Gaddafi's death

[SR4]

who are the first three pictures?

 

 

looks like Trotsky, Lenin, and ???

[awepittance]

Greenwald wrote this article today

When President Obama announced the killing of Osama bin Laden on the evening of May 1, he said something which I found so striking at the time and still do: “tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history.” That sentiment of national pride had in the past been triggered by putting a man on the moon, or discovering cures for diseases, or creating technology that improved the lives of millions, or transforming the Great Depression into a thriving middle class, or correcting America’s own entrenched injustices. Yet here was President Obama proclaiming that what should now cause us to be “reminded” of our national greatness was our ability to hunt someone down, pump bullets into his skull, and then dump his corpse into the ocean. And indeed, outside the White House and elsewhere, hordes of Americans were soon raucously celebrating the killing with “USA! USA!” chants as though their sports team had just won a major championship.

As I wrote on the morning after bin Laden’s death, this gleeful reaction was understandable given the slaughter Americans witnessed on 9/11. But there was still something notable, and troubling, about this episode. Such a rare display of unified, chest-beating national celebration is now possible only when the government produces a corpse for us to dance over. Some suggested at the time that Osama bin Laden was sui generis and that no lessons could or should be drawn from his killing; for that reason, even many people who are generally uncomfortable with such acts proudly celebrated his death as the elimination of a singular evil. But it seems clear that the bin Laden episode was no aberration, no exception: the American citizenry rarely finds cause to exude nationalistic pride except when the government succeeds in ending someone’s life.

Since the bin Laden killing, we have witnessed a similar joyous reaction when the U.S. assassinated its own citizen, Anwar Awlaki (along with another American dubiously claimed to be “collateral damage”) — even though Awlaki was never indicted as a Terrorist, charged with treason, or accorded any due process, and even though the government never showed the public any evidence supporting its accusations. Instead, Obama officials, with no evidence offered, simply declared him to be a Bad Terrorist, and that was all that was needed: hordes of his fellow Americans did not merely approve — but cheered — the news that a drone had found and killed him.

Identically, both before and after the Awlaki killing, Americans have routinely celebrated the drone-deaths of hundreds of individuals about whom they knew nothing other than the fact that the Terrorist label had been applied to them by the U.S. Government. It’s as though there is a belief that American missiles do not detonate unless they hit an actual Terrorist.

And now the graphic photo of the corpse of Moammar Gaddafi is once again sparking outbursts of American pride — despite the fact that he was captured alive and very well may have been summarily executed. As I wrote previously, “no decent human being would possibly harbor any sympathy for Gadaffi, just as none harbored any for Saddam.” And it’s understandable that Libyans who suffered for four decades under his rule (like Americans after 9/11 or Muslims after years of violence and aggression in their countries) would be eager for vengeance. Nonetheless, and regardless of what one thinks about Gadaffi or the intervention, summarily shooting a helpless detainee in the head is one of the most barbaric acts imaginable — under all circumstances — but Gadaffi’s gruesome death nonetheless sparked waves of American jubilation and decrees of self-vindication this week.

It is difficult to articulate exactly why, but there is something very significant about a nation that so continuously finds purpose and joy in the corpses its government produces, while finding it in so little else. During the Bush years, I frequently wrote about how repetitive, endless fear-mongering over Terrorism and the authoritarian radicalism justified in its name was changing — infecting and degrading — not just America’s policies but its national character. Among other things, this constant fixation on alleged threats produces the mindset that once the government decrees someone to be a Bad Guy, then anything and everything done to them (or ostensibly done to stop them) is not merely justified but is cause for celebration. That was the mentality that justified renditions, Guantanamo, vast illegal domestic surveillance, aggressive war against Iraq, and the worldwide torture regime: unless you support the Terrorists and Saddam, how could you oppose any of that?

That character-degradation is produced at least as much by conditioning the citizenry to stand and cheer, to beat its chest, to feel righteous and proud, each time the government produces a new dead Bad Guy. Even at its most necessary and justified, the act of ending a human life with state violence should be a somber and lamentable affair. There’s something bloodthirsty about reacting ecstatically. To react that way when guilt is unproven (Awlaki), or when the person is unknown (most drone victims), or is killed by acts of pure barbarism (Gadaffi) is the mind of a savage. But it’s now been more than a decade since 9/11, and this has been the prevailing mentality in America continuously since then (to say nothing about the lengthy, brutal wars fought before that). What happens to a citizenry and a nation that so frequently erupts into celebratory dances over the latest dead body its government displays?

* * * * *

What simultaneously explains this and makes it all the more significant (and all the more damaging) is that the citizenry has almost no other cause to engage in political celebration, nationalistic pride or collective moral purpose. There is a widespread perception for the first time ever that America is a nation in decline. Faith in the country’s leading institutions and political figures is shockingly (though appropriately) low. The country is plagued by mass sustained joblessness, oceans of debt, loss of entire industries, a disappearing middle class, exploding wealth inequality, declining class mobility, and a deeply corrupted political system that now resembles an oligarchy far more than a democracy. For many, the shame of the Iraq War, Abu Ghraib and the torture regime endure. Everyone desires something to celebrate, to feel good about, and the country’s political organs can now offer little more than Bad Guy corpses to enable those feelings.

Putting bullets into people’s skulls and exploding them into little bits and pieces by sky robots is one of the very few things at which America still seems to excel. So that’s what the political class feeds to the population to keep them convinced of the country’s exceptionalism and righteousness. But that’s a toxic diet, one that can produce some short-term satisfaction but unquestionably spawns long-term disease.

What’s perhaps most revealing about these death-celebrations are how reflexive — how visceral — they have become. For a President to claim the power to target his own citizens for death — and to do so in total secrecy, with no rules or oversight — is literally one of the most radical powers that a political leader can seize. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of “due process” was intended to prohibit exactly that, as was the Constitution’sheightened requirements for proving “Treason” in a court of law. Had George Bush seized this power, it would have led the list of progressive “shredding-the-Constitution” grievances against him. But all of that was washed away in the celebrations over Awlaki’s death, drowned out by the blind ritualistic war cry of He was Bad and so I’m glad he’s dead!

Or consider the ecstacy (and playfulness) over Gadaffi’s death. This was someone who ruled a tiny country for 4 decades. He was a repellent tyrant, but certainly no worse than dozens of others — not on the level of Saddam, or the Assads in Syria. Other than Ronald Reagan’s attempt 25 years ago to kill him, nobody cared about Gadaffi one way or the other, as Jamie Omar Yassin pointed out. To the contrary, the West had all sorts of cooperative agreements with him over oil and weapons. There was no clamoring for action against him. But the minute the U.S. Government targeted him for death and his corpse was produced, many Americans reacted as though he were the living, breathing incarnation of Adolf Hitler, that basic morality was simply inconsistent with allowing him to live any longer — the same person the U.S. worked with in all sorts of ways for years and years. There’s a psychological and emotional benefit — a big one — in celebrating your country’s killing of Bad Guys, and that produces an eagerness to grab it and a corresponding unwillingness to hear objections or concerns that would dilute the joy.

So visceral was this reaction that anyone raising questions about what happened — was Gadaffi tortured and/or summarily executed after surrendering? — was, as usual, castigated as a party-pooping tyrant-lover fixated on dreary, irrelevant questions at the expense of righteous retribution (similar to how those who objected to torture and indefinite detention were accused of being “pro-Terrorist,” those who objected to the attack on Iraq were “pro-Saddam,” and those who wondered about the circumstances of bin Laden’s death or objected to the government’s falsehoods were told, literally, to “shut up and move on”). These killings unleash waves of intense emotional satisfaction (and gratitude toward the military and political leadership) — they’re basically the climax scene of morality plays or, more modernly, adventure films — which easily trample whiny concerns about precedent, legality, morality, or factual accuracy from annoying scolds trying to ruin the fun.

There is also much to be revealed in what receives lavish attention and what does not. Gadaffi wasn’t the only corpse produced this week. He was joined by the 16-year-old American son of Anwar Awlaki and his 17-year-old cousin, killed when one of Obama’s drones attacked them in Yemen. That incident — like the many children killed by the U.S.’s 2009 cluster bomb attack in the same country, and all the children killed by checkpoint shootings and air strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the still-unknown death count from NATO’s bombing of Libya — is almost completely ignored. That’s because those deaths don’t provide the pulsating sense of moral uplift, power and righteousness which killing Bad Guys does. If anything, they produce discomfort. So we agree to ignore it, pretend it does not happen, and — most of all — refuse to let it impact how we assess our political leadership, our Good Killings and, most of all, ourselves.

[Guest futuregirlfriend]

who are the first three pictures?

 

 

looks like Trotsky, Lenin, and ???

 

Last is Jesse James, first looks like another outlaw to me too, rather than Trotsky.

[J3FF3R00]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA89cP83S0s

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

imagine all the french that are going to hell for bombing civilians for some libyan oil

[Guest theSun]

greenwald is awesome.

 

more people need to read his shit

[SR4]

i love greenwald but goddamn that is depressing as shit..

 

 

and part of me wonders if its just preaching to the choir.

[hexagon son]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvza6lUm9pU

 

R.I.P.

 

[delet...]

yeP ....

[SR4]

wait, this is new to me....are there hard sources documenting all his claims?

[eugene]

you don't even feel the slightest need to fact-check this video, dont ya deleter ?

[SR4]

i hate to say this, but I agree with Eugene on this one.

 

im not calling bullshit, but there isnt a single citation in there.

[delet...]

The rothschild stuff there would be no information on. Which hamstrings the video. All of the stuff about the social welfare syncs with what i was reading about the regime earlier anyway. The lockerbie thing too.

[SR4]

you mind posting some links? This is all new information to me.

 

Yeah I remember some of the Lockerbie debacle...most US news networks were outraged

[SR4]

also, if those claims in the video end up factually solid, ill concede some credit to Gaddafi...but there are plenty of statistics that show he wasn't exactly a benevolent ruler:

 

 

Ranked 160th out of 178 for democratic and free press

http://en.rsf.org/pr...-2010,1034.html

 

Human rights violations against political protest:

http://sijill.tripod.com/victims/

 

Placing bounties on critical news journalists

 

Forced removal of Berber tribes

http://www.kirasalak.com/Libya.html

 

again, just so people don't go apeshit, Im not saying what happened to Gaddafi is acceptable..but the man wasn't exactly an angel.

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvza6lUm9pU

 

R.I.P.

 

yeah, the UN lost any credibility by supporting this war for oil.

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

Heard he was on a lobbying mission getting one universal African currency, sidestepping the dollar when it comes to oil trading, ideal food for conspiracy nuts, or?

 

that is mentioned in the video posted by hexson and, yes, the guy who made that video blames the nwo and the jews

[SR4]

Heard he was on a lobbying mission getting one universal African currency, sidestepping the dollar when it comes to oil trading, ideal food for conspiracy nuts, or?

 

that is mentioned in the video posted by hexson and, yes, the guy who made that video blames the nwo and the jews

 

is he blaming jews, or is he blaming the Rothschild banking empire? Two very different accusations there.

[Guest Super lurker ultra V12]

Heard he was on a lobbying mission getting one universal African currency, sidestepping the dollar when it comes to oil trading, ideal food for conspiracy nuts, or?

 

that is mentioned in the video posted by hexson and, yes, the guy who made that video blames the nwo and the jews

 

is he blaming jews, or is he blaming the Rothschild banking empire? Two very different accusations there.

 

the latter

[chenGOD]

Bank of Canada is a crown corporation - that is, publicly owned. We do not issue debt-free money, and reading up on the old Bank of Libya, neither did they. They simply time-shifted the debt. Additionally, the Gaddafi run Bank of Libya was in debt (kind of) - to the US government - they took out huge loans from the Federal reserve, basically interest-free, which were backed by US securities.

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=ece720e4-d5d6-4eff-937c-dcada784c3f9

 

So not only did the old bank not issue money debt-free, they were borrowing from the (supposed) NWO bank - the fed.

We don't know what the rebels plan to do in terms of education, literacy and so on, because we don't know what their government will function like yet.

 

So let's look at a nation that has been reviled for its educational policies - Afghanistan. The Taliban, at the height of their power from say 1997-2001 instituted the strictest sharia law possible, with women forbidden from being educated (part of the reason the Afghan people wanted outside help). Now, as the Taliban seek to reclaim power, they have had to form alliances, and as a result of that, have allowed some autonomy in regiona decision making. There are some regions where the Taliban is nominally in power, but the women are allowed to to go to school. As their power base shifts to become one of allegiances, the Taliban have had to compromise. So even if the rebels are the very worst type of authoritarian thugs, they will have to compromise on things like living standards, because once people are accustomed to them, they are loathe to give them up willingly. Let's say though that the government is not going to be the worst type of authoritarian thugs (and since the new interim president resigned from the old government because he was opposed to Gaddafi's human rights violation, that is not a huge logical leap) - will there necessarily be a decrease in living standards?

 

You have here a state that did ask for outside help in removing a dictator - and the response was a multi-national effort. There was minimal loss of life, the operation took a short time (relative to the 10 years in Iraq), was far cheaper, and the outcome will hopefully be a nation that is democratic and not one that will be rife with human rights abuses.

 

now the way Gaddafi was treated was abhorrent, to be sure - but let's not miss the forest for the trees.

[azatoth]

[hexagon son]

i hate to say this, but I agree with Eugene on this one.

 

im not calling bullshit, but there isnt a single citation in there.

 

we could start here:

 

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

 

This is a UN report on Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 4th January 2011. I think you will be quite surprised by the report.

[Guest theSun]

i hate to say this, but I agree with Eugene on this one. im not calling bullshit, but there isnt a single citation in there.

we could start here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf This is a UN report on Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 4th January 2011. I think you will be quite surprised by the report.

 

haha! wow

[goDel]

i hate to say this, but I agree with Eugene on this one.

 

im not calling bullshit, but there isnt a single citation in there.

 

we could start here:

 

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/16session/A-HRC-16-15.pdf

 

This is a UN report on Libyan Arab Jamahiriya from 4th January 2011. I think you will be quite surprised by the report.

 

68. Brazil noted the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s economic and social progress and acknowledged the promotion of the rights of persons with disabilities, the free health care and the high enrolment in primary education. Brazil noted the successful cooperation with international organizations in areas such as migrant rights, judicial reform and the fight against corruption. Brazil noted that reports of torture were recurrent and that legislation on racial discrimination was lacking. Brazil made recommendations.

 

 

71. The Czech Republic remained concerned that the death penalty could be applied even to offences that could not necessarily be characterized as the most serious crimes. It also remained concerned that corporal punishment, including amputation and flogging, was prescribed by law. The Czech Republic made recommendations.

 

 

72. The United States of America supported the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya’s increased engagement with the international community. It called on the country to comply with its human rights treaty obligations. It expressed concern about reports of the torture of prisoners and about the status of freedom of expression and association, including in its legislation, which often resulted in the arrest of people for political reasons. The United States made recommendations.

 

 

76. Japan welcomed the progress made by the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya with respect to education and health. It also noted positively the release of political prisoners and the improvement of prison conditions. Japan remained concerned about reports of arbitrary arrest and execution, as well as of cases of impunity. It regretted restrictions on freedom of expression and asked about measures taken to address the problem. Japan made a recommendation.

 

Ehm, surprise in which way exactly?

[SR4]

alright, i see some legislation, Green Document, Law No. 20 (whatever the hell that is), National Human Rights Org.

 

 

i dont see any description as to whether these organizations actually do what they say they do.

 

this is like issuing the following:

 

"The United States has a great commitment to state nationalism, as evidenced by the creation of the Patriot Act during the Bush Administration."

 

that says absolutely nothing about what the Pat Act actually does.

 

heres another one:

 

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya noted that laws safeguarded freedom of expression

through principles enshrined in the Great Green Document. Article 5 promoted the right of

expression of every person. This right had been enshrined in the Code on the Promotion of

Freedom, which, in its article 8, stated that “each citizen has the right to express his

opinions and ideas openly in People’s Congresses and in all mass media, no citizen is

questioned on the exercise of this right unless this has been abused in a way that prejudices

the People’s Authority or is used for personal interest, and it is prohibited to advocate ideas

and opinions in a clandestine manner or to seek to disseminate them through force,

temptation or terrorism”.

 

apparently you are only allowed freedom of expression when in People's Congresses

 

 

I don't see any hard statistics or indepth studies of any of these claims. This just sounds like normal bureaucratic bullshit to me.