The Illiberal Reaction of the US Government to Snowden

  Image by Michael Fleshman
The revelations surrounding the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States and the Global Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) in the United Kingdom show the disturbing penetration into people’s private lives that two of the “most liberal” Governments claim the authority for. It’s been nearly three weeks since The Guardian published the information that they had received from ex-CIA employee, Edward Snowden, much in the same way as information previously provided by WikiLeaks. This case continues to demonstrate the immense difficulties and dangers presented to those few whistle-blowers.

Positively, in this case, Snowden was well aware of the consequences of his actions and prepared his line of escape, flying to Hong Kong and taking temporary refuge there. Yet, it is a dismal state of affairs that a man should seek political asylum from such a “liberal” nation for something that amounts to accountability of a tax-paid scheme. The mass surveillance programs used by the NSA were not voted for by the US citizenship and do not solely pervade the home country, but also reaches out across the world in their attempts to spy on people and their governments. Now, I’m not saying that the US Government is the worst for invading privacy, but the secret nature of these operations make them ten times worse. At least in the countries that are renowned for their lack of privacy, they are renowned for it; you know what you’re getting there. Within the US, it was a different story; it was another case of the US deciding that liberty needed to be sacrificed in the name of security, without consulting their citizens on the issue.

Snowden faces three charges from the US Government: theft of government property, unauthorised communication of national defence information, and wilful communication of classified intelligence with an unauthorised person. It is easy to take issue with each of these charges. Firstly, the US Government works for US citizens, is paid for by US citizens and is elected by US citizens, so everything it creates and receives should surely be the property of US citizens. Surely the charge here then is synonymous with “theft of public property” or “theft of civilian property”. But, Snowden is a US civilian, and he can’t steal from himself and he’s not inhibiting others’ access to it – in fact, he’s making it more accessible – so can this charge be applied. I’d argue not, but this is most certainly not a view that the US Government or, perhaps, the courts will agree on. The other two charges follow on from this point; the Government were not authorised to intrude on people’s lives by those who have the authorisation – the public – so how was Snowden supposed to get authorisation from the public to communicate the Government’s secret work? Now, you may disagree with the fact that this information and operation does indeed belong to the US citizens but there remains a case for Government accountability and a warrant for the public to know what their Government is doing in their name.

The continued reaction by the US Government only serves to deepen the frustration and anger with the administration. In their desperation to shut Snowden’s mouth, gag him and take him away to Guantanamo Bay, they are making outlandish demands on the international community; not to harbour him, or to let him travel, unless it is back to the US. With joy, many countries have ignored this command from the self-proclaimed President of the World, as Hong Kong, Russia, Ecuador and Cuba rally behind Snowden. The US’ hope that they could get away with unilaterally enforcing security in the world has failed. They are deepening the cut by continuing their hostility, secrets and heavy-handedness.

Let us join in with the international solidarity for Edward Snowden who has performed an incredible and brave action that he should most certainly not be persecuted for.

Race/Religion ≠ Extremism

Image from ITV News

In the wake of the attack in Woolwich yesterday, the onslaught of racist and Islamophobic attacks was only to be expected and we were not proved wrong. However, this is not something we should have to expect; it is highly illogical. Assuming someone is an extremist because of their religion or race is like assuming that the tail you just saw go round the corner of the road belonged to a cat. It is true; there do exist Muslim extremists, but not everyone who adheres to Islam is a terrorist. Islam, as has been repeated time and time again, is a peaceful religion and Muslim leaders across the UK and the World appealed for calm and expressed regret. Members of the religion shamed those who acted in the name of their religion.

We must remember, also, that terrorism is not inevitably linked to Black Muslim Jihadist Extremists. Anders Breivik, responsible for the attacks in Norway in 2011, defined as a White Christian. IRA terrorists defined as White Christian. Furthermore, terrorism isn’t linked to religion at all, and even if it were, the attacks on Mosques and the burnings of the Qur’an we have seen in response to terrorism attacks can be considered terrorism attacks themselves. If terrorism is religiously-motivated damaging actions, then terrorism happens more in your life than you would care to think. But it is not. Terrorism is an abominable crime where persons use terror (physical, psychological and technological) to disrupt people’s lives, instil fear and, usually, make a political statement. As far as I know, no religion in the world dictates its followers to do any such thing.

Hence, to then launch savage racist attacks on Mosques and Muslim communities is preposterous. It is utterly incomprehensible that people believe that all Muslims, or Blacks, are behind these attacks and feel proud of the damage that has been done. Immigration is the cause of all of our terrorist problems, of course (You forget that immigration includes any non-British person who becomes resident in the UK, not just those that come from the Middle-East, Africa or Asia, or are Black – the Americans count as immigrants too).

No, we are all living people, many of us distraught at yesterday’s news and wanting to ensure it does not happen again, regardless of our race and religion.

Race and Religion do not equal extremism.

Starvation vs. Detention

Image by Casmaron

The strongest prisoner rebellion at the United States’ detention camp only serves a reminder of the truly horrific side effects of the War on Terror. Having accepted that the prison is too much to bear, over one hundred of the one hundred and sixty six prisoners are taking part in a hunger strike with many now being force-fed. The strike has grown over the previous month to become the biggest prisoner protest since the detention camp’s establishment in 2002 and it is rightly capturing the attention of citizens across the globe.

It is far from the first time that we have heard of the alleged human rights abuses of prisoners at the camp. Yet, unfortunately, the fluid world easily disposes of the many stories that make our hearts ache; just think of how long it was until you forgot about Kony 2012 and you’ll realise that it won’t be long before this story disappears from the mainstream media and we return to our blissful lives, unaware of any further developments at the prison.

The protesting prisoners, whether intentionally or not, are highlighting the alleged injustices that are being committed; detention without trial, torture, poor living conditions and now being force-fed against their will. To these people, it would appear that a slow death is far better than living in the arrangements given to them; I don’t blame them. To be isolated from your life for over a decade without having been called guilty or innocent is a life of torture. Some have already committed or attempted to commit suicide.

But when the camp will close is unknown. Despite Obama’s 2009 inauguration pledge to close the camp within a year, four years on, the camp remains open, the prisoners remain detained and the politicians remain reluctant. Congress has voted again and again against closing it in. Yet, this week, Obama has been coerced into releasing a fresh statement of his determination to close the prison even though his power to do so is essentially non-existent without the backing of the two political houses.

Perhaps most shocking of all is the profile of the detainees. Too large a number were teenagers when captured and have spent their transformation into adults in the horrible conditions of the camp, held despite no court declaring them guilty. Barack Obama claims it “is inefficient, it hurts us in terms of our international standing, it lessens co-operation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts, it is a recruitment tool for extremists, it needs to be closed.” I call it inhumane, abusive and unjustified; it should never have been opened.

The Human Rights Act that we take for granted in the United Kingdom is unfortunately not global. The extradition agreements in place between the United Kingdom and the United States are luxurious compared to the forceful abduction of these terrorist suspects. Our prisoners don’t have the vote; these prisoners don’t have lives.

Mainstream media continues their focus on the War on Terror with the atrocities committed in Iraq and Afghanistan whilst Guantanamo Bay continues to be ignored. With little pressure on their backs, Guantanamo Bay will continue operating, the United States congress will ignore their consciences and the torture will not cease.

There’s a reason the camp is in Cuba and not on United States mainland.

Disaster Strikes Again

Image by The Bay Area’s News Station

This week has been ridden with disasters and terrorism - the Boston explosions and today's gunfight, the explosion at the Texas fertiliser plant, the ricin-laced letters sent to a US senator and Barack Obama, and the earthquake in Iran. Unfortunately, they are the harsh reminders of what a fearsome world we live in. We should not be subject to such worries yet, on a daily basis, many are; anti-terrorism legislation, constant presence of surveillance devices and security announcements on public transport serve to remind us.

This week’s Boston bombings are a horrible event for the hundreds of thousands citizens to endure. Twice this week, ordinary people have been warned to not leave their homes and been left stranded with a continual threat of death, disaster and destruction to their relatively peaceful lives. Causes for celebration became crime scenes and, as is far too common in the United States, a place where people go to learn, became a place where people should avoid for their own safety. It is not a situation that anybody should have to experience.

