This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
U.S. Labels ALL Young Men In Battle Zones As “Militants” … And American Soil Is Now Considered a Battle Zone
Preface: If this is too intense for you, look at this instead.
Glenn Greenwald has two must-read posts on the reason that virtually everyone the U.S. kills is called a “militant” or “suspected militant”.
He wrote Monday:
Virtually every time the U.S. fires a missile from a drone and ends the lives of Muslims, American media outlets dutifully trumpet in headlines that the dead were ”militants” – even though those media outlets literally do not have the slightest idea of who was actually killed. They simply cite always-unnamed “officials” claiming that the dead were “militants.” It’s the most obvious and inexcusable form of rank propaganda: media outlets continuously propagating a vital claim without having the slightest idea if it’s true.
This practice continues even though key Obama officials have been caught lying, a term used advisedly, about how many civilians they’re killing. I’ve written and said many times before that in American media discourse, the definition of “militant” is any human being whose life is extinguished when an American missile or bomb detonates (that term was even used when Anwar Awlaki’s 16-year-old American son, Abdulrahman, was killed by a U.S. drone in Yemen two weeks after a drone killed his father, even though nobody claims the teenager was anything but completely innocent: “Another U.S. Drone Strike Kills Militants in Yemen”).
This morning, the New York Times has a very lengthy and detailed article about President Obama’s counter-Terrorism policies based on interviews with “three dozen of his current and former advisers.” I’m writing separately about the numerous revelations contained in that article, but want specifically to highlight this one vital passage about how the Obama administration determines who is a “militant.” The article explains that Obama’s rhetorical emphasis on avoiding civilian deaths “did not significantly change” the drone program, because Obama himself simply expanded the definition of a “militant” to ensure that it includes virtually everyone killed by his drone strikes. Just read this remarkable passage:
Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.
This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.
But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.
“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”
The next day, Greenwald noted:
In 2006, the pro-Israel activist Alan Dershowitz created a serious scandal when he argued – mostly in order to justify Israeli aggression — that “civilian causalties” are a “gray area” because many people in close proximity to Terrorists — even if not Terrorists themselves — are less than innocent (“A new phrase should be introduced into the reporting and analysis of current events in the Middle East: ‘the continuum of civilianality’ . . . . Every civilian death is a tragedy, but some are more tragic than others”).
Even more repellent was John Podhoretz’s argument in 2006 that “the tactical mistake” which “we made in Iraq was that we didn’t kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything,” specifically that the real error was that the U.S. permitted “the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35.” In other words, “all military-age males” in Sunni areas should have been deemed “combatants” and thus killed. Podhoretz’s argument created all sorts of outrage in progressive circles: John Podhoretz is advocating genocide!
But this is precisely the premise that President Obama himself has now adopted in order to justify civilian deaths and re-classify them as “militants.” Here is the rationale of Obama officials as described by the NYT: “people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good.” Probably up to no good. That’s a direct replica of Dershowitz’s argument, and is closely related to Podhoretz’s. They count someone as a “militant” — worthy of death — based purely on the happenstance of where they are and the proximity they’re in to someone else they suspect is a Bad Person. If such a person is killed by a U.S. missile, then, by definition, they are “militants,” not “civilians” — even if we don’t know the first thing about them, including their name.
Will This Policy Apply to Americans On U.S. Soil?
This may sound like something far away which won’t directly affect Americans.
But the military now considers the U.S. homeland to be a battlefield. As we noted in March:
Fox News reports:
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Wednesday said he would have to go back and check with the Department of Justice whether Attorney General Eric Holder’s “[criteria] for the targeted killing of Americans also applied to Americans inside the U.S.
***
“I have to go back. Uh, I’m not certain whether that was addressed or not,” Mueller said when asked by Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., about a distinction between domestic and foreign targeting
Graves followed up asking whether “from a historical perspective,” the federal government has “the ability to kill a U.S. citizen on United States soil or just overseas.”
“I’m going to defer that to others in the Department of Justice,” Mueller replied.
Indeed, Holder’s Monday speech at Northwestern University seemed to leave the door open.
Constitutional expert Jonathan Turley writes:
One would hope that the FBI Director would have a handle on a few details guiding his responsibilities, including whether he can kill citizens without a charge or court order.
***
He appeared unclear whether he had the power under the Obama Kill Doctrine or, in the very least, was unwilling to discuss that power. For civil libertarians, the answer should be easy: “Of course, I do not have that power under the Constitution.”
