Ad

Showing posts with label seals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label seals. Show all posts

Sunday, November 4, 2012

Facebook Censorship of Navy Seals for Anti-Obama Benghazi Scandal.




ANTI-OBAMA BENGHAZI MEME GETS CENSORED FOR ‘VIOLATING FACEBOOK’S STATEMENT OF RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES’

Posted on October 30, 2012 at 8:52pm by Jason Howerton
Facebook reportedly took down an image, or a meme, posted by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS) that was critical of President Barack Obama’s handling of the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. You may have actually seen it before it was taken down — it had earned roughly 24,000 “likes.”
The meme, which can be seen below, shows both Obama and deceased al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden with the following message: “Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden. When the SEALs called Obama, THEY GOT DENIED.”
Anti Obama Benghazi Meme Gets Censored From Facebook
(Source: Breitbart.com)
It was first taken down and the account was issued a warning. The account was later suspended for 24 hours for defying the warning and re-posting the image — with the warning above it.
The message is based on reports that indicate CIA operatives in Benghazi were told to “stand down” rather than help after Americans on the ground in Libya attempted to call out for help. Reports also suggest that the White House situation room had access to a live feed of the chaos at the U.S. compound as well as real-time email updates from within State Department.
Breitbart.com’s Awr Hawkins reportedly spoke with Larry Ward, president of Political Media, Inc., the company responsible for the SOS Facebook account.
“We created and posted this meme on Saturday after news broke that Obama had known and denied SEALs the backup they requested,” Ward told Breitbart.com.
He continued: “Once the meme was up it garnered 30,000 shares, approx. 24,000 likes, and was read by hundreds of thousands of people — all within 24 hrs. On Sunday, I went into the SOS Facebook page to post something else and found a warning from Facebook that we had violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with our meme. So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as as caption, and re-posted the meme to the Facebook page.”
Anti Obama Benghazi Meme Gets Censored From Facebook
(source: Breitbart.com)
The re-posted meme was removed within 8 hours before Facebook suspended the SOS PAC’s account for 24 hours.
Is this a violation of free speech or did SOS violate Facebook policy?

Facebook Claims -- Accidental Mistake -- in Censoring Navy SEALS

By Bobby Eberle 





source: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate


Facebook censors Navy SEALs for claiming Obama denied them help

Published: 01 November, 2012, 00:13

Facebook page of Special Operation Speaks PAC
Facebook page of Special Operation Speaks PAC

Social media giant Facebook has removed a message by the Special Operations Speaks PAC (SOS), which shed negative light on US President Obama for denying a request for military support in Benghazi before the deadly attack on the consulate.
The message came in the form of a meme, accompanied by an image of Obama, smiling while holding his ears, next to an image of former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
“Obama called the SEALs and THEY got bin Laden,” the meme states. “When the SEALs called Obama, THEY GOT DENIED.”
The message sheds light on Obama’s failure to provide backup when the SEALs called for it in Benghazi, shortly before four Americans were killed in an attack that killed the US Ambassador to Libya.
Sources who were present during the six-hour assault claim that military assistance, which was only two hours away, was requested and denied even when the CIA safe house was under attack. The assault has become a controversial topic, with the White House having been unclear about how much it actually knew about the attack and the motivations behind it.
SOS is an anti-Obama group consisting of “veterans, legatees, and supporters of the Special Operations communities of all the Armed Forces,” the Facebook page states. After the page garnered 30,000 shared and 24,000 likes for the meme in just 24 hours, it was deleted by Facebook.
(Image from facebook.com)
(Image from facebook.com)
Larry Ward, the administrator of the SOS Facebook page, said he received a message that he had violated Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities with out meme.
“So I copied the warning, put it on the meme as a caption, and re-posted the meme to our Facebook page,” he told Breitbart News. But after reposting the image, it was removed again and the SOS account was frozen for 24 hours.
Ward believes the meme was removed because it offended Obama supporters – including, he believes, members of the Facebook staff. It was posted just days before the presidential election, and its high number of shares could have made it influential.
“It looks like Obama’s liberal followers in Facebook HQ are terrified of how damaging the Benghazi scandal is for the President,” said former Navy SEAL Larry Bailey in a press release by SOS. “We understand that Facebook can run their site however they’d like, but when they’re trying to quietly squelch opposition to what is a clear leadership failure that resulted in the tragic deaths of some of our nation’s heroes, they deserve the to be called out on it.”
But Facebook denies that it purposefully censored the message, claiming the two-time deletion was simply a mistake.
“A member of our team accidentally removed something you posted on Facebook,” an e-mail from the social media giant told SOS. “This was a mistake, and we sincerely apologize for this error. We’ve since restored the content, and you should now be able to see it.”
The restored image currently has about 11,000 shares and 7,000 likes.
Posted at 01:00 PM ET, 10/31/2012

