By:
Kevin Gosztola
This morning, Chris Hayes did a segment on his show on MSNBC called
“Up with Chris” that examined President Barack Obama’s reported “kill
list,” whether the number of civilians being killed by drones is being
hidden from the American public and whether the program is, in fact,
legal as the Obama administration claims. The segment aired just days
after a major story by the
New York Times on the “kill list” catapulted US drone policy into the national conversation. It also was
one of the few segments that MSNBC aired on the Obama administration’s drone program all week.
Colonel Jack Jacobs, MSNBC military analyst, Hina Shamsi from the
ACLU’s National Security Project, Jeremy Scahill of The Nation magazine
and Josh Treviño of the Texas Public Policy Foundation appeared on the
program for the discussion.
Hayes set up the segment by mentioning that a policy of kill or
capture of terror suspects has largely transformed into a policy of just
killing the suspects. The issue had been “bubbling a bit” but just this
week, Hayes said, it “felt like it really kind of entered the national
conversation assertively for the first time this week.”
“
Up with Chris”
is a progressive show. Many of the viewers carry an expectation—albeit
an unreasonable one—that Hayes will not wholly criticize Obama because
there is a Republican presidential candidate named Mitt Romney out there
trying to defeat Obama in the presidential election. There also are
Republicans running to defeat Democrats, voters are being suppressed in
states to help Republicans win and discussion of Obama and drones is
destructive to the progressive cause. And that is why the segment got
under the skin of many liberals and also why it was so critical that
Hayes did this segment on his show.
Shamsi made a key point:
We have had a program that was begun
under the Bush administration but vastly expanded under the Obama
administration and this is a program in which the Executive Branch – the
president claims the authority to unilaterally declare people enemies
of the state including US citizens and order their killing based on
secret legal criteria, secret process and secret evidence. There is no
national security policy that poses a graver threat to human rights law
and civil liberties than this policy today.
Scahill explained how Obama has been “out-Cheneying Cheney” by
“running an assassination program where in a two week span in Yemen he
killed three US citizens, none of whom had been charged or indicted or
charged with any crime.” Two of the victims, Samir Khan and Abdulrahman
Al-Awlaki, were clearly innocent. The FBI told Khan’s family that his
speech—the propaganda he was writing and his work as editor of the
magazine of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP),
Inspire, was
protected First Amendment speech and he had broken no US laws. In the
case of Awlaki, a 16-year-old US citizen “whose only crime appears to be
that his last name was Awlaki, he was “murdered in a US strike.” No
explanation, Scahill said, has been given as to why he was killed.
“There is no indication that any suspected militants were killed.
There is no indication that any known al Qaeda figures were killed. That
family deserves an explanation. The American people deserve an
explanation.” Scahill continued: “”People talked about Cheney running an
executive assassination ring. What’s President Obama’s policy? This
would have sparked outrage among liberals and they are deafeningly
silent on this issue.”
Then, Hayes had Scahill address what really upset liberals the most:
the fact that Scahill would say with a straight face Obama was a
murderer for killing innocent people with drone strikes.
Scahill stated “the most dangerous thing” the US is doing “besides
murdering innocent people in many cases is giving people in Yemen or
Somalia or Pakistan a non-ideological reason to hate the United States,
to want to fight the United States.” Hayes told Scahill calling it
murder is a “provocative” way of describing what is happening and he
wanted Scahill to defend using the word murder.
HAYES: Jeremy, you used the word
“murder” before when you talked about the people who have killed by
these strikes who are not combatants we can establish? And obviously
that’s al oaded word because it carries certain legal and moral
ramifications. Why do you use that word?
SCAHILL: If someone goes into a shopping mall in pursuit of one of
their enemies and opens fire on a crowd of people and guns down a bunch
of innocent people in a shopping mall, they’ve murdered those people.
When the Obama administration sets a policy where patterns of life are
enough of a green light to drop missiles on people or to use to send in
AC-130s to spray them down —
JACOBS: That isn’t the case here (cross-talk)
SCAHILL: If you go to the village of al Majala in Yemen where I was
and you see the unexploded cluster bombs and you have the list and
photographic evidence as I do of the women and children that represented
the vast majority of the deaths in this first strike that Obama
authorized on Yemen, those people were murdered by President Obama on
his orders because there was believed to be someone from al Qaeda in
that area. There’s only one person that’s been identified that had any
connection to al Qaeda there and twenty-one women and fourteen children
were killed in that strike and the US tried to cover it up and say it
was a Yemeni strike and we know from the WikiLeaks that David Petraeus
conspired with the president of Yemen to lie to the world about who did
that bombing. It’s murder. It’s mass murder when you say we are going to
bomb this area because we believe a terrorist there and you know women
and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not
bomb that area if they believe women and children are there.
