The document consists of thirty (30) articles, and is worth reading. For our purposes today, I will summarize just a few of the more common rights listed, and will address these and others during my presentation today.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone is entitled to:
- Freedom and dignity
- Life, liberty and security of person.
The following are prohibited.
- Slavery in all forms.
- Arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
- Arbitrary deprivation of ones nationality
- Arbitrary deprivation of ones property.
The United States presents itself to the world as a beacon of liberty and a proponent of human rights around the world, ready and willing to stand up for and defend the downtrodden. Florida Senator Marco Rubio recently said that the world looks to the U.S. as an example of democracy. This myth is not believed outside of the United States borders, and decreasingly within. There is simply too much evidence to the contrary.
The Universal Declaration on Human Rights mentions the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatments and states that everyone is entitled to life.
In 2014, the U.S. government rightly condemned beheadings carried out by Daesh (aka ISIL, ISIS). In August of 2014, at least 22 people were executed in Saudi Arabia, and at least eight of them were beheaded. The following month, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry visited Saudi Arabia on an official visit; the U.S., of course, has full diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. The topic of beheadings was not known to have been mentioned during Mr. Kerrys visit. Apparently, beheading is acceptable, depending on who is doing it.
Lets remember that the United States has full diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. In a State Department cable released by WikiLeaks, Hillary Clinton said that Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban.
Since Ive mentioned ISIS, well look at bit closer at that organization.
The following was reported by Global Research: In order to understand why the Islamic State has grown and flourished so quickly, one has to take a look at the organizations American-backed roots. The 2003 American invasion and occupation of Iraq created the pre-conditions for radical Sunni groups, like ISIS, to take root. America, rather unwisely, destroyed Saddam Husseins secular state machinery and replaced it with a predominantly Shiite administration. The U.S. occupation caused vast unemployment in Sunni areas, by rejecting socialism and closing down factories in the naive hope that the magical hand of the free market would create jobs. Under the new U.S.-backed Shiite regime, working class Sunnis lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. Unlike the white Afrikaners in South Africa, who were allowed to keep their wealth after regime change, upper class Sunnis were systematically dispossessed of their assets and lost their political influence. Rather than promoting religious integration and unity, American policy in Iraq exacerbated sectarian divisions and created a fertile breeding ground for Sunni discontent, from which Al Qaeda in Iraq took root.
Author and Middle East expert Kevin Barrett told Press TV the following: It has been a standard part of American policy and it is not just al-Qaeda and Daesh. These are the biggest and most spectacular current manifestations of the United States long-standing policy of supporting terrorists but it goes way back to the era of the Cold War.
He further stated that the United States created the Daesh terrorist group in order to implement its regime change policy in Syria, and to divide and conquer the Middle East by stirring up ethnic and sectarian tensions.
In a June, 2015 column inThe Guardian, Associate Editor Seumas Milne said this: [T]he U.S.and its allies werent only supporting and arming an opposition they knew to be dominated by extreme sectarian groups; they were prepared to countenance the creation of some sort of Islamic state -- despite the grave danger to Iraqs unity -- as aSunni buffer to weaken Syria.
Garikai Chengu, a researcher at Harvard University, suggested in September of 2014 that ISIS is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Irans growing influence in the region.
Further information came from Vice-President Joe Biden. Speaking to students at Harvard University in October 2014, he said that Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates were determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war. What did they do?They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world. The vice-president dismissed the idea that any moderate Syrian groups could be fighting ISIS and Assad at the same time.
U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has focused in on the governments funding of terrorists. The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda.
She went on to say this: This madness must end.We must stop arming terrorists.
In late 2015, Ms. Gabbard visited Syria. She said this: As I visited with people from across the country, and heard heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was asked, Why is the United States and its allies helping al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the United States. Al-Qaeda did. I had no answer.
Not all of ISISs weaponry was intentionally provided to it.
In Iraq, after the first phase of the U.S. war there, the U.S. left untold amounts of weaponry scattered about Iraq. As Iraq descended into the chaos and violence of civil war, that weaponry fell into the hands of anyone who wanted it.
In 2014, the U.S. Department of Defense, which really has nothing to do with defense, issued a press release, saying this: The three strikes destroyed three ISIL armed vehicles, an ISIL vehicle-mounted anti-aircraft artillery gun, an ISIL checkpoint and an IED emplacement. Very impressive, one might think.
However, Alex Kane, writing in Alternet, presented a different view. He said:
What went unmentioned by the Pentagon is that those armed vehicles and artillery guns they bombed werelikely paid for with American tax dollars. The arms ISIS possesses are another grim form of blowback from the American invasion of the country (Iraq) in 2003.
In the first 13 years of the U.S.s so-called war on terror, U.S. taxpayers spent close to$14 million dollars every hour. This is an astounding amount for a war wherein the enemy is being financed by the U.S. and other countries with which the U.S. has full diplomatic relations. Perhaps victory isnt the goal. The U.S. is the worlds largest supplier of weaponry, and with so many countries purchasing its goods, even to sell them to international terrorist groups, perhaps the U.S. isnt interested in losing this lucrative market.
In March of 2015,the Los Angeles Times reported: Syrian militias armed by different parts of the U.S. war machine have begun to fight each other on the plains between the besieged city of Aleppo and the Turkish border. Again, as long as U.S. arms manufacturers are happy, what else matters? So what ifa third of Syrians have had to flee their homes? What difference do nearlyhalf a million deathsof innocent peoplemake? For the U.S., human rights must not stand in the way of profits.
That same year, foreign military sales rose to a record high of $46.6 billion.
It is no exaggeration to say that Americas Middle East policy revolves around two factors: oil and Israel. By invading Iraq, the U.S. was able to obtain the oil it covets.
But as the U.S. continues bombing Syria and supporting terrorist groups in that country, and sanctions or threatens to sanction Iran, we clearly see that it is doing so for Israel. The U.S. wants to prevent Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine, from receiving support from Iran and Syria. In the eyes of the U.S., only Israel can be a powerful force in the Middle East.
Another point in the Declaration of Human Rights is that the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.
Currently in the U.S., multiple investigations are ongoing to explore possible Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. Arizona Senator John McCain said that such possible interference threatens the very essence of U.S. democracy. Former Senator and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said its almost unthinkable, when discussing reports about possible Russian interference in U.S. elections.
In typical U.S. style, interference in foreign elections is only acceptable when the U.S. does it. In 2006, when commenting on the election in the Gaza Strip that brought Hamas to power, Mrs. Clinton, then a U.S. senator, said this: I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think that was a big mistake and if we were going to push for an election, then we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win. So while Mrs. Clinton is now filled with great anger that Russia, perhaps, attempted to interfere in the U.S. election, she was certainly not above supporting the same behaviors, when she was a U.S. senator.
After Hamaswas elected to govern the GazaStrip in 2006, and President George Bush ordered a near-total ban on aid to Palestine, historian and political activistNoam Chomsky commented on this situation:
You are not allowed to vote the wrong way in a free election. Thats our concept of democracy. Democracy is fine as long as you do what we [the United States] say, but not if you vote for someone we dont like.
In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq. This was, ostensibly, to rid that country of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein, then the leader of Iraq, had welcomed Hans Blix, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) into Iraq to search peacefully for such weapons. Mr. Blix and his team were gaining unprecedented access to any area of the country they requested, and were finding nothing. Finally, before they had exhausted their search, U.S. President George Bush told Mr. Blix to remove his team from Iraq; his invasion as coming. Shortly thereafter, he began bombing Iraq. This resulted in the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure, the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, and the displacement of millions more. The human rights of these innocent victims were not considered by the mighty United States. The fact that the Iraqi people have suffered, and continue to suffer, far more since the U.S. invasion then they did under the previous government, is not considered, as the U.S. looks for its next target.
In October of 2007, four years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and while that war was still raging, Turkey was having difficulties with Kurdish rebels on its border with Iraq. There were signs that the Turkish government was considering an attack against them in Iraq. U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack made this statement at that time: If they have a problem, they need to work together to resolve it and I am not sure that unilateral incursions are the way to go, the way to resolve the issue. He further stated: We have counseled both in public and private for many, many months the idea that it is important to work cooperatively to resolve this issue.
If Mr. McCormack wasnt sure that unilateral incursions were inappropriate, and that nations in conflict need to work cooperatively to resolve their issues, perhaps he could have so advised Mr. Bush.However, such counsel would nullify that time-honored maxim: Its not wrong if the U.S. does it. So while Turkey must not venture into Iraq to end Kurdish incursions into the country, the U.S. was then, and is now, free to attack any country it so chooses.
Perhaps we might benefit by looking at the by looking at how some words. During the height of the U.S. war against Iraq, the U.S. government officials and corporate-owned media called those Iraqis fighting the U.S. invasion insurgents. Somehow, in the view of the U.S., the invading soldiers were the heroes and the people resisting them were the terrorists.
When a person or group commits an act of violence against the U.S., they are not seen as heroes, but as terrorists. The victims of those limited acts of violence are seen as heroes.
In 2015, the movie American Sniper was released in U.S. theatres to rave reviews and public acclaim. This was the story of Chris Kyle, a mass murderer, employed by the U.S., who was credited with over 160 confirmed kills.
Imagine if Vietnam, or Palestine, or Iraq, or Yemen, or Syria, or any other country that the U.S. has oppressed or continues to oppress, were to release a movie praising and glorifying someone who killed 160 U.S. citizens, after the U.S. had bombed their country. Government officials would condemn the movie and the country; sanctions would be imposed; there would be universal condemnation throughout the U.S.
Again, in the view of the U.S., its own actions are never criminal, but those same actions, performed by other nations, are international crimes.
The United States government is currently considering declaring IransIslamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a powerful branch of the Iranian military, responsible for, among other things, protecting the nation in the event of an attack by the U.S. or Israel, the two nations most likely to attack Iran. Protecting the U.S. from attack is, ostensibly, the role of the U.S. military. However, unlike the U.S. military, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps does not invade other nations. Its role is to protect the citizens of Iranian from enemies foreign and domestic. The role of the U.S. military, despite the lofty proclamations that countrys leaders may make, is to ensure the capitalist advantage of the U.S. around the world. This includes the overthrow of nations with governments considered too leftist, or those with natural resources (e.g. oil) that the U.S. wants to control. Based on this information, it certainly seems that it is not the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, but the U.S. military that is, in fact, a terrorist organization.
Keeping in mind that The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government, we will look at one example, among many, where, in the eyes of the U.S., political expediency trumped human rights.
In Chile, in 1970, Salvador Allende became the first Marxist democratically elected in a Latin American country.
Richard M. Nixon, a rabid anti-communist, was president at this time, and under his direction, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spent $3 million (over $19 million in todays dollars) in anti-Allende propaganda during the campaign, and invested another $2.6 million (nearly $17 million in todays dollars) into the campaign of Mr. Allendes opponent. Please note again the U.S. anger about the possibility of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Once Mr. Allende was elected, the U.S. attempted to prevent him from coming to power.
Yet Mr. Allende became president and began implementing the socialist program hed promised, including the nationalization of several industries, reforming education, and increasing land distribution that had begun under his predecessor.
But the U.S. could not countenance a Marxist as the president anywhere. The U.S. supported radical, right-wing groups and publications, and funded major workers strikes. All this eventually led to the overthrow of the government, and Mr. Allende was replaced by General Augusto Pinochet. With his ascent to power, democratic rule in Chile ended after 41 years, and tens of thousands of Pinochets opponents were kidnapped, tortured and murdered. But his rule, in the view of the United States, was preferable to that of Mr. Allende.
In transcribed correspondence between Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Mr. Nixon after the overthrow of the Allende government, we read the following:
Nixon: Nothing new of any importance or is there?
Kissinger: Nothing of great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.
Nixon: Isnt that something. Isnt that something.
Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating in the Eisenhower period we would be heros.
Nixon: We didnt as you know our hand doesnt show on this one though.
Kissinger: We didnt do it. I mean we helped them. ______ created the conditions as great as possible.
Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played.
Millions of people in Chile were deprived of basic human rights for a period of decades, due to the deliberate actions of the United States.
The United States double standard on human rights is seen no more clearly, and is no more blatant, then in its dealings with Palestine and Israel.