Facebook admits error in censoring anti-Obama message


Sunday, September 30, 2012

Diplomatic Security in Light of Benghazi


By Scott Stewart

It has been more than two weeks since the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, yet the attack remains front-page news. One reason is that it has become unusual for a U.S. ambassador to be killed. After the 1968 assassination of John Mein in Guatemala -- the first ever U.S. ambassador to be assassinated -- several others were killed in the 1970s: Cleo Noel Jr. in Sudan in 1973, Rodger Davies in Cyprus in 1974, Francis Meloy Jr. in Lebanon in 1976 and Adolph Dubs in Afghanistan in 1979. However, following improvements in diplomatic security during the 1980s, no U.S. ambassador has died as a result of a hostile action since Ambassador Arnold Raphel, who was killed in the plane crash used to assassinate Pakistani President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in August 1988.
Another reason for the continued publicity is that it is an election year. Since foreign policy is an area where Republicans believe President Barack Obama is vulnerable, Stevens' death has become highly politicized. In any event, the Benghazi attack remains in the headlines. Unfortunately, as one goes beyond those headlines, there are many misunderstandings that have persisted in both the media coverage and the public discussions of the incident. There simply are not many people who understand how diplomatic facilities work and how they are protected. 
With that in mind, and because other U.S. diplomatic facilities remain in harm's way due to the protests occurring throughout the Muslim world, it is an opportune time to again discuss diplomatic security.

Responsibilities

First, whenever discussing the security of diplomatic facilities, it must be understood that, by treaty, the responsibility for the security of diplomatic facilities lies with the host government. This clear responsibility was codified in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which took effect in 1964.
This is generally not a problem in a developed, friendly country. There is little doubt that the Australian government will take the appropriate steps to ensure that the U.S. Embassy and the British High Commission in Canberra remain safe. The problems with the responsibilities outlined in the Vienna Convention occur when a diplomatic facility is located in a country that is either unable or unwilling to provide adequate security.
The U.S. government has learned this lesson the hard way. For example, in 1979, the U.S. embassies in Tehran and Islamabad were overrun. In both cases, the host governments could have taken action to stop the mobs attacking the embassies but chose not to. A few years later in Lebanon, the U.S. Embassy and Embassy Annex were targeted in massive bombing attacks in 1983 and 1984, respectively. In these attacks, it was weakness that prevented the Lebanese government, which had been exhausted by civil war, from providing adequate protection for the facilities.
The situation in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, very much resembled the one in Lebanon at the time of the embassy bombings. The Libyan central government has very little authority outside of Tripoli, the capital, and heavily armed tribal and regional militias control many parts of the country. Some of this has changed since locals angry at Ansar al-Sharia, a group believed to have participated in the Benghazi attack, stormed the compounds of some Islamist militias in the Benghazi area, evicting them and turning the compounds over to the government. Nevertheless, the militias left with most of their weapons and will continue to be a threat in the future.
The U.S. government learned from the incidents of the 1970s and 1980s that host governments cannot always be expected to provide security adequate to counter all threats in a country. In response to this reality and the increased attacks against U.S. diplomatic missions, U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz set up a commission in 1984 to study the problem and find ways to increase security at U.S. facilities abroad. The panel, headed by Adm. Bobby Inman, was formally called the Advisory Panel on Overseas Security but is widely referred to as the Inman Commission. In addition to recommending a more robust cadre of agents to protect facilities, the Inman Commission made recommendations on physical and procedural security standards for diplomatic facilities. Embassies and consulates constructed in accordance with these physical security standards are often referred to as Inman facilities.
Based on the findings of the Inman Commission, the Department of State's Office of Security was expanded to become the Diplomatic Security Service in 1985. The U.S. Congress codified and funded these changes in the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986. 

Funding Issues

However, as we've previously noted, funding for diplomatic security follows a notable boom and bust cycle. The influx of funding for diplomatic security provided by the 1986 Omnibus Act quickly evaporated. By the early 1990s, security budgets were being severely squeezed again. This budget crunch affected physical security upgrades at embassies as well as the hiring of new Diplomatic Security Service agents and forced cuts in things such as local guard program budgets. The Crowe Commission, which was appointed to investigate the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in August 1998, concluded that these funding cuts had severely hampered efforts to increase security at U.S. facilities abroad.
While there was a spike in funding for diplomatic security (along with security more generally) after the 9/11 attacks, security funding has declined over the past decade. This issue has been complicated by the incredible strain placed on the system by the huge diplomatic facilities in Iraq as well as the large diplomatic presence and severe threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Providing security to these posts has also stretched Diplomatic Security Service personnel thin. The two Diplomatic Security Service special agents injured in the Benghazi attack were on their first tours and had been borrowed from domestic field offices in the United States for a temporary duty assignment protecting Stevens in Libya. The personnel situation is not looking much better for the future. With the agents hired after the Inman Commission in the mid-to-late 1980s retiring at a rapid rate, and with others leaving due to strain placed on their families by multiple tours in places in Iraq and Afghanistan, the 100 new special agents the Diplomatic Security Service is slated to hire this year will not be enough to replace those leaving the service. 


Read more: Diplomatic Security in Light of Benghazi | Stratfor 
 

Friday, August 24, 2012

National Security Leaks.

Feinstein Comments on National Security Leaks Emerge as Campaign Issue

gty barbara feinstein dm 120316 wblog Feinstein Comments on National Security Leaks Emerge as Campaign Issue
Scott J. Ferrell/Congressional Quarterly/Getty Images

In remarks at the World Affairs Council, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed concern Monday about leaks of national security information, saying, “The White House has to understand that some of this is coming from its ranks. I don’t know specifically where, but I think they have to begin to understand that and do something about it.”

Referring to David Sanger’s book “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” Feinstein said, “There’s one book they can read and they’ll see it very clearly. And I think that should be the case.”

Feinstein said that “what the president actually knows about this is difficult because with respect to intelligence he is in a bubble. He has his daily brief, called the PDB, the President’s Daily Brief, early every morning. And so he gets briefing from intelligence I don’t believe for a moment that he goes out and talks about it, I don’t believe the briefers go out and talk about it, but who knows who else. And I think that the importance of this has to be really set by the president himself. And hopefully he will do it, and I think he’ll most likely read the book and see it himself.”

Referring to David Sanger’s book
“Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars
and Surprising Use of American Power,”
Feinstein said, “There’s one book they
can read and they’ll see it very clearly.
And I think that should be the case.”



Asked for more detail about the senator’s comments, a Feinstein aide says that when she said the leaks were “coming from its ranks,” the senator was referring to the Obama administration — the federal government — in general, not specifically individuals in the White House. The aide also said that the senator does not know who the leakers were; she was assuming.

read more here: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/democratic-senators-comments-on-national-security-leaks-emerge-as-campaign-issue-3/

Who’s leaking the White House’s classified national security information?

Kill lists for drone strikes personally ticked off by President Barack Obama, a terrorist bomb plot thwarted by a brave double agent, juicy details about the raid that killed Osama bin Laden – all leaked and now all fuelling a raging political brouhaha in this election year.

Presidents decry leaks, and Mr. Obama is no exception. “The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive,” Mr. Obama claimed after the most recent leak revealed another supposedly secret cyber-attack on Iran.

Opponents weren’t persuaded. