Perhaps the single most striking aspect of these public death threats – whether clandestine assassination or carpet-bombing air strikes – leveled by notable American analysts and officials is that the United States currently has a specific program in place dedicated to extrajudicially murder U.S. citizens who do this exact thing.
The Obama administration has authorized the targeted killing of Muslim cleric and American national Anwar al-Awlaki. Earlier this year, The Wall Street Journal reported that Awlaki “was the imam at a Virginia mosque attended by U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, the suspect in the Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree in November, and said in interview in the fall that he counseled Maj. Hasan before the attack. Investigators say he also had incidental contact with two of the 9/11 hijackers.” Nevertheless, the paper continued, “There is no indication Mr. Awlaki played a direct role in any of the attacks, and he has never been indicted in the U.S.”
The Times (UK) reported in April that following “the Christmas Day airliner plot, US and Yemeni officials said that Mr al-Awlaki had met the suspected bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear.” Even though absolutely no evidence has ever been presented in a court of law to substantively link Awlaki with terrorist acts, an unnamed U.S. official has told the press, “Al-Awlaki is a proven threat. He’s been targeted.”
So far, the only “proof” given are the words of the U.S. government. On December 7, Reuters reported that “U.S. officials have described al-Awlaki as having a leadership role in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula…he has urged attacks on the United States in Internet videos and writings.”
Urging attacks in Internet videos and writings? Most of the staunch advocates of assassinating both Awlaki and Assange, not to mention encouraging an unprovoked American or Israeli assault on Iran, have strong connections – and career histories – with U.S. government foreign policy and the military establishment. Their influence of public and official discourse cannot be taken lightly, nor can it be passed off as inconsequential or merely rhetorical. After all, this is exactly what preceeded the invasion and occupation of Iraq – with many of the same cheerleaders we hear today.
So, if that’s all it takes to condemn people to death without a trial and authorize drones to bomb their alleged whereabouts, how should North Korea react to the call of the aforementioned Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds to “nuke ’em. And not with just a few bombs,” in response to the current escalation of hostilities between North and South Korea? By this standard, at what point should the Washington punditry start watching the skies over the Potomac for signs of Iran’s newly-acquired UAV, the Karrar?
Yet, wishful thinking or even vocal advocacy of violence, however abhorrent and appalling, is protected under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court, in 1969, addressed this exact issue in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio when it concluded:
“…the mere abstract teaching…of the moral propriety or even moral necessity for a resort to force and violence, is not the same as preparing a group for violent action and steeling it to such action…A statute which fails to draw this distinction impermissibly intrudes upon the freedoms guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. It sweeps within its condemnation speech which our Constitution has immunized from governmental control.”
Recently, however, the United States hasn’t worried much about due process and proof of criminal action or direct involvement in terrorist activities before issuing death warrants. For instance, according to the FBI itself, Osama bin Laden is still not accused of participating in or planning the 9/11 attacks, yet he is still wanted “dead or alive” by our government in connection with that terrible act.
Back in October, Jonah Goldberg expressed some doubts about the efficacy of assassinating Julian Assange:
“Assange is essentially hiding behind his celebrity and the fact that it wouldn’t do any good to kill him, given the nature of the Web. Even if the CIA wanted to take him out, they couldn’t without massive controversy. That’s because assassinating a hipster Australian Web guru as opposed to a Muslim terrorist is the kind of controversy no official dares invite.
“That’s fine. And it’s the law. I don’t expect the U.S. government to kill Assange, but I do expect them to try to stop him.”
According to Goldberg, the difference between killing Assange and Awlaki is not just that it is illegal for the U.S. government to assassinate people; rather, the difference is that one is an obnoxious white Australian while the other is a scary brown Muslim. While both damage the reputation and oppose the hegemonic domination of the United States using the power of words and the internet, the same rules don’t apply to both of them. The murder of one (the U.S. citizen, no less) is a no-brainer, while the murder of the other would be controversial. Still, in response to a FOIA request, the CIA recently refused to “confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence” of “current or previous plans to assassinate Julian Assange.”
Land of the free, home of the brave.
During the 2008 campaign, presidential hopeful Barack Obama stated, “Today we are engaged in a deadly global struggle for those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms. If we are to win this struggle and spread those freedoms, we must keep our own moral compass pointed in a true direction.”
It is unlikely that, back then, Obama anticipated that in a mere two years, “those who would intimidate, torture, and murder people for exercising the most basic freedoms” would included himself, senior officials in his administration, and the bloodthirsty Beltway.
Last Wednesday, December 10, marked the 30th anniversary of the tragic assassination of John Lennon. As always, his words ring as true today as they did when he wrote them:
I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted
narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth
I’ve had enough of reading things
by neurotic, psychotic
pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just give me some truth
– Gimme Some Truth, 1971
Thanks to the courageous efforts of people like Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, we now all have a little more truth.
Nima Shirazi – protected by the freedoms that America has given him and his family, through the bleeding and bloodletting of countless warriors in the name of freedom. Your protection under the Ist Amendment is solid and allows you to speak, write and continue to breathe, unlike outspoken dissidents in other parts of the world – you’re welcome. And welcome to our tribe. . .
“You’re welcome”? Who was I thanking? You? For what? Did you bestow my Constitutional Rights unto me? Did you “protect” my “freedoms”? If so, how, when, where…and against whom? Who was trying to take my “freedoms” away from me?
And into who’s “tribe” am I being welcomed? By whom? You? Are you the vanguard of American citizenship? I received my American citizenship when I was born here. If you’re welcoming me into my own country, you’re mighty late. But…thanks?
Send Bradley a card this season, he’s been in solitary since May.
http://www.bradleymanning.org/15364/holiday-cards-for-bradley-mannings-freedom/
I certainly hope that those who read your reference to how I “ruminated on what would happen in Iran if President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had been assassinated” click on the link you provided so they are not left with the incorrect impression that I advocate his murder.
Like this piece, my posting was prompted by calls, then, for Ahmadinejad’s assassination and includes this passage:
“But an Iranian expert at Columbia University says, hypothetically, should someone successfully kill Ahmadinejad, the results could be the exact opposite of the intent.
“‘Evidently there was no assassination attempt, or if there was the regime is underplaying it,'” says Iranian studies professor Hamid Dabashi. ‘And fortunately so, because any major act of violence at this point is bound to radicalize the regime, militarize its security apparatus even further, and push Iran further to the edge of abyss’.”
Gary,
Thanks for chiming in on this. I certainly did not intend to insinuate that you advocated murder.
In fact, I very purposefully chose the phrase “ruminated on” (rather than, say, “advocated,” “encouraged,” “suggested,” or “called for”) to describe your approach to a hypothetical Ahmadinejad assassination attempt.
I do think, however, that even postulating on such a thing – even rhetorically – acts as a way to mainstream the notion of assassination as something legitimate. You certainly never condemn such an act.
Your article also lends credence to the widely-espoused anti-Iran propaganda machine that demonizes the Iranian government in general, and the president, in particular.
You describe Ahmadinejad as “the man who symbolizes oppression of the Iranian people,” without taking any time to acknowledge his immense popularity within Iran. Quite the contrary, you only quote Prof. Dabashi, who – as everyone knows – is a staunch and stubborn opponent of Ahmadinejad and refuses to accept that Ahmadinejad actually won last year’s reelection fairly, despite the fact that all available evidence shows quite clearly that this is the case.
You also note Ahmadinejad’s “frequent provocative statements” yet you don’t state what they are. A reader is left with the impression that you believe – as is so often repeated in the mainstream media – that Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and denied that the Holocaust ever happened, neither of which is true. As a journalist, you should know better than to repeat long-debunked and deliberately demonizing accusations.
Further, by asking whether “things [might] suddenly improve for the Iranian people” (or merely stay the same) were Ahmadinejad to be killed, you again play into the notion that the Iranian government is not viewed favorably in Iran and that the Iranian people not only view themselves as victims of severe government oppression, but that they long for regime change and a new form of government.
Over the past few years, numerous polls have shown these ideas to be unfounded. For instance, in several post-election polls in Iran, more than 70% of respondents said they saw Ahmadinejad as the legitimate, democratically-elected president of the country and around 80% viewed the 2009 election as free and fair.
