Thursday, May 5, 2011

Does "defending against future terrorist attacks" mean women can start killing the men who do and will terrorise them--with no trial before or after the act of counter-terrorism defense?

photo of women soldiers is from here
The U.S. government welcomes women to defend men, with arms. But does the U.S. government welcome women and men to defend women, with arms?

I would like for you to consider the activist implications of some of the language being tossed around a whole lot this week, and every week for the last nine and a half years:

We must "never forget" the terrorist attacks. The U.S. people are supposed to be committed to the government defending the people and the government against future attacks. Does this mean that when al Qaeda members are overheard discussing terrorist attacks, that the U.S. will immediately move in and murder them? Repeatedly this week I've heard how "justice" was served by the Navy Seals murdering Osama bin Laden in his home. Not making sure he was arrested for a fair trial--supposedly something that makes the U.S. different than those barbaric nations that just murder their enemies. Given that the U.S. government and its military has been mass murdering innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan for many years, doesn't that make the U.S. one of those barbaric nations?

Now, if we are going to accept that people being threatened, terrified, and attacked nine and a half years ago on U.S. soil means we can war against them with impunity since then, will we also allow women to take up arms against men who have threatened, terrified, and attacked women at some point in the last nine and a half years?

Can Indigenous, Black, and Brown people who have been terrorised by U.S. social-political-economic-environmental policies and activities, take up arms and defend themselves against white supremacist Amerikkka?

I know I live in a dominant culture that depends on hypocrisy in speech and action, and that also requires covert and overt violence against the oppressed by their oppressors. This violence, threatening and terrifying, is committing on at least two levels: interpersonal and institutional.

So ought the U.S. government demonstrate something akin to integrity and honor by socially supporting and legally defending all oppressed people taking up arms against those who oppress, threaten, and terrorise them systematically--dozens to hundreds of times per year, not just once on U.S. soil in nine in an half years? And when do the oppressed get to define the terms of, describe the conditions of, and determine the responses to their own struggles, rather than having such realities named by corporate CRAPitalist media and laws that only serve to protect the most powerful oppressors on Earth?

It appears to me that the official and unofficial policy on terroristic violence against women is "never remember".



No comments: