The Merriam-Webster definition of imminent is: “ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one’s head.”
The latest double-speak regarding the use of imminent danger to the “homeland” was the recent revelation that the Khorasan Group was planning to carry out a terror plot on the U.S. and that they were more dangerous than ISIS. The problem is that no one in Syria seems to have heard of the Khorasan Group.
This group of terrorists was introduced to us last month and as suddenly as they appeared seems to have disappeared. I have not heard or seen any reference to them since the first day I was introduced.
What does that mean?
Jeremy Scahill, during an appearance on Democracy Now! explained: “The Obama administration has, in a very Orwellian way, changed the definition of commonly understood terms—primarily, the term “imminent.” They were saying that the Khorasan Group represented an imminent threat to the United States. But we know from a leaked white paper, that was put out in advance of John Brennan’s confirmation to be the CIA director, that the Justice Department actually has officially changed the definition of the word “imminent” so that it does not need to involve an immediate threat against the United States, that it could be a perception that maybe one day these individuals could possibly attempt to plot—not even carry out—a terrorist attack against the United States. That flimsy justification has been used now to expand this war from Iraq to Syria, potentially beyond.”
As I’ve said on many occasions, the Obama administration is trying very hard to find justification to get into Syria. The U.S. wants regime change so that we can establish a government friendlier to the U.S. and our corporations’ bottom line. The immediate translation means unhampered access to oil and gas reserves in that country. Mr. Assad, although not a very nice guy, has other plans and priorities. As the saying goes, he is not our “bastard” as was Saddam Hussein for many years.
The rationale for attacking Iraq was that Saddam was an “imminent” threat to the U.S. because he had built an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and we didn’t want to wait to see a mushroom cloud in the United States.
Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi in Lybia, and Bashar al-Assad in Syria are all dictators and have committed violent acts against thousands of people. Shouldn’t we support regime changes and help these countries establish a free and democratic society?
This is the stated goal of the U.S. but that is more for public relations than a goal of substance. The last thing the U.S. is concerned with is freedom and democracy.
For example, Salvadore Allende was the elected president of Chile who, when elected in 1970, adopted a policy of nationalization of industries. This did not sit well with the U.S. that has no tolerance for any country that wishes to reap the benefits of their resources and industries. And so, it engineered a coup in 1973 in which Allende was overthrown and Augusto Pinochet installed, not elected, to head the government. Thousands of Chileans who did not support this military government, were murdered. Pinochet ruled from 1973 to 1990 and was considered an ally of the U.S.
Then there is Francois Duvalier, also known as “Papa Doc” who ruled Haiti from 1957 to 1971. His rule resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and the exile of many more. He was succeeded by his son, Jean-Claude, who was nicknamed “Baby Doc,” who
maintained a notoriously lavish lifestyle (including a state-sponsored US$2 million wedding in 1980), and made millions from involvement in the drug trade and from selling body parts from dead Haitians, while poverty among his people remained the most widespread of any country in the Western Hemisphere.
Relations with the United States improved after “Baby Doc” Duvalier’s ascension to the presidency.
Then there is the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. Although Chavez was democratically elected, the U.S. supported a coup to overthrow his regime. What was his crime? Chavez had the chutzpah to nationalize several industries and increased government spending on health care and education. It is well recognized that these policies are anti-American.
Instead we find that we, the U.S., are supporting the new Ukraine government, which in February overthrew the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. Furthermore, this newly formed Ukrainian government is dominated by fascists and neo-Nazis. But, who cares, as long as the U.S. has a friendly face in a position of power.
Prior to the U.S. invasion in Iraq, there was no al Qaeda in that country. Now we are in Iraq and Syria bombing ISIS. Who is ISIS and what “imminent” threat do they make to the security of the U.S.?
One of the top military commanders of ISIS is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri al-Takriti, a Baathist, who was one of Hussein’s top military officers. And, now hear this, he was and is no religious, jihadist fanatic. He was a secular Baathist.
He, and many like him, were part of Hussein’s Baathist army. When Paul Bremer was put in charge of the Iraqi occupation, he fired close to 250,000 Iraqi soldiers who were part of the Baath Party. On that day, we made 250,000 new enemies, experienced military men, who were left unemployed and felt betrayed by the U.S. in Iraq. Then the U.S. placed a Shiite government under Nouri al-Maliki that operated groups of death squads that systematically attacked Sunnis.
What’s my point? The U.S. continues, through its violence against the Islamic world, to create another generation of angry, disenfranchised people who will be targeted because they, also, will present an “imminent” threat to the U.S.
Are there other applications of the “imminent” threat policy? Of course there is. In May of 2013, the Obama administration targeted and killed, Anwar al-Awlaki, United States citizen. What was his crime?
Awlaki was a radical Muslim cleric, born in New Mexico, and, at the time of his death, living in Yemen. Awlaki made anti-U.S. speeches to members of his congregation and encouraged Muslims to confront and fight U.S. imperialism. The crime of “imminent” threat was that sometime in the future he might have been involved in a terrorist act in the U.S.
Two weeks later, Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Denver, Colorado, was targeted and killed. The explanation offered by U.S. officials was that because of who his father was, he might someday grow into a terrorist and commit acts against our homeland.
I have a personal investment in this whole issue. Much of my writings have challenged U.S. imperialism, Israeli genocide, and the criminal capitalistic system. Will I, at some time, appear on Obama’s kill list and designated for assassination? Will I be considered an enemy of the state? I don’t think I’m that important, but who knows.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.
RSS
Redefining imminent
Posted on October 24, 2014 by Dave Alpert
The Merriam-Webster definition of imminent is: “ready to take place; especially: hanging threateningly over one’s head.”
