Fabricated Memos and Credibility Problems

The much-hyped Nunes memo became public a few days ago, and I've been noticing a very interesting reaction to it in various corners of the internet; specifically, a lot of people are buying into it, lock, stock, and barrel.  Now, the memo is obviously a steaming poo pile, but here's the thing: there are a lot of people who believe the memo to be true have a plausible argument for that belief.  I don't mean the hardcore Trump supporters; at this point Trump could tell them he can walk through walls and they'd believe him.  The people I'm thinking of are the ones who have been holding a long-standing suspicion of the government.  All the government.  Because the truth is, there is plenty of good cause for suspicion.

The assorted government agencies tasked with protecting America and its citizens - from TSA to the FBI to the DEA to NSA to CIA - have a credibility problem of their own making.  It's not enough to say they all dropped the ball at one time or another, because "dropping the ball" implies that they failed because of something like bad luck or an innocent mistake.  That's not the case at all.  The credibility problem stems from the fact that these agencies misused their authority in a variety of unsavory ways.  Two successive presidents and countless members of Congress told us we had to accept infringements to our Constitutional rights to combat an amorphous terrorist threat.  The Director of National Intelligence perjured himself.  Police forces began to resemble military units and no-knock SWAT raids became more common.  An intelligence failure allowed an al-Qaida bomber onto a US-bound flight from Ghana through the Netherlands.  And those are only a handful of post-9/11 examples.  Do some digging, and there are many other historical ones: COINTELPRO, Watergate, the McCarthy hearings, the Pentagon Papers, the Tonkin Gulf Incident, and countless coups and covert wars. And all the documentation gets hidden behind a "TOP SECRET/NOFORN" label, nobody gets punished, and nothing changes.  Given these organizations' history of past transgressions, it's natural to be skeptical of the FBI.

So does that mean the Nunes memo is correct? No, absolutely not.  First, consider the source: Nunes, Trump, the GOP leadership.  They've all discredited themselves long before this memo became public.  Nunes was already caught trying to cheat on Trump's behalf once; and Trump's accusations fall short when you factor in that two individuals have already pleaded guilty for crimes pertaining to the Russia investigation, that there is a documented paper trail between Trump campaign officials and representatives of the Russian government, and, of course, there was a meeting at Trump Tower in June of 2016.  And those are just the things we all know about.  Add to that Trump and many of his cronies are well-known serial liars and conspiracy-theory peddlers.  Finally, remember that as president, Trump has the authority and the resources to expose any illegal spying if he chooses.  He can declassify NSA intercepts that targeted him, if they exist; he can order the Department of Justice to review the FISA warrants for impropriety.  Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is more likely to be true.  Ask yourself: is it more likely that the investigation is legitimate and substantive or that the FBI is playing a central role in a broad "deep state" conspiracy against the small group of people in Trump's orbit?

Because that's what this is being packaged as: a deep, sinister conspiracy.  The people pushing this idea performed a very subtle sleight-of-hand, one that's easy to overlook if you're not paying attention.  They shifted the narrative from a claim that the government (in particular, the NSA) is collecting all Americans' communications (true) to an accusation that the government mobilized the resources of the entire intelligence/law enforcement community against the Trump clan in an unlawful attempt to neutralize it (horseshit.)  We're witnessing the birth of a conspiracy theory on par with "9/11 was an inside job" right before our eyes.  This "echo chamber" groupthink would normally be an object of ridicule, except that similar conspiracy theories have already driven people on the extreme fringes to violence not long ago.  That's not something to take lightly.

If we could trust our institutions, there wouldn't be an issue; but our politicians and political appointees have squandered that trust for decades.  Now we're reaping the bitter fruits of that wastefulness.  The agencies, and their civilian overseers, have misused and abused their authority so badly, that now many people reflexively think they're lying and choose to believe con artists like Nunes and Trump instead.  They're the spies who cried wolf, and just like the old fable goes, we're ignoring them at the very time when we should be believing them.

There needs to be serious reform once Trump is no longer president.  He's only the byproduct of some deeper issues, and we need system-wide reform.  He's a complete shit-show, so maybe he'll be the impetus that motivates the people in Washington to finally implement some long-overdue reforms.

Targeted Censorship, Autocracies, and Activism

This caught my attention as I was scrolling through my Twitter feed earlier: apparently Twitter is censoring specific accounts at the requests of various governments.  Twitter censored the highest number of accounts (758) on Germany's behalf, followed by Turkey with 721.  France came in at a distant third with 261. It makes sense at first glance, given that right-wing nationalism is on the rise in several countries, doesn't it? History is full of events where a charismatic orator with a toxic message and a massive following, and mass slaughter, form two links on a chain of events.  The link between the two is well-established, so wouldn't it make sense to be proactive and silence the messengers before they inflict any serious damage?  I doubt it's coincidence that Germany has the highest number of censored accounts; they're arguably more aware than any country of the dangers of incendiary rhetoric.

And to be honest, I share Germany's point to some extent.  I'd be perfectly fine if every social media platform blocked racist (excuse me, "alt-right") agitators like Richard Spencer or Steve Bannon.  Heed the lessons of history, free speech be damned.  I bet a lot of people would agree.

However. . . .

That's a knee-jerk reaction.  As good, even necessary, as it sounds, it's a horrible idea once you think about it for a few minutes.  Do you remember which country was #2 on the list of censored accounts? (You forgot already? Good lord, your memory is awful.) Turkey, for those of you who didn't know, is at risk of sliding into an autocracy, according to both the Middle East Policy Council and the Council of Europe's Venice Commission.  Twitter's censorship looks very different when it's done on behalf of a potential autocrat intent on consolidating power.

The United States isn't Turkey, someone might say.  That's true; but consider these two things.  First, there's an old saying that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter; so it's not unreasonable to think that a person or group considered an activist in one person's eyes could be seen as a subversive to someone else.  Censoring a white nationalist's account might seem desirable, but what if someone in government wants to censor an environmentalist group? Or a pro-gun organization? What if a future president decided to censor the NRA or the ACLU?

For an actual example, go research the broad range of groups targeted under the FBI's COINTELPRO program.  In addition to targeting credible threats like the KKK, it also zeroed in on civil rights figures and workers' rights groups.  Imagine if Martin Luther King Jr. was alive today, and the US government convinced Twitter to shut down his Twitter account.  As a civil rights leader, he would have been undermined in a very important way.  Could that have kept the civil rights movement from ever gaining momentum? Possibly.  Now you see how censoring Twitter can be a potent means of suppressing dissent; especially since it's also effective at growing protest movements.  Occupy Wall Street used it.  So did the Arab Spring, initially.  This underscores how important Twitter can be for achieving social change.

Second, people can be gullible.  Like, really, really gullible - especially if there's a perceived danger.  Sometimes, that gullibility can lead to tragic consequences. The point is that it's not farfetched at all to imagine that someone in a position of authority says, "So-and-so is a threat and needs to be censored," and a lot of people will unquestioningly fall in line.  That's usually the prelude to something worse.


I do get it.  The growing right-wing nationalist movement is concerning, and if there's a chance to neutralize it before it really takes hold, shouldn't we take it? Look at how much chaos the burgeoning movement has created already, and how much it could potentially stir up.  It's pretty tempting to just censor them, so let's do it.  No, because by going for the quick & easy solution, we create greater problems down the road.  Common sense tells you that censorship is a key tool of oppressive regimes, so as satisfying as slapping a muzzle on the alt-right's digital presence sounds (and believe me, I'm all for that), it's guaranteed to come back and haunt us all.