EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Should We Allow NATO Free Rein to Attack and Kill People?
The airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers is just the latest in a series of mistakes that raise doubts about NATO's credibility
Why did NATO forces kill two dozen Pakistani soldiers at a border post in the Mohmand region, some 300 yards across the frontier from Afghanistan early on Saturday morning? The US military claims the attack was in response to hostile fire, and the Pakistanis are demanding proof of that.
There is a very simple explanation of what happened: the US military makes deadly mistakes all the time, and for all its technological wizardry and tremendous firepower, it has very little intelligence on the ground.
"There are many questions that need to be answered," an editorial in the New York Times pronounced:
"Who first fired on the American-Afghan force? Pakistan's army is far too cozy with the Taliban. Were fighters sheltering near the Pakistani outposts? What about Pakistan's claim that the NATO strikes continued for two hours even after Pakistan alerted allied officials? What needs to be done differently going forward?"
In New York and Washington, this is standard fare. We can't trust the Pakistanis, they are with the terrorists. But can we trust NATO or the US military? There are numerous examples of firing on civilians, killing children and even deliberately targeting and assassinating individuals who turn out not to have been the people they were claimed to be. And that is in Afghanistan, a country where the US has easy access.
A US air force investigation into the killing of 23 civilians in Uruzgan province in February 2010 concluded that it was a tragic mistake. "Information that the convoy was anything other than an attacking force was ignored or downplayed" by the Predator crew, whose reporting was "inaccurate and unprofessional", the investigation by a two-star army general reported.
In September 2010 NATO claimed to have killed Muhammad Amin – the alleged Taliban deputy governor of Takhar province in Afghanistan – in a drone strike. Kate Clark, a former BBC correspondent in Kabul who now works for the Afghanistan Analysts Network, and Michael Semple, a Taliban expert at Harvard University, have confirmed that Amin is alive and well and that the dead man was Zabet Amanullah.
Those are just two of the better documented examples: In February 2010 NATO admitted killing 12 civilians in Helmand. The following day it admitted to killing five civilians in Zhari district of Kandahar. Just last week, it admitted killing seven civilians, most of them children, in the same district of Kandahar.
In Pakistan, the US record is even murkier. I work at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism where we have documented the killing of more than 175 children and as many as 600 other civilians inside Pakistan by the CIA.
So before we jump to conclusions that the Mohmand strike was a result of the Pakistani military's relationship the Taliban, we need to ask ourselves a much more basic question: should we be allowing NATO, let alone the CIA, free rein to attack people and kill them – especially when their attacks are based on what is clearly very poor intelligence in the field?
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...
79 Comments so far
Show AllThese are not mistakes or accidents. They are Policy.
Soon to be extended to the domestic "battlefield."
Passing of Bill S.1867 to amend The National Defense Authorization Act (US Senate is set to vote this week) would “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield” and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial. Presumably, it wouldn't exclude drone attacks either if the domestic dissent became more intense. Good luck Gandhi and OWS.
The days when Americans could smugly assume that their country's imperialist "full spectrum dominance" insanity was reserved for the oppression of little brown people in foreign lands are over. One hardly knows whether to pity the naivete or scorn the complicity in their own folly. Probably doesn't matter much either way, I guess.
Move over, Patriot Act. It's the imposition of martial law by stages. More at
http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-mccain-battlefield-graham-429/
I heard a report on BBC radio that TPTB wants to use drones domestically and this shill who was promoting it said it would help fight crime. What a load of horse dung! TPTB are gearing up on an assault on the 99%
Yes, they certainly are. And it should be understood that bringing military force against US citizens is not entirely new or without precedent, even going back to the nation's early history. When Washington followed Alexander Hamilton's advice on handling the Whiskey Rebellion, he ignored habeas corpus and nearly every individual right set out in the new Bill of Rights, federalizing militias to bring overwhelming force to shock and awe innocent citizens of an entire region of the country.
So it's not really a question whether it can happen here. It already has. It's more a question about when it will happen again.
Your rendering of the Whiskey Rebellion is primitive. "Force" was first used by the rebels against Federal tax collectors. So much for "innocent citizens". Washington sent peace commissioners to negotiate an end to the rebellion. And what do you mean by "habeas corpus" when your representatives are attacked by an armed mob? Do you really believe that the British, had they won, would have been more lenient and have applied "habeas corpus"?
nato ==North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
What the hell is the usa doing/
The ows just shows the truth about American sheeple they just
do not care.. As long as they have a big screen tv and a warm
couch.. lessons learn by the dictators in Saudi Arabia
Even the Dictators of ancient Rome knew how to keep the sheep the pen.
