[News] Nobody Knows the Identities of the 150 Killed by U.S. in Somalia but Most are Certain They Deserved it
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Wed Mar 9 13:55:54 EST 2016
*https://theintercept.com/2016/03/08/nobody-knows-the-identity-of-the-150-people-killed-by-u-s-in-somalia-but-most-are-certain-they-deserved-it/*
Nobody Knows the Identities of the 150 Killed by U.S. in Somalia but
Most are Certain They Deserved it
Glenn Greenwald
March 8, 2016
The U.S. used drones and manned aircraft yesterday to drop bombs and
missiles on Somalia, ending the lives of at least 150 people
<http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-35748986>. As it virtually always
does, the Obama administration instantly claimed
<http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/687353/us-conducts-airstrike-against-terrorist-camp-in-somalia>
that the people killed were “terrorists” and militants — members of the
Somali group al Shabaab <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-15336689>
— but provided no evidence to support that assertion.
Nonetheless, most U.S. media reports contained nothing more than quotes
from U.S. officials about what happened, conveyed uncritically and with
no skepticism of their accuracy: The dead “fighters … were assembled for
what American officials believe was a graduation ceremony and prelude to
an imminent attack against American troops,” pronounced the/ New York
Times/
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/world/africa/us-airstrikes-somalia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news>. So,
the official story goes, The Terrorists were that very
moment “graduating” — receiving their Terrorist degrees — and about to
attack U.S. troops when the U.S. killed them.
With that boilerplate set of claims in place, huge numbers of people
today who have absolutely no idea who was killed are certain that they
all deserved it. As my colleague Murtaza Hussain said
<https://twitter.com/MazMHussain/status/707235755786149888> of the 150
dead people: “We don’t know who they are, but luckily they were all
bad.” For mindless authoritarians, the words “terrorist” and “militant”
have no meaning other than: /anyone who dies when my government drops
bombs/, or, at best, /a “terrorist” is anyone/ /my government tells me
is a terrorist. /Watch how many people today are defending this strike
by claiming “terrorists” and “militants” were killed using those
definitions even though they have literally no idea who was killed.
Other than the higher-than-normal death toll, this mass killing is an
incredibly common event under the presidency of the 2009 Nobel Peace
laureate, who has so far bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries
<https://theintercept.com/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-obama/>.
As Nick Turse has
<https://theintercept.com/2015/11/20/in-mali-and-rest-of-africa-the-u-s-military-fights-a-hidden-war/>
reported
<https://theintercept.com/2015/10/21/stealth-expansion-of-secret-us-drone-base-in-africa/> in
/The Intercept/, Obama has aggressively expanded the stealth drone
program and secret war in Africa.
This particular mass killing is unlikely to get much attention in the
U.S. due to (1) the election-season obsession with horse-race analysis
and pressing matters such as the size of Donald Trump’s hands; (2)
widespread Democratic indifference to the killing of foreigners where
there’s no partisan advantage to be had against the GOP from pretending
to care; (3) the invisibility of places like Somalia and the implicit
devaluing of lives there; and (4) the complete normalization of the
model whereby the U.S. president kills whomever he wants, wherever he
wants, without regard for any semblance of law, process, accountability,
or evidence.
The lack of attention notwithstanding, there are several important
points highlighted by yesterday’s bombing and the reaction to it:
*1)* The U.S. is not at war in Somalia. Congress has never declared war
on Somalia, nor has it authorized the use of military force there.
Morality and ethics to the side for the moment: What legal authority
does Obama even possess to bomb this country? I assume we can all agree
that presidents shouldn’t be permitted to just go around killing people
they suspect are “bad”: they need some type of legal authority to do the
killing.
Since 2001, the U.S. government has legally justified its
/we-bomb-wherever-we-want /approach by pointing to the 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted by Congress in
the wake of 9/11 to authorize the targeting of al Qaeda and “affiliated”
forces. But al Shabaab did not exist in 2001 and had nothing to do with
9/11. Indeed, the group has not tried to attack the U.S. but instead, as
the/ New York Times/’ Charlie Savage noted
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/world/africa/07detain.html?_r=1&hp> in 2011,
“is focused on a parochial insurgency in Somalia.” As a result, reported
Savage, even “the [Obama] administration does not consider the United
States to be at war with every member of the Shabaab.”
Instead, in the Obama administration’s view, specific senior members of
al Shabaab can be treated as enemy combatants under the AUMF only if
they adhere to al Qaeda’s ideology, are “integrated” into its command
structure, and could conduct operations outside of Somalia. That’s why
the U.S. government yesterday claimed that all the people it killed were
about to launch attacks on U.S. soldiers: because, even under its own
incredibly expansive view of the AUMF, it would be/illegal/ to kill them
merely on the ground that they were all members of al Shabaab, and the
government thus needs a claim of “self-defense” to legally justify this.
But even under the “self-defense” theory that the U.S. government
invoked, it is allowed — under its own policies promulgated in 2013
<https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/2013.05.23_fact_sheet_on_ppg.pdf> —
to use lethal force away from an active war zone
<https://lawfareblog.com/airstrikes-outside-areas-active-hostilities-attacks-somalia-and-questions-about-current-shape-policy>
(e.g., Afghanistan) “only against a target that poses a continuing,
imminent threat to U.S. persons.” Perhaps these Terrorists were about to
imminently attack U.S. troops stationed in the region — immediately
after the tassel on their graduation cap was turned at the “graduation
ceremony,” they were going on the attack — but again, there is literally
no evidence that any of that is true.
Given what’s at stake — namely, the conclusion that Obama’s killing of
150 people yesterday was illegal — shouldn’t we be demanding to see
/evidence/ that the assertions of his government are actually true? Were
these really all al Shabaab fighters and terrorists who were killed?
Were they really about to carry out some sort of imminent, dangerous
attack on U.S. personnel? Why would anyone be content to blindly believe
the self-serving assertions of the U.S. government on these questions
without seeing evidence? If you are willing to make excuses for why you
don’t want to see any evidence, why would you possibly think you know
what happened here — who was killed and under what circumstances — if
all you have are conclusory, evidence-free assertions from those who
carried out the killings?
*2)* There are numerous compelling reasons demanding skepticism of U.S.
government claims about who it kills in airstrikes. To begin with, the
Obama administration has formally re-defined
<http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_propaganda/> the term
“militant” to mean: “*all military-age males in a strike zone” *unless
“there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.” In
other words, the U.S. government presumptively regards all adult males
it kills as “militants” unless evidence emerges that they were not. It’s
an empty, manipulative term of propaganda and nothing else.
Beyond that, the U.S. government’s own documents prove that in the vast
majority of cases — 9 out of 10 in fact
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff>
— it is killing people other than its intended targets. Last April,
the/ New York Times/ published an article
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/world/asia/drone-strikes-reveal-uncomfortable-truth-us-is-often-unsure-about-who-will-die.html>
under the headline “Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is
Often Unsure About Who Will Die.” It quoted the scholar Micah Zenko
saying, “Most individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the
government does not know their names.”
Moreover, the U.S. government has repeatedly been caught lying
<http://www.salon.com/2011/07/19/drones/> about the identities of its
bombings victims. As that April /NYT /article put it, “Every independent
investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than
administration officials admit.”
Given that clear record of deliberate deceit, why would any rational
person blindly swallow evidence-free assertions from the U.S. government
about who it is killing? To put it mildly, extreme skepticism is
warranted (after being criticized for its stenography, the final /New
York Times/ story yesterday at least included this phrase about the
Pentagon’s claims about who it killed: “There was no independent way to
verify the claim”).
*3) *Why does the U.S. have troops stationed in this part of Africa?
Remember, even the Obama administration says it is not at war with al
Shabaab.
Consider how circular this entire rationale is: The U.S., like all
countries, obviously has a legitimate interest in protecting its troops
from attack. But why does it have troops there at all in need of
protection? The answer: The troops are there to operate drone bases and
attack people they regard as a threat to them. But if they weren’t there
in the first place, these groups could not pose a threat to them.
In sum: We need U.S. troops in Africa to launch drone strikes at groups
that are trying to attack U.S. troops in Africa. It’s the ultimate
self-perpetuating circle of imperialism: We need to deploy troops to
other countries in order to attack those who are trying to kill U.S.
troops who are deployed there.
*4) *If you’re an American who has lived under the war on terror, it’s
easy to forget how extreme this behavior is. Most countries on the
planet don’t routinely run around dropping bombs and killing dozens of
people in multiple other countries at once, let alone do so in countries
where /they’re not at war./
But for Americans, this is now all perfectly normalized. We just view
our president as vested with the intrinsic, divine right, grounded in
American exceptionalism, to deem whomever he wants “Bad Guys” and then —
with no trial, no process, no accountability — order them killed. He’s
the roving, Global Judge, Jury, and Executioner. And we see nothing
disturbing or dangerous or even odd about that. We’ve been inculcated to
view the world the way a 6-year-old watches cartoons: Bad Guys should be
killed, and that’s the end of the story.
So yesterday the president killed roughly 150 people in a country where
the U.S. is not at war. The Pentagon issued a five-sentence boilerplate
statement declaring them all “terrorists.” And that’s pretty much the
end of that. Within literally hours, virtually everyone was ready to
forget about the whole thing and move on, content in the knowledge —
even without a shred of evidence or information about the people killed
— that their government and president did the right thing. Now /that/ is
a pacified public and malleable media.
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 www.freedomarchives.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20160309/9c683873/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list