EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Has America Become a Nation of Cowards?
If the mission to neutralize Osama bin Laden were a blockbuster movie, the screen would have almost certainly faded to black as soon as the accused terrorist's death was announced. No doubt, the credits would roll to Queen's "We Will Rock You” and then a big “The End” would appear.
Alas, real life is not one of Hollywood's many Pentagon-sponsored flicks -- and as hard as President Obama tried to portray last week's events as proof "that America can do whatever we set our mind to," the mission and its cloudy aftermath have raised troubling questions about the "whatever" part. Among the most important of those queries are:
- Is it legal for a president to issue extrajudicial "kill only" orders -- that is, orders to kill but not capture a suspect, even if that suspect surrenders? United Nations investigators are now asking this very question after Reuters cited an Obama administration official in reporting that U.S. troops were "under orders to kill (bin Laden), not capture him."
Tellingly, the revelation of the possible "kill only" order came as the administration was retracting claims that bin Laden was armed and resisting arrest, and just as the British press reported on bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter alleging that her father was first captured alive and then summarily executed.
- Who is the president now prohibited from executing sans due process? At first glance, the answer might seem to be "anyone not named Osama bin Laden." Except, days after the bin Laden mission, Obama ordered the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, even though Awlaki hasn't been charged with -- much less convicted of -- a crime. If this is now acceptable, whom else can the president order killed without judicial review?
- Why were the Nazis entitled to due process, but accused terrorists aren't? Nazis killed millions of innocents and were convicted at the much-celebrated Nuremberg trials. Yet, many insist bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders must be executed or detained without a similar trial because a courtroom drama would supposedly generate a circus (this, as if Nuremberg were some low-key affair).
Why the double standard in confronting the Nazis and al-Qaida? Is it because since bravely facing down Hitler, we became a nation of cowards? Are we today so intimidated by the possibility of al-Qaida retribution that we're willing to subvert the ideals enshrined in our Constitution? And if so, isn't that letting the terrorists win?
This is not easy stuff to ponder, especially in a nation that has so radically changed over the last century. Whereas World War II America strove to embody Norman Rockwell's "Four Freedoms" painting of the patriot standing up and asking questions, America circa 2011 is more a country of Howard Stern and "South Park" -- a society that implores fellow countrymen to "shut up, sit down!" and tells inquiring citizens that "if you don't like America, you can get out!"
But regardless of such ubiquitous vitriol, we still need answers -- and not just because the international community wants them, but because Americans have a right to know what "America" is, beyond just the "A" in a drunken "USA!" chant.
Is America a nation "of laws, not of men," as John Adams promised? Or has it become another synonym for lawless tyranny?
Is "America" a place that obligates its leaders to respect the Constitution? Or is America governed by Richard Nixon's notion that "if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal"?
And perhaps the moment's most disturbing query is the simplest of all: Is America a country where self-reflection is valued? Or are we a country where these critical questions are no longer permitted?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
180 Comments so far
Show All"Or are we a country where these critical questions are no longer permitted?"
It is not that the questions are no longer permitted. They have become irrelevant.
you have scooped the article with that observation
it is irrelevant and so are we
it is notable though that we tolerate getting groped at the airports, soon to be in the malls and on the buses
only cowards tolerate this demeaning treatment by minimum waged cop wannabes
i notice too that as a country we generally stick to attacking weak and undefended countries
and as we see in afghanistan - we can't even do that anymore
i remember the good old days when we kicked grenada's butt good
same for panama
but these damn arabs with their 40 year old pick up trucks and home made rifles are giving us all we can handle
maybe that's we kill so many civilians, including women and children, they are unarmed and they don't shoot back
and we can still kick their asses
usa usa usa usa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
semper fi
Ouch! (but, oh so true)
"as long as they work and breed"
Afghans are not Arabs.
Exactly.
The answers to his first two questions were obvious.
Apparently, though, he thought that if we could examine ourselves, things would change.
You nailed it. We can endlessly post about the United States and its illegal and immoral behavior, its attack upon our ecosystem, the loss of our civil liberties, etc.
It just doesn't make any difference.
I feel your frustration, but do you not think it is important to speak truth to power? To call out the war criminals and expose them for the hypocrites that they are?
I started a blog called Compliance Campaign a while ago ( http://compliancecampaign.wordpress.com/ ) devoted to "pushing the United States into compliance with its international obligations." I know that it is probably too little too late, and some days, I just can't be bothered to waste my time with it, but something inside still tells me it is important to keep documenting the lawlessness of this government.
I don't know, but if we give up, the hardcore fascists win. I mean, not these run of the mill fascists we've been dealing with, but the real deal. When everything collapses, it will be the racists, the authoritarians, the Blackwater goons, and the tea partiers ready to pick up the pieces.. unless we keep (at least) speaking truth to power.
Look around, we're surrounded by stupid.
Cowards for sure.
Big government is bad, unless they're up our asses keeping us safe 24/7.
Mommy. Mommy.
Pathetic.
Obama is the perfect clown of the oligarch's.
Entertaining the masses with a tale of prairie justice while he destroys the nation.
http://www.obamatheconservative.com/
The answer is yes to the headline; much like the drunk or druggy who lives for that high and is ever afraid that he/she will not ever get enough. Anyone who has ever been there knows; that final hangover is going to be a Karmic bitch. Tony
Actually, the answer to the title question is: When were we ever not cowards? After all, cowardice is characteristic of bullies: the constant compulsion to beat up on someone, just not anyone of one's own size.
This nation was founded when "we" beat up on perhaps the most powerful empire on the planet at that time. Certainly Britain was distracted by other ,seemingly more important, problems and led by a madman king. But the fact remains. We again tangled with them in 1812, just for emphasis I guess.
We certainly fit the description otherwise but more depth of analysis is required, in my opinion at any rate. I think our government follows the leadership of the monied class for the most part. Most of the "beating up" of smaller nations has been because our business interests needed their resources or needed to ensure a stable govt. for investment purposes. All this brouhaha in the Middle East ( and I in no way seek to diminish the tragic consequences of our awful presence there) is to corner a diminishing resource, protect it from the encroachment of the Chinese and the Russians and damn all those who die in the process.
As long as our government is unresponsive to the will of the people, to our ultimate needs rather than the needs of such as the Koch Brothers, or Exxon, Halliburton, General Electric et al we will continue to commit these awful actions. Until we understand the true nature of this nation's path we cannot hope to change it.
Perhaps we must sink further into third world status, and make no mistake that is where we are heading as capitalism always eats itself as it runs out of easier profit opportunity, before our electorate awakens and makes the necessary changes.
Please keep in mind that one major reason the colonists freed themselves from British rule was so the colonists would no longer be prohibited from stealing trans Appalacian Native lands through superior firepower.
Err what? Are you proposing that the greatest Empire in the world was prohibiting its colony from expansion? Can you provide a link to this historical anomaly as I must have missed it.
The Royal Proclaimation of 1763 -
The proclamation created a boundary line (often called the proclamation line) between the British colonies on the Atlantic coast and American Indian lands (called the Indian Reserve) west of the Appalachian Mountains. The proclamation line was not intended to be a permanent boundary between white and American Indian lands, but rather a temporary boundary which could be extended further west in an orderly, lawful manner. The proclamation outlawed private purchase of Native American land, which had often created problems in the past; instead, all future land purchases were to be made by Crown officials "at some public Meeting or Assembly of the said Indians". Furthermore, British colonists were forbidden to move beyond the line and settle on native lands, and colonial officials were forbidden to grant lands without royal approval. The proclamation gave the Crown a monopoly on all future land purchases from American Indians.
Almost immediately, many British colonists and land speculators objected to the proclamation boundary, since there were already many settlements beyond the line (some of which had been temporarily evacuated during Pontiac's War), as well as many existing land claims yet to be settled. Indeed, the proclamation itself called for lands to be granted to British soldiers who had served in the Seven Years' War. Prominent American colonists joined with land speculators in Britain to lobby the government to move the line further west. As a result, the boundary line was adjusted in a series of treaties with Native Americans. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix and the Treaty of Hard Labor (both 1768) and the Treaty of Lochaber (1770) opened much of what is now West Virginia and Kentucky to British settlement.
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/royal+proclamation+of+1763/en-en/
"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake." - James Joyce
But nightmares, as other dreams, are too easily forgotten....
No, the Empire just wanted its cut. The oligarchs of the colonies wanted it all.
Also, they were worried that anti-slavery sentiment in England might get the upper hand and abolish it throughout the empire (which happened but much later than feared by the American colonial slaveholding interests). It was touched off by Somersett's Case.
"This nation was founded when "we" beat up on perhaps the most powerful empire on the planet at that time."
Only when the French decided to help. You know, those "cheese eating surrender monkeys" who lost more soldiers fighting for France in WW1 alone than the USA has lost in all conflicts throughout its history.
Excellent questions posed by David Sirota. The key question should now be whether any of those who make up the corporate media can finally do their jobs by putting forth these most relevant questions that have been posed by Sirota and direct them toward Barack Obama. If not then they certainly merit the definition of being cowards as well as stenographers.
They especially should ask Obama why it is that the Navy SEALS murdered the alleged bin Laden while the Nazis were tried in a court of law over sixty years ago. If the Nazis deserved justice for their crimes then one would also think that the alleged bin Laden should also be afforded that same right.
I wouldn't bet my life on it and Obama made sure that the only member of the media who would dare ask those questions was eliminated from the pool well over a year ago. I will never forget when Helen Thomas asked the question of Obama the why of it in regards to the "Christmas Day" bomber. As I recall Obama bumbled and fumbled, and clearly was not happy about that situation. These questions should have been asked of Obama the minute the lies starting spewing about the whole situation. I don't pay a lot of attention, but has Obama presented himself in the flesh to answer questions, or has it only been through his latest mouthpiece?
The spirit of Nazism was alive and well in the US before and during the second world war. America had its Jew haters and its fascists and the end of the war did not make all of them vanish, only hide. Today they and their descendants are scattered though the government, and probably are in high positions. In today's world, Bush/Cheney/Obama are like the fascists of Spain, Italy and Germany, not quite Nazis with the madness of hating Jews, but the other stuff is right out there. Same old struggle, serfs vs the Elite.
Those who make up the corporate media will not ask hard questions, the want to keep their jobs.
So if the Nazi leaders had just been shot as they were captured that would have been a terrible thing ?
"So if the Nazi leaders had just been shot as they were captured that would have been a terrible thing ?"
It's not that it would have been a terrible thing, but that we are better for having captured them and put them on public trial. And conversely, we are worse off for the way we treated enemy #1. One step closer to no longer caring about the rule of law.
Why do people who can distinguish the lesser of two evils when they vote, not comprehend the better of two goods?
What absolute rubbish indeed - schlub are you commenting on this article or your totally worthless and mindless posts?
msnbc has comment boards too ya know
why don't you go over there and waste their time for the next 50 years or so
Remember that old saying that the truth hurts? Your response proves that ten-fold!
An intriguing response. Why do you think the article is rubbish? Why do you think the article is embarrassing? Why or what should Sirota know better?
I'd find your answers most interesting. Please to fill in the blanks.
Respond to the post of Atomsk just below, if you arent too cowardly.
Good evening (from france)
Com'on you're kidding!!
Just have a look of (here on commondreams) ..
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/13-5
To be "proud and strong" you HAVE to be in good shape with a strong belief in the future!!!
Otherwise, God is the only file !
Chris
Well the American (and Western in general) image of the "warrior" is certainly not the same as that of the honourable samurai myth. It's about using overwhelming power against weaker foes, killing from hiding, not risking your life and so on, not about equal fights or even fights at a disadvantage. Overwhelming firepower, the "mother of all bombs", drones and gunships where the murderers are completely safe, stealth bombers, ICBMs - all of this is just cowardice, of course. It's the ethos of the mercenary army fighting to win, not someone who believes in what they do. It's about finding the weakest point, the biggest assymetry, not about "honourably" fighting it out. So yeah, I think this is a weak and cowardly interpretation of "martial virtues", where the strong risks as little as possible. Not that I'm a fan of machism, but this interpretation is incredibly weak and cowardly.
So yep, clearly. If you only dare to do fight when you have ten times the strength of your opponent, and you're protected from harm much more than them, you're a coward. It's the definition of cowardice. Doh.
You know what's bravery? It's tending to your rice field with a gun on your back, doing hard work and being ready at every moment to bve shot and bombed and napalmed by people occupying your country. It's standing up in a ghetto where you know you will be killed whatever you do. It's organising a union when you know you'll be "disappeared" if you're too successful. Imperial mercenaries can't even know the concept of "bravery", it's impossible.
And frankly, looking at the celebration videos was scary, and cowardly was the first word to come into my mind. But it's not just America, I'm pretty sure most of Europe would be the same.
What's this just become nonsence.
The USA has been a rogue state for over 50 years.
Good..I don't know what in fact??
You're right..definitively right!!
Bur remember, that is a part of our culture of "westerner" (and as a "froggy" with some real rubbish and beautiful behavior in other foreign states) I sympathise with you!!
chris
A lot longer than that. Ask the ghosts of Sand Creek or the Trail of Tears when the U.S. became a rogue nation.
Little known fact: To this very day, the name of the town closest to the Sand Creek Massacre site is named Chivington. Named after the officer who directed the massacre.
Bin Laden simply knew too much. He knew too much about Cheney and the Bush family. He knew too much about the Carlisle group and the new world order. The kleptocrats and plutocrats could not let this man speak - ever. While it may be unfair to call Americans a nation of cowards, we certainly had a coward-in-chief in charge on September 11, 2001. What else can one say about a deserter in time of war, George W. Bush?
Has become? I thought it was always a nation of cowards? From the Indian Wars up to the bombing of Libya, the United States loves bullying. On the homefront, Americans love security even if it robs them of privacy, freedom and their human rights!
I believe America has been a terrorist nation ready to invade and kill on the flimiest of motives and this has been true for at least the last fifty years and even before. The difference now is that their is a bipartisan consensus in favor of the gulag, holding people for years without charges, assassinating American citizens at the whim of the president, routinely declaring a person guilty before he has a trial as Obama did for Bradley Manning, flouting international law and ths sovereignty of allies to kill people they consider their enemies, stripping American women of their rights based on right wing religious nonsense such as the rights of the unborrn and other insane beliefs and much more. The United States is a corrupt totalitarian monster that should be frightening not only to the world but to the Americans that still believe in democracy.
This is what Facists do. if there were democracy and equality and fairness we'd all be dirty hippie jesus freaks and it would be more difficult to have the kind of power structure we have today. duh.
I'm afraid most of my fellow dirty hippie jesus freaks cleaned up and became the kind of people who now cheer on Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin or Sharron Angle.
I still follow Jesus but more and more it's obvious that religion is the opiate of the masses and the Facists know the best way to keep in power is to use religion and they have become experts at it.
We need to revolutionize more than just our political system, we've also got entrenched religious, education, media and economic systems that benefit the plutocrats.
Barack Obama could not stay in office ten minutes if Osama bin Laden would have been allowed to testify in an American courtroom that would be open to American’s ears. He would have denied taking down the twin towers but he also would have told us why he was glad they came down: http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/madeleine-albright-we-think-the-price-is-worth-it-by-felicity-arbuthnot/
I wrote off Obama as a total tool in 2009, but this spring I have yet become outraged/despairing over 3 things committed by BHO:
1. Torture of Pvt. Bradley Manning (I know, started in 2010)
2. Launching of discretionary war against Libya
3. Summary execution of OBL (or the psy-ops illusion thereof)
These actions all occur at the discretion of the supposed liberal president, the supposed Anti-Bush, the supposed figure of Hope. Obama has not just flipped the bird at Hope, he has given it a face-fart.
I think these three things, besides being business as usual for an Empire, are also designed to send a message to anyone capable of independent thought:
'America has gone totalitarian and there is no going back.'
Certainly, the US had gone totalitarian, degree by degree, prior to this spring. But we are now proclaiming this fact in terms only slightly less obvious than those of Stalin or Hitler.
Right and yet here we are freely able to critique it and call for drastic change.
The modern totalitarians have realized that trying to destory dissent doesn't work. Instead they've figured out that all they have to do is MARGINALIZE it.
In the X-Files Mulder found out that some of the people who were on the UFO circuit were actually hired by the conspiracy that wanted to keep it secret that aliens were real. They realized it was better to have some people out there telling the truth but acting like kooks so their message would be dismissed. That way when anyone who wasn't a kook discovered the truth they'd also be dismissed.
I don't think those of us speaking the truth are working for the system. They dont have to hire someone to say what we say but act like a kook. They just portray us that way.
Lincoln supposedly said, "You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all the time." But what modern Totalitarians have realized is that you only have to fool some all the time.
In the Matrix Series the Architect reveals to Neo that for the Matrix to work it needs the steam value of Zion. Zion is part of the design.
We're part of the design of the modern Totalitarian system.
It doesn't seem like a snark to me. ::smile::
I was trained as a preacher and strongly believe in the use of story to discuss ideas. The main vehicle for our modern myth making is film and TV in my view. I think the greatest artistic development of the 20th Century was the motion picture. The power of film and television is how universal they are in our psyches. The more literary allusions will resonate with the educated, but film and television ones will with almost everyone in our shared culture.
And you cannot ignore the value of a large number of self identified leftists and revolutionaries on a handful of sites, easy data collection.
I'm hoping I'll be picked up during the first sweep, I really don't want to find out what happens after that.
I support state secession and the dissolution of the Federal Government (just for the data collectors).
"This is not easy stuff to ponder..."
I would disagree.
I think it's incredibly easy.
In fact, hardly any "pondering" involved.
Just remember that during that glorious war against the nazis, we illegally interned a few Japanese-Americans without due process or batting an eyelash, strictly on racial prejudice.
Where has the author been?
The US hasn't changed; it's doing what it's always done -- slaughtering the powerless --- usually, but not always non-white -- people who have resources the US covets, all while claiming the moral high ground.
Our national bird should be the psychopath -- a malignant narcissist with no conscience interested only in satisfying it own every whim -- and able to look you in the eye and lie with a straight face and pleas of "good intentions" while doing it.
sj
sj
Sparacus Jones, i was all set to respond as you did to "This is not easy stuff to ponder...." but then, Sirota isn't one of my faves. I expect that kind of faux question from him. And i agree with your post. And would like to add one thing, if i may be allowed to get a bit off topic....
The lie of 'good intentions' while doing harm is something i have traced back to the enterprise of the Church. If someone can tell me i am incorrect, i am open to hearing it. However, i believe that the Church invented the concept of torturing and killing for the good of the victim's immortal soul. It seems that before that time, no one pretended they were doing you a big favor.
I'm sure the rationalizing self deception you are describing goes much further back than the Catholic Church.
Thanks for the feedback. Can you think of any place in particular? I have asked my ex Jesuit ethics prof. friend and he couldn't think of an earlier example of this mindset/behaviour. It goes along with the concept of forced conversion, which Ghandi called the worst of all evils.
Evangelism may or may not have begun with the 'Church'. I do think it is the highest form of hubris possible, however, with the assumption that there is only one correct Truth and if you don't accept it, you are damned. Not unlike American Exceptionalism, which is just another form of the same. In fact, as far as i can see, the hedgemony of the past millenium is rooted there.
If nothing else, Christianity has historically done forced conversion best.
The Egyptians did it with the Hittites. Psyops, demonization, forced conversions, tortured for your own good--the whole nine yards.
The Aztecs also come to mind, although they post-date Catholicism, they developed their techniques independently.
What happens when other countries develop drone technology (or we have a typical lapse in common sense and sell old drones to other countries)? In the near future, can we expect random bombs being dropped from afar on any one of us as retaliation for the unnecessary deaths we have caused?