Welcome to NPR's world of All Things Gitmo. On Wednesday's ATG Michele Norris serves as our guide into the circular thinking that would make Joseph Heller blush. Here she is serving as a deputized spokesperson for "The Pentagon said yesterday that 61 former detainees who were released, quote, 'returned to the fight against the US' meaning that they had returned to some form of terrorism." So for those detainees who are deemed dangerous, but for whom no clear evidence exists for prosecution, what should be done with the prisoners that fall in that category?"That is quite a statement. Notice how broad the label of terrorism has become for NPR: anyone who is in "the fight against the US" is now engaged in "some form of terrorism." That is precisely the twisted line of thinking that permeates the US armed forces. Consider this very typical DOD article from the American Forces Press Service back in March 30, 2008 regarding the Iraqi insurgents:
"An American aircrew killed 12 insurgents today after they attacked a U.S. infantry patrol in northern Baghdad. Soldiers assigned to the 4th Infantry Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team pursued the insurgents after they had broken off their attack. U.S. military aircraft arrived to provide air-to-ground support. After positively identifying the attackers, the air weapons team engaged and killed the 12 terrorists. "It's a pretty nifty trick to turn a guerrilla band of 12 fighters who are willing to attack a US infantry patrol into "terrorists." What civilians were they attacking? What civilian targets had they engaged?
Returning to Norris' statement, one can ask the same questions regarding the 61 victims of the US torture camp at Guantanamo Bay. What form of terrorism? What acts of terrorism did they engage in? Do you have ANY evidence to back up your dramatic charge that they "returned to some form of terrorism"? Oops, did I just request "evidence"? (How quaint of me.) Regarding evidence, Norris has some very modern ideas about that: she wonders about "those detainees who are deemed dangerous, but for whom no clear evidence exists for prosecution, what should be done...?" Yes, indeed - what should be done?
6 comments:
Nifty trick indeed. A shorthand for the putative moral compass to say, these are no longer human beings. Don't you NPR listeners be worrying your purty haids about the details.
For what it's worth, a friend of mine who used to work at for the NPR Newscast Unit said that "Meeee-shell was a genuinely nice person; not too bright, however." And, while I think she's gotten a lot better at interviewing since NPR hired her, she's still terrible. But, since NPR standards have fallen so low, the chasm between them and her is significantly smaller. So, she has that going for her.
The Pentagon said yesterday that 61 former detainees who were released, quote, 'returned to the fight against the US' meaning that they had returned to some form of terrorism." So for those detainees who are deemed dangerous, but for whom no clear evidence exists for prosecution, what should be done with the prisoners that fall in that category?"
How does one deem someone "dangerous" when no clear evidence exists for prosecution?
Of course, the implication here is that anyone that the Pentagon deems dangerous should remain locked up into perpetuity because the potential that they will do something "dangerous" exists (no matter how small it might be).
So, the mere potentiality in someone to commit a crime (as there exists in EVERY human being on the planet) becomes a crime worthy of keeping him or her locked up.
Have we really stooped to such a level?
This is an affront to every value that Western Civilization has come to hold dear.
It literally throws out millennia of legal philosophy dating back to the Greeks.
And whether Meeeee-Shell is "nice" in person or not is irrelevant. being a journalist is not about being "nice". As we have seen in recent years, sometimes the truth about America is not nice at all. Sometimes it is downright ugly.
If Meeeshell is not smart enough to understand that, she has no business "acting" as a journalist (for which she gets paid a pretty penny, I might add: over $200K per year)
Sorry, I wasn't apologizing for "Meeee-shell." I was insulting her. I thought that was pretty obvious. She is hapless and hopeless. In my estimation she is NOT even a journalist.
MeeShill's performance, in this one of many examples, demonstrates how utterly complicit NPR is with the Neocon mechanism (to use the generic term). These NPR hosts (as opposed to journalists) are mere plastic personalities employed for publicity purposes. They do their job well enough to appear to be influential, if not powerful. But they aren't! Like Dubya, Frontman Supreme, they take their orders from higher up, and they perform.
This Neocon mechanism, whether it's BushCorp or some as yet unidentified entity, has every intention of maintaining its power and control, no matter who's in the White House. Every movement since the Enlightenment has needed its publicist, and NPR has proven that we know what those letters really stand for.
National Piffle Radio is indeed small potatoes, but it's in the front bin. I have to keep myself from being distracted by their sideshow, and constantly keep the Bigger Picture in mind.
Oh, but of course they are terrorists!! They are fighting a foreign invader of their sovereign nation, defending their homeland, protecting kith and kin.
Something about US exceptionalism . . .
Post a Comment