RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Nuclear War if Necessary: An Interview With Frontline Filmmaker, John Pilger Print
Thursday, 07 April 2016 10:49

Bernstein writes: "At 76, legendary investigative filmmaker John Pilger shows no sign of slowing down. Pilger, who started his career as a war correspondent in Vietnam, has been a strong critic of Western aggression and support for dictators, tyrants, and state-sponsored mass murder in the name of Western interests."

John Pilger. (photo: Getty)
John Pilger. (photo: Getty)


Nuclear War if Necessary: An Interview With Frontline Filmmaker, John Pilger

By Dennis Bernstein, Reader Supported News

07 April 16

 

t 76, legendary investigative filmmaker John Pilger shows no sign of slowing down. Pilger, who started his career as a war correspondent in Vietnam, has been a strong critic of Western aggression and support for dictators, tyrants, and state-sponsored mass murder in the name of Western interests. Pilger’s award-winning career as a documentary filmmaker began with “The Quiet Mutiny,” set in Vietnam, and has continued with over fifty documentaries since then, including “Year Zero,” which documents the bloody aftermath of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Pilger has twice won Britain’s Journalist of the Year Award. His documentaries have won many awards in Great Britain and around the world.

In this extended interview, I spoke with John Pilger about his new film in progress on the impact of nuclear testing around the world, the massive nuclear buildup now taking place under the auspices of the Obama administration, and the ongoing and expanding policy of the U.S. to control and restrain China by any means necessary, which includes full nuclear dominance from air, sea, land, and space.

Dennis Bernstein: It is always good to talk with you, John. We know that you’re working on a film now about the potential of nuclear war in this century, as a result of a massive U.S. nuclear buildup in Asia to contain the Chinese. This is also an incredibly important film, in the context of the new potential for confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and the Ukraine. Talk about the film.

John Pilger: Well, the film is really about the U.S., or rather the Obama administration’s so-called “Pivot to Asia.” That’s the name of a policy that will see two-thirds of U.S. naval forces re-based to the Asia Pacific region by 2020. The reason for this is China. The U.S. sees in a risen China, an economically strong China, a new threat. There isn’t a threat, in my opinion.

China is a very big country, and last month, I think, was the U.S.’s biggest trading partner. It is the workshop of the world, and it has influence, in its own sphere. They’ve done nothing, until recently, to suggest that China has any interest, other than in continuing to improve its economic position. I say until recently, because China has made very significant defensive moves in response to an encirclement of China by the United States, by U.S. bases, warships, nuclear armed bombers, battle groups and so on, that extends all the way from Australia through the Pacific, up through Asia, the Philippines, Korea, Japan, across Eurasia, to Afghanistan and India.

And this menacing, if you like, of China by hundreds of U.S. installations, military installations, many of them upgraded for example with the Aegis missile system, such as the new base that has just been built on Jeju Island, a Korean island, 400 kilometers from Shanghai … This base, which will have …

DB: And the buildup of the base, I understand, is on a pristine bay, where the sea blossoms, and the creatures underneath thrive. They put this base in an extraordinary place of extreme beauty, despite 7 or 8 years of protests to try to resist it.

Pilger: No. That’s absolutely right. Well, I filmed there recently and your description is absolutely accurate. I mean Jeju Island, like Okinawa, the two of them are very similar in the resistance of the peoples to the drive to war, to a war with China, in that region. The people around Gangjeon Village, which is where this base has now been completed, have spent, as you say, up to 10 years protesting that the base should not be built. And this is an island that is listed by the United Nations, it’s Heritage listed, it’s pristine. It’s an unusual – considering its geographic position – it’s an unusual tropical island with extraordinary marine life. And all that in this part of Jeju Island has been swept aside for a base that, in effect, points missiles right at China.

And the same thing is happening in Okinawa. Okinawa, which has suffered pretty much in silence as far as the rest of the world is concerned since the Second World War, is an occupied state of Japan. It’s very different from the rest of Japan because the Okinawans are an indigenous people. But it has 32 American military installations on it. It’s an island of fences. It’s an island where people can’t really go about their business without confronting a sign that says they are trespassing. It’s an island where schools have to endure American helicopters and planes screaming overhead, constantly. It’s almost as if the entire island and its people have been occupied and militarized all this time.

But what’s inspiring about Okinawa is the way people have resisted this, and the way that they have on Jeju. And they have resisted it quite successfully. They’ve elected a governor who is for the first time probably in post-war Japanese history has opposed a major issue that the Tokyo government has supported. But all of this activity has China in mind. It is about the new enemy, the new threat. It is manufacturing a threat.

If you cast your mind back to the way the Iraq invasion was brought about, it was brought about largely with propaganda at first, where the media promoted the completely false notion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that he was a threat. Well, now we see almost daily some kind of story that China is a threat. Many of these stories are now concentrating on the Spratly Islands, which are in the South China Sea, where China is building airstrips. And we’ve had many stories saying, rather hysterical stories saying, “Look, here’s China being aggressive. This is the reason why China clearly is a threat.” When in fact this is the truth being inverted. China is building these airstrips, and it’s only begun to build them in the last few years, in response to the encirclement of China by the U.S.

Now, in the film I’m making I’ve been to many of these places to talk to people, and I’m also relating it to the ... what happened in the Marshall Islands, what happened to Bikini when the U.S. tested its first nuclear weapons between 1946 and 1958 and have left those islands contaminated, many of the people mutated, people ill, people with thyroid cancer.

The history of this so-called “Pivot to Asia,” this move into the Pacific, really needs to be told. These days we’re often denied this historical context; we’re denied an understanding of the immediate past so we can make sense of the present. To understand this completely unnecessary and very dangerous campaign against China by the U.S., one has to go back to see what happened in the Marshall Islands. Of course, right in the Marshall Islands is a U.S. base on the Island of Kwajalein. It’s called the Ronald Reagan Missile Test Site. And it’s about Star Wars. It’s about building some kind of U.S. space weaponry.

But almost everything that this base does is also aimed at China. And much of this is not reported. Most people don’t know about this. In the same way that as we head toward dangerous situations, I mentioned the 2003 invasion of Iraq, we are denied this critical knowledge. And that’s why understanding what happened in the Marshall Islands, understanding what is happening now in Okinawa, on Jeju Island, in the South China Sea, where the news gives us these jargon words that are sheer propaganda … You have American admirals and generals forever saying, “We have the right to freedom of navigation.” And what does that mean?

Freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and the East China Sea is the right of the United States to patrol the waters, the coastal waters of China. A right that the United States would never give the Chinese if it wanted to patrol the coastal waters of California.

DB: When the Russians tried it the ... it was “we’re going to have to go to nuclear war.”

Pilger: Well, when the Russians tried it ... exactly. When the Russians tried it, it’s interesting that you mention that, Dennis, because when I was in Okinawa I visited and filmed a former U.S. Mace nuclear missile site. These were launch hubs built into the side of a mountain. It’s now being taken over by a religious organization. But recently, I think it was perhaps in October or November last year, one of the U.S. Air Force officers based there described rather graphically how an order was accidentally given during the Cuban missile crisis, during the crisis when there were Soviet missiles on Cuba, an order was accidentally given to fire these Mace missiles from Okinawa not at Russia, but at China.

So it must be very confusing for those who strategize this, because then it was one big communist threat. Well, the threat of communism appears to have receded but the countries remain. And they’ve been reconfigured into a different kind of threat now. There’s no threat from China, and there’s no threat from Russia. There’s a great deal of diplomacy that is needed.

DB: And we need to mention in this context, this new military alliance between the United States and Japan – and Japan with a sort of a maniac right-wing prime minister, who is sort of like a global nuclear salesman, among other things. And he is very much a part of this idea of running a strategic ring around China.

Pilger: Well, yes, I mean Japan as described by the author James Bradley as an American fist in a Japanese glove. Really the Japanese government does what the United States wants it to do. But this is exacerbated even more by the present very ultra-nationalist government of Japan that has made capital of a historic and tragic relationship with China, in which China has been the victim of Japan.

The refusal to acknowledge the atrocities that Japan committed in China before the Second World War, and later, has burnt deeply in China itself. But in Japan this refusal, this obstinance, has become part of a nationalist ideology. And probably the most worrying aspect of this is the possibility that the peace clause in the Japanese constitution, which says that Japan should never wage war or act aggressively toward another nation again, is removed. And the United States, which was instrumental in putting it in the Japanese constitution, wants it removed because Japan is really an outpost. Japan is the kind of Israel of Asia, for the United States.

