The only piece you really need is John Cassidy's "Demonizing Edward Snowden" in The New Yorker:
But his real crime was confirming that the intelligence agencies, despite their strenuous public denials, have been accumulating vast amounts of personal data from the American public. The puzzle is why so many media commentators continue to toe the official line. About the best explanation I’ve seen came from Josh Marshall, the founder of T.P.M., who has been one of Snowden’s critics. In a post that followed the first wave of stories, Marshall wrote, “At the end of the day, for all its faults, the U.S. military is the armed force of a political community I identify with and a government I support. I’m not a bystander to it. I’m implicated in what it does and I feel I have a responsibility and a right to a say, albeit just a minuscule one, in what it does.”In other words, Josh reflexively identifies with Prince John and Sir Guy, not with Robin and Will Scarlet. But according to the myth, it was Robin who stood for rightful rule against the forces of usurpation, and it was Robin who always had the support of the common people. Marshall must know this, because his terminology -- "I'm implicated in it" -- indicates guilt, not pride.
(Incidentally, the NSA, FBI and CIA are supposed to be civilian agencies, not military.)
Although my views may shift as more facts come out -- after all, when dealing with spooks, one never quite knows who is who -- right now, I'm rooting for Ed Snowden. And I don't feel "implicated." I feel proud.
Josh's comment seems more profound the more I ponder it. At what point do you stop kissing the boot poised to smash your face?
Added note: Did you know that in the movie (for guys of my generation, there is only one Robin Hood movie), Olivia de Havilland rides the same Palomino later purchased by Roy Rogers and re-christened Trigger? At the time, the horse was called Golden Cloud.
0 comments:
Post a Comment