In the U.S. there is a law referred to as the Leahy law, so named after its sponsor Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy. The basic provision of this law is as follows: No assistance shall be furnished under this chapter or the Arms Export Control Act [22 U.S.C. 2751et seq.] to any unit of the security forces of a foreign country if the Secretary of State has credible information that such unit has committed a gross violation of human rights.
We will look for a moment at theHuman Rights Watch World Report for 2017, and its descriptions of Israels treatment of Palestinians. This report states that, during 2016, Israel:
- Enforced severe and discriminatory restrictions on Palestinians human rights, to facilitate the transfer of Israeli civilians to the occupied West Bank, and to severely restrict the movement of people and goods into and out of the Gaza Strip.
- Used lethal force against suspected attackers in more than 150 cases, including in circumstances that suggest excessive force and at times extrajudicial executions.
- Killed at least 94 Palestinians and injured at least 3,203 Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel as of October 31, including suspected assailants, protesters, and bystanders, according to the United Nations.
- Destroyed homes and other property under discriminatory practices that severely restrict Palestinians access to construction permits and forcibly displaced, as of October 17, 1,283 Palestinian residents in West Bank areas under direct Israeli administrative control.
- Maintained severe restrictions on the movement of people and goods into and out of Gaza, exacerbated by Israels refusal to allow Gaza to operate an airport or seaport.
- Continued the closure of the Gaza Strip, restricting movement of people and on outgoing goods, having severe consequences for the civilian population, separating families, restricting access to medical care and educational and economic opportunities, and perpetuating unemployment and poverty.
- Restricted the delivery of construction materials to Gaza which, along with a lack of funding have impeded reconstruction of the 17,800 housing units severely damaged or destroyed during Israels 2014 military operation in Gaza. About 65,000 people who lost their homes remain displaced.
- In the West Bank, as of October 31, Israeli security forces and settlers fatally shot at least 83 Palestinians and wounded at least 3,015, including passersby, demonstrators and those suspected of attacking Israelis, according to UN monitoring. In some cases, video footage and witness accounts strongly suggest that excessive force was used.
The many ways in which these barbaric practices violate the basic human rights of the Palestinians, as described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are obvious.
Despite all this, the United States provides $4 billion annually to Israel. It also consistently uses its veto power on the United Nations Security Council to protect Israel from the international consequences of its cruel and illegal actions.
In 2014, as Israel was bombing the Gaza Strip, U.S. President Barack Obama said that attacks on Israel were inexcusable. And U.S. officials constantly say Israel has a right to defend itself from Hamas's rocket attacks.
Lets talk for a minute about those rockets fired by Hamas. Normal Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors and an ardent advocate for the rights of the Palestinians, calls these rockets enhanced fireworks. They are nothing compared with the deadly, precise weaponry that the U.S. gives to Israel.
Yet these same officials ignore the fact that Israel is in violation of international law in countless ways: displacing Palestinians from their homes; moving its residents permanently onto occupied territory; having separate laws for Israelis and Arabs living in Israel; the existence of Israel-only roads; indefinite detention without charge; the occupation of the West Bank itself, and the blockade of the Gaza Strip. Additionally, they refuse to recognize the international law that states that an occupied people has the right to resist the occupation by whatever means are available.
Yet the U.S. condemns all Palestinian resistance. As Palestinian activist Hanan Ashrawi has said, the Palestinians are the only people on earth required to guarantee the security of the occupier, while Israel is the only country that demands protection from its victims.
So in saying that Israel can defend itself against Hamas rockets, but ignoring Palestinians rights to resisting the occupation, the double-standard on human rights is again evident. And it is also worth noting that during 50 days in 2014, Israel fired more rockets into the Gaza Strip, than Hamas had fired into Israel in the previous 14 years.
And can the U.S. reasonably question whether or not Israel is in violation of international law? Section 3 of the Leahy Law states the following:
In furtherance of paragraphs (1) and (2), the President is directed to formulate and conduct international security assistance programs of the United States in a manner which will promote and advance human rights and avoid identification of the United States, through such programs, with governments which deny to their people internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, in violation of international law or in contravention of the policy of the United States as expressed in this section or otherwise.
There is one phrase in that paragraph that stand out: avoid identification of the United States with governments which deny internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms. The U.S. is closely identified with rogue, brutal, apartheid regime of Israel.
Lets look at some of the things the U.S. chooses to overlook. In 2014, Israel bombed United Nations refugee centers in Gaza. It also targeted residences, mosques, press vehicles and hospitals. All these crimes are violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. may, somehow, be able to ignore many of these incidents, but the bombing of U.N. refugee centers cannot be ignored; Israel was notified at least ten times that these centers were holding unarmed citizens. The U.S. offered some tepid criticism of Israel at that time, but didnt reduce by one cent the billions of dollars it provides to that rogue nation.
The killing of four children playing on a Gaza beach was widely witnessed by the international press, but Israel investigated, and found the soldiers who shot those children were in no way culpable. So foreign aid from the U.S. to Israel continues to flow.
Lets turn now to the United States foreign military bases.
The U.S. uses military bases around the world to control and dominate most of the planet. The United States has at least 800 military basis in 70 countries, housing hundreds of thousands of military personnel. This is far more than any other nation today or at any time in history. Of all the foreign military bases of all countries, about 95% of them are owned by the U.S.
Ostensibly, these bases exist to enable the U.S. to deploy thousands of soldiers anywhere in the world where they are needed, needed being defined by U.S. corporate interests, of the interests of powerful lobby groups, such as AIPAC, although as activist David Swanson has said, with current technology, proximity isnt important; soldiers and weapons can reach anywhere in the world just as quickly from the United States. These bases provide no benefit to the U.S. economy, or to the host country, whose citizens often resent the presence of a U.S. military base on land that could be used for farming, industry or housing. The advantages accrue only to certain contractors, and the politicians to whom they generously donate.
One foreign U.S. military installation is worth some discussion in this forum.
Guantanamo Bay is the Cuban location of one of the U.S.s most barbaric and notorious torture chambers. The case of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen, is instructive.
Mr. Khadr was 15 years old when he was seriously injured in Afghanistan, and arrested by United States soldiers, and charged, on very flimsy evidence, with throwing a hand grenade that killed a U.S. soldier. It must be remembered that international law categorizes any soldier under the age of 18 as a child soldier, who cannot be charged with a war-related crime. However, international law is not something that the mighty U.S. feels any obligation to follow.
When captured, Mr. Khadr sustained extremely serious injuries, including two gunshot wounds in his chest, multiple broken bones, and shrapnel splattered all over his body, costing him the sight in one eye. Yet his immediate medical treatment was lacking.
About a week after his capture, he regained consciousness and was detained at the Bagram air base. There, he was tortured. This torture included the following:
* Being tied to a fence with his hands tied high above his head; due to his injuries, raising his hands at all was extremely painful;
* Being tied up with a bag secured tightly around his head, making breathing difficult, as attack dogs snarled and growled at him from inches away;
* Having cold water thrown over him;
* Forcing him, despite, or perhaps because of, his injuries, to pile heavy water bottles together. Once he finished the task, his torturers knocked over the pile, and forced him to re-pile them. Please remember, he was 15 years old.
After this, he was transferred to Guantanamo, where the torture continued.
One such method is referred to as the mop incident. It is documented as follows: Guards pulled his arms and legs behind in a bow position, until his limbs strained painfully at their sockets. This was known in the officially-sanctioned American torture guides as a stress position, and victims often pass out from the pain. Over several hours, the guards contorted Mr. Khadr into different stress positions, each time shoving him into a painful position on the ground. Eventually, inevitably, he urinated himself. MPs returned, mocked him for a while and then poured pine-oil solvent all over his body. Without altering his chains, they began dragging him by his feet through the mixture of urine and pine oil. Because his body had been so tightened, the new motion was extremely painful. The MPs swung him around and around, the urine and solvent washing up into his face. The idea was to use him as a human mop. After this, the MPs uncuffed him and carried him back to his cell. He was not allowed a change of clothes for two days.
He was only 15 years old; even one of the torturers at Bagram, Damien M. Corsetti, known as the Monster and the King of Torture, later said this of Mr. Khadr. He was a 15-year-old kid with three holes in his body, a bunch of shrapnel in his face. That was what I remember. How horrible this 15-year-old child looked. Further, he described Mr. Khadr as an injured child detained in one of the worst places on Earth.
Yet the U.S. government saw him differently. Initial requests for information about Mr. Khadrs incarceration, from the Director General of the Canadian Consular Affairs office, were ignored. In a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powel, a representative of the Consular Affairs office asked if Mr. Khadr was being well-treated; if he would have proper legal representation; if his status as a minor, as covered by the international conventions dealing with youths, was recognized, and when Canadian officials would be able to meet with him. Mr. Powells response was that Mr. Khadr had killed a fine young American and would be treated by what passes in the U.S. for a justice system. Apparently, Mr. Powell had determined that, without official charge or trial, Mr. Khadr was guilty, and the U.S. justice system would now administer the penalty in one of its foreign torture chambers.
Mr. Khadr was held at Guantanamo for ten years, during which he sustained ongoing torture and eventually, under extreme duress, confessed to several crimes. His incarceration and treatment were widely condemned around the world and by the United Nations.
In 2012, he was transferred to Canada to serve the remainder of an eight-year sentence, and was released on bail in 2015. The Canadian government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, appealed this court decision. The appeal was dropped when the new government of Liberal Justin Trudeau came into power.
This is just one example of how the United States simply tramples the basic human rights of people it deems unworthy of them.
Domestically, the U.S. is no more straightforward or honest in its dealings with human rights than it is on the international stage.
Going back to 1999, Amadou Diallo, age 23, was shot 41 times in 1999, after reaching for his wallet to provide police officers with his identification. An investigation by the New York City police department after the death of Mr. Diallo found that the officers acted within policy. Four officers were charged with second-degree murder and reckless endangerment, but all four were acquitted.
Since then, the murders of people of African descent by white police officers have become almost epidemic, with the offending officers seldom, if ever charged. And these shootings seem to be routine procedure.
The Black Lives Matter movement grew out of the almost weekly shootings of unarmed men, women and children of African descent, usually by white police officers, almost always with complete impunity. But the crimes of the police go beyond race, to an atmosphere of exemption from consequences for almost any crime.
Just last week, two police officers were acquitted of all charges in the deaths of two, Black men. This is not unusual; it is rare for a police officer to be charged in the death of a man or woman of African descent, and convictions almost never occur. The trial of a third officer ended in a mistrial, for the second time.
Jeronimo Yanez was found not guilty of killing Philando Castile, age 32, in Minnesota. Mr. Castiles crime was having a bulb burned out in the taillight of his car. When stopped, he told the policeman that he was carrying a gun, for which he was licensed. It seems unlikely that someone intending to shoot a policeman would first announce that he was armed. Nevertheless, he was shot seven times, just moments after he was stopped by the police.
Also acquitted last week was Dominque Heagan-Brown, also an African-American, found not guilty in the death of Slyville Smith, age 23, in Wisconsin, despite a damning video taken by another office that the jury saw. In it, Heaggan-Brown shot Mr. Smith in the chest, after the victim had thrown his weapon over a fence, and had his hand raised. He was on the ground when he was fatally shot. Beyond racism, this indicates a separate set of rules for the U.S. police.
In Ohio, the trial of Officer Ray Tensing ended in a mistrial for the second time, in the killing of Samuel Dubose, who was stopped because his car lacked a front license plate. Things escalated quickly until the unarmed Mr. Dubose was shot in the head while still sitting in his car.
Michael Brown, age 18, was shot and killed in Ferguson, Missouri, for allegedly robbing a convenience store, although he was unarmed. His body lay in the street for four hours, until police allowed it to be moved.
Eric Garner, 44-years old and the father of six children, was strangled by New York City police for allegedly selling cigarettes illegally.
Tamir Rice, age 12, was shot and killed for carrying a toy gun. Within two seconds of arriving on police arriving on the scene, the child had been shot in the chest, twice. There was no demand to drop the gun, just the shooting. The policeman who shot him was not charged with any crime.
In one incident that wasnt fatal, 47-year-old Charles Kinsey, a social worker of African descent, was trying to bring a severely autistic man with whom he worked back into the residential facility. Police were called to the scene, and ordered Mr. Kinsey and his client to lie on the ground. Mr, Kinsey did so, although his client, sitting cross-legged and playing with a toy truck, refused. Mr. Kinsey addressed the police: "Sir, there is no need for firearms. I'm unarmed, he's an autistic guy. He got a toy truck in his hand." One of the officers then fired three shots, hitting Mr. Kinsey in the leg. When Mr. Kinsey asked the officer why he had shot him, the officer responded I dont know. He then handcuffed Mr. Kinsey, and rendered no first aid for 20 minutes. The officer, Jonathan Aledda, is on paid leave as this incident is investigated.
The belief has become common in the United States that if a man of African descent commits a crime, he is a thug, a criminal. If a Muslim man commits a crime, he is a terrorist. But if a man of European descent commits a crime, he is emotionally troubled, and requires assistance to help him regain his rightful place as a productive member of society.
In the U.S., over half a million people are homeless every day of the year, sleeping in shelters or on the street; of these, about 8% are veterans, men and women who have done the U.S. militarys dirty work around the world, and now, troubled by guilt resulting in substance abuse, domestic violence, inability to keep a job and other problems, the government simply dismisses them to live on the streets.
One of the basic human rights described in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a Standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family.
The official poverty level in the U.S. is ridiculously low: for a family of four, a family income below $24,600 annually is considered poverty. A report from the Economic Policy Institute from August of 2015 indicates the following:
The basic family budget for a two-parent, two-child family ranges from $49,114 (Morristown, Tenn.) to $106,493 (Washington, D.C.). In the median family budget area for this family type, Des Moines, Iowa, a two-parent, two-child family needs $63,741 to secure an adequate but modest living standard. This is well above the 2014 poverty threshold of $24,008 for this family type.
Based on this report, a more realistic poverty line would be $49,000.00.
Determining a poverty level of $24,600 may reduce the number of people that U.S. statistics say live in poverty, but it doesnt hide the fact that millions more are actually living in poverty.
One of the many myths that the U.S. perpetuates about itself to its citizens is the concept of U.S. exceptionalism. This is the belief that the United States has a unique mission to order the world to its concept of freedom and democracy. It also includes a sense of superiority over all other nations.
In 2014, President Barack Obama said I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being.
Some more quotes on this bizarre topic: Texas Senator Ted Cruz said this: And it was American exceptionalism that stood up to the Soviet Union and freed hundreds of millions from behind the Iron Curtin. He proved once again that he has no concept of history, as when, while bowing at the unholy AIPAC altar, he proclaimed that the nation of Palestine didnt exist.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio, when campaigning for the presidential nomination in 2015, made this peculiar statement: We are the greatest nation in the history of all mankind. Never be afraid to teach that to your children. Our kids need to know the truth that they were born citizens of the single greatest nation in the history of all of mankind.
When South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham was campaigning for the Republican nomination for president, a press release from his office said this: Now he is ready to take those leadership skills to the White House, to restore faith in America's exceptionalism, and our belief that the United States is still the leader... and best hope... for a free and safe world."
This dangerous concept probably had its origins in an equally ugly and destructive concept, that of Manifest Destiny. . The term is believed to have been coined by John O'Sullivan, the cofounder and editorofThe United States Magazine and Democratic Reviewin 1845.The term signified ...the mission of the United States to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions. Mr. O'Sullivan further told his readers: Until every acre of the North American continent is occupied by citizens of the United States, the foundation of the future empire will not have been laid.Manifest Destiny became a catchphrase for what many considered to be a divinely-authorized continental expansion.
It is easy to see how that sense of superiority that belief that the United States was destined by Deity to occupy the entire North American continent, would evolve into todays idea of exceptionalism. And it must be remembered that the U.S. stole large parts of Mexico, and invaded Canada in 1812, with the hope of conquering it and making it part of the U.S.
So a nation whose citizens feel it is divinely authorized to control the entire planet will naturally have no allegiance to international law; such laws are for other countries, not the mighty United States.
This is the United States, that self-proclaimed beacon of peace and justice. This is international hypocrisy at its most blatant and deadly. People within the U.S. and without are working tirelessly to resolve these issues, but they are opposed by powerful interest groups. Yet such shocking cruelty and violations of international law and the human rights of millions of innocent people cannot continueforever. The end of the injustices perpetrated by the United States will be a welcome day around the world.
