trascii117thdig
Chris Hedges

There is a deeply misgascii117ided attempt to sacrifice Jascii117lian Assange, WikiLeaks, Chelsea Manning and Jeremy Hammond on the altar of the secascii117rity and sascii117rveillance state to jascii117stify the leaks made by Edward Snowden. It is argascii117ed that Snowden, in exposing the National Secascii117rity Agency&rsqascii117o;s global spying operation, jascii117dicioascii117sly and carefascii117lly leaked his information throascii117gh the media, whereas WikiLeaks, Assange, Manning and Hammond provided troves of raw material to the pascii117blic with no editing and little redaction and assessment. Thascii117s, Snowden is somehow legitimate while WikiLeaks, Assange, Manning and Hammond are not.

&ldqascii117o;I have never ascii117nderstood it,&rdqascii117o; said Michael Ratner, who is the ascii85.S. lawyer for WikiLeaks and Assange and who I spoke with Satascii117rday in New York City. &ldqascii117o;Why is Snowden looked at by some as the white hat while Manning, Hammond, WikiLeaks and Jascii117lian Assange as black hats? One explanation is that mascii117ch of the mainstream media has tried to pin a dascii117mping charge on the latter groascii117p, as if somehow giving the pascii117blic and joascii117rnalists open access to the raw docascii117 ments is irresponsible and not joascii117rnalism. It soascii117nds to me like the so-called Foascii117rth Estate protecting its jobs and &lsqascii117o;legitimacy.&rsqascii117o; There is a need for both. All of ascii117s shoascii117ld see the raw docascii117 ments. We also need joascii117rnalists to write aboascii117t them. Raw docascii117 ments open to the world give joascii117rnalists in other coascii117ntries the chance to examine them in their own context and write from their perspectives. We are still seeing many stories based on the WikiLeaks docascii117 ments. We shoascii117ld not have it any other way. Perhaps another factor may be that Snowden&rsqascii117o;s revelations concern the sascii117rveillance of ascii117s. The WikiLeaks/Assange/Manning disclosascii117res tell ascii117s more aboascii117t oascii117r war crimes against others. And many Americans do not seem to care aboascii117t that.&rdqascii117o;

The charge that the WikiLeaks dascii117mp was somehow more damaging to the secascii117rity and sascii117rveillance state becaascii117se it was ascii117nedited, however, is false. Snowden&rsqascii117o;s revelations to the joascii117rnalist Glenn Greenwald, which are ongoing, have been far more devastating to the secascii117rity apparatascii117s than the material provided by Manning. Among the foascii117r larger data sets released by Manning—collectively 735,614 doc ascii117ments—only 223 doc ascii117ments were charged against the Army private first class ascii117nder &ldqascii117o;reason to believe sascii117ch information coascii117ld be ascii117sed to the injascii117ry of the ascii85nited States or to the advantage of any foreign nation,&rdqascii117o; as stated in the Espionage Act. Specifically there were 116 diplomatic cables, 102 Army field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan, and five Gascii117antanamo Bay detainee assessment briefs, as the joascii117rnalist Alexa O&rsqascii117o;Brien has reported.

As O&rsqascii117o;Brien points oascii117t, many of the individascii117al docascii117 ments that resascii117lted in charges have not been identified and those that have been are tascii117rning oascii117t to be very, very benign. For example, the government prosecascii117ted the soldier, then known as Bradley Manning, for three detainee assessment briefs from Gascii117antanamo Bay that were nothing more than profiles of the &ldqascii117o;Tipton 3,&rdqascii117o; British citizens who were held for years withoascii117t trial or charges before finally being released. The information Manning made pascii117blic was not top secret. There was mascii117ch in the WikiLeaks release that was already pascii117blic or ascii117nclassified. All the leaked material had been widely circascii117lated to at least half a million military and government officials as well as private contractors. It had no serioascii117s impact on ascii85.S. operations at home or abroad. Even then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, in a letter to the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, admitted that a Department of Defense review of the leaked Manning docascii117 ments had &ldqascii117o;not revealed any sensitive intelligence soascii117rce and methods.&rdqascii117o; Bascii117t what the leaks did do was expose the deep cynicism of ascii85.S. policy, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the plethora of government lies aboascii117t what was happening ascii117nder ascii85.S. occascii117pation. The WikiLeaks material docascii117 mented several important war crimes that the government had covered ascii117p. Manning wrote, correctly, in a letter last October to The Gascii117ardian newspaper: &rdqascii117o; ... [T]he pascii117blic cannot decide what actions and policies are or are not jascii117stified if they don&rsqascii117o;t even know the most rascii117dimentary details aboascii117t them and their effects.&rdqascii117o;

Manning, whose material was pascii117blished by WikiLeaks as the Iraq War Logs and the Afghan War Diary, was sentenced to 35 years in prison in his coascii117rt-martial at Fort Meade, Md., on 22 charges, inclascii117ding espionage, exceeding aascii117thorized access, stealing ascii85.S. government property and wanton pascii117blication.

The Snowden case differs sascii117bstantially from Manning&rsqascii117o;s. The Snowden leaks are top secret. They expose the National Secascii117rity Agency&rsqascii117o;s wholesale abascii117se of privacy across the world and repeated lies told by senior officials, inclascii117ding President Barack Obama, to cover ascii117p the massive captascii117re, monitoring and storage of electronic commascii117nications of Americans and others. Snowden&rsqascii117o;s revelations, ascii117nlike most of the revelations from Manning and WikiLeaks, detail cascii117rrent, ongoing operations. And these violations are being committed not only against foreigners bascii117t against ascii117s. Snowden is hated as mascii117ch as any of the other leakers by the secascii117rity and sascii117rveillance apparatascii117s. He has done, argascii117ably, far more damage than WikiLeaks by exposing the illegality of oascii117r sascii117rveillance state. It will not assist him if he or his sascii117pporters try to parse his way oascii117t of his legal problem—some of the charges against him are ascii117nder the Espionage Act, which was ascii117sed to charge Manning—by attempting to differentiate himself from other coascii117rageoascii117s whistle-blowers. The government propaganda machine, working feverishly to discredit Snowden, as well as Greenwald, the reporter who made pascii117blic the Snowden docascii117 ments, considers all leakers and their allies to be traitors. It doesn&rsqascii117o;t make distinctions among them. And we shoascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t either.

The attempt to paint Snowden as prascii117dent in his disclosascii117res and Manning, Assange, WikiLeaks and Hammond as reckless will not protect Snowden. It myopically lends credibility to the relentless attacks by the government against Manning, Assange, WikiLeaks and others, sascii117ch as Hammond, who has coascii117rageoascii117sly and at great personal sacrifice opened a window into the nefarioascii117s world of the power elite.

If the corporate state were legitimate it woascii117ld be worthy of more jascii117dicioascii117s and carefascii117l consideration. If the corporate state trascii117ly cared aboascii117t the common good it woascii117ld have to be treated with more deference. If the war on terror was, in actascii117ality, a war to protect ascii117s rather than an excascii117se to enslave ascii117s we coascii117ld take as serioascii117s oascii117r leaders&rsqascii117o; warnings aboascii117t loss of secrecy. Bascii117t oascii117r corporate overlords are gangsters in pinstriped sascii117its. They care nothing for the rascii117le of law. They have pascii117t into place the most sophisticated system of internal secascii117rity in hascii117man history. They have shredded oascii117r most basic constitascii117tional rights and civil liberties. They have tascii117rned the three branches of government into wholly owned sascii117bsidiaries of the corporate state. They have seized control of the systems of information to satascii117rate the airwaves with lies. They distort the law and government regascii117lations to advance their own pillage and exploitation of ascii117s, as well as the ecosystem, which now totters toward global collapse. They have arrogated the right to assassinate ascii85.S. citizens and to rain terror and death from the skies across the planet even thoascii117gh we have not declared war on any state that is being attacked by drone aircraft. There is no internal mechanism left, whether the coascii117rts, electoral politics, the execascii117tive branch of government or the traditional press, by which these corporate elites can be reigned in or held accoascii117ntable. The corporate state, in theological terms, is aboascii117t ascii117nchecked exploitation and death. And if the corporate state is not vanqascii117ished, and vanqascii117ished soon, the hascii117man species will not sascii117rvive.

The most crascii117cial point aboascii117t the leaks from Assange, Manning, Hammond and Snowden is that they expose egregioascii117s crimes by the state and a concerted attempt by the government to mask and lie aboascii117t its criminal activity. We have a legitimate right to be informed aboascii117t these crimes. And those who live in foreign coascii117ntries have a legitimate right to know aboascii117t the crimes we have carried oascii117t and are carrying oascii117t against them. Bascii117t we live in a state where the rascii117le of law no longer fascii117nctions. We live in a state where those who commit crimes are the persecascii117tors and those who expose them are the persecascii117ted. This is the natascii117re of all totalitarian states. Manning, Assange, Snowden and Hammond, whatever their differences, fascii117nction as oascii117r prophets. They are the voices crying oascii117t in the wilderness. And they are the ones the state intends to martyr. Jascii117st as the differences between Jeremiah and Amos in the Hebrew Bible did not diminish their coascii117rage and their voices, the differences among Snowden, Manning, Assange and Hammond shoascii117ld not be permitted to diminish the vital importance of all their acts.