I'm going to give James Kirchick the
benefit of the doubt, and assume that he did in fact attend some journalism
classes in his time at the prestigious Yale University. My guess, however,
based on the hopped-up rhetoric of this latest screed against Edward Snowden,
is that Kirchick missed class on the days that his esteemed professors lectured on the merits of substance over bombast.
In 633 words, Kirchik manages to
sling insults, resort to name-calling and to question Snowden's patriotic
loyalties--but nowhere in this article is there any actual discernible proof
that Snowden did anything treasonous or potentially damaging to American
National Security.
When Snowden denies any relationship
with the Russian government, Kirchick glibly remarks, "And those 'little green men' in Crimea
are not Russian troops." While this might be the author's pale attempt at
humor, it hardly qualifies as evidence of any treachery on Snowden's part.
Where else was he going to go once his passport was revoked? Sure, there are
other countries that, like Russia, don't have extradition treaties with the
U.S. but that would leave him exposed to capture and return to a country where
he is certain to get an unfair trial.
Next Kirchick states, "Snowden
insists he did not bring his digital documents to Moscow and that the Russians
thus have no access to America’s national security secrets. But even if he
didn’t carry the files with him, there remains plenty of classified information
he could have provided his hosts by other means." Ok, like what? Kirchik
leaves us hanging.
The Russians don't appear to be
torturing Snowden. Furthermore, what would Snowden's motive be? He was
well-paid as an NSA contractor; his politics seem to ring true as those of a
genuinely pro-civil rights American. If his purpose was to sell us out--for
money he didn't need-- to the Russians, why resurface? Surely a man with his
skill set is capable (with the help of the Russian FSB) of disappearing into
the woodwork of the largest country in the world.
Snowden's motives are clear. He has
stated in interviews again and again that his intent was to report surveillance
abuses that the CIA, the NSA, and the White House itself were perpetrating in
direct violations of our Constitutional rights. To some of us such invasions of
our privacy without probable cause are still important enough to defend. Even
if one has nothing to hide, surveillance without probable cause is, by definition,
one of the main components of a security state.
Kirchick's motives, however much he
insinuates himself as part of the millennials " who have sacrificed so
much over the past decade by serving their country in the armed services or,
indeed, the NSA" are a bit murkier. In claiming that Snowden "breaks
his oath, deceives his colleagues, filches top-secret documents, flees to Red
China, and then whines about how the people whom he lied to and stole from
tried to prevent him from getting away with it?" Kirchick reveals a
naiveté--or his indifference-- about what happens to whistleblowers who expose
government wrongdoing. Just ask Daniel Ellsberg, Joseph Wilson or William
Binney.
No comments:
Post a Comment