License To Kill U.S.A. Government Authorizes Killing US Citizens Any Time It Wants

14 days ago
6.61K
News Trending News

So To All My Fellow Americans From Both Political Parties We Are Going to Kill You. The Legality Of Targeting And Killing U.S. Citizens Abroad And In Your Own Country By & With Poisoning And Herbicides And Drugs And Food For A 100 Years Now. See Also So Video Links Below. When A U.S. Citizen heard he was on his own country’s drone target list, he wasn’t sure he believed it. After five near-misses, he does and is suing the United States to contest his own execution.

Us political parties
Here is a list of political parties in the United States:

Major Parties:
Democratic Party: Founded in 1828, the Democratic Party is one of the two major parties in the United States. It is known for its liberal or progressive platform, which emphasizes social justice, economic equality, and government intervention in the economy.

Republican Party: Founded in 1854, the Republican Party is the other major party in the United States. It is known for its conservative or right-wing platform, which emphasizes limited government, free market economics, and traditional values.

Minor Parties:
Libertarian Party: Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party is a libertarian party that advocates for limited government, individual freedom, and a free market economy.

Green Party: Founded in 1984, the Green Party is a left-wing party that emphasizes environmentalism, social justice, and non-violent conflict resolution.

Constitution Party: Founded in 1992, the Constitution Party is a conservative party that advocates for a strict interpretation of the US Constitution and limited government.

Independent Party: Founded in 1995, the Independent Party is a centrist party that emphasizes fiscal responsibility, limited government, and individual freedom.

The U.S. government’s involvement in the 1970s with regards to poisoning drugs was primarily focused on the use of herbicides, such as Paraquat, to destroy marijuana crops in Mexico. This was done as part of the country’s anti-drug efforts, with the intention of reducing the supply of illegal drugs. However, this practice was met with controversy and criticism, as it was seen as a violation of human rights and a potential health risk to those who consumed the contaminated crops.

During Prohibition, which lasted from 1920 to 1933, the U.S. government intentionally poisoned industrial alcohol to discourage people from drinking. This practice, known as “denaturing,” involved adding toxic chemicals to the alcohol to make it undrinkable. However, instead of achieving its intended goal, this policy led to a significant number of deaths and injuries.

The government’s efforts to poison the alcohol supply were motivated by a desire to reduce drinking and its associated social problems. However, the practice was poorly implemented, and many people were unaware that the alcohol they consumed was poisonous. As a result, thousands of people died from methanol poisoning, which can cause blindness, seizures, and even death.

One of the most notable incidents of poisoned alcohol occurred during the Christmas season in 1926, when over 60 people were hospitalized and eight died after consuming poisoned alcohol in New York City. This incident was widely reported and led to widespread outrage and criticism of the government’s policy.

The government’s decision to poison the alcohol supply was also criticized for its lack of effectiveness in reducing drinking and its disproportionate impact on poor and marginalized communities. Many people, particularly those living in urban areas, were forced to turn to illegal and dangerous sources of alcohol, which often contained even higher levels of toxic chemicals.

In the end, the government’s policy of poisoning the alcohol supply was widely seen as a failure and was eventually abandoned. Prohibition was repealed in 1933, and the production and sale of alcohol were once again legalized.

True Story How US Government Tried To Kill Weed Smokers With A Toxic Chemical - https://rumble.com/v2ath8q-true-story-how-us-government-tried-to-kill-weed-smokers-with-a-toxic-chemic.html

How U.S. Government (Killed Us Again) U.S.A. Poisoned Alcohol During Prohibition - https://rumble.com/v2atam4-how-u.s.-government-killed-us-again-u.s.a.-poisoned-alcohol-during-prohibit.html

CIA Killing 100,000> Year Selling Heroin In U.S.A. Our Troops Protecting Opium-Heroin - https://rumble.com/v2fg19o-cia-killing-100000-year-selling-heroin-in-u.s.a.-our-troops-protecting-opiu.html

Five Billion Slaughter-bots Weapon AI based drone weapon are ready be launched now - https://rumble.com/v28znek-five-billion-slaughter-bots-weapon-ai-based-drone-weapon-are-ready-be-launc.html

CIA Mind Control and CIA Secret Experiments use of biological and chemical materials. - https://rumble.com/v28z81i-cia-mind-control-and-cia-secret-experiments-use-of-biological-and-chemical-.html

The U.S. government’s MK-Ultra program was a secret research project that aimed to develop techniques for controlling human behavior through mind control and brainwashing. The program was initiated in the 1950s and continued until the 1960s.

Development and Purpose
MK-Ultra was created in response to the Soviet Union’s alleged use of mind control techniques on American prisoners of war during the Korean War. The CIA, led by Director Allen Dulles, approved the project in 1953, with the goal of developing methods to counter Soviet and Chinese mind control techniques.

Methods and Techniques
The MK-Ultra program involved a range of techniques, including:

Drug experimentation: The use of LSD, mescaline, and other drugs to alter human behavior and induce mind-altering states.
Electroshock therapy: The use of electroconvulsive therapy to alter brain function and induce amnesia.
Sensory deprivation: The use of isolation tanks and other techniques to deprive individuals of sensory stimuli and induce a state of consciousness.
Hypnosis: The use of hypnosis to induce a state of suggestibility and control.

Controversies and Consequences
The MK-Ultra program was shrouded in secrecy, and many of its activities were illegal and unethical. The program was eventually shut down in the 1960s due to public outcry and congressional investigations.

AOC Celebrate Restarting MK-Ultra Program With Progress Psychedelics Treatment. - https://rumble.com/v3045j8-aoc-celebrate-restarting-mk-ultra-program-with-progress-psychedelics-treatm.html

Legacy
The MK-Ultra program has had a lasting impact on the field of psychology and the public’s perception of government experimentation. The program has also been linked to various conspiracy theories, including claims that the government is still using mind control techniques on individuals today.

New World Order National Anthem "The Ostrich" Lyrics by Steppenwolf 1968 A.C.E.

https://rumble.com/v27t6qc-new-world-order-national-anthem-the-ostrich-lyrics-by-steppenwolf-1968-a.c..html

Compensation and Apologies
In the 1980s, the CIA settled lawsuits with some of the victims of the MK-Ultra program, providing compensation to their families.

The CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine Controversy refers to a series of allegations and investigations that suggest the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was involved in the Nicaraguan Contras’ cocaine trafficking operations during the 1980s, and that some of the profits from these illegal activities were used to fund the Contras. The controversy also involves claims that the CIA and other government agencies turned a blind eye to the drug trafficking and even collaborated with the Contras to distribute cocaine in the United States, particularly in urban areas with high concentrations of African American populations.

Key Allegations:
The CIA was aware of and supported the Contras’ involvement in drug trafficking, including the sale of cocaine to fund their military activities.
The CIA and other government agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), failed to investigate and prosecute Contra-connected drug traffickers, despite having evidence of their illegal activities.
The CIA and Contras collaborated to distribute cocaine in the United States, particularly in urban areas with high concentrations of African American populations, in order to fund their anti-Sandinista activities.
The CIA and other government agencies used drug money to fund the Contras, despite the illegal nature of the activities.

Despite the lack of evidence, the allegations of CIA involvement in the Contra-cocaine scandal have had a lasting impact on public perception of the CIA and the US government’s role in the drug trade. The controversy has also led to ongoing debates about the ethics and morality of US foreign policy and the CIA’s role in it.

Some of the key points to note about the CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine controversy include:

The CIA and the Contras were involved in a covert war in Nicaragua during the 1980s, and the Contras were known to have received funding and support from the CIA.

Cocaine was a major source of revenue for the Contras, and some Contra leaders were involved in drug trafficking.

The CIA was aware of the Contras’ involvement in drug trafficking, but did not take action to stop it.

The CIA’s Inspector General conducted an internal investigation, which concluded that there was no evidence of a conspiracy by CIA officials to bring drugs into the US.

The US Department of Justice conducted an investigation, which found no evidence of a conspiracy.

The controversy has led to ongoing debates about the ethics and morality of US foreign policy and the CIA’s role in it.

It’s important to note that the CIA-Contra-Crack Cocaine controversy is a complex and controversial topic, and different sources may have different perspectives on the events and allegations surrounding it.

What’s wrong with the U.S.’ targeted killing policy?
The notion that the U.S. can execute its own citizens anywhere in the world, far from any battlefield, without a legal determination of guilt and without firm and public standards is repugnant to our democracy. Both the Constitution and international law prohibit the use of lethal force against civilians outside of armed conflict except in very narrow circumstances: as a last resort to prevent an imminent attack that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury. A targeted killing policy under which names are added to a “kill list” after a secret bureaucratic process and remain there for months at a time appears not to be limited to imminent threats.

Allowing the use of warlike tactics far from any battlefield — using drones or other means — turns the whole world into a war zone and sets a dangerous example for other countries which might feel justified in doing the same. If the U.S. claims it can kill suspected enemies of the U.S. anywhere — using unmanned drones or otherwise — then other countries will regard killing their enemies within our borders as justified. We wouldn’t be okay with the prospect of other countries executing their suspected enemies within U.S. borders.

The targeted killing of individuals who are suspected — but not proven — to be guilty of crimes also risks the deaths of innocent people. Over the last decade, we have seen the U.S. government wrongly imprison hundreds of men as terrorists based on weak, wrong or unreliable evidence, only to eventually free them. The consequence of such mistakes is far greater when the end result is death; there is no recourse for killing the wrong person.

Why is targeted killing a civil liberties issue for the ACLU?
It is the ACLU’s job to hold the government accountable to the Constitution and international law and to defend individuals’ rights against government abuse of power.

A program of targeted killing far from any battlefield, without charge or trial, violates the constitutional guarantee of due process. It also violates international law, under which lethal force may be used outside armed conflict zones only as a last resort to prevent imminent threats, when non-lethal means are not available. Putting people on a “kill list” for months at a time is clearly not limited to last resort or imminent threats.

How does the targeted killing program operate?
There is very little information available to the public about the U.S. targeting of people far from any battlefield, so we don’t know when, where and against whom targeted killing can be authorized. According to news reports, names are added to a “kill list,” sometimes for months at a time, after a secret internal process. In effect, U.S. citizens and others are placed on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of threat.

What are the standards for being placed on the targeted killing list and who is on it?
No one knows what the standards are for being placed on the list because the government has not disclosed them. We do know that people on the list are suspects who have not been found guilty of any crimes.

The secrecy and lack of standards for sentencing people to death, resulting in a startling lack of oversight and safeguards, is one of our prime concerns with this program. We don’t know how many people are on the government’s kill lists — we don’t even know how many Americans are on the lists. And equally troubling, we don’t know on what basis people are added to the list. How much evidence does the government have before it adds a name to the kill list? Who reviews that evidence? The government should not be imposing the death penalty on the basis of standards that are secret.

Who maintains the targeted killing list?
According to government officials, the C.I.A. and the Pentagon maintain lists of suspected terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, but the inclusion of Americans on those lists must be approved by the National Security Council.

How many Americans have been targeted for death?
It’s impossible to know because the list is secret. In response to a question about the procedures used to order lethal strikes against U.S. citizens abroad, White House Terrorism advisor John Brennan suggested that “dozens of U.S. persons who are in different parts of the world” were “very concerning.” It is unclear how many of these citizens are on the kill list.

Why should being a U.S. citizen be a shield? Once you decide to fight against America, don’t you give up that protection?
There are very narrow circumstances under which the government is authorized to use lethal force against a person without due process. If a U.S. citizen takes up arms against the U.S. on a battlefield, or if he poses an imminent threat off the battlefield, citizenship will not protect him. But the government appears to be claiming the authority to use lethal force against U.S. citizens who are merely suspected of terrorist crimes, even if they are civilians far from any battlefield.

Aren’t you challenging a military strategy? Shouldn’t the military be able to do what’s necessary to keep us safe?
War time authority must be limited to active conflict zones, but the U.S. is reportedly targeting people located far from any battlefield. The entire world is not a battlefield, and we don’t want to replace the laws of peace with the laws of war everywhere and anywhere the government believes a suspect may be located. If we give the executive branch the authority to define a global battlefield and to describe any terrorism suspect as a combatant, then we are effectively allowing government officials to make life-or-death decisions without the time-tested procedural protections of the Constitution.

How the U.S. responds to the threat of terrorism will in large measure determine the rules that govern every nation’s conduct in similar circumstances. If the U.S. claims it can kill suspected enemies of the U.S. anywhere — using unmanned drones or otherwise — then other countries will regard killing their enemies within our borders as justified.

Why should someone be protected just because he isn’t in an armed-conflict zone? Would this be ok if he was hiding out in Iraq or Afghanistan?
Under very narrow circumstances, the government can use lethal force without due process, including against people engaged in armed conflict on the battlefield and people who pose an imminent threat off the battlefield. But unless those criteria are met, the government cannot lawfully execute someone without charge or trial.

Why should we care that the U.S. government is trying to kill bad people who are far away?
Targeting people who are suspected of terrorism for execution, far from any war zone, turns the whole world into a battlefield. If the U.S. starts sending drones after its suspected enemies all over the world, there’s nothing to stop other countries from doing the same. Americans certainly don’t want other countries to start sending drones after their own enemies who might be located within U.S. borders.

Our proposed legal challenge is not about the guilt or innocence of individual suspects; it’s about defending the Constitution and the rule of law. The President simply does not have the authority under our Constitution to create a program that gives him the secret, unchecked authority to designate citizens for death. If we allow the President to violate some individuals’ constitutional rights unopposed, then everyone’s constitutional rights are at risk.

Does al-Aulaqi know you plan to file a lawsuit on his behalf?
We have never communicated with Anwar Al-Aulaqi. Our only contact has been with his father. Our planned lawsuit is about the principle of giving the executive branch unilateral authority to impose an extrajudicial death sentence on American citizens.

What are you asking for in your lawsuit?
We are asking a court to declare that, except in cases of concrete, imminent threat when there are no other means besides lethal force available to stop the threat, intentionally targeting and killing of U.S. citizens violates the Constitution and international law. We are also asking the court to order the government to disclose the criteria it uses to determine when a U.S. citizen can be targeted and killed, and to block the government from killing Anwar Al-Aulaqi unless he is found to present a concrete, imminent threat and there are not other means besides lethal force that could be used to stop the threat.

Are you trying to get Anwar al-Aulaqi off the targeted killing list?
We are asking a court to block the government from killing any U.S. citizens, including Anwar Al-Aulaqi, unless they are found to present a concrete, imminent threat and there are not other means besides lethal force that could be used to stop the threat.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1330&context=vlr

Targeted Killing and the Rule of Law: The Legal and Human Costs of 20 Years of U.S. Drone Strikes
In a 9 February 2022 hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Crisis Group’s Chief of Policy Stephen Pomper recommended legal reform to reinvigorate Congress’s decision-making role in the current legal and structural status quo on U.S. counter-terrorism operations.

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Grassley and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today about the United States’ use of force in countering terrorism and more broadly as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is a privilege to be speaking before this distinguished committee.

I am currently the Chief of Policy for the International Crisis Group, an international non- governmental organization dedicated to conflict prevention; we currently cover more than 50 conflict situations around the world. From 2002 until 2017, I worked for the U.S. government in a variety of roles including as the Senior Director for Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights at the National Security Council, where I helped to develop U.S. policy with respect to civilian casualties, and as the Assistant Legal Adviser for Political-Military Affairs at the Department of State, where my focus was on international and domestic law regulating the use of force and the law of armed conflict.

My testimony today will argue that recent revelations about civilian casualties in U.S. counterterrorism operations should prompt an examination of how the United States came to be involved in a temporally and geographically unbounded twenty-year conflict with an undisclosed and evolving list of terrorist groups. It will explore why it is problematic that the executive branch has been permitted such broad discretion about how to define the scope of this conflict and the legal and structural factors that contributed to the status quo. My principal recommendation will be to reinvigorate Congress’s constitutional role with respect to decision- making on matters of on war and peace. This will require legislative reform – in particular amending and updating the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (“2001 AUMF”) and 1973 War Powers Resolution (“1973 WPR”) – to increase checks and balances on the use of military force as an instrument of foreign policy.

A Problematic Status Quo
In September 2021, President Biden told the United Nations that “I stand here today for the first time in 20 years, with the United States not at war. We’ve turned the page.” But in fact the United States is still very much waging war. While last year marked the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, it did not mark the end of the conflict in which they fought. That conflict continues on, for the most part conducted under the 2001 AUMF. The enemy is an amalgamation of groups that includes al-Qaeda, certain affiliates known as “associated forces,” and ISIS. It is colloquially referred to as the “war on terror,” which is how I will refer to it today.

Much about the war on terror is hidden. We hear about it when there is a big success, as with the raid that led to the death of ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Quraishi in Idlib, Syria last week. We also sometimes hear when something goes terribly wrong, as with the deaths of four U.S. servicemembers at Tongo Tongo, Niger, in 2017, or when stories emerge in the media about previously undisclosed mass civilian casualties.

Counter-terrorism has come to mean light foot-print operations in remote locations that evade easy monitoring.
But much of the time we do not hear about it at all. We do not know exactly who the U.S is fighting or where. We do not know what success in this conflict is supposed to look like. We do not have a reliable sense of who is being killed or why they are being killed. This is in part for operational reasons: counter-terrorism has come to mean light foot-print operations in remote locations that evade easy monitoring.

There is also an institutional explanation, however. The development, prosecution and oversight of this war has largely been handed over to the executive branch. Successive administrations have developed legal and policy doctrines that allow them to expand the scope of the conflict unilaterally. Rather than seek authority from Congress, they turn to their own lawyers to seek interpretations of pre-existing statutes that Congress never contemplated. They decide what sorts of safeguards are appropriate to guard against civilian casualties and too often fail to apply them rigorously.

This approach is problematic. From the rule of law perspective, it is problematic because it has been characterized by a lack of transparency and seemingly ad-hoc rule-making in the absence of effective checks and balances. From the humanitarian perspective, it is problematic because it may unnecessarily expose innocent civilians to harm. From a strategic perspective, it raises the question of whether the United States is over-extended militarily at a time when it faces so many global and strategic challenges. And from the perspective of wanting to turn the page, it is problematic because it has allowed the executive branch substantial latitude to perpetuate and expand the present war without a robust discussion of its costs.

A Three-part Problem
1. An elastic legal framework
While there is an extensive body of law that governs the use of force by the executive branch, it has been aggressively interpreted by successive administrations to the point where it is now far easier for the executive branch unilaterally to start or expand a war than it is for Congress to end one.

Although Article I of the Constitution vests in Congress the power to declare war, the executive branch takes a very broad view of the President’s unilateral war-making powers under Article II’s Commander-in-Chief clause. According to the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), there are certain checks on this power. Namely, the president must be able to establish that a unilateral use of force serves a “national interest” and that the “nature, scope and duration” of the anticipated hostilities will not rise to the level of “war in the constitutional sense”. The national interest test, however, has been deemed to include everything from an expansive conception of self-defense to regional stabilization, leading a growing chorus of experts to characterize it as nearly meaningless. For its part, the “nature, scope and duration” test is both pliant and unevenly applied. In the run-up to the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, for example, OLC issued opinions that President George W. Bush would have the unilateral authority to launch those hugely consequential wars even in the absence of congressional authorization. Despite the urging of scholars and former senior government lawyers from both parties, these opinions remain on the books.

Second, the 1973 WPR has largely been gutted as a constraint on presidential powers. Although intended to reinvigorate Congress’ role on matters of war and peace, a combination of executive branch interpretation, court decisions and congressional acquiescence have left it all but ineffective as a mechanism for regulating executive war-making. To be sure, the statute still notionally requires the president to withdraw U.S. forces introduced into “hostilities” within 60 days (or 90 under certain circumstances) absent congressional authorization to keep fighting. But since 1975, successive administrations have read the term “hostilities” very narrowly and also developed counting methods that delay reaching the 60-day threshold. Even the notification provisions under the 1973 WPR, which have historically been fairly effective, have become less functional.

The Supreme Court’s 1983 INS v Chadha decision has also cast constitutional doubt over the capacity of Congress to order the withdrawal of troops through a concurrent resolution, as originally contemplated by the 1973 WPR. This leaves Congress without a reliable way to end a war through simple majority vote. While in theory it can deny funding to a war already in progress, or override a presidential veto to enact a joint resolution of disapproval, the practical and political obstacles are forbidding.

Third, beyond the president’s constitutional powers, the 2001 AUMF has been transformed into a deep well of unilateral authority for the executive branch. While on its face, the 2001 AUMF approves the use of force against groups the president determines to have “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11 attacks (as well as those who harbored such groups or persons) successive administrations of both parties have looked past the statutory language requiring a connection to those events. Through the executive branch’s interpretive gloss, groups can be unilaterally deemed targetable under the AUMF if they constitute “associated forces” of al-Qaeda because they are viewed as having entered the war alongside it. In 2014, the executive branch also deemed ISIS to be targetable under the AUMF even though ISIS leaders had broken with al-Qaeda and were, in certain instances, in direct conflict.

Finally, the United States’ approach to international law renders it a less than fully reliable constraint on executive action. International law is widely understood to require that in order for a state to use force on another state’s territory, it must act with the territorial sovereign’s consent, a UN Security Council authorization, or in self-defense. But the United States’ approach to anticipatory self-defense and its reliance on the contested “unwilling or unable” test create significant operational latitude for the executive branch and can be applied in a way that brings the United States into potential conflict with other nation states. In some instances, administrations of both parties have simply dispensed with an international legal justification for the threat or use of force – as the Clinton administration did with respect to operations in Kosovo (1999), the Obama administration did in threatening to use force against Syria (2013) and the Trump administration did in the context of its Syria strikes (2017 and 2018).

2. A permissive legal culture
The normalization of war as a tool by which the United States advances its counterterrorism policies has placed an enormous weight on the shoulders of the U.S. government’s national security lawyers, who are generally required to vet proposals that reach the president’s or the cabinet secretaries’ desks. As a former State Department lawyer, I have deep respect and admiration for the government’s national security legal corps. At the same time, however, there are sometimes misperceptions about the decision space in which those lawyers operate. It tends to be narrow. While national security lawyers can and do say “no” when they cannot see a legal justification for a proposed operation, the U.S. approach to national security lawyering creates an expectation that the lawyers will exercise significant creativity in offering what is generally unreviewable legal advice, often making them an agent for the expansion of executive powers rather than a bulwark against it.

To begin with, executive branch lawyers are for the most part not required (with the exception of OLC under its guidelines) to confine their advice to the best understanding of what the law requires. Instead, without explicit standards for rendering legal advice, lawyers across the government often default to whether a position is “legally available.” This can in some instances mean taking positions that are contrary to the weight of authority, scholarly opinion, or even the United States’ own prior positions.

Some reports suggest, for example, that the Obama administration reached the conclusion that the 2001 AUMF authorizes military force against ISIS – a group that fits neither within the plain language of the 2001 AUMF nor the definition of associated forces developed by the executive branch – even though none of the senior lawyers involved regarded this to constitute the best interpretation of the statute. The point here is not that the United States should not have used force against ISIS. Rather, it is that the executive branch was able to launch a military campaign this consequential based on a contested legal theory about what was even then a more than ten- year-old statute—rather than obtaining prior authorization from Congress consistent with its constitutional role.

The need to justify events that have already happened, can be another driver of expansive executive branch lawyering. For an operating agency, the implications of conceding error – for example by determining that lives have been unlawfully taken – are potentially profound from the perspective of reputation, morale and legal liability. In some cases, reporting suggests, accounts of problematic activities become buried in the system. But other times lawyers in Washington are asked to justify facts on the ground. Under those circumstances, there can be significant pressure to adopt new and expansive legal positions.

Much of the doctrine relating to U.S. operations in the war on terror can trace its roots to positions that the U.S. government took to justify the detention of ‘enemy combatants’.

Perhaps the most salient example of this kind of retrospective national security lawyering arises in the context of the Guantanamo detainee litigation. Much of the doctrine relating to U.S. operations in the war on terror can trace its roots to positions that the U.S. government took to justify the detention of “enemy combatants” seized both on and off the battlefield in the early years of the conflict. Indeed the U.S. government’s interpretation that the AUMF extends to “associated forces” with no nexus to the September 11 attacks appears to have at least partly developed out of the need to retrospectively justify – first to the Combatant Status Review Tribunals that reviewed the legality of detentions during the George W. Bush administration and ultimately to the federal courts – why the United States was entitled to capture and hold members of groups other than al-Qaeda. Successive administrations then applied that definition prospectively to open new fronts in the war on terror against groups that did not exist on the day of the September 11 attacks and on battlefields far from Afghanistan.

Finally, there are limits to how much strong executive branch process can be relied on to counter these drivers of expansive legal doctrine. While bringing together lawyers from across the national security community in a “lawyers group” to discuss important issues is a valuable exercise, and can help ensure that diverse viewpoints are aired, those gatherings are generally convened with a view toward getting to “yes” on a proposed campaign or operation. In these circumstances, dissenting voices may find themselves focusing on how they can maintain points of principle, even as they are yielding to operational preferences as a practical matter.

