Amazon, the CIA and Assassinations

The entangling threads connecting technology, media and the surveillance state have snarled so completely that it’s next to impossible to untie them, exemplified by Amazon, the Washington Post, and the CIA’s pending assassination of a suspected American terrorist, as Norman Solomon explains.

By Norman Solomon

President Barack Obama is now considering whether to order the Central Intelligence Agency to kill a U.S. citizen in Pakistan. That’s big news this week. But hidden in plain sight is the fact that Amazon would be an accessory to the assassination.

Amazon has a $600 million contract with the CIA to provide the agency with “cloud” computing services. After final confirmation of the deal several months ago, Amazon declared: “We look forward to a successful relationship with the CIA.”

Amazon's founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post.

Amazon’s founder and CEO Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post.

The relationship means that Amazon — logoed with a smiley-face arrow from A to Z, selling products to millions of people every week — is responsible for keeping the CIA’s secrets and aggregating data to help the agency do its work. Including drone strikes.

Drone attacks in Pakistan are “an entirely CIA operation,” New York Times reporter Mark Mazzetti said Tuesday night in an interview on the PBS NewsHour. He added that “the Pakistani government will not allow the [U.S.] military to take over the mission because they want to still have the sort of veneer of secrecy that the CIA provides.”

The sinister implications of Amazon’s new CIA role have received scant public attention so far. As the largest Web retailer in the world, Amazon has built its business model on the secure accumulation and analysis of massive personal data. The firm’s Amazon Web Services division gained the CIA contract amid fervent hopes that the collaboration will open up vast new vistas for the further melding of surveillance and warfare.

Notably, Amazon did not submit the low bid for the $600 million contract. The firm won the deal after persuading the CIA of its superior technical capacities in digital realms. Amazon is now integral to the U.S. government’s foreign policy of threatening and killing.

Any presidential decision to take the life of an American citizen is a subset of a much larger grave problem. Whatever the nationality of those who hear the menacing buzz of a drone overhead, the hijacking of skies to threaten and kill those below is unconscionable. And, as presently implemented, unconstitutional.

On Feb. 11, the Times reported that the Obama administration “is debating whether to authorize a lethal strike against an American citizen living in Pakistan who some believe is actively plotting terrorist attacks.” In effect, at issue is whether the President should order a summary execution — an assassination — on his say-so.

The American way isn’t supposed to be that way. The “due process of law” required by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution is not supposed to be whatever the President decides to do. (Obama, however, has compared a strike against a terrorist presenting an “imminent” threat to a SWAT team killing a sniper shooting down at a crowd.)

 

A free and independent press is crucial for confronting such dire trends. But structural factors of corporate power continue to undermine the potential of journalism. The Washington Post is a grim case in point. Six months ago, Jeff Bezos — the CEO and main stakeholder of Amazon — bought the Post. But the newspaper’s ongoing CIA-related coverage does not inform readers that the CIA’s big contract with Amazon is adding to the personal wealth of the Post’s sole owner.

This refusal to make such conflict-of-interest disclosures is much more than journalistic evasion for the sake of appearances. It’s a marker for more consolidation of corporate mega-media power with government power. The leverage from such convergence is becoming ever-less acknowledged or conspicuous as it becomes ever-more routine and dominant.

After e-mail correspondence with me about the non-disclosure issue in early January, the executive editor of the Washington Post, Martin Baron, declined to answer questions from media outlets on the subject. On Jan. 15 — when I delivered a RootsAction.org petition under the heading “Washington Post: Readers Deserve Full Disclosure in Coverage of CIA,” signed by 30,000 people, to the newspaper’s headquarters — Baron declined to meet with me or designate any employee to receive the petition. Clearly the Post management wants this issue to go away.

But, as I wrote to Baron last month, it’s all too convenient — and implausible — for the Washington Post to claim that there would be “no direct relevance of the [Amazon-CIA] cloud services contract to coverage of such matters as CIA involvement in rendition of prisoners to regimes for torture; or in targeting for drone strikes; or in data aggregation for counterinsurgency.”

The surveillance state and the warfare state continue to converge. The Washington Post does not want us to insist on journalistic disclosure. Amazon does not want us to insist on moral accountability. President Obama does not want us to insist on basic constitutionality. It would be a shame to oblige any of them.

Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His books include War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. Information about the documentary based on the book is at www.WarMadeEasyTheMovie.org.

Share this Article:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Technorati
  • email

5 comments on “Amazon, the CIA and Assassinations

  1. Joe Tedesky on said:

    Great article, and yet most Americans will go shopping on Amazon never hearing of this story. Consortiumnews is a wonderful site, but this sites audience is very small compared to the cable news networks and the Washington Post who should be covering this.

    We need not only to get big money out of politics, we need an independent news media to report our news.

  2. Well, Joe, after reading this, I for one will just go to our inadequate library and get books by inter-library loan. I bought a ton of books from Amazon in the past, but no more. I will use Amazon for the publishers’ blurbs and reviews, but that is it.

    • Try Barnes and Noble and Abe Books. Also research Amazon’s “fullfillment centers”. They are total sweatshops, some quite literally with intense heat in the Pennsylvania Summer. They actually kept an ambulance outside to take care of collapsing workers. .

  3. Bob Loblaw on said:

    The civil libertarians are confused about what the government is claiming here. If the man is alleged to be an Al Qaeda combatant or affiliate, he is subject to the laws of war, not an accusation of a civil crime. Under the law today, namely the AUMF of 2001 and the subsequent reauthorization in the NDAA of FY2012, Congress has effectively declared war against “those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks” and “Al Qaeda & its affiliates”.

    Bear in mind American citizenship does not entitle you to wage war against your own country, nor does it grant one any claim to civil due process for what are essentially acts of military combat. Furthermore, contrary to the fears of the war’s critics, killing an American citizen in combat is not at all historically unprecedented. We killed defectors to Nazi Germany in World War II. We fought an entire war, undeclared, on American soil, where the President of the United States authorized the imprisonment and combat killings of thousands of Americans, no warrant, no trial, no civil due process. Yet somehow we are to expect a man like Anwar Al-Awlaki, a man with well documented ties to no less than three recent Al Qaeda attacks in the United States, was entitled to civil protection while he waged war against his own country? I don’t buy it.

  4. Hillary on said:

    Just how small is the terror threat?
    ..
    Consider your annual odds of perishing by terror compared to two alternatives:
    ..
    Dying in a car accident: 1 in 19,000
    Dying in a bathtub: 1 in 800,000
    Dying in a terror attack: 1 in 3.5 million

    http://libertymcg.com/2013/07/23/this-is-your-brain-on-terrorism/