the other whistleblowers where it wants them.) If it does not manage to kill or jail Snowden, it must use everything in its power to limit the damage that heâs done and continues to do. One of those ways is to try to contain, co-opt, and usher the debate around whistleblowing in a direction that suits it. And it has, to some extent, managed to do that. In the Public Security versus Mass Surveillance debate that is taking place in the establishment Western media, the Object of Love is America. America and her actions. Are they moral or immoral? Are they right or wrong? Are the whistleblowers American patriots or American traitors? Within this constricted matrix of morality, other countries, other cultures, other conversationsâeven if they are the victims of US warsâusually appear only as witnesses in the main trial. They either bolster the outrage of the prosecution or the indignation of the defense. The trial, when it is conducted on these terms, serves to reinforce the idea that there can be a moderate, moral superpower. Are we not witnessing it in action? Its heartache? Its guilt? Its self-correcting mechanisms? Its watchdog media? Its activists who will not stand for ordinary (innocent) American citizens being spied on by their own government? In these debates that appear to be fierce and intelligent, words like public and security and terrorism are thrown around, but they remain, as always, loosely defined and are used more often than not in the way the US state would like them to be used.
Is it shocking that Barack Obama approved a âkill listâ? 2
What sort of list do the millions of people who have been killed in all the US wars belong on, if not a âkill listâ?
In all of this, Snowden, in exile, has to remain strategic and tactical. Heâs in the impossible position of having to negotiate the terms of his amnesty/trial with the very institutions in the United States that feel betrayed by him, and the terms of his domicile in Russia with that Great Humanitarian, Vladimir Putin. So the superpowers have the Truth-teller in a position where he now has to be extremely careful about how he uses the spotlight he has earned and what he says publicly.
Even still, leaving aside what cannot be said, the conversation around whistleblowing is a thrilling oneâitâs realpolitikâbusy, important, and full of legalese. It has spies and spy-hunters, escapades, secrets, and secret-leakers. Itâs a very adult and absorbing universe of its own. However, if it becomes, as it sometimes threatens to, a substitute for broader, more radical political thinking, then the conversation that Daniel Berrigan, Jesuit priest, poet, and war resister (contemporary of Daniel Ellsberg), wanted to have when he said, âEvery nation-state tends towards the imperialâthat is the point,â becomes a little inconvenient.
I was glad to see that when Snowden made his debut on Twitter (and chalked up half a million followers in half a second) he said, âI used to work for the government. Now I work for the public.â 3 Implicit in that sentence is the belief that the government does not work for the public. Thatâs the beginning of a subversive and inconvenient conversation. By âthe government,â of course, he means the US government, his former employer. But who does he mean by âthe publicâ? The US public? Which part of the US public? Heâll have to decide as he goes along. In democracies, the line between an elected government and âthe publicâ is never all that clear. The elite is usually fused with the government pretty seamlessly. Viewed from an international perspective, if there really is such a thing as âthe US public,â itâs a very privileged public indeed. The only âpublicâ I know is a maddeningly tricky labyrinth.
Oddly, when I think back on the meeting in the Moscow Ritz, the memory that flashes up first in my mind is