23 April 2010

The CIA Has Some Targets That Just Need Killing

With much hoopla, a Canadian-based website is indignant about the CIA targeting individuals, under the provocative headline: Muslim Men to be Murdered as "Threats to the US"

The U.S. considers al-Aulaqi an inspirational threat, "dangerous" since both Major Hassan, the Army psychiatrist who killed personnel at his station, and an alleged Nigerian attempted "bomber" of a Detroit bound plane, are said to have been influenced by his thinking. There are others. While there is extreme carelessness in assuming al-Aulaqi ordered crimes of violence, Dennis Blair, U.S. director of National Intelligence, has insisted that the intelligence community is "not careless" in killing Americans abroad.

Al-Aulaqi is said to believe in a jihad against the U.S. in response to its war against Islam and Muslim people. There is evidence that the U.S. really is conducting a war against Islam. News sources quote al-Aulaqi as saying "I have come to the conclusion that jihad against America is a duty for me, as for every Muslim who can do it." A broad term, "jihad" does not specify violence or armed action, financial war as Libyan president Gaddafi recently announced against the Swiss, or a battle of cultures. Is it a crime for an imam to approve of jihad? Was the U.S. Civil Rights Movement song "You gotta do what the spirit say do" a death penalty offense? If al-Aulaqi bears arms or counsels others to bear arms against the U.S., then under U.S. law he has committed a serious crime. There is little specific evidence presented the public that al-Aulaqi has. He is a civilian entitled to a fair trial in civilian court. Within a military context, as a cleric he is a non-combatant. It is in all cases against the laws of war to target a non-combatant.

Geen, when you're the inspiration for multiple mass murderers, hiding behind religion as though we're supposed to feel sorry for you, and when you're opening and actively campaigning for the killing of our people, yes, we're going to fucking kill you! If you don't like, don't open your yap. You attack us and don't expect us to hit back? That's just stupid, people. Really freakin' stupid.

It is an inappropriate response to murder people for hating America, especially as U.S. policy continues illegal massacres of civilians by drone attacks, aggressive military actions in civilian sectors, destruction of the infra-structures and the entire cultural fabric of victim societies. Current President Obama was elected to end the U.S. aggressive wars. It would be an appropriate response to change the policy.

Public understanding of what it means to murder people because they inspire others, is thoroughly buffered by context: since 1990 in Iraq millions of Iraqi Muslim civilians have been killed, mothers, fathers, children, who showed no ill will against America. That is partly what an "illegal war" means. Thousands of "combatants" and civilians were arrested in both Iraq and Afghanistan, clearly deprived of Geneva Convention rights in the instance of Guantanamo, tortured and detained under such extreme conditions their captors are liable for judgement under the laws of war and covenants for peace. Stripping a religiously defined enemy of human rights was a step toward this public call for murder by command. The order seems media-normal amidst a policy of war crimes against peoples who are Muslim.

It is absolutely appropriate to murder people for hating America and acting on it - as this assclown did - in inspiring other people to act on them.
"Illegal massacres of civilians by drone attacks"? Uh, yeah, when the men-with-crosshairs try to hide behind their 32d wives, who openly enable and support them, it's time to perforate them all. Remind me again of the military significance of the World Trade Center and the legitimacy of that target? Oh yeah, right.

And those "Geneva Convention Rights" of which they were "clearly deprived"? Well, now... tell me again how they've behaved within the constraints of the Geneva Convention that they would deemed worthy of it's protections? No uniforms, deliberate targeting of civilians, prisoners killed (Nick Berg, Daniel Pearl), hiding in religious buildings, firing from religious buildings... There's a litany of Geneva Convention violations. But the Taliban and AQ aren't signatories to it, so therefore we don't seem to want to hold them to it. We apparently just want to bitch about the US behavior in a war zone, with -zero- consideration to the fact that we've got 3,000 dead on US soil, who were never party to any objectionable event.

By: Brant

No comments: