I must, at last, admit defeat. I simply have no words, no rhetorical ammunition, no conceptual frameworks that could adequately address the total moral nullity exposed in Monday's New York Times article on the death squad that Barack Obama is personally directing from the White House. ("Secret "Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will.")
It is not so much a newspaper story as a love letter -- a love letter to death, to the awe-inspiring and fear-inducing power of death, as personified by Barack Obama in his temporary role as the manager of a ruthless, lawless imperial state. In the cringing obsequiousness of the multitude of insiders and sycophants who march in goose-step through the story, we can see the awe and fear -- indeed, the worship -- of death-dealing power. This enthrallment permeates the story, both in the words of the cringers and in the giddy thrill the writers display in gaining such delicious access to the inner sanctum.
In any other age -- including the last administration -- this story would have been presented as a scandalous exposà ©. The genuinely creepy scenes of the "nominating process" alone would have been seen as horrific revelations. Imagine the revulsion at the sight of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld sifting through PowerPoint slides on "suspected terrorists" all over the world, and giving their Neronic thumbs-up or -down as each swarthy face pops up on a screen in front of them. Imagine the tidal wave of moral outrage from the "Netroots Nation" and other progressive champions directed at Bush not only for operating a death squad (which he did), but then trotting out Condi and Colin and Bob Gates to brag about it openly, and to paint Bush as some kind of moral avatar for the careful consideration and philosophical rigor he applied to blowing human beings to bits in sneak attacks on faraway villages.
In other words, this portrait of an American president signing off -- week after week after week after week -- on the extra-judicial murder of people all over the world is presented as something completely uncontroversial. Indeed, the main thrust of the story is not the fact that human beings -- including many women, children and men who have no connection whatsoever to "terrorism," alleged or otherwise -- are being regularly killed by the United States government; no, the main focus is how this program illustrates Barack Obama's "evolving" style of leadership during the course of his presidency. That's what's really important. The murders -- the eviscerated bodies, the children with their skulls bashed in, the pregnant women burned alive in their own homes -- are just background. Unimportant. Non-controversial.
II.
Here's how it works:
"Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government's sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects' biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.
"This secret 'nominations' process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda's branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia's Shabab militia. ... A parallel, more cloistered selection process at the C.I.A. focuses largely on Pakistan, where that agency conducts strikes.
"The nominations go to the White House, where by his own insistence and guided by Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama must approve any name. He signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia and also on the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan -- about a third of the total.
"Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counterterrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions.
"'He realizes this isn't science, this is judgments made off of, most of the time, human intelligence,' said Mr. Daley, the former chief of staff. 'The president accepts as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen, and to him, that calls for a more judicious process.'"
Again, words fail. Aides pumping reporters with stories about the
wise, judicious philosopher-king consulting Aquinas and Augustine before
sending a drone missile on a "signature strike" on a group of
picnickers in Yemen or farmers in Pakistan. The philosopher-king himself
nobly taking on the "moral responsibility" for mass murder. And the
cavalier assertion that "a certain amount of screw-ups are going to
happen" -- a bland, blithe acceptance that you are in fact going to
slaughter innocent human beings on a regular basis -- precisely as if
you walked up to an innocent man on the street, put a gun to his head
and blew his brains out all over the sidewalk ... then walked away,
absolved, unconcerned, and free to kill again. And again. And again.
This psychopathic serial killing is, evidently, what Augustine meant by
"moral responsibility." Who knew?
Obama's deep concern for "moral
responsibility" is also reflected in his decision to kill according to
"signature strikes" -- that is, to kill people you don't know, who
haven't even popped up on your PowerPoint slides, if you think they
might possibly look or act like alleged potential "terrorists." (Or if
you receive some "human intelligence" from an agent or an informer or
someone with a grudge or someone seeking payment that a group of people
doing something somewhere might be terrorists.) This "moral
responsibility" is also seen in Obama's decision to count "all
military-age males in a strike zone as combatants ... unless there is
explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."
Guilty
until proven posthumously innocent! How's that for "moral
responsibility"? Here Obama has surpassed Augustine and Aquinas -- yea,
even great Aristotle himself -- in this bold extension of the parameters
of moral responsibility.
It is, I confess, beyond all my
imagining that a national leader so deeply immersed in murdering people
would trumpet his atrocity so openly, so gleefully -- and so
deliberately, sending his top aides out to collude in a major story in
the nation's leading newspaper, to ensure maximum exposure of his
killing spree. Although many leaders have wielded such powers, they
almost always seek to hide or obscure the reality of the operation. Even
the Nazis took enormous pains to hide the true nature of their murder
programs from the public. And one can scarcely conceive of Stalin
inviting reporters from Pravda into the Politburo meetings where he and
Molotov and Beria debated the lists of counterrevolutionary "terrorists"
given to them by the KGB, and ticked off those who would live and those
who would die. Of course, those lists too were based on "intelligence
reports," often gathered through "strenuous interrogation techniques" or
the reports of informers. No doubt these reports were every bit as
credible as the PowerPoint presentations reviewed each week by Obama and
his team.
And no doubt Stalin and his team were just as
sincerely concerned about "national security" as the Aquinas acolyte in
the White House today -- and just as determined to do "whatever it
takes" to preserve that security. As Stalin liked to say of the innocent
people caught up in his national security efforts: "When wood is
chopped, chips fly."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
5
4
