(Warning.. graphic images are in this article)
The U.S. government is the biggest bully in the world. Not just to other countries in the world but to the citizens of the U.S. too.
Let's stop to think about what the U.S. government does around the world.
First the government kills women and children all the time through drone attacks. They do this indiscriminately. The U.S. government does this even without the approval of the countries they are killing the people in. The U.S. doesn't care about the sovereignty of another country. I have been researching drone attacks in Pakistan and how many innocent men, women and children the U.S. has killed. (I am going to include some of the research and information at the bottom of this article)
It really is sad to see a country that was suppose to be the shining light of humanity when it was formed with equal justice for all. Yet the country has degraded so badly due to the morals of the leaders/elected officials.
We were suppose to be a place that other countries and people could look up to as an example of moral and ethical leadership and how the people of the country were free, yet worked for the benefit of all of mankind.
The U.S. as it stands today has become the most immoral country with the least ethical leaders of the world.
Through torture, jailing people without any rights or justice in a courtroom (including U.S. citizens), invading other countries, killing the innocent people including children without thought or remorse, poisoning it's own citizens through the air, water and food and bullying it's own citizens to get it's way.
Now... there is that term "Like begets Like."
The government has become a bully, yet they are shocked when citizens of the U.S. act out in a violent manner. I don't believe people should act out in violence at all, but I also don't pretend to be "holier than thou" either, like the U.S. government does.
How did the country come to believe that we are the ones with the rights to all things in the world and to hell with the rest of the people of the world?
The U.S bullies it's citizens and creates a mind set through the media of "peer pressure." They did this with those who smoke cigarettes, to the point of smokers hiding to smoke. In N.Y. and California, you can't even smoke in the opened air hardly. It doesn't not matter if you agree with smoking or not... the fact is the U.S. became a bully to those who do. FYI - I have researched about smoking and it is not all that it has been made to be. The facts are what causes cancer are all the 3000 additives the big corps put in. If people smoked pure tobacco without additives.. then it is actually good for you in many ways. Don't just believe me... do some research yourself. Also at the time of the big push against smokers, is when they began chemtrails in the 80's. (Smoke coats your lungs so you don't absorb a lot of the poisons)
Now with the gun issue, the government and media are going to attempt to do the same thing with gun owners. Where gun owners will hide the fact they have guns.
They are using the media to go after legal gun owners, to make them ashamed of owning a gun. It is exactly what they did with smokers.
A
media outlet decided to risk people's lives and safety by putting an interactive map of law abiding citizens who have a legal right and permit to own a gun. The address and names of all of those U.S. citizens in 3 counties in New York are on the net. They are there for any robber or desperate person to get a hold of a gun, to break in. But what the base of this is, is to bully those who are law abiding citizens who utilize their 2nd amendment of the constitution to have a gun. They are trying to get people to give up their guns through "embarrassment." (I will again say, this is exactly what they did with smokers. Many gave up smoking due to the peer pressure and being ostracized for smoking.)
Update 12/26/12 10:10 pm -
Article about ..A blogger put up an interactive map of the newpaper's staff with their names and addresses. This includes the publisher's home address that put out the gun owners interactive map.
Here is the actual information on the bloggers site of the names and addresses of the staff.
What that media outlet has done is one of the biggest bullying tactics and they may have caused people to lose their lives in the future by doing so. I can only hope that all of those people who are on the map with their names and addresses will have their guns next to them at night now. There may be shootings in defense of themselves in houses around N.Y.
If people view things with a clear and honest vision, they will see that the U.S. government and media is the bully in the school yard that talks out of both sides of their mouth.
Children learn through their peers and parents as they are growing up, what is right and wrong. They learn how to treat others through their experiences and culture. Is there any wonder there is more violence now in the world, when the U.S. kills innocent people around the world and invades countries? All anyone has to do is look at what they are being taught by those that are suppose to uphold the morals and ethics of the country. Is there any wonder that kids think it is okay to bully another, when the U.S. government does it to the rest of the world? Is it any wonder that kids think violence is okay over all, when the U.S. commits violent acts around the world? Is there any wonder that people think they can get away with crimes when all the bankers that have committed fraud are free and never prosecuted?
The media acts so outraged when someone does something in the U.S. of a violent nature.
Isn't it time that the U.S. government and media look in the mirror to view themselves?
I have never played a violent game that I see advertisements on all the time... I am not a "gamer." I personally don't see how someone can find killing lots of people in a game as being fun. I do have a question, how does someone distinguish what is real or fiction when they spend hours and hours in those role playing games of killing others?
It is up to each of us to recognize bullying when we see it. It is up to each of us to not be a part of it and speak out against bullying by an individual, government, media or peer group.
We have to stand up to bullying and it seems that the
U.S. government and media gets what they want through bully tactics. Don't forget that the U.S. government is now using drones insides the U.S.. I have no doubt at some point they will justify bombing their own citizens and the media of course will have their back in convincing people why it should be done.
Don't think that will happen? Let me ask you this... did you ever think that owning a gun would become like smoking..where you have to hide that fact and be "ashamed" of it due to government and media pressure?
Regarding Drones there have been studies done in regards to how many people have been killed by drones and if drones really hit their targets or simply kills innocent men, women and children.
Last week an article came out
"Confessions of a Drone Operator."
The guy quit after he killed an innocent child, yet another person that was part of the government called that child a "dog." It makes you stop and contemplate... how did the morals in our government go so far down to call a child a dog?
I began researching drones and what the U.S has done and how many children have been killed last week.
The U.S. has continually jeopardized other countries sovereignty by using drones to kill the citizens of the country. You have to wonder what would happen if another country felt it was there right to use drones inside the U.S. boundaries to kill people they said were a threat to their country? We know that a war would start as the U.S. would scream and shout that the country that is using the drones would be committing "acts of war." The U.S. would be the typical bully in that they can do as they want but don't turn the tables on them... then it is "unfair and unjust."
There is this site of the stories of the victims of U.S. drone attacks.
Here is the information about a village and innocent people killed from a U.S. drone attack.
As of August 2011 an estimated 168 innocent children have been killed by the United States government and they have not once apologized for it.
Where are the morals and ethics of that?
The Columbia Law school did an extensive study about U.S. drone attacks and their impact on the countries and citizens that were attacked.
It is 83 pages long but I have taken segments out of it that I believe are important to this discussion and understanding of what the U.S. has and is doing.
You will find that it is the CIA and the JSOC that do not have to admit what they do nor is there oversight to their killing anyone they want.
They don't answer to the military nor anyone else, except to the President.
Oh another thing, I did not realize how extensively the U.S. using drones around the world and in many countries. It is not just Pakistan and Afghanistan that drones are used.
Here are excerpts from the article:
In locations such as northern Pakistan, where drones often
buzz overhead 24 hours a
day, people live in constant fear of being
hit.125 Michael
Kugelman of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars notes: “I have heard
Pakistanis speak about children in the
tribal areas who become hysterical when they hear the
characteristic buzz of a drone. […]
Imagine the effect this has on psyches, and particularly
on young ones already scarred by
war and displacement.”126
Unlike deaths and property loss, which may
affect one or more
families, the fear associated with covert drone strikes affects
nearly everyone in a community.
The information included here is not comprehensive, as despite
public and repeated allusions
to covert drone strikes by Obama Administration officials in 2011
and 2012, most official
materials related to the drone program are classified. Even the
existence of a CIA drone
program remains classified, although government officials have
repeatedly leaked information
to the media.2
In our interviews with government officials, most were
unwilling to speak
about drone operations outside of Afghanistan. The persistent
government secrecy on this
issue, particularly surrounding the involvement of the CIA and JSOC, leads us
to term drone
strikes outside of Afghanistan as “covert.” In this report, we use
“covert” in the colloquial,
rather than legal sense.3
Until 2006, the US reportedly notified the Pakistani government
before launching strikes.62
Since that time, the Pakistani government has publicly signaled
its rejection of drone strikes
as a violation of sovereignty, but there are numerous reports of its consent
to continuing
strikes.63 In spring 2012,
the US increased the frequency of drone
strikes, reportedly out of concern that the CIA would soon need
to
halt operations due to the opposition of the Pakistani
government.64
The degree of Pakistani government cooperation, including
intelligence
and surveillance support, may be diminished at present.65
US strikes in Yemen increased in spring 2012, with between 15 and
62 reported strikes,
more than in the previous ten years combined.75
Media reports suggest that JSOC personnel
are on the ground in Yemen, coordinating the drone strikes. US
officials state that
current drone strikes are only carried out with Yemeni government
approval.76
However,in 2011, during a period of political turmoil and government
transition in Yemen, the United States reportedly conducted strikes without
approval.77
It remains unclear which agency takes operational lead or under
which agency’s legal authority
the operations are conducted.78
In 2011, unnamed Obama Administration officials
described
JSOC and CIA operations as “closely coordinated” but separate
campaigns.79 Some
2011 media accounts described US operations as run by JSOC, but
with CIA assistance.80
According to one account, CIA and JSOC alternate Predator missions
in Yemen and borrow
each other’s resources.”81
JSOC commanders “appear on videoconference calls
alongside
CIA station chiefs.”82
The scale of drone strikes in Somalia is still unknown, but
appears to be increasing. A
Bureau of Investigative Journalism study estimated between ten and
21 US airstrikes in
Somalia as of publication—three to 12 of which may have been drone
strikes. According to
the Bureau, the strikes resulted in between 58 and 169
deaths.89 The UN Monitoring
Group
on Somalia and Eritrea stated in late June 2012 that “the number
of reports concerning the
use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Somalia in 2011-12 has
increased.”90
As a sampling of figures:
In Somalia, the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism reports that since 2007,
US covert actions—including operations other than drone
strikes—have resulted
in the death of 58 to 169 individuals as of September 2012, of
which
11 to 57 were civilians.101
In Yemen, the New America Foundation reports that drone
strikes killed
531 to 779 people, with a civilian casualty rate between 4 percent
and 8.5
percent, as of June 2012.102
In Pakistan, statistics are
compiled by both Pakistan-based organizations
and foreign organizations, and they vary.103
The Bureau of Investigative
Journalism reports a total of 2,562 to 3,325 total killed in drone
strikes,
including 474 to 881 civilian deaths as of September 2012.
Increasing Violence & Instability
Some commentators are concerned that drones may actually be
contributing to an increase
in violence in Pakistan and Yemen, although studies are not
conclusive and some observers
disagree. Since the drone program in Pakistan began, there has
been an increase in
deaths due to terrorist incidents, peaking at 2,500 civilians
killed in 2011, according to the
US State Department’s National Counterterrorism
Center.113 This increase
appears to predate
the escalation of drone strikes in 2008; we are not aware of a
study that conclusively
demonstrates a causal link between drone strikes and increased
violence. To the contrary,
some commentators argue that drone strikes have correlated with a
slight decrease in
violence.114 The conflicting
evidence illustrates the confusion over the effectiveness of the
US counterterrorism strategy, and the imperative for US
policymakers to question—and fully
and adequately clarify—the impact of covert drone operations on
the ground, including the
changing impact over
time.
Drone strikes have also hit many homes in
Yemen.133
Strikes have contributed to ongoing violence, which has
led to the displacement of over 100,000 people.134
Displacement
impacts every layer of civilian life and threatens
the stability of the community.
An airstrike in Jaar,
a town in southern Yemen, reduced an entire block to
rubble in two consecutive explosions; however, whether
the strike was by the US or Yemeni government is
unknown.
135
According to media reports, the threat or prevalence of drone
strikes in Yemen and Pakistan
mean some parents are unwilling to send their children to school
out of fear.138 In
Pakistan, there have been several reports of drone strikes that
have damaged or destroyed
local schools.139
Usman Wazir was at his job selling fruits when a drone hit his
house, killing his younger
brother, his wife, their 15-year-old son, and 13-year-old
daughter. He told the Center, “I demand
compensation for each member of my family and demand that my house
is rebuilt.”143
For civilians who demand justice for such losses, there is no
known process in Pakistan, Yemen,
or Somalia by which they can apply for compensation or file a
claim of personal loss.
This is compounded by the fact that the existence of the drone
program has for so long
been officially denied by the US government.
Events following one particular drone strike illustrate the
complexities of deciphering an
accurate story of civilian harm. On August 23, 2010, a CIA strike
reportedly killed at least
seven civilians in Pakistan. Unnamed US officials repeatedly told
media for a year after this
incident that there were no civilian deaths from drone strikes:
Demand for drone pilots and other personnel will only increase as
the US continues to rely
on this technology; indeed, in 2011 the demand reportedly prompted
the Air Force to consider
having pilots control four planes at once.249
We are not aware of any cases in Pakistan or Yemen where drone
strike civilians have received
apologies, explanations or monetary payments as amends from the US
Government.
With limited information, we cannot conclude that either the CIA
or JSOC is inherently unsuitable
to conduct drone strikes, although we have concerns based on their
past practices.
It is incumbent upon policymakers with access to more
information—particularly members
of Congress—to scrutinize and inform public debate on the suitability of the
CIA and JSOC.
International law—particularly the laws of war—would require the
CIA to take steps to
reduce civilian harm in using force, but observers debate whether
the CIA sees itself as
bound by it. The statements of government officials have been
ambiguous.308 In a major
address, Preston described the CIA’s compliance with international
law “principles”—as
opposed to “rules” or treaty provisions. (To be fair, the same can
be said of remarks by
his counterparts at other agencies.309) Some observers
speculate that the CIA interprets
statutory provision 50 USC section 413b(a)(5)—which prohibits the
president from authorizing
“any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of
the United States”—as
freeing the CIA from international law obligations, since it omits
mention of them.310 A US
Army colonel notes that the Department of Defense “is legally
bound to execute its military
operations in accordance with the laws of armed conflict”; “the
CIA, however, is under no
similar requirement regarding international
law.”311
Accounts of the CIA’s lawyering practices describe adherence to US
law, but seldom mention
international law. According to Goldsmith:
These operators spend their days and nights on deceptive and
deceitful
tasks that violate foreign and some international laws as well as
everyday
ethics. They are constantly reminded that whatever other rules and
laws
they must violate in their work, they must not violate US
law.312
International law—particularly the laws of war—would require the
CIA to take steps to
reduce civilian harm in using force, but observers debate whether
the CIA sees itself as
bound by it. The statements of government officials have been
ambiguous.308 In a major
address, Preston described the CIA’s compliance with international
law “principles”—as
opposed to “rules” or treaty provisions. (To be fair, the same can
be said of remarks by
his counterparts at other agencies.309) Some observers
speculate that the CIA interprets
statutory provision 50 USC section 413b(a)(5)—which prohibits the
president from authorizing
“any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of
the United States”—as
freeing the CIA from international law obligations, since it omits
mention of them.310 A US
Army colonel notes that the Department of Defense “is legally
bound to execute its military
operations in accordance with the laws of armed conflict”; “the
CIA, however, is under no
similar requirement regarding international
law.”311
As watchdogs in the form of journalists and human rights
organizations struggle to garner
factual information in the relatively inaccessible areas where
covert drones strikes occur,
the public is especially reliant on Congress to take the lead in
scrutinizing the CIA’s actions.
Yet Congress’s obligation extends further: to contribute to public
debate. As former CIA
lawyer and minority staff director for the House intelligence
committee Suzanne Spaulding
emphasizes, Congress has the responsibility “to inform and lead
public discussion and
debate” particularly “about how best to address the long term
threat of terrorism.” 339 There
are established procedures for Congress to declassify and
publicize previously secret information,
but these procedures have reportedly never been employed, and
certainly not with
regard to covert drone strikes.340
JSOC “camouflages itself with cover names, black budget
mechanisms, and bureaucratic
parlor tricks” to maintain its secrecy.342
Indeed, the official description of JSOC is
confusing,
mentioning a host of roles: “ to study Special Operations
requirements, ensure...interoperability
and equipment standardization, develop...joint Special Operations
plans and tactics,
and conduct...joint Special Operations exercises and training.”
These descriptions make no
mention of JSOC’s targeting or drone
operations.343
The entirety of JSOC’s relationship to the conventional military
forces and its rules is unknown.
As a general matter, US Special Operations Command (SOCOM)
provides special
forces units to geographic commands. “Once those forces are in a
geographic combatant
commander’s area of responsibility, they work for that
commander…under the same rules as
other forces,” a SOCOM officer told the Columbia Human Rights
Clinic by email.344 However,
there are indications that JSOC operates independently of the
conventional military forces’
geographic combatant commands and that it has its own rules of
engagement.345
Unfortunately, there is so much secrecy about JSOC’s operations
that it is difficult to evaluate
whether, and to what extent, JSOC’s relationship to the law and
mechanisms to reduce
civilian harm continues to be problematic. This lack of
transparency is compounded by
JSOC’s relative freedom from congressional scrutiny. As journalist
March Ambinder notes,
“many in Congress who’d be very sensitive to CIA operations almost
treat JSOC as an entity
that doesn’t have to submit to oversight.”361
Covert drone strikes enjoy wide political support as an attractive
alternative to counterinsurgency
strategies that cost significant US blood and treasure in Iraq and
Afghanistan.383 As
the Administration seeks to counter a growing number of groups it
describes as al-Qaeda
affiliates in a growing number of places around the globe, it may
view strikes as an alternative
to adding multiple new land-war fronts in the Middle East and
Africa. Policymakers
appear comfortable and confident that “surgical” drone strikes
conducted by the CIA and JSOC will disrupt militant groups and
prevent terrorist plots, and increasingly favor this strategy over
alternative
means to establish security or set conditions for peace.384
In February 2012, the Bureau of
Investigative
Journalism reported that at
least 50 individuals were killed in follow-up drone strikes in
Pakistan when they had gone to help victims killed in initial
strikes.416 There are also
reports
of strikes killing rescuers in Yemen.417
There is a lot more in the site linked. The above shows there is not accountability for the U.S. and they kill as they please.
We the people, in the United States are moral people on a whole. We need to start demanding our government become moral and ethical as it was meant for them to be. We need to show the world that we do not support killing innocent men, women and children of the world.
If we keep allowing it without saying something.... then how can we raise our voices when they start doing it to their own citizens on U.S. soil if we did not raise our voices about them doing it elsewhere?
How do we change what is happening? That is one big question... because how do we each try and make that difference? How do we each stand up and show the correct morals and ethics to the bully and hope that the example becomes the norm?
We need to demand morals and ethics once more as part of our foundation of the United States. We need to demand the elected officials stop bullying the world and their own citizens through the TSA, police states and drone spying.
I know that is asking a lot but in having compassion for the rest of the world's people, we will begin to have compassion for ourselves and others around us once more.
