Another thought provoking piece by Chris Hedges.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/18/19, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Manning and the New Inquisition
Mr. Fish
The U.S. government, determined to extradite and try Julian Assange for
espionage, must find a way to separate what Assange and WikiLeaks did in
publishing classified material leaked to them by Chelsea Manning from what
The New York Times and The Washington Post did in publishing the same
material. There is no federal law that prohibits the press from publishing
government secrets. It is a crime, however, to steal them. The long
persecution of Manning, who on March 8 was sent back to jail for refusing
to
testify before a grand jury, is about this issue.
If Manning, a former Army private, admits she was instructed by WikiLeaks
and Assange in how to obtain and pass on the leaked material, which exposed
U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the publisher could be tried for
the theft of classified documents. The prosecution of government
whistleblowers was accelerated during the Obama administration, which under
the Espionage Act charged eight people with leaking to the media—Thomas
Drake, Shamai Leibowitz, Stephen Kim, Manning, Donald Sachtleben, Jeffrey
Sterling, John Kiriakou and Edward Snowden. By the time Donald Trump took
office, the vital connection between investigative reporters and sources
inside the government had been severed.
Manning, who worked as an Army intelligence analyst in Iraq in 2009,
provided WikiLeaks with over 500,000 documents copied from military and
government archives, including the “Collateral Murder” video footage of an
Army helicopter gunning down a group of unarmed civilians that included two
Reuters journalists. She was arrested in 2010 and found guilty in 2013.
The campaign to criminalize whistleblowing has, by default, left the
exposure of government lies, fraud and crimes to those who have the skills
or access, as Manning and Edward Snowden did, needed to hack into or
otherwise obtain government electronic documents. This is why hackers, and
those who publish their material such as Assange and WikiLeaks, are being
relentlessly persecuted. The goal of the corporate state is to shroud in
total secrecy the inner workings of power, especially those activities that
violate the law. Movement toward this goal is very far advanced. The
failure
of news organizations such as The New York Times and The Washington Post to
vigorously defend Manning and Assange will soon come back to haunt them.
The
corporate state hardly intends to stop with Manning and Assange. The target
is the press itself.
“If we actually had a functioning judicial system and an independent press,
Manning would have been a witness for the prosecution against the war
criminals he helped expose,” I wrote after I and Cornel West attended
Manning’s sentencing in 2013 at Fort Meade, Md. “He would not have been
headed, bound and shackled, to the military prison at Fort Leavenworth,
Kan.
His testimony would have ensured that those who waged illegal war,
tortured,
lied to the public, monitored our electronic communications and ordered the
gunning down of unarmed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen
were sent to Fort Leavenworth’s cells. If we had a functioning judiciary
the
hundreds of rapes and murders Manning made public would be investigated.
The
officials and generals who lied to us when they said they did not keep a
record of civilian dead would be held to account for the 109,032 ‘violent
deaths’ in Iraq, including those of 66,081 civilians. The pilots in the
‘Collateral Murder’ video, which showed the helicopter attack on unarmed
civilians in Baghdad that left nine dead, including two Reuters
journalists,
would be court-martialed.”
Manning has always insisted her leak of the classified documents and videos
was prompted solely by her own conscience. She has refused to implicate
Assange and WikiLeaks. Earlier this month, although President Barack Obama
in 2010 commuted her 35-year sentence after she served seven years, she was
jailed again for refusing to answer questions before a secret grand jury
investigating Assange and WikiLeaks. While incarcerated previously, Manning
endured long periods in solitary confinement and torture. She twice
attempted to commit suicide in prison. She knows from painful experience
the
myriad ways the system can break you psychologically and physically. And
yet
she has steadfastly refused to give false testimony in court on behalf of
the government. Her moral probity and courage are perhaps the last thin
line
of defense for WikiLeaks and its publisher, whose health is deteriorating
in
the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he has been holed up since 2012.
Manning—who was known as Bradley Manning in the Army—has undergone gender
reassignment surgery and needs frequent medical monitoring. Judge Claude M.
Hilton, however, dismissed a request by her lawyers for house arrest.
Manning was granted immunity by prosecutors of the Eastern District of
Virginia, and because she had immunity she was unable to invoke the Fifth
Amendment protection against self-incrimination or to have her attorney
present. The judge found her in contempt of court and sent her to a federal
facility in Alexandria, Va. Hilton, who has long been a handmaiden of the
military and intelligence organs, has vowed to hold her there until she
agrees to testify or until the grand jury is disbanded, which could mean 18
months or longer behind bars. Manning said any questioning of her by the
grand jury is a violation of First, Fourth and Sixth Amendment rights. She
said she will not cooperate with the grand jury.
