Intensive research refutes US claim drone attacks are surgically precise with minimal collateral damage

Report recommends US conduct fundamental re-evaluation of targeted killing practices

No 577 Posted by fw September 25, 2012

“Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.” —Living Under Drones

Following is the Executive Summary and Recommendations of the Living Under Drones report.

For the complete 182-page report, click on this link — Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan, by International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law School) and Global Justice Clinic (NYU School of Law). September 25, 2012

Executive Summary and Recommendations

In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.[1]

This narrative is false.

Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.

Real threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed. However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.

It is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current policies into account. 

First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.”[2] It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.[3] TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals. 

Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.

Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%.[4] Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.”^[5] Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani rel­ations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.^[6]

Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.

In light of these concerns, this report recommends that the US conduct a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices, taking into account all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and the short and long-term costs and benefits. A significant rethinking of current US targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue. US policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of US targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.

This report also supports and reiterates the calls consistently made by rights groups and others for legality, accountability, and transparency in US drone strike policies:

• The US should fulfill its international obligations with respect to accountability and transparency, and ensure proper democratic debate about key policies. The US should:
  • Release the US Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis for US targeted killing in Pakistan;
  • Make public critical information concerning US drone strike policies, including as previously and repeatedly reques­ted by various groups and officials:[7] the tar­geting criteria for so-called “signature” strikes; the mechanisms in place to ensure that targeting complies with international law; which laws are being applied; the nature of investigations into civilian death and injury; and mechanisms in place to track, analyze and publicly recognize civilian casualties;[8]
  • Ensure independent investigations into drone strike deaths, consistent with the call made by Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in August 2012;[9]
  • In conjunction with robust investigations and, where appropriate, prosecutions, establish compensation programs for civilians harmed by US strikes in Pakistan.
• The US should fulfill its international humanitarian and human rights law obligations with respect to the use of force, including by not using lethal force against individuals who are not members of armed groups with whom the US is in an armed conflict, or otherwise against individuals not posing an imminent threat to life. This includes not double-striking targets as first responders arrive.
  • Journalists and media outlets should cease the common practice of referring simply to “militant” deaths, without further explanation. All reporting of government accounts of “militant” deaths should include acknowledgment that the US government counts all adult males killed by strikes as “militants,” absent exonerating evidence. Media accounts relying on anonymous government sources should also highlight the fact of their single-source information and of the past record of false government reports.

Endnotes

[1] The US publicly describes its drone program in terms of its unprecedented ability to “distinguish … effectively between an al Qaeda terrorist and innocent civilians,” and touts its missile-armed drones as capable of conducting strikes with “astonishing” and “surgical” precision. See, e.g., John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, The Efficacy and Ethics of U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy, Remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Apr. 30, 2012), available at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy.

[2] See Obama Administration Counterterrorism Strategy (C-Span television broadcast June 29, 2011), http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/AdministrationCo; see also Strategic Considerations, infra Chapter 5: Strategic Considerations; Contradictions Chart, infra Appendix C.

[3] Covert War on Terror, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/ (last visited Sept. 12, 2012).

[4] Peter Bergen & Megan Braun, Drone is Obama’s Weapon of Choice, CNN (Sept. 6, 2012),http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html.

[5] Jo Becker & Scott Shane, Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will, N.Y. Times (May 29, 2012),http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all.

[6] Pew Research Center, Pakistani Public Opinion Ever More Critical of U.S.: 74% Call America an Enemy (2012),available at http://www.pewglobal.org/files/2012/06/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Project-Pakistan-Report-FINAL-Wednesday-June-27-2012.pdf.

[7] See, e.g., Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Study on Targeted Killings, Human Rights Council, UN Doc. A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 (May 28, 2010) (by Philip Alston), available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf; US: Transfer CIA Drone Strikes to Military, Human Rights Watch (Apr. 20, 2012), http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/20/us-transfer-cia-drone-strikes-military; Letter from Amnesty International et al. to Barack Obama, President of the United States (May 31, 2012),available at http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/1242.

[8] Letter from Amnesty International et al., supra note 7.

[9] Terri Judd, UN ‘Should Hand Over Footage of Drone Strikes or Face UN Inquiry’, Independent (Aug. 20, 2012),http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/us-should-hand-over-footage-of-drone-strikes-or-face-un-inquiry-8061504.html.