DB: That’s a good way to put it, John Pilger. I’ve never quite heard it put that way.

Pilger: There are a few differences, but I think in general that it’s probably true.

DB: Let me come back to the film: It starts in Bikini and the Marshall Islands, correct? Talk about the tragedy of U.S. policy toward the Marshall Islands. Where are they on the world map?

Pilger: The Marshall Islands are a very remote place. It takes ... really, the only way of getting there, apart from spending a lot of time on a boat, is to fly there. And you fly there on an airline that is basically flying there because there is a U.S. base there. So it’s an isolated place. And when you get there, you can see that this isolation has also prevented the outside world from knowing that the legacy of 12 years of tests from 1946 … and the foreign minister of the Marshall Islands, who himself witnessed one of the tests as a child, calculated that the Marshall Islands experienced 1.6 Hiroshima explosions every day for 12 years.

Most of the people living downwind of those explosions – they weren’t all at Bikini but they were in that vicinity – suffered cancers, mostly thyroid cancers. And today, some of the people who were children there, remarkably, have survived – usually because their thyroid has been taken out. But they survived, many of them, in poverty without compensation and without, I think, without the world understanding or being able to draw the lesson from what happened in the Marshall Islands. I mean the biggest lesson, of course, is in Japan, where two atomic bombs were dropped on two Japanese cities.

But there’s an adjunct to that in the Marshall Islands, the way people were used as guinea pigs. And the scientists came from the United States over a period of twenty years, right through to ... well, they’re still coming. They’re still coming. In fact the Department of Energy has a number of installations on Bikini. It has an office in the Marshall Islands where you can go and have a full body count if you’re worried about whether you’ve been contaminated or not. So the testing goes on. But the treatment of people, the help given to people – that came much later.

Otherwise people were left simply to be used as guinea pigs for a long time. And there’s a lot of documentation which I will show in this film that shows how all of this was deliberate. I mean the fact that we’re even debating nuclear weapons in 2016 is extraordinary. I suppose one of the problems is, and I contradict myself here, that we’re not debating them. That we used to. We had the great freeze movement in the 1980s. We had the “CND” movement, but it’s all gone silent.

But what hasn’t gone away is the danger of nuclear weapons. And especially when there are policies that provoke nuclear powers such as Russia, all the activity in Ukraine, which has been turned into a CIA theme park right next to Russia, are provocative. This is the world’s second biggest nuclear power, Russia. China is a nuclear power. And there is evidence that China is re-arming in a nuclear sense pretty quickly because it sees the United States targeting it.

Now the fact that we are not having this discussion, that people are not ... that in this election campaign in the United States ... I wouldn’t have thought that anyone’s said a word about it. I confess to not listening or wanting to listen to all of them ... but I doubt if any of them ...

DB: You point out in that there has been a huge buildup under Obama. You say nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than any other American president. And this happens in the context of, well, a U.S. sort of engineered coup in the Ukraine, and once again it’s a potential nuclear face-off. So this is all of a piece, isn’t it?

Pilger: Well, yes. That’s the point I was making, that propaganda always leads to war, and that the world war that has begun is the propaganda war … a kind of censorship by omission. You simply leave out the most salient points of the information that people have, and have a right to. This information shows the utter hypocrisy.

Obama, when he went to Prague in the Czech Republic in 2009, made a very emotional speech in the center of the city, in which he pledged himself to help to bring about an end to all nuclear weapons. And it was not long after that that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Now it was not long after that that the Obama administration began, and the word is, “modernizing” the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Modernizing is a very nice euphemism because it means that you can cover what’s really happening, such as building more nuclear weapons, more warheads, more delivery systems, more nuclear factories.

It’s been estimated that over the next 30 years all this activity in modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal rather than, as Obama promised in 2009, helping to take away this shadow … all this is going to cost at least a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars is beyond my comprehension, but it sounds like an enormous amount of money. And already nuclear weapons as part of the military budget in the United States are a very significant part.

The U.S. has something like 7,500 nuclear weapons. Why it needs 7,500 nuclear weapons is beyond anyone’s ability to explain. There’s no reason for it. It is about what the U.S. Space Command said in 2000 when it used this extraordinary expression, “Full Spectrum Dominance.” That the U.S. would dominate space, would dominate the seas, the oceans, would dominate the land, would dominate everything. And that’s nothing new.

