The turbulent ramifications of last week's New York Times story
detailing the operations of Barack Obama's White House death squad
continue to reverberate across the country today, sending shock waves
through Washington and bringing crowds of outraged protestors to the ...
Just kidding! As we all know, there have been no "ramifications" at all from this shocking story,
no scandal whatsoever surrounding the fact that the President of the
United States and his aides meet every week to draw up lists of people
to be killed all over the world -- even people who are completely
unknown, who might simply be "behaving" in unspecified ways that some
desk jockey somewhere has decided might possibly be indicative of malign
intent. No scandal, no consequences, no imbroglio, no brouhaha; the
caravan moved on -- and the dogs didn't even bark.
But wait, that's not quite true. There was one
minor scandal issuing, in part, from the story. Republicans seized the
opportunity to accuse Obama, again, of leaking classified matters for
his own political gain. (Yes, they were shocked -- shocked! -- to find
gambling going on in this establishment.) Obama was then forced to deny
authorizing the leaks from his closest advisors and friends, and
promised to investigate how in the world his closest advisors and
friends happened to leak this top-secret information without his
knowledge. This was followed by bipartisan Congressional calls to cloak
the government's atrocities in even thicker clouds of murk.
Thus
the only consequence from the revelation that the U.S. government not
only asserts the arbitrary right to kill anyone on earth but actually
has a formal process to carry out this serial murder is that it will now
be harder than ever to expose any of the crimes and corruption and
sinister follies of the vast national security apparat.
But
as for the -- how to put it? Well, let's be quaint and old-fashioned,
shall we? -- the "moral content" of the murder program, there has been
no scandal at all. Yes, there have a few furrowed brows here and there
from the progessosphere, some tsk-tsks, a few sad head-shakes -- before
our Netroots nationalists plunge right back into campaign arcana,
railing against some rightwing misinformation or partisan attack that
might hurt the electoral chances of a man running a death squad that has
killed hundreds of innocent civilians and fomented more terrorism,
hatred, war and chaos. Because really, what is the shredded corpse of a
drone-blasted child next to yet another birther outburst from that awful
Donald Trump? Can you imagine the nerve of that guy?
Now to be fair, The Nation -- redoubtable flagship of American liberalism for yonks on end -- did sally forth with a bracing editoria l
against Obama's kill list. In no uncertain terms, it denounced the
"corrupting logic" of the War on Terror, which leads "otherwise morally
responsible leaders to do unspeakable things," such as Obama's "kill
lists and drone assassinations."
This does, of course, lead one
to wonder just who these "morally responsible leaders" are who are doing
such unspeakable things. After all, there have been only two leaders
during the War on Terror: Bush and Obama. No Nation reader (or any other
sentient being) would ever consider the former to be a "morally
responsible" leader. But as Obama has been ordering "drone
assassinations" from the very moment he took office -- while resolutely
defending and extending his predecessor's other War on Terror policies
-- it is hard to see how his moral responsibility has somehow been
eroded by his season in power. Should we not say instead with
Shakespeare: "Man, he did make love to this employment."
There
is also the strange notion that the "War on Terror" itself is somehow an
abstract, outside force or entity which compels these individuals to
violate their free consciences and do "unspeakable things." This
childish concept -- "The War on Terror made me do it!" -- is of course a
surreptitious (or perhaps self-deceiving) way for the editors of The
Nation to retain their support for Obama even while criticizing him.
They know that, deep down, he really is morally responsible -- a good
man who has been "led" by the "logic" of the Terror War to do
"unspeakable things" against his will and certainly against his
inclinations. The "things" he does might be "unspeakable" -- that is to
say, evil -- but he himself is not evil. He has simply been led astray,
and may one day be led back to the right path of peace-loving
progressivism -- just as long as peace-loving progressives don't abandon
him, and let those truly evil Republicans return to the White House.
(Where they might do unspeakable things like drawing up kill lists and
launching drone assassinations.)
But again, let's give credit
where it is due. The Nation makes many good arguments against the murder
program. (And it has published some excellent work on the actual,
real-life effects of the Terror War, in the stories of Jeremy Scahill.)
They lay out the heinous nature of this barbaric operation with
admirable clarity. But what do they conclude from all this? That the
program is ... "troubling." And that since liberals "raised a ruckus"
about Bush's -- crimes? atrocities? mass murder? -- no, his "abuses,"
they should not be "silent" now.
But what liberals should say
when breaking their silence is not addressed. Should they say, "We will
not support a man who commits mass murder"? (For as The Nation tells
us, in Pakistan alone "witnesses have attested to hundreds of civilian
deaths.") Or would The Nation have them say, "My word, these 'abuses'
are troubling. I certainly will not feel the same enthusiasm when I vote
for Obama this time around!" The latter seems far more likely.
But
the restrained editorial positively blazes with Luther-like moral fury
when compared to some of the reader comments. Here you will find
self-proclaimed "good liberals" who, far from being "troubled" by
Obama's killing spree, cheer it to the rafters as a mark of moral
goodness. Consider the reaction of this "lifelong Democrat, lifelong
liberal" to "signature strikes" -- the blind blunderbuss launched
against unknown people doing unknown things for unknown purposes:
"When nameless individuals are assassinated over 'patterns of behaviour' that support terrorist enemy combatants, I cheer, since there is alive one less potential attacker of my country."
After all, our leaders would never lead us astray. And they know more than we do -- they even know more than, say, the grandmother holding the bloody corpse of her grandchild in her arms:
"Neither the Pakistani government nor the hundreds of witnesses to US strikes is privy to the US intelligence. How could either possibly know whether or not innocent civilians are included in the death toll? I, for one, put the burden of proof on the other side, and I further place faith in my country to minimize collateral damage as best they can in a combat situation."
Who are you going to believe, Granny? The PowerPoint presentations of
the White House "Tuesday Terror" team -- or your own lying eyes? I
mean, how could you possibly know little Hamza wasn't a terrorist? Do
you have access to Washington's omniscient SIGNIT and HUMINT? I thought
not. So shut up already.
Or how about the disquistion of this learned Theban:
"Of course it's immoral and against human dignity to have a 'kill' list. On the other hand, times have changed .... These days our enemies come as thieves in the night, stealthily and under pretense. They have no qualms about killing innocent people, including men, women and children. Their morals allow them to hijack and fly planes into office buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans, going about their capitalist business. I even understand their objection to our way of life. Capitalism, democracy and freedom empower individual people till they no longer can be controlled under a rigid theocratic ideology. This is a threat to those who would hold absolute dominion over others. These pathological radical religious and political dictators see the handwriting on the wall and are using every immoral and hateful means to hold out to the last insane mind.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
