http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts271.html

Americans have lost their ability for introspection, thereby revealing their astounding hypocrisy to the world.

US War Secretary Robert Gates has condemned the Associated Press and a reporter, Julie Jacobson, embedded with US troops in Afghanistan, for taking and releasing a photo of a US Marine who was wounded in action and died from his injury.

The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as "insensitive." Gates says her employer, the Associated Press, lacks "judgment and common decency."

The American Legion jumped in and denounced the Associated Press for a "stunning lack of compassion and common decency."

To stem opposition to its wars, the War Department hides signs of American casualties from the public. Angry that evidence escaped the censor, the War Secretary and the American Legion attacked with politically correct jargon: "insensitive," "offended," and the "anguish," "pain and suffering" inflicted upon the Marine’s family. The War Department sounds like it is preparing a harassment tort.

Isn’t this passing the buck? The Marine lost his life not because of the Associated Press and a photographer, but because of the war criminals – Gates, Bush, Cheney, Obama, and the US Congress that supports wars of naked aggression that serve no American purpose, but which keeps campaign coffers filled with contributions from the armaments companies.

Marine Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard is dead because the US government and a significant percentage of the US population believe that the US has the right to invade, bomb, and occupy other peoples who have raised no hand against us but are demonized with lies and propaganda.

For the American War Secretary it is a photo that is insensitive, not America’s assertion of the right to determine the fate of Afghanistan with bombs and soldiers.

The exceptional "virtuous nation" does not think it is insensitive for America’s bombs to blow innocent villagers to pieces. On September 4, the day before Gates’ outburst over the "insensitive" photo, Agence France Presse reported from Afghanistan that a US/Nato air strike had killed large numbers of villagers who had come to get fuel from two tankers that had been hijacked from negligent and inattentive occupation forces:

"‘Nobody was in one piece. Hands, legs and body parts were scattered everywhere. Those who were away from the fuel tanker were badly burnt,’ said 32-year-old Mohammad Daud, depicting a scene from hell. The burned-out shells of the tankers, still smoking in marooned wrecks on the riverbank, were surrounded by the charred-meat remains of villagers from Chahar Dara district in Kunduz province, near the Tajik border. Dr. Farid Rahid, a spokesperson in Kabul for the ministry of health, said up to 250 villagers had been near the tankers when the air strike was called in."

What does the world think of the United States? The American War Secretary and a US military veterans association think a photo of an injured and dying American soldier is insensitive, but not the wipeout of an Afghan village that came to get needed fuel.

The US government is like a criminal who accuses the police of his crime when he is arrested or a sociopathic abuser who blames the victim. It is a known fact that the CIA has violated US law and international law with its assassinations, kidnappings and torture. But it is not this criminal agency that will be held accountable. Instead, those who will be punished will be those moral beings who, appalled at the illegality and inhumanity of the CIA, leaked the evidence of the agency’s crimes. The CIA has asked the US Justice (sic) Department to investigate what the CIA alleges is the "criminal disclosure" of its secret program to murder suspected foreign terrorist leaders abroad. As we learned from Gitmo, those suspected by America are overwhelmingly innocent.

The CIA program is so indefensible that when CIA director Leon Panetta found out about it six months after being in office, he cancelled the program (assuming those running the program obeyed) and informed Congress.

Yet, the CIA wants the person who revealed its crime to be punished for revealing secret information. A secret agency this unmoored from moral and legal standards is a greater threat to our country than are terrorists. Who knows what false flag operation it will pull off in order to provide justification and support for its agenda. An agency that is more liability than benefit should be abolished.

The agency’s program of assassinating terrorist leaders is itself fraught with contradictions and dangers. The hatred created by the US and Israel is independent of any leader. If one is killed, others take his place. The most likely outcome of the CIA assassination program is that the agency will be manipulated by rivals, just as the FBI was used by one mafia family to eliminate another. In order to establish credibility with groups that they are attempting to penetrate, CIA agents will be drawn into participating in violent acts against the US and its allies.

Accusing the truth-teller instead of the evil-doer is the position that the neoconservatives took against the New York Times when after one year’s delay, which gave George W. Bush time to get reelected, the Times published the NSA leak that revealed that the Bush administration was committing felonies by violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The neocons, especially those associated with Commentary magazine, wanted the New York Times indicted for treason. To the evil neocon mind, anything that interferes with their diabolical agenda is treason.

This is the way many Americans think. America über alles! No one counts but us (and Israel). The deaths we inflict and the pain and suffering we bring to others are merely collateral damage on the bloody path to American hegemony.

The attitude of the "freedom and democracy" US government is that anyone who complains of illegality or immorality or inhumanity is a traitor. The Republican Senator Christopher S. Bond is a recent example. Bond got on his high horse about "irreparable damage" to the CIA from the disclosures of its criminal activities. Bond wants those "back stabbers" who revealed the CIA’s wrongdoings to be held accountable. Bond is unable to grasp that it is the criminal activities, not their disclosure, that is the source of the problem. Obviously, the whistleblower protection act has no support from Senator Bond, who sees it as just another law to plough under.

This is where the US government stands today: Ignoring and covering up government crimes is the patriotic thing to do. To reveal the government’s crimes is an act of treason. Many Americans on both sides of the aisle agree.

Yet, they still think that they are The Virtuous Nation, the exceptional nation, the salt of the earth.

Yeah, American is eeeeeeeeeeeevil and all Americans have lost their ability for introspection, we demand and end to decency and want people's bodies shown on the news, and the CIA should fight nicely. Got it.

do ya mean something like TV coverage of bombs being dropped on cities and people sitting in their living rooms cheering while thy drink their beer and eat their burritos....

Moreso the government, but yeah. And the CIA should be dismantled, not fight nicely (like the Fed and every other unconstitutional body).

you lost me there

obviously a propaganda hatchet job and not worth the paper I wipe my azz with

This is the context-"The photographer was on patrol with the Marines when they came under fire. She found the courage and presence of mind to do her job. Her reward is to be condemned by the warmonger Gates as "insensitive." Gates says her employer, the Associated Press, lacks "judgment and common decency."

It means that the photographer did her job rather than hide the truth for the government's pro-war propaganda machine. I thought it was pretty straightforward, myself. I consider White House official statements more like propaganda than this piece.

yeah that sounds really objective and unbiased

"pro-war propaganda machine"?

I'm sure it sucks right up your butt to feed your anti american hysteria

I'm anti-State, not anti-America. I LOVE America, and it would be AWESOME without the government (my desktop is the Gadsden flag, and I own copies of all the founding documents, as well as "The American Ideal of 1776" by Bastiat). Who said it was "unbiased", anyway? It's an op-ed (opinion-editorial).

How would the military or even a defense force work without any intelligence/usable information? A country just wouldn't exist for long without centralized coordination for defense. That's a little bit of a problem.

What is the basis of the claim that intelligence gathering on enemies is unconstitutional?

There are a number of means of defense- militia, private security, etc. The framers never intended for there to be a giant national military-industrial complex (see the Anti-Federalist papers and Thomas Jefferson's writings). A defense works the same way a security company does. There is no need for "Central Intelligence" if Americans do the moral/Constititutional thing and only declare war when attacked.

One of the reasons the debt is out of control is sustaining an international empire and military fascist State. When the capital is put back into the PRODUCTIVE economy, citizens can pay for their own defense.

"Intelligence" gathering is unconstitutional because there is not a single clause in the Constitution that allows for it (read it for yourself, it's true).

Yeah... even good 'ole George Washington commanded the revolutionary army using a military backed by intelligence gathering. Impossible to have a military without centralized intelligence - that is if you want your defense force to maybe be a little more organized than private security guards. The Constitution wouldn't have even made it to creation without a military - I just can't understand these kinds of arguments. Sorry I tried.

The Constitution is a statement of basic human rights that the government is not allowed to impinge upon. Despite all the fear-mongering, the CIA does not operate domestically on U.S. citizens. Law enforcement (like the FBI) operates domestically on U.S. citizens. This is constitutional and prudent to survival and the defense of life.

If I'm understanding right, you are in favor of dissolving federal agencies and relying upon private security and uncoordinated militia groups?

I think it is a good idea to bring the reality of the casualties of war close to home.

Folks mostly look at it in an abstract, far away, with only someones words softly describing that a couple more or so troops died in combat. And, there's not much reporting those unless it's local kids reported on local channels.

Americans, IMHO need to have the shield lifted and shown exactly, what happens in war.

They'll either be absolutely sickened by it, turned stone cold by it or get their jollies from it.

The problem in Afghanistan is we are fighting against Right Wing Extremists, aka, Taliban fighters. We are trying to stabilize the country and establish a Progressive, Democratic government in a region that is completely brainwashed in their ideology.

Yea, oh wait, I almost thought you were talking about here for a moment there...lol

It does sound very familiar, doesn't it?

Only difference is, we don't have Mullah's here, we have Limbah's.

I don't think the general meaning of "rightwing" or "leftwing" sort of political ideology can be applied in a place like Afghanistan. "Religious extremist" yes, "war lord" or "people in control" yeah, but there is hardly any government to speak of in Afghanistan, let alone trying to group them by ideological aligment.
Actually let's just stay with the idea, that schooling and knowing to read and write is a good thing.

Since when has there been a "Progressive, Democratic government" here? All the history books in the library are full of demonstrations of fascism, socialism, and statism. (from would-be emperor Washington to the tyrannical FDR to today)

I agree that the photograph was in bad taste and disrespectful to the family.It was shown to such a much larger audience than it should have been and too soon after the soldier died.I don't agree though that it should be censored or removed from the archive because it is images like that one that really show the true face of war.I have read many books about war and if I had to remember the images of the photos I remember most about wars it would be....

The family and one of the children in a village running down the road with their clothes burned off because of the napalm bomb that was just dropped off at their village in Vietnam.

The monks who set themselves on fire protesting the Vietcong in the middle of a parade.

The execution from a gun to the head of a suspected VC by a general in Vietnam.

The stacks of dead Jews from Hitlers death camps.

I'm sure all of those photographs were very controversial and very taboo in their day.I'm sure nobody wanted them released.But those who can not remember that past are condemned to repeat it.The next time someone gets soft on terrorism we need to drag out those awful bloody,gory pictures of dead Americans and remind them what can happen if we let ignore evil.

If you are referring to 9/11, the effect would be opposite of what you are hoping for. That attack occurred as a direct result of years of bad U.S. foreign policy. (Bin Laden himself said so) It would be essentially an admission of stupidity, arrogance, and greed. If you think the ending the phony "War on Terror" is "going soft", you're gravely mistaken. "Terror" is a verb, not an enemy. It can only be prevented by foreign policy reform and/or eliminating the Federal government entirely.