Tweet
An aspiring political figure with religious ties gathers a small following. For years they speak and the following grows. They speak in religious settings, they speak in political settings. Then an event catapults them to fame on the national scene. Their words reach a broader audience. Their speaking generates a larger following across the United States. They have groups and fan clubs. They have internet sites. And on those sites, the rhetoric changes. There is language of violence. There is talk of guns. Pictures and exhortations. The followers read and see these.
One day, a young man takes an automatic pistol to a public place and begins to shoot. He shoots until there are many people dead, many people injured, and he is tackled and arrested. And the stories begin. It surfaces that his mental state prior to the shooting is confused and rambling. It surfaces that he has made comments about political violence. The government mentions the word ‘terrorism’.
And what of the political figure? They were 7361 miles away. Or they were 3661 miles away. And besides, they were only talking. Or they were only posting videos. Or only posting a map. Or making a speech. Or giving a sermon.
Does it matter who was brown, who was Muslim? Does it matter if it was 3661 miles in Alaska or 7361 miles in Yemen? Does it matter if the unstable young man is named Nidal Hasan or Jared Loughner? It does, doesn’t it? Because no matter what happens, there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Sarah Palin will end up on President Obama’s list, next to Anwar al Awlaki, is there?
Even though she might have done the same thing.
28 Comments
Thank you for this post, ondelette. I think many people have forgotten that Nidal’s mental state was very fragile before the Ft. Hood incident in November 2009.
Wow. Stunning. Great post, ondelette.
“And besides, they were only talking. Or they were only posting videos. Or only posting a map. Or making a speech. Or giving a sermon.”
…. Or only campaigning.
It’s (state-sanctioned) madness generating madness. How can we be surprised?
I think you’re right
Thanks, ondelette. You have pierced through the inanity of much of the cultural rhetoric that dominates our country to point out a huge example of hypocrisy.
And the media, sadly, will never go there…
So you support Obama if he carries out a targeted assassination of American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who is apparently on a U.S. ‘kill list’ of terrorism suspects made up by the last two Presidents and not reviewed or approved of by any other branch of government? Supporting that would, normally, disqualify you as a progressive. Not that being a progressive is such a big deal, but I thought most of us at firedoglake more or less identified ourselves as such.
“Critics question whether the government can order the assassination of a US citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process, based entirely on the government’s assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization. They also question how it is that the government is required to obtain court approval before conducting electronic surveillance of an American citizen overseas, yet judicial oversight is inappropriate when the government identifies that same citizen for targeted killing.”
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/1207/Judge-dismisses-bid-to-remove-Anwar-al-Awlaki-from-US-kill-list
They’ll only go there if there’s a chance of diluting the blame. I’ve seen Gabrielle Giffords’ quote about being in Sarah Palin’s crosshairs many places. I’ve seen Chuck Todd’s response almost nowhere, because that would mean the media might share some responsibility for not taking things seriously.
Last April, Glenn Greenwald wrote pretty angrily and progressively about the al-Awlaki assassination order:
“In late January, I wrote about the Obama administration’s “presidential assassination program,” whereby American citizens are targeted for killings far away from any battlefield, based exclusively on unchecked accusations by the Executive Branch that they’re involved in Terrorism. At the time, The Washington Post’s Dana Priest had noted deep in a long article that Obama had continued Bush’s policy (which Bush never actually implemented) of having the Joint Chiefs of Staff compile “hit lists” of Americans, and Priest suggested that the American-born Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was on that list. The following week, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, acknowledged in Congressional testimony that the administration reserves the “right” to carry out such assassinations. …
“No due process is accorded. No charges or trials are necessary. No evidence is offered, nor any opportunity for him to deny these accusations (which he has done vehemently through his family). None of that.
“Instead, in Barack Obama’s America, the way guilt is determined for American citizens — and a death penalty imposed — is that the President, like the King he thinks he is, secretly decrees someone’s guilt as a Terrorist. He then dispatches his aides to run to America’s newspapers — cowardly hiding behind the shield of anonymity which they’re granted — to proclaim that the Guilty One shall be killed on sight because the Leader has decreed him to be a Terrorist. …”
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
Palin won’t be put onto a kill list because she’s a Real American. Besides that fact, assassinating Palin would make her a martyr for her followers. Her murder would suppress the more despicable features of her politics and her persona. In their place we would ‘gain’ a sanitized image of a Real American Woman, who protected her own and her kind.
You and me and many who post here, on the other hand….
Nice post. Al Awlaki shouldn’t be on that hit list either.
There’s another two people that can fit in this list:
Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a russian oligarch (not even an American citizen) who was found guilty of money laundering, whom Hillary Clinton has made a grand international appeal on his behalf:
“this and similar cases have a negative impact on Russia’s reputation for fulfilling its international human rights obligations and improving its investment climate.”
Compare him with Gulet Mohamed, a young black American muslim who was arrested in Kuwait two weeks ago and tortured. The American Embassy hasn’t shown much interest at all in helping him get out of jail or get home, in fact he’s on a no fly list.
Did I offer a judgment on that at all? I was pretty careful not to.
Yes, I’m familiar with it. Are you worried that the comparison I made justifies the targeting of al Awlaki? Why?
And bin Laden? Did he directly attack any person?
I like the idea of capturing and trying someone like al Awlaki for conspiracy to commit acts of violence, but what if they can’t be found or captured? Regardless of their nationality the Executive has the duty to protect Americans.
Personally, I like the ACLU idea of having the Executive seek a judicial warrant before trying to catch and arrest any American anywhere. What to do if that person can’t be arrested is the question.
Thank you, ondelette, as Jim White says, your post cuts, cleanly and clearly, through the bombast of current-day American political “correctness” to expose its underlying (no pun intended)hypocrisy.
Highly recommended to the entire FDL community.
DW
In America, White males never commit Terrorism! these Males are “loonies, sick, troubled, schizo”, anything but Terrorists! White American males who kill are “loners, sickos, angry”, but never ever called Terrorists.
Blacks, Browns, and Others are Terrorists and their actions are what is defined as “terrorist attacks”, but White American Males never are Terrorists. i can sleep safer tonight knowing this.
America has a language problem for sure.
Nicely done! Thanks.
Rem acu tetigisti. (As you so often do.) Thank you Ondelette.
Some citizens are more equal than others.
I don’t think you did.
Good post. And great point.
Yes, recommended.
Thank you for this excellent post, Ondelette.
I was lurking when you and Jane discussed a post you should do.
You are very good!!! Well done, and so fast.
doG, I admire writers.
I’m glad that people liked it. It’s very disturbing that what she’s done is getting so many oblique reactions in the press. How many people have heard someone in the mainstream mention Chuck Todd’s name, for instance?
Yes, there must be a judicial check on a President’s power to order the killing of a U.S. citizen.
Maybe there are just too many kill lists all around, the President’s being just one of them here.
Hmmmm, seems like an almost mathematically structured comparison…
Thanks for the clear thinking and writing, ondelette.
Helen Gerhardt
Excellent post ondelette. I found the video of Todd minimizing the rhetoric to be very disturbing when I ran across it early on in my search for information about Giffords’ attack. It doesn’t surprise me that no one in the MSM wanted to revisit that interview he did with her.
Thanks very much for this post.
Nicely and succinctly put.
Unfortunately, the core hypocrisies of our political elite will give us fuel for discussion for a very long time I’m afraid.
I have to agree with you, ondelette. There are waaaay too many kill lists in existence… and the president’s shocks me the most.
Your post presents the following as weak misdirection that don’t excuse promotion of violence by Palin and al-Awlaki:
“And what of the political figure? … besides, they were only talking. Or they were only posting videos. Or only posting a map. Or making a speech. Or giving a sermon.”
This indicates that you agree with Obama’s decision to classify al-Awlaki’s speech as ‘violence promotion by official enemies.’