"The national security state has many unfair and cruel weapons in its arsenal, but that of junk science is one which can be fought and perhaps defeated"
About this Quote
There’s a strange, almost recruiting-poster optimism buried in this line: yes, the “national security state” is brutal, but one weapon - “junk science” - is supposedly beatable. Coming from Aldrich Ames, that optimism reads less like reform and more like reframing. He’s not just critiquing state power; he’s auditioning for the role of clear-eyed truth-teller, swapping the identity of traitor for that of whistleblower-adjacent moral critic.
The phrase “national security state” is doing heavy work. It’s a capacious villain: bureaucratic, unaccountable, and conveniently faceless. Ames avoids naming agencies, cases, or his own entanglement with espionage, and instead gestures at an entire system as if his story is primarily about governmental overreach rather than personal choice. “Unfair and cruel weapons” borrows the language of asymmetrical warfare and victimhood. It invites the reader to see him not as an aggressor but as someone crushed by a machine.
Then there’s the tell: “junk science” as the singled-out weakness. He’s pointing to the kind of forensic overclaim and expert-driven certainty that can launder shaky evidence into official truth. It’s a savvy target because it sounds technocratic, not ideological: you don’t have to sympathize with a spy to distrust bad forensics. The subtext is strategic self-defense. If you can cast the state’s knowledge-making as corruptible, you loosen the grip of the state’s most powerful asset: credibility. Ames isn’t only arguing that junk science can be fought; he’s arguing that the state’s authority can be embarrassed, litigated, and punctured - which is exactly the kind of leverage someone like him would want the public to believe in.
The phrase “national security state” is doing heavy work. It’s a capacious villain: bureaucratic, unaccountable, and conveniently faceless. Ames avoids naming agencies, cases, or his own entanglement with espionage, and instead gestures at an entire system as if his story is primarily about governmental overreach rather than personal choice. “Unfair and cruel weapons” borrows the language of asymmetrical warfare and victimhood. It invites the reader to see him not as an aggressor but as someone crushed by a machine.
Then there’s the tell: “junk science” as the singled-out weakness. He’s pointing to the kind of forensic overclaim and expert-driven certainty that can launder shaky evidence into official truth. It’s a savvy target because it sounds technocratic, not ideological: you don’t have to sympathize with a spy to distrust bad forensics. The subtext is strategic self-defense. If you can cast the state’s knowledge-making as corruptible, you loosen the grip of the state’s most powerful asset: credibility. Ames isn’t only arguing that junk science can be fought; he’s arguing that the state’s authority can be embarrassed, litigated, and punctured - which is exactly the kind of leverage someone like him would want the public to believe in.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Aldrich
Add to List
