Friday, June 28, 2013

Charlie Rose interviews Guardian editors Alan Rusbridger & Janine Gibson

The methodology pursued by the mainstream American press on the matter of the NSA's global data mining operations has been to question the nature, psychology, and patriotism of  Edward Snowden, the leaker. Understandably, rather than discussing an abstract, unconstitutional and criminal operation that has Orwellian dynamics, those who manufacture consent would much rather the public consider irrelevant personal trivia. Similarly, reports in the American press about Julian Assange/WikiLeaks and Pvt. Bradley Manning typically have misidentified the actual topic at hand; that being deliberate government lies and state criminality conducted against their own citizens and foreigners.  So instead of zeroing in on the copious deceptions of the state, we are left with banal inquiries into the legitimacy of the data breaches.

The interview above with the Guardian's Alan Rusbridger and Janine Gibson is an example of this infuriating process.  While I think Charlie Rose has produced some wonderful and thoughtful interviews on many subjects, his line of inquiry into the motivation of Mr. Snowden belies deference to state propaganda.  The Guardian editors clearly articulate that there has been no evidence by either the US government or any other sources that these leaks have been harmful to anyone or the US government.

Is it really too much to have television journalists ask questions like:
  • Why has this program been running, when the public clearly said it was unacceptable back in the middle of the decade of the zeroes?
  • Why are members of the US Congress so woefully ignorant of the scope of these programs?
  • What penalties shall be administered upon those members of the military and government, who have been lying to the public about these programs?
  • Under what authority does the US government have in stealing all the private and personnel data of non-citizens not located within the United States? 
  • Why does the US government continually prevent these programs from being adjudicated and subject to constitutional review, if they deem them truly legal?
  • Why doesn't the press call those in government who lie to the public and engage in illegal behavior traitors?
  • Why are private corporations used to such an extent in gathering and processing clandestine information?
  • Why does the current US government engage in prosecuting and penalizing whistleblowers to the extent that they do?
As others have said on this matter, the only reason a universal monitoring program is in place is that the state believes its true enemy is its own citizens.

No comments:

Post a Comment