Additionally, more than 80% of Iranians polled said they were satisfied with the current system of government.
A poll conducted this past September (over a year after the election and aftermath) finds that about 60% of Iranians say they voted for Ahmadinejad – a percentage which is not only consistent with every single pre- and post-election survey, but also essentially matches the official results.
Also, this recent poll, conducted by the International Peace Institute, revealed (unsurprisingly to those who have been paying attention) that only about one-third of Iranians view opposition leaders Mousavi and Karroubi favorably, while a mere 26% have positive feelings about the so-called “Green Movement.”
These findings are, once again, completely in line with last year’s election results.
Nearly 60% of respondents also said that the government’s response to the riots and protests which followed the vote was appropriate (19% said the reaction “went too far”). Iranians also continue to support the combination of a theocratic and republican government (which it currently has), though they overwhelmingly believe that Iran will become more democratized over the next decade.
Your article, by using only the words of Dabashi and no other voice, never speaks of assassination as immoral or illegal, only as impractical. Dabashi states that “any major act of violence” would “radicalize the regime” and “push Iran further to the edge of abyss.” What abyss is this, I wonder? You never explain.
Stating that Ahmadinejad is the symbol of Iranian oppression is disingenuous to say the least. Remember, he’s the one who called for women to be allowed to attend soccer games shortly after his first inauguration. He was lambasted by the religious conservatives. He has also, repeatedly, stated his belief that the government has better things to do than restrict women’s clothing and police public “immodesty.”
Just this past summer (two months before you wrote your piece), Ahmadinejad publicly stated his opposition to the dress-code crackdown, saying, “The government does not agree with this behavior and will respond to and control it as much as it can. It is an insult to ask a man and woman walking on the street about their relation to each other. Nobody has the right to ask such questions.”
These reports are consistent with a recent diplomatic cable from Baku, Azerbaijian and released by WikiLeaks this month. The cable reports that, during a Supreme National Security Council meeting in mi-January 2010, Ahmadinejad spoke of the Iranian people feeling “suffocated,” and advocating the necessity of “more personal and social freedoms, including more freedom of the press.” In response to such a suggestion, an “infuriated Revolutionary Guard Chief of Staff Mohammed Ali Jafari” yelled at the president and “slapped [him] in the face, causing an uproar.”
This is your “man who symbolizes oppression”? Hardly.
Thanks again for reading, reposting my article, and getting in touch.
Best,
Nima
I note that nowhere do you say that killing Ajad would “wrong”, “immoral” or even “illegal” under US and International law.
“Attorney General Eric Holder stated his belief that “national security of the United States has been put at risk”?
People have forgotten that 36 years ago in 1974 a former top Senior CIA whom become a Whistle-blower said that the CIA and Henry Kissinger took part in training the Police and the Military of the country of South America in killing over 6.000.000 millions innocent man, women, and children that were accussed of beirn “Communists” when they were not Communists at all they just oppossed the USA Government Nuclear Missiles Programs. In fact the former CIA said that if one of the South American countries had the Nuclear Bomb to Nuke the USA the CIA could not have carried out Terrorism against innocent civilians who were not Muslims at all. The USA country has been Threatening themselves by Bullying the world long before the war of Iraq and Afghanistian but they blame others Nations because “The USA Cannot Handle The Truth”. The USA Government will poo their own trousers if a country of South America goes Nuclear to Revenge themselves for all the Crimes that the CIA and Henry Kissinger have committed against them. Those people of South America were not Muslims at all they were rival Christians who did not like the Catholics pedophiles. The USA has an history of protecting Catholics pedophiles because there are 60 Millions of them living in the USA country. The USA Government and their CIA showed not Respect so soon or later the USA will become like Sodom and Gomorrah because their crimes has reached Heaven. The Muslims will never take the glory away from the people of South America because more Rival Christians died in South America than all of those Muslims who died in Iraq and Afhganistan. The Hell with the Muslims, the Catholis, the USA and the CIA and that idiot with a short memory call Attorney General Eric Holder.