http://www.thenation.com/article/168271/obamas-kill-list-silence-not-option
 
Obama's Kill List: Silence Is Not an Option 
 
The Editors
The Nation Magazine: In the June 25th edition
 
The “war on terror” has its own corrupting logic, leading otherwise morally
responsible leaders to do unspeakable things. Such is the case with the
Obama administration’s descent into the world of kill lists and drone
assassinations.
 
The image of President Obama poring over baseball-card profiles of terror
suspects in Jo Becker and Scott Shane’s now famous New York Times “kill
list” exposé probably pleased the administration officials whose cooperation
made the story possible, wrapping the president in glinting “warrior in
chief” election year packaging. For those concerned about the constitutional
protection of civil liberties and the rule of law, however, that image, and
the extraordinary practices it represents, was profoundly disturbing. The
drone policy the president has developed not only infringes on the
sovereignty of other nations, but the assassinations violate laws put in
place in the 1970s after scandals enveloped an earlier era of CIA
criminality. The new details about Obama’s assassination program also remind
us how the 2001 Congressional Authorization of the Use of Military Force
established a disastrous policy of “borderless and open-ended war that
threatens to indefinitely extend US military engagement around the world,”
in the words of the only member of the House to vote against it, Barbara
Lee.

The kill list makes a mockery of due process by circumventing judicial
review, and turning the executive into judge, jury and executioner. Even
worse, the “signature” strikes described in the Times article, in which
nameless individuals are assassinated based merely on patterns of behavior,
dispense with any semblance of habeas corpus altogether. According to the
Center for Constitutional Rights, signature strikes account for most of the
attacks in Pakistan today, and they were recently approved for use in Yemen.

One of the darkest aspects of this story involves the administration’s
method of counting civilian casualties: The CIA simply assumes that any
military-age male in the vicinity of a terror suspect must be a militant
too. Thus, counterterrorism chief John Brennan was able to state with a
straight face in August 2011 that not one civilian had perished from US
strikes outside Afghanistan and Iraq in more than a year—a declaration that
was greeted with incredulity and outrage in Pakistan, where witnesses have
attested to hundreds of civilian deaths.

The drone strikes are inciting even more anti-American hatred in troubled
places like Yemen as well as Pakistan (see Jeremy Scahill, “Target: Yemen,”
March 5/12). It is hard to argue that they are making us safer when, for
every suspect killed, one or more newly embittered militants emerge to take
his place. This is not a prescription for American security but for an
endless war that will sap our moral core and put in jeopardy our most
cherished freedoms at home.

The new revelations also highlight the dangers of official secrecy, as we
now glimpse some of what the administration was hiding through its
invocation of the state secrets privilege in court proceedings. But as
urgent as the demand for transparency remains, we know more than enough to
conclude that President Obama’s continuation and expansion of George W.
Bush’s “war on terror” has further eroded legal barriers built over decades
to limit executive power. For those who believed Obama would restore the
rule of law after Bush’s imperial overreach, learning the details of these
operations has been troubling. Liberals raised a ruckus about Bush’s abuses.
Silence now is not an option.

 <http://www.thenation.com/article/168297/asesinatos-la-carta> Read this
editorial in Spanish.

 <http://www.thenation.com/blog/168234/kill-kill-list>  TAKE ACTION: Kill
the 'Kill List' 
 
* * *
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/krugman-we-dont-need-no-education.
html?nl=todaysheadlines
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/15/opinion/krugman-we-dont-need-no-education
.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120615> &emc=edit_th_20120615
 We Don’t Need No Education
 
 Paul Krugman
NY Times Op-Ed: 6/15/2015
 
 Hope springs eternal. For a few hours I was ready to applaud Mitt Romney
for speaking honestly about what his calls for smaller government actually
mean. 
 
 Never mind. Soon the candidate was being his normal self, denying having
said what he said and serving up a bunch of self-contradictory excuses. But
let’s talk about his accidental truth-telling, and what it reveals. 

In the remarks Mr. Romney later tried to deny, he derided President Obama:
“He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers.” Then he
declared, “It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American
people.” 

You can see why I was ready to give points for honesty. For once, he
actually admitted what he and his allies mean when they talk about shrinking
government. Conservatives love to pretend that there are vast armies of
government bureaucrats doing who knows what; in reality, a majority of
government workers are employed providing either education (teachers) or
public protection (police officers and firefighters). 

So would getting rid of teachers, police officers, and firefighters help the
American people? Well, some Republicans would prefer to see Americans get
less education; remember Rick Santorum’s description of colleges as
“indoctrination mills”? Still, neither less education nor worse protection
are issues the G.O.P. wants to run on. 

But the more relevant question for the moment is whether the public job cuts
Mr. Romney applauds are good or bad for the economy. And we now have a lot
of evidence bearing on that question. 

First of all, there’s our own experience. Conservatives would have you
believe that our disappointing economic performance has somehow been caused
by excessive government spending, which crowds out private job creation. But
the reality is that private-sector job growth has more or less matched the
recoveries from the last two recessions; the big difference this time is an
unprecedented fall in public employment, which is now about 1.4 million jobs
less than it would be if it had grown as fast as it did under President
George W. Bush. 

And, if we had those extra jobs, the unemployment rate would be much lower
than it is — something like 7.3 percent instead of 8.2 percent. It sure
looks as if cutting government when the economy is deeply depressed hurts
rather than helps the American people. 

The really decisive evidence on government cuts, however, comes from Europe.
Consider the case of Ireland, which has reduced public employment by 28,000
since 2008 — the equivalent, as a share of population, of laying off 1.9
million workers here. These cuts were hailed by conservatives, who predicted
great results. “The Irish economy is showing encouraging signs of recovery,”
declared Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute in June 2010. 

But recovery never came; Irish unemployment is currently more than 14
percent. Ireland’s experience shows that austerity in the face of a
depressed economy is a terrible mistake to be avoided if possible. 

And the point is that in America it is possible. You can argue that
countries like Ireland had and have very limited policy choices. But America
— which unlike Europe has a federal government — has an easy way to reverse
the job cuts that are killing the recovery: have the feds, who can borrow at
historically low rates, provide aid that helps state and local governments
weather the hard times. That, in essence, is what the president was
proposing and Mr. Romney was deriding. 

So the former governor of Massachusetts was telling the truth the first
time: by opposing aid to beleaguered state and local governments, he is, in
effect, calling for more layoffs of teachers, policemen and firemen. 

Actually, it’s kind of ironic. While Republicans love to engage in
Europe-bashing, they’re actually the ones who want us to emulate
European-style austerity and experience a European-style depression. 

And that’s not just an inference. Last week R. Glenn Hubbard of Columbia
University, a top Romney adviser, published an article in a German newspaper
urging the Germans to ignore advice from Mr. Obama and continue pushing
their hard-line policies. In so doing, Mr. Hubbard was deliberately
undercutting a sitting president’s foreign policy. More important, however,
he was throwing his support behind a policy that is collapsing as you read
this. 

In fact, almost everyone following the situation now realizes that Germany’s
austerity obsession has brought Europe to the edge of catastrophe — almost
everyone, that is, except the Germans themselves and, it turns out, the
Romney economic team. 

Needless to say, this bodes ill if Mr. Romney wins in November. For all
indications are that his idea of smart policy is to double down on the very
spending cuts that have hobbled recovery here and sent Europe into an
economic and political tailspin. 

  _____  

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.2177 / Virus Database: 2433/5070 - Release Date: 06/14/12



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to