The simplistic “You’re either with us or against us” mindset that guides warfare statists is obviously a dangerous thing when government officials wield the omnipotent power to take out their citizenry. --- dangerous? you bet! the government should have the power to 'take out' terrorists, invaders and citizens ... especially citizens like al awlaki and Abdulhakim Muhammed
On Oct 12, 7:19 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Tuesday, October 11, 2011You’re Either With Us or Against Usby Jacob G. > Hornberger > Yesterday, I described one of the principal dangers of a ruler having the > omnipotent, non-reviewable power to assassinate his own citizens (and, for > that matter, foreigners as well). All too often rulers, along with their > armies and intelligence forces, come to place citizens who oppose their > policies through speech in the same category as those who are opposing it > with force. That’s why tyrannical rulers oftentimes end up arresting, > incarcerating, torturing, and even executing citizens who are doing nothing > more than criticizing the regime or exposing or opposing wrongdoing by the > regime. > The mindset of warfare statists is a simplistic one, one that can be summed > up in the mantra, “You’re either with us or against us.” Since an opponent of > U.S. foreign policy isn’t “with us,” that obviously means that he’s “against > us” that is, he’s on the side of the terrorists, the communists, or a nation > state that the United States happens to be at war against. Since the mind of > the welfare statist has only those two options for us or against us he cannot > conceive of the possibility that a citizen is opposing government wrongdoing > against foreigners on principle. In the statist mind, a person who falls into > that category has automatically joined the side of the victims of the > wrongdoing who are responding with forcible resistance or retaliation. > Thus, for the warfare statist, the critic of government policy becomes as > much an enemy of the state as the person who has actually taken up arms > against the government. > Last week I was debating a man named Stephen Cohen, an academic who serves as > senior fellow at the Brookings Institute. The debate was on the international > Russian television network RT. If you would like to watch the debate,you can > do so here. > The debate was over U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it > became quite heated. I was making the standard libertarian argument: that > U.S. foreign policy engenders the anger and hatred that foreigners have for > the United States, which then manifests itself in the threat of terrorist > retaliation, which then is used as the excuse for the federal government’s > suspending our civil liberties in order to “keep us safe” from the threat > that the government’s policies have produced. > I pointed out that it’s rational that the Pakistani government might resist > the U.S. government’s demand that the Pakistani government kill its own > people for resisting the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, especially since > Pakistanis, with U.S. support, resisted the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. > I said that the best thing that the United States could do is immediately > pull out all the troops and bring them home and stop the drone assassinations > in Pakistan and elsewhere. > During the course of the debate, Cohen became furious, in part because he > felt that the host of the show had misstated one of his positions. But much > to my surprise, he suddenly blurted out to me, “So, you would support > Pakistani terrorist attack against the United States because it would be > retaliation? You would have supported the Times Square bombing?” > Imagine that. My opposition to U.S. foreign policy had caused Cohen to leap > to the notion that I somehow support terrorism against the United States! > Since I considered Cohen’s questions to be idiotic, I chose not to dignify > them with a direct response. Instead, I deflected the questions by stating > that the U.S. should end its occupation now, not at some indefinite time in > the future, which would bring an end to terrorist attacks against the United > States. > It was obvious, however, that in Cohen’s mind, his questions weren’t idiotic > at all but instead perfectly rational. Remember: In the simplistic mindset of > a warfare statist, “You’re either with us or against us.” When Cohen heard me > criticizing U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere and > arguing that such policy produced the constant threat of terrorist > retaliation, his mind obviously placed me on the side of the insurgents and > the terrorists. His mind obviously precluded him from considering the > possibility that a citizen can oppose governmental policy without placing > himself on the side of foreign victims who are violently retaliating against > such policy. > That’s the mindset I’m talking about with respect to why it’s so dangerous > that the president, the CIA, and the military now wield the omnipotent, > non-reviewable power to assassinate citizens whom they deem “terrorists.” > Many political rulers, along with their high military and intelligence > officers, have that same “You’re with us or against us” mindset. Thus, they > come to see domestic citizens who are opposing their policies as threats to > “national security” or, even worse, an agent of the terrorists (or the > communists, as during the Cold War). > One irony is that while people like Cohen can so easily hurl questions like > that at opponents of U.S. foreign policy, it is warfare statists like him who > wants to keep the troops in Afghanistan knowing that some of them are going > to be killed or maimed by the insurgent and terrorist attacks. > Take a lookat this link. It shows the faces of the 6,230 U.S. service members > who have died in Operation Iraqi Freedom [sic] and Operating Enduring Freedom > [sic]. > Or take a look atthis article, which describes strategies for treating > traumatic brain injuries suffered by servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan. > Or take a look atthis articlefrom last Sunday’sWashington Post,which shows a > picture of Army Lt. Dan Berschinski with his girlfriend Rebecca Taber. He’s > missing both of his legs as a result of a bomb he stepped on in Afghanistan. > He’s one of the 13,000 U.S. soldiers injured in Afghanistan. > Cohen’s position the position of warfare statists is that the Afghan > occupation must continue notwithstanding the fact that there will inevitably > be many more dead, injured, and maimed U.S. soldiers. As I stated during our > debate, he’s not doing the troops any favors. > And what’s his justification for his position? During the debate, he said > that we’ve got to be sure that al-Qaeda is no longer a threat. > No longer a threat? Give me a break! They’ve had 10 years to kill al-Qaeda > members to their heart’s content. Nothing has restrained them with respect to > their use of bombs, missiles, and bullets. If they haven’t killed all the > al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan by now, maybe there’s a reason like maybe the > occupation itself continues to generate a self-producing recruiting vehicle > for al-Qaeda and the insurgents, who are simply committed to ridding their > country of a foreign occupier. > Would al-Qaeda come to the United States and invade and conquer our country > if the U.S. Empire were to end its occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq? The > notion is ridiculous. For one thing, the purpose of al-Qaeda is rid the > Middle East of the U.S. Empire, including its occupations and support of > Middle East dictatorships. Moreover, the notion that al-Qaeda has the > military transport planes and ships and millions of troops that would be > needed to cross the ocean and successfully invade and conquer the United > States is too laughable to seriously critique. > The simplistic “You’re either with us or against us” mindset that guides > warfare statists is obviously a dangerous thing when government officials > wield the omnipotent power to take out their citizenry. But like other > extraordinary “emergency” post-9/11 powers, it is ultimately rooted in the > existence of the U.S. military empire. That’s just one more reason why it’s > imperative that such empire be dismantled if we are to restore a free society > to our country.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-10-11.asp -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
