I’d like everyone whose mind is unclouded by the radical hatred of America to read these two paragraph from the Washington Times in which Eli Lake interviews Terrorism adviser John Brennan. Brennan says:
Dozens of Americans have joined terrorist groups and are posing a threat to the United States and its interests abroad, the president’s most senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security said Thursday. . . . “There are, in my mind, dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world, and they are very concerning to us,” said John O. Brennan, deputy White House national security adviser for homeland security and counterterrorism. . . .
“If a person is a U.S. citizen, and he is on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq trying to attack our troops, he will face the full brunt of the U.S. military response,” Mr. Brennan said. “If an American person or citizen is in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place, and they are trying to carry out attacks against U.S. interests, they also will face the full brunt of a U.S. response. And it can take many forms.”
The understanding of most sane people would be, “Oh, excellent, Brennan is saying that we’re going to attack terrorists. This is much better than him buying the Taqiyya spin and claiming that Jihad is a legitimate spiritual practice instead of religious-sanctioned war.”
But to Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, the above passage is a confirmation of his wildest fears of Fascist NeoCon Warmongering:
Brennan strongly suggests that the number of U.S. citizens targeted for assassination could actually be “dozens”… Nobody — or at least not me — disputes the right of the U.S. or any other country to kill someone on an actual battlefield during war without due process. That’s just obvious, but that’s not remotely what Brennan is talking about, and it’s not remotely what this assassination program is about. Indeed, Brennan explicitly identified two indistinguishable groups of American citizens who “will face the full brunt of a U.S. response”: (1) those “on the battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq”; and (2)those “in a Yemen or in a Pakistan or in Somalia or another place.” In other words, the entire world is a “battlefield” — countries where there is a war and countries where there isn’t — and the President’s “battlefield” powers, which are unlimited, extend everywhere. That theory — the whole world is a battlefield, even the U.S. — was the core premise that spawned 8 years of Bush/Cheney radicalism, and it has been adopted in full by the Obama administration (indeed, it was that “whole-world-is-a-battlefield” theory which Elena Kagan explicitly endorsed during her confirmation hearing for Solicitor General).
Now, maybe it’s just me but how does “full brunt of a U.S. response” translate into “assassination”?
Oh, that’s right it doesn’t. Except for braindead leftists who are so deluded in their thinking that they choose to side with the humanitarian wing of Hamas over democratic Israel.