Media More
Outraged by Possible Murder by Putin Than Definite
Murder by Obama
By Matt Peppe
January 25,
2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- The British government, whose foreign policy is
overtly hostile to their Russian counterpart,
declared last week that their investigation into
the killing of a former Russian intelligence agent
in London nearly a decade ago concluded there is a
"strong probability" the Russian FSB security agency
was responsible for poisoning Alexander Litivenko
with plutonium. They further declared that Russian
President Vladimir Putin "probably approved" of the
act. The British investigation, which was likely
politically motivated, seemingly raised more
questions than it answered. But American corporate
media were quick to use the accusations against
Putin to demonize him, casting him as a pariah
brazenly flaunting his disregard for international
conventions.
The Washington Post (1/23/16)
editorial board wrote that "Robert Owen, a retired
British judge, has carefully and comprehensively
documented what can only be called an
assassination... Mr. Owen found (Andrei) Lugovoi was
acting 'under the direction' of the FSB in an
operation to kill Mr. Litivenko - one that was
'probably approved' by the director of the FSB and
by Mr. Putin."
Actually, Owen did not find that former KGB
operative Lugovoi was acting under the direction of
the FSB to kill Litivenko. He found there was a
"strong probability" this was the case. This means
that even in Owens's view, there is not near
certainty, which would meet the legal standard of
reasonable doubt that would preclude a guilty
judgement. There is even more doubt that even if it
were the case the FSB ordered the murder,
they did so on Putin's orders.
The New York Times editorial board (1/21/16)
finds the investigation's results "shocking." For
the Times, this confirms a pattern of Putin's
rogue behavior. They claim Putin's "deserved
reputation as an autocrat willing to flirt with
lawlessness in his global ventures has taken on a
startling new aspect."
Both of the prestigious and influential American
newspapers argue that the British findings impugn
Putin's respectability in international affairs. The
Times says:
Mr. Putin
has built a sordid record on justice and human
rights, which naturally reinforces suspicion
that he could easily have been involved in the
murder. At the very least, the London inquiry,
however much it is denied at the Kremlin, should
serve as a caution to the Russian leader to
repair his reputation for notorious intrigues
abroad.
The more
hawkish Post says: "This raises a serious
question for President Obama and other world leaders
whose governments do not traffic in contract murder.
Should they continue to meet with Mr. Putin as if he
is just another head of state?"
Putin's alleged "sordid record on justice and human
rights," which is taken for granted without
providing any examples, is seen as bolstering the
case for his guilt in the case of the poisoning
death of Litivenko. This, in turn, adds to his
"notorious" reputation as a violator of human
rights.
The Post draws a line between the lawless
Putin and the respectable Western heads of state,
such as Obama. Though they frame their call to treat
Putin as an outcast as a question, it is clearly
intended as a rhetorical question.
It is curious that The Post draws a contrast
between Putin and Obama, whose government is
supposedly above such criminality. The newspaper
does not mention the U.S. government's drone
assassination program, which as of last year had
killed nearly
2,500 people in at least three countries outside
of declared military battlefields.
Estimates have shown that at least 90 percent of
those killed were not intended targets. None of
those killed have been charged with any crimes. And
at least two - Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old
son Abdul Rahman - were Americans.
Obama himself is personally responsible for those
killed by missiles launched from unmanned aircraft
over the skies of sovereign countries. Several news
reports have indicated that Obama is presented in
meetings each week by military and national security
officials with a list of potential targets for
assassination. Obama must personally approve each
target, at which point they are added to the
state-sanctioned "kill
list."
The British government has also assumed for itself
the power to assassinate its own citizens outside a
declared battlefield. Last fall, Prime Minister
David Cameron ordered the
deaths of two British citizens in Syria, who
were subsequently disposed of in a lethal drone
strike.
The Washington Post editorial board (3/24/12)
claimed that Obama was justified in carrying out
lethal drone strokes that kill American citizens "to
protect the country against attack." Their lone
criticism was that "an extra level of review of some
sort is warranted."
After it was revealed that an American hostage was
inadvertently killed in a drone strike in Pakistan,
The Post (5/1/15)
said that the issue of whether the American
government continues to conduct drone strikes should
not be up for debate. "(T)here is little question
that drones are the least costly means of
eliminating militants whose first aim is to kill
Americans," they wrote.
While they tacitly accept the legal rationale for
Obama's assassination program, the New York Times
editorial board at least demonstrated some
skepticism. In "A Thin Rationale for Drone Killings"
(6/23/14),
they called the memo "a slapdash pastiche of legal
theories - some based on obscure interpretations of
British and Israeli law - that was clearly tailored
to the desired result." They say that "the rationale
provides little confidence that the lethal action
was taken with real care."
Yet they do not chastise Obama for his "intrigues
abroad" nor do they condemn this as an example of
his "sordid record on justice and human rights,"
language they used for Putin. The idea that relying
on what are transparently inadequate legal
justifications for killing an American citizen
without due process would merit prosecution is
clearly beyond the limits of discussion for the
Times.
Recently Faheem Qureshi, a victim of the first
drone strike ordered by Obama in 2009 (three days
after his induction as President), who lost multiple
family members and his own eye, told
The Guardian that Obama's actions in his native
lands are "an act of tyranny. If there is a list of
tyrants in the world, to me, Obama will be put on
that list by his drone program."
Surely both The New York Times and Washington Post
disagree with Qureshi, because they believe the U.S.
government is inherently benevolent and its motives
are beyond reproach. But based on their editorials
about the British investigation of the Litivenko
poisoning, if Putin was responsible and was
described by Qureshi in the same way, they would
wholeheartedly agree.
The U.S. government and its allies in NATO, like
Great Britain, have a clear agenda in vilifying
Russia and its President. The US-NATO alliance
supported the government that came to power in
Ukraine in 2014 through a coup. After provinces in
Eastern Ukraine - the vast majority of whose
population is ethnically Russian and
Russian-speaking - refused to recognize the
NATO-backed coup government in Kiev, the Russian
government supported them.
It should be easy to see how, from Russia's
perspective, the Ukranian conflict can be understood
as an extension of NATO encroachment towards
Russia's borders that has continued unabated since
James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 NATO
would move "not
an inch east."
"We're in a new Cold War," Stephen Cohen, professor
of Russian studies and politics, told
Salon. "The epicenter is not in Berlin this time
but in Ukraine, on Russia's borders, within its own
civilization: That's dangerous. Over the 40-year
history of the old Cold War, rules of behavior and
recognition of red lines, in addition to the red
hotline, were worked out. Now there are no rules."
Additionally, Russia's support for Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad since 2011 throughout that country's
civil war, and more recently its direct military
intervention in the conflict that has turned the
tide against US-backed rebels, has strongly rankled
Washington.
The language used by top government officials to
describe Russia has been astoundingly combative.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter, the man in charge
of the entire US military, claimed Russia is
responsible for aggression and is "endangering world
order."
The U.S. government's hyping of the Russian "threat"
has been used to justify massive spending on the
U.S.
space program and other military expenditures,
such as $1
trillion to upgrade nuclear weapons.
One could even argue that the narrative of an
aggressive and belligerent Russia is the principal
justification for the continued existence of the
NATO itself, two and a half decades after the
breakup of the Soviet Union. The alliance allows the
US military to be stationed in hundreds of bases
throughout Europe under the guise of a purely
defensive organization.
The U.S.'s most prominent media organizations should
demonstrate the strongest skepticism towards the
policies and actions of their own government. At the
very least, they should hold their own country's
leaders to the same standards as they do others. But
time and again, the media choose to act as a
mouthpiece to echo and amplify Washington's
propaganda. They do the government's bidding,
creating an enemy and rallying the public towards a
confrontation they would otherwise have no interest
in, while allowing the government to avoid
accountability for its own misdeeds.
Matt Peppe writes about politics, U.S.
foreign policy and Latin America on his blog.
You can follow him on twitter. |
