Nixon bombed and killed hundreds of thousands when he was in power. Obama shoots people down with drones. Anyone killed in the drone attack is assumed to be combatant, this is to say after they are dead. But on the other hand that only applies to men, of course. It's only decent.
Chomsky writes about top-secret government documents that he has obtained. He clearly explains: it is an open society, that's how he could get copies of these documents. Makes sense, huh? There are two documents in particular that he has that he writes about. He identifies them. There are letters and document numbers on them. There is the "extreme" position of Nitze (I think), but the other, the "liberal" document is also an extreme position, Kennan's. Both Nitze and Kennan hate what they call "Communism." But the word is senseless (it becomes rhetorically real for them; they invoke Communism).
So, given that history, what exactly is the New York Times up to these day? Well, do not know. So, I had better finish reading the article in Monday's edition, front page, right hand column (col. 6). It would probably help to read the article, duh. I have it here, 'in hand,' as Heidegger says. "...[E]ach skull...is uniformly punctured by a single bullet entry hole at the back."
It turns out that "researchers" want to "hold accountable" the violence people, the harm-doers.
Their task is to stop these sorts of conflicts. The preparers of the study are the "Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission."There are thousands of people in Af (I mean in any society - in most societies) that could have done these things. But only a few that actually became leaders and carried out the slaughters. For their pluck and their individual initiative, for their and drive to be the best, we prosecute. But, that's the American way and the Afghans will need to get live with it. So...
We should just keep on ramping up the pressure until 2014 when we leave.
Once again we marvel at the superior humanity of the international human rights experts.
Not to mention, the U. S.
The problem of course (and Chomsky already revealed all of this) is that when American presidents do this, they do not get punished. We are sacrosanct. The human rights investigators are prosecuting Afghans, not Americans. The Americans are still killing with impunity. (Which the N.Y.T. also revealed happened in Iraq, when they got their hands on some documents the Marines accidentally left behind.)
These international activists and their U. S. supporters have nothing to lose. They have no generals to obey, no countries to defend. They are thus in a perfect position to pass judgement on others.
If these same rights advocates were caught in a war and had to kill or be killed, which come to think of it would be just the position the human rights violators were in, it would be interesting to see their behavior. But they may never be caught in such a position. You know what I think? I think that is just the whole point.
They have power. They are pure. Their hands are clean.
You committed the atrocity. I didn't. Gotchya! I'm the one with power.
We are entering into a new period – a magical one – where human rights advocates tap rights violators on the head with magic wands, causing them to become "accounted for" and given justice.