We became a terrorist state under the former Bush Administration, and unless Obama can un-do some of what has been accomplished, that's what we are. The trouble with declining morality and lowering yourself so that you're little better than the supposed evil enemies you're fighting is, it's hard to go back once you've started down that road. Here are the 10.
The US abandoned all pretense of due process of law, captured alleged enemy terrorists, locked them up in Cuba and threw away the key, without trial, without conviction. There's no way you can justify this by saying it's a dangerous world. We didn't do this to the top Nazis we captured in World War 2.
Approval of torture of prisoners. There's no way you can argue its justification. Even if we say water-boarding is not torture, it's only a matter of time before we add another, like hooking a car battery up to someone's genitals. One leads to another. Torture to extract a confession is torture, an illegal act. It is not due process to make a finding of guilt or a confession through the presentation of evidence. It is the use of pain or fear to extract a confession. A country that abandons the Geneva Convention is a terrorist state.
The US only fights tiny impoverished countries much smaller than itself. If this isn't terrorism, then it's certainly a form of imperialism, like the English fighting Zulu warriors in the 19th century. What were the English doing in Zulu-land in the first place? Robbing and exploiting. We do the same. We beat our chest about how tough we are. But a huge country that only fights much smaller countries is a bully.
(Related to 3). We have a long history of exploiting Third-World Countries for their natural resources, everything from bananas to oil. This has made us particularly detested in South America , and has strengthened the hand of rogue anti-American regimes there.
The government passed laws to eavesdrop and spy (wiretap) on American citizens because once again, the terrorists are out to get us and it's a dangerous world. Every extremist government from long before Hitler, passed draconian laws eroding the rights of its own citizens, to supposedly protect them.
A government that can never admit it was wrong, or even look into the possibility it was wrong, is a government out of control. Nixon was pardoned by Ford because to try Nixon for his crimes would be messy, divisive. Nixon was supposedly doing it (cheating, lying) on our behalf, for us. Likewise, when Bush and Cheney lied to the American people to cook up a war in Iraq , they did it for us (I didn't ask them to). They will be let off. What's more, not even an investigation of their conduct will be attempted; because it might make us look bad. It would be divisive. When convenience and alleged patriotism trump morality and doing what's right under the law, you've set a precedent for future misconduct. This represents the arrogance, invulnerability and unaccountability of power.
The Iraq conflict is the most under-reported, no-unpleasant-questions-asked war since the Spanish American (also a wrong war). The government stifled the release of pictures of American bodies returning home in caskets, and the former president stage-managed press conferences, with pre-scripted questions, taking questions from pre-selected, friendly reporters, while screening out potential trouble-making reporters, in other words, those who ask unpleasant questions. The former president often appeared only in front of crowds of compliant soldiers. The media's complicity in Iraq represents a new low in respect for the truth worthy of Joseph Goebbels. How far Obama will reverse this trend remains unclear.
The government has a long history of supplying ruthless dictatorships with military equipment and supplies to get them to behave, then acts surprised and angry when they don't. Our so-called leaders, who don't understand or study history, learned nothing from the Munich Agreement of 1938. We tried to bribe Saddam Hussein by equipping and encouraging him, and we agreed to provide North Korea with nuclear technology twenty years ago in the hope they would use it for peaceful purpose. A state that supplies and equips countries it later labels "terrorist" with weapons or potential weapons is itself a terrorist state, or at the very least, an accomplice.
(Related to 8). We are far and away the world's largest arms exporter, and have turned much of the world into an armed camp, thus making the likelihood of war much greater. People today in many parts of the world fear us more than they do Osama bin Laden, with good reason.
One of the two political parties that have run the country for over 100 years, the Republican Party, the former party of Lincoln, is today led by off-the-deep-end extremists who believe God sides with them. They believe war is a useful instrument of foreign policy, instead of a defense measure as envisioned by The Founders. They call on Divine Providence and punishment, even assassination, for anyone who disagrees with their world view. They are intolerant, close-minded, reactionary, racist, sexist, and have a zealot's contempt for other people and other religions, other than their own brand of Christian Fundamentalism. They also have a thinly veiled disgust for the kind of basic compromise necessary to make any form of Democracy workable.
Nice article, yet none of your reasons is why the US is a 'terrorist' state. The things you list are abhorrent to be sure, yet I don't see any state-sponsored terrorism here. The closest you get is the fact we sell arms to everyone (and anyone) with cash in hand, yet for the most part this is just another diatribe against the previous administration. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing wrong with having an axe to grind, yet the title is a little misleading. Still, you bring up good points. Thanks.
I have to wonder why people say something is "undebateable." Is it because the answer is concrete? Is it because the facts are so blatantly obvious that nobody could disagree? Or is it because the person making the statement can't defend his position in a calm and rational discussion? Methinks it's the last point. Al Gore says the same thing about global warming even with scientists providing data that contradicts what he says. Sorry, John, but your "undebateable" conclusion can -- and should! -- be debated. You're not infallible. Let's hear every side of the issue.
We supported terrorist states when we supported the Shah of Iran. We supported Saddam Hussein, until we "fired" him.
Ronald Reagan--"Mr. Matinee"--supported the Contra in Nicaragua, who were called Freedom Fighters but were more akin to terrorist thugs, funded in part by cocaine sales to the U.S. with a wink and nod from the CIA.
The problem is, the U.S. has a long history of dressing tyrants in pretty colors, red, white and blue, giving them a glamorous, "Democracy" look.
Yes, all these things are true and even allies view the US askance for these things. These things should be debated, and yes, I think in part, your article does show the US as using terrorist tactics, only they tend to use them either under the table or heavily veiled in propagandist rhetoric relying on fear. Similar things happened here in Australia under Howard. These leaders won't be punished, but history will see them for what they are/were. Let's see if their replacements do the better job we expect of them.
I agree with the tenets of your article, but not that it is un-debatable.
How interesting to see that all comments prior to this one are anonymous.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
