Unspeakable Things: The Liberals’ Clumsy Dance Across Obama's
Killing Floor
By Chris Floyd
The turbulent ramifications of
last week's New York Times story detailing the operations of
Barack Obama's White House death squad continue to reverberate
across the country today, sending shock waves through Washington
and bringing crowds of outraged protestors to the ….
Just kidding! As we all know, there have been no "ramifications"
at all from
this shocking story, no scandal whatsoever surrounding the
fact that the President of the United States and his aides meet
every week to draw up lists of people to be killed all over the
world -- even people who are completely unknown, who might
simply be "behaving" in unspecified ways that some desk jockey
somewhere has decided might possibly be indicative of malign
intent. No scandal, no consequences, no imbroglio, no brouhaha;
the caravan moved on -- and the dogs didn't even bark.
But wait, that's not quite true. There was one minor
scandal issuing, in part, from the story. Republicans seized the
opportunity to accuse Obama, again, of leaking classified
matters for his own political gain. (Yes, they were shocked --
shocked! -- to find gambling going on in this establishment.)
Obama was then forced to deny authorizing the leaks from his
closest advisors and friends, and promised to investigate how in
the world his closest advisors and friends happened to leak this
top-secret information without his knowledge. This was followed
by bipartisan Congressional calls to cloak the government's
atrocities in even thicker clouds of murk.
Thus the only consequence from the revelation that the U.S.
government not only asserts the arbitrary right to kill anyone
on earth but actually has a formal process to carry out this
serial murder is that it will now be harder than ever to expose
any of the crimes and corruption and sinister follies of the
vast national security apparat.
But as for the -- how to put it? Well, let's be quaint and
old-fashioned, shall we? -- the "moral content" of the murder
program, there has been no scandal at all. Yes, there have a few
furrowed brows here and there from the progessosphere, some
tsk-tsks, a few sad head-shakes -- before our Netroots
nationalists plunge right back into campaign arcana, railing
against some rightwing misinformation or partisan attack that
might hurt the electoral chances of a man running a death squad
that has killed hundreds of innocent civilians and fomented more
terrorism, hatred, war and chaos. Because really, what is the
shredded corpse of a drone-blasted child next to yet another
birther outburst from that awful Donald Trump? Can you imagine
the nerve of that guy?
Now to be fair, The Nation -- redoubtable flagship of American
liberalism for yonks on end -- did sally forth
with a bracing editorial against Obama's kill list. In no
uncertain terms, it denounced the "corrupting logic" of the War
on Terror, which leads "otherwise morally responsible leaders to
do unspeakable things," such as Obama's "kill lists and drone
assassinations."
This does, of course, lead one to wonder just who these "morally
responsible leaders" are who are doing such unspeakable things.
After all, there have been only two leaders during the War on
Terror: Bush and Obama. No Nation reader (or any other sentient
being) would ever consider the former to be a "morally
responsible" leader. But as Obama has been ordering "drone
assassinations" from the very moment he took office -- while
resolutely defending and extending his predecessor's other War
on Terror policies -- it is hard to see how his moral
responsibility has somehow been eroded by his season in power.
Should we not say instead with Shakespeare: "Man, he did make
love to this employment."
There is also the strange notion that the "War on Terror" itself
is somehow an abstract, outside force or entity which compels
these individuals to violate their free consciences and do
"unspeakable things." This childish concept -- "The War on
Terror made me do it!" -- is of course a surreptitious (or
perhaps self-deceiving) way for the editors of The Nation to
retain their support for Obama even while criticizing him. They
know that, deep down, he really is morally responsible -- a good
man who has been "led" by the "logic" of the Terror War to do
"unspeakable things" against his will and certainly against his
inclinations. The "things" he does might be "unspeakable" --
that is to say, evil -- but he himself is not evil. He has
simply been led astray, and may one day be led back to the right
path of peace-loving progressivism -- just as long as
peace-loving progressives don't abandon him, and let those truly
evil Republicans return to the White House. (Where they might do
unspeakable things like drawing up kill lists and launching
drone assassinations.)
But again, let's give credit where it is due. The Nation makes
many good arguments against the murder program. (And they have
published some excellent work on the actual, real-life effects
of the Terror War, in the stories of Jeremy Scahill.) They lay
out the heinous nature of this barbaric operation with admirable
clarity. But what do they conclude from all this? That the
program is … "troubling." And that since liberals "raised a
ruckus" about Bush's -- crimes? atrocities? mass murder? -- no,
his "abuses," they should not be "silent" now.
