in ,

OPCW Report (Predictably) Smears Whistleblowers

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

The OPCW has released a briefing note summarising the recent “independent investigation” into their recent Titanic-sized leaks. (You can read the summary at the link above, or the full “independent” report here).

It’s a fairly narrow statement, focusing entirely on the two unnamed inspectors (Inspector A and Inspector B) who worked with the Working Group on Syria, Propaganda and Media to leak the censored reports. (There is not a word about the e-mails later released by WikiLeaks).

You won’t be surprised to know that the report finds the two leakers, Ian Henderson and “Alex”, were wrong to leak the confidential information.

In that sense, it’s entirely self-contradictory. Attempting to tell us the information is at once “sensitive”, and also incomplete, incorrect and easily refuted.

Of course, none of that refutation is present here, because that wasn’t the remit of this report. This is just an investigation into the “Possible Breaches of Confidentiality” and not the veracity of the leaks, or the pertinence of the information therein.

Sometimes an incredibly narrow purview is a sound defence against an undesirable reality.

There’s really no new information here, just six pages of waffle telling us very little we didn’t already know. It’s not a report that really means anything at all. It’s just something that the OPCW literally had to say. Institutions have immune responses, they simply must attack their critics. It’s automatic.

If a CIA whistleblower were to announce the sky was blue, the CIA would release a memo claiming to have no official records concerning the visual appearance of our atmosphere and detailing the leaker’s history of alcohol abuse.

Attacking whistleblowers is just a reflex of self-defence, the most base instinct of every lifeform.

In its content and tone, this report is a clear example of that behaviour. Far more a smear and hit piece than a refutation or investigation (at one point it even straight-up lies about Ian Henderson’s career at the OPCW).

Essentially, it’s just a series of attacks on the competence and motivations of the whistleblowers, even to the point of attempting to deny them that status:

Inspectors A and B are not whistle-blowers.”

The head of OPCW bafflingly declares, before going on to explain:

They are individuals who could not accept that their views were not backed by evidence. When their views could not gain traction, they took matters into their own hands and breached their obligations to the Organisation. Their behaviour is even more egregious as they had manifestly incomplete information about the Douma investigation.”

See – they’re not “whistleblowers”, they’re just individuals who believed that some documents being kept secret should be made public, and “took matters into their own hands”.

Apparently, that’s different from being a whistleblower. Somehow.

As with so much else in the current political sphere, it’s not so much an argument as an exercise in semantics.

Just as Julian Assange’s arrest became a debate over whether or not he was “really a journalist”, and “antisemitism” is redefined to increasingly ludicrous vagueness, here we are confronted by a memo essentially saying “ignore these leaks, these people are not real whistleblowers”.

It’s really not a report designed to make a case or prove a point. It won’t convert anybody or change a single mind. It’s just there to be at the other end of a link. To supply gate-keeping “journalists” with soundbites to bounce back and forth across twitter and blockquote in their articles.

A final redoubt to provide mainstream attack-dogs like Chris York or Scott Lucas some cover as they make a hasty retreat.

In that sense, it’s already doing its job:

A more obvious example of papering over the cracks, you will not see.


The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of this site. This site does not give financial, investment or medical advice.

What do you think?

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Studies in Deception
Studies in Deception
February 9, 2020

Bogus blowback from the OPCW. Had they really wanted to be taken seriously, they would have at least attempted to explain by what reasoning they presented trace elements of chlorine compounds detected in the single digit parts per billion as a smoking gun. But they couldn’t without exposing themselves further, so they didn’t.

Reply to  Studies in Deception
February 9, 2020

Those corrupt planted cowards have no integrity credibility honor honesty spine soul or balls what so ever.

Reply to  Brokenspine66
February 10, 2020

I could probably buy them for a stick of chewing gum.

Double Whammy
Double Whammy
Reply to  Ha!
February 12, 2020

You could probably buy them with the paper wrapper and save the gum.

They’d probably ask for the gum anyway, to plug the holes in their stories.

“Bubble gum and bailing wire….we’ll save our reputation yet.” 😉

Been There, Done That Already
Been There, Done That Already
February 12, 2020

Henderson: “However, it is the method of scientific rigour that dictates that one side cannot profess to be the sole owner of the truth. It should follow the tried and tested method of scientific debate and peer review, leading to consensus. This requires the three “independent
experts” to present and defend their work in a scientific/engineering forum, together with
the same from myself”

Another Ted Postol moment. No doubt, the OPCW will trot out Eliot Higgins to defend the scientific/engineering assessments of these 3 pay to players without even presenting them. (if they even exist). His crudentials speak for themselves. infinitum infinitum
Reply to  Been There, Done That Already
February 12, 2020

Then the OPCW can call in that DNC attorney in Iowa to explain that math is nothing more than an opinion. And besides, the assessment’s been made and mere facts can never override it. LOL

It's Time To Ask Again What Really Happened To Ukraine's Missing Gold

Pentagon cites 873 software flaws in Lockheed Martin’s $428 billion F-35 program (Video)