You just have to watch the reaction of Ford, neocon Dan Senor, and Mike Barnacle to appreciate the soulless rot that leads people so cavalierly to defend and dismiss the continuous killing of innocent Muslims by the U.S. But it’s Ford’s smirking, self-satisfied, effete ignorance — from a warmonger whose delicately manicured hands have never been and will never be near any of the carnage he reflexively defends — that is particularly nauseating. Like most mindless defenders of U.S. violence, Ford just repeatedly utters the word “Terrorist” over and over like a hypnotic mantra.
Even after Junod describes the heinous death of the indisputably innocent American teeanger, Ford just smirks and pronounces that it’s better to Kill The Terrorists than to capture them. There’s nothing unique about Harold Ford, Jr. — as I said, he’s just the personification of the standard Beltway sicknesses, and the vacant “arguments” he makes to justify drones (“THE TERRORISTS!”) are the typical ones offered up — but there’s something about the way Harold Ford, Jr. speaks here, and who he is, that really vividly conveys what motivates this mindset
It really is sickening to watch Harold Ford Jr. (who is eviscerated by Greenwald in the article) sit there and say it’s cheaper to kill “terrorists” than capture them. He’s talking about murdering people as if it is all just numbers on a spreadsheet.
We are sorry for the losses suffered by the Pakistani military. We are committed to working closely with Pakistan and Afghanistan to prevent this from ever happening again.
Sorry is the key word here, as the US apologises for the killing of 24 Pakistani Soldiers back in November. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the announcement in Washington after talks by phone with her Pakistani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar. Pakistan is yet to comment but this apology is believed to end the closure of crucial supply routes to Nato-led forces in Afghanistan. (via newsflick)
It only took 8 months and cost $2.1 billion.
This appalling and brutal crime, involving indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force, is a flagrant violation of international law and of the commitments of the Syrian government to cease the use of heavy weapons in population centres and violence in all its forms.
Ban and Annan “condemn in the strongest possible terms the killing, confirmed by United Nations observers, of dozens of men, women and children” in Houla, UN spokesman Martin Nesirky said on Saturday.
If you’re not somebody who films the devastation wrought by the U.S. on the countries it attacks, or provides insight into Iraqi occupation opponents and bin Laden loyalists in Yemen, or documents expanding NSA activities on U.S. soil, then perhaps you’re unlikely to be subjected to such abuses and therefore perhaps unlikely to care much. As is true for all states that expand and abuse their own powers, that’s what the U.S. Government counts on: that it is sending the message that none of this will affect you as long as you avoid posing any meaningful challenges to what they do. In other words: you can avoid being targeted if you passively acquiesce to what they do and refrain from interfering in it. That’s precisely what makes it so pernicious, and why it’s so imperative to find a way to rein it in.
This gets to the heart of the problem. How many people who otherwise would be protesting against the government are scared about this stuff and thus aren’t? Imagine if you have any kind of personal secrets you don’t want getting out; the government can go through your computer when you come back into the country and find out. You don’t think they’ll use that as blackmail?
It’s disgusting that this is what our country has become.
A top adviser to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned the Bush administration that its use of “cruel, inhuman or degrading” interrogation techniques like waterboarding were “a felony war crime.”
What’s more, newly obtained documents reveal that State Department counselor Philip Zelikow told the Bush team in 2006 that using the controversial interrogation techniques were “prohibited” under U.S. law — “even if there is a compelling state interest asserted to justify them.”
Zelikow argued that the Geneva conventions applied to al-Qaida — a position neither the Justice Department nor the White House shared at the time. That made waterboarding and the like a violation of the War Crimes statute and a “felony,” Zelikow tells Danger Room. Asked explicitly if he believed the use of those interrogation techniques were a war crime, Zelikow replied, “Yes.”
It’s good to see media outlets not letting the torture issue go, even though the Justice Department decided they won’t formally investigate the Bush administration or any of the individuals who wrote the torture memos, including John Yoo, who’s currently a law professor at Berkeley.