Stasi-of-America hait autant Greenwald que Snowden

Ouverture libre


Un commentaire est associé à cet article. Vous pouvez le consulter et réagir à votre tour.



Stasi-of-America hait autant Greenwald que Snowden

Un élément important dans l’affaire PRISM/NSA/Snowden, certainement pour une affaire de cette importance, c’est la tendance à l’implication du journaliste qui a servi de correspondant à Snowden pour la diffusion de ses révélations. C’est une tendance nouvelle, assimilant le journaliste à ses sources jusqu’au niveau pénal. Cela implique une nouvelle définition qu’on pourrait qualifier d’officielle du journaliste, et l’on pourrait estimer selon nos conceptions que cette définition est absolument suggérée par le Système... Définition-Système, donc : pour mériter de l’être avec toutes les protections qui s’attachent à la profession, un journaliste doit non seulement appartenir à la presse-Système par le biais du média où il publie, mais il doit se conformer strictement aux consignes du Système, comme l’on pointe en arrivant à son travail, et entretenir quotidiennement sa capacité-Système d’autocensure et d’autocritique.

Cette nouvelle situation est largement substantivée par une intervention du député Peter King, républicain de New York, qui préside la commission sur le renseignement à la Chambre des Représentants. King demande l'inculpation de Greenwald au même titre que celle de Snowden. (King, avec son alter ego du Sénat, la sénatrice démocrate Dianne Feinstein, préside une commission à l’accès extrêmement contrôlé et limité à ses membres qui sont tenus par des règles draconiennes de confidentialité dépendant des services qui les informent [CIA, NSA, etc.]. Les autres membres du Congrès, sauf les chefs de partis, sont tenus complètement à l’écart des informations que reçoivent ces commissions [on s’en aperçoit actuellement : voir le 13 juin 2013, le cas du député Pascrell]. Cela limite à 1% des membres du Congrès une information effective des activités de renseignement, de surveillance, d’espionnage, etc. On peut dire que ces 1% forment aujourd’hui une caste à part au sein du Congrès, et jouent au nom du Système dans sa composante Stasi-of-America, un rôle de surveillance et de contrôle de la conformité de la conduite de leurs collègues, et de leur état de sous-information pour ce qui concerne Stasi-of-America. Ainsi et très symboliquement, existe également au Congrès le rapport 99%-1% caractérisant la situation générale de fortune et du rapport élite-Système versus population aux USA.)

Le site du 13 juin 2013 publie un article sur cette attaque du député King contre Greenwald.

«Representative Peter King of New York said late Tuesday that he supports prosecution of journalist Glenn Greenwald who published material leaked last week by Edward Snowden. The leaks exposed two secret and unconstitutional programs run by the Pentagon-based National Security Agency that collect the electronic communications of tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of millions more around the world.

»King, a Republican, said in an interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper: “If they [journalists publishing leaked material] willingly knew that this was classified information, I think actions should be taken, especially on something of this magnitude.” Asked directly whether he would support punishment of journalists, King replied, “The answer is yes, to your question.”

»On Wednesday, King was asked whether he thought Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman, who has also been in contact with Snowden and has written on the leaks, should be prosecuted. “I’m talking about Greenwald,” King told Fox News, claiming without any foundation that the journalist was threatening to release the names of CIA agents. “The last time that was done in this country, we saw a CIA station chief murdered in Greece.” King added that the leaks released so far are “putting American lives at risk and this is clearly done to hurt Americans.” [...]

»...King's remarks signal the intensification of the witch-hunt against whistleblower Snowden to a broader attack on press freedom and democratic rights. They also come only a month after revelations that the Justice Department alleged that Fox News journalist James Rosen had engaged in criminal activity as part of newsgathering activities in obtaining classified documents from a government source. These allegations were used to secure an order from a judge to seize Rosen’s emails.»

Dans sa chronique du 12 juin 2013 sur, Justin Raimondo alimente indirectement l’appréciation de cette situation nouvelle qui est d’attaquer le journaliste avec la même vindicte que sa source, d’attaquer “le messager“ autant que l’auteur du “message”. Il développe le cas de Greenwald à partir d’une chronique ou l’autre qui a mis en cause ce journaliste, – qualifié par le New York Times de «blogger of a British website» (le Guardian devenu British website)... Raimondo ne le fait pas sans une certaine ironie jubilatoire, compte tenu du cadre-Système général développant une campagne-turbo à la gloire des homosexuels. Greenwald lui-même est gay, – et un journaliste dissident, et de quelle dissidence, qui s’avère être gay, est par conséquent implicitement fustigé pour être gay également, – et la situation de gay devient alors la cause de l’opprobre de type petit-bourgeois qu’on connaît bien, que le Système reprend à son compte. (Comme pour le soldat Manning,bien entendu.) Raimondo, gay lui-même et farouchement dissident, peut donc exercer toute sa verve et mettre la campagne-Système de “libération des gays” au niveau qui est le sien, celui du ramassage des ordures...