SEE ALSO

• Study Finds U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Miss Militant Targets and “Terrorize” Civilians, published by DemocracyNow.org, September 26, 2012. “The new drone study concludes most of the militants killed in the strikes have been low-level targets whose deaths have failed to make the United States any safer. Just 2 percent of drone attack victims are said to be top militant leaders. Well, for more, we’re joined by two of the authors of the report. In Stanford, California, we’re joined by James Cavallaro. He is the director of the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic at Stanford University, as well as a Stanford law professor. And here in New York, we’re joined by Sarah Knuckey. She is a professor at New York University’s law school. She’s the former adviser to the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions.” For a full transcript of the interview, click on the above title. Watch the 22-minute video interview here –

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing

Wishful thinking can lead political activists into the quicksand of false beliefs

No 567 Posted by fw September 13, 2012

Any political analysis that is at all reformist in its views is likely to include an element of wishful thinking. And wishful thinking can lead political activists into the quicksand of false beliefs.

That in a nutshell is a central theme of Chapter 6 in the book Why Truth Matters by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom, Continuum Books, 2006.

Here, extracted from the beginning of Chapter 6 — Wishful Thinking and Epistemological Confusion — is, I think, the essence of the case in support of their thesis in the authors’ own words. The subheading, hyperlinks and text highlighting are mine.

(*Epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge. It addresses mainly the following questions: What is knowledge? How is knowledge acquired? To what extent is it possible for a given subject or entity to be known? Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification).

Wishful Thinking and Epistemological Confusion

Two stories indicative of wishful thinking

In the July 1986 edition of the now defunct Marxism Today, Stuart Hall and Martin Jacques argued that a new kind of politics was sweeping the UK [People Aid: A new politics sweeps the land]. It was, they claimed, rooted in the various charity events which had taken place over the previous twelve months: Band Aid, Live Aid and Sport Aid. This new kind of politics, we were told, offered an alternative vision of society, organized around a dynamic of ‘caring’, and it represented a severe blow to the ideology of selfishness which underpinned Thatcherism. Hall and Jacques’ optimism was short-lived, however; by December 1986, they were arguing that even those people opposed to Thatcherism were not ‘for’ anything else in particular, and that there was no end in sight to the ‘nightmare’ of Conservative government. [No light at the End of the Tunnel].

Fast forward some seventeen years, and it is possible to find Madeleine Bunting arguing in the Guardian that the demonstration against the Iraq War which occurred in London on 15 February 2003 represented a defining moment in contemporary political culture. After such a day, she informed us, it was so much harder to speak of the selfish individualism of consumer society. And about the consequences of a war in Iraq, she opined:

“What happens once the orphans, the widowed and the killed appear on our screens? The stubbornness will become anger. We said No, Not in our Names and we meant it. Blair will never be forgiven. A tragic end to a good prime minister.” [We are the people, Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, February 17, 2003]

Reformist beliefs lauded as turning points may turn out to be fleeting

The point about these two stories is that they are indicative of a wishful thinking which all too easily infects political analysis. It might have appeared to Hall and Jacques in the summer of 1986 that the hegemony of Thatcherism had been broken, but a year later the Conservatives under Margaret Thatcher were re-elected to government with a majority of 102. And to some of the people marching through London early in 2003, it might have seemed that they were part of a new kind of political mobilization, but six months later similar events attracted only a tiny fraction of the number who attended the February [Iraq War] demonstration.

Lesson: Be wary of wishful thinking based on dubious notions of human rationality infecting reformist’s analysis

Wishful thinking of course is not a monopoly of the Left. Libertarians [those who advocate maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state] rely on some highly dubious notions of human rationality, of universal access to complete and disinterested information, of the market’s ability to solve all problems, and the like. Conservatives irritated by some of the products of modernity like to counter progressive accounts of history with a version in which the present is a dreadful falling-off from the Golden Age when people knew their places and everything was bliss.

Political thinking by its very nature is likely to include wishful thinking

In short, any kind of political theorizing is by its very nature likely to include an element of wishful thinking. Wishful thinking is in a sense fundamental to political thinking, is woven into the very heart of it. At least, into any political theorizing and tendency that is at all reformist in its views, as opposed to simply more of the same [theorizing] please. Political thought in other words generally includes a prescriptive element as well as a descriptive. It is about ought as well as is – that is part of what Left and Right mean: we should do this, or alternatively that.

According to Hannah Arendt, the ability to bring about political change necessarily involves the ability to lie

Reformist political thinking is about change, and human efforts to make change. In order to conceive of, argue for, and make political change one has to think about it: one has to imagine that things could be otherwise. One has to entertain counterfactuals, look at alternatives, ponder thought experiments. In a sense one has to tell lies.