***
The claim that they are following self-imposed “limits” which are meaningless — particularly in a system that is premised on the availability of judicial review. The Administration has never said that the [Law Of Armed Conflicts] does not allow the same powers to be used in the United States. It would be an easy thing to state. Holder can affirmatively state that the President’s inherent power to kill citizens exists only outside of the country. He can then explain where those limits are found in the Constitution and why they do not apply equally to a citizen in London or Berlin. Holder was not describing a constitutional process of review. They have dressed up a self-imposed review of a unilateral power as due process. Any authoritarian measure can be dressed up as carefully executed according to balancing tests, but that does not constitute any real constitutional analysis. It is at best a loose analogy to constitutional analysis.
When reporters asked the Justice Department about Mueller’s apparent uncertainty, they responded that the answer is “pretty straightforward.” They then offered an evasive response. They simply said (as we all know) that “[t]he legal framework (Holder) laid out applies to U.S. citizens outside of U.S.” We got that from the use of the word “abroad.” However, the question is how this inherent authority is limited as it has been articulated by Holder and others. What is the limiting principle? If the President cannot order the killing of a citizen in the United States, Holder can simply say so (and inform the FBI Director who would likely be involved in such a killing). In doing so, he can then explain the source of that limitation and why it does not apply with citizens in places like London. What we have is a purely internal review that balances the practicality of arrest and the urgency of the matter in the view of the President. Since the panel is the extension of his authority, he can presumably disregard their recommendations or order a killing without their approval. Since the Administration has emphasized that the “battlefield” in this “war on terror” is not limited to a particular country, the assumption is that the President’s authority is commensurate with that threat or limitless theater of operation. Indeed, the Justice Department has repeatedly stated that the war is being fought in the United States as well as other nations.
Thus, Mueller’s uncertainty is understandable . . . and dangerous. The Framers created a system of objective due process in a system of checks and balances. Obama has introduced an undefined and self-imposed system of review ….
Before you assume that Mueller’s comments are being blown out of proportion, remember that it has been clear for some time that Obama has claimed the power to assassinate U.S. citizens within the U.S. As we pointed out in December:
I’ve previously noted that Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil.
This admittedly sounds over-the-top. But one of the nation’s top constitutional and military law experts – Jonathan Turley – agrees.
***
Turley said [on C-Span]:
President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Two of his aides just … reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.
You’ve now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. He can jail you indefinitely on his own discretion
Remember, government officials have said that Americans can be targets in the war on terror.
And Northwestern University’s law school professor Joseph Margulies said:
Obama and Bush … both say we are in a war not confined to particular battlefield. … Both say we can target citizens without judicial oversight and that can happen anywhere in the world.
Indeed, the Army is already being deployed on U.S. soil, and the military is conducting numerous training exercises on American streets. And see this.
And the numerous drones flying over American soil – projected by the FAA to reach 30,000 drones by 2020 – are starting to carry arms.
Remember, the Department of Justice attorney who wrote the memo "justifying" torture - John Yoo - also recently said that drones could be used against Americans living on U.S. soil in time of war:
Of course, America has been in a continuous declared state of national emergency since 9/11, and we are in a literally never-ending state of perpetual war. See this, this, this and this.
And the government has basically announced that it can label any American citizen a terrorist for no reason whatsoever.
So if a military-age man is killed in a U.S. city because he happens – even unknowingly – to be near a suspected bad guy, will the report simply read “another militant killed”?
»
- advertisements -
The Swiss have the Rotheschilds. They own governments and countries and they have nukes and other war machines.
Always follow the money. That is where the power is.
It is all theatre, made to impress and give cause. 9/11, Iraq, Afganistan...
The whole world is a stage.
Might as well book Barry in now for the Crimes against Humanity Court in the Hague, save some time.
The nobel prize committee to Barry: "yeah, umm, we're a little embarrassed about having to ask, but can we have our prize back?"
They hate you for your freedom fries.
Strange, I don't recall anyone declaring war on Yemen or Pakistan, yet Obama is bombing them.
this is part of the israelification of usa policy. arab spring is the euphemism for palestine policy which is based upon the strategy that a country in chaos cannot mount an offense or a defense so is easily controlled and the israeli premptive strike rationale that a strike is justified because we think they are thinking naughty thoughts about us and the israeli right to kill anyone we want whenever and whereever we want to without justification given to anyone.
Just read the Talmud, then it all makes sense.
Braver than the sheeple on the other side of the pond :-(
We're all fucked.
Sounds like the US government IS the government in "V For Vendetta". Get out your Guy Fawkes masks!
We had to nuke the US in order to save it.
~ B.H.Obama
If Bush was doing this the Dems would be apoplectic...instead they think their murdering basketballing fraud is oh so slick...and wasn't Michelle's dress lovely?
If Bashar al Assad was alleged to be doing stuff like this, people would be jumping up and down for his ouster ... Oh, they are?
Try reading the patriot act......bush did but everyone was too scared to defy him after 911.
Dissent: subversive or patriotic?
Why cant it be both?
At least the USA has a precedent for rebellion, we have to go back to cromwell to find one even close to GW.
IMHO
Exactly...
And when they make a mistake and kill the wrong American, why let's just make up some Tillman or Lynch type of story about them, make them a film, give them a medal and no-one will ever know, now that master criminal Assange has to answer to charges of not pulling when two different girls said stop, or whatever the word is in Sveeedish. Fancy 2 different girls in a row saying that. He IS dangerous.
more theatre. Out of over 7,000,000,000 people is there not another Assange? Capturing Assange and making him an example of one of those who has not joined US is against US will only enbolden others. By dragging their feet they are keeping the "want to be Assanges" in the closet.
Especially considering that one of the ladies made a beeline for Israel after the charges were laid ....
L. Fletcher Prouty explained the definition of insurgency and counter-insurgency.
Insurgency: anyone or anything that stops US commercial interests in the third world.
Counter-insurgency: anything the US does to promote US commercial interests in the third world.
Hasn't changed really.
Some places/people in DC are long overdue for reclassification
Bernanke, Geitner, Holder and Obama are the middle aged ones that come to mind.
Hold on, you missed the Salsa Dancing Dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRaPVTetseI
(King George III)President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he’s satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.
Isn't this how the Revolutionary War started?
Nah, the Revolutionary War was started over the British cutting duties on tea to the point where it was putting local smugglers out of business.
The War of 1812 was designed to liberate Canada from the British Empire, but the excuse was the British practise of capturing crew members on the high seas and impressing them into duty in the Royal Navy (Hey, back then, how could an english speaker found on the high seas prove he wasn't a British subject?).
Isn't this how the Revolutionary War started?
__________________________________
Nope. The revolutionary war had many causes. One being that the King opposed soon to become US citizens expansion on Indian lands.
Yep. George Washington said "KILL EM ALL". See his letter to Sullivan.
Read about the "Sullivan Expedition"...notice what the US calls it....
It was "go forth and murder everyone" or...in other words...genocide.
He declared *every* Iroquois to be "militants" or "enemy combatants"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_Expedition
"Sullivan's army then carried out a scorched earth campaign, methodically destroying at least forty Iroquois villages throughout the Finger Lakes region of western New York, to put an end to Iroquois and Loyalist attacks against American settlements as had occurred the previous year. The devastation created great hardships for the thousands of Iroquois refugees outside Fort Niagara that winter, and many starved or froze to death. The survivors fled to British regions in Canada and the Niagara Falls and Buffalo areas."
"Major General John Sullivan, fifth on the seniority list, was then offered command on March 6, 1779, and accepted. Washington's orders to Sullivan made it clear that he wanted the Iroquois threat completely eliminated:
And there you have it. George Washington, the original proponent of "US Citizenism". Sorry to break it to everybody.
Oh, and as a bonus, he even said he wanted to cause TERROR. Literally, and by his own admission.
Bang, right there in the last sentence. George Washington...admitted TERRORIST.
By who's fucking authority did he do this?
Def. not God's...it was HIS OWN made up brand of authority.
Chew on that one for a bit.
Now...the challenge is...do you have integrity to reverse this? Can you fix this shitty decent of the US?
You can still kill real bad guys for fucks sake. There are plenty of them out there.
Just back off the offensive...and work on the defensive. There are ways to make that work...if you're a smart American.
If you are a dumbass following in these guys and gals footsteps...you deserve eternal shame and damnation. And will quite likely receive it!
Are you saying the US of A was started by a bunch of opposing King George III types who were aggressive. if this is true then USA leaders have been following the un-written orthodocs of the founders. To be American is to be agressive and that is the persuit of happiness.
kool
Oh, it's not unwritten. They got that shit in writing. Many examples.
Look at the dollar bill guy's order to Sullivan.
Better get your ass on the "Do Not Kill" list:
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/create-do-not-kill-list/HwqFwRtG
OpenThePodBayDoorHAL
RE: https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/create-do-not-kill-list/HwqFwRtG
Did you notice the little security lock in your browser address when you went to that site? Scary.
Great idea, that one. I heard it in passing on Cenk Urger last night. Is it true that the WH has a policy to publicly respond on any issue raised by petition signed by 25,000 people or more????
Where do you think they get the names for the kill lists?
The Iraq war was a pre-emptive war: Saddam was a potential danger. Obama, by his declaration, is a potential danger to every American.
Dear Mr. President,
I stood next to an SEC staffer waiting in line at an ATM, am I now an internet XXX website addicted pornaphile?
I sat next to an unemployed obese man on a bus, am I now a lazy, big gulp drinking, deep fried Oreo cookie eating health care liability?
I drove past a mobile home, am I now a neo-Nazi, meth-cooking trailer trash crackhead?
Signed,
Confused and Concerned
C&C
FUCK YEAH YOU ARE A TERRORIST!
By disagreement or dissent you prove it.
Dance, Fucker.
Lets face it Obama is really Obomber the President
We can call him the "Drive by President"
I mean what's the difference.. he is protecting his group (gang) and anyone that he shoots at must be on the other side right.. so shoot at them all.
What happened to his brain to get so twisted so fast. POWER?
What a disappointment mister look forward.
Rule of law Jails that's for the peons or whistle blowers.
Lock them up in masses and that shouldn't be to difficult we can spy on them all.
Lets see my Justice department prosecutes sick cancer patients that grow or use pot, People that tell on us,(whistle-blowers)
Lets see and we give the Fraud at the Banks a pass because they help me stay in power.
HA HA YOU FOOL I will target you to if you complain out loud.
He is truly the God of Lying. From his inauguration speech to where he is today, 3-1/2 years later how could a normal persons brain function through these extremes?
George W’s children are probably too dumb to look into his past and find how disgusting a human being he is but Obama’s girls may find their father’s methods to be just what they are immoral and unjust. Hopefully they will run from him and sever any family he may have hoped to have as he grows old.
He is definitely a candidate for the Looney bin.
I've been calling him Obomber too!
Want to trademark it with me, make T-shirts, & share the loot?
Wait, the IRS would steal our money with some new anti-terrorism law & declare us "enemy combatants".
Never mind.
And this is the Man, who they gave the Nobels Peace Price,rings the bells on what that Price represents.
Aint passing a day,in this life without s big surprice,on how deaf this world have become to what the truth is,and how lies no are send in surround sound stereo,quadro leafs of bad weed, i rather smoke,to bow the this mercyless frigid race,to whom power is the goal in it self,and not justice!
I will admit,Obama folled me,I wasnt realy "On To Him" and his lies,presume Stanley, a lot were blinded to,blinded by the light,just to wake up in the dark room cold sweat nightmares:
Pax Vomit Scums!
Lex Pax!
No, they will call them gang members instead.
george you fundamentally misunderstand war---you will not win the propoganda war with 'truth' pieces like this. this is ALL obviously lies that are told to the public. the true underbelly of war is always hidden from 'civilized' populations that support all this war with their taxes, productive output, and insatiable demand.
the plebians and civies do not want to know the truth. it doens't affect them.
your point that it is coming home to roost will be dutifully ignored by city dwellers. the 'preppers' are already 2 steps ahead of you.
Allah permitting-that fucking zionist dershowitz will join all the neocon Israel-firsters in Beezlebub's Club Sodomy
More importantly:
Calling someone 'fatty' could become a hate crimehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9297496/Calling-someone-fat...
Don't call me piggy!
GW: "I’ve previously noted that Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil."
...thanks for not using the word, "President" !
You might have used the word "murder," though.
Nader wants to know why Obama is still a free man:
http://nader.org/2012/05/30/obama-at-large-where-are-the-lawyers/
He is the PR Resident ...
Residing in Washington(how ironic) D.C = Depraved Cocksuckers
I want to look him straight in the eye and I want to tell him what a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-ass, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed sack of monkey shit he is! Hallelujah! Holy shit!
I feel better now. Where's the Tylerol...
Good talk Rusty.
N/C
Frankly, it's better to oppose them now... if we do it now, that will give them less time to implement their more evil "policies". If we wait, they'll have more tools to weild against us. Just saying... if you give a crap about your freedom, it's time to protest in large numbers now. If you're scared of what could happen to you now, you're really going to shit bricks once this thing kicks into high gear, and you see soldiers with weapons patroling streets, stations, centers, etc. You'll have to walk past them to travel, bank, shop, walk.
Oh wait, this is just a dream... whew.