«The funniest one – although this is admittedly a hard choice to make – has got to be this piece by one William Foxton, a rather pathetic Tory “moderate” who claims to care about “civil liberties, Internet freedom, that sort of thing.” So you see he’s one of us – but he’s “never liked Glenn Greenwald,” the journalist who broke the story. Well, why not? Greenwald, after all, has been one of the staunchest advocates of those very causes, almost single-handedly responsible for calling foul on the foulest attack on civil liberties since the era of J. Edgar Hoover.

»Foxton is coy on this point: he says maybe it’s because Greenwald’s pieces are “enormous,” not to mention “turgid” – although this doesn’t appear to deter Glenn’s numerous readers. Oh, but you see, they’re a “cult” – although he doesn’t let us in on the secret ceremonies, complete with Satanic altars and Druidic incantations, that no doubt figure prominently in the activities of the Greenwaldian sect. So then how do Greenwald’s many admirers – myself among them – qualify as cult members? Well, you see: “The last time I criticized him I got a barrage of online abuse – including memorably a 24-slide PowerPoint presentation explaining how the American security services had ‘got’ to me, and how Greenwald was their number-one target. Maybe, as his adoring public have suggested, I’m either a homophobe or in the pay of the CIA. Perhaps both.”

»The poor baby: his feelings were hurt! But really he should be flattered that anyone is reading him at all, never mind taking the trouble to create an entire Power Point presentation proving him wrong. Of course, being a homophobe is a crime in Britain: you can be jailed for calling somebody a faggot and so discretion is mandatory. It’s enough to simply mention somebody’s sexuality in a seemingly casual aside. The dogs can hear the whistle: he’s a poofter. Wink, wink.

»Or “maybe I’m jealous of the success he’s had, of the stories he’s broken,” an admission that makes Foxton seem like a jolly good bloke, really an honest and essentially nice guy – an impression easily dispelled in the next sentence, where he takes the opportunity to repeat the haughty disdain of the New York Times profile of Greenwald describing him as a “blogger” for “a British web site.”

»So, you see, Greenwald is just a gay blogger, not really a journalist – that’s the core of the message we’re supposed to be getting. He’s just a blogger – oh, and did I mention’s he’s gay – he’s not legitimate, he’s a deviant. No, it’s not jealousy, says Foxton, not really: “What I think is more likely is I dislike him because he has built a huge platform with opinion writing, and now he’s blurring the line between opinion pieces and straight reporting. That huge platform he’s built means sources come forward to him from his vast base of followers, with real hard news stories, and then he insists on reporting them.”

»The link Foxton thinks somehow proves his point takes us to a tweet in which Greenwald admits to having opinions. What’s difficult for Foxton and his fellow Praetorians to finesse, however, is that the bare facts reported by Greenwald and ably articulated by Snowden condemn the regime in and of themselves. That the whole spying operation was done in secret, and on such a grand scale – with DNI James Clapper all the while denying it to Sen. Ron Wyden’s face – is all we need to know. Whatever opinions Greenwald has on the matter don’t enter into it.

»The only way to get over this enormous disadvantage is to focus on the messengers – Greenwald and Snowden – in hopes everyone will forget about the revelations and their import. So we are told Glenn Greenwald is gay, he’s just a blogger for crissakes, and – worse! – he has opinions, and so can’t really qualify as a bona fide journalist in Foxton’s league. He’s a gay blogger with opinions who insists on reporting “real hard news stories.” Imagine! Well well, my good friend, “That could be a serious problem in my opinion, because his own self-described status as an ‘activist’ and an ‘advocate’could cast doubt on the accuracy of that reporting.”

»Why, the bloke doesn’t know fact from opinion: “He’s an unabashed polemicist.” Which is why, Foxton says, “I often feel when reading a Greenwald article there are valid explanations for some of the things he’s reporting on, but that’s often hidden behind his apparent loathing of the West in general, and the US in particular. For him, no state surveillance can ever be justified – and almost anything he gets hold of can be turned to make America look like a vicious Police state.”

»A gay blogger with opinions who loathes the West, and especially the US, is clearly someone not to be trusted: there’s got to be something he’s not telling us. He isn’t reporting all the perfectly good reasons why the US government should have access to the details of every phone call ever made, and the contents of my email, all of it done in the dark without public knowledge or debate. Clearly Greenwald loathes the West and its traditions of the rule of law, democratic discourse, and individual rights: why else would he be so opinionated about the efforts of Senor Foxton and his co-thinkers in the US government to traduce them?

»You can’t really blame Foxton – who has apparently been assigned to run interference with Greenwald – for the paucity of his “arguments.” Our wise rulers have been caught with their pants down, this time, on both sides of the Atlantic. Character assassination is their only option: anything to change the subject.»


Nous avons récolté 759 € sur 3000 €

faites un don