Hannah Arendt pointed this out in an essay on the Pentagon Papers in 1971, in which she noted that truthfulness has never been a political virtue, and that it is surprising how little attention philosophers and political theorists have paid to the significance of this fact for our capacity to second-guess what happens to be the case.

In order to make room for one’s own action, something that was there before must be removed or destroyed, and things as they were before are changed. Such change would be impossible if we could not mentally remove ourselves from where we physically are located and imagine that things might as well be different from what they actually are. In other words, the deliberate denial of factual truth – the ability to lie – and the capacity to change facts – the ability to act – are interconnected; they owe their existence to the same source imagination. [Lying in Politics: Reflections on The Pentagon Papers, by Hannah Arendt, Crises of the Republic, New York, Harcourt Brace, 1972].

The ability to think the thing which is not, is the crack by which wishful thinking gets in

Looked at from this angle, this ability to think the thing which is not, is an essential human ability; without it nothing could ever improve except by accident. It is a good thing. But it is also the crack by which wishful thinking gets in. We want things to be better – so we may start to delude ourselves that it won’t be too terribly difficult to make them better.

The key to making things better—especially for the left —  is to presume the infinite plasticity of human nature

One key way to doing this is by insisting on the infinite plasticity of human nature. Any change in social arrangements is at least possible because there is nothing built into our natures that would rule that ‘anything’ out. It may be that left-wing thought is more dependent on this view than right-wing thought.

Conservatives (though not libertarians and anarchists, which can be either Right or Left) tend to emphasize human limits and limitations… Progressives tend to emphasize Romantic notions of human perfectibility and glorious potential.

Progressive thinking rests on the mistaken view that human beings are blank slates, thus allowing the possibility of human perfectibility

Progressive thinking of this kind is founded on the Lockean view that human beings are blank slates; that whatever one finds in their minds has come in from the outside. The importance of this doctrine is that it allows the possibility of the perfectibility of humankind. If people behave badly – if they harm each other in various ways, for example, it is because of distorted social relations; or a breakdown in the normative system of society. It is not because they are dispositionally inclined towards aggression or selfishness. It is possible, therefore, to look forward to the day when human beings will live in harmony with each other; if you get society right, then you will get people right.

Not so fast — The blank slate premise conflicts with a trove of empirical evidence

However, the trouble with this view is that it runs contrary to a wealth of evidence which suggests that Homo sapiens is far from being a blank state. [See, for example, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (202) by Steven Pinker. Pinker argues that human behavior is substantially shaped by evolutionary psychological  adaptations]. And, of course, one result of holding to a view which flies in the face of evidence is that you very quickly get into difficulties if you try to build a political theory on top of it.

Where Karl Marx got it wrong

This is perhaps best illustrated by the case of Marxism. It is debatable whether Karl Marx was committed to a genuinely blank-slate view of human nature. However, he was certainly in the spirit of this view with his argument that the ills of society, and indeed of humankind, are ultimately a function of the way in which production was organized; that is, that they are societal – or material – in origin.

Marx’s utopian theory was based on a highly implausible claim, a true example of wishful thinking

Two key concepts drive this argument: class conflict and alienation. It was Marx’s claim that all hitherto existing societies have been based on a fundamental conflict between those who own and control the means of production and those who don’t. In capitalism, this means a conflict between two great antagonistic classes, the bourgeoisie (the owners of the means of production) and the proletariat (who own only their labour power). In this scheme, the proletariat are the bearers of the emancipatory potential of humankind. As a collectivity, a class-for-itself, they hold the ability to abolish all class distinctions, instituting a new form of society based on collective ownership; in doing so they will end the alienation of people from the products of their labour, from the labour process itself and from their species-being.

At base, Marxism is just another utopian theory, albeit dressed up in some fancy philosophical clothes. Communism is posited as the end state of history. It is a form of social existence devoid of systematic conflict and antagonism. People in communist society – rational, self-aware and other-regarding – will no longer be estranged from each other or themselves.

The major problem with this vision of a future without conflict is that it is predicated on the highly implausible claim that one can eradicate strife from human social relations simply by altering the material condition in which people live. In other words, it is a true example of wishful thinking. [It flies in the face of abundant empirical evidence which suggests that violence and aggression are an inevitable part of the human condition].

*********

[As an aside, the passage below is where the “epistemic confusion” of the authors’ title creeps in. I introduce it only in passing. For the purposes of this post, it can safely be ignored].

