Posted on Jun\u00a021,\u00a02013<\/h4>\n\n<\/p>\nBy David Sirota<\/p>\n
This is a tale of two presidents\u2013the one we hope we have and the one we actually have. It is also a tale of two kinds of violence\u2013the surgical and the indiscriminate\u2013and how the latter blurs the distinction between self-defense and something far more sinister.<\/p>\n
This story began last year, when the White House told the New York Times that President Obama was personally overseeing a \u201ckill list\u201d and an ongoing drone bombing campaign against alleged terrorists, including American citizens. Back then, much of the public language was carefully crafted to reassure us that our country\u2019s military power was not being abused.<\/p>\n
In the Times\u2019 report\u2013which was carefully sculpted by Obama administration leaks\u2013the paper characterized the bombing program as \u201ctargeted killing\u201d with \u201cprecision weapons.\u201d It additionally described \u201cthe care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets\u201d and claimed that as \u201ca student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the president believes that he should take moral responsibility\u201d for making sure such strikes are as precise as possible.<\/p>\n
The unstated deal being offered to America was simple: Accept a president claiming unprecedented despotic authority in exchange for that president promising to comport himself as an enlightened despot\u2013one who seeks to limit the scope of America\u2019s ongoing violence.<\/p>\n
Many of the president\u2019s partisan supporters would never have agreed to such a bargain if the executive in question were a Republican. They would have expressed outrage at news that, according to the Times, the president was \u201ccount(ing) all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants\u201d even when those males happen to be innocent civilians. But because it was a Democratic commander in chief, most liberals tacitly agreed to the deal, reassuring themselves that this was a president who would only use violence in the most narrow ways. <\/p>\n
That, though, brings us to the second part of this parable\u2013the part that unfolded earlier this month when blood-soaked reality crashed the myth. In this latter chapter, we learned that the president isn\u2019t personally overseeing \u201ctargeted\u201d killing; he is evidently overseeing indiscriminate killing. <\/p>\n
That was the key discovery in NBC News correspondent Richard Engel\u2019s report finding that \u201cthe CIA did not always know who it was targeting and killing in drone strikes\u201d approved by the president. Employing so-called \u201csignature strikes,\u201d the president has been authorizing the assassination of people \u201cbased on their patterns of behavior\u201d according to Engel\u2013that is, based simply on where a person \u201cmeets individuals, makes phone calls and sends emails.\u201d In all, the identities of up to a quarter of those assassinated were unknown at the time that the president\u2019s drone strikes went forward.<\/p>\n
The deep-thinking moralist that we were told was in the White House might look at this and worry that in fighting terrorism we have resorted to engaging in terrorism. After all, deliberately killing people without regard for their identity seems like an effort to terrorize a whole population. Indeed, as this week\u2019s stunning new video series by documentarian Robert Greenwald illustrates, such violence seems eerily similar to the kind of terrorism that our government publicly decries.<\/p>\n
But, then, that\u2019s this saga\u2019s big reveal. In embracing such tactics, this parable\u2019s main character shows that he probably isn\u2019t the pious Aquinas-loving saint his aides present him as and that many hoped he would be. This story instead increasingly looks like a cautionary tale about a wholly unenlightened authoritarian who displays little concern about which particular lives he is choosing to end. <\/p>\n
This, of course, is not a particularly new or unique story. It is, in fact, the oldest story in human history: the story of how power corrupts and how absolute power corrupts absolutely. <\/p>\n
David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books \u201cHostile Takeover,\u201d \u201cThe Uprising\u201d and \u201cBack to Our Future.\u201d Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com. <\/i><\/p>\n
\u00a9 2013 CREATORS.COM<\/small>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.truthdig.com\/images\/eartothegrounduploads\/8476839488_c824a5ec33-power-killer-barack-obama-300.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
White House\/Pete Souza<\/p>\n
<\/span>\n<\/div>\n
By David Sirota<\/p>\n
This is a tale of two presidents\u2013the one we hope we have and the one we actually have. It is also a tale of two kinds of violence\u2013the surgical and the indiscriminate\u2013and how the latter blurs the distinction between self-defense and something far more sinister.<\/p>\n
This story began last year, when the White House told the New York Times that President Obama was personally overseeing a \u201ckill list\u201d and an ongoing drone bombing campaign against alleged terrorists, including American citizens. Back then, much of the public language was carefully crafted to reassure us that our country\u2019s military power was not being abused.<\/p>\n
In the Times\u2019 report\u2013which was carefully sculpted by Obama administration leaks\u2013the paper characterized the bombing program as \u201ctargeted killing\u201d with \u201cprecision weapons.\u201d It additionally described \u201cthe care that Mr. Obama and his counterterrorism chief take in choosing targets\u201d and claimed that as \u201ca student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, the president believes that he should take moral responsibility\u201d for making sure such strikes are as precise as possible.<\/p>\n
The unstated deal being offered to America was simple: Accept a president claiming unprecedented despotic authority in exchange for that president promising to comport himself as an enlightened despot\u2013one who seeks to limit the scope of America\u2019s ongoing violence.<\/p>\n
Many of the president\u2019s partisan supporters would never have agreed to such a bargain if the executive in question were a Republican. They would have expressed outrage at news that, according to the Times, the president was \u201ccount(ing) all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants\u201d even when those males happen to be innocent civilians. But because it was a Democratic commander in chief, most liberals tacitly agreed to the deal, reassuring themselves that this was a president who would only use violence in the most narrow ways. <\/p>\n
That, though, brings us to the second part of this parable\u2013the part that unfolded earlier this month when blood-soaked reality crashed the myth. In this latter chapter, we learned that the president isn\u2019t personally overseeing \u201ctargeted\u201d killing; he is evidently overseeing indiscriminate killing. <\/p>\n
That was the key discovery in NBC News correspondent Richard Engel\u2019s report finding that \u201cthe CIA did not always know who it was targeting and killing in drone strikes\u201d approved by the president. Employing so-called \u201csignature strikes,\u201d the president has been authorizing the assassination of people \u201cbased on their patterns of behavior\u201d according to Engel\u2013that is, based simply on where a person \u201cmeets individuals, makes phone calls and sends emails.\u201d In all, the identities of up to a quarter of those assassinated were unknown at the time that the president\u2019s drone strikes went forward.<\/p>\n
The deep-thinking moralist that we were told was in the White House might look at this and worry that in fighting terrorism we have resorted to engaging in terrorism. After all, deliberately killing people without regard for their identity seems like an effort to terrorize a whole population. Indeed, as this week\u2019s stunning new video series by documentarian Robert Greenwald illustrates, such violence seems eerily similar to the kind of terrorism that our government publicly decries.<\/p>\n
But, then, that\u2019s this saga\u2019s big reveal. In embracing such tactics, this parable\u2019s main character shows that he probably isn\u2019t the pious Aquinas-loving saint his aides present him as and that many hoped he would be. This story instead increasingly looks like a cautionary tale about a wholly unenlightened authoritarian who displays little concern about which particular lives he is choosing to end. <\/p>\n
This, of course, is not a particularly new or unique story. It is, in fact, the oldest story in human history: the story of how power corrupts and how absolute power corrupts absolutely. <\/p>\n
David Sirota is the best-selling author of the books \u201cHostile Takeover,\u201d \u201cThe Uprising\u201d and \u201cBack to Our Future.\u201d Email him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com. <\/i><\/p>\n
\u00a9 2013 CREATORS.COM<\/small>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
White House\/Pete Souza<\/p>\n
<\/span>\n<\/div>\n