Skip to main content

says Jeremy Scahill of the Nation, I don't really agree but let's put his words into some context.

"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--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
Is this a poor choice of words but the truth, let's break

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


"If you go to the village of Al-Majalah in Yemen, where I was, and you see the unexploded clusterbombs and you have the list and photographic evidence, as I do--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 21 women and 14 children were killed in that strike and the U.S. tried to cover it up, and say it was a Yemeni strike, and we know from the Wikileaks cables 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 is there, and you know that women and children are in the area. The United States has an obligation to not bomb that area if they believe that women and children are there. I'm sorry, that's murder."
Scahill explains it like President Obama has no concern for the lives or safety for the innocents in the area. What is the obligation of the United States when a terrorist is identified in the same area where women and children are? Criminals do not hide out together. They may have safe houses, but just like Bin Laden women are almost always around.

What else would the US do to avoid such tragic causalities, put boots on the ground? Women and children have always been put in the line of fire. Maybe the target in question should just stand up and take it like a man or just not live around any women and children.
This is definitely a poor choice of words by Scahill because he implies that the President is a criminal, a war criminal and a murderer, huh, I ask Jeremy Scahill is he saying that President Obama is really a murdered, a CRIMINAL! Explain please.

Poll

Do You agree with Scahill, Are the murders by Obama

52%52 votes
21%21 votes
26%26 votes

| 99 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA, charliehall2, downsouth

    Seeking Awareness and Truth for all Americans

    by The Sheeping of America on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:10:51 PM PDT

  •  I don't think it's a poor choice of words (7+ / 0-)

    If the President wants to bomb Yemeni villages, he has to be able to take some harsh words against him.  I think we get two issues mixed up with drones--one is whether they're OK at all, and another is whether they're used too much, not carefully enough, downright indiscriminately, etc.  People like me, who are pro-drone, are self-interestedly interested in seeing them used with the "pinpoint precision" the government likes to highlight (the car on the otherwise deserted road, that kind of thing), so I'm all for disasters such as the one Scahill highlights being brought out into the light.  I want to keep killing the appropriate people because I think some people are appropriate for being killed by the US government, but if the government keeps killing inappropriate people then I'd have to decide they're not competent to do this kind of thing at all.

    Dear conservatives: If instead of "marriage equality" we call it "voluntary government registration of committed homosexuals," are you on board?

    by Rich in PA on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:21:58 PM PDT

    •  I am also pro-drone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rich in PA

      and this is no walk back by Scahill because this is a situation that needs to come into the light.

      Seeking Awareness and Truth for all Americans

      by The Sheeping of America on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:24:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Where On Earth Does the US Government Deserve (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kurt

      a presumption of competence with respect to terrorism? It's part of 2 policy areas that are destroying the American middle class.

      Hell of a defense, that.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:43:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're complaining it's expensive? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        VClib

        Drones are the least expensive thing we do!  Any cost-effective anti-terrorism strategy would have a lot more drones and precisely zero combat forces in Afghanistan.  

        Dear conservatives: If instead of "marriage equality" we call it "voluntary government registration of committed homosexuals," are you on board?

        by Rich in PA on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:45:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  that all may be true, (7+ / 0-)

    but I definitely wouldn't trust Scahill without independent verification.

    •  verification is needed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      exlrrp

      before you just call the President a murdered

      Seeking Awareness and Truth for all Americans

      by The Sheeping of America on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:26:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nah, it's a hallmark of our freedoms... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt

        ...that anyone can call the President anything they want, as far as I'm concerned.  And as the block quote says, the Wikileaks cables do show that we falsely claimed the Yemenis killed their own people rather than us.  I think that's the cable where Saleh laughed about it and downed another glass of scotch....it's one of the first cables I read when they started to come out.

        Dear conservatives: If instead of "marriage equality" we call it "voluntary government registration of committed homosexuals," are you on board?

        by Rich in PA on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:32:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  When THEY fly planes (11+ / 0-)

    in to our buildings and kill innocent civilians, we call it murder.
    But when it is the US killing innocent civilians all over the World in countries we have not declared war on, it isn't?
    this is a disgusting thing the US is doing.
    It was the same as flattening whole villages in Vietnam and destroying the whole town of Fallujah.
    Or kicking in doors in the middle of the night and killing anything that moves.
    If it was happening to us, you better believe we would call it murder.
    It is.

    OBAMA'S GUIDING PRINCIPLES: HOLD NO ONE ACCOUNTABLE. LOOK FORWARD.

    by snoopydawg on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:27:20 PM PDT

    •  The reason there's a difference... (7+ / 0-)

      ...is that what we want is essentially pretty good while what they want is totally, irredeemably bad.  I have never believed in terrorism as a cognitive category because it displaces the discussion to methods rather than goals.  If the whole world were a US protectorate people would be much happier than if it were an Al-Qaeda caliphate, and to me that's the beginning, middle, and end of it.  Al-Qaeda was a vicious organization deserving of destruction, and its leaders deserving of death, before it committed its first atrocity because what it wanted is atrocious.

      Dear conservatives: If instead of "marriage equality" we call it "voluntary government registration of committed homosexuals," are you on board?

      by Rich in PA on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:34:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  eh? Not to them (6+ / 0-)
        what we want is essentially pretty good while what they want is totally, irredeemably bad.
        they believe the West is making their lives different in what they consider to be a bad way. They see it as self-defense. When we do it we call it preemptive strikes.

        If we left them alone, got our bases out of their countries, stopped trying to topple leaders we don't like, I think we wouldn't have to worry about this "terrorism".

        But then we want those bases and we want our own kind running things.

      •  American Exceptionalism... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        truong son traveler, chipmo

        at its finest, right here on Daily Kos.  America is good.  Our motives are pure.  Our intentions are just.  If only the backward people of other nations would understand how much better Americans are, they would try to emulate us...not attack us!  We're just oh so perfect, with our purple mountain majesty and fruited plains.  Our land of the free and home of the brave.  If only the savages would get in line, right Rich?

        Talk about "atrocious"...

      •  If left alone to decide their own destinies (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kurt, chipmo

        the people would choose neither Al-Queda nor the US. Most people just want to be left alone to raise their families in peace without unwanted interference from others.

        If our bombs kill family members, friends and neighbors it is very unlikely that the people will support the bombers who killed them, but will sympathize with those who vow to fight them. That is basic human nature.

        Our policies of supporting repressive governments throughout the Middle East because they support US interests leaves them few options.

        The bombing strike Scahill describes, as per the diarist's quoted section, was first revealed by Wikileaks. We were lied to by our government that the bombing was done by the government of Yemen when in fact it was done by the US.

        Certainly there is ample evidence to support the fact that cluster bombs were used.

        ... a study Amnesty International said a US Tomahawk cruise missile hit the site, judging by photographs of debris studied by a weapons expert. The warhead include cluster bombs, at least one of which remained in the area unexploded afterwards.

        Source

        YouTube video evidence in video format.
        According to the amnesty report, the pictures reveal the positive identification of missile parts. The parts appear to be from the payload, mid-body, aft-body and propulsion sections of a BGM-109D Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile. This missile is launched from a warship or submarine. It carries166 cluster bomblets which each explode into over 200 sharp steel fragments that can cause injuries up to a distance of 150 meters. An incendiary material inside the bomblet also spreads fragments of burning zirconium designed to set fire to nearby flammable objects.

        This is hardly a precision weapon and it meant to rain down destruction over a wide area. That is why its use in a civilian area can be a war crime. Neither the U.S. nor Yemen has yet signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions, a treaty designed to comprehensively ban such weapons. The treaty is set to go into effect on August 1, 2010.

        Source

        After more than 30 or 40 years cluster bombs dropped by the US in Laos are still killing people because, years ago, they were simply in the way.

        Orwell - "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable"

        by truong son traveler on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 12:51:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  False equivalence (5+ / 0-)

      If Al Qaida was going after only military targets (the Pentagon, for example) and hit civilians incidentally, that would be the same thing as our drone attacks in Yemen.

      But how was the World Trade Center a military target?

  •  The President is not a war criminal (5+ / 0-)

    And how is this diary part of the mission of dailykos?

  •  Obama decided to kill (6+ / 0-)

    Let's leave the word "murder" out of it; the word is a distraction.

    Pres. Obama made a decision to take action and kill.  But he could not know who exactly would be killed in this action.

    He probably did not want to kill women or children, but he certainly knew there was a good chance innocent people, including women and children, could be killed by his actions.  

    Moreover, this decision to take action and kill was made without a trial or allowing the accused to defend themselves.  

    This is clearly illegal under US and international law.  Were the president not a democrat, progressives would be accusing the president of war crimes.

    The president has shown he is perfectly willing to kill people, including women and children, who have committed no crime.  The democrats and the president's supporters excuse these killings and seek to allow the president to continue killing

    The shame is on the office of the president for this conduct, and on the partisan democrats who tacitly forgive it.

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:34:40 PM PDT

  •  More than just a poor choice of words by Scahill, (7+ / 0-)

    imo.  

    "I think he should have done this differently" wouldn't have got the headlines & bookings as well as "these people were murdered by President Obama."

    Opinions will differ on this...whether or not this action was wise, fair, necessary, etc.  Personally I don't know enough about the incident myself to venture an opinion.  Except that I'd like clusterbombs to be banned.

    But the language used is deliberately inflamatory.  With intent to inflame, not just to inform.

  •  Scahill can't really live in the US (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Sheeping of America

    and go on TV in his suit and tie and live his comfortable life without also taking personal responsibility for these "murders" as well - if that's how he sees them.

    There's something to the idea of continuing to live in America and enjoying the benefits inherent in that, if you think Bush was a war criminal but Obama has shown a better more humanitarian way forward.

    But if you think both men are "murderers," and you contend that that words still has the meaning you imply it does, then continuing to live in the US would be immoral in my opinion. At that point, you'd have to accept that given your opinions of the issues, it's hopeless to go on being a part of this society.

    So I don't see Scahill as much more than a hypocrite and a party to mass murder, if that's what he believes it is.

  •  Has anyone seen any evidence of unexploded (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    VClib

    cluster bombs in Yemen?

  •  Despicable, deranged coverage. (0+ / 0-)

    It's just another example of the fact that "left" doesn't necessarily mean liberal, progressive, or reality-based.

    Our Germans are better zan zeyr Germans.

    by Troubadour on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 02:56:32 PM PDT

    •  Liberal... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashoil, kurt, chipmo

      or progressive doesn't figure into this.  However, I consider it pretty "reality based" to admit the fact that President Barack Obama ordered this strike, which killed many civilians in a nation with which we are not at war.  He has also ordered many, many, many other similar strikes, some of which also killed civilians (including children); targeted and killed American citizens without due process, in violation of the Constitution...an impeachable offense; and authorized "signature strikes" based on patterns of behavior and groupings of individuals, regardless of whether we know who these people are or what they are actually doing.  Loading hay into a truck?  Could be hiding RPG's.  Kill them.  Meeting of a village shura council (like a town council here)?  Could be a meeting of militant leaders.  Kill them.  See the teenage son of an American citizen you already killed?  Meh...he could resent the fact that you killed his dad.  Kill him.

      If George W. Bush had ordered these strikes, you'd likely be leading the charge with diaries condemning it as a war crime and calling for him to be handed over to the Hague.  Rank partisan hypocrisy.

    •  I'm sure you hated Scahill (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Beelzebud

      when he was exposing Blackwater as well.

      The bourgeoisie had better watch out for me, all throughout this so called nation. We don't want your filthy money, we don't need your innocent bloodshed, we just want to end your world. ~H.R.

      by chipmo on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 06:26:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Blackwater isn't an issue now. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        chipmo

        Academi (formerly called Blackwater, then formerly called Xe) was given another 250 million dollars to do some dirty work for the current admin, so they're now fine and dandy, and Scahill is "deranged".  

        See how this works?   Isn't partisanship great!  

        A few years ago Blackwater was top news around here, and Scahill was looked upon as an honest journalist.   Now that "our team" is in charge, everything gets flipped.   War is peace, Xe is Academi, and no one gives a shit what they're doing now.  

        The Patriot Act: IOKIYAD!

        by Beelzebud on Mon Jun 04, 2012 at 10:52:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  you cant have war with zero casaulties (5+ / 0-)

    among civilians, so you have three choices:

    1. indiscriminate war, which is what we had in all of human history up to more or less Vietnam.

    2. no war (duh)

    3. war where you try to limit casualties as much as possible but still recognize they are inevitable

    Since 2 isn't happening, then you are going to have civilian deaths.

  •  Glad Scahill is just a raving (0+ / 0-)

    maniac guesting on #uppers and not to be taken seriously.

  •  Eh, he's a Democrat, he gets a free pass. (5+ / 0-)

    If this had been going on during the Bush years, this site would have front page articles about it.  

    The Patriot Act: IOKIYAD!

    by Beelzebud on Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 08:15:11 PM PDT

  •  Please sign! (0+ / 0-)

    Petition to WH  to create a  "do not kill" list.  I joined some 4,000 plus  who have signed on.

  •  What was most interesting to me about (0+ / 0-)

    that whole exchange Saturday was that near the end, the military guy turned to Scahill, and said, since there are people activily planning to kill Americans, there are only two ways to address that. You don't like drones shooting at people from the sky, then you put on the uniform and go chase the terrorist on the ground. I am paraphasing, it is not a direct quote, but it is very close. Scahill was silent for the duration of the program. Because its much easier to sit on the sidelines throwing stones than to sit in the hot seat of the one who has the responsibility of doing everything he can to protect Americans. The war approach or the targeted killing. How many soilders did we lose with the war approach? How many innocents died with that approach? Nothing Obama does is ever viewed in context. If he sits in the White House wringing his hands and hoping the terrorist don't get through and one does, he will surely get the blame for that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site