Glenn Greenwald Explains why You should care about the 150 Dead “Terrorists” in Somalia

Last week, the US bombed Somalia, killing at least 150 people.  Did I say people? I meant terrorists! Slip of the tongue really, because the Obama Administration stated immediately after the bombings that those killed were terrorists. That clearly means that there was no chance at all that any of the people killed were innocent civilians!

The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald noted that, as usual, the mainstream news took the administration’s statement and ran with it without criticism, without calling for any evidence of its claims.

He pointed out a New York Times article, which stated that dead alleged al Shabab “fighters … were assembled for what American officials believe was a graduation ceremony and prelude to an imminent attack against American troops.”

Indeed, as flimsy a story as a graduation ceremony for terrorists (cold-blooded killers of women and children needing to be given a tearful send-off by proud instructors after a grueling training where bonding, camaraderie and literally life-long friendships were formed) sounds, this assumption that the government can’t ever be wrong. and won’t ever lie is at least part of  the reason why the US can continue to claim a paltry 21 civilian deaths in strikes in Syria. (The other part being its non-existent “investigations” of civilian deaths ).

Anyway, Greenwald pointed out several other important tidbits that nobody in the mainstream media seems to care about.

1) First of all, this one should be obvious, the US isn’t at war with Somalia! Congress never declared war on that country and never okayed the use of military force. The Obama administration thus possesses no legal authority to injure one person in that country, much less kill 150 “terrorists” there.

There is a qualification though: Thanks to the September 11th-inspired Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Obama is allowed (by US Congress, anyway) to bomb anyone who “poses a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons.” That nobody is quite so keen as to ascertain whether or not these 150 people were indeed terrorists, who presented any threat at all to the US, is amazing. Perhaps they’re fed up with finding out that they keep bombing weddings? As mentioned before, you can’t figure out how many civilians you’ve killed, or the legality of your bombing, if you don’t bother to investigate the aftermath…

(Sidetrack: does nobody remember what General Wesley Clark said in 2007? In an interview with Democracy Now, he explicitly mentions seeing a memo that “describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in 5 years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”

Somalia is actually on that list, though the country’s date with destiny has clearly been postponed. 3 of 7 nations on that list have already been “taken out”.

2) The second thing Greenwald points out is how “truthful” the US government has been so far.

Definitions can affect the “truth” of what gets reported. What is the definition of a militant to the US government? Well, a militant is basically anybody old enough to hold a gun, or “all military-age males in a strike zone” unless “there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”

Whatever happened to “innocent unless proven guilty?” A more appropriate phrase might be “guilty, guilty, guilty-boom! Maybe guilty…who cares?”

It’s obscene that a male civilian who is between 18 (maybe lower?) and 50 (maybe higher?), who minds his own business, could be killed as a militant; unless of course he’s somehow able to dig himself out of the ashes and prove that he wasn’t…

Next time,  government officials should have to prove that they’re not militants. Also, that they aren’t psychopaths afflicted with a variety of STDs.

Further, 9 of 10 people killed by “targeted” drone strikes aren’t even the intended target. A New York Times piece points out that  “every independent investigation of the strikes has found far more civilian casualties than administration officials admit”- revealing  their figures on civilian deaths to be no more than clever lies.

3) US troops are not supposed to be in Somalia; they are there however to protect the lives of US troops. Their presence is thus to defend the lives of… wait for it…themselves. There wouldn’t be an alleged threat they needed to defend against, if they weren’t there to begin with. Yet there they are. Defending it.

4) His final point is perhaps most disturbing of all; he reserves his final criticism not for the US government, but for the people who have largely been playing the tragically-abused-victim role in this abusive relationship: the US citizen.

Citizens who don’t even raise an eyebrow when the “bad guys” being killed breaks the news…no questions need to be asked, no evidence needs to be presented. We’ve all been numbed to the continuous bombings.

Citizens who idealize the actions of  their government no matter what.  People who have not just forgotten the hundreds of thousands killed in Iraq for no reason, allowing al Qaeda to take root there, but who instead rush head-log into a euphoric manifest destiny to “make America great again.” Citizens who aren’t just deceived into believing government lies… but badly want to be deceived.

While this clearly isn’t true for everyone, and less so in this day of free information than any period prior, it does explain why America has been at war for 93% of its life.  Only in hindsight is the tragedy caused by war recognized, yet it has never provided the foresight necessary to prevent future tragedies.
Sources: The Intercept, USA Today, Global Research, Washingtons Blog

This article (Glenn Greenwald Explains why You should care about the 150 Dead “Terrorists” in Somalia) is a free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to the author(CoNN) and AnonHQ.com.