by B. R. GOWANI
Edward Snowden (right) with NBC TV’s Brian Williams SOURCE/Newsweek
Kerry
John Kerry, the US Secretary of State, is a contemptible character and so nothing different was to be expected when he appeared on NBC to talk about Snowden (and the US role and exit from Afghanistan). Of all the crap he expelled, the following one deserves careful scrutiny.
“The fact is if he [Snowden] cares so much about America and he believes in America, he should trust in the American system of justice.”
A US soldier Chelsea Manning (formerly Manning Bradley) ended up in a 6 feet by 12 feet cell for 23 hours of the day, and that also, many a times, in a naked condition! She’s still rotting in that cell. And for what? For leaking classified documents, including the Iraq and Afghan war logs. Hers was a brave effort to try to stop the US from indulging in unwanted destruction of others, and in turn getting destroyed itself – albeit slowly. Is this the justice system Kerry talking about?
Kerry alone is not to be blamed because the interviewer didn’t come up with a follow up question – reminding Kerry about all those people who have been denied justice. But then the reporter can lose a job for diverting from the established framework of questioning permitted in the corporate owned news media – because the corporate and government interests are usually the same.
Kerry also gave an example of “patriot” Daniel Ellsberg (who had released the Pentagon Papers) and “others who stood and went to court system of America and made their case.”
But Kerry fails to mention the fact that the US government hadn’t in the 1970’s acquired the monstrous powers which it now has and so there were chances of some justice for a whistleblower.
But then again, Daniel Ellseberg doesn’t trust Kerry and has written in the Guardian that Snowden will not get a fair trial in the US.
In an interview with Chuck Todd of the MSNBC, Kerry called Snowden a “coward” and “traitor.”
One wonders who is coward? Snowden, who, for the greater good of his country, risked his life, had to leave his own country, and can’t see his family, or is it Kerry who in the late 1960s went to Vietnam as a member of the US armed forces and killed Vietnamese. The same Kerry, upon his return to the US joined the antiwar protests.
If Kerry has already passed a judgment that Snowden is a “traitor,” what chance Snowden stands of getting a fair trial. Traitor is one who does harm to her/his own country. In most of the cases, it is the ruling class that is the most traitorous. Kerry and the ruling class he belongs to is no different and has done immense harm to the US.
Although Snowden is missing his family, friends, and home, he should absolutely avoid entering the US unless and until there is a written and a legally binding guarantee of total amnesty. The United States is a habitual promise and law breaker.
Not only Snowden but even journalists such as Glenn Greenwald, who got leaked material from Snowden and had it published, is under attack from other journalists.
Kerry told CBS News:
“This is a man who has betrayed his country.” “He should man up and come back to the U.S.”
It is Kerry who should man up and talk about his anti war protests after coming back from Vietnam, which, as a member of the ruling class, he is scared to talk about. Dave Lindorff puts it beautifully:
“Having John Kerry tell someone like Snowden to “man up” is the moral equivalent of Richard Nixon telling someone to follow his conscience or Bernie Madoff telling a homeless beggar to get an honest job.”
NBS interview
The NBC interview of Edward Snowden conducted by Brian Williams gave Snowden a chance to present his case. However, two things were wrong with that NBC special: The title of the interview, “Inside the Mind of Edward Snowden” and Williams’ introduction at the beginning, “He is routinely called the most wanted man in the world.”
How many times has Williams and other anchorpersons from the dominant media tried to prod inside the minds of US presidents and their associates who are the real criminals. About the most wanted man, except the blood hounds from the US government, no one else is looking for Snowden. On the contrary, many world leaders must be grateful to Snowden for the leaks because it gives a clear picture of the global reach of the US intelligence network.
MSNBC poll
MSNBC conducted a poll about Snowden. It’s asking people about their views on Snowden which they may have formed after watching or reading the news coverage. Now what is one expected to say after watching or reading the dominant media’s or President Barack Obama’s or Speaker John Boehner’s lies about Snowden? Of course, most of the people will get swayed. The following three questions were asked.
1. How would you rate your feelings toward Edward Snowden — (ROTATE TOP TO BOTTOM, BOTTOM TO TOP) very positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative — or — very negative? If you don’t know the name, please just say so and we’ll move on.
2. Have you seen, read, or heard news coverage about a former government contractor named Edward Snowden who released information about how government agencies collect intelligence data to media outlets?
(IF YES, THEN ASK) And, have you seen, read, or heard a lot or just some about this?
3. When it comes to Edward Snowden, the former government contractor who released information about how government agencies collect intelligence data to media outlets, do you support or oppose what he did? If you do not have an opinion either way, please just say so.
More youngsters came out in support of Snowden than the older people. But the favorable percentage one could have expected is not there because of the questions framed and also the lies of the ruling class.
If the pollsters’ goal is to get accurate information about people’s feelings, then it is important to frame questions in such a manner that it provides a clear and honest picture to the people being polled. Let’s say in October 2001 after the terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC, if the people were asked the following question:
“Most of the attackers were Saudis with support from the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. If we negotiate with the Pakistani government, who has good influence over the Talibans, there are chances that we might be able to get hold of the masterminds behind this tragedy. On the other hand, if we attack Afghanistan, there are some chances that we may succeed in catching the central culprits – but there will be a great loss of innocent lives and a heavy destruction. Also, there will be a long term enmity between the people of both countries. What would you prefer: Negotiations or war?”
With the above kind of information, many people in the US would have preferred a peaceful solution.
B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com