<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18876">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=center>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><A
href="http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.cgi/www.salonmagazine.com/extra/crazyheart@Top"
target=_blank><IMG border=0 alt=""
src="http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.cgi/extra/crazyheart@Top"></A><FONT
size=2><A
href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/05/lynch_mobs/print.html"
target=_blank>http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/05/lynch_mobs/print.html</A></FONT><BR
clear=all></DIV></DIV><FONT size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">
<P><BR><FONT size=+0><FONT size=3 face="times new roman, times, serif">Feb. 5,
2010 </FONT></FONT><BR></P></FONT><FONT size=4><B>The lynch-mob
mentality</B></FONT><FONT face="georgia, times new roman, times, serif">
<BR><BR></FONT><FONT size=2 face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><B>At least
Salem witch hunters gave pretenses of trials before burning their fellow
citizens at the stake. </B></FONT><B></B>
<P></P>
<P><B>Glenn Greenwald</B></P><FONT size=3 face="times new roman, times, serif">
<P><B>(updated below)</B> </P>
<P></P>
<P>If I had the power to have one statement of fact be universally
recognized in our political discussions, it would be this one:</P>
<P></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><B>The fact that the Government labels Person X a "Terrorist" is not
proof that Person X is, in fact, a Terrorist.</B> </P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P></P>
<P>That proposition should be intrinsically understood by any American who
completed sixth grade civics and was thus taught that a central prong of our
political system is that government officials often abuse their power and/or err
and therefore must <B>prove</B> accusations to be true (with tested
evidence) before they're assumed to be true and the person punished
accordingly. In particular, the fact that the U.S. Government, <A
href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/319/story/74970.html" target=_blank>over and
over,</A> has falsely accused numerous people of being Terrorists -- only for it
to turn out that <A href="http://twitter.com/deviatar/status/2953061297"
target=_blank>they did nothing wrong</A> -- by itself should compel a
recognition of this truth. But it doesn't. </P>
<P></P>
<P>All throughout the Bush years, no matter what one objected to -- illegal
eavesdropping, torture, rendition, indefinite detention, denial of civilian
trials -- the response from Bush followers was the same: <B>"But
these are <I>Terrorists</I>, and Terrorists have no rights, so who cares what is
done to them?"</B> What they actually meant
was: "the Government has <B>claimed</B> they are Terrorists,"
but in their minds, that was the same thing as: "they <B>are</B>
Terrorists." They recognized no distinction between "a government
accusation" and "unchallengeable truth"; in the authoritarian's mind, by
definition, those are synonymous. The whole point of the Bush-era
controversies was that -- away from an actual battlefield and where the
Constitution applies (on U.S. soil and/or towards American citizens wherever
they are) -- the Government should have to <B>demonstrate</B> someone's guilt
before it's assumed (<U>e.g.</U>, they should have to show probable cause to a
court and obtain warrants before eavesdropping; they should have to offer
evidence that a person engaged in Terrorism before locking them in a cage,
etc.). But to someone who equates unproven government accusations with
proof, those processes are entirely unnecessary. Even in the absence of
those processes, they already <B>know</B> that these persons are
Terrorists. How do they know that? Because the Government said
so. Even when it comes to their fellow citizens, that's all the "proof"
that is needed.</P>
<P></P>
<P>That authoritarian mentality is stronger than ever now.
Why? Because unlike during the Bush years, when it was primarily
Republicans willing to blindly trust Government accusations, many Democrats are
now willing to do so as well. Just look at the reaction to the
Government's recent attempts to assassinate the U.S.-born American citizen and
Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Up until last November, virtually no
Americans had ever even heard of al-Awlaki. But in the past few months,
beginning with the Fort Hood shootings, government officials have repeatedly
claimed that he's a Terrorist: usually anonymously, with virtually no
evidence, and in the face of al-Awlaki's vehement denials but without any
opportunity for him to defend himself (because he's in hiding out of fear of
being killed by his own Government). The Government can literally just
flash someone's face on the TV screen with the word Terrorist over it (as
was done with al-Awlaki), and provided the face is nefarious and Muslim-looking
enough (basically the same thing), nothing else need be offered.</P>
<P></P>
<P>That's enough for many people -- including many Democrats -- to <A
href="http://thepoorman.net/2010/02/04/obamas-death-squads-are-coming-for-you/"
target=_blank>march forward overnight and mindlessly proclaim</A> that al-Awlaki
is "a declared enemy of the United States working to kill Americans" (if you can
stomach it, read <A
href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/2/4/833786/-Obama-Administrationassassinating-US-citizens"
target=_blank>some of these comments -- from Obama defenders at a liberal
blog</A> -- with several sounding exactly like Dick Cheney, screeching:
"Of course al-Awlaki should be killed without charges; he's a Terrorist
who is trying to kill Americans!!!"). Even now, beyond government
assertions about his associations, the public knows virtually nothing about
al-Awlaki other than the fact that he's a <A
href="http://nimg.sulekha.com/others/original700/anwar-al-awlaki-2010-1-7-7-10-42.jpg"
target=_blank>Muslim cleric with a Muslim name dressed in Muslim garb</A>,
sitting in a Bad Arab Country expressing anger towards the actions of
the U.S. and Israel. But no matter. That's more than
enough. They're willing not only to mindlessly embrace the Government's
unproven accusation that their <B>fellow citizen</B> is a TERRORIST ("a
declared enemy of the United States working to kill Americans"), but even beyond
that, to cheer for his <B>due-process-free execution</B> like drunken fans at a
football game. And the same people declare: no civilian trials
are necessary for Terrorists (meaning: people accused by
the Government of being Terrorists). Even more amazingly, the
identities of <A
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010012700394"
target=_blank>the other Americans on the hit list aren't even known</A>, but
that's OK: they're Terrorists, because the Government said so.</P>
<P></P>
<P>A very long time ago, I would be baffled when I'd read about things like
the Salem witch hunts. How could so many people be collectively worked up
into that level of irrational frenzy, where they cheered for people's torturous
death as "witches" without any real due process or meaningful
evidence? But all one has to do is look at our current Terrorism debates
and it's easy to see how things like that happen. It's just pure mob
mentality: an authority figure appears and affixes a demonizing Other
label to someone's forehead, and the adoring crowd -- frothing-at-the-mouth and
feeding on each other's hatred, fears and desire to be lead -- demands
"justice." I imagine that if one could travel back in time to
the Salem era in order to speak with some of those gathered outside an
accused witch's home, screaming for her to be killed, the conversation would go
something like this:</P>
<P></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P><B><U>Mob Participant</U></B>: Hang the Witch!!! Kill
her!!!</P>
<P><B><U>Far Left Civil Liberties Extremist-Purist
("FLCLE-P")</U></B>: How do you know she's a witch?</P>
<P><B><U>Mob Participant</U></B>: Didn't you just hear the
government official say so?</P>
<P><B><U>FLCLE-P</U></B>: But don't you want to see real evidence
before you assume that's true and call for her death?</P>
<P><B><U>Mob Participant</U></B>: You just heard the
evidence! The magistrate said she's a witch!</P>
<P><B><U>FLCLE-P</U></B>: But shouldn't there be a real trial
first, with tangible evidence and due process protections, to see if the
accusation is actually true?</P>
<P><B><U>Mob Participant</U></B>: A "real" trial? She's a
witch! She's trying to curse us and kill us all. She got more than
what she deserved. Witches don't have rights!!!</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Return to Question 1.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P></P>
<P>That's essentially how I hear our debates over Terrorism, and how I've
heard them for quite some time. And it's how I hear them more loudly
now than ever before. And with those deeply confused premises now locked
into place on a bipartisan basis ("no trials are needed to determine if someone
is a Terrorist because Terrorists don't have rights"), imagine how much louder
that will get if there is another successful terrorist attack in
the U.S. But in fairness to the 17th Century Puritans, at least the
Salem witches received <A href="http://etext.virginia.edu/salem/witchcraft/"
target=_blank>pretenses of due process and even trials</A> (albeit with
coerced confessions and speculative hearsay). Even when it comes to our
fellow citizens, we don't even bother with those. For us, the mere
accusation by our leaders is sufficient: <I>Kill that American Terrorist
with a drone!</I></P>
<P></P>
<P></P>
<P><U><B>UPDATE</B></U>: A long-time, regular commenter here,
Jestaplero, is a state prosecutor in New York, and he explains -- <A
href="http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2010/02/05/lynch_mobs/permalink/90e15d84829615c32b10e456a5b240a4.html"
target=_blank>in this comment</A> -- how the mentality discussed here can and
does easily expand beyond the realm of Terrorism.</P>
<P></P>
<P>Interestingly, even Allahpundit at Michelle Malkin's <I>Hot Air</I> <A
href="http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/04/abdulmutallab-the-fort-hood-jihadis-spiritual-advisor-told-me-to-blow-up-the-plane/"
target=_blank>recognizes the serious dangers</A> in allowing the Government to
decree even U.S. citizens to be "Terrorists" and then treat them
accordingly, with no due process. But note how his right-wing commenters
are almost exclusively of the "just-kill-him" school of thought, and how
identical they sound to that minority of Daily Kos commenters I linked above
who, in their blind loyalty to Obama, also insist that there's nothing wrong
with simply snuffing out the lives of their fellow citizens who are
"Terrorists" (meaning: anyone their Leader <B>claims</B> is a
Terrorist) with no due process or oversight whatsoever. Ultimately,
authoritarians are authoritarians, regardless of whether they situate themselves
on the left or right.</P></FONT><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></FONT>
<P align=right><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><B>-- Glenn Greenwald</B></FONT></P>
<DIV align=center>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: center; CLEAR: both"><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></FONT>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></FONT></DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2
face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"></FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>