Trevino responded to Scahill by raising a historical example of US
armed forces killing French civilians during World War II. He argued
that America knew there were innocent people where they were bombing and
then essentially asked if the people who carried out those attacks were
murderers. Scahill said yes, which led Trevino to suggest that people
should be arguing Dwight D. Eisenhower should have been prosecuted. It
was a poor strawman that Trevino tried to construct to get Scahill to
back down from arguing that the US government has killed people it has
known to be innocent and this should not have happened.
From this point, Scahill and Trevino went back and forth with each
other throughout the rest of the segment. Trevino contended there was a
long history of dealing with Americans who have decided to make war on
the United States and that it was not reasonable to expect Lincoln to
have handled the Confederacy in the way that people are suggesting Obama
should handle US-born terror suspects. Trevino said Obama is “part of a
continuum.” That was not something of which Scahill disagreed.
“We have a dictatorship of the Executive Branch of government when it comes to foreign policy,” said Scahill.
Later in the show, Trevino attempted to shut down a lot of what had
been said by Shamsi on the legal issues posed by the drone program and
what Scahill had said about Obama murdering people. He argued, “Part of
the reason there isn’t an outcry over this is that the American people
really are getting the policy that they want. It’s not that
controversial.”
Scahill rightfully replied in agreement, “Obama has normalized
assassination for a lot of liberals who would have been outraged if it
was President McCain.” The nation has developed a “bloodthirst.”
Citizens now “treat targeted killings like sporting events and dance in
the streets” (e.g. what happened when Osama bin Laden was assassinated).
*
Here are some examples of how liberals reacted to what was being said during the segment.
Scahill says he was “called a terrorist, a
neo-Nazi, a traitor and a racist” after his appearance. He was told that
he wants Romney to be president.
This is what liberal or Democratic Party
supporters who defend President Obama from his critics are saying these
days when the issue of drones is raised. Or, in some cases, they aren’t
saying anything at all. It doesn’t matter to them that innocents are
being killed who may not be terrorists. The loss of human life is less
significant than the fact that the Republican Party is plotting
nefariously to beat Democrats and is perhaps engaged in illegal conduct.
These liberal or Democratic Party
supporters, for some reason, think there has to be a choice made between
opposing voter suppression and opposing drones. That doesn’t really
seem right. Also, the reaction is pretty authoritarian when one
considers that much of the outrage includes a demand or passive threat.
They want Hayes to never feature people like Scahill again or cover the
issue of drones again. Wide-ranging debate is too much for them. (Keep
in mind Jacobs and Trevino were pro-military and given opportunity to
share their pro-war views. No liberals called for them to be banned from
Hayes’ program.)
It cannot be understated. The identities of
the people being killed are not certain to US officials and yet they
are carrying out operations that we are supposed to believe kill
terrorists, not innocent civilians. Who “these guys” are that are being
targeted is contested, which makes it hard to assess this program as
something that is helping to kill “terrorists.” Just how many actual terrorists are being killed is debatable.
Finally, Hayes properly outlined two ways
the issue of drones is compounded: one is the secrecy, like the
selective disclosures to the public and the fact that there is still
much that is unknown, and the other is the way Congress is asleep at the
wheel or, according to Sen. Ron Wyden, unable to get the administration
to provide information on the program.
That is why, though it may go nowhere,
this effort by Rep. Dennis Kucinich to get colleagues to challenge the Obama administration’s drone policy is important.
Below are the segments from the show. (Also,
drop by the FDL Book Salon from now until 7 pm ET to talk with author & peace activist Medea Benjamin on her book,
Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control.):
Philadelphia’s
new law banning “all outdoor feedings of large numbers of people on
City parkland” goes into effect Friday, according CBS Philly, and some charitable groups have elected to ignore it.
Philadelphia’s
new law banning “all outdoor feedings of large numbers of people on
City parkland” goes into effect Friday, according CBS Philly, and some charitable groups have elected to ignore it.
![Church-and-State-Signs[1]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uEjAM5jyHNVj-2O-6oYd2_tHgRXOsVdWhmIN3b-BZxO6kbVgqY2BrKMnaDFdBxEM-XF2rMd7Ju7gv-Aj1Z9zv2Q8MiIuNncPhkurdUCyQ7JDm8pzJjA3K1QvfDaG5F8WWhIrFg7iP72Up9pt1sKr-YGC2yG_BNP7g37CJjnxM=s0-d "Church-and-State-Signs[1]")
