04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

What Difference Does It Make?

The Hill sheds light on the nagging problem of why, despite a presidential vow to bring the Benghazi consulate attackers to justice, they are still free as birds.

The U.S. military cannot hunt down and kill people responsible for the deadly 2012 attack on an American compound in Benghazi, Libya, as long as the terrorists are not officially deemed members or affiliates of al Qaeda, newly declassified transcripts from congressional hearings show.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey in testimony on Oct. 10 said the Pentagon’s hands are tied because the groups involved are not covered by the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The AUMF law allows U.S. attacks anywhere in the world only on al Qaeda and “associated forces.”

“The individuals related in the Benghazi attack, those that we believe were either participants or leadership of it, are not ‘authorized use of military force,’ ” Gen. Dempsey told the House Armed Services Committee in his classified testimony during a closed hearing.

The transcript was released on Monday.

“In other words, they don’t fall under the AUMF authorized by the Congress of the United States. So we would not have the capacity to simply find them and kill them either with a remotely-piloted aircraft or with an assault on the ground,” Dempsey said.

In other words, you have to treat the attackers as if they were motivated by a video. What a difference a labeling makes.

The militarization of U.S. domestic law enforcement spurred some Internet wag to post the rhetorical picture below. When did cops become an occupying army? But the question can be flipped. Since when did the Department of National Defense start acting like the Department of Justice?

But if you're a terrorist it's the other way around But if you're a terrorist it's the other way around

Since when? Since lawfare was invented. It's a marvelous artifice.  It came in two phases. First, war was declared on an array variable [drugs, terror, poverty …]; and second, it was  determined that all wars against that variable would henceforth become law enforcement problems. We are pushing elements into the array. We never pop them. Global Warming almost got pushed into the array. Samantha Power was advocating for multiple inserts into this array. Soon America will be at war with lots and lots of things, but not in a way that a World War 2 historian would recognize.

The people who prosecute that war will be military-like cops or a cop-like military. Dempsey's testimony illustrates the unintended effect of "lawfare." Not only has justice become militarized, war has now become a matter for the courts. The reversal, if not complete, is now well underway. The enemy is who?