• Investigations
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Cartoons
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Language
    • 中文
    • русский
    • Español
  • GAZA Fights Back
  • National News
  • Foreign Affairs
  • Elections
  • Civil Liberties
  • Environment
  • Health & Lifestyle
  • Media & Culture
  • MyMPN Announcements

Media Outraged By Possible Murder By Putin, Ignore Murders By Obama

February 1, 2016 by Matt Peppe Follow @PeppeMatt @PeppeMatt

A Friday, May 10, 2002 file photo showing Alexander Litvinenko, former KGB spy and author of the book "Blowing Up Russia: Terror From Within" photographed at his home in London. A coroner overseeing a British inquest into the 2006 poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko has requested a public inquiry to be held so that crucial evidence can be scrutinized. Coroner Robert Owen’s request to Justice Secretary Christopher Grayling Wednesday, June 5, 2013, followed a ruling last month stating that sensitive evidence _ including documents relating to Russia’s alleged role in the agent’s death _ has to be excluded from the existing inquest. The ruling was made after British Foreign Secretary William Hague applied to the inquest to keep some evidence surrounding the case secret on national security grounds. Litvinenko, a 43-year-old former agent turned Kremlin critic, died in November 2006, after drinking tea laced with the radioactive isotope polonium-210 at a London hotel. (AP Photo/Alistair Fuller, File)

A Friday, May 10, 2002 file photo showing Alexander Litvinenko, former KGB spy and author of the book “Blowing Up Russia: Terror From Within” photographed at his home in London. A coroner overseeing a British inquest into the 2006 poisoning death of Alexander Litvinenko has requested a public inquiry to be held so that crucial evidence can be scrutinized. Coroner Robert Owen’s request to Justice Secretary Christopher Grayling Wednesday, June 5, 2013, followed a ruling last month stating that sensitive evidence _ including documents relating to Russia’s alleged role in the agent’s death _ has to be excluded from the existing inquest. The ruling was made after British Foreign Secretary William Hague applied to the inquest to keep some evidence surrounding the case secret on national security grounds. Litvinenko, a 43-year-old former agent turned Kremlin critic, died in November 2006, after drinking tea laced with the radioactive isotope polonium-210 at a London hotel. (AP Photo/Alistair Fuller, File)

The British government, whose foreign policy is overtly hostile to their Russian counterpart, declared last week that their investigation into the killing of a former Russian intelligence agent in London nearly a decade ago concluded there is a “strong probability” the Russian FSB security agency was responsible for poisoning Alexander Litivenko with plutonium. They further declared that Russian President Vladimir Putin “probably approved” of the act.

The British investigation, which was likely politically motivated, seemingly raised more questions than it answered. But American corporate media were quick to use the accusations against Putin to demonize him, casting him as a pariah brazenly flaunting his disregard for international conventions.

The Washington Post (1/23/16) editorial board wrote that “Robert Owen, a retired British judge, has carefully and comprehensively documented what can only be called an assassination … Mr. Owen found (Andrei) Lugovoi was acting ‘under the direction’ of the FSB in an operation to kill Mr. Litivenko — one that was ‘probably approved’ by the director of the FSB and by Mr. Putin.”

Actually, Owen did not find that former KGB operative Lugovoi was acting under the direction of the FSB to kill Litivenko. He found there was a “strong probability” this was the case. This means that even in Owens’s view, there is not near certainty, which would meet the legal standard of reasonable doubt that would preclude a guilty judgement. There is even more doubt that even if it were the case the FSB ordered the murder, they did so on Putin’s orders.

The New York Times editorial board (1/21/16) finds the investigation’s results “shocking.” For the Times, this confirms a pattern of Putin’s rogue behavior. They claim Putin’s “deserved reputation as an autocrat willing to flirt with lawlessness in his global ventures has taken on a startling new aspect.”

Both of the prestigious and influential American newspapers argue that the British findings impugn Putin’s respectability in international affairs. The Times says:

Mr. Putin has built a sordid record on justice and human rights, which naturally reinforces suspicion that he could easily have been involved in the murder. At the very least, the London inquiry, however much it is denied at the Kremlin, should serve as a caution to the Russian leader to repair his reputation for notorious intrigues abroad.