3. Flexible safeguards
Through several administrations, the executive branch has committed to the protection of civilians through safeguards that it views as exceeding legal requirements imposed by the law of war. Yet the evidence suggests that the safeguards are flexible, the technical capacity to implement them is unreliable, and the U.S. government’s internal systems for tracking and correcting its own failures in this area are lacking. This hearing is in many respects framed by a series of reported system failures in Afghanistan and Syria that surfaced only because journalists uncovered them and brought them to the attention of the public.

Why, after 20 years of war using systems designed for precision, under safeguards intended to minimize risks to civilians and encourage operational transparency, are incidents like this still surfacing? Part of the answer to the first question surely lies in General Frank McKenzie’s explanation that “combat ... is an inherently messy, imprecise, bloody business.” If a country goes to war, it must expect that there will be civilian casualties. Part of the problem may also relate to the specific circumstances of some of the strikes – whether the United States has a ground presence to help guide targeting, or the depth of its intelligence base in a particular locale. But it is hard to imagine that the pliancy of the safeguards that the United States has relied on to prevent civilian harm is not also a factor.

Perhaps most important, the ultimate guardrail for the protection of civilians in the U.S. system is adherence to the law of war, which requires the parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilians, who enjoy immunity from targeting, and combatants, who can be killed or detained based on their status. But law of war protections still allow for civilian casualties – provided they are not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated – meaning that simple adherence to these standards can lead to situations where significant numbers of civilians are killed, even knowingly, in combat.

Whereas other militaries commit to take ‘all feasible’ precautions to protect civilians to be part of their international legal commitments, the U.S. only commits to take ‘feasible precautions.’
Moreover, in the context of a non-international armed conflict with a non-state actor such as ISIS or al Qaeda, at least some parts of the U.S. government have taken a relatively flexible approach as to who qualifies as a combatant. The Defense Department’s Law of War Manual offers illustrative examples of what constitutes “formal” and “functional” membership in an armed group – which it regards as the equivalent of combatancy – without articulating meaningful limits on who can fall within these terms. Further, unlike many partner militaries, the Pentagon’s manual does not contain a presumption that individuals are civilians in cases of doubt. In addition, whereas other militaries commit to take “all feasible” precautions to protect civilians to be part of their international legal commitments, the U.S. only commits to take “feasible precautions.”

While the U.S. has created coordination and consultation requirements for the war on terror that are intended to create an additional layer of safeguard, there are loopholes. Reports of the 2019 Baghuz strike that appears to have led to mass casualties suggest that operators could skirt these safeguards through the dubious invocation of “self-defense”. U.S. operators in Somalia have also reportedly long considered “collective self-defense” strikes in support of partner forces to lie beyond the reach of normal coordination and consultation requirements.

Systems for reporting civilian casualty incidents, learning lessons and ensuring they are incorporated into the military’s approach to future operations also appear to be lacking. As noted, many of the major civilian casualty incidents to be reported over the course of the war on terror, have been reported not by the U.S. government, but by journalists and civil society organizations.

In recent weeks, the administration has given signals that it will make an effort to correct some of these problems. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s memo of January 27 mandates a “Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Plan” within 90 days. The administration has suggested that it conducted last week’s special operations raid that killed the top ISIS leader in Idlib, Syria with particular attention to mitigating the risk to civilians. But the depth and durability of any reforms remains to be seen. As one commentator recently observed, U.S. mitigation efforts in the war on terror have followed a “cycle of learning and forgetting.”

Restoring Congress’s Constitutional Role in War and Peace
For the reasons I have described, the legal and prudential safeguards meant to constrain both the scope and the conduct of the war on terror are insufficient. While it is important to pursue reforms that can help preserve innocent life that could be lost as a consequence of U.S. operations, it is also important to address the risk that this twenty-year-old war persists indefinitely without sufficient examination of its costs and effectiveness, and to begin restoring balance between the political branches with respect to matters of war and peace.

As concerns civilian casualties, the Department of Defense has long been urged by scholars and civil society to adjust its “feasible precautions” standard to match the “all feasible precautions” benchmark that many U.S. allies regard as a requirement of international law. It should do so, while also tightening its definition of who is targetable, and adjusting its protocols so that there is more reliable reporting and investigation of civilian casualty incidents. Because of the institutional challenges the Pentagon has faced in the latter task, it should consider bringing in experts from outside the chain of command – even from outside the executive branch – to ensure the work is rigorously done.

But changes like these are no surrogate for a broader inquiry about the war itself, and about the executive branch’s war-making powers. That will require Congress to reassert its Constitutional prerogatives on matters of war and peace. The Framers invested this body with the Declare War power for a reason: It is the most representative of the three branches of government and, because of its deliberative nature, the most apt to place a brake on imprudent war. Congress should begin to reclaim this role with two mutually reinforcing steps.

First, Congress should debate and decide the extent to which the U.S. must remain on a war- footing in order to meet the terrorist threats that it faces. Depending on the outcome of that discussion, it should replace the 2001 AUMF with a more narrowly targeted law that identifies the specific groups Congress authorizes war against, the locations where that war may be conducted, and the mission that the war is seeking to achieve. The revised statute should remove the capacity of the executive branch to change the scope of the war by adding new “associated” or “successor” forces without first obtaining congressional permission. To ensure that elected officials are required to examine whether the conflict is actually achieving its stated objectives, it should include a date no more than two or three years into the future by which the statute will lapse absent reauthorization.

Second, taking the longer view, Congress should replace the 1973 WPR with a revised statute that narrows the executive branch’s discretion to wage unilateral war to the realm of true self- defense. The bipartisan draft National Security Powers Act introduced over the summer by Senators Lee, Murphy and Sanders would be a good place to start. In addition to common sense changes (such as changing the 60-day withdrawal clock to a 20-day clock that would be more difficult to manipulate), the Act would clearly define “hostilities,” effectively narrow the realm for unilateral executive branch war-making to true self-defense, require much more robust reporting of conflicts once underway, and deny funding should the executive branch seek to wage war without Congress’s approval.

One overdue step that the executive branch should take in support of this reform effort would be to review the inventory of OLC opinions that relate to unilateral executive branch war-making authorities and revoke those that stand out as extreme. The two above-referenced opinions from 2001 and 2002 would be a good place to start.

Conclusion
Legal reforms that require Congress and the executive branch to agree on the scope of the current and future wars are the only way to ensure the kind of public airing that these conflicts deserve, remove the power to decide the contours of the nation’s wars from unelected lawyers and policymakers, and place responsibility with the elected officials who are accountable to the nation’s voters. There is no guarantee that structural changes requiring greater cooperation between the two political branches on matters of war and peace will lead to more of the latter than the former. The U.S. Congress did, after all, authorize the Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars. But if U.S. elected officials are to fully learn the lessons of those wars, and put them into practice, then they must have a vehicle for doing so. Policy formed in the insular world of the executive branch is unlikely to be such a vehicle. Inter-branch debate – in view of the public, and subject to democratic accountability – is more likely to serve the interests of the United States and the ends of global peace and security.

Lies, Lies, Lies Top CIA, FBI, DOJ Officials Grilled Abuse Section 702’s Mass Surveillance - https://rumble.com/v2u1w5w-lies-lies-lies-top-cia-fbi-doj-officials-grilled-abuse-section-702s-mass-su.html

Executive Orders Can’t Save The U.S.A. ? It's “WE THE PEOPLE” Who Own America ? - https://rumble.com/v2cgic2-executive-orders-cant-save-the-u.s.a.-its-we-the-people-who-own-america-.html

Executive Orders associated with FEMADC that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to seize all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports, and waterways.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10999 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institution in any undefined national emergency. It also provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has broad powers in every aspect of the nation.

UN Invasion, Martial Law, Rex 84 Death Camps, Globalist Purge, Operation Cable Splicer. This Is Part One... https://rumble.com/v41h3zp-un-invasion-martial-law-rex-84-death-camps-globalist-purge-operation-cable-.html

Guide To Understanding Globalist Purge FEMA Quarantine Re-Education Death Camp - https://rumble.com/v41deia-guide-to-understanding-globalist-purge-fema-quarantine-re-education-death-c.html

Federal Emergency Management Agency Death Camp's Purchase 30,000 Guillotines - https://rumble.com/v2cfd3c-federal-emergency-management-agency-death-camps-purchase-30000-guillotines.html

https://rumble.com/v27tdu5-the-district-of-columbia-organic-act-of-1871-41st-us-congress-sold-out-the-.html

https://rumble.com/v280ewg-your-momma-sold-you-into-slavery-who-owns-your-citizenship-you-or-your-gove.html

https://rumble.com/v27x230-the-united-states-government-is-a-foreign-corporation-with-respect-to-a-sta.html

https://rumble.com/v27wcq7-the-act-of-1871-the-united-states-is-a-corporation-there-are-two-constituti.html

https://rumble.com/v29quxm-united-states-is-a-corporation-and-corporate-origins-of-modern-constitution.html

https://rumble.com/v2dau7c-birth-certificate-equals-slavery-bondage-understanding-how-admiralty-mariti.html

https://rumble.com/v2dmnio-meet-your-strawman-your-birth-certificate-is-worth-millions-swindled-by-u.s.html

Lab-Grown And Real Human Meat Was FDA Approved Cannibalism A Sprit Cooking - https://rumble.com/v2mnkmi-lab-grown-and-real-human-meat-was-fda-approved-cannibalism-a-sprit-cooking.html

Truth Behind Meat Production Chicken Waffle Beef Burger An Eye-Opening Exploration - https://rumble.com/v2mmrac-truth-behind-meat-production-chicken-waffle-beef-burger-an-eye-opening-expl.html

600 Billion Dollars Poison Ingredient Making Your Food Toxic To Eat Processed Food - https://rumble.com/v2mesq8-600-billion-dollars-poison-ingredient-making-your-food-toxic-to-eat-process.html

Human Meat Project - New Shake 'N Bake Fetus - Campbell Cream of Fetus Soup? - https://rumble.com/v2qkf5y-human-meat-project-new-shake-n-bake-fetus-campbell-cream-of-fetus-soup.html

GMO Genetically Modified Organisms Transgenic Crops and Recombinant DNA Technology - https://rumble.com/v2dn1zu-gmo-genetically-modified-organisms-transgenic-crops-and-recombinant-dna-tec.html

This Is How Beef, Chickens, Cats, Dogs, Fish, Human Meat Hot Dogs Are Really Made - https://rumble.com/v31wtya-this-is-how-beef-chickens-cats-dogs-fish-human-meat-hot-dogs-are-really-mad.html

Baby Chicks Ground Up Alive I'm Not A Chicken Nuggets And Eggs Educational Film - https://rumble.com/v327fsc-baby-chicks-ground-up-alive-im-not-a-chicken-nuggets-and-eggs-educational-f.html

Everything You Need To Know About Eating Live Insects Wild Edibles Of The World - https://rumble.com/v341blk-everything-you-need-to-know-about-eating-live-insects-wild-edibles-of-the-w.html

Nothing to See Here “Accidental Destruction” Food Processing Plant Fire Suspicious - https://rumble.com/v2axqu6-nothing-to-see-here-accidental-destruction-food-processing-plant-fire-suspi.html

CIA Killing 100,000> Year Selling Heroin In U.S.A. Our Troops Protecting Opium-Heroin - https://rumble.com/v2fg19o-cia-killing-100000-year-selling-heroin-in-u.s.a.-our-troops-protecting-opiu.html

More than a Million Americans Kill Themselves With Drug Suicide have died from overdoses during the opioid epidemic. Its very easy to not die... Stop buy your drugs from the black market and someone sell drugs from a car...

So how to get a drug prescription in U.S.A., only physicians, dentists, podiatrists, or veterinarians can issue prescriptions... so if you want drugs do it the right way. And stop killing yourself from drugs from the black market now.

Understanding the Opioid Overdose Epidemic ? Why More People Are Turning to the Black Market for Medication ? Preventing Drug Suicide and New research released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found roughly 932,000 fatal overdoses from 1999-2020. Preliminary data shows another 100,000 deaths this year.

https://ycsg.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/we_can't_go_cold_turkey.pdf

https://www.unodc.org/res/wdr2022/MS/WDR22_Booklet_1.pdf

Deaths due to drug overdose have topped a million for the first time since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began collecting data on the problem more than two decades ago.

A study released Thursday by the National Center for Health Statistics, a division of the CDC, found that 932,364 people died in the U.S. from fatal overdoses from 1999 through 2020.

Separate preliminary data from the CDC shows another 100,000 drug deaths expected in 2021.

