Jeremy Scahill and Noam Chomsky: The Truth About America's Secret, Dirty Wars

This morning I discovered this article (mostly a transcript of a speaking engagement) on alternet. Jeremy Scahill and Noam Chomsky: The Truth About America's Secret, Dirty Wars, and it horrifies me.

I try to keep up with world events, but I had not heard of Mr Scahill (of course I've heard of Chomsky) or his film Dirty Wars (link goes to the Dirty Wars website) and accompanying book before. Description of the book:

In Dirty Wars, Jeremy Scahill, author of the New York Times best-seller Blackwater, takes us inside America’s new covert wars. The foot soldiers in these battles operate globally and inside the United States with orders from the White House to do whatever is necessary to hunt down, capture or kill individuals designated by the president as enemies.

Drawn from the ranks of the Navy SEALs, Delta Force, former Blackwater and other private security contractors, the CIA’s Special Activities Division and the Joint Special Operations Command ( JSOC), these elite soldiers operate worldwide, with thousands of secret commandos working in more than one hundred countries. Funded through “black budgets,” Special Operations Forces conduct missions in denied areas, engage in targeted killings, snatch and grab individuals and direct drone, AC-130 and cruise missile strikes. While the Bush administration deployed these ghost militias, President Barack Obama has expanded their operations and given them new scope and legitimacy.

The movie trailer:


The article of the same title as this OP is lengthy, and originally sourced to www.democracynow.org..., and I went there to find it and found several MORE very disturbing, alarming, and horrible facts to which I'd had NO exposure. I did a search here and didn't find anything related directly to Scahill's journalism, the film, or the book. If it's posted somewhere, I'll appreciate being redirected to any ongoing threads.

I CERTAINLY hope that I'm just late to the meeting on this one - and I believe that EVERY member of ATS should be aware of these atrocities. I have officially decided, as of today, that Obama is a traitor. I hereby withdraw ANY support I have - in my naivete - given him for his 'public' pretense of wanting peace and following the law.

Having said that, when I first arrived at ATS, I watched one of Alex Jones' films about him, and I believed it. Later on, I came to see Jones as a ranting maniac. Now, I don't know WHO to believe, or WHAT to think....

and it frightens me. It frightens me for my children, who are now in their early twenties...and for any children they might produce. It frightens me for the whole world, and I am admitting here, today, plainly and clearly, that I have been misled and no longer trust that I know ANYTHING about what is really going on.

The article is fairly long, but at the end of Scahill's keynote remarks, he wraps up with this:

if we saw the humanity in the real widows of Baghdad instead of being obsessed with the real housewives of Los Angeles or Beverly Hills or whatever, if we actually see them as human beings, then the game changes, the equation changes, because you don’t view it through a nationalist lens, you don’t view it through the lens of American exceptionalism.

You view it as all of our responsibility as human beings to stand up, even when someone is in power, especially when someone is in power, who you may have voted for, or who you like, or who you think is the lesser of two evils. That’s when your principles are tested. You know, a society’s values are not defined—our values are not defined by how we treat the rich and the powerful and the popular. It’s defined by how we treat the least of our people, how we treat the poorest.

And it’s also how we treat the most reprehensible.

This is my belief and has been for my entire life. We MUST be compassionate. I thought, mistakenly and stupidly, that Obama truly wanted those things, too. So, I'm rather shook up today and 'news-shocked'. I suppose some here might see this and want to "neener neener neener" me, with "I told you so!" and they would be right to do so. But this man, Scahill, strikes me as a very lucid, serious journalist, and I take him seriously. If I'm wrong about him, please correct me.

We shouldn’t project this idea that we have anything resembling the rule of law, unless it can apply in the most inconvenient of cases. That’s the standard that we should be judged by.

And that’s our challenge. And it’s the challenge of young people—and there’s a lot of young people in the room tonight—to keep the struggle going to build a world where justice prevails and where humanity is recognized, with no difference between nationality or citizenship. Thank you.

So here, I've bared my soul once again. I urge everyone to read the article linked at the top of this post.

Have a look also at this exclusive, again from DemocracyNow: VIDEO: From Boston to Pakistan, Pentagon Officials Claim Entire World is a Battlefield

In a Senate hearing today, Pentagon officials claimed President Obama and future presidents have the power to send troops anywhere in the world to fight groups linked to al-Qaeda, based in part on the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed by Congress days after the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001

On the right hand side of the link, see other related articles exposing what is going on under this seeming "kinder and juster" president.

I am now officially anti-Obama, and I DEEPLY resent having been lied to and tricked by ALL of the people running this show. I'm aghast, ashamed as an American, and enraged by it. I don't believe I will EVER vote again.

Thanks for reading. I'm going now to order the film, and both of his books. And prepare to lose my appetite and my lingering hope for this sorry world.
~wild

reply to post by wildtimes


Well said and respected words!

That's why you won't see me supporting ANY current political parties!

The evolution of humanity shouldn't be at the hands of power hungry globalists! As long as we depend on "them" the shackles that they have put on us by their tactics of fear will be the death of humanity.....

reply to post by seeker1963


Precisely. I even have thought "well, Obama probably doesn't know what's really going on, he's a puppet of the shadow government and can't be blamed." But now, yes, he can be blamed.

What a bunch of monsters. Sickening. Thanks for your response.

Wow, incredible stuff Wild.

It reminds me of when I first "woke up" after researching OWS and discovering who is actually behind it.

It left me in total shock.

On one hand you are spellbound because you actually KNOW the truth but at the same time you are sickened by it because of all the ramifications.

Thanks for the heads up...

reply to post by Murgatroid


Thanks, Murgatroid.
Yes, I'm rather blown away by it. I just ordered the book and also "Blackwater" (revised and updated). Man oh man is this world scary.
I went with my son to see "Mud" the other day (great flick, btw), and we were talking about his take on things. He's only 22, very bright, and he knows all about the 'conspiracy' theories around 9/11 (says he's 85% convinced it was an inside job), and how the big banks run everything.

But at least he's paying attention - I know lots of youths aren't. Unfortunately.

reply to post by wildtimes

I have officially decided, as of today, that Obama is a traitor. I hereby withdraw ANY support I have - in my naivete - given him for his 'public' pretense of wanting peace and following the law.....I suppose some here might see this and want to "neener neener neener" me, with "I told you so!" and they would be right to do so.

Abandoning a closely held belief when presented with evidence that contradicts it is one of the most courageous things that a person can do, and publicly announcing it and shedding light on the new information makes it even more courageous. If anyone mocks you for considering new evidence and changing your mind simply disregard them. They are cheerleaders and fans, not players in the game.

Welcome to the real world.

Now comes the hard part.

Doing something about it.

What, given a chance/opportunity, would you do about it. You've recognized the problem, what would you do. Or, what should "we" do about it.

I say we because the only way anything will ever change, is for "us" to do something about it.

reply to post by seagull


People should do what there constitution tells them to do, and that is rise up in arms against tyranny. I have noticed though the malaise that has been cast over society we are being told that is not quite the done thing anymore and oh so ghastly and barbaric response, apparently it isnt the way to do things. Sometimes though its pretty much the only way to do things.

I would imagine it is probably an extreme violation of the sites rules to discuss armed insurrection and attacks on federal institutions. But you know, thats what you would have to do.

reply to post by Tuttle

People should do what there constitution tells them to do, and that is rise up in arms against tyranny.

There is no section of the constitution that encourages violence against the government. That would be a very unconstitutional thing to do.

reply to post by Slugworth


Not the government per se, but rather tyranny and if that tyranny is in the form of the current government, then well what you gonna do?. I am also not entirely aware of any section that explicitly forbids violence against government?, is that unconstitutional?, how so?

reply to post by Tuttle

Not the government per se, but rather tyranny and if that tyranny is in the form of the current government, then well what you gonna do?. I am also not entirely aware of any section that explicitly forbids violence against government?, is that unconstitutional?, how so?

Here are a few examples for you Tuttle.

"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
— Thomas Jefferson (attributed to Jefferson, by his contemporaries)

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
— Benjamin Franklin (on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania - 1759)

Those are just a few of many of our forbearers thoughts on the country they wanted to build as a nation based on freedom. Not that they promoted violence against the government, but they certainly WARNED US!

reply to post by wildtimes


I can sure concur on a number of points.

Have studied the PTB and their global tyrannical goals since 1965.

Here's some quotes in their own words:

twoday.net...


twga...


All sides of the political continuum are in bed with the guilty arrogant elite. They have been seduced literally by hell and by their greed, lusts, arrogance.

O was set up early in life to be the shill for them and the Destroyer-In-Chief. He's been doing as ordered with hate filled glee. His own staff characterize him as a pathological liar.

The GOP has been as bad in most respects. More GOP Presidents have treated the Whitehouse staff with more respect and courtesy than the typical DEM Presidents. And that's an interesting commentary on character to a point. Witness the Clintons vs W Bush.

However it's all been and is a good-cop/bad-cop charade. Distract the sheeple while constructing their death camps, destroying their culture; their values; their economy; their food; their way of life; their safety; their freedoms . . . and schedule genocide sufficient to force the world down to 200-500 million.

There have been tales of the assassins for a long time. Some of them have dropped out and lived long enough to tell some interesting tales.