You only have to go back to 1946, 1947 and look at some of the documentation there of the National Security directives that called for ... said that the U.S. policy was aimed at remaking the world in the U.S. image. That dominance has been there but it becomes dangerous, extremely dangerous, when a U.S. president, Barack Obama, launches a policy with the rather strange name “Pivot to Asia,” which means confronting the world’s third biggest nuclear power, while confronting the world’s second biggest nuclear power in Russia at the same time.



Dennis J. Bernstein is the executive producer of Flashpoints, syndicated on Pacifica Radio, and is the recipient of a 2015 Pillar Award for his work as a journalist whistleblower. He is most recently the author of Special Ed: Voices from a Hidden Classroom.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The Clinton Campaign's New Strategy: 'Forget the Base, Disqualify Sanders' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=15102"><span class="small">Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News</span></a>   
Thursday, 07 April 2016 08:39

Excerpt: "You MUST see what CNN reported last night. It's very disturbing, and you need to know about it right now."

Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: BernieSanders.com)
Senator Bernie Sanders. (photo: BernieSanders.com)


The Clinton Campaign's New Strategy: 'Forget the Base, Disqualify Sanders'

By Bernie Sanders, Reader Supported News

07 April 16

 

This comes from Bernie Sanders campaign manager, Jeff Weaver.

ou MUST see what CNN reported last night. It's very disturbing, and you need to know about it right now.

"The Clinton campaign has been watching these Wisconsin results come in, and the delegate race of course is tight there, but the reality is they're running out of patience. So they're going to begin deploying a new strategy, it’s going to be called disqualify him, defeat him and then they can unify the party later."

Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later.

One more time. This is the Clinton campaign's strategy going forward: Disqualify Bernie, defeat our movement, and pick up the pieces later.

We have to get ready for the Clinton campaign's attacks. We're on the path to the nomination, and now they're going to try to block it with super PACs, billionaires, and everything else they've got.

Bernie's running this campaign a different way. We don't have a super PAC. We're not launching any negative attacks.

We're bringing together millions of people in a political revolution that has won seven of the last eight contests and breaks records at every turn. The political establishment hates what we're doing, and now it's clear the Clinton campaign is going to do everything in its power to stop us.

We can't let up now.

https://go.berniesanders.com/

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump Says He Will Sue Everyone in Wisconsin Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Wednesday, 06 April 2016 13:19

Borowitz writes: "In a sharply worded post-election threat on Tuesday night, the Republican Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump said that he intended to sue the entire population of Wisconsin 'for everything it's worth.'"

Donald Trump. (photo: Abin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty)
Donald Trump. (photo: Abin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty)


Trump Says He Will Sue Everyone in Wisconsin

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

06 April 16

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


n a sharply worded post-election threat on Tuesday night, the Republican Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump said that he intended to sue the entire population of Wisconsin “for everything it’s worth.”

In his terse remarks, Trump departed from the customs of political concession speeches by failing to congratulate the evening’s winner or thank his supporters, instead sternly warning the people of Wisconsin to “lawyer up.”

“By the time my attorneys are through with you, I’m going to own your entire state, lock, stock, and barrel,” he said. “Not that I want to own it. Wisconsin is a freaking dump.”

In announcing the lawsuit, which he said he would make the state of Wisconsin pay for, Trump denied that he was being a poor loser.

“I am a fabulous loser,” he said. “I am the biggest loser in this country.”

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Land Grabbing Is Killing Honduras' Indigenous Peoples Print
Wednesday, 06 April 2016 13:14

Excerpt: "Berta Caceres wasn't the first and, unfortunately, she won't be the last. The world-renowned Lenca leader, assassinated last month in Honduras for her opposition to government-backed megaprojects, is one of an increasing litany of fallen fighters for Indigenous and environmental rights in Honduras and around the globe."

Women carry images of slain environmental activist Berta Caceres during the commemoration of International Women's Day in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Tuesday, March 8, 2016. (photo: Fernando Antonio/AP)
Women carry images of slain environmental activist Berta Caceres during the commemoration of International Women's Day in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Tuesday, March 8, 2016. (photo: Fernando Antonio/AP)


Land Grabbing Is Killing Honduras' Indigenous Peoples

By Andrea Reyes Blanco and Tim Shenk, teleSUR

06 April 16

 

Berta Caceres' killing was a symptom, not an isolated incident.

erta Caceres wasn’t the first and, unfortunately, she won't be the last. The world-renowned Lenca leader, assassinated last month in Honduras for her opposition to government-backed megaprojects, is one of an increasing litany of fallen fighters for Indigenous and environmental rights in Honduras and around the globe.

