Matching Grant Challenge
BruceMatch
We’re slowly making headway in our annual fund drive, but not nearly fast enough to meet our make-or-break goal.  On the bright side, a generous CounterPuncher has stepped forward with a pledge to match every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, he will give CounterPunch a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate.
 unnamed

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

Alexis, Snowden and the Navy Yard Shootings

Fallacies on Whistleblowing

by BINOY KAMPMARK

It did not take long for the critics to pounce on the shootings at the U.S. Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. on September 16 as the product not so much of a disturbed mind but one who had not been sufficiently policed and excluded. 13 people were left dead, one of them being the assailant himself.

According to his employer, The Experts Inc. , Aaron Alexis had a “secret clearance”. The link in this chain is that the company in question is a subcontractor assisting Hewlett-Packard service the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet.

Alexis had been working as a computer contractor, though that also entitled him to have access to a card granting him entry into the Navy Yard and various other facilities. Such are the joys of the privatised military state that Alexis could move about at will with his Common Access Card (CAC). CEO of The Experts, Inc. Thomas Hoshko has apparently substantiated the claim.

Speculation arises that Alexis entered the base on Monday using another individual’s identification card, though reports on this are sketchy at best. Once in the compound, he headed for Building 197, a monster of a structure housing the headquarters of the Navy Sea Systems Command. Heavily armed – a handgun, a shotgun and an AR-15 assault rifle – Alexis apparently made his way to the fourth floor. Then came the carnage, the blood, the bodies.

What is perturbing in the narrative here is that pro-security tendency to conflate security “breaches”. Of interest here is how, incongruously, Snowden has appeared in the same company as the deceased gunman. Greta Van Susteren, in a Fox News delight with Sean Hannity, could not resist the temptation of likening one deviant contractor with the other. “Snowden didn’t have much of a security check as a government contractor, what in the world are we doing with these government contractors that seem to have so much access to information and abilities?”

Dennis M. Crowley of CNS News draws a parallel as well. “Edward Snowden, an IT specialist, and former CIA- and NSA-employee, is accused of leaking information from several top-secret U.S and British-government intelligence programs.” Then, the search for the comparative voice – and inculpating suggestion. “Both Snowden and Alexis were employed in the IT field through private contractors and were able to get federal government security clearances. Both men also had never graduated from college.”

The comparison between Alexis and Snowden is tantamount to finding similarities between apples and oranges, though the security experts tend to see broader descriptions of rotten fruit. Snowden exposes the vestiges of a corrupt surveillance regime with global access; Alexis allegedly goes on a rampage for motives as yet unknown. Are these people different? No, screams the Fox News crew with its Hurrah Harries.

John Hamre, former deputy of defence and chairman of the Defence Policy Board is in a similar boat to Hannity and company, seeing complete, unvaried similarities. For The Washington Post (Sep 19), Hamre would write that, “The murders by Alexis and the betrayal by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden both underscore a problem with our security clearance process.”

Naturally, is it imperative that the enemy of suspicion is painted with a damning brush, with loud colour schemes suggesting impropriety and bad behaviour. The Big Bad Wolf here is painted as Alexis, though one is left in graver doubts who the bigger one is. He had a past littered with “misconduct issues”, for which he had been honourably discharged in 2011. He was arrested in 2010 and charged with firing a bullet through the floor of his upstairs neighbour’s apartment in Forth Worth, Texas. In 2004, he was charged with firing three shots into a car parked near his Seattle house in what has been described as a “blackout”.

And so, we have the fallacious comparison, a “stand-off” in symbolic imagery between the maligned whistleblower (Snowden, one who did not go the full yards with university, with “discrepancies on his resume”) and Alexis, allegedly responsible for shooting twelve people dead.

Such suggestions are not merely the stuff of idiocy, but indicate a state of pervasive blindness. If there is anything correct at all in the assertions of the Fox Network, it is that the privatised military state is the problem, with its diffuse connections spanning civilian and military operations. It takes a Snowden to remind the establishment of that particular condition: the privatised military state has been gnawing away at our freedoms since the arms complex got into bed with the constitution.

The first instinct of Snowden’s detractors, as with those against other whistleblowers, is to discredit the activity as the outcome of a diseased mind, one warped by bad graces and insufficient understanding. How could you do this to your country? Alexis, after all, supposedly killed people in haze of lunacy, a suspension of sanity. Truth be known, it is the very exposure of that disease that warrants the extreme reaction.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  He ran for the Australian Senate with Julian Assange for the WikiLeaks Party.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com