Kimani Gray, Drone Strikes and Liberal Hypocrisy →

personofcolour:

Last month, here is what Touré had to say about criticism of the leaked Justice Department white paper that revealed the administration’s legal rationale for killing Americans abroad without due process, much of which was wrapped in the same rhetoric employed to justify racist policing practices:

We’re at war with al Qaeda right now, and if you join al Qaeda, you lose the right to be an American. You lose the right to due process. You declare yourself an enemy of this nation, and you are committing treason. And I don’t see why we should expand American rights to people who want to kill Americans, who are working to kill Americans, who are committing treason. This is not criticizing the United States. This is going to war against the United States.

Touré later defended himself against criticism and doubled down, saying, ”I wonder if some in this nation are getting a little soft when they are defending the civil liberties of al Qaeda members…People hiding in ungovernable tribal areas who still pose a threat must be dealt with.”

Let’s pretend for a moment that this isn’t identical to conservative arguments made during the Bush years and focus instead on how closely Touré’s justification resembles the attitude this nation has towards gangs and drugs in black communities.

Keep in mind that Obama’s kill policy doesn’t provide any specifics about what constitutes being a terrorist. That judgment is based on the decree of top officials who need not present any evidence.

Ready for a thought experiment? Here is a slightly altered version of Touré’s argument. Notice I’ve replaced “al Qaeda” with “gangs/drugs”:

We’re at war with drugs right now, and if you join a gang, you lose the right to due process. You declare yourself an enemy of this nation. And I don’t see why we should expand rights to gang members who want to kill for drugs. This is going to war against the United States.”

“I wonder if some in this nation are getting a little soft when they are defending the civil liberties of gang members.

Obviously, all black men are not gang members. Nevertheless, the American public, including people of color, are largely conditioned to view black men as inherently dangerous criminals, making them the targets of the decades long war on drugs. The same goes for middle eastern Muslim men, who are seen as potential terrorists prepared at any moment to blow up innocent Americans, making them the targets of our nation’s war on terror.

Toure is really just a puppet of the French government. Never mind, that’s the wrong Toure. We are talking about some MSNBC host I’ve never heard about, not the leader of Mali. His argument is definitely a ridiculous one. Here’s what the original article says:

“Touré Neblett, host of MSNBC’s The Cycle, wrote an excellent piece about Kimani Gray, the 16-year-old Brooklyn teen shot dead by the NYPD last weekend for adjusting his waistband “suspiciously”…That being said, I can’t help but notice the hypocrisy in Touré’s position on extrajudicial killings. Given his vehement condemnation of the brutal force dished out to young black men by police in the United States, you would think he’d similarly denounce targeted killings abroad…Last month, here is what Touré had to say about criticism of the leaked Justice Department white paper that revealed the administration’s legal rationale for killing Americans abroad without due process…

We’re at war with al Qaeda right now, and if you join al Qaeda, you lose the right to be an American. You lose the right to due process. You declare yourself an enemy of this nation, and you are committing treason. And I don’t see why we should expand American rights to people who want to kill Americans, who are working to kill Americans, who are committing treason. This is not criticizing the United States. This is going to war against the United States.

Touré later defended himself against criticism and doubled down, saying, ”I wonder if some in this nation are getting a little soft when they are defending the civil liberties of al Qaeda members…People hiding in ungovernable tribal areas who still pose a threat must be dealt with.”…To Touré’s credit, he did express regret over the killing of 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in a US airstrike in 2011 just two weeks after his father, suspected al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed (both father and son were American citizens).  Still, he justified the teen’s killing, pointing to unsubstantiated US government claims that Abdulrahman was standing too close to Ibrahim al-Banna, another suspected al Qaeda official…That Touré and others like him are incapable of connecting the treatment of people of color abroad (military occupation) to that of communities of color at home (police occupation) is truly remarkable. ” [my emphasis]

This is a ridiculous argument indeed and it just shows that MSNBC is as Anti-Flag called them in their song, NBC (No Blood thirsty Corporations):

Resistance, Resistance
I won’t be used
By a fascist corporation, a rightwing politician,
I’m not a slave, not a tool, fuck you!

(via randomactsofchaos)

2 months ago  /  56 notes  /  Source: roqayya

CBS consultant Jere Van Dyk says drone use is deeply troubling, frightening, Orwellian and puts us in a "Brave New World" →

2 months ago  /  0 notes

It's time to counter ThinkProgress's article supposedly saying how Rand Paul feels about drones →

justinspoliticalcorner:

While Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) undoubtedly won the DC news cycle yesterday with his twelve-hour long filibuster against CIA Director nominee John Brennan, his opposition to drones is not as all-encompassing as you would think.

The coverage of the filibuster fixated on what appeared to be Paul’s unwavering opposition to the use of unmanned vehicles, commonly called drones. As Paul made clear, though, he was only speaking in opposition to their use in anarrow sense, as part of a targeted killing ordered against a U.S. citizen on American soil.

While the White House has so far ignored calls to declassify the Department of Justice memos laying out the administration’s legal argument, it has explained that drone strikes could not Constitutionally be carried out against an individual who was not an imminent threat, effectively answering Paul’s limited question.

Paul’s opposition to the use of drones began with his concerns about their use for surveillance purposes against U.S. citizens without a warrant. To this effect, Paul introduced in 2012 what he called the “Preserving Freedom From Unwarranted Surveillance Act,” that would ”prohibit the use of drones by the government” without a warrant. The Pentagon has pushed back against the need for this new legislation, arguing that the laws that apply to manned aircraft — such as small airplanes and helicopters — would necessarily apply to unmanned drones as well.

That worry about drones is not universal for Paul, however, as he’s less concerned when it comes to enforcing border security via drone. Laying out his stance on comprehensive immigration reform, Paul published an op-ed in the Washington Times making clear that he felt that border security had to be addressed before a path to citizenship could be enacted:

Border security, including drones, satellite and physical barriers, vigilant deportation of criminals and increased patrols would begin immediately and would be assessed at the end of one year by an investigator general from the Government Accountability Office.

Though he did not make it clear, it can be assumed that Paul was referring to drones of the unarmed variety, rather than advocating launching Hellfire missiles at immigrants attempting to cross the border.

h/t: Hayes Brown at Think Progress Security

One must remember that in the dronebuster as I call it, it was only aimed [by Rand Paul] against drones used in the United States to kill suspected people on American soil. He wasn’t against drones used for surveillance, he just wants warrants for them. In fact, he said drones could be used to defend the US from terrorist attacks like 9/11 and in emergency situations. He seemed to be against drones abroad, but he wavered if the 5th amendment applied to US citizens killed abroad by drones. So, next time ThinkProgress should actually see something in its full sense rather than opening their mouths and spewing ignorance. Even though Paul wasn’t completely against drones, it was still good to have a discussion on the topic when the Senate is often a rubber-stamp for the “national security” state. In fact, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich take stronger stands on drones than Rand Paul, fyi ThinkProgress peoples.

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

2 months ago  /  16 notes  /  Source: justinspoliticalcorner