You are here
Home > Posts tagged "Targeted Assassination"

Opposition forces kill US Ambassador Chris Stevens, America In Libya’s No. 1

Maybe it could have happened to a more deserving operative, but that's splitting hairs. Obviously we can't call the late ambassador Chris Stevens the "mastermind" of the US covert destabilization of Libya. However, he was Our Man in Benghazi, essentially the NO. 1 in charge of the state-terrorist cell poised to exploit the rolling "Arab Spring" for the forces of capitalist neo-democracy, let's call it AMERICA IN LIBYA. Stevens organized and armed the US-sponsored rebels who exploited the pan-Arab protests to foment unrest, then civil war, then NATO intervention, against the West's nemesis Muammar Gaddafi. Remember how Gaddafi was unceremoniously deposed? Captured, tormented, then shot most likely by a CIA-contracted assassin? Where was the humanitarian outcry against that sanctioned barbarity?   How undignified of Westerners to decry the killing of Ambassador Stevens, legally, in the field of battle, by opposition fighters in Libya, on this rare occasion when they got their man. Actually four: the ambassador, a military attache, and two Americans whose identities the USG won't reveal, I'm thinking mercenaries. The USG is speculating that the rocket attack was planned, and by none other than al-Qaeda, because it's unlikely the Libyans who stormed the US consulate in Benghazi brought impromptu grenade launchers. Funny, Gaddafi had the same nagging complaint about his supposed "protesters."   Everyone is condemning this killing, even President Obama vows to exact "justice". But by his own definition, this was justice meted by Libyans, perhaps even some of the allies we'd mobilized to remove Gaddafi. Whereas Obama's "justice" means retaliatory air strikes and death squads against unnamed, unproven adversaries, immolating their homes, families and friends.

No evidence to hold Sabar Lal Melma in Guantanamo, but enough to kill him?

Hard to imagine we'd come to look at Guantanamo as a lesser evil. Gitmo held terror suspects without charges, indefinitely, secretly, and tortured them, to death sometimes. At least they and their families back home were safe from the pretext of a drone strike or special ops night raid. The targeted assassination of released 5-year Guantanamo alumn ISN 801 Sabar Lal Melma in Afghanistan raises the question: what constitutes enough cause to send a death squad after a suspected illegal combatant? The US didn't have the evidence to bring charges against Melma, who was finally released in 2007 after an outpouring of Afghan voices vouched for his innocence, yet the US military retained suspicion enough to send NATO commandos into his home this weekend to execute the former detainee in front of his kids. It would seem if Obama has a problem with Guantanamo, it's that illegal rendition and imprisonment is not extrajudicial enough.

The lynching of Preston John Porter Jr. by a mob from Limon and Colo. Springs

A propos of, let's say, LYNCHING. Colorado state history records 175+ lynchings, of mostly cattle rustlers and horse thieves. Boosters laud our state's few (5) racially-motivated lynchings, but in relation to Colorado's small portion of African- Americans, the incident rate is not insignificant. What's more, Colorado can tie any state for the worst race lynching ever, when in 1900, along the railroad tracks near Lake Station, black 16-year-old, 130 lb. Preston Porter Jr, innocent and probably mentally feeble, was burned at the stake by a cheering mob numbering over 300. Lynching describes the physical act of hanging, stringing someone up without inexpedient formalities. In principal lynching means a death sentence without recourse to due justice. And of course, in practice the summary execution is often motivated by racial prejudice. I explain the obvious because today no one appears to acknowledge that US drones over Pakistan, Yemen, et al, are terminating lives based on mere suspicions of being enemies of the state, these are darker skinned lives, with the full enthusiasm of the American TV mob. Out West, lynchings were rough justice. Everywhere else they were and are hate crimes. Colorado sidesteps having to include the killing of Native Americans as lynchings because those were massacres. One western memoir recounts that "lynch law" was as necessary to keeping peace in the Wild West as were Indian Massacres and shooting wolves. Preston Porter was a young railroad worker accused of the rape and murder of 12-year-old Louise Frost. After having accused another African-American, three "Mexicans" and a Native American, enraged parties in Limon and Denver settled on Porter. After a week of interrogation, enhanced by trying hypnosis and reading his palm, they coerced a confession. Next they let the victim's father decide the manner of death. "Burnt at the stake" was his choice. The mob marched poor Preston to the site of the crime, near what was then Lake Station, and they used a rail for the stake. Preston had no coat but was made to wait for hours in the cold because crowds were delayed getting to the affair by rail from Colorado Springs. The etching below is reprinted from the Denver Times newspaper article of November 17, 1900. It portrays Porter crying out for the Lord to forgive his tormentors. Don't think the reporter reflected Porter's act with sympathy. He wrote: "The great crowd shook with pure enjoyment of the situation." Here's what happened next, as reported by the New York Times: For an instant the body stood erect, the arms were raised in supplication while burning pieces of clothing dropped from them. The body then fell away from the fire, the head lower than the feet still fastened to the rail. This was not expected, and for a few minutes those stolid men were disconcerted; they feared that the only remaining chain would give way. If this had occurred the partly burned human being would have dashed among them in his blazing garments. And not many would have cared to capture him again. But the chain held

Navy Seals Death Squids

It does seem unfair to conclude, after the US special forces operation to hunt and kill Osama bin Laden, that all Navy SEAL teams are death squads, but is it a logical fallacy? No one is now pretending there was any other objective but to kill the al-Qaeda leader and everyone who stood in our path, preferably unarmed. Now the latest revelation is that a duplicate assault team was kept at the ready. That's how many executioners ready? The question becomes, are all Navy Seals trained to kill in cold blood? The answer could lay with the instructors at Fort Benning, the notorious "School of the Americas" where it used to be understood the death squads of South American dictators learned their trade, although now torture is taught at military camps and private contractor schools literally coast to coast, so isn't that the problem? Torture being among other unsavory practices we say we do not do, while simultaneously forbidding revelations to come from Wikileaks. When the Germans set their minds to liquidate civilians as their Operation Barbarossa drove toward Russia, they dedicated "special forces" called the "Einsatzgruppen" to do the deed. One because the task detracted from the forward advance, and two, because executing unarmed civilians proved a demoralizing task for the ordinary soldier. On the other hand, gathering noncombatants and shooting them in the back of the head didn't require combat skills either, so the Einsatzgruppen were recruited from the police force of German cities like Hamburg, where the principle skill was exerting authority and pulling the trigger where others might flinch. The Einsatzgruppen present vexing evidence for Holocaust deniers. Skeptics can point to inconsistencies about the function of gas chambers in the concentration camps, to suggest that the Nazis might have managed to work their prison laborers to death, but never intended to exterminate them. That argument fails when considering the role of the Einsatzgruppen, to hunt down Jewish civilians, take them to where no one is looking and shoot them. Prisoners of war, yes, and Slavs too, but by primary directive, the Jews. When partisan acts of sabotage necessitated disciplinary retribution, the Germans had other squads to raze entire villages, these soldiers were chosen from the military brig or from convicts offered a military probation from civilian prison. In either case the German Wehrmacht chose to match the criminal mindset to the crime. Though overwhelming in its savagery, WWII predated the "Free Fire Zone" where civilians are pretended to be adversaries and/or dismissed as collateral damage. That's not to say that today's soldiers are all bad, many of them I'm sure are earnest peacekeepers determined to win hearts to Pax Americana. I'm sure your average Navy SEAL has rescued his share of kittens from trees. So which is it, do the Navy SEALs train every member not to shy from shooting defenseless people at point-blank range, or are there designated specialists? Are those chosen based on excellence of performance, as the PR has it, or from among the sailors with disciplinary troubles? Because

Top