U.S. leaders have long...
- Condemned China for spying and hacking our computers ... But the Snowden leaks show that America is doing the same thing -- on a much larger scale.
- Considered waterboarding to be a war crime and a form of torture, including when the Japanese did it in WWII (and see this). But when we did it, we insisted it was not torture.
- Proselytized other countries to follow free market capitalism. But we no longer follow free market capitalism in America. Instead, we have socialism for the rich and sink-or-swim capitalism for everyone else. Whether you call it crony capitalism, fascism, communist style socialism, kleptocracy, oligarchy or banana republicanism ... it ain't real capitalism.
- Labeled indiscriminate killing of civilians as terrorism. Yet the American military indiscriminately kills innocent civilians (and see
this), calling it "carefully targeted strikes." For example, when Al Qaeda, Syrians or others target people attending funerals of those killed -- or those attempting to rescue people who have been injured by previous attacks -- we rightfully label it terrorism. But the U.S. government does exactly the same thing (more), pretending that it is all okay.
- Lambasted those who do not follow a rule of law as tin-pot tyrants. But the rule of law has broken down in America, and we now have less access to justice than in many parts of the world.
- Blasted oppressive regimes which do not allow free speech, a free press and other liberties for their people ... But have discarded most of those same liberties in our homeland.
- Scolded tyrants who launch aggressive wars to grab power or plunder resources. But we ourselves have launched a series of wars for oil (and here) and gas.
- Said that those who support terrorists should be treated as terrorists. But the U.S. government has long supported terrorists for cynical political purposes.
- Sought to "spread democracy" around the world. But democracy is not being honored at home (more here and here).
- Said that we must stamp out terrorism. But we are doing the exact same things we accuse the terrorists of doing (or worse).
Can you spot a pattern of hypocrisy?
Indeed, the worse the acts by officials, the more they say we it must be covered up ...for "the good of the country."
For example, Elizabeth Goitein -- co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University School of Law's Brennan Center for Justice -- writes : (emphasis added)
"The government has begun to advance bold new justifications for classifying information that threaten to erode the principled limits that have existed -- in theory, if not always in practice -- for decades. The cost of these efforts, if they remain unchecked, may be the American public's ability to hold its government accountable.
"The government acknowledged that it possessed mug shots, videos depicting forcible extractions of al-Qahtani from his cell and videos documenting various euphemistically termed 'intelligence debriefings of al-Qahtani.' It argued that all of these images were properly classified and withheld from the public -- but not because they would reveal sensitive intelligence methods, the traditional justification for classifying such information. The government did not stake its case on this time-tested argument perhaps because the details of al-Qahtani's interrogations have been officially disclosed through agency reports and congressional hearings. Instead, the government argued that the images could be shielded from disclosure because the Taliban and associated forces have previously used photos of U.S. forces 'interacting with detainees' to garner support for attacks against those forces. Even more broadly, the government asserted that disclosure could aid in the 'recruitment and financing of extremists and insurgent groups.'
"The government's argument echoed a similar claim it made in a lawsuit earlier this year over a FOIA request for postmortem photographs of Osama bin Laden. A CIA official attested that these images could 'aid the production of anti-American propaganda,' noting that images of abuse at Abu Ghraib had been 'very effective' in helping Al-Qaeda to recruit supporters and raise funds. The appeals court did not address this argument, however, resting its decision on the narrower ground that these particular images were likely to incite immediate violence.
"The judge in al-Qahtani's case showed no such restraint. She held that the photos and videos were properly classified because 'it (is) both logical and plausible that extremists would utilize images of al-Qahtani ... to incite anti-American sentiment, to raise funds, and/or to recruit other loyalists.' When CCR pointed out that this result was speculative, the judge responded that 'it is bad law and bad policy to second-guess the predictive judgments made by the government's intelligence agencies.' In short, the government may classify information, not because that information reveals tactical or operational secrets but because the conduct it reveals could in theory anger existing enemies or create new ones.
"This approach is alarming in part because it has no limiting principle. The reasons why people choose to align themselves against the United States -- or any other country -- are nearly as numerous and varied as the people themselves. Our support for Israel is considered a basis for enmity by some. May the government classify the aid we provide to other nations? May it classify our trade policies on the basis that they may breed resentment among the populations of some countries, thus laying the groundwork for future hostile relations? May it classify our history of involvement in armed conflicts across the globe because that history may function as 'anti-American propaganda' in some quarters?
"Perhaps even more disturbing, this justification for secrecy will be strongest when the U.S. government's conduct most clearly violates accepted international norms. Evidence of human rights abuses against foreign nationals, for instance, is particularly likely to spark hostility abroad. Indeed, the judge in the al-Qahtani FOIA case noted that 'the written record of (al-Qahtani's) torture may make it all the more likely that enemy forces would use al-Qahtani's image against the United States' -- citing this fact as a reason to uphold classification.
"Using the impropriety of the government's actions as a justification for secrecy is the very antithesis of accountability. To prevent this very outcome, the executive order that governs classification forbids classifying a document to 'conceal violations of law' or to 'prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency.' However, a federal judge in 2008 interpreted this provision to allow classification of information revealing misconduct if there is a valid security reason for the nondisclosure. Together, this ruling and the judge's opinion in the al-Qahtani FOIA case eviscerate the executive order's prohibition: The government can always argue that it classified evidence of wrongdoing because the information could be used as 'anti-American propaganda' by our adversaries.
"Human rights advocates cannot rely on al-Qahtani to tell us what the photos and videos would reveal. The government asserts that his own knowledge of what occurred at Guantanamo -- knowledge he gained, not through privileged access to government documents but through his personal experience -- is a state secret. The words that Guantanamo detainees speak, once transcribed by their attorneys, are 'presumptively classified,' and the government determines which of those words, if any, may be released. Legally, the government may classify only information that is 'owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government.' Because the detainees are under the government's control, so, apparently, are the contents of their memory."
That's why high-level CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou was prosecuted for espionage after he blew the whistle on illegal CIA torture.*
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).