The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewTom Engelhardt Archive
Noam Chomsky: America's Real Foreign Policy
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

It goes without saying that the honchos of the national security state weren’t exactly happy with Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations. Still, over the last year, the comments of such figures, politicians associated with them, and retirees from their world clearly channeling their feelings have had a striking quality: over-the-top vituperation. About the nicest thing anyone in that crew has had to say about Snowden is that he’s a “traitor” or — shades of the Cold War era (and of absurdity, since the State Department trapped him in the transit lounge of a Moscow airport by taking his passport away) — a “Russian spy.” And that’s the mild stuff. Such figures have also regularly called for his execution, for quite literally stringing him up from the old oak tree and letting him dangle in the breeze. Theirs has been a bloodcurdling collective performance that gives the word “visceral” new meaning.

Such a response to the way Snowden released batches of NSA documents to Glenn Greenwald, filmmaker Laura Poitras, and the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman calls for explanation. Here’s mine: the NSA’s goal in creating a global surveillance state was either utopian or dystopian (depending on your point of view), but in either case, breathtakingly totalistic. Its top officials meant to sweep up every electronic or online way one human being can communicate with others, and to develop the capability to surveil and track every inhabitant of the planet. From German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to peasants with cell phones in the backlands of Afghanistan (not to speak of American citizens anywhere), no one was to be off the hook. Conceptually, there would be no exceptions. And the remarkable thing is how close the agency came to achieving this.

Whether consciously or not, however, the officials of the U.S. Intelligence Community did imagine one giant exception: themselves. No one outside the loop was supposed to know what they were doing. They alone on the planet were supposed to be unheard, unspied upon, and unsurveilled. The shock of Snowden’s revelations, I suspect, and the visceral reactions came, in part, from the discovery that such a system really did have no exceptions, not even them. In releasing the blueprint of their world, Snowden endangered nothing in the normal sense of the term, but that made him no less of a traitor to their exceptional world as they imagined it. What he ensured was that, as they surveil us, we can now in some sense track them. His act, in other words, dumped them in with the hoi polloi — with us — which, under the circumstances, was the ultimate insult and they responded accordingly.


An allied explanation lurks in Noam Chomsky’s latest TomDispatch post. If the “security” in national security means not the security of the American people but, as he suggests, of those who run the national security state, and if secrecy is the attribute of power, then Edward Snowden broke their code of secrecy and exposed power itself to the light in a devastating and deflating way. No wonder the reaction to him was so bloodthirsty and vitriolic. Chomsky himself has an unsettling way of exposing various worlds of power, especially American power, to the light with similarly deflating results. He’s been doing it for half a century and only gets better.

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Government Surveillance 
Hide 4 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. At this juncture, we have a remarkable convergence of insight, with Chomsky echoing the libertarian Randolph Bourne’s finding that “War is the health of the state.” Chomsky may be right that the Republican Party is more wholly committed to big capital and its war industry donorists – say 99% to the Democrats’ 98%.

    Read More
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Matt says:

    Fran Macadam,

    Randolph Bourne wasn’t a “libertarian”. He was a Deweyan Progressive, who split with Dewey over the latter’s support for US involvement in WWI.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. Dave37 says:

    Any intelligence agency will want to capture any and all it can, that’s just the philosophy of any IA. The usual problem is that they don’t know if they have gotten anything and if they do, they usually don’t want to act on it so that they can keep listening in on it. The result seems to be nothing much gets done except collecting a lot of stuff. Room for abuse, sure, sooner or later but there is always the possibility they will get something spectacular though I supect it would get lost in the pipeline somewhere. The problem with Snowden, in my opinion, is that they should have given him amnesty instead of driving him into the Russian’s arms. So much for intelligence. Maybe Chomsky is insightful on this matter but it just seems to me like business as usual for the bureaucracy in Washington.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Justin Raimondo invokes Bourne as libertarian. His justified suspicion of big government argues for the assessment. But never no mind – a bigger point is that there is a convergence of opinion against America’s war addiction and its frequent relapses across all political boundaries. There was a time in the past, when it was a majority consensus that “a totalitarian dictatorship, by its very nature, works in great secrecy and knows how to preserve that secrecy from prying eyes,” as historian William R. Shirer observed, and there are signs that it may become so again. As in Germany, the extent of organization of terror, treachery, intrigues, motives and lawlessness were only revealed by secret documents being exposed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Tom Engelhardt Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Eight Exceptional(ly Dumb) American Achievements of the Twenty-First Century
How the Security State’s Mania for Secrecy Will Create You
Delusional Thinking in the Age of the Single Superpower