VIDEO-Edward Snowden’s Bizarre Conception of Human Rights | The Rancid Honeytrap

In the wake of Kim Dotcom’s Moment of Truth, and the stern talking-to Snowden gave New Zealand Prime Minister John Key in Glenn Greenwald’s blog, let’s put aside, for today at least, the disquieting implications of timing NSA Leaks to increase political leverage for a wealthy crony. Instead, let’s reflect on Snowden’s latest patronizing and deeply wrong lesson in How Democracy Works. The following is from his portion of MOT, which happened today in New Zealand:

it’s collecting the communications of every man, woman, and child in the country of New Zealand, and you know, maybe, the people of New Zealand think that’s appropriate, maybe they think they want to sacrifice a certain measure of their liberty and say, it’s ok, if the government watches me. I’m concerned about terrorism; I’m concerned about foreign threats.  We can have people in every country make that decision because that’s what democracy is about. That’s what self-government is about, but that decision doesn’t belong to John Key or officials in the GCSB, making these decisions behind closed doors, without public debate, without public consent. That decision, belongs exclusively to the people of that country. [interrupted by applause] and I think it’s wrong of him, I think it’s wrong of any politician, to take away the people’s seat at the table of government…[later in the vid]  It doesn’t matter, necessarily, if there’s mass surveillance in New Zealand if the people say they want it…

Uh, no. Sorry Ed. This is not “what democracy is about”, or if it is, fuck democracy. Even if you concede the starry-eyed notion that the citizens of any country have a “seat at the table of government”,  such that they can ratify or reject what their spy agencies do, that does not rightfully empower an acquiescent majority to vote away basic human rights for everyone else, any more than white people can, in the spirit of “self-government”,  nullify voting rights for black people. This is some basic shit here, so it’s truly depressing that the audience, joined by Glenn Greenwald and Kim Dotcom, interrupted Snowden to applaud this nonsense.

This is among the things that is so bothersome about the Snowden spectacle. Alongside the now laborious variations on what is essentially the same story, there has been an endless stream of infantilizing, deeply conservative lessons in the proper way to blow whistles; on the necessity, and essential good intentions, of the Intelligence Community; and about this “debate” out of which we will ultimately decide whether we want basic human rights or not.

Lest people think I’m nitpicking, Snowden has expressed the political philosophy quoted above before. From an article about Snowden in the New York Times:

“So long as there’s broad support amongst a people, it can be argued there’s a level of legitimacy even to the most invasive and morally wrong program, as it was an informed and willing decision,” he said.

From the Guardian interview that introduced him:

The public needs to decide whether these policies are right or wrong.

Can we at least advance a grade? I mean if Snowden is going to continue to teach this lesson, can the class press him on what constitutes consent and also on the means by which we’re to express it?

Snowden’s political philosophy illustrates a problem with whistleblowers: they’re the kind of people who get into the sort of deep, dark places from which whistles customarily get blown. Ellsberg was deep inside the war bureaucracy after hanging out in Vietnam with his mentor, notorious psychopath Edward Lansdale and other thugs. Manning was an Army Intelligence Analyst in Iraq. John Kirakou had spent a decade in the CIA before blowing the whistle on torture. Snowden has spent his entire working life in various arms of the security apparatus. I appreciate their service to the truth, but with all due respect, these are not generally my kind of people. Unless they completely repudiate their past lives, some residue of what took them into empire’s belly is going to stick. This would be fine, were some not also inclined to hold forth on how the world should work, and their admirers exceptionally inclined to take them seriously because of their heroic deeds.

From what we’ve seen so far, Snowden’s only beef with the security apparatus is bulk collection conducted by a single agency. And even that’s ok if “the people”, through some unspecified means, “consent.” That makes the Snowden Affair a narrowly circumscribed debate. For over a year now Greenwald has belittled  anyone who objects when Snowden injects his retrograde doctrine into the ether along with his secrets. Greenwald has a weird doctrine of his own, to the effect that one can’t take issue with anything Snowden (or Greenwald) says until one has blown a whistle oneself.  This credentialing of opinion-having is preposterously stupid under any conditions, equivalent to insisting one must hold high office to criticize the president. In light of how conservative Snowden’s doctrine is, and the weightiness his stature gives it, attempts to stifle discussion are particularly pernicious.  As the leaks now morph into strategically timed campaign fodder in another country’s election, debate seems more warranted than ever.

Here’s the video. The remarks quoted above are around 1:09:24.

Related

Another Snowden News Story, Another Lesson in Proper Whistleblowing

Good Whistleblower/Bad Whistleblower

In Conclusion

About these ads
http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/edward-snowdens-bizarre-conception-of-human-rights/