On April 14, the US Department of Justice charged Airman First Class Jack Teixeira with copying and sharing information “connected with” or “relating to” the “national defense.” The government alleges that Teixeira is the man behind “leaks” of classified information which worked their way from the Massachusetts Air National Guard to a Discord chat server for gamers and thence to social media and, finally and unfortunately only very partially, to the US “mainstream” media.

At this point, due to mainstream media’s refusal to do its job, the public doesn’t know very much about the content of the leaked information, but from what we do know, that information had little or nothing to do with any plausible conception of “national defense,” at least where the United States is concerned.

Last time I checked, Ukraine was neither a US state, nor a US territory, nor for that matter located anywhere near the US. US involvement there has nothing  to do with “national defense” and everything to do with declining empires raging against the dying of their respective lights at the expense of their subjects. The information not only shouldn’t have been “classified,” it shouldn’t have been compiled or generated. If there’s a crime involved, it was committed at that end, not Teixeira’s.

But that, really, is business as usual. While Julian Assange and Edward Snowden may have been more mindful and purposeful in their disclosures of US government crimes and pecadilloes, Teixeira (if he’s even “guilty”) did America similar service incidental to what sounds like a youthful ego trip.

If the whole incident exposes any new or novel issue, that issue involves the question Nikita Mazurov asks at The Intercept: “Why Did Journalists Help the Justice Department Identify a Leaker?”

In theory,  journalism’s job is to inform the public. In practice, “mainstream” journalism has, for at least the last few decades, largely become the government’s stenography pool, reliably reporting every official assertion as fact and seldom asking pointed questions about any subject more important than which politician has been having sex with which porn star.

When there’s an exception,  journalists at least bother to “protect their sources.” Someone who “leaks” to the New York Times or Washington Post can reasonably expect those publications to resist outing them even under court order.

But since Teixeira (allegedly) failed to consult the Very Special Important People at the Times or Post (and give them the “scoops” they so love), instead (allegedly) sharing his information with some gamer friends to make himself look cool, mainstream media switched sides.

Instead of investigating the content of the leak, they investigated the leaker, saving the FBI the trouble. Instead of informing the public, they enthusiastically went after someone who did their job for them.

This is not the first time, of course. They threw Assange and Snowden under the bus, too … but only once they’d squeezed all the juice from their “scoops.”

We no longer have to ask whose side “mainstream media” are really on. It’s certainly not the public’s.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

As I write this, Politico reports that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation has made an arrest in the matter of “classified” government documents found circulating on social media after allegedly being posted on an Internet game chat server over a period of weeks or months.

The New York Times reports that the likely arrestee is one Jack Teixeira, a 21-year-old member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard.

Given my past writings on government abuse of the “classification” system, you may be surprised to learn that in this particular instance I support prison time.

Not for Teixeira, though, even if he does turn out to be the person who released the documents.

The people who belong in jail are the people who classified those documents in the first place, and the case looks pretty airtight to me.

At least some of the released documents were market “top secret,” a classification which reflects the claim that their release would result in “grave” damage to the national security of the United States.

The documents were released. Amount of damage to the national security of the United States? Zip. Zero. Nada.

The US hasn’t been bombed. The US hasn’t been invaded. No US ships have been sunk, nor have any US aircraft been shot down, nor have any US troops been put in harm’s way. Not surprising, since the US has never considered its national security threatened enough to merit a declaration of war even once in more than 80 years now.

The documents may be politically embarrassing, but not only is that not a legitimate reason for classifying information, it’s specifically prohibited by law as a reason for classifying information.

Those documents should never have been classified in the first place. And the people who classified them KNEW that. If they were of any importance,  they wouldn’t have been shown to random 21-year-old members of the Massachusetts Air National Guard, especially in such an insecure manner that those personnel could hand-copy and/or photograph them, walk out with them, and share them with a bunch of gamer friends.

While I’m against the whole concept of “classified information” on principle (if you want to keep secrets from taxpayers, give up that taxpayer funding), it’s even worse when  every lieutenant colonel in the armed forces stamps “top secret” on their DoorDash lunch orders, then run around chicken-littleing about “national security” when word gets out. Lock’em up.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

 

On July 25, 2020, libertarian activist Garrett Foster stood his ground: With his wheelchair-bound wife nearby, and his rifle held at “low-ready” position, he told a driver who had run a red light and driven into a crowd of Black Lives Matter protesters in Austin Texas, to “move along.”

The driver, Daniel Perry, proceeded to shoot Foster three times with a pistol, killing him, then claimed “self-defense” and protection under the state’s “stand your ground” law.

Police apparently bought Perry’s “self-defense” claim, but a prosecutor didn’t, and neither did the 12 jurors who unanimously convicted Perry of the murder in  early April 2023.

Why? Perhaps it had to do with Perry’s prior social media messaging:

“I might have to kill a few people on my way to work …”

“I might go to Dallas to shoot looters.”

“Send [protesters] to Texas we will show them why we say you don’t mess with Texas.”

He even speculated, in a Facebook chat, that he could get away with it by, you guessed it, claiming “self-defense.”

Daniel Perry is no Kyle Rittenhouse, who made a poor decision to visit Kenosha, Wisconsin, but was rightly acquitted on charges of murder after defending himself from violent attackers.

Nor is Perry a Michael Drejka, imprisoned for manslaughter in Florida for defending himself from a violent attacker.

Perry’s just a cold-blooded killer who publicly fantasized about murdering protesters, pre-fabricated a bogus “self-defense” claim, went through with his scheme, and couldn’t sell his garbage defense to a jury.

Perry has yet to take any responsibility for his actions, or express remorse, or demonstrate the possibility that he might ever stop posing a clear and present danger to the public.

But, hey, it was a Black Lives Matter rally.

So, naturally, Texas governor Greg Abbott has indicated his intent to pardon the courageous killer of an “antifa terrorist,” decrying the killer’s purely political persecution by a “Soros-backed” prosecutor.

Is Abbott plotting a presidential run? Or jockeying for a cabinet position in a future Republican administration?

Those two possibilities — both instances of “owning the libs to please my base” — seem like the only plausible explanations for his plan to put a known, confessed, convicted killer back on the streets among a law-abiding public whose population that killer has already reduced by one.

If Abbott was a Democratic governor pulling these kind of shenanigans in the name of “criminal justice reform,” Republicans would rightly have his hide.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY