For years, the United States has danced around the fact that it has repeatedly enter the sovereign territory of other countries with drone attacks and in some cases small unit attacks without the permission of countries like Pakistan. Such acts violate international law and would be viewed by the United States as an act of war if committed on U.S. territory. This week,Defense Secretary Leon Panetta finally responded directly to those objections and said that the attacks would continue unabated. Panetta essentially stated that we can invade other nations because we can and that countries will have to come to accept that — using the same concept as “floggings will continue on ship until morale improves.”
Panetta insisted this is really not them (other countries) but us. Speaking in India, he proclaimed “This is about our sovereignty as well.” As for Pakistan, which has repeatedly objected to attacks on its territory, Panetta said “It’s a complicated relationship, often times frustrating, often times difficult. They have provided some cooperation. There are other times when frankly that cooperation is not there.” Strangely, we would not view the relationship as complicated if Mexico sent drones into Texas to take out suspects or landed Mexican special forces in Arizona to kill enemies. We would treat it as a matter of war.
Panetta has finally made “American exceptionalism” official policy. We do these things simply because we can; because we are the United States. From torture to military tribunals to hit lists, the United States is above the legal standards that we impose on others. The greatest danger is that our hypocrisy abroad is turning into hypocrisy at home where we continue to claim to be the “land of the free” while stripping citizens of basic rights and expanding unchecked presidential and police powers.
Obama has expanded drone attacks to an unprecedented level while expanding his claimed authority to kill citizens without a charge or trial. Now the most common image of the United States abroad is not our Constitution but our drones. For many people around the world, Panetta’s speech will be viewed as adding unrestained arrogance to unrestrained power.
Source: ABC
I am 70 years old and have seen a lot of bullies. Never in my life have a seen a bully who did not eventually get the shit beaten out of him.
“You’re certainly free to hate your country and its government but don’t think that is the view of most Americans or EVEN MOST READERS OF THIS BLOG.”
Uhmmm… Mespo, how long have you actually read this blog? Most people here I would agree don’t hate the country, but they DO hate the government, of both the R. and D. imperialist variety. Just a little trend I’ve noticed.
And thanks a bunch for making my arguments for me. You know, the ones about the Romans. Sure, they were the kings of pragmatism. The cause of their collapse was the internal rot, a combined threat from disparate groups who wanted nothing to do with the Romans, and the religious zealots of a few countries from… where? Hmm, can’t seem to remember. Oh yeah, THE MIDDLE EAST!. While the final collapse was brought on by the germanic tribes, it was the constant pressures from too large an Empire, too much corruption from within, that was the root cause. Where they succeeded most was in blending and adapting countries they conquered into their own cutlures. Machiavelli himself made arguments that the best approach was to blend an enemy’s culture into your own. When the Romans failed, they had lost their greatest strengths as an Empire- they didn’t permit the slow adaptation of other people into their own country. They stopped a great deal of local autonomy, creating resentment. They stopped freeing slaves, leading to more and more slave rebellions. In other words, they turned away from what made them successful, just as we are doing now. The collapse of America can be watched as an accelerated process of exactly what collapsed the Romans- expediency and greed and narrow minded pursuit of political power leading to poor policy decisions abroad.
I absolutley reject your theory that governments are not moral actors. The longest lasting governments have always been comprised of people with the blend of the conqueror and statesman- carrot and stick approaches, rather than all carrot and all sticks. And no one on this blog, not even my dear eternally pacifist friend MM, argues that there should be NO response to attacks. It’s the scale, and motivation for, and actual results of how we respond that has become abhorrent. And before you accuse me of being one who doesn’t support our troops, you’d better read a few of my posts. I do believe MM called me a chest thumping rambo at one point =b.
Game, set, match to Michael Murry. That is a terrific last paragraph, sir.
MM,
“Moral Philosophy according to Otteray Scribe:
IF YOU LIVE IN AMERICA, DO NOT GO TO WORK IN A HUGE BUILDING THAT SYMBOLIZES AMERICA’S MILITARY OR CORPORATE DOMINATION OF THE PLANET.”
Really, I know you are a professionally military trained propagandist, but your constant reliance upon straw men for argumentation simply will not work in this forum. What you say above is a complete misrepresentation of what OS said and it accomplished nothing but to illustrate your personal biases and that you are perhaps incapable of a good faith argument on the merits and instead repeatedly rely upon a logical fallacy that is a time worn tool of propagandists and/or those who don’t know you to argue without using fallacies. Since you’re demonstrably not stupid and have the background to know that what I am saying about straw men as a propaganda technique involving misrepresentation (a form of deception) is true, then I must assume that either 1) you’re doing it on purpose or 2) it is such an ingrained habit from your past life you simply can’t help yourself. It serves only to undermine any credibility which you might build in posts where you don’t resort to that pitiful tactic. As long as you engage in that tactic, I and others will continue to point it out.
Malisha,
Years ago, President Bill Clinton would order cruise missile attacks on Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan — the ones we and the Saudis and the Pakistanis built for Osama bin Laden to use against the Soviets. Frequently, news reports from Pakistan would show outraged villagers — whose homes and relatives had just disappeared in a blast — complaining because our cruise missile had overshot its target in Afghanistan and hit Pakistan, instead. I remember thinking: It looks pretty bad when we can’t hit the training camp we aim at, but when we can’t even hit the country we aim at, well, that ought to disqualify us from shooting at anyone.
Two presidents later and the United States Government still can’t seem to hit enough of the same Muslim people or their training camps to make them stop wanting to run their own countries and live as they please. Somehow, shooting people to kill their ideas never seems to do much except make the idea stronger.
OS,
I have a great life. One that you cannot soil with yours. Now run off and hide like a good little bushwhacker.
Emperor Obama ordered the deaths of two (actually, three) of my fellow citizens without a shred of due process. He took a solemn oath to defend and uphold the Constitution which he has manifestly, aggressively, and exultantly has refused to do. America’s vicarious armchair “warriors” can drool and masturbate over their dreary Muslim body counts all they desire, but I will remember the name of Anwar al-Awlaki with respect thanks to Emperor Obama’s lack of respect for him and his rights as an American citizen. I think that someone once said: “What you do to the least of these, you do to me.”
I’ve actually served in one of these mindless American military crusades. They always end badly, just as this one will. And those who started them and championed their continuation will wind up in the trashcan of history, where they belong. You can’t do a wrong thing the right way, as more than one deluded and vainglorious American president has discovered to his sorrow.
OS, unfortunately, if you live in the Middle East, riding in cars with or standing next to ANYONE can shorten your life expectancy.
Beautiful scenery, though.
It’s enlightening to read the thought process of someone who argues for the blatant disregard of international law, the US Constitution, and basic human empathy in their culturally protective stance that justifies their eschewing of international law, the US Constitution, and basic human empathy.
Thanks, Mespo
MM, I have no idea what you are talking about, and my reading comprehension is just fine. Moreover, don’t bother clarifying because 1) I don’t really care; and, 2) it is past midnight here and I am turning in. Probably will not even check in tomorrow because I actually have a life outside messing with blogs and am very busy. Have a nice life.
Moral Philosophy according to Otteray Scribe:
IF YOU LIVE IN AMERICA, DO NOT GO TO WORK IN A HUGE BUILDING THAT SYMBOLIZES AMERICA’S MILITARY OR CORPORATE DOMINATION OF THE PLANET.
“Doing so has been proven to shorten one’s life expectancy.”
As well, one can hardly help associating with “known terrorists” when any “military age male” qualifies as a “terrorist” — or at least as someone “up to no good” (same thing) — to an American drone gamer who claims to “know” stuff about what he doesn’t..
Out of the mouths of moral midgets, and that sort of thing.
“He wasn’t targeted.” — Mespo:
Mespo knows this because he has access to super secret “intelligence” (American English for “stupidity”) that the general public does not. Or,
Mespo takes at face value the official pronouncements of known prevaricators who justify their every action by claiming that the public has no right to know about it. But Mespo believes anyway.
“His father who put him in harm’s way was targeted and Anwar al-Awlaki knew he was being targeted when he took his child on that trip.” — Mespo
Mespo knows this because even though the United States Government had never charged Mr Awlaki with a crime, the U.S. government told Mespo (privately) the “real reasons” for murdering Mr Awlaki without a shred of due process. These secret reasons Mespo believed without demanding an ounce of evidence to back up the accusations.
Furthermore after Anwar al-Awlaki died in a drone strike for a crime never charged against him or proven, his ghost continued to ride around in Yemen with his 16-year-old son until President Obama could have the son murdered for “collateral proximity of a military age male” to a known “terrorist” ghost.
But Mespo believes stuff.
Mespo sounds a lot like an apologist for a Sicilian mafia don who claims he has to kill the son of the man he has killed because, as everyone knows, any son worth his manhood will seek revenge on his father’s murderer when he grows up. So President Obama just did what any self-respecting mafia don would do: namely, prevent his own future death at the hands of the son of the man he had murdered without a shred of due process. Actually, this mafia don “preventive revenge” thing pretty much sums up the foreign policy principles of the United States Government over the past thirteen years.
“… [something about] The nation who protected itself from a traitor who had the express and avowed purpose of destroying it.” — Mespo
Mespo does not know of any conviction for treason on the part of Anwar al-Awlaki. No one else does, either. But Mespo glibly speaks of such a “traitor” anyway. Mespo doesn’t actually know the meaning of the words he uses.
As far as I have read and understand, Mr Awlaki spoke and wrote decent English in defense of Muslim countries and their right not to have the United States invade and occupy them in the interests of Exxon-Mobil, Goldman Sachs, and the Apartheid Zionist Entity. I don’t see anything treasonous about expressing that opinion in English, as I do it regularly myself, and I’ve got an honorable discharge from the U.S. Navy to prove my “patriotism.” All Americans — including Mr Awlaki and his son — have the right to “petition their government for a redress of grievances,” which does not mean the “destruction” of America, only the necessity of a change in policy. I do not see anything treasonous about any American exercising his constitutional rights in that manner. Mespo and I disagree on this, but then Mespo believes stuff that I don’t.
Finally, Mespo waves the bloody shirt and invokes the SACRED SYMBOL SOLDIER (“hiding behind the troops”) and the “intelligence services” (widely ridiculed by late night comedians as Can’t Identify Anything) in a pathetic resort to the irrelevant emotional appeal when he has no factual or logical support for his jingoistic claptrap.
I don’t think much of what Mespo writes about “wars” that America has never declared but that presidentss love to wage on a whim anyway. I served in the Nixon-Kissiinger Fig Leaf Contingent (Vietnam 1970-72) and I can say categorically that nothing any of us fought or died for there had any legal basis or did anything to advance the security of the United States. Not. One. Thing. Ditto for Iraq and Afghanistan. Our troops die in vain in war for our sorry ass corporations all the time and they continue doing so to this day. Best to face up to that and stop pretending that the country gives a shit about THE SACRED SYMBOL SOLDIER. It doesn’t. I hope I have made that clear.
Military Suicide Rate Surges To Nearly One Per Day This Year
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/07/military-suicide-surges-_n_1578821.html
After reviewing the hand-wringing, preaching, pearl-clutching and moralizing on the subject of al-Awlaki’s son, I realized this story has a moral. The moral of this story is:
IF YOU LIVE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, DO NOT RIDE IN CARS WITH–OR STAND NEXT TO–KNOWN TERRORISTS!
Doing so has been proven to shorten one’s life expectancy.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/mueller-grilled-on-fbis-release-al-awlaki-in-2002/
Mueller grilled on FBI’s release of al-Awlaki in 2002
By Catherine Herridge
Published March 08, 2012
FoxNews.com
Several congressional committees want the FBI director to explain why one of his agents ordered the release of Anwar al-Awlaki from federal custody on Oct. 10, 2002, when there was an outstanding warrant for the American Muslim cleric’s arrest.
“There are a number of committees interested in the facts of what happened early on with al-Awlaki, and we’d be happy to give you a briefing of what we know. We’ve done it before, we’ll do it again,” FBI Director Robert Mueller told Republican Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia.
Wolf first wrote to Mueller in spring 2010, based on the Fox News’ ongoing investigation of al-Awlaki, who was killed last year in a CIA-led drone strike in Yemen, on Sept. 30. Fox News was told that the congressman, whose district once included the cleric’s Virginia mosque, was not satisfied by the FBI’s earlier briefings.
Now that the cleric is dead, Wolf urged Mueller to be more transparent about the bureau’s interactions with al-Awlaki.
“I believe the bureau could, hopefully, be more forthcoming with regard to the 2002 incident. It is important that we look at how past incidents were handled so we’re better prepared for the future,” Wolf said. “And I can’t help but think how history could’ve been different, especially at Fort Hood, if al-Awlaki had been arrested and prosecuted back in October 2002.”
Thirteen peole were killed at Fort Hood and more than 30 injured. Mueller said he was “painfully aware” of the facts. The alleged Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal Hasan, was in contact, via email, with al-Awlaki, who may have inspired the massacre.
“Our sympathy to the victims’ families, it’s, you know, very painful and every one of us feels badly that it occurred and that we could not stop it,” Mueller explained.
Fox News’ Specials Unit reported that the cleric was held by customs agents at JFK International Airport in New York City in early morning of Oct. 10, 2002, until FBI Agent Wade Ammerman ordered his release – even though a warrant for the cleric’s arrest on passport fraud was still active.
The warrant was generated by the Joint Terrorism Task Force in San Diego, which considered the cleric a “tier one” target because of his connections to at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. The passport fraud warrant was described to Fox News as a holding charge that would allow federal investigators to pressure al-Awlaki over his 9/11 contacts.
The warrant was pulled by a judge in Colorado, after the cleric entered the U.S. A U.S. attorney in Colorado who oversaw the warrant and the Justice Department claimed the cleric’s earlier lies to the Social Security Administration, the basis of the charge, had been corrected. But new documents obtained by Fox News through the Freedom of Information Act show otherwise.
After al-Awlaki re-entered the U.S. in the fall of 2002 with the FBI’s help, the cleric then appeared in a high-profile investigation, in which Agent Ammerman was a lead investigator. The FBI has not made the agent available to Fox News to interview, nor has the Department of Justice made the U.S. attorney on the case available. Former FBI agents say Ammerman would have needed permission from higher up in the bureau to let al-Awlaki go.
The House Homeland Security Committee launched an official investigation into the cleric and his 9/11 connections last year, but sources tell Fox News that committee staffers have been frustrated by the FBI’s resistance to providing documents and witnesses, citing “ongoing investigations.”
Wolf urged the FBI director to brief other lawmakers, including the head of the house intelligence committee, so that a similar scenario “never happens again.”
Fox News confirmed that the October 2002 incident and the arrest warrant for al-Awlaki was never disclosed to the 9/11 Commission or to Congress.
Former FBI agents, familiar with al-Awlaki’s re-entry in October 2002, say only two scenarios seem to explain what happened. The FBI was tracking the cleric for intelligence or the FBI was working with the cleric and saw him as a “friendly contact.”
anonymously
1, June 7, 2012 at 10:00 pm
He wasn’t targeted. His father who put him in harm’s way was targeted and Anwar al-Awlaki knew he was being targeted when he took his child on that trip. Who is then the greater “devil”? The nation who protected itself from a traitor who had the express and avowed purpose of destroying it and whose son got caught in the crossfire, or the father who put him there as a shield and probably insured his demise.
You say that his “…son got caught in the crossfire” and “his father put him there as a shield.” Anwar al-Awlaki died two weeks before his son. What in the hell are you talking about?
==============
To correct a previous comment of mine:
The first paragraph is an excerpt from a comment of mespo727272. Those words are his, not mine.
My response was as follows:
You say that his “…son got caught in the crossfire” and “his father put him there as a shield.” Anwar al-Awlaki died two weeks before his son. What in the hell are you talking about?
By the way, anonymously, it was later reported that the strike that killed the 16-year-old son of Al-Awlaki had as its intended target, AQAP’s media chief, Egyptian Ibrahim al Bana. -mespo727272
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we killed a kid and scrambled to make the story palatable.
Surely you don’t take everything at face value? Did you also buy the line about WMD in Iraq?
mespo727272
1, June 7, 2012 at 10:23 pm
anonymously:
You’re certainly free to hate your country and its government but don’t think that is the view of most Americans or even most readers to this blog.
=========
How in the world did you make that leap?
I certainly don’t hate my county. It’s possible, even likely, that I care about this country more than you do, given your views on this thread.
Mespo,
You are correct that the Marines are alive and well. The Army is in better shape now they have almost completely left Iraq.
“My point remains that we have no greater duty to his son’s safety that he does.” mespo727272
His son was 16. He was an American citizen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/anwar-al-awlakis-family-speaks-out-against-his-sons-deaths/2011/10/17/gIQA8kFssL_story_1.html
“If we Americans are to survive it will have to be because we choose and elect and defend to be first of all Americans; to present to the world one homogeneous and unbroken front, whether of white Americans or black ones or purple or blue or green. If we in America have reached that point in our desperate culture when we must murder children, no matter for what reason or what color, we don’t deserve to survive, and probably won’t.”
—-Faulkner, William