The pattern of murder and criminalization of those who would defend land and the rights of rural people has only become more evident. We argue that this pattern responds to the land grab phenomenon that has intensified since the global financial and food crisis of 2007-2008.

On March 15 another Honduran environmental and Indigenous activist was murdered. Nelson Garcia was an active member of the Civic Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras or COPINH. His murder took place “when he came home for lunch, after having spent the morning helping to move the belongings of evicted families from the Lenca indigenous community of Rio Chiquito,” said COPINH.

Garcia was a colleague of the recently slain Caceres, working with communities opposing the Agua Zarca hydroelectric dam project. The Agua Zarca dam project, now on hold, would provide energy for the numerous extractive projects slated for Honduras in the coming decade. Since the 2009 coup d’etat against President Manuel Zelaya, 30 percent of Honduran territory has been allocated to mining concessions.

The eviction after which Garcia was killed was one of many recent violent evictions carried out by Honduran military police in Indigenous territories. Elevated levels of state violence and disregard for due process are business as usual nowadays in Honduras, according to civil society organizations.

In its February 21 report on the Situation of Human Rights in Honduras, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or IACHR expressed concern about the high levels of violence and insecurity in Honduran society, highlighting risks to Indigenous people. The report pointed out that violence against Indigenous people has emerged to a large degree from land grabs. The violence is exacerbated by a context of inequality and discrimination, in addition to the consequent barriers to access to justice. Official figures released in April 2013 by then Attorney General Luis Alberto Rubi indicate that 80 percent of killings in Honduras went unpunished due to a lack of capacity on the part of investigative bodies.

According to the IACHR, the challenges that Indigenous communities face are mainly related to: “(i) the high levels of insecurity and violence arising from the imposition of project and investment plans and natural resource mining concessions on their ancestral territories; (ii) forced evictions through the excessive use of force and (iii) the persecution and criminalization of Indigenous leaders for reasons related to the defense of their ancestral territories."

Moreover, the IACHR has clearly stated that many of the attacks carried out against Indigenous leaders and advocates are specifically aimed at reducing their activities in defense and protection of their territories and natural resources, as well as the defense of the right to autonomy and cultural identity.

Harassment takes the form not only of targeted criminal attacks, as we have seen in the case of Berta Caceres, Nelson Garcia and many others, but a much broader net that has been cast against environmental and Indigenous leaders. Official state entities, enacting formal legal procedures, have used the judicial system to catch activists in false charges, resulting in months or years of preventive prison, bogus sentences, legal fees and often a permanent criminal record. In a context in which state violence intertwines with the violence of international economic power, corruption and unethical practices, hundreds of leaders have been prosecuted for crimes such as usurpation of land and damage to the environment.

What we see in Honduras is part of the global land grab phenomenon, a term that in the words of Phillip McMichael, professor of development sociology at Cornell University, “invokes a long history of violent enclosure of common lands to accommodate world capitalist expansion, but it sits uneasily with the ‘free market’ rhetoric of neoliberal ideology.” Land grabs are a symptom of a crisis of accumulation in the neoliberal globalization project, which has intensified since the global financial and food crisis of 2007-2008. This in turn is linked to an acceleration of a restructuring process of the food regime as a consequence of a large-scale relocation of agro-industry to the global south.

According to the 2011 Oxfam briefing paper, “Land and Power, the growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investment in land,” recent records of investment show rapidly increasing pressure on land, resulting in dispossession, deception, violation of human rights and destruction of livelihoods. It is a war on Indigenous peoples conducted in order to establish modern corporate capitalism.

Indeed, all around the world peasants and Indigenous people are being displaced from their territories in order to develop large-scale agribusiness, such as massive palm oil and soy plantations, mining projects, hydroelectric dams and tourist resorts, among other investments. State-sanctioned violence and impunity create the conditions for investors to acquire land that would otherwise not be for sale. The result is a serious threat to the subsistence and socio-ecological resilience of millions of people across the world.

