The Hiroshima-Nagasaki Commemoration Committee and Chesapeake
Physicians for Social Responsibility are continuing the FILM & SOCIAL
CONSCIOUSNESS DVD SERIES. The DVDs will be shown at Homewood Friends
Meetinghouse, 3107 N. Charles St., Baltimore 21218, usually on the First
Friday. After the 5 PM Black Lives Matter vigil, there will be a potluck
dinner. At 7:15 PM, from January through March, a DVD will be shown with a
discussion to follow. There is no charge, and refreshments will be
available. This series is named DOCUMENTARIES TO BOLSTER OUR RESOLVE IN THE TIME OF DONALD TRUMP.
On Feb. 3 see HEIST: Who Stole the American Dream?
[USA, 2011].
This documentary, directed by Donald Goldmacher and narrated by Thom
Hartmann, includes interviews with Bernie Sanders, Donna Edwards, Van Jones and
David Cay Johnston. It argues that government deregulation, as promoted by
Virginia lawyer Lewis F. Powell, Jr, led to the Great Recession. His
1971 memo to the United States Chamber of Commerce urged corporate
America to become more aggressive in molding politics and law.
HEIST shows that Roosevelt's New Deal is being dismantled
piecewise. One example is the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act which led
to the Big Banks engaging in high-volume Casino Capitalism. The film lays the
blame for the crisis on the cozy relationship between politicians and
corporations, citing as examples the administrations of Reagan, Clinton, Bush
and Obama. The documentary ends with suggestions for how people might organize.
Call 410-366-1637 or email mobuszewski [at]
verizon.net for further information. http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/41727-focus-of-scarecrows-and-whistleblowers
Whistleblowers Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden. (photo: Ole Von Uexkull/Facebook/John Cusack)
Of
Scarecrows and Whistleblowers
By Jeffrey Sterling, Reader
Supported News
02 February 17
I find
myself doing a lot of reading in prison of late, and one article in particular
caught my attention. It speaks to many issues that are indicative of my being
in prison. The article is “The Outside Man” and in it,
Malcolm Gladwell muses over the differences between Daniel Ellsberg and Edward
Snowden. From my “inside” perspective, the distinctions Mr. Gladwell makes and
the justifications for doing so are troubling. Mr. Gladwell’s perspective
espouses a form of “good government” that the Bard warns against in typical
Shakespearean eloquence and ageless wisdom:
“We
must not make a scarecrow of the law, Setting it up to fear the birds of prey,
And let it keep one shape, till custom make it Their perch and not their
terror.”
It may
have been Mr. Gladwell’s intention to contemplate the merits of acceptable
whistleblowing vis-a-vis Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden, but that is not
the article’s end result. He is explaining and attempting to justify a system
of governance. Lost in his unabashed blandishment is consideration of the
illegitimacy and illegality of that system.
Mr.
Gladwell painstakingly points out the differences between Daniel Ellsberg, whom
he christens as the “archetypical modern whistleblower” and Edward Snowden,
whom he characterizes, disparately, as a ne’er-do-well hacker. Status is an
overriding determinant for Mr. Gladwell:
“… the man [Ellsberg] who defined the modern category of
whistle-blower was the sort who gave career advice to Henry Kissinger. Ellsberg
was an insider – and that fact puts him in stark contrast with the man who has
come to be seen as his heir, Edward Snowden.”
He
further delineates the insider/outsider distinction by pointing out that
Ellsberg was:
“handsome and charismatic. He had served in the Marine Corps as a
company commander in Korea.... a studious political science Ph.D....”
While
Snowden is characterized as:
“a community college dropout, a member of the murky hacking counterculture....
a technician who helped service the computer systems ... a graduate student,
who realizes, with great disappointment, that his thesis adviser has not kept
up with the literature.”
And
for good measure, as someone who hasn’t seen “Dr. Strangelove” as Ellsberg has.
The
distinctions made by Mr. Gladwell are steeped in elitist class bias and
absolutely necessary to justify what he calls a “ritual that obliges its
participants to play by certain rules.” And it is this ritual that epitomizes
the illegitimacy of Mr. Gladwell’s benevolence towards Daniel Ellsberg and
demonization of Edward Snowden.
The
ritual is the source/beneficiary symbiosis whereby the government (the source)
leaks “carefully curated” information to the press (the beneficiary). Mr.
Gladwell refers to Columbia Law Professor David Pozen to define the importance
of this ritual as:
“... a form of governmental ‘self binding’... using periodic
disclosure... to justify to the public the extraordinary power it wields...
[and] maintain its power.”
Mr.
Gladwell sees this ritual as an essential aspect, not necessarily of
government, but by government for legitimacy, as long as the “certain rules”
are observed by both source and beneficiary.
“... a common understanding among participants, a degree of
discretion and judgment. You need to have laws against leaking – and
occasionally enforce them … You can’t over-enforce those laws, though ... The
press, meanwhile, has to preserve the ambiguity of plants, in order to preserve
its access to leaks. And the press [must not] discredit the institution of
leaking, by airing disclosures too damaging to the national interest ...”
What
Mr. Gladwell lauds, with the postulates of Professor Pozen, is a smoke-filled
room sort of governance which is above the law and designed to manipulate the
public by encouraging, if not mandating, breaking the law for the sole purpose
of maintaining power. That this system and its ritual are patently illegitimate
is evident in Mr. Gladwell’s need to use Daniel Ellsberg as sort of distorted
poster child to garner legitimacy. In fact, Mr. Gladwell does a disservice to
Daniel Ellsberg, Edward Snowden, and whistleblowing by either associating or
disavowing them within a ritual that is an affront to them all.
Mr.
Gladwell is correct in calling Daniel Ellsberg a prime example of the modern
whistleblower. However he is incorrect in applying whistleblowing as ushered in
by Daniel Ellsberg to his ritual of leaking. Jim Naureckas, in his counter to Mr.
Gladwell, points out Daniel Ellsberg’s reasoning for his act:
“The only thing that I could personally hope to achieve by my own
efforts was to make these documents available to the American public for them
to read and to learn from ...”
Daniel
Ellsberg’s were the actions of a man who had the public interest in mind, not
the maintenance of power through manipulation. Daniel Ellsberg’s actions and
intentions were those of a whistleblower. Herein lies a difficulty in Mr.
Gladwell’s viewpoint: he sees no difference between leaking and whistleblowing.
Therefore, Daniel Ellsberg will fit nicely into the ritual. However leaks,
plants, and whistleblowing are not interchangeable terms of art.
Mr.
Gladwell’s ritual is centered on, as Professor Pozen explains, information
leaked “with the full authorization of the White House.” What can be considered
more “insider” than that which is blessed, if not encouraged, by the highest
level of government? Such information-peddling is nothing more than a plant, a
tidy bit of propaganda to serve as little more than a symbolic ray of sunshine upon
government merely to assuage the public. Mr. Gladwell attempts to distinguish
between leaks and plants by stating that leaks are unauthorized and tolerated
in order to “water” or add some hint of credibility to the plants which are
authorized. By his own argument, then, there really can be no distinction. The
ritual is one of plants whether deemed authorized or not; they both serve the
overall purpose to manipulate the public (and the law) to garner support for
those in power, whether warranted or not. In contrast, whistleblowers do not
undertake the tremendous risk they do out of any motivation to “build support”
for the very issue and governmental activity of concern. They are spurred by a
desire to bring accountability to power, not create it. The interest of a
whistleblower, as embodied in Daniel Ellsberg’s own words, is an informed
public; that of a plant or leak is a manipulated public. It can and should be
argued that Edward Snowden shared the same motivation as Daniel Ellsberg, as a
whistleblower; neither should therefore be associated with Mr. Gladwell’s
ritual.
Another
critical aspect that adds to the fallacy of Mr. Gladwell’s ritual is
enforcement of the law, or lack thereof. While one of the ritual rules
acknowledges the need for law against leaking, they are not to be
“over-enforced.” This rule is explicit – that for the ritual to function as
intended, the willing participation of law enforcement (specifically the
Department of Justice) is required. Professor Pozen points to the fact that even
with:
“... the recent uptick in leak prosecutions during the Obama
Administration ... the degree of underenforcement is stunning.”
Mr.
Gladwell emphasizes the duplicity of law enforcement by pointing out that
administrations are indeed able to find leakers because “information –
particularly secretive information – has a pedigree.” So the reason there are
not more leak prosecutions is because the ritual requires administrations to
play by the rules and look the other way. What is troubling for me is that I
have been condemned to prison as a result of that so-called stunningly
under-enforced enforcement. To Mr. Gladwell, and most likely Professor Pozen,
my prosecution represented the ritual in action: that instance of occasional
enforcement lending credibility to a woefully illegitimate system. Instead of
serving as a shining example of the ritual at work (or the penultimate success
of the Obama administration’s campaign against whistleblowers), the prosecution
and imprisonment of an innocent man should serve as a warning of the real
dangers of a ritual viewed as crucial to good government.
Professor
Pozen’s miniscule numbers for leak prosecutions are misleading. Given the need
for law enforcement’s participation, those numbers necessarily reflect
enforcement only when it comes to those participating in and benefiting from
this ritual, insiders. I hazard to guess that the enforcement numbers against
outsiders is much higher. The contrast in enforcement between those of the
ritual and those outside of it is what is stunning.
When
it comes to those not considered worthy enough to be part of the ritual,
enforcement is swift and devastating. Mr. Gladwell fails to address a common
aspect that both insiders and outsiders are bound by, the secrecy agreement,
where disparate enforcement of the law is most obvious.
Kevin Shipp details how whistleblowers face
an unrelenting system of destruction, noting that:
“US government intelligence agencies have perfected a complex,
sequential system to systematically silence or destroy an employee, including
his or her family, who attempts to reveal illegal or unconstitutional
activities conducted as part of secret government operations.”
This
system of destruction is not limited to the in-house actions that relevant
agencies are able to take against whistleblowers. The ritual necessarily
requires the participation of other government entities:
“When the employee attempts to blow the whistle to the
Congressional committees, their response is ignored. It is made clear to
committee members that they are not to touch such cases ... If the employee
contacts a member of the news media, they are immediately cited with violating
their secrecy agreement and criminal penalties are filed against them. Several
news media outlets are connected to the CIA and NSA and notify them of the
employee’s contact.”
This
is the self-protectionist ritual at work. Its effectiveness and cohesion –
though not necessarily coordinated by as much as understood by those in
government who benefit by the rules being followed – is impressive. Shipp
points out that the employee (or public for that matter) is:
“... not fully aware of all that is being done. The full scope of
the system is only known at the higher levels of the organization and is hidden
from employees, until its use necessary.”
And
when a whistleblower comes forward, not a leaker or plant, is when it is
necessary.
The
participants of Mr. Gladwell’s ritual do not face such enthusiastic enforcement
of the law. In fact, he refers to the enforcement against Daniel Ellsberg as a
“farcical denouement.” From the standpoint of the whistleblower, there is
nothing farcical about the ritual striking out to protect itself. I don’t think
Daniel Ellsberg thought the very real actions against him by the Nixon
administration were farcical and I am sure whistleblowers like John Kiriakou,
Thomas Drake, Chelsea Manning, and the other “occasional enforcements” by the
Obama administration view their experiences as not so whimsical. And I can’t
imagine Edward Snowden having a laugh about his situation.
To the
acceptable or traditional ritual participants, it certainly is a farce. When it
comes to leaks or plants of the proper sort, the government does indeed look
the other way. Mr. Gladwell uses CIA drone strikes against Yemen as an
authorized plant but he fails to mention any denouement farcical or otherwise
to that release of classified information that did not come from an official
news conference. His farcical denouement is also epitomized with the Obama
administration’s plant related to the classified STUXNET Operation. The
“occasional enforcement” chose General Cartwright (known as Obama’s favorite
general) as the focus of what can only be characterized as a true farcical
denouement. General Cartwright, in what gave the appearance of a very cordial,
almost apologetic investigation and prosecution, pleaded to a watered-down
felony for lying to the FBI. Indeed, a sweetheart deal to play the sacrificial,
ritual lamb. I can remember seeing the news from the prison TV room about his
plea and possible (emphasis on “possible” because every newscast I heard
speculated that there would most likely be no prison for General Cartwright)
prison sentence and feeling dismayed. There would be no charges for disclosing
classified information; his disclosure was an “authorized” plant and as such
the ritual required any denouement to be farcical, mainly at least giving the
appearance of enforcement. And that is exactly the end result when on January
17, 2017, then-President Obama pardoned General Cartwright. The ritual protects
its own. General Cartwright will face none of the real perils true
whistleblowers do; he won’t see a day in prison for doing far more than an
average whistleblower; he will retain his rank, pension and status in
government. There can be no better example of the ritual in action. I can’t
help but be struck by the fact that the overall subject connecting me and General
Cartwright is Iran. But the differences more than explain the disparate
treatment between the two of us: I am not an insider as General Cartwright is,
therefore I am not entitled to the same “mercy” from the highest level of
government, and more importantly, I am innocent.
What’s
more, having law enforcement play such a crucial role in the ritual allows such
farcical denouements to become commonplace for insiders whether their actions
are part of the ritual or not. Mr. Gladwell’s ritual is the same system that
turns the other way or engages in similar farcical denouements when insiders
blatantly disregard their sworn obligation to secrecy for personal convenience
or gain. Such has been the case with Hillary Clinton and General David
Petraeus. No outsider has received such unjustified favorable treatment, which
has amounted to little more than officially sanctioned chastisement with
eventual forgiveness. I got the impression that Mr. Gladwell imagines that
Daniel Ellsberg was, or at least should have been, treated like an insider, and
Edward Snowden relegated to the treatment afforded his worth. That worth of
course being determined by the ritual.
What
is particularly disturbing is that Mr. Gladwell is using Daniel Ellsberg to
lend credibility to the one aspect of the ritual that should be the most
abhorred by it: the press. But not just any press; Mr. Gladwell makes it clear
that only the elite press or establishment journalism is allowed to
participate. After all, Daniel Ellsberg reached out to The New York Times,
which Mr. Gladwell considers “the most august institution in American
journalism.” Mr. Gladwell proudly acknowledges the willing and the duplicitous
participation of the press:
“When I worked [at] the Washington Post, my colleagues and I would
read a front-page story by our counterparts at the Times and invariably know
where the leak ... came from. The first order of business was typically to call
the leaker and complain that he or she was playing favorites.”
Notice
Mr. Gladwell makes no assertions as to the veracity of the press’s role;
concern is solely focused on abiding by the rules and preserving the ritual. Of
course, the press, particularly establishment journalism, has every reason to
be a willing participant; there is little risk and it is a guarantee of access
to government.
My
trial provided a rare opportunity to realize just how intertwined the press is
in the ritual. That the “august” or establishment press is merely an appendage
of government, and particularly the ritual, came from the words of one who was
at the highest level of government. During my trial, a former National Security
Adviser to the George W. Bush administration, Condoleezza Rice, testified under
oath that it was routine practice, in reaction to a story of concern, for the
White House to call in reporters and their editors to either delay, kill, or
“correct” the story in question. Ms. Rice was describing the ritual in action:
the source/beneficiary symbiosis that Mr. Gladwell describes.
Furthermore,
when it became apparent the government was planning on forcing a journalist to
reveal his sources, the establishment press was up in arms. Clearly, exposing
the press to such a risk was counter to the ritual rules. There was such
anxiety among the press that during the years-long interlocutory appeal, the
case was no longer US vs. Jeffrey Sterling, it was dubbed the “Jim Risen” case.
There was absolutely no concern for whether I was innocent or not; I was not
part of the ritual and my prosecution threatened to disrupt the sanctity of it.
Forcing the press to reveal sources presents a problem for the ritual because,
as Mr. Gladwell notes:
“When the origin of the disclosure is uncertain, all parties save
face.”
Calm,
however, was restored when, even though the appellate court ruled that the
press can be compelled to reveal sources, the government decided not to do so
(a decision which, by the way, was leaked). Order was restored to the ritual.
The
system that Mr. Gladwell has participated in, and is a proponent of, is not as
he believes a ritual of “good government,” it is an elitist cabal of
self-serving manipulation, and he fails in his attempt to grant it credibility
by associating it with Daniel Ellsberg. Mr. Gladwell is engaging in nothing
more than character assassination directed at Edward Snowden, not unlike the
many other detractors who find it more expedient to focus on the messenger than
the message. What is unique about Mr. Gladwell’s article is that in denouncing
Edward Snowden he pulls the curtain back on a system and ritual that
necessarily fears Snowden and what he represents – an informed public. The
ritual is the thing for Mr. Gladwell, and neither does Edward Snowden fit
within nor Daniel Ellsberg lend credibility to it. It is a ritual which has
become the custom to those in established power, designed to manipulate the law
and public trust. Mr. Gladwell’s ritual does indeed make a scarecrow of both
(the law and the public) and everyone knows that scarecrows are set up to
protect the plants.
The
Obama administration was adept at utilizing and protecting the ritual, as
demonstrated by the witch-hunt against whistleblowing that spanned his entire
presidential tenure and was crowned by the pardon for General Cartwright. It
has yet to be seen whether the Trump administration will be as
ritual-enthusiastic. I imagine that Mr. Gladwell is anxiously wondering the
same thing.
Jeffrey
Sterling, a former CIA case officer, is currently serving a 3 1/2-year prison
sentence for leaking classified information to a New York Times reporter. His
forthcoming book will be published by Nation Books.
Reader
Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to
republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported
News.
Donations
can be sent to the Baltimore Nonviolence Center, 325 E. 25th St., Baltimore, MD
21218. Ph: 410-323-1607; 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