"So yes, I believe 'kill' lists, drones, intense surveillance and every other means is available on a temporary basis to return to these maniacs the same punishment they meet [sic] out to others."
One might argue that there are other actors in the War on
Terror who, as the NYT story shows, "come as thieves in the night" (with
remote-control drones) and "have no qualms about killing innocent
people, including men, women and children." And that they do this
repeatedly, day after day, year after year. But of course, this doesn't
matter. Because those we kill are, of necessity, insane maniacs trying
to impose absolute dominion over others. Even the innocent men, women
and children we kill. Even the people we kill whose names we don't know
doing things we don't know for reasons we don't know.
And so it
goes. For this Theban, and for so many other "good liberals" and staunch
progressives, a five-year-old girl with her guts gouged out by some
coward with a joystick 10,000 miles away is an "immoral and hateful
maniac" who deserves to die, and whose very presence on the face of the
earth justifies any and all repressive measures to keep "our way of
life" intact. "On a temporary basis," of course. Just until all the
maniacs have been killed. Just until we "exterminate all the brutes."
This
is the spectrum of liberalism in 2012. On one end, "troubled" by state
murder -- but not sickened, not outraged, not driven to furious
rejection of those who perpetrate such "unspeakable things." On the
other end, gleefully, joyfully accepting of the murder program, exulting
even in the killing of absolute strangers. After all, every defenseless
child eviscerated stealthily by a presidential drone is "one less
potential attacker of my country." The Leader protects us! The Leader
knows best! You go, Barry!
II.
There is, of
course, another view of these matters. You won't find it in the
venerable journals of liberalism or amongst the fierce dissidents of the
Netroots Nation. (As John Caruso points out, here
is the rigorous moral compass of the founding father of the Netrooters
in action: "'I'll tell you what. If [Obama] shows that he's going to
fight for the things that I care about, I will fight twice as hard for
him.' And if he doesn't? 'Then I'll vote for him,' says Moulitsas.") It
is apparent by now that for the vast bulk of the progressosphere, there
is literally nothing that Obama can do to lose their support, however
"troubled" or grudging that support might be.
Once again, you should read the whole of Silber's essay, but here are a few excerpts particularly pertinent to our theme:
"It is one thing for the ruling class to target the general domestic population on economic matters, as it has by systematically squeezing every last bit of wealth and opportunity out of 'ordinary' Americans and shoveling all of it into the drooling maw of the rulers (and for many Americans, these methods of brutalization are already catastrophic in the extreme). It is very different when the ruling class announces to the world that it considers every human being on Earth not favored by power and privilege to be fair game in a neverending campaign of slaughter.
"Yet there are no crowds in the street. Forget howls of fury; you can listen with the greatest concentration of which you are capable, and you will detect barely a whimper. Life goes on precisely as before, as if nothing of great moment has happened. With very rare exceptions ... even the harshest critics of the murder campaign so thoughtfully detailed in the NYT will not say:'These people are monsters. This is profoundly evil. All these people, all those who collaborate and assist in such a program, have placed themselves far beyond any limit of what can be designated as civilization.'"... Be sure to understand this issue. The claim of absolute power -- the claim of dominion over all of human life itself, and the assertion of a damnable 'right' to unleash death whenever and in whatever direction they wish -- is not remotely equivalent to any dispute over lowering Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age, or any similar question, at least it is not equivalent to any sane person. The claim of absolute power is sui generis; it is a claim unlike any other. It is not -- I repeat: it is not -- simply another 'question of policy.' It is certainly possible that, in particular cases, the deprivation of medical benefits (as just one example) may ultimately result in a person's death sooner than would have occurred otherwise. But for some period of time, however brief, the persons so affected are left with the possibility of action; they can still try to save themselves, even if those efforts are finally unsuccessful. But the claim of a 'right' to dispense death arbitrarily -- the claim that the State may murder anyone it chooses, whenever it desires -- constitutes a separate category altogether, a category of which this particular claim is the sole unit. When death is unleashed, all possibility of action is ended forever.
"Yet you can read various harsh denunciations of this policy, and you will almost never encounter language of the kind I employ here. Even for the most vehement of 'dissenters,' the assertion of absolute power is treated as another in a list of wrongs, perhaps an especially egregious wrong, but not a claim which demands a fundamentally different response. For such writers, it is certainly nothing to take to the streets about; it is no cause for withdrawing one's support in every way possible from a system of evil dedicated to death. This, too, is a measure of how profoundly damaged our culture is. With regard to almost all 'dissenting' writers, and if I may express the point more personally and informally, I often think that I have never seen such a collection of gutless wonders. ...
"Not infrequently, I think that what may doom us is not the immense evil to which the State devotes itself, but the quality of the opposition -- those who are, in Thoreau's formulation, the State's 'most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform....'
"Although the NYT article did not disclose new information with regard to the essentials of the State's program of death, its length, detail and prominence constitute a significant ratcheting up of the State's claim of absolute power. Most crucial is the statement in the article that much of the content is derived from interviews with 'three dozen of [Obama's] current and former advisers.' As I pointed out in Part I, this in effect announces the identity of the article's true author: the author is the U.S. government, the State itself. Through these 'advisers,' the highest levels of the U.S. government have told the story they want to tell. And what is that story? It is simply this:'The State is become death. Our target can be anyone we choose. Yes, this means you. No, there is nowhere to run.'"
Here is no shuffling, no weasel-wording, no wiggle room for self-deception. Here we look at the mephitic heart of the matter, the burning, rotten core. In this political year, with an election looming, let no one be mistaken on this point: When you get down with Obama, however grudgingly or reluctantly, you are dancing on the killing floor. You are, to use The Nation's terms, following the logic of the Terror War into complicity and collusion with unspeakable things.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
