You might think you know what the word "militant" means. After all, US mainstream media outlets use this word with almost the same frequency as that now almost meaningless appellation "terrorist." But you would probably be wrong, because the Obama administration has thrown a little twist into the definition. Now we have learned that to be classified as a "militant," all you need to be is a "military age" male, and to be unfortunate enough to be blown-up in a US drone strike. You see, this is ostensibly why administration tallies of civilians killed in such strikes seem almost preposterously low. It's because the administration basically asserts that anyone (military-aged male) killed in a drone strike is a militant! The argument, such as it is, goes something like this, "... well, anyone in the vicinity of a place we are considering hitting must be up to no good..." It's ironic, deeply troubling, and sad all at the same time that this was also essentially the justification given by George Zimmerman for his stalking and eventual killing of Trayvon Martin. That these policies are being implemented by the administration of the first African American US President makes it even that much sadder.
Recall that it's not even required to know who is actually present when such a strike is conducted. So-called "signature" strikes just require there be some signature of terrorist activity. As for what that signature activity might actually be you would likely have to have access to the classified justifications and procedures. Good luck with that. So, the folks carrying out this policy likely don't even know the names and faces of who might be in the cross-hairs, but rest assured they are all "militants." Remember that these strikes are taking place far from what most of us would even remotely consider a conventional battlefield. It must be heady indeed to possess such god-like powers, to know exactly who the bad guys are, and that it's justifiable to kill them. No arrests, no interrogations, no criminal charges, no trials needed, just "administrative due process." But rest assured, apparently if some solid evidence appears after the fact, that is, posthumously, to demonstrate a victim's innocence then the "militant" appellation may be removed. Who could possibly claim that we are not a merciful people?
To my mind this was perhaps the most astonishing revelation brought to light by a recent New York Times piece whose primary story line concerned the existence of a "kill list" run right out of the White House, with Obama personally signing off on all such strikes. Again, you'll be comforted to know that a rigorous procedure is in place. First a "nomination" process is conducted where a potential target is put forward for possible addition to the list. Kind of gives a cruel twist to the term nomination! But then the torturing of language is a key symptom of the authoritarian mind at work. And of course we are told that the minimizing of civilian casualties is a paramount consideration. I guess it helps when you can simply redefine what it means to be a "militant" or "civilian," and you have a largely compliant media that will be more than happy to play along.
If you somehow think that the above is consistent with democratic governance in general and the US Constitution in particular, then perhaps it's time for a civics refresher course. The Obama administration has asserted that anyone, including American citizens, can be targeted for such extrajudicial killing. In a related expansion of such powers, indefinite detention by the military of designated persons, within the United States proper, was recently codified within the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) legislation passed by Congress. When challenged with a lawsuit in the name of a number of journalists and activists, and litigated with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), at a hearing to establish standing of the plaintiffs, administration lawyers could not give assurances that even normal journalistic activities or straight political speech would not run afoul of the vague and overreaching language in the NDAA. If that is not thoroughly inconsistent with the 1st Amendment, then the Amendment has effectively been rendered worthless.
The way to highlight the extreme nature of these policies is to ask how US leaders would react if foreign governments or official enemies were to adopt similar policies vis a vis US civilians. Imagine the howls, the shrieks, the blood curdling screams if some other country were to treat US citizens in such a way! The criticisms and condemnations would be unrelenting. US leaders were quick, and correct, in absolutely condemning Al Qaeda suggestions that somehow US citizens killed in the 9/11 attacks were "not innocent," and in some way also militants. Why would US leaders even remotely consider adopting such an eerily similar policy, arguing that anyone in the vicinity of a strike is also "not innocent," a militant. It's very simple, if we wouldn't want our citizens so labelled, then we have no right to condemn others to such an immoral policy.
Saturday, June 9, 2012
Saturday, February 4, 2012
The Enduring Power of Our Moral Example?
I suppose one should expect a certain level of nationalistic chest-beating and jingoism in your typical State of the Union address, and on that score President Obama certainly didn't disappoint in his recent speech. But really, "... the enduring power of our moral example.." Obama used this odious, over-the-top phrase of pure propaganda in his efforts to convince us that "America is back." Back from what, one is tempted to ask. Are you kidding me?
Now, when I was growing up one of the lessons I learned was that showing a bit of humility is always a better choice than outright bragging about ones perceived greatness, or even worse, ones perceived moral rectitude. Who ever brags about their moral rectitude?
These are the kinds of statements and thinking that enable the United States to routinely perpetrate on the global stage the same kind of destructive and immoral acts for which we regularly condemn other nations. So, what could Obama be referring to?
The moral example of a nation where upwards of 50 million of its citizens lack regular access to health care?
The moral example of a nation where many of its citizens must make the choice between getting access to health care or financial ruin?
The moral example of a nation with almost 1/4 of its children living in poverty or economic distress?
The moral example of a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world?
The moral example of a nation that still routinely employs the death penalty?
The moral example of a nation that illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed a country (Iraq) on the basis of fabricated pretexts (weapons of mass destruction, and a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda)?
The moral example of a nation that has claimed the right to unilaterally kill virtually anyone, anywhere in the world, that it deems a "terrorist," including its own citizens, without judicial review?
The moral example of a nation that routinely kills innocent civilians in the exercise of the above claimed right?
The moral example of a nation that tortures, and has claimed the right to indefinitely detain essentially anyone, anywhere, including its own citizens, without judicial review?
The moral example of a nation that claims the right to unilaterally kidnap anyone, anywhere and "render" them to another country for torture and interrogation, again, without the possibility of judicial review or remedy?
Well, I could go on, but you get the idea. Now Obama and indeed many of our political leaders must know about at least some of these moral shortcomings, or you would think that they should, right? But that's the beauty of the myth of "American exceptionalism," it's axiomatic, evidence to the contrary is completely irrelevant. We are simply the best, at everything, period, by definition. So, this allows someone like President Obama to argue, when confronted with the evidence of, for example, our indiscriminate killing of civilians, that we really don't, that these drone programs are surgical and precise, and we're just getting the bad guys, and even if we do kill civilians, well, our intentions are noble and moral, so, well, it's OK. We're the best after all. That really is the level of the argument. This is an extremely dangerous, not to mention unhealthy, mindset because when you hold such views moral arguments essentially hold no weight. You are the best, you can't be wrong or immoral in your actions, by definition. This is the kind of thinking that, sadly, is far to evident in our political culture.
Now, when I was growing up one of the lessons I learned was that showing a bit of humility is always a better choice than outright bragging about ones perceived greatness, or even worse, ones perceived moral rectitude. Who ever brags about their moral rectitude?
These are the kinds of statements and thinking that enable the United States to routinely perpetrate on the global stage the same kind of destructive and immoral acts for which we regularly condemn other nations. So, what could Obama be referring to?
The moral example of a nation where upwards of 50 million of its citizens lack regular access to health care?
The moral example of a nation where many of its citizens must make the choice between getting access to health care or financial ruin?
The moral example of a nation with almost 1/4 of its children living in poverty or economic distress?
The moral example of a nation with the highest incarceration rate in the world?
The moral example of a nation that still routinely employs the death penalty?
The moral example of a nation that illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed a country (Iraq) on the basis of fabricated pretexts (weapons of mass destruction, and a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda)?
The moral example of a nation that has claimed the right to unilaterally kill virtually anyone, anywhere in the world, that it deems a "terrorist," including its own citizens, without judicial review?
The moral example of a nation that routinely kills innocent civilians in the exercise of the above claimed right?
The moral example of a nation that tortures, and has claimed the right to indefinitely detain essentially anyone, anywhere, including its own citizens, without judicial review?
The moral example of a nation that claims the right to unilaterally kidnap anyone, anywhere and "render" them to another country for torture and interrogation, again, without the possibility of judicial review or remedy?
Well, I could go on, but you get the idea. Now Obama and indeed many of our political leaders must know about at least some of these moral shortcomings, or you would think that they should, right? But that's the beauty of the myth of "American exceptionalism," it's axiomatic, evidence to the contrary is completely irrelevant. We are simply the best, at everything, period, by definition. So, this allows someone like President Obama to argue, when confronted with the evidence of, for example, our indiscriminate killing of civilians, that we really don't, that these drone programs are surgical and precise, and we're just getting the bad guys, and even if we do kill civilians, well, our intentions are noble and moral, so, well, it's OK. We're the best after all. That really is the level of the argument. This is an extremely dangerous, not to mention unhealthy, mindset because when you hold such views moral arguments essentially hold no weight. You are the best, you can't be wrong or immoral in your actions, by definition. This is the kind of thinking that, sadly, is far to evident in our political culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)