on their
enlistment papers something similar and gone on to have exceptional military
careers?
John Hamre, a former deputy secretary of
defense who chairs the Defense Policy Board which advises the Pentagon, bluntly
accused Manning of lying about her “mental health” on forms she filled out to
obtain her security clearance. Yet, “60 Minutes” never points to what she lied
about and the Army was well-aware of how Manning was struggling with gender
identity disorder. Manning had multiple sessions with Army doctors, and the
doctors were doing the best to treat Manning so she could keep her clearance
instead of taking it away because she had mental health problems.
“We Have Spies in Our Midst”:
Snowden Cast as an Infiltrator
Once more, Hamre and Pelley cranked up the
fear for baby boomers in America:
Scott
Pelley: Are there people today who have clearances and should not have them?
John
Hamre: Yes, there are. We have spies in our midst. I’m convinced of it.
“60 Minutes” presented Snowden as an
infiltrator, someone who not only was able to get away with taking massive
amounts of classified information because the security clearance system failed,
but who also manipulated the system so he could get closer to pilfering
secrets.
Scott
Pelley: What would you say is the greatest insider threat that we face as a
result of the way these security clearances are done?
John Hamre:
Snowden was an example of it. He moved into an enormously sensitive position.
We control people at the gate and once we give them a credential, they’re in
the compound, we don’t pay attention to where they are after that.
This statement about not “paying attention”
to where people with security clearances are after they obtain them is hard to
believe because since Manning and Snowden disclosed classified information to
journalists the U.S. government has drastically expanded an “insider threat”
program to monitor the activities of employees. It has reportedly encouraged government
officials to treat potential leakers as people who intend to aid America’s
enemies.
“We’ve learned that Snowden’s behavior raised
concerns when he worked at the CIA,” Pelley reported. “And when he left the
agency, the CIA put a red flag in his file in case Snowden applied for another
job. He did, a civilian job for the NSA where he stole the secrets. Snowden had
found a simple way to beat OPM’s review of his security clearance.”
The show indicated it obtained an “internal
memo” showing the OPM head had been warned by the OPM’s Inspector General
Patrick McFarland that Snowden’s background investigation was “deficient in a
number of areas.” Yet, about a minute later, Pelley acknowledged the show knows
little about these “glaring deficiencies” in Snowden’s background investigation
because files remain secret so the U.S. can prosecute Snowden.
In other words, “60 Minutes” parroted a
phrase on television about “deficiencies,” which has tremendous propaganda
value for U.S. security agencies, and did not care whether these “deficiencies”
are actually real or not.
“60 Minutes” Refuses to Reckon
with the Whistleblower Motives of Snowden or Manning
Snowden has been open and forthright about
why he provided documents on massive global NSA surveillance programs to
journalists. For example, he came across a classified 2009 inspector
general’s report on the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping program expanded during
President George W. Bush’s administration. He found the document while
conducting routine work as a system administrator and believed it was illegal.
“You can’t read something like that and not
realize what it means for all of these systems we have,” he told New York Times
reporter James Risen. Also, “If the highest officials in government can break
the law without fearing punishment or even any repercussions at all, secret
powers become tremendously dangerous.”
This is but one small example of the
whistleblower motive Snowden had when he made the decision to disclose
information the U.S. government had classified about secret surveillance
programs. It is perhaps the most glaring defect in the “60 Minutes” segment.
At no point does “60 Minutes” reckon with the
fact that it is presenting a national security state argument, which insists
more should have been done to catch people like Snowden or Manning, who saw
waste, fraud, abuse, and illegality, and decided to expose the information to
the public. To add on extra layers of scrutiny directed against them inevitably
means creating an increasingly chilly climate for potential whistleblowers. It
means people who go through “proper channels” and hide their actions from superiors—because
their complaints implicate their superiors—are treated as spies.
It does not reckon with how U.S. security
agencies—bolstered by the U.S. Justice Department—have successfully blurred the
lines between spies and leakers to the point where one’s intentions do not
matter anymore. Simply causing classified information to be published on the
internet by a news organization, which happens every week, can be prosecuted as
a violation of the Espionage Act by an “insider” if the government wants to
make an example out of someone.
The show does not deal with the broad,
catch-all term that “insider threat” has become. In a post-9/11 world,
grandparents are now made to fear national security and military whistleblowers
as much as individuals who go on rampages and kill innocent people.
This Edition of “60 Minutes”
Might as Well Have Been Brought to You By Rep. Peter King
Finally, “60 Minutes” seems to have taken its
framing from Representative Peter King, a vindictive and raving-mad member of
Congress who is the author of DHS “insider threat” program legislation recently
passed in the House of Representatives.
King has called Snowden a
“traitor” and argued journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras, and
Barton Gellman, who published stories about NSA documents, should be prosecuted. He has previously pushed for WikiLeaks, a media
organization, to be designated a “terrorist organization” by the U.S. Treasury
Department. The congressman wanted the Treasury Department to do this so the
government could seize funds from the media organization and pursue anyone who
provided WikiLeaks with “any help or contributions or assistance whatsoever.”
He has backed legislation to help the Justice
Department crack down on leaks even more severely than the agency has already.
Last night’s edition was in the tradition
of a previous edition, where then-NSA director
Keith Alexander was invited on the show to help the NSA tell the story about
Snowden and NSA surveillance, which the NSA wanted to be told. It was aimed at
making Americans fearful the government is not doing all it can to protect
against infiltrators and lunatic government employees.
The program was exactly the kind of
propaganda U.S. security agencies need Americans to believe to expand
surveillance of government employees, dole out lucrative contracts to
companies, and get away with expanding systems, which not only infringe upon
constitutional rights but also violate confidential whistleblower communications
when employees go through what officials refer to as proper channels to raise
concerns about corruption.
Copyright FDL Media Group ©, All Rights
Reserved.
Donations can be sent
to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD 21218.
Ph: 410-366-1637; Email: mobuszewski [at] verizon.net. Go to http://baltimorenonviolencecenter.blogspot.com/
"The master class
has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles.
The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject
class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their
lives." Eugene Victor Debs
No comments:
Post a Comment