A genuinely brave (ex-)soldier speaks out

If you haven't yet, you should make sure you see, hear, or read  yesterday's edition of Democracy Now!  Here's former military intelligence staffer Adrienne Kinne talking about the targeting of the Palestine Hotel:

ADRIENNE KINNE: ...we were listening to journalists who were staying in the Palestine Hotel. And I remember that, specifically because during the buildup to Shock and Awe, which people in my unit were really disturbingly excited about, we were given a list of potential targets in Baghdad, and the Palestine Hotel was listed as a potential target. And I remember this specifically, because, putting one and one together, that there were journalists staying at the Palestine Hotel and this hotel was listed as a potential target, I went to my officer in charge, and I told him that there are journalists staying at this hotel who think they’re safe, and yet we have this hotel listed as a potential target, and somehow the dots are not being connected here, and shouldn’t we make an effort to make sure that the right people know the situation?

And unfortunately, my officer in charge, similarly to any time I raised concerns about things that we were collecting or intelligence that we were reporting, basically told me that it was not my job to analyze. It was my job to collect and pass on information and that someone somewhere higher up the chain knew what they were doing.

Describing some of the scheming Iraqi superspies she was tasked with listening in on:

ADRIENNE KINNE: And as we began to identify different phone numbers which belong to these humanitarian organizations and journalists, we actually had the capability to block those phone numbers from being intercepted, but due to guidance given to our officer in charge, we did not do that.

AMY GOODMAN: You were listening to NGOs speaking to each other?

ADRIENNE KINNE: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: That isn’t legal. You’re not supposed to be eavesdropping on them.

ADRIENNE KINNE: Right.

Explaining why these were (according to her superiors) valid targets for military eavesdropping:

ADRIENNE KINNE: ...we were given a verbal waiver that we could listen to Americans and other ally citizens of allied countries for whatever—from whatever organizations, humanitarian aid organizations, journalists, NGOs, because—and then we were given two reasons that we could listen to Americans and these ally citizens. One was that they were eyes on the ground, and they could stumble upon the location of weapons of mass destruction, and if they should pass the location on over the phone to co-workers or what have you, that we would have to be listening in order to find out where the weapons of mass destruction were located, and we could pass that location on to higher-ups. The other rationale that we were given in order to kind of justify spying on Americans was that the organization or the individual could lose their satellite phone, and a terrorist could pick it up and then start using it.

(I realize these were nothing more than ludicrous rationalizations, but I can't help but get a laugh out of the idea that someone in the military actually thought they were going to catch a reporter calling a cameraman and saying, "Dude, I just totally found all those WMDs Bush has been looking for!  But don't tell anyone!")

And finally, in an inspiring passage that shows why it's important to keep doing what we do even when it doesn't seem to matter, explaining what made her decide to come forward:

ADRIENNE KINNE: It was last year, the summer of last year, I was attending the US Social Forum, and it was just being part of that atmosphere where there are so many organizations and people committed to trying to make a difference and speaking out against torture, speaking out against spying, that I realized that I kind of knew something, and I had experienced something that not everybody else had, and that by sharing my experiences, if I could in any way encourage people that they are doing the right thing in speaking out against what our government is doing today, that I needed to do it.

This is one of the "troops" I'm willing to support: someone who deserves respect for the decisions she's made and the genuine risks she's willing to take—not some yahoo who enlisted so he could take revenge for 9/11 by killing some iRACKees.

The rest is well worth your time, and Democracy Now! is well worth the money if you have some to give.

Comments

[petey]

earlier this year i gave DN the largest single donation i've ever given. lucky me, i live in manhattan and was able to attend the big benefit. (the wife groks willie nelson, so it was a win-win.) they occasionally stray into movement-leftyism, but 90% of the time they're great. i wish they'd remove the exclamation mark, tho'.

the info given by Kinne is shocking, but only to people with consciences. there are lots of rightwingers who will just laugh at the thought that journos would be killed by US ordnance, not to mention babies, other innocents, and the stray ally even.

[John Caruso]

Glad to hear you're supporting them despite your qualms...I have the same sort of relationship with antiwar.com.

[Serafina]

That's really great. I hadn't heard of Kinne. I read antiwar.com, but for whatever reason I've never listened to DN.

What do you think of slogans and attitudes like "support our troops--bring them home"? Mere reinforcing of military-worship? Or a valid condemnation of the way the loudest "supporters" of the troops actually exploit them by continuing to risk their lives for profit and power? (I lean towards the latter).

[John Caruso]

I understand the attitude, but I think it's a mistake for the left to try to co-opt jingoistic slogans (and implicitly validate military worship, as you point out), even when there are valid sentiments behind it.

Some day I may write a post explaining why I think "support the screwdrivers" would be a better alternative.

[petey]

agree with john there. for example, iraq veterans against the war are a great group, but just because they're against the iraq war doesn't mean they're against other wars, or the rampant military. i'd shut up about that to support their excellent work, but i'd also remember that it's a single-issue thing.