Numerous media reports convincingly speculated that the DOJ's actions arise out of a 2012 AP article that contained leaked information about CIA activity in Yemen, and the DOJ is motivated, in part, by a desire to uncover the identity of AP's sources. That 2012 AP story revealed that the CIA was able to "thwart" a planned bombing by the al-Qaida "affiliate" in that country of a US jetliner. AP had learned of the CIA actions a week earlier but "agreed to White House and CIA requests not to publish it immediately because the sensitive intelligence operation was still under way." AP revealed little that the US government itself was not planning to reveal and that would not have been obvious once the plot was successfully thwarted, as it explained in its story: "once those concerns were allayed, the AP decided to disclose the plot Monday despite requests from the Obama administration to wait for an official announcement Tuesday."
While they seem to have no qualms about trashing press freedoms, the DOJ did see fit to send a "just so you know" letter to the AP, though only after the fact. Freedom of speech and due process may be a luxury we can't afford in the era of TERROR, but it's reassuring to know that in the New Normal there is still room for bureaucratic due diligence.
When it comes to the consolidation of unaccountable Executive power, the Bush and Obama administrations have really pushed the envelope, always under the excuse of Terrorism. "Terrorism". One of those words whose meaning has been stretched, twisted and abused to the point that it has lost almost all meaning. It still proves useful for propaganda purposes, though, as an emotional-control trigger word, like "Drugs" or "Hacking".
This kind of authoritarian abuse only happens in China or Iraq, right? "Those poor people, they must wish they were Free like us," we think to ourselves with a sad shake of our heads before clicking over to TMZ.
It seems the DOJ wants to know who might have leaked information to the AP. After all, the Obama administration has been merciless in its pursuit of whistle blowers and leakers. Except, that is, in the case of the "unnamed officials" who are sent to reliable contacts at the major new outlets to disseminate "leaked" information that is of political advantage to the White House. Sometimes that information may be ostensibly "classified", but hey, what's the big deal? Reporters love that kind of access, since it allows them to break big career-boosting stories. They advance their careers, the White House controls what information will inform the public narrative--everyone wins (except us)!
I wonder to what extent people are really aware of how far the lawlessness extends these days when it comes to spying conducted on Americans. I think many of us have a vague idea that the government and the private companies who collude with them have the capability to spy on us without much restraint or accountability. In response, many Americans seem to throw up their hands and decide not to care. They may have internalized such fallacies as "I'm not doing anything wrong, so this doesn't affect me", or "I don't want to speak up, I might get in trouble", or simply "I'm helpless, there's nothing I can do". This is exactly the kind of passive attitude those in power like their subjects to have. It keeps things running ever so smoothly. I may sound cynical, but as the DOJ's actions remind us, our government, like our financial system, is often run on a cynical basis. Words like "terror", "security", "patriotism" and "free markets" are little more than empty slogans serving to facilitate the exercise of concentrated political and economic power (including, of course, the power seize property, take away freedom, or to kill).
It seems to me that, when the people of a society become conscious of pervasive institutional cynicism, it's all too easy to adopt a cynical and pessimistic outlook of their own; to automatically disbelieve anything said by anyone in authority, and eventually to give up on civic engagement altogether. Unfortunately, this retreat from the civic sphere facilitates even greater corruption and lack of accountability among political and economic elites, especially when it occurs in a climate of widespread scientific-, economic- and historical illiteracy. A deeply ingrained attitude of "individualism" such that "everyone is out for themselves/I don't need any help from anyone" also serves to amplify the fragmentation of the civic space. And consider how often we are served up stories about respected figures in the media or politics whose reputations become tarnished by some scandal or other, often involving private sexual matters or other manufactured things. Eliot Spitzer. Helen Thomas. Bill Clinton. It's almost as though we are supposed to think to ourselves, "You just can't put too much stock in any of them, they're all corrupt somehow."
To the extent that the preceding paragraph is true, there would seem to be little incentive on the part of elites in our society to stand in the way of this process. Quite the opposite, in fact. Of course not all political leaders are entirely cynical in the performance of their duties; but it does often seem that the few good apples are bobbing in the barrel among a whole lot of rotten ones.
"What's the point of voting, everyone knows they're all crooks..."
"What do those scientists know? They're all in the pocket of Big Pharma, and science is just another religion, anyway..."
"Occupy Wall Street are a bunch of Hippies and Socialists! All I need is my AR-15 I bought at Walmart, so those jack-booted UN thugs better not come on my property!"
Having retreated from civic engagement, and likely having received most of their education by way of fictions disseminated through the mass media, people all too easily come to rely on priests, pundits, gurus and "angry male" father-surrogates to tell them what to think. Many of these "leaders" will seek to gain influence over their listeners by pandering to their fears and prejudices, thereby affording them access to the heightened state of outrage that they come to crave like a drug. A poor substitute for an engaged and informed citizenry, I think.
The War on Drugs was and continues to be the justifying framework for all kinds of rights abuses, usually administered in a racially and economically biased fashion. Rules are for keeping the little people in line, you see. Now that the cracks are finally starting to show in that bloated old edifice, here comes The War on Terror, or whatever it's being called now, just in the nick of time to takes Drugs' place. It's just the latest variation on a very old theme. The War on Drugs gave us those wonderful D.A.R.E. t-shirts. Maybe the War on Terror needs the same. Hmmm. Any suggestions?
No comments:
Post a Comment