But what liberals should say when breaking their
silence is not addressed. Should they say, "We will not support
a man who commits mass murder"? (For as The Nation tells us, in
Pakistan alone "witnesses have attested to hundreds of civilian
deaths.") Or would The Nation have them say, "My word, these
'abuses' are troubling. I certainly will not feel the same
enthusiasm when I vote for Obama this time around!" The latter
seems far more likely.
But the restrained editorial positively blazes with Luther-like
moral fury when compared to some of the reader comments. Here
you will find self-proclaimed "good liberals" who, far from
being "troubled" by Obama's killing spree, cheer it to the
rafters as a mark of moral goodness. Consider the reaction of
this "lifelong Democrat, lifelong liberal" to "signature
strikes" -- the blind blunderbuss launched against unknown
people doing unknown things for unknown purposes:
"When nameless individuals
are assassinated over 'patterns of behaviour' that support
terrorist enemy combatants, I cheer, since there is alive one
less potential attacker of my country."
After all,
our leaders would never lead us astray. And they know more than
we do -- they even know more than, say, the grandmother holding
the bloody corpse of her grandchild in her arms:
"Neither the Pakistani
government nor the hundreds of witnesses to US strikes is privy
to the US intelligence. How could either possibly know whether
or not innocent civilians are included in the death toll? I, for
one, put the burden of proof on the other side, and I further
place faith in my country to minimize collateral damage as best
they can in a combat situation."
Who are
you going to believe, Granny? The PowerPoint presentations of
the White House "Tuesday Terror" team -- or your own lying eyes?
I mean, how could you possibly know little Hamza wasn't a
terrorist? Do you have access to Washington's omniscient SIGNIT
and HUMINT? I thought not. So shut up already.
Or how about the disquistion of this learned Theban:
"Of course it's immoral
and against human dignity to have a 'kill' list. On the other
hand, times have changed … These days our enemies come as
thieves in the night, stealthily and under pretense. They have
no qualms about killing innocent people, including men, women
and children. Their morals allow them to hijack and fly planes
into office buildings killing thousands of innocent Americans,
going about their capitalist business. I even understand their
objection to our way of life. Capitalism, democracy and freedom
empower individual people till they no longer can be controlled
under a rigid theocratic ideology. This is a threat to those who
would hold absolute dominion over others. These pathological
radical religious and political dictators see the handwriting on
the wall and are using every immoral and hateful means to hold
out to the last insane mind.
“So yes, I believe 'kill' lists, drones, intense surveillance
and every other means is available on a temporary basis to
return to these maniacs the same punishment they meet [sic] out
to others."
One might
argue that there are other actors in the War on Terror
who, as the NYT story shows, "come as thieves in the night"
(with remote-control drones) and "have no qualms about killing
innocent people, including men, women and children." And that
they do this repeatedly, day after day, year after year. But of
course, this doesn't matter. Because those we kill are, of
necessity, insane maniacs trying to impose absolute dominion
over others. Even the innocent men, women and children we kill.
Even the people we kill whose names we don't know doing things
we don't know for reasons we don't know.
And so it goes. For this Theban, and for so many other "good
liberals" and staunch progressives, a five-year-old girl with
her guts gouged out by some coward with a joystick 10,000 miles
away is an "immoral and hateful maniac" who deserves to die, and
whose very presence on the face of the earth justifies any and
all repressive measures to keep "our way of life" intact. "On a
temporary basis," of course. Just until all the maniacs have
been killed. Just until we "exterminate all the brutes."
This is the spectrum of liberalism in 2012. On one end,
"troubled" by state murder -- but not sickened, not outraged,
not driven to furious rejection of those who perpetrate such
"unspeakable things." On the other end, gleefully, joyfully
accepting of the murder program, exulting even in the killing of
absolute strangers. After all, every defenseless child
eviscerated stealthily by a presidential drone is "one less
potential attacker of my country." The Leader protects us! The
Leader knows best! You go, Barry!
II.
There is, of course, another view of these matters. You won't
find it in the venerable journals of liberalism or amongst the
fierce dissidents of the Netroots Nation. (As
John Caruso points out, here is the rigorous moral compass
of the founding father of the Netrooters in action: "’I’ll tell
you what. If [Obama] shows that he’s going to fight for the
things that I care about, I will fight twice as hard for him.’
And if he doesn’t? ‘Then I’ll vote for him,’ says Moulitsas.")
It is apparent by now that for the vast bulk of the
progressosphere, there is literally nothing that Obama can do to
lose their support, however "troubled" or grudging that support
might be.
No, for an alternative view, we must turn once again to Arthur
Silber, who this week
continues his examination of Obama's death squad. This piece
begins to get at some of the deeper dynamics at work not only in
the murder program itself but also in the mass indifference to
its exposure in the Times story and elsewhere, the lack of
outrage, the shrugging acceptance (or, as seen above, the
wiggly, giddy embrace) of this "unspeakable thing."
Once again, you should read the whole of Silber's essay, but
here are a few excerpts particularly pertinent to our theme:
It is one thing for the
ruling class to target the general domestic population on
economic matters, as it has by systematically squeezing every
last bit of wealth and opportunity out of "ordinary" Americans
and shoveling all of it into the drooling maw of the rulers (and
for many Americans, these methods of brutalization are already
catastrophic in the extreme). It is very different when the
ruling class announces to the world that it considers every
human being on Earth not favored by power and privilege to be
fair game in a neverending campaign of slaughter.
Yet there are no crowds in the street. Forget howls of fury; you
can listen with the greatest concentration of which you are
capable, and you will detect barely a whimper. Life goes on
precisely as before, as if nothing of great moment has happened.
With very rare exceptions … even the harshest critics of the
murder campaign so thoughtfully detailed in the NYT will not
say:
These people are
monsters. This is profoundly evil. All these
people, all those who collaborate and assist in such a program,
have placed themselves far beyond any limit of what can be
designated as civilization.
… Be sure to understand
this issue. The claim of absolute power -- the claim of
dominion over all of human life itself, and the assertion of a
damnable "right" to unleash death whenever and in whatever
direction they wish -- is not remotely equivalent to any dispute
over lowering Social Security benefits, raising the retirement
age, or any similar question, at least it is not equivalent to
any sane person. The claim of absolute power is sui generis; it
is a claim unlike any other. It is not -- I repeat: it is
not -- simply another "question of policy." It is certainly
possible that, in particular cases, the deprivation of medical
benefits (as just one example) may ultimately result in a
person's death sooner than would have occurred otherwise. But
for some period of time, however brief, the persons so affected
are left with the possibility of action; they can still
try to save themselves, even if those efforts are finally
unsuccessful. But the claim of a "right" to dispense death
arbitrarily -- the claim that the State may murder anyone
it chooses, whenever it desires -- constitutes a separate
category altogether, a category of which this particular claim
is the sole unit. When death is unleashed, all possibility of
action is ended forever.
Yet you can read various harsh denunciations of this policy, and
you will almost never encounter language of the kind I employ
here. Even for the most vehement of "dissenters," the assertion
of absolute power is treated as another in a list of wrongs,
perhaps an especially egregious wrong, but not a claim which
demands a fundamentally different response. For such writers, it
is certainly nothing to take to the streets about; it is no
cause for withdrawing one's support in every way possible from a
system of evil dedicated to death. This, too, is a measure of
how profoundly damaged our culture is. With regard to almost all
"dissenting" writers, and if I may express the point more
personally and informally, I often think that I have never seen
such a collection of gutless wonders. …
Not infrequently, I think that what may doom us is not the
immense evil to which the State devotes itself, but the quality
of the opposition -- those who are, in Thoreau's formulation,
the State's "most conscientious supporters, and so frequently
the most serious obstacles to reform." …
Although the NYT article did not disclose new information with
regard to the essentials of the State's program of death, its
length, detail and prominence constitute a significant
ratcheting up of the State's claim of absolute power. Most
crucial is the statement in the article that much of the content
is derived from interviews with "three dozen of [Obama's]
current and former advisers." As I pointed out in Part I, this
in effect announces the identity of the article's true author:
the author is the U.S. government, the State itself. Through
these "advisers," the highest levels of the U.S. government have
told the story they want to tell. And what is that story? It is
simply this:
The State is become death.
Our target can be anyone we choose. Yes, this means you. No,
there is nowhere to run.
Here is no
shuffling, no weasel-wording, no wiggle room for self-deception.
Here we look at the mephitic heart of the matter, the burning,
rotten core. In this political year, with an election looming,
let no one be mistaken on this point: When you get down with
Obama, however grudgingly or reluctantly, you are dancing on the
killing floor. You are, to use The Nation's terms, following the
logic of the Terror War into complicity and collusion with
unspeakable things.
Chris
Floyd is an American writer living in the UK.
This
this article was first published at
Empire Burlesque
© 2012 by Chris Floyd