The Truth About Gain-Of-Function Covid-19 Vaccines U.S.A. Bioweapon And Terrorism - https://rumble.com/v2kpsyc-the-truth-about-gain-of-function-covid-19-vaccines-u.s.a.-bioweapon-and-ter.html

You Will Never Trust Another Celebrity After Watching This Corrupt U.S.A. Governments - https://rumble.com/v2kq5mw-you-will-never-trust-another-celebrity-after-watching-this-corrupt-u.s.a.-g.html

Docs Worldwide Warn You to Not Take the Covid 19 Vaccine Will Kill You Dead Soon - https://rumble.com/v2ksf52-docs-worldwide-warn-you-to-not-take-the-covid-19-vaccine-will-kill-you-dead.html

Unlike the COVID-19 pandemic, which hit elderly Americans hardest, researchers found drug deaths have risen fastest among the young and middle-aged adults struggling with addiction.

Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People? - https://rumble.com/v2qf2nk-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-people-will-threaten-the-live-of-vaccinated-pe.html

Male to Female Sex Reassignment Surgery Live ** Very Graphic ** Think Twice Guys ? - https://rumble.com/v2hpw3e-male-to-female-sex-reassignment-surgery-live-very-graphic-think-twice-guys-.html

WoW This Looks Fun Lady's Keyhole Top Surgery For Female to Male Transgender -- https://rumble.com/v2zsoao-wow-this-looks-fun-ladys-keyhole-top-surgery-for-female-to-male-transgender.html

New Mandate Law To Force All U.S.A. Female To Get Sex Genital Mutilation Survivors - https://rumble.com/v2hjog8-new-mandate-law-to-force-all-u.s.a.-female-to-get-sex-genital-mutilation-su.html

Evidence Shows Hillary Clinton Is A Robot And Clinton's 100s Dead Body Count Info. - https://rumble.com/v2hx6cg-evidence-shows-hillary-clinton-is-a-robot-and-clintons-100s-dead-body-count.html

Secrets Meeting Biden Said New U.S.A. Laws Coming Age of Consent Is To Be 8 Yrs. Old - https://rumble.com/v2j9os4-secrets-meeting-biden-said-new-u.s.a.-laws-coming-age-of-consent-is-to-be-8.html

Secret Pedophile's Watch Child Beauty Pageant Glitter Girls Age 4 Thru 8 Yrs. Old - https://rumble.com/v36e1uw-secret-pedophiles-watch-child-beauty-pageant-glitter-girls-age-4-thru-8-yrs.html

What’s The True Pedophile's Blood Killings Story Behind Joe-Hunter Biden’s Laptop - https://rumble.com/v2ro7po-whats-the-true-pedophiles-blood-killings-story-behind-joe-hunter-bidens-lap.html

Disney Pedophile's Branson Necker Island 40 Miles To Epstein Orgy Island Global Elite - https://rumble.com/v2dim5k-disney-pedophiles-branson-necker-island-40-miles-to-epstein-orgy-island-glo.html

Joe-Hunter Biden's Insane Laptop Exposed Sex, Drugs, Shady Deals, Child Killing 4 Sex - https://rumble.com/v2rnowy-joe-hunter-bidens-insane-laptop-exposed-sex-drugs-shady-deals-child-killing.html

Pedophile and A Pizza Secret Human Trafficking and Child Sex Ring Evidence ** GRAPHIC ** - https://rumble.com/v2bbfv2-pedophile-and-a-pizza-secret-human-trafficking-and-child-sex-ring-evidence-.html

List of Visitors and Guestbook and Epstein Island They Do Not Want You to See Ever - https://rumble.com/v2d2l2c-list-of-visitors-and-guestbook-and-epstein-island-they-do-not-want-you-to-s.html

Biden's Crime Family And Kids​ With Sex Crime Against Young Girls And 13 Dead Body's - https://rumble.com/v2te3tg-bidens-crime-family-and-kids-with-sex-crime-against-young-girls-and-13-dead.html

CIA-DOJ-FBI Pizza-Gate Secrets Sex Multi-Billion Dollar Human Trafficking Industry - https://rumble.com/v2q8g8s-cia-doj-fbi-pizza-gate-secrets-sex-multi-billion-dollar-human-trafficking-i.html

Biden's Chinese Sex & Business Secrets Enriched Biden Family At America's Expense - https://rumble.com/v2tehzo-bidens-chinese-sex-and-business-secrets-enriched-biden-family-at-americas-e.html

Can Pedophile's Have Sex With Real Kid's Humanoids and Other Adult AI Robot's - https://rumble.com/v2hui5e-can-pedophiles-have-sex-with-real-kids-humanoids-and-other-adult-ai-robots-.html

Creepy Pedophile's Uncle Joe Played Out Over 33 Million Dollars Sexual Assault Claims - https://rumble.com/v2rp4bc-creepy-pedophiles-uncle-joe-played-out-over-33-million-dollars-sexual-assau.html

Pandemic Of The Unvaccinated People Will Threaten The Live Of Vaccinated People? - https://rumble.com/v2qf2nk-pandemic-of-the-unvaccinated-people-will-threaten-the-live-of-vaccinated-pe.html

Decoding 100's Illuminati Symbolism Pyramid All Seeing Eye And 666 Hand Gesture - https://rumble.com/v2s1tkm-decoding-100s-illuminati-symbolism-pyramid-all-seeing-eye-and-666-hand-gest.html

Ted Cruz Play Game - Real Story Is Human Trafficking & Sex Slaves Is U.S.A. Planned - https://rumble.com/v3lm9yp-ted-cruz-play-game-real-story-is-human-trafficking-and-sex-slaves-is-u.s.a..html

U.S.A. Government Largest Middleman & Suppliers Of Sex Slave Trafficking Operation - https://rumble.com/v3m43w6-u.s.a.-government-largest-middleman-and-suppliers-of-sex-slave-trafficking-.html

For Greater Good Its A Pandemic Unvaccinated People Threaten Vaccinated People - https://rumble.com/v3g39q7-for-greater-good-its-a-pandemic-unvaccinated-people-threaten-vaccinated-peo.html

Pizza Gate New Clues Pedophile Paintings Modern Art Or Disturbing Pizza Clues W0W - https://rumble.com/v2bbt6i-pizza-gate-new-clues-pedophile-paintings-modern-art-or-disturbing-pizza-clu.html

How FISC-DOJ-CIA-FBI Secret Pedophile's Courts, Justice System, Government Works - https://rumble.com/v2ghpce-how-fisc-doj-cia-fbi-secret-pedophiles-courts-justice-system-government-wor.html

U.S. Government Is Selling Child Pornography and False Charges Against U.S. Citizens - https://rumble.com/v2gonq2-u.s.-government-is-selling-child-pornography-and-false-charges-against-u.s..html

How U.S.A. Government Payed CIA Asset Jeffrey Epstein Got Away With It As Planned - https://rumble.com/v405v1q-how-u.s.a.-government-payed-cia-asset-jeffrey-epstein-got-away-with-it-as-p.html

Black Sex Slave Fight For Sexual Justice During Reconstruction Female Slave Owners - https://rumble.com/v2fxav6-black-sex-slave-fight-for-sexual-justice-during-reconstruction-female-slave.html

Per U.S.A. Government Everyone Is A Criminal Confiscation All Property & All Assets - https://rumble.com/v3t6igt-per-u.s.a.-government-everyone-is-a-criminal-confiscation-all-property-and-.html

Sex Slave 4 Sale Remember Men Buy, Sell, Or Trade, Rape Illegals Arrive Ghost Flights - https://rumble.com/v3lnmc5-sex-slave-4-sale-remember-men-buy-sell-or-trade-rape-illegals-arrive-ghost-.html

Epstein Island Guestbook and Visitor List They Do Not Want You to See Ever ! - https://rumble.com/v293sb4-epstein-island-guestbook-and-visitor-list-they-do-not-want-you-to-see-ever-.html

U.S. Government Is Selling Fentanyl Laced w-Xylazine To Kill Us - Its Not From Mexico - https://rumble.com/v2giyy1-u.s.-government-is-selling-fentanyl-laced-w-xylazine-to-kill-us-its-not-fro.html

Welcome To Our Channel In 2024 What If Everything You Were Taught Was A Lie? Yes We All The People Of The U.S.A. So If You Our Black-White-Yellow-Brown-Red-Woke-Trans-Etc. We At This Channel Do Not Care About Anyone Skin Color At All Now Or In The Past Time. All Info. shared in this channel is for non-hate and non-race and historical purposes to educate, elevate, entertain, enlighten, and empower through old and new film and document allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.

Note: The content on this channel may cover controversial topics and explore differing perspectives. It is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. Views expressed by guests or in comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the channel owner. We encourage respectful dialogue and open-mindedness. However, viewers are advised to conduct their own research and exercise critical thinking when engaging with the content. This channel does not endorse or condone any form of hate speech, discrimination, or violence. Viewer discretion is advised.

Welcome To The New World Order - The Year Zero - The Real Origin of the World - National Anthem of the United States of America and Confederate States of America National Anthem and New World Order National Anthem Is "The Ostrich" Lyrics by Steppenwolf from the album 'Rest In Peace' 1967-1972 A.C.E. The Conspiracy to Rule Your Mind chronicles how the ruling elite have established global domination and the ability to effect the thoughts, decisions, and world view of human beings across the globe by systematically infiltrating the media, academia, industry, military and political factions under the guise of upholding democracy. Learn how this malevolent consortium has dedicated centuries to realize an oppressive and totalitarian rule through any means necessary, not limited to drug trafficking, money laundering, terror attacks and financial crisis within the world economy.

Worldwide tyranny is already in full effect, the food we eat and the air we breathe are not off limits. Will we be able to stop this madness before we become an electronically monitored, cashless society wherein ever man, woman and child is micro chipped? We live in the world where sex is free and love costs, where losing a phone is scarier than losing morale, where it is fashionable to get drunk and using drugs, because if you don’t do that, you’re old and out, where men cheat on their wives with girls and if they don’t, it’s for fear of being caught, where girls are more afraid of being pregnant than getting AIDS, where pizza delivery is faster than an ambulance, where clothes decide a person’s value and money is more important than friends and family... This is not my world. Where has my true world gone? The New World Order Is Upon Us - Preserve Your Liberty By Being Prepared ! - We The People of the New World Order Thank You.

The Left/Right paradigm isn't only exposed by race and immigration issues. The Left and Right are in lockstep on every issue that really matters: The IRS. Income tax. Federal Reserve system. Endless wars. Endless expansion of tyranny and ever contracting liberty. Chronically wide-open borders. Suicidal immigration policies. Don't you see? The democrats and republicans exist only to provide the illusion of choice. A strong "us versus them" simulation in every election. It's ritualized tribalism. But the joke is, it doesn't matter which team wins, because both sides have the same agenda. God, guns and gays are phony "issues" to bolster the illusion of "difference" between the parties. The only thing that makes all this possible is that people aren't aware of the scam. Just knowing they are either "Team Red" or "Team Blue" liberates them from the responsibility of having to actually know or think anything. Then they feel righteous when their team wins, or despondent when they loose. It's no coincidence that the system works exactly like sports. There comes a point when ignorance and apathy become treason. We are past that point, people.

Everything you want to know what could be more terrifying than being trafficked for sex? Being murdered in a ritual sacrifice. And even worse than that would be being murdered in a ritual sacrifice so wealthy elite cabalists can harvest your adrenal glands to get the compound Adrenochrome they need to prolong their decrepit lives! It's so easy to be overwhelmed and feel beaten by the amount of negative and discouraging information being spread by the mainstream (fake stream) media. There are truly awful people in WEF and WHO, who want to reduce us to the level of serfs or chattel, but we can resist, indeed, we must resist. Be calm, be objective and be positive. Right is Might. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.” Nobody Is Safe From People's Republic Of The Tyrannical We The Sheeple People of The United States of America and A Real True Bill of State Rights Of Government July Forth 1776 The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, which limit the power of the federal government and guarantee certain freedoms and rights to all colour of people and for the citizens of All America.

Thanks For Calling and Remember the U.S. Government Leave No Witnesses Alive Behind Them. If You See Fraudulent or Criminal Activities by U.S. Government. Please Call Us (ASAP) So We Can Send Someone Out To Kill You! Thanks Again For Calling.

The Presidential Hotline Pedophile and Secret Human Trafficking and Child Sex Ring Etc. Call 1-866-4-5455-968 ( 1-866-I-Kill-You ) should be used when all your attempts to get assistance from a government department, province, municipality or state agency have failed. It is not only a complaints line. You can call to share your views or provide solutions to the challenges in your community. We also list the help line numbers of non-governmental organization's working with government. You may call at 987-654-3210 ext. new world order!

Loading 6 comments...