Americans don't seem to care how bad you screw them or what you do in there
name as long as they are comfortable.
Makes one wonder what Jesus would do with this country if he was to reappear today!
Exactly. NATO knew Pakistani soldiers were there. The bombing lasted two hours. The Pakistanis were pleading for them to stop. It was no accident.
insane amerika wants to kill everyone
i mean i thought everyone knew that by now
geeeshh!
When you're the exceptional nation, then the fault is always with the other.
I don't see the what the fuss is all about. NATO promised to investigate. Alas.
"Should We Allow NATO Free Rein to Attack and Kill People?"
Talk about a rhetorical question!
NATO and its puppet master, the US, don't care about what any of us might allow or disallow. They just kill and maim at their leisure. For them, the world is a battle field, the battle field that opens up the "free" markets for Western capital's plundering of resources and cheap labor.
The oligarchs, the fascists', the war criminals, the Wall Street hucksters, best friend is the following question, brought to us by the corporate suck-ups in MSM, over and over again…
"What needs to be done differently going forward?"
Obviously it was intentional and meant to send a message to the Pakistanis that they can be hit at any time we choose. I am pretty sure they get the message as well.
so much for any "nuclear deterrent".
tell me again why the worry about Iran obtaining such.
" The U.S. military claims ". That statement should end with it is nothing but terrorism on a bigger budget!
NATO is the military wing of the ruling international cabal (Illuminati) that is hell bent on global domination. The US government has been taken over by that cabal, and is as much a tool as the other members, although it is made to appear that it is calling the shots. I agree with GwNorth that there are no (or few) "accidents." Dirty tricks are policy, civilian deaths count for nothing, and this most recent murder of soldiers could easily be some kind of deliberate provocation or slap-down.
"Should We Allow NATO Free Rein...?"
why, yes, of course!
they are the good guys.
As was obvious when U.S. helicopter gun-ships gunned down two journalists and nine other civilians in Baghdad from more than a mile away, their targeting cameras have the ability to whether the people they are shooting are wearing Pakistani uniforms, or for that matter, whether they have a mustache. This was no accident. This was another intentional attack by the U.S./NATO on another sovereign nation. It appears that the war-handlers aren’t satisfied with the destabilization caused by the cowardly piloted drones. So attacking the military directly ought to do it. Pakistan needs to shut down the supply lines, including closing their airspace to the war machine. Let’s see the U.S. attack a nuclear-armed country.
"Pakistan needs to shut down the supply lines." NATO does not need Pakistani supply lines; there are other pillars of democracy in the region willing to help. Uzbekistan and Tajikistan come to mind. Alas
"Allow"?
We can't make that decision. Only Washington has that kind of power. Like any other important decision, the People don't have any say-so.
As I wrote eslewhere this morning, the Terrorists commanding the US Empire which includes NATO must be utterly destroyed. There is NO other solution. We may debate methods, but the end result must be total devastation of the Terrorists and their acolytes within corporations, governments and media globally.
FUKUS-NATO: the rogue alliance par excellence.
No mention is made in this article of the reason why these things are happening and it's probably deliberate.
The militaries of the US and NATO are trapped in a war to prevent future terrorism (by anybody named 1. Al Qaeda and 2. Tally Ban).
It's impossible to identify future terrorists from others.
But if the soldiers, mechanical or human, aren't killing future terrorists on a daily basis, how can the Pentagon tell if we're winning?
We're trapped in this insanity by law and since we've ignored that law another day, we stay trapped another week.
Mr. Chatterjee, with all due respect, I think it's high time we deconstructed the following question, even if it's been posed as a rhetorical one. Its context makes a terrible presumption:
"We need to ask ourselves a much more basic question: should we be allowing NATO, let alone the CIA, free rein to attack people and kill them ..."
Who is this WE, Mr. Chatterjee? Was your opinion solicited here, was mine? Do you know many people who support these wars? Are you aware of any mainstream media agencies that have published the damning statistics, that somewhere in the ballpark of 90% of casualties in modern U.S. combat operations are civilians? Sure. The spin-masters may go to work calling them insurgents, enemy combatants, terrorists, or some other damning title... but the truth is, the vast casualties (a/k/a collateral damage) are everyday people protecting their own homelands.
The Geneva Conventions was not always regarded as quaint, and it clearly defines the War of Aggression as the SUPREME crime against humanity. Which nation is most guilty here?
"We" is only relevant if you're addressing the circles of power that design these horrific plans of homicide. Small groups make these decisions in order to win leverage on the geo-political chessboard defined by the planet itself.
WE are not trapped inside the insanity. The elites that choose these deadly agencies and agendas ARE. And because the media is a very influential tool of warfare, insofar as generating a pervasive propaganda stream, it's not easy to determine what citizens REALLY believe or wish to see happen. If someone is under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or mental illness, they are not seen as competent to understand any potential charges against them. I would submit that much of our population has been rendered somnambulant to TV and its soporific powers of virtual hypnosis.
WHEN the truth is made evident, THEN ask those who can recover their senses whether they support these HORRORS. Until then, using the pronoun WE provides insidious cover and relieves the guilty of any call to accountability.
Yes, the headline ought to say Should NATO Have Free Reign to Kill People? or Why Does NATO Have Free Reign to Kill Innocents? or When Will NATO be Indicted by the ICC? And I'm sure you can come up with many others that would provide an improvement and promote a better contextual arena for condemnation.
Karlof: I've become quite sensitive to the use of inverted information, of late. I wonder if the editors changed the article's title to include this diffusive, ubiquitous term WE that holds everyone accountable for what very corrupt small groups elect to do. And it's not like elections are honest, not like anyone can REALLY say that the public effectively got to choose between Baboon A or Baboon B. It's not like these chumps aren't pre-vetted and their loyalty to Big Power tested in advance, their ad campaigns financed by elaborate quid-pro-quo arrangements, and so forth. The movie, "A Face in the Crowd" shows how easy it is for media to turn any imbecile into an overnight star, sensation, celebrity or phenomenon. It's THAT powerful. Due to these agencies and more, I make it a point to decouple the inclusive term WE from the policies effected by elites... perhaps the author might have said "Does the 1% choose..."
And thanks for your response. It must be very frustrating to be a historian and have to witness the same march of folly repeat itself. Unfortunately, this provides prima facie evidence to some, that it is human nature that is the cause. One day I'll discuss with you (if you like) what Riane Eisler's scholarship suggests, and how even evidence as plain as day is refuted by those who refuse to alter their pre-established stories for The Way We Were, and theoretically ARE, and thus must be.
Siouxrose, I went to the Guardian and saw the same title, although the comments are very different yet illustrative. A good counterpoint to "A face in the Crowd" is the book "Bowling Alone," which provided the inspiration for Moore's "Bowling for Columbine," all of which have roles in the current drama. Have you read Naomi Klein's recent essay? Although the topic seems different, the underlying subject matter is similar to what we're discussing, http://www.indypendent.org/2011/11/11/capitalism-vs-the-climate/
The most infrequent event for the vast majority of people over the past 2,000+ years of human history is Peace, wars being far more commonplace as people compete instead of cooperate. And the big problem with the wars the US Empire instigates is they don't touch North America's shores and thus provide some education for the populace, many of whom falsely presume to be living in peace.
"... this diffusive, ubiquitous term WE that holds everyone accountable for what very corrupt small groups elect to do"
I had not picked that up. But I got it now that you have pointed it out. Very subtle. Quite powerful.
"we the people"
yeah - right.
When nature is under siege, she unleashes the bestialists
NATO doesn't care who they kill as long as they get to spend all their munitions so they can keep buying more...
it is my suspicion that the cruise missiles sent into Yugoslavia were feared to be infected with the Millennium Bug.
"Should We Allow NATO Free Rein to Attack and Kill People?"
I DO NOT allow NATO free rein to attack and kill people. Do not smear my name with the blatant atrocities by an organization that is run, operated and executed by psychopaths/sociopaths, killers, torturers, and rapists from Western governments. Those governments have money-compromised, money-corrupted, and outright flagrant shill$ for the 1% of the world running them, no matter who is in charge of those Western governments at any given moment (Italy's and Greece's leaders were just appointed by Goldman Sachs.)
Here's a list of member countries of NATO:
Albania, Belgium*+, Bulgaria (kleptocracy per Wikileaks State Cables,) Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic*, Denmark*, Estonia*, France*, Germany*, Greece*+ (GS apptd leadership,) Hungary*, Iceland+ (GS infiltrated all parties,) Italy*+ (GS apptd leadership,) Latvia*, Lithuania*, Luxembourg*, Netherlands*, Norway, Poland*, Portugal*+, Romania*, Slovakia*, Slovenia*, Spain*+, Turkey, United Kingdom* (Murdock corrupted all political leadership over last 30 yrs,) United States (GS owns Congress/President) ( * = European Union Members) ( + = PIIGS ((those nations targeted for total financial evisceration/takedown by GS.)
JG: Please understand that there is a difference between an explanation and an endorsement. With that being said, I can speak as someone who's been employed by a variety of newspapers and magazines. Everyone knows, if not explicitly, than intuitively, how far they can push the envelope. It's my belief that the persons you mention realize they'd be so deeply marginalized and tossed out of media venues IF they crossed the 911 rubicon, that they've decided it's better that they do what they do, expose the truth up to that margin... and hope that the public can take the leap of understanding from there. If they lost their platforms, then the public would end up even LESS aware of what's going on, what our government is doing in our names, and so forth.
There is a huge price to pay for getting a stigma. People can treat you like a leper. In media, that means you will never get work "in this town" again. This nation has a very dark history when it comes to things like keeping dossiers on people who "went too far," and even in the science and medical "communities," those who deviate from the "established scripts" by endorsing things like holistic medical options or alternative energy sources quickly are shown the door... if not "privileged" to experience character assassination campaigns.
My point is that I honor what these people do. They ARE on the front lines of an ideological war zone. I would like the 911 TRUTH to be better understood; however, I don't put the onus on those specific persons to spill the beans.
Even in this forum, this subject once led to a thread with over 700 comments, the vast majority expunged. It's a tricky topic given the nature of lockdown being imposed on The People as law after law, put in place to PROTECT civil liberties, gets decimated so that the power of state can run roughshod over the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, Geneva Conventions, and any and every sane global environmental treaty.
These are NOT ordinary times, my friend.
"Does any OWSer really, actually, and truly claim that 308 million Americans are the new 'Silent Majority,' and that those folks camped out are Its SpokePersons? On what basis?"
I will.
Here is the basis: Occupy is fighting for the interests of those 308,000,000.
It is not a popularity contest.
I do not understand your post.
What is the connection you are seeing between shopping and the interests of the working class people?
What is wrong with eating turkey, or watching football? What is the connection between those things and the interests of the working class?
What was the purpose of "buy nothing day?" What was the message? How many people did the message reach?
Still not quite following you.
Not sure what you are promoting, nor what you are criticizing.
Sorry. It still does not seem very coherent.
Tom at ICH and Jason Ditz, et al at antiwar.com have no qualms about republishing the refreshing and progressive points raised by Ron Paul regarding war and empire, in this case how sanctions are an act of and usually lead to war, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29849.htm
Yet CommonDreams as a self-announced Progressive media site will not republish anything written by or about the ONLY self-proclaimed antiwar candidate for president we've had since McGovern unless the article is a smear-job, which I consider a travesty. I really do miss Corvo and exiled others who would debate the idea of supporting Paul.
In Ron Paul's libertarian dystopia, do you imagine that corporations, the wealthy and powerful, will no longer do whatever is necessary to protect their interests?
Sure, the US government military will no longer be fighting overseas. Privatized corporate armies will, and millions of impoverished working class people will have little else in the way of opportunity to survive.
Sure, privatizing everything would get the dreaded gubmint out of the loop. Corporations will then rule us directly.
We will all "owe our souls to the company store."
You've put forth this idea that privatized corporate armies will become the bane with a Paul presidency, but have never offered anything to prove your point. Furthermore, Liberties/Freedoms/Civil Rights MUST have a government to enforce them and the rule of law that is concomitant to such, which is totally at odds with some sort of "independent" corporate military. Just examine the lack of Liberty involved in the Foreclosure Crisis--hundreds of thousands of people were and continue to be deprived of their property without due process or based on fraudulent documents, which Paul has spoken against. Then there's the issue of money creation and finance that Paul maintains MUST be under control of the government. Surprising what one finds when one does some Due Diligence.
I merely asked a question.
Do you think that if the government is out of the business of protecting the interests of the wealthy and powerful (that is what the wars are about) that the wealthy and powerful will then do nothing to protect their interests? Do you think that what they do to protect their interests is likely to represent an improvement for us working class people?
The problems you describe are not the result of a lack of liberty, but rather are the result of a lack of power.
At issue here, as has always been the case in the US, is not liberty, it is not freedom, but rather it is a matter of who is free to do what. The answer to that question is that the more money you have, the more freedom and liberty you have. That is no liberty and no freedom.
Some seek freedom from being dominated, bullied and controlled. Some seek the freedom to dominate, bully and control others. It is not about freedom. It is about whose freedom, and what they are free to do.
"the more money you have, the more freedom and liberty you have."
which proves: "Freedom's Not Free."
The minute Paul takes a step towards investigating The Fed, (like he'll ever have that chance) something like an awful accident or a heart attack will befall him.
First of all, I qualified my statement initially by stating that an explanation is NOT an endorsement. Apparently that went right by you. So consider this: What has happened to Julian Assange or Bradley Manning? Not everyone is ready to take on that level of consequence. I like the way STONE says that the OWS movement is growing, that it's in its early stages. I forget which poster explained that were violence to erupt now through the OWS then resistance to it could prove severe. Sometimes things emerge organically if they're given the time to do so.
What do you think would happen if these people spoke out? Probably, given the content of our "Supreme" Court and the echo chamber of right wing hate media, uninformed people would ask for their HEADS. Not enough of our fellow citizens understands that something in the order of a coup has undermined all branches of our government, raided the treasury, taken control of the mass media, while continuing to enjoy the vast protection through the muscle of the MIC and its network of domestic spying organizations.
That's a lot to stand up to. Plus it's not YOUR choice or mine to make that decision for others who are closer to the front lines of power than you and I. Each has to answer to their own Master and serve Truth (or its inversion) as they see fit.
Would I like to see these luminaries speak out? Yes. However, one has to believe that minds as sharp as Chris Hedges, Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, and perhaps even Michael Moore have to realize that things were just too convenient on 9-12-0001... having the Patriot Act ready, absurd "evidence" like the passport in the burning wreckage, added to the wrecking crews on-board to get rid of evidence, as the prez jumped around in his flight suit... all this Hollywood-like control of props, well, you're talking about how the engine of a very dark empire operates.
Perhaps I'm waiting for Luke and Leah and the band of assorted fringe dwellers who will nurture enough Jedis in their midst to aim the spear of their Light into the core of The Machine to take it down.
I do share your frustration, but I refuse to go rabid over it. No dark power in history has ever been able to hold on when it betrayed its people long and hard enough. We've reached the tipping point. My advice: get out of the way of falling debris.
KARLOF & TWO AMERICAS: I am grateful to turn the debate (about Ron Paul) over to both of you. Thank you for your intelligent efforts to clarify.
JG: Your disparaging comments about OWS make me think that you're either an agent provocateur or someone with such rigid views that you can only see that which immediately validates your particular frame of reference. Perhaps someone else would care to "debate" you.
Good night, and good luck.
The United States has been pressured by it's siamese twin Israel,and the United States threatened and pressured others that make up NATO to play along or else,----Hitler style. One day the United States and Israel will be the isolated countries.
Who is "we," Mr. Chatterjee? You, me, the bloggers here? Do you really think that "they" really care what "we" do? You could not ask a more pathetic question? "Should we allow NATO free rein to attack and kill people?" Wow? What a thoughtful, powerful question? Where the hell do you live? Up in the attic with your grandma? In a cave? You can do a lot of allowing or disallowing, as much as you please. Or you can go to hell. It is not going to make any difference. You have no idea what power is. And CD publishes such puerile scribblings? Every average moron by now knows that NATO and USA are murdering people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and wherever NATO and USA happen to be. But Mr. Chatterjee just started wondering if "we" should allow them to do so.
Should We Allow NATO Free Rein to Attack and Kill People? YES.
The Obama administration has followed Bush in using NATO to enforce its will on the third world and because there are very few Americans in both parties that actually believe in peace and diplomacy he has a free hand to do whatever he wants to control the world through military force. The Americans remain the biggest purveyors of violence in the world and this does not change no matter which party is in power.