It is one thing to say that people should not be oppressed and exploited; it is quite another to claim that the ‘ways of knowing’ [the epistemology] of the oppressed and the exploited are privileged in some systematic way. Not least, the oppressed and the exploited are not a solid undifferentiated mass, nor are they a unified univocal group every member of which has identical interests with every other. [It is not uncommon for the oppressed and exploited to be victimized by others within their own ranks]. (Page 130)

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing

Obama’s double-talk acceptance speech exposed: Pseudo-populism for general public, unfettered capitalism for ruling elite

Obama, master of the rhetorical sleight of hand

No 565 Posted by fw September 8, 2012

Thanks to the activist World Socialist Web Site for exposing President Obama’s acceptance speech for what it was — rhetorical sleight of hand. Sadly for all of us, WSWS’s devastating, myth-busting perspective is unlikely to prevent the “debased and anti-democratic character of US politics” from unfolding as it must. On a positive note, it might help some voters from getting swept away in the undertow of demagogy.

The WSWS piece appears below with added text highlighting and subheadings to facilitate browsing. To read the original article, click on the following linked title.

Obama’s acceptance speech: A compendium of half-truths and lies, by Barry Grey, World Socialist Web Site, September 8, 2012

Obama’s speech “hollow and dishonest”

Barry Grey

Barack Obama’s speech Thursday night accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for reelection provided a fittingly cynical and demagogic conclusion to two weeks of media-scripted conventions staged by the two official parties.

The speech was at once hollow and dishonest. This was in keeping not only with the debased and anti-democratic character of US politics as a whole, but also with the particular role assigned by the ruling class to the Democratic Party. Its job is to create the illusion that it represents a more progressive and “pro-people” alternative to the unvarnished reaction espoused by the Republicans, thereby maintaining the political monopoly of the corporate-financial elite.

In attempting to make a case for his election to a second term, Obama resorted to gross distortions and outright lies about his record as president, the state of American society, and the policies to which he and the Democrats are committed going forward.

Rhetorical tricks designed to appeal to multiple audiences

The formulation of these fabrications and the rhetorical tricks used to promote them were conditioned by the multiple audiences Obama was seeking to address.

There were the convention delegates in the hall, drawn overwhelmingly from privileged layers of the middle class, including hundreds of trade union functionaries; well-off sections of African-Americans, Hispanics and other minorities whose wealth and careers are bound up with identity politics; Hollywood producers and celebrities; and Democratic Party operatives and office-holders.

There was the television audience, for whom it was necessary to promote an image of concern for the plight of ordinary people and resistance to the demands of Wall Street.

There was the milieu of liberal and pseudo-left organizations that had to be supplied political pabulum to justify their support for Obama and the Democrats as the “lesser evil.”

And there were the corporate oligarchs, to whom Obama had to provide assurances that his demagogy was not to be taken seriously, and their interests would continue to be secured in a second Obama term.

Myth that Americans face a stark choice between two fundamentally different visions for the future

The core conceit of the speech—and of the entire Democratic Party campaign—was Obama’s assertion early on that the American people face a stark choice in November “between two different paths… between two fundamentally different visions for the future.”

This myth was echoed in much of the media reportage on the speech. The New York Times, for example, wrote on Friday, “the two parties, if nothing else, delivered radically different visions for how to end the economic malaise that has afflicted the country since 2008.”

In fact, both parties’ policies are more alike than different

In reality, both parties supported the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and both pushed massive cuts in social programs, layoffs and wage cuts to pay for it. Both now insist that these attacks be intensified after the election, whichever party wins.

Obama’s “preposterous falsification” to associate his candidacy with Roosevelt’s New Deal

In an attempt to give himself social reform credentials, Obama cited “the kind of bold, persistent experimentation that Franklin Roosevelt pursued during the only crisis worse than this one.” Like virtually everything else Obama said, this attempt to link his candidacy with the New Deal was a preposterous falsification.

Roosevelt won a second term with a landslide victory because—as a highly class conscious representative of the bourgeoisie—he implemented serious social reforms, including large-scale public works and government hiring programs, so as to avert the threat of social revolution. He also jailed no small number of prominent bankers whose crooked dealings helped trigger the crash of 1929.

Today’s “parasitical financial aristocracy” subverts any serious program of social reform

That was in a very different historic period, when American capitalism, despite the Depression, was the rising global industrial power. Decades of industrial decline and the rise to undisputed power of a parasitical financial aristocracy have undermined any possibility of a new “New Deal,” or any serious program of social reform.