The more hawkish Post says: “This raises a serious question for President Obama and other world leaders whose governments do not traffic in contract murder. Should they continue to meet with Mr. Putin as if he is just another head of state?”

Putin’s alleged “sordid record on justice and human rights,” which is taken for granted without providing any examples, is seen as bolstering the case for his guilt in the case of the poisoning death of Litivenko. This, in turn, adds to his “notorious” reputation as a violator of human rights.

The Post draws a line between the lawless Putin and the respectable Western heads of state, such as Obama. Though they frame their call to treat Putin as an outcast as a question, it is clearly intended as a rhetorical question.

It is curious that The Post draws a contrast between Putin and Obama, whose government is supposedly above such criminality. The newspaper does not mention the U.S. government’s drone assassination program which, as of last year, had killed nearly 2,500 people in at least three countries outside of declared military battlefields. Estimates have shown that at least 90 percent of those killed were not intended targets. None of those killed have been charged with any crimes. And at least two — Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son Abdul Rahman — were Americans.

This Nov. 8, 2011 file photo shows a Predator B unmanned aircraft taxis at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

This Nov. 8, 2011 file photo shows a Predator B unmanned aircraft taxis at the Naval Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas. (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)

Obama himself is personally responsible for those killed by missiles launched from unmanned aircraft over the skies of sovereign countries. Several news reports have indicated that, each week, Obama is presented with a list of potential targets for assassination by military and national security officials. Obama must personally approve each target, at which point they are added to the state-sanctioned “kill list.”

The British government has also assumed for itself the power to assassinate its own citizens outside a declared battlefield. Last fall, Prime Minister David Cameron ordered the deaths of two British citizens in Syria, who were subsequently disposed of in a lethal drone strike.

The Washington Post editorial board (3/24/12) claimed that Obama was justified in carrying out lethal drone strokes that kill American citizens “to protect the country against attack.” Their lone criticism was that “an extra level of review of some sort is warranted.”

After it was revealed that an American hostage was inadvertently killed in a drone strike in Pakistan, The Post (5/1/15) said that the issue of whether the American government continues to conduct drone strikes should not be up for debate. “(T)here is little question that drones are the least costly means of eliminating militants whose first aim is to kill Americans,” they wrote.

While they tacitly accept the legal rationale for Obama’s assassination program, The New York Times editorial board at least demonstrated some skepticism. In “A Thin Rationale for Drone Killings” (6/23/14), they called the memo “a slapdash pastiche of legal theories — some based on obscure interpretations of British and Israeli law — that was clearly tailored to the desired result.” They say that “the rationale provides little confidence that the lethal action was taken with real care.”

Yet they do not chastise Obama for his “intrigues abroad” nor do they condemn this as an example of his “sordid record on justice and human rights,” language they used for Putin. The idea that relying on what are transparently inadequate legal justifications for killing an American citizen without due process would merit prosecution is clearly beyond the limits of discussion for the Times.

Recently Faheem Qureshi, a victim of the first drone strike ordered by Obama in 2009 (three days after his induction as President), who lost multiple family members and his own eye, told The Guardian that Obama’s actions in his native lands are “an act of tyranny. If there is a list of tyrants in the world, to me, Obama will be put on that list by his drone program.”

Surely both The New York Times and Washington Post disagree with Qureshi, because they believe the U.S. government is inherently benevolent and its motives are beyond reproach. But based on their editorials about the British investigation of the Litivenko poisoning, if Putin was responsible and was described by Qureshi in the same way, they would wholeheartedly agree.

The U.S. government and its allies in NATO, like Great Britain, have a clear agenda in vilifying Russia and its President. The US-NATO alliance supported the government that came to power in Ukraine in 2014 through a coup. After provinces in Eastern Ukraine — the vast majority of whose population is ethnically Russian and Russian-speaking — refused to recognize the NATO-backed coup government in Kiev, the Russian government supported them.

It should be easy to see how, from Russia’s perspective, the Ukranian conflict can be understood as an extension of NATO encroachment towards Russia’s borders that has continued unabated since James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 NATO would move “not an inch east.”

“We’re in a new Cold War,” Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies and politics, told Salon. “The epicenter is not in Berlin this time but in Ukraine, on Russia’s borders, within its own civilization: That’s dangerous. Over the 40-year history of the old Cold War, rules of behavior and recognition of red lines, in addition to the red hotline, were worked out. Now there are no rules.”

Additionally, Russia’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad since 2011, throughout that country’s civil war, and more recently its direct military intervention in the conflict that has turned the tide against U.S.-backed rebels, has strongly rankled Washington.

The language used by top government officials to describe Russia has been astoundingly combative. Defense Secretary Ash Carter, the man in charge of the entire US military, claimed Russia is responsible for aggression and is “endangering world order.”

The U.S. government’s hyping of the Russian “threat” has been used to justify massive spending on the U.S. space program and other military expenditures, such as $1 trillion to upgrade nuclear weapons.

One could even argue that the narrative of an aggressive and belligerent Russia is the principal justification for the continued existence of the NATO itself, two and a half decades after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The alliance allows the US military to be stationed in hundreds of bases throughout Europe under the guise of a purely defensive organization.

The U.S.’s most prominent media organizations should demonstrate the strongest skepticism towards the policies and actions of their own government. At the very least, they should hold their own country’s leaders to the same standards as they do others. But time and again, the media choose to act as a mouthpiece to echo and amplify Washington’s propaganda. They do the government’s bidding, creating an enemy and rallying the public towards a confrontation they would otherwise have no interest in, while allowing the government to avoid accountability for its own misdeeds.

 

Originally published at Just the Facts.

Content posted to MyMPN open blogs is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to MintPress News.

Filed Under: Foreign Affairs, Media & Culture Tagged With: Alexander Litvinenko, drones, Russia, The New York Times, Vladimir Putin

Comments

  1. tapatio says

    February 2, 2016 at 11:13 am

    Very good article. IF Putin ordered the death of Litvinenko, so what? The UK has murdered rogue MI5 people. The US certainly commits targeted murders continuously.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About MyMPN

MyMPN is MintPress News' community site. Anyone can participate by writing a diary and commenting on others' diaries.

Content posted to MyMPN is the opinion of the author alone, and should not be attributed to MintPress News.

MyMPN will cease publishing on January 15, 2017. Thank you for your support of our work.

  • More about MyMPN
  • Report site problems and bugs
  • MyMPN Comment Moderation

Follow Mintpress

RSSTwitterFacebookGooglePlus

Our Latest Posts

In The Age Of Trump, Peaceful Revolt Is Our Only Option

By Kevin Patrick Kelly January 11, 2017

Hafizah Geter Gives Moving Poetic ‘Testimony’ At Medgar Evers College

By José Negroni January 10, 2017

Gonzo Journalism Rejects The Myth Of The Neutral Media

By Dr. Milena Rampoldi January 9, 2017

Aleppo: How The US Manipulates Humanitarianism For Imperialism

By Steven Chovanec January 6, 2017

Why One ‘Remain’ Voter Now Supports A Hard Brexit

By Tara Lighten Msiska January 5, 2017

Hawaiian Kingdom, American Empire: An Interview With Professor Keanu Sai

By Dennis Riches January 4, 2017

War Against Rape In Karachi: Advocating For A Rape Free Society

By Dr. Milena Rampoldi December 30, 2016

What’s In A Name? From ‘Al-Qaeda’ To The ‘Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia’

By Nu’man Abd al-Wahid December 29, 2016

Popular Tags

activism Africa American imperialism Barack Obama Canada capitalism Climate change democracy Democratic Party Donald Trump Egypt election 2016 energy fracking history Human Rights inequality Iraq ISIS Islam Islamic State Israel journalism MENA Middle East mining nuclear oil Palestine police poverty prison propaganda racism Republican Party Russia Saudi Arabia Syria terrorism Texas United Kingdom United Nations Wall Street War water

Sign up for our Daily Newsletter

Copyright © 2022 Mint Press, LLC