I must, at last, admit defeat. I simply have no words, no rhetorical ammunition, no conceptual frameworks that could adequately address the total moral nullity exposed in Monday's New York Times article on the death squad that Barack Obama is personally directing from the White House. (“Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will.”) It is not so much a newspaper story as a love letter -- a love letter to death, to the awe-inspiring and fear-inducing power of death, as personified by Barack Obama in his temporary role as the manager of a ruthless, lawless imperial state. In the cringing obsequiousness of the multitude of insiders and sycophants who march in goose-step through the story, we can see the awe and fear -- indeed, the worship -- of death-dealing power. This enthrallment permeates the story, both in the words of the cringers and in the giddy thrill the writers display in gaining such delicious access to the inner sanctum. In any other age -- including the last administration -- this story would have been presented as a scandalous exposé. The genuinely creepy scenes of the "nominating process" alone would have been seen as horrific revelations. Imagine the revulsion at the sight of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld sifting through PowerPoint slides on "suspected terrorists" all over the world, and giving their Neronic thumbs up or down as each swarthy face pops up on a screen in front of them. Imagine the tidal wave of moral outrage from the "Netroots Nation" and other progressive champions directed at Bush not only for operating a death squad (which he did), but then trotting out Condi and Colin and Bob Gates to brag about it openly, and to paint Bush as some kind of moral avatar for the careful consideration and philosophical rigor he applied to blowing human beings to bits in sneak attacks on faraway villages. But the NYT piece is billed as just another "process story" about an interesting aspect of Obama's presidency, part of an election-year series assessing his record. It is based entirely on the viewpoints of Beltway insiders. The very few dollops of mild criticism of the murder program are voiced by figures from deep within the imperial machine. And even these caveats are mostly tactical in nature, based on one question: "Does the program work, is it effective?" There is not a single line that ever suggests, even slightly, that the program might be morally wrong. There is not a single line in the story suggesting that such a program should up for debate or even examination by Congress. Nor is there even a perfunctory quote from mainstream organizations such as the ACLU or Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch -- or from anyone in Pakistan or Yemen or the other main targets of Obama's proudly proclaimed and personally approved death squad. In other words, this portrait of an American president signing off -- week after week after week after week -- on the extrajudicial murder of people all over the world is presented as something completely uncontroversial. Indeed, the main thrust of the story is not the fact that human beings -- including many women, children and men who have no connection whatsoever to "terrorism," alleged or otherwise -- are being regularly killed by the United States government; no, the main focus is how this program illustrates Barack Obama's "evolving" style of leadership during the course of his presidency. That's what's really important. The murders -- the eviscerated bodies, the children with their skulls bashed in, the pregnant women burned alive in their own homes -- are just background. Unimportant. Non-controversial. II. Here's how it works: “Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die. “This secret “nominations” process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia. … A parallel, more cloistered selection process at the C.I.A. focuses largely on Pakistan, where that agency conducts strikes. “The nominations go to the White House, where by his own insistence and guided by Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama must approve any name. He signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia and also on the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan — about a third of the total. “Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counterterrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions. “He realizes this isn’t science, this is judgments made off of, most of the time, human intelligence,” said Mr. Daley, the former chief of staff. “The president accepts as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen, and to him, that calls for a more judicious process.” Again, words fail. Aides pumping reporters with stories about the wise, judicious philosopher-king consulting Aquinas and Augustine before sending a drone missile on a "signature strike" on a group of picnickers in Yemen or farmers in Pakistan. The philosopher-king himself nobly taking on the "moral responsibility" for mass murder. And the cavalier assertion that "a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen" -- a bland, blithe acceptance that you are in fact going to slaughter innocent human beings on a regular basis -- precisely as if you walked up to an innocent man on the street, put a gun to his head and blew his brains out all over the sidewalk …. then walked away, absolved, unconcerned, and free to kill again. And again. And again. This psychopathic serial killing is, evidently, what Augustine meant by "moral responsibility." Who knew? Obama's deep concern for "moral responsibility" is also reflected in his decision to kill according to "signature strikes" -- that is, to kill people you don't know, who haven't even popped up on your PowerPoint slides, if you think they might possibly look or act like alleged potential "terrorists." (Or if you receive some "human intelligence" from an agent or an informer or someone with a grudge or someone seeking payment that a group of people doing something somewhere might be terrorists.) This "moral responsibility" is also seen in Obama's decision to count "all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants … unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." Guilty until proven posthumously innocent! How's that for "moral responsibility"? Here Obama has surpassed Augustine and Aquinas -- yea, even great Aristotle himself -- in this bold extension of the parameters of moral responsibility. It is, I confess, beyond all my imagining that a national leader so deeply immersed in murdering people would trumpet his atrocity so openly, so gleefully -- and so deliberately, sending his top aides out to collude in a major story in the nation's leading newspaper, to ensure maximum exposure of his killing spree. Although many leaders have wielded such powers, they almost always seek to hide or obscure the reality of the operation. Even the Nazis took enormous pains to hide the true nature of their murder programs from the public. And one can scarcely conceive of Stalin inviting reporters from Pravda into the Politburo meetings where he and Molotov and Beria debated the lists of counterrevolutionary "terrorists" given to them by the KGB and ticked off those who would live and those who would die. Of course, those lists too were based on "intelligence reports," often gathered through "strenuous interrogation techniques" or the reports of informers. No doubt these reports were every bit as credible as the PowerPoint presentations reviewed each week by Obama and his team. And no doubt Stalin and his team were just as sincerely concerned about "national security" as the Aquinas acolyte in the White House today -- and just as determined to do "whatever it takes" to preserve that security. As Stalin liked to say of the innocent people caught up in his national security efforts: "When wood is chopped, chips fly." Of course, he was an evil man without any sense of moral responsibility at all. In our much more enlightened times, under the guidance of a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in the White House, we are so much wiser, so much better. We say: "A certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen." Isn't that much more nuanced? Isn't that much more moral? There is more, much more of this nullity -- and rotting hypocrisy and vapid sycophancy -- in the story. But I don't have the strength or the stomach to wade any further through this swamp. It stinks of death. It taints and stains us all.

http://chris-floyd.com/component/con...er-racket.html

Shh.

You'll make the list next.

Does anyone here really think that Obama is the first one to do this? I'm glad that this has come to light, but I sure as shit wish that it didn't take this long for it to be considered outrageous when there have been government hit squads since forever.

On the brightside, there's far less collateral damage, but a lot of people support this type of warfare.

I highly recommend the long article linked to in the first paragraph of the commentary. Gave that a read the other day.

The most bothersome part to me is how they're cooking the numbers to be able to keep the numbers of innocents killed low. Basically they consider any males of military age in the vicinity as enemies even if they know nothing about them as they just assume they wouldn't be in the vicinity of known terrorists if they weren't up to no good.

Originally Posted by dohdough On the brightside, there's far less collateral damage, but a lot of people support this type of warfare.

There's a lot less collateral damage when you redefine militant to mean any "military-age male in a strike zone." It basically means that if your in the area you're probably up to no good, as far as the Obama administration is concerned.

Obama is also responsible for more drone strikes than Bush II was. 51 in 2009 for Obama, 45 for Bush 2001-2009. Obama is Bush III: The Revenge. According to an ex-CIA interrogator, Obama's war is less ethical than the Bush war.

In one sense, neocons should be very happy with Obama's foreign policy. Liberals should not be, but they generally overlook it because of the happy feeling in their pants that Obama gives them on social issues.

I do know this is not the first president who was ruthless. I know Bush started the wars and fumbled them. But Obama is not off the hook. He is a foreign policy disaster and knows nothing about the economy to boot. Romney does know something about the economy, but he knows nothing about jobs, and he will not be good for workers.

But Obama killed Osama, so he will be re-elected. That is my prediction.

Originally Posted by Spokker There's a lot less collateral damage when you redefine militant to mean any "military-age male in a strike zone." It basically means that if your in the area you're probably up to no good, as far as the Obama administration is concerned. Obama is also responsible for more drone strikes than Bush II was. 51 in 2009 for Obama, 45 for Bush 2001-2009. Obama is Bush III: The Revenge. According to an ex-CIA interrogator, Obama's war is less ethical than the Bush war. In one sense, neocons should be very happy with Obama's foreign policy. Liberals should not be, but they generally overlook it because of the happy feeling in their pants that Obama gives them on social issues. I do know this is not the first president who was ruthless. I know Bush started the wars and fumbled them. But Obama is not off the hook. He is a foreign policy disaster and knows nothing about the economy to boot. Romney does know something about the economy, but he knows nothing about jobs, and he will not be good for workers. But Obama killed Osama, so he will be re-elected. That is my prediction.

What reason did Bush have for using fewer drone strikes? Could he have had less intel, or was it some other reason? Maybe Obama and his advisors wanted to do something, and drone strikes seemed most efficient. I don't know.

I certainly don't like the shady labeling of unintended victims – doesn't seem right. Also, ethics is a matter of perspective – ironic, coming from an interrogator. If anything, his job gives him less credit, not more, in my opinion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "generally overlook it," because I've seen about as much coverage of these issues as I expected. Did you want a lot of outrage? "Liberals" is too broad a term; I'm sure some do support this, others aren't sure, and many more are your average Americans who are poorly educated and have a much easier time relating to social issues and to an extent the economy than "out of sight, out of mind" military operation.

As for Romney, we simply don't know how he would handle military. Even if he weren't slippery like an eel with regard to many of his fluxuating stances, we'd be unable to know until he was in the White House, just as we didn't know how poorly Obama would hold up on promises like Guantanamo, indefinite detention, due process, etc.

As for Romney's experience with the economy, he may as well be an economic privateer. Not much of a role model.

I also think "foreign policy disaster" is too bland as well. Maybe be more specific? Foreign policy extends to more than war and conflict.

You make some good points ID2006.

I wasn't happy with the previous administration, and I'm not happy with this one. I wouldn't look forward to a Romney presidency either. I'm just not very hopeful about the future.

Originally Posted by ID2006 What reason did Bush have for using fewer drone strikes? Could he have had less intel, or was it some other reason? Maybe Obama and his advisors wanted to do something, and drone strikes seemed most efficient. I don't know. I certainly don't like the shady labeling of unintended victims – doesn't seem right. Also, ethics is a matter of perspective – ironic, coming from an interrogator. If anything, his job gives him less credit, not more, in my opinion. I'm not sure what you mean by "generally overlook it," because I've seen about as much coverage of these issues as I expected. Did you want a lot of outrage? "Liberals" is too broad a term; I'm sure some do support this, others aren't sure, and many more are your average Americans who are poorly educated and have a much easier time relating to social issues and to an extent the economy than "out of sight, out of mind" military operation. As for Romney, we simply don't know how he would handle military. Even if he weren't slippery like an eel with regard to many of his fluxuating stances, we'd be unable to know until he was in the White House, just as we didn't know how poorly Obama would hold up on promises like Guantanamo, indefinite detention, due process, etc. As for Romney's experience with the economy, he may as well be an economic privateer. Not much of a role model. I also think "foreign policy disaster" is too bland as well. Maybe be more specific? Foreign policy extends to more than war and conflict.

I do. The majority of his foreign policy team is comprised of Bush neocons.

Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess I do. The majority of his foreign policy team is comprised of Bush neocons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/wo...pagewanted=all

He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons — even under the most careful and limited circumstances — could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks

How convenient. Start a cyberwar, then crow about the need to control the internet to "protect" citizens from the blowback of your actions.

Your government, everybody.

Yep that stuxnet fiasco was a major failure and endangered our own infrastructure. They say it will happen,an attack on infrastructure, when is the only question and we gave them the tool to do it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygree...-for-cyberwar/

60 minutes did a great piece some time back on this before it was confirmed it was ours.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7400904n

The whole stuxnet thing is incredibly disappointing. I was trying to get a friend to understand the implications and his reaction was simply "eh, it didn't do much damage".

And what if it had? You think the U.S. government is going to pay for the damage done? The man hours it takes to remove the it? Good luck with that. Honestly collateral damage from something like that can be worse than conventional weapons, understand I'm not talking about lives lost. i just think this has set a dangerous precedent.

It's shameful there isn't more outrage, it is also crazy that the opposition party isn't making this an issue because it undermines an attack ad mentality. Maddow's recent book Drift does a solid (depressing) job explaining the long slog that has taken us to and over the precipice.

The opposition isn't making it an issue because they'd likely to the same stuff or worse.

Until we get someone who's anti-"Team America, World Police", this type of stuff won't be an issue.

Isn't this just a more refined method of warfare? Picking who lives and dies -- including bystanders -- on a power point is a pretty sadistic image. But why would it be more horrific than any other act of war that operates around innocent lives? Is it just the idea that a small table of people is playing god? Isn't that how war is always operated?

I guess the problem here is that we aren't officially at war, just taking out dangerous targets. That is a touchy issue, hmm..

It's a messy "war," unfortunately, because we're fighting people who are spread across the globe and have little to no regard for human life. I strongly supported the War on Terror when Bush was in office, so I'm not gonna be a party douchebag and knock Obama for this.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...ning_20120531/

Agree with your points and pics except the bottom pic here. The problem is rich elites who have and use the state to meet their needs before the rest of us. The police below is an agent of the state. And the state is controlled by those who buy the state.

"Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business... the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance." - John Dewey

Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/wo...pagewanted=all How convenient. Start a cyberwar, then crow about the need to control the internet to "protect" citizens from the blowback of your actions. Your government, everybody.

Here's Glenn Greenwald's scathing review of Obamas kill list. He's been doing a great job giving Barry a hard time instead of the pass most libs give him.

Glenn Greenwald: Obama’s Secret Kill List "The Most Radical Power a Government Can Seize"


http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/3...cret_kill_list

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by joeboosauce Agree with your points and pics except the bottom pic here. The problem is rich elites who have and use the state to meet their needs before the rest of us. The police below is an agent of the state. And the state is controlled by those who buy the state. "Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business... the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance." - John Dewey

You just wrote out the criticism the picture is making. From what I've seen of this and your other posts, you strike me as an an-syn or an-com; am I correct?