Obama’s presidency has from day one been devoted to protecting the wealth and power of the Wall Street elite. He has opposed any public works programs to directly hire laid off workers, or any other measures that might threaten the profits of the corporations. He intervened to block bills in Congress that would have limited executive pay at bailed out firms. Not a single top bank executive has been criminally prosecuted, let alone jailed, and just last month the Justice Department announced it would file no charges against Goldman Sachs.

Obama reassures Wall Street that he will not be launching any new social programs

Fearful of offending Wall Street, Obama immediately followed his allusion to Roosevelt with an assurance that he had no intention of implementing social programs to create jobs or alleviate the social distress spreading across the country. “And by the way,” he said, “those of us who carry on his [Roosevelt’s] party’s legacy should remember that not every problem can be remedied with another government program of dictate from Washington.”

His homage to capitalism – Isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place?

Later on, Obama made a point of reiterating his obligatory homage to capitalism, declaring: “We honor the strivers, the dreamers, the risk-takers, the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system, the greatest engine of growth and prosperity the world has ever known.”

When it comes to education, what Obama does speaks so loudly you can’t hear what he says

He declared his opposition to “firing teachers or kicking students off financial aid,” and proclaimed, “no child should have her dreams deferred because of a crowded classroom or a crumbling school.” But he and his education secretary, Arne Duncan, have praised the witch-hunting and firing of teaches across the country, promoted charter schools and other schemes to dismantle and privatize public education, and reduced access to college loans for millions of young people.

Just this week, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities published a study showing that 17 states have cut per-student education spending by more than 10 percent since 2008, and local school districts have slashed over 328,000 jobs.

Obama boasted about reinventing the auto industry but failed to mention his wage-cutting program

In common with dozens of other speakers at the three-day convention, Obama seized on his forced restructuring of the auto industry as proof of his supposed pro-worker orientation. “We reinvented a dying auto industry that’s back on top of the world,” he crowed.

He failed to note that his plan included massive layoffs, cuts in retiree benefits, and an across-the-board 50 percent pay cut for new-hires, and declared, in an outright lie, that he was bringing jobs back to America “not because our workers make less pay.” He later claimed to champion paying auto workers “enough to buy the cars they build,” something that is excluded for tens of thousands of auto workers as a result of Obama’s wage-cutting program.

This attack on the working class—which has prompted a wave of wage-cutting across the economy—was the only concrete “boon” to the “middle class” that Obama could cite in the course of his address.

Travesty of populism through appeals to American exceptionalism

This travesty of populism was accompanied by repeated appeals to economic nationalism and American chauvinism, evoking ugly chants of “USA! USA!” from the audience, no doubt led by the union officials in the hall.

Pitches American military hegemony as a defense of “the rights and dignity of all human beings”

Next Obama shifted to foreign policy and national security, boasting of his extrajudicial assassination of bin Laden in an attempt to outflank his Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, from the right. This was followed by the statement, “As long as I’m commander in chief, we will sustain the strongest military the world has ever known,” along with repeated paeans to US troops, a boast about the US aggression in Libya, an affirmation of unqualified support for Israel, and a warning directed against Iran.

All of this was portrayed as a defense of “the rights and dignity of all human beings”—a claim that came just days after Obama’s Justice Department announced it was dropping any further investigation of torture and prisoner abuse under the Bush administration.

Stealth double-talk pervades the speech

The double-talk that pervaded the speech—pseudo-populism for the general public, austerity and the free market for the ruling elite—could be seen in Obama’s declaration that after spending a trillion dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home.” Lest there was any question that this was anything more than empty campaign rhetoric, he immediately pointed to his plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion and invoked the proposal for sweeping austerity measures made by his bipartisan debt commission.

Again, after denouncing Romney and the Republicans for proposing to gut Medicare, the health care program for seniors, Obama signaled his own commitment to slashing both Medicare and Social Security, declaring euphemistically that he would “reform and strengthen Medicare for the long haul” and take “the responsible steps to strengthen” Social Security.

Make no mistake — Both parties are dedicated to carrying out the dictates of the corporate oligarchy

Behind the bathos, double-talk and outright lying, Obama’s speech reflected the commitment of both big business parties, whatever their tactical differences, to carry out the dictates of the corporate oligarchy and impose conditions of poverty and exploitation on the working class not seen since the turn of the last century.

Fair Use Notice: This blog, Citizen Action Monitor, may contain copyrighted material that may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material, published without profit, is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues. It is published in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada ruling and its six principle criteria for evaluating fair dealing