The latest double-speak regarding the use of imminent danger to the “homeland” was the recent revelation that the Khorasan Group was planning to carry out a terror plot on the U.S. and that they were more dangerous than ISIS. The problem is that no one in Syria seems to have heard of the Khorasan Group.
This group of terrorists was introduced to us last month and as suddenly as they appeared seems to have disappeared. I have not heard or seen any reference to them since the first day I was introduced.
What does that mean?
Jeremy Scahill, during an appearance on Democracy Now! explained: “The Obama administration has, in a very Orwellian way, changed the definition of commonly understood terms—primarily, the term “imminent.” They were saying that the Khorasan Group represented an imminent threat to the United States. But we know from a leaked white paper, that was put out in advance of John Brennan’s confirmation to be the CIA director, that the Justice Department actually has officially changed the definition of the word “imminent” so that it does not need to involve an immediate threat against the United States, that it could be a perception that maybe one day these individuals could possibly attempt to plot—not even carry out—a terrorist attack against the United States. That flimsy justification has been used now to expand this war from Iraq to Syria, potentially beyond.”
As I’ve said on many occasions, the Obama administration is trying very hard to find justification to get into Syria. The U.S. wants regime change so that we can establish a government friendlier to the U.S. and our corporations’ bottom line. The immediate translation means unhampered access to oil and gas reserves in that country. Mr. Assad, although not a very nice guy, has other plans and priorities. As the saying goes, he is not our “bastard” as was Saddam Hussein for many years.
The rationale for attacking Iraq was that Saddam was an “imminent” threat to the U.S. because he had built an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and we didn’t want to wait to see a mushroom cloud in the United States.
Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi in Lybia, and Bashar al-Assad in Syria are all dictators and have committed violent acts against thousands of people. Shouldn’t we support regime changes and help these countries establish a free and democratic society?
This is the stated goal of the U.S. but that is more for public relations than a goal of substance. The last thing the U.S. is concerned with is freedom and democracy.
For example, Salvadore Allende was the elected president of Chile who, when elected in 1970, adopted a policy of nationalization of industries. This did not sit well with the U.S. that has no tolerance for any country that wishes to reap the benefits of their resources and industries. And so, it engineered a coup in 1973 in which Allende was overthrown and Augusto Pinochet installed, not elected, to head the government. Thousands of Chileans who did not support this military government, were murdered. Pinochet ruled from 1973 to 1990 and was considered an ally of the U.S.
Then there is Francois Duvalier, also known as “Papa Doc” who ruled Haiti from 1957 to 1971. His rule resulted in the murder of an estimated 30,000 Haitians and the exile of many more. He was succeeded by his son, Jean-Claude, who was nicknamed “Baby Doc,” who
maintained a notoriously lavish lifestyle (including a state-sponsored US$2 million wedding in 1980), and made millions from involvement in the drug trade and from selling body parts from dead Haitians, while poverty among his people remained the most widespread of any country in the Western Hemisphere.
Relations with the United States improved after “Baby Doc” Duvalier’s ascension to the presidency.
Then there is the late Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez. Although Chavez was democratically elected, the U.S. supported a coup to overthrow his regime. What was his crime? Chavez had the chutzpah to nationalize several industries and increased government spending on health care and education. It is well recognized that these policies are anti-American.
Instead we find that we, the U.S., are supporting the new Ukraine government, which in February overthrew the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovych. Furthermore, this newly formed Ukrainian government is dominated by fascists and neo-Nazis. But, who cares, as long as the U.S. has a friendly face in a position of power.
Prior to the U.S. invasion in Iraq, there was no al Qaeda in that country. Now we are in Iraq and Syria bombing ISIS. Who is ISIS and what “imminent” threat do they make to the security of the U.S.?
One of the top military commanders of ISIS is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri al-Takriti, a Baathist, who was one of Hussein’s top military officers. And, now hear this, he was and is no religious, jihadist fanatic. He was a secular Baathist.
He, and many like him, were part of Hussein’s Baathist army. When Paul Bremer was put in charge of the Iraqi occupation, he fired close to 250,000 Iraqi soldiers who were part of the Baath Party. On that day, we made 250,000 new enemies, experienced military men, who were left unemployed and felt betrayed by the U.S. in Iraq. Then the U.S. placed a Shiite government under Nouri al-Maliki that operated groups of death squads that systematically attacked Sunnis.
What’s my point? The U.S. continues, through its violence against the Islamic world, to create another generation of angry, disenfranchised people who will be targeted because they, also, will present an “imminent” threat to the U.S.
Are there other applications of the “imminent” threat policy? Of course there is. In May of 2013, the Obama administration targeted and killed, Anwar al-Awlaki, United States citizen. What was his crime?
Awlaki was a radical Muslim cleric, born in New Mexico, and, at the time of his death, living in Yemen. Awlaki made anti-U.S. speeches to members of his congregation and encouraged Muslims to confront and fight U.S. imperialism. The crime of “imminent” threat was that sometime in the future he might have been involved in a terrorist act in the U.S.
Two weeks later, Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Denver, Colorado, was targeted and killed. The explanation offered by U.S. officials was that because of who his father was, he might someday grow into a terrorist and commit acts against our homeland.
I have a personal investment in this whole issue. Much of my writings have challenged U.S. imperialism, Israeli genocide, and the criminal capitalistic system. Will I, at some time, appear on Obama’s kill list and designated for assassination? Will I be considered an enemy of the state? I don’t think I’m that important, but who knows.
Dave Alpert has masters degrees in social work, educational administration, and psychology. He spent his career working with troubled inner city adolescents.