One of the most dramatic examples of this process is the case of the Honduran Palm Oil Company Grupo Dinant, which has an extended record of violence and human rights abuses associated wutg the killing of more than 100 peasants in Lower Aguan Valley. Ghe Unified Peasants Movement of the Aguan Valley or MUCA waged a long battle to defend their land rights, sustaining many losses. In addition, international human rights groups such as FoodFirst Information and Action Network brought pressure to bear, and in 2011 the Honduran government was forced to convene MUCA and the company to negotiate a deal. Paradoxically, according to the deal, the farmers have to buy back the disputed land at market prices (Oxfam 2011).

Land grabbing in Honduras has a long and lamentable history, and related violence has increased dramatically since the 2009 coup d’etat. Despite regular violent evictions by state security forces, Indigenous and peasant groups continue to pursue their right to control their ancestral lands through land occupations.

Those who are incensed by the killing of Berta Caceres must understand that her assassination was not an isolated event carried out by those who had a personal vendetta against her. Rather, Berta, her colleagues at COPINH and other Indigenous organizations represent an obstacle for those who would further a vision of society that values profit over all else.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Daniel Ellsberg: Out of the Ordinary Actions by Ordinary People Can Stop Wars Print
Wednesday, 06 April 2016 12:00

Excerpt: "Elsberg's example, and those of whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden show that an individual who is brave enough to act can change the course of history."

In this Saturday, June 1, 2013 photo, Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower responsible for releasing the Pentagon Papers, speaks during a rally in support of Army Pfc. Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, outside the gates of Fort Meade, Md. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)
In this Saturday, June 1, 2013 photo, Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower responsible for releasing the Pentagon Papers, speaks during a rally in support of Army Pfc. Chelsea Manning, formerly Bradley Manning, outside the gates of Fort Meade, Md. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)


Daniel Ellsberg: Out of the Ordinary Actions by Ordinary People Can Stop Wars

By MintPress News

06 April 16

 

“It ain’t that hard to get people to torture,” Ellsberg lamented, but sometimes they’ll also work together to create change for the better.

intPress News is proud to host “Lied to Death,” a 13-part audio conversation between famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and social justice activist Arn Menconi.

Menconi wrote that these interviews are a “mixture of historical, political science and Dan’s sixty-year scholarly analysis as a former nuclear planner for Rand Corporation.”

For more information on the interview and Ellsberg, see the introduction to this series.

Chapter 12: “A single person can have an essential effect” on injustice

In the conclusion of Lied To Death, Ellsberg suggests whistleblowing is rare because human nature makes people prone to ignoring or excusing unethical behavior if it means they can avoid being ostracized from their social groups.

Only rarely will an individual find the conscience necessary to expose injustice, he said, from soldiers like Chelsea Manning, who revealed abuse within the U.S. army, including the murder of civilians and journalists, to intelligence agents like Edward Snowden who gave journalists details of the NSA’s mass surveillance program.

“About 1000 people could have done what [Snowden] did,” Ellsberg said, a figure based on his interview with the NSA whistleblower during a visit to Russia, where Snowden lives in exile.

“Why only one?” Ellsberg ased. “Who takes the effort to expose that to the larger world. Why only one Chelsea Manning?”

Ellsberg referred to the famous “Milgram experiment” to explain the reluctance to expose atrocities and corruption. In 1961, Yale University researcher Stanley Milgram showed that people were willing to administer increasingly painful electric shocks to a stranger under orders from a scientist. The experiment has been repeated several times with similar results.

“Humans are not as concerned about inflicting harm and pain … as you would think,” he commented. He emphasized that the experiment was created after World War II to show that ordinary people anywhere will carry out terrible actions under orders. “It’s not just the Germans who act this way.”

Ellsberg believes that not only do people want to follow orders, but in groups like the army they are even further discouraged from standing up to the group.

He said he believes whistleblowers need to first realize something is wrong, then have to find the inner strength to act on it. “I guess it’s up to me,” he recalled thinking when he decided to leak “The Pentagon Papers.”

Ellsberg emphasized that though his leaks were important to ending the Vietnam War, “I was one link in a chain of events and actions, a number of which were out of the ordinary actions by ordinary people that made it possible for the war to be ended.”

But his example, and those of whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden, show that an individual who is brave enough to act can change the course of history.

“If it’s a question of telling the truth or taking action in resistance against wrongdoing … there is a chance that a single person can have an essential effect,” he said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 Next > End >>

Page 2084 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN