Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo (6/11/13) wrote about Edward Snowden yesterday in a way that helped make it clear why so many in the press seem upset that the former NSA consultant revealed the extent of U.S. spying programs aimed at the American public.
“I’m a journalist,” Marshall wrote.
And back when I did national security reporting I tried to get leaks. So I don’t think leaks are always wrong…. In fact, leaks are an absolutely critical safety valve against government wrongdoing and/or excessive secrecy.
But officials who leak classified information are “breaking an oath and committing a crime,” and that’s “a big deal.” Marshall draws a distinction between two perspectives on leaking:
If you see the state as essentially malevolent or a bad actor then really anything you can do to put a stick in its spokes is a good thing. Same if you think the conduct of U.S. foreign policy is fundamentally a bad thing. Then opening up its books for the world to see is a good thing simply because it exposes it or damages it….
On the other hand, if you basically identify with the country and the state, then indiscriminate leaks like this are purely destructive. They’re attacks on something you fundamentally believe in, identify with, think is working on your behalf.
Marshall is upfront that he—along with, it’s safe to say, most people with prominent roles in journalism—takes the second position:
At the end of the day, for all its faults, the U.S. military is the armed force of a political community I identify with and a government I support…. I think a military force requires a substantial amount of secrecy to operate in any reasonable way. So when someone on the inside breaks those rules, I need to see a really, really good reason.
And from Marshall’s point of view, Bradley Manning did not have a very good reason to give thousands of government documents to WikiLeaks:
Coming from this perspective, it’s hard to see any justification for what Manning did, which is basically downloading everything he could find and giving it to a foreign national (Assange) with the expectation that he’d just dump it into the public. There were a couple clear cases of wrongdoing revealed in his documents. But the vast majority were fairly mundane diplomatic cables, military records and so forth.
Now, the idea that WikiLeaks didn’t reveal much in the way of U.S. wrongdoing is an article of faith in corporate media—and it’s not true. But consider the larger context: Manning released documents relating to the “war on terror,” in which the United States invaded and occupied two countries, killing hundreds of thousands, waged undeclared war on several other countries via a secret drone assassination program, and imprisoned thousands of people it accused of being enemies without trial, subjecting many of them to torture. Does that add up to a “really, really good reason”? Not if you “basically identify with the country and the state,” apparently.
Nor does Snowden meet Marshall’s criteria of a legitimate leaker—even though “the public definitely has an interest in knowing just how we’re using surveillance technology and how we’re balancing risks versus privacy.” What’s the problem?
I think it’s clear he’s trying to upend, damage—choose your verb—the U.S. intelligence apparatus and policies he opposes…. He’s not just opening the thing up for debate. He’s taking it upon himself to make certain things no longer possible, or much harder to do. To me, that’s a betrayal.
Snowden, in Marshall’s view, is the kind of leaker who belongs in prison: “I do not see how you can’t prosecute Snowden.” For Marshall and other journalists who fundamentally identify with the state, it’s OK to help journalists to debate surveillance policy—it’s just not OK to try to change it.
Jay Diamond
Lying is therefore Truth one lies for the group.
But why does the group one loves so much need to lie ?
And if the group one loves needs to lie, why does one love this group ?
Jay Diamond
I meant to write….”lying is therefore Truth IF one lies for the group.”
Doug Latimer
Did Marshall give an example of exposure committed “for a really, really good reason”?
Although he would likely deny it, don’t you think he would have said the same things about Ellsberg forty years ago?
Manning and others have broken no oaths
They have fulfilled them.
Bernd Paysan
Nazi German called this consolidation of opinions in the press “Gleichschaltung”. It means the press identifies with the regime, and reports in favor of the regime, while smearing enemies – throughout all of the press, which is seemingly diverse, but only on issues that don’t cover the regime. This is what happened in the US largely under Bush, but Obama didn’t change much (through a stick-and-carrot approach). The result is that the press loses its controlling function.
If Fox News smears Snowden, it’s SNAFU. You expect them to do that, and there is no real problem with some media taking this, and other media taking that side – apart from that Fox News is completely counter-factual, which is a damage by itself. If however the New York Times smears Snowden, you should be deeply worried. But that’s exactly what’s happening.
MD
Of all the liberal bloggers that came to prominence during the Bush era, Josh Marshall has turned out to be the biggest disappointment, the slimiest phony, the creepiest tire-swinger, and the most pathetic bamboozler of the lot.
Lydia Maniatis
“So when someone on the inside breaks those rules, I need to see a really, really good reason.” Won’t happen, since he’s obviously willing to tolerate anything at all from his reich. (Fortunately, it’s not up to him, though he obviously values his opinion above the Constitution). And if I hear one more pathetic reference to Manning “dumping” data indiscriminately, I don’t know what I’ll do. They cling to that twig with all the desperation of the damned. Data dumping, violating contracts, oh, the horror, the horror! Torture, extra-judicial executions, secret laws, indefinite detention, lying to Congress? Ah, they must have a good reason….These people are scary.
dq
“basically downloading everything he could find and giving it to a foreign national (Assange) with the expectation that he’d just dump it into the public.”
except that manning explains at his trial that he carefully considered the sensitivities of vs. justifications for everything wikileaks released:
http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/confronting-edward-snowdens-remarks-on-bradley-manning/
When Assange told the USG to nominate harmful material in the calbles pre-release, Harold Kohs stated, “We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained U.S. Government classified materials” — not a response you would expect to an indiscriminate dump.
Eric
Doug Latimer made a good point:
“Manning and others have broken no oaths They have fulfilled them.”
The oaths they fulfilled have been as citizens of the U.S., citizens of the world, to the human community — rather than to self-interested power brokers who enforce secrecy regarding crimes against humanity.
In this light, what surprised me about Manning’s guilty plea was not that as a person of principle he took full responsibility for his actions, but that he didn’t argue the defence of necessity — that he leaked knowledge of crimes to prevent continuation and escalation of such crimes.
Pete Needham
“So when someone on the inside breaks those rules, I need to see a really, really good reason.”
Does Josh Marshall honestly think that he, alone, thinks that? I sure do.
“There were a couple clear cases of wrongdoing revealed in his documents. But…”
Oh, yes, “BUT”. But effing what?
Padremellyrn
One thing is for sure, we still need them to come to trial and have their say. Open to the public, open records, and they get to explain thier side.
let’s make sure it stays “open” for viewing.
Kevin Bradshaw
Journalists identifying with the state, and therefore the military as well, is seriously fascistic. And it underscores a broader, equally serious problem where certain sectors of the population personally identify with the state and military. You cease to see the crimes they commit as crimes, much the way you can justify the crimes you commit. It’s tribalism really, the concepts of country and flag. And fascism is an appeal to these tribal insticts.
I think we should reject the pernicious concepts of “state,” “country,” and “flag” etc.
John Q
MD and KB: Josh Marshall’s supposedly liberal blog has indeed been a disappointment over the years, and currently his smarmy defense of “the state” is indeed nothing short of fascism.
Chris Kapilla
I remember when I first saw Marshall on Bill Moyers, I was really impressed. It’s been all downhill ever since, with the degree of the slope increasing exponentially lately.
Dora Marquez
I keep looking at that photo of Josh Marshall, and think, hmmm, I know I’ve seen him somewhere before.
http://tinyurl.com/ljxq27l
(Although this guy looks slightly more rat-ish than foxy… it’s a puzzle.)
Murf Mensch
I hope people take this opportunity to drop liberals like Talking Points Memo. Unswerving support for a President who does things you denounced a few years ago is not a virtue.
gawd
“At the end of the day, for all its faults, the U.S. military is the armed force of a political community I identify with and a government I support”
This guy calls himself a “journalist”. What a boot-licking hack! His own opinions are irrelevant! His job is to report the news and investigate!
This is pathetic. hiring standards are clearly not that high.
Leo Toribio
If one backs off and looks at all the facts, one cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that Snowden hoped to gain publicity and perhaps even some wealth from his actions. There is no way to benefit the American public by revealing the NSA’s intrusions into foreign (e.g., Chinese) computers and much of the other information illegally obtained by Snowden.
It would not surprise me to learn that Snowden feared dismissal from Booze Allen before his exploits.
Leo Toribio
Pittsburgh, PA
michael e
Im not sure this story has sussed out enough yet to even comment.We may yet see that not everything is as it seems with mr Snowden
gloriana casey
People talk about whistleblowers and transparency as a good thing, like upholding the Constitution, but it also should work in private business too. Eron had several people saying” We’re on the Titanic and see lots of icebergs! BUt…no one in the company listened. So many citizens suffered from that.
I sometimes look at Congress and think, Who are these people who don’t seem to have even read the Bill of Rights?
I see the military having a chain of command, and yet, with things like rape, even with a conviction, someone in a higher level negates the conviction.
Watergate had journalists that asked lots of questions and of course Deep Throat. How amazing that he was in the FBI, but how could he have upheld his oath to the Constitution if he had not spoken? He had to hide to do it.
Soldiers exposed Abu Grahab and supported the Geneva Convention, in saying that following an order does not let a soldier escape responsibility for his or her actions.
If people don’t speak up then, how will bad conduct change?
What if these all have a chain of command on paper, but no one ever acts to follow up?Maybe we need a Department of Whistleblowing with clear steps so people have somewhere to go when they see wrong doing, otherwise, who are we and what does the nation really believe? Maybe that’s futile, though because Truth,Justice and the American way” does come from a comic book and Superman.
Tim N
This guy’s not much of a journalist when he writes stuff like this: “Coming from this perspective, it’s hard to see any justification for what Manning did, which is basically downloading everything he could find and giving it to a foreign national (Assange) . . . .” He downloaded everything he could find? Manning was actually careful about not revealing certain things. I know this. How does this clown not? Marshall comes off here as a complete toady. Not good. The bit about the “foreign national” is a deliberate attempt, I think, to make Assange sound like some creepy bad guy who’s out to get our beloved USA.
Tim N
Doing a little backsliding, eh, Mr. Tea Party-and-we’re-against-it-no-matter-who-does-it? I figured as much.
Tim N
Well, Leo, I’m not sure what “facts” you’re talking about, but Snowden’s act was needed, and welcome. Our rulers got caught trashing the 4th Amendment and lying to the public and looking generally like assholes; if Snowden is trying to get publicity and wealth (why? he knows he’ll be packed off to prison or worse–he’s not stupid) as you say, does that mean that somehow what he revealed is then okay? That because the messenger is flawed, the message is then utterly unimportant? Step back yourself and think about what you’re saying.
David Erdman
I’m going to attempt to rewrite one of this man’s horrendous observations to make it tolerable reading: “At the end of the day, for all its faults, the U.S. military, despite the Constitutional appropriations safety valve against standing armies, is the armed force of a political community I would like to identify with and in principle a form of government I generally support as wise and just…. Therefore I think that a military force that is actually defending the country and not surreptitiously undermining its political values requires some legitimate secrecy to operate in any reasonable way. So when someone on the inside breaks those rules, I tend initially to be agnostic about whether the apparent violation was sound or proper.” Sometimes I just can’t take this stuff.
Carlos Valdi
The leaks to the press are always necessary. The public need to know what’s going on. We haven’t seen yet any war that has been lost due to leaks to the press.
Bill Michtom
What Josh Marshall does seem to understand:
Nuremberg Principle IV states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.
This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders'”.
michtom
Typo “What Josh Marshall does seem to understand” should be “does NOT seem to understand.”
NewSBuoy
“You are a true believer. Blessings of the state. Blessings of the masses. Thou art a subject of the divine. Created in the image of man, by man, for man.” –THX1138
Geoff Dutton
So, Josh, even if the NSA is acting unconstitutionally and beyond it’s legislative purview, that’s OK because you believe in the legitimacy of the state? Isn’t that a tautology? Are you upset to learn they lied to Congress and us about what they are doing, or is that simply “necessary”?
Stephen
Remember when Marshall was supposed to be all semi-underground and edgy?
tet
No matter what crimes against humanity or acts of aggression that America repeatedly commits around the world, the pressitutes of the US “free press” (snicker) can always be counted on to cover up/deny these crimes, as well as attack any whistleblower who may report them.
After all, when America breaks international law or commits crimes, they aren’t really crimes. International law only applies to “enemy nations” and not to the United States or its many, many puppet states/allies.
j golden
for queen and country! NOT!
seems very related, whether to fight their foreign wars without question,
here’s a wonderful debate presentation by ben griffin, former british sas soldier, founder veterans for peace UK.
at oxford union society November 2013
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article36993.htm