Time magazine sidebar lumping together whistleblowers with mass murderers.
An article in the new issue of Time magazine is accompanied by a jarring graphic. Four people are pictured: whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, and mass shooters Nidal Hassan (Fort Hood) and Navy Yard suspect Aaron Alexis.
Time‘s point is that the companies that handle security clearances have some explaining to do: How did these four dangerous individuals manage to slip through a system that is supposed to ferret out the bad guys? As Time‘s Mark Thompson put it:
Here is the world’s worst-kept secret: The military’s security-clearance system is utterly, tragically broken. Army Major Nidal Hasan, armed with a secret clearance and an FN 5.7 semiautomatic pistol, showed warning signs well before he killed 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, arrested in 2010, and NSA contractor Edward Snowden, a fugitive since June, had top-secret clearances before they absconded with the nation’s secrets and shared them with the world.
Now from the point of view of the government, all four examples are threats. But journalists, it goes without saying, should not adopt the government’s view of the world.
Manning and Snowden were conscientious whistleblowers who risked their lives in order to expose official wrongdoing. Journalists around the world have used the information they shared in order to inform citizens about things the government would prefer to keep quiet about. Hassan and Alexis are known because of senseless, deadly acts of violence.
Time isn’t the only media outlet to draw unfortunate connections when it comes to how security clearances are granted; the Washington Post (9/21/13) ran a story noting that the same company handled clearances for Snowden and Alexis. But there’s something a little disturbing about media outlets that fail to see a distinction between mass killers and whistleblowers.
No surprise that Time would conflate “the nation’s secrets” with the gummint’s, is it?
But were Hasan’s actions “senseless”?
His proclaimed rationale is that he was trying to protect Muslim populations from US aggression.
From killing them, in other words.
Whatever you may say about how he chose to go about doing so, that isn’t an irrational or “senseless” motive, is it?
Perhaps it can labeled “senseless” in that it could in no way have impacted what the US does, or that not all of his victims would at some point have been in a position to facilitate that strategy.
But it’s not “senseless” in the sense of an act wholly divorced from reality, such as Newtown, or, as it appears, Alexis’ rampage.
Far from it.
There is a cry connecting these four witnesses. It may well be that had both gunmen had the construct, intelligence, training and staminar to channel their reaction to military madness they may well have adopted the way of the other two who chose to simply disclose the horrors and abuses to the public. Perhaps the juxtaposition is more telling than Time and Post care to look for; intelligence breeds nonviolent truthsayers, trained killers beget, well, killers.
Good point, Doug Latimer.
Much obliged, David.
I don’t think it’s a simple question as to how we should view his actions, and I don’t mean to imply that I’ve come to the conclusion that I believe they were justified
But if you turn the situation around, and posit that an Afghan joined a militant group to fight against the invaders, then saw the contradictions in their actions – killing the same persons they claim to be protecting from the US – and acted as Hasan did
Well, how would we perceive his decision?
These are questions we need to be honest enough – and brave enough – to ask ourselves, don’t you think?
I had the same reaction as you to the word “senseless” when I read the post, which is why I wanted to acknowledge your comment, all the moreso because inevitably some people will always willfully misinterpret such an observation as an attempt to justify the violence, rather than just point out that it may have a rational basis.
Wow, TIME :
The strange journalists of America seem to play the game “Telephone” with their reporting; it’s hard to get a clear communication from those reporters.
I too, separate the actions of Mr. Snowden and Ms Manning from angry people who shoot people with guns. Snowden and Manning are whistleblowers; the other 2 are not.
TIME, you need to tell us what those DOTS represent to you. Whistleblowers and shooters have different targets, but to keep your analogy going , whistleblowers are gunning for the truth but shooters are gunning for moving targets.
Please, TIME, riddle us this: Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby. Please follow the dots on those two as there has never been a satisfactory ending or explanation in that case.. : )
I support whistleblowers Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning and detest mass shooters Nidal Hassan and Aaron Alexis, but I’m not sure “from the point of view of the government, all four examples are threats.” The first two harmed our obscene national security state while the latter two to provide an excuse to expand it. By that measure, Snowden and Chelsea Manning are far bigger “threats”, and good on them for it.