Hence, it is ludicrous that people should use such time to promote their political message. As support and solidarity was expressed from people across the world, others took the opportunity to attack the media for their coverage of the events in contrast to the coverage of other equally-important events. On Twitter, there were messages along the lines of “the media are forgetting that people die in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria everyday”. But this is a sad argument. Yes, it is true that people do die in these sorry situations, but there is no reason to devalue the deaths and injuries of those affected in other crises. 

Perspective: 3 killed in Boston but in Iraq last month, 271 people were killed in similar attacks m.aljazeera.com/story/20134156…
— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) April 18, 2013

Indeed, media coverage of events in war-struck zones is not as high as it should be and there are areas of the world that the media do prioritise over others. This is wrong and this is unfair, but the death of anyone is a highly important event. It is important to provide coverage to any distressing events, but to capitalise on the coverage of one act of terrorism to protest the lack of coverage of another is disrespectful.

Yes, media coverage of deaths in conflicts (Syria, Iraq) is disgracefully poor. But doesn't lessen the tragedy for injured/dead in Boston.
— Eytan Halon (@eytanhalon) April 15, 2013

The world is a truly dangerous place in which to live. Damage is done to individuals and their environment almost constantly, and the right coverage is never given, and equal coverage will never be possible. We are experiencing a period of complete upheaval of our beliefs and faiths and this is not something that should be ignored. We should not tolerate any threat to life, but to use one horrific event to protest about another is simply petty. Save it for another day.

The Discourse of Terrorism

Image by 9/11 photos

“Terrorist” and “terrorism” are politically motivated words, interchangeable with “clinically insane”, “religious extremists” or “(ideology)-ists”. The Northern Irish Loyalists are causing bomb alerts, and acting in violent manners, and have for many decades, in order to fight against any attempt any change to their nation. Yet, they are called “paramilitaries”, when their aim can, sometimes, to create mass destruction and terror, the very characteristics that make a definition of a terrorist. By definition, Guy Fawkes was a terrorist. By definition, Breivik was a terrorist. By definition, any of those high school and university massacrists in the United States are terrorists. Note, however, how the media changes their portrayal of these people.

Breivik, a far-right Christian, initiated his attacks against the Norweigan Labour Party in order to bring attention to his views of islamophobia, Zionism, anti-feminism, anti-multiculturalism and apartheid. He killed 77 people via bombs and shootings to further his political causes. He stood in court and pleaded guilty. He committed acts of terrorism and whilst the media may use the word terrorism, it appears sly and almost invisible amongst the other adjectives on the page; the media called him a “mass killer” with an “extremist ideology” who committed “acts of political violence” (reported the BBC), while the Telegraph called him a Christian fundamentalist with certain “political traits”. The latter had no mention of “terrorism”.

Meanwhile, the shootings at a Batman screening in the United States earlier this year were carried out by a “former neuroscience student” turned “gunman”, reported the BBC. Don’t the media make him sound a much more innocent person than he was? In fact, some media reports made it sound as if we should pity him – after all, he was probably suffering from some form of mental illness and we shouldn’t take it personally.

In contrast, no member of society would argue that Al-Qaeda are not terrorists. So what makes them different? It seems improbable that we could name anyone of a western nation as a terrorist; after all, their underlying ideals are right – perhaps they have the right religion – they have simply gone insane. Maybe they didn’t receive enough support from their country. Poor them. They were driven to this by, most likely, a chain of distressing events in their life.

Al-Qaeda – how dare they? Those religious extremists will stop at nothing to destroy our civilised western nations. Somebody needs to teach them a lesson – perhaps we should send in our armies for 10 years – maybe longer? That should sort it. We’ll teach them what a good nation looks like. Say hello to democracy via an authoritarian and coercive means – that’s what democracy is all about. The west is best.

Something is wrong here. Language is overly important, and really shapes how we think. The more the media and our leaders associate one word with one image, the more we are to reject any alternative, yet true, images. As Wittgenstein said, “the limits of my language mean the limits of my world” after all.