“All of the substantive questions pertained to my disclosures of
information
to the public in 2010—answers I provided in extensive testimony, during my
court-martial in 2013,” she said on March 7, the day before she was jailed.
“I will not comply with this, or any other grand jury,” she said later in a
statement issued from jail. “Imprisoning me for my refusal to answer
questions only subjects me to additional punishment for my
repeatedly-stated
ethical objections to the grand jury system.”
“The grand jury’s questions pertained to disclosures from nine years ago
and
took place six years after an in-depth computer forensics case, in which I
testified for almost a full day about these events,” she went on. “I stand
by my previous public testimony.”
Manning reiterated that she “will not participate in a secret process that
I
morally object to, particularly one that has been historically used to
entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech.”
The New York Times, Britain’s The Guardian, Spain’s El País, France’s Le
Monde and Germany’s Der Spiegel all published the WikiLeaks files provided
by Manning. How could they not? WikiLeaks had shamed them into doing their
jobs. But once they took the incendiary material from Manning and Assange,
these organizations callously abandoned them. No doubt they assume that by
joining the lynch mob organized against the two they will be spared. They
must not read history. What is taking place is a series of incremental
steps
designed to strangle the press and cement into place an American version of
China’s totalitarian capitalism. President Trump has often proclaimed his
deep animus for news outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington
Post, referring to them as the “enemy of the people.” Any legal tools given
to the administration to shut down these news outlets, or at least hollow
them of content, will be used eagerly by the president.
The prosecutions of government whistleblowers under the Espionage Act,
warrantless wiretapping, monitoring of the communications of Americans and
the persecution of Manning and Assange are parts of an interconnected
process of preventing any of us from peering at the machinery of state. The
resulting secrecy is vital for totalitarian systems. The global elites,
their ruling ideology of neoliberalism exposed as a con, have had enough of
us examining and questioning their abuses, pillage and crimes.
“The national security state can try to reduce our activity,” Assange told
me during one of our meetings at the embassy in London. “It can close the
neck a little tighter. But there are three forces working against it. The
first is the massive surveillance required to protect its communication,
including the nature of its cryptology. In the military everyone now has an
ID card with a little chip on it, so you know who is logged into what. A
system this vast is prone to deterioration and breakdown. Secondly, there
is
widespread knowledge not only of how to leak, but how to leak and not be
caught, how to even avoid suspicion that you are leaking. The military and
intelligence systems collect a vast amount of information and move it
around
quickly. This means you can also get it out quickly. There will always be
people within the system that have an agenda to defy authority. Yes, there
are general deterrents, such as when the DOJ [Department of Justice]
prosecutes and indicts someone. They can discourage people from engaging in
this behavior. But the opposite is also true. When that behavior is
successful it is an example. It encourages others. This is why they want to
eliminate all who provide this encouragement.”
“The medium-term perspective is very good,” he said. “The education of
young
people takes place on the internet. You cannot hire anyone who is skilled
in
any field without them having been educated on the internet. The military,
the CIA, the FBI, all have no choice but to hire from a pool of people that
have been educated on the internet. This means they are hiring our moles in
vast numbers. And this means that these organizations will see their
capacity to control information diminish as more and more people with our
values are hired.”
The long term is not so sanguine. Assange, along with three
co-authors—Jacob
Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn and Jérémie Zimmermann—wrote a book titled
“Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet.” It warns that we are
“galloping into a new transnational dystopia.” The internet has become not
only a tool to educate, they write, but the mechanism to create a
“Postmodern Surveillance Dystopia” that is supranational and dominated by
global corporate power. This new system of global control will “merge
global
humanity into one giant grid of mass surveillance and mass control.”
“All communications will be surveilled, permanently recorded, permanently
tracked, each individual in all their interactions permanently identified
as
that individual to this new Establishment, from birth to death,” Assange
says in the book. “I think that can only produce a very controlling
atmosphere.”
“How can a normal person be free within that system?” he asks. “[He or she]
simply cannot, it’s impossible.”
It is only through encryption that we can protect ourselves, the authors
argue, and only by breaking through the digital walls of secrecy erected by
the power elite can we expose the abuses of power. But ultimately, they
say,
as the tools of the state become more sophisticated, even these mechanisms
of opposition will be difficult and perhaps impossible to use.
“The internet, our greatest tool of emancipation,” Assange writes, “has
been
transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have
ever seen.”
That is where we are headed. A few resist. Assange and Manning are two.
Those who stand by passively as they are persecuted will be next.
Chris Hedges
Columnist
Chris Hedges is a Truthdig columnist, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist,
a
New York Times best-selling author, a professor in the college degree
program offered to New Jersey state prisoners by Rutgers…
Chris Hedges