As Kissinger said--quoted at the first link above:

132."Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger, quoted by Bob Woodward in The Final Days, 1976
.
133."[color=6699FF]The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." Henry Kissinger
.
134."The Brady Bill's only effect will be to desensitize the public to regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, April 5, 1996

reply to post by wildtimes

I'm sorry this is news to you.

There are occasionally members who post extensively in the [Breaking Alternative News] and [Breaking Political News] sub-forums. I haven't been seeing some of the most prolific posters showing up there lately however.

Under [My ATS] you can add [FAVORITE Forums] for quick access. I have the three [Breaking News] there.

You might want to start threads there.

Anyway, it's been obvious to me that all of the bad things that the Bush administration was up to as far as war crimes, violations of civil rights, and the militarization of the World goes, the Obama administration has been doubling down on.

Early in the transition period, a piece I read pretty much summed up the political reality. The Democratic Party co-opted the Peace Movement for it's own purposes. Once the Democrats got the White House, the Peace Movement (left wing branch) almost disappeared under the hurrahs of "Mission Accomplished".

The Peace Movement in my local community was organized by the Local Democratic Party Chairman. Once the election of 2008 was over, it (the movement) just stopped doing anything. No meetings, no emails, no nothing.

Jeremy Scahill is a pretty good digger up of facts "best left alone", like the black-ops site in Mogadishu

reply to post by Tuttle


Violence against the government is unconstitutional because it circumvents the lawful procedures that the constitution put in place to change government. It is unconstitutional for the same reasons that an executive order that revokes a constitutional right or abolishes a branch of the government would be. Whatever goal one would have in mind that they wish to achieve through the use of force could be achieved lawfully if the constitution is enforced. That doesn't mean that violence should never be used against the government, but it certainly cannot be justified as constitutional.

Regarding the OP topic, the issues that it points to are not solvable through violent uprising. They are solvable in part by more people being willing to speak against the actions of those in their own party or on their end of the political spectrum, the way that Wildtimes is doing here. Bush was able to expand the government's influence over our lives (and the lives of Iraqis and Afghanis) because so many conservatives were too blinded by loyalty and partisanship to see what was really happening, and were hesitant to criticize him. Obama is able to trample on civil and human rights because so many liberals are blinded by the same sense of loyalty and partisanship, and are similarly hesitant to criticize him.

In other words, we should stop fantasizing about parties and left/right ideologies, stop making excuses for a politician just because we voted for them, be willing to denounce that elected official if necessary, and start judging people according to their actions, policies, and the company they keep.

Well if you agree with Chomsky you should check into libertarian socialism which is what Chomsky advocates.

Libertarian socialism was the real libertarian movement before American right wingers appropriated that term for their authoritarian ideas.

Capitalism is not libertarian, it's authoritarian.

Man: What's the difference between "libertarian" and "anarchist," exactly?

Chomsky: There's no difference, really. I think they're the same thing. But you see, "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. Now, that's always been opposed in the European libertarian tradition, where every anarchist has been a socialist—because the point is, if you have unbridled capitalism, you have all kinds of authority: you have extreme authority.

Chomsky on libertarianism and Murray Rothbard

“libertarian was a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” Murray Bookchin The Ecology of Freedom p. 57

reply to post by Slugworth


Well you should probably re-read your constitution then eh, it apparently disagrees with everything you have said. Still though you are perfectly well within your right to interpret it anyway you see fit of course, regardless of how wrong that may be.

Take it easy.

reply to post by seagull

What, given a chance/opportunity, would you do about it. You've recognized the problem, what would you do. Or, what should "we" do about it.

Stand up and shout it from the rooftops.....
Overthrow the den of vipers that are backing this stuff.......

I don't know.

What can we do? My only ideas are (and have been):
don't go to work,
stop filing your tax return,
boycott businesses that lobby to keep this administration in power.
And don't vote (yes, I realize that if we don't vote, it falls to Congress to decide, which scares the bejeeburs out of me)...

What do you suggest?

reply to post by pthena

Anyway, it's been obvious to me that all of the bad things that the Bush administration was up to as far as war crimes, violations of civil rights, and the militarization of the World goes, the Obama administration has been doubling down on.

I was uncertain where to post this thread. I thought of the 'Breaking' threads, but this forum seemed more appropriate.

I'm glad that at least many members that I respect have responded.

reply to post by ANOK


ANOK, I actually thought that you might have noticed my many posts and threads that already promote those ideals.
Oh well.
I'm not the center of the universe, or the focus of anyone's attention. But, I try, in my small way, to contribute to the cause. I'm a 'Progressive' and also a 'Democratic Socialist', and have starred MANY of your posts.

Thanks for participating here.

reply to post by Slugworth

I appreciate your post. Thank you.
I don't know what to do. Do you??