This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
Nah, they're now getting that "protest" thing covered, too:
Chipping Away At The First Amendment: New 'Trespassing' Bill Could Be Used To Criminalize Legitimate Protests
"The specifics of the law pretty clearly seem to make it a crime to do a standard form of protest, such as anything that "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions" or just if someone "engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds...." As Amash notes, there can be times when it makes sense to protect certain individuals, but "disorderly or disruptive" conduct is a pretty broad brush... and it's one very frequently abused by law enforcement officials"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/15425317936/chipping-away-firs...
And here we are, just coming into "demonstration" season.
I really hate it when they call US citizens terrorists... the government is full of shit and wont let us call it tyranny in the news
.
but when they want to destroy a US born citizens rights they can label him a terrorist.... as opposed to say treason.... you know like something actually in the fucking Constitution of the United States of America
but when they want to destroy a US born citizens rights they can label him a terrorist....
Probably will start by US govt defining militia's as gang members, preppers as hoarders and protestors as militants..............
All it needs is a few wild cards presented by the media as part of a larger dangerous "militant" organisation and there go your individual rights.
It worked with Al Queda/OWS..........
I'm kinda glad they're dishing this shit out to US citizens too. Maybe you guys will do something about your out of control foreign policy when it turns inwards and starts eating itself.. or then again, maybe not.
The rest of the world has had to cop it for years now, and as we know, no one is fairer or more democractically minded that the US gov. Theyre obviously just sharing the love.
Excuse us but our foreign policy is controlled by our satellite Capitol in the Great State of Israel!
Why do they keep referring to this country controlled by war monging criminals as a State? A perpetual State of killing the people that they stole the land from?
Can the American people have State referendoms (no federal employees allowed since i do not view them as Americans) to officially name this the Terrorist COUNTRY of Israel so we can add it to iran, and north Korea and all the other baddies they tell us we have to hate.
Remember the USS liberty,remember that dual citizen treasonous pig Pollard? How did the Russians get the bomb again oh yeah it was the Jews.
Speaking about nukes who has them and shouldn't ?
Well Mr. Dundee I find it rather superior of you to say that. Just what are we supposed to "do" about our foreign policy? It's controlled by foreign "people" who are edging their way to outright genocide.
The American Zombie population will eat it up it will be packaged as "fighting terror" or "defending our freedoms" Listen to a Toby Keith war song if you want to plumb the depths of their stupidity.
The only thing that makes me feel safe and which gives me the belief that I won't be the target of a drone strike tonight, is that the foreign people who rule us don't want to kill us all since we are so valuable as tax serfs.
This country doesn't even exist except as a economic and military possesion of (a special little country) we are tax slaves for their enjoyment. We are a colonial possesion.
Can you get me a work Visa for Australia? I want to relocate to a good country.
Why bother going all around the world to fight a war? Why not do it at home, where your supply lines are shorter? With possible cuts to the military, this will save on transport expenses. Shipping a tank all the way to Iraq? Oh hell no! As soon as she comes off the assembly line, gas her up and it's able to drive right into the combat zone.
Amerika! Fuck Yeah!
America has turned herself into a cornered animal, writhing and lashing out, biting its own tail and still thinking it's someone else.
Careful there, Bub!
Scrotus the Potus and his Gas Bag Plenipotentiary from Foggy Bottom can geolocate the IP address of the computer used to add your comment. A short time later satellites will be tasked for overhead imagery, an Aurora will be scrambled out of Nellis to fly over your Mom's home, break your windows and make you shit your pants. That will serve as your warning.
Just sayin.....
One might think that sounds ridiculous, but a few years back the authorities in Great Britain used helicopter-based cameras to identify and document drivers who were doing un-approved things while driving so that they could be fined. It blew up when a woman received a fine for eating an apple while driving; the evidence used to cite her was a photo that apparently cost GBP 10,000 to produce.
Don't be too afraid of the Authorities-- they're bad really bad -but who you should really worry about are the little wannabes with the badge or the uniform (firemen-crosswalk guards--security gaurds- deputies--and that ilk) they are the ones who will shoot you down cause you "looked" like you were a terrorist or some kind of perp-- or they felt they were threatend or you were disrespectful to them or their uniform or you fit the profile or you didn't submit to search or violated some rule they think is a law----- These are the scummy little cowards --the hanger ons that will cause the "big Blowup"--- don't believe me--witness the pepper spraying POS at the protest.
Kill a family with a missile, they're collateral damage... or more recently "civilians harbouring a known terrorist".. and by harbouring, we mean living in an adjacent building.
Line em up, cuff-em, execute them. Ohhh baby, that's a disgusting repugnant war crime. Like it matters to the dead how they got dead.
American justice sytem down to the ground. F*ck yeah!
It's the Israeli justice system , it works so well for them we decided to try it .
America. Fuck. Yeah.
Bitchez.
Yaaaah!
God blez ArmeCIA. hehe.
America F*ck yeah http://youtu.be/sWS-FoXbjVI
Winning hearts and minds --- and all for just $6 trillion.
Land of the free?
Our drone policy is very simple - so simple an innocent third-world teenager could understand it:
"YOU SHOULD HAVE DUCKED"
Consequence-free murder and resource theft - surely that counts as some kind of free.
And da Brave???
I remember living here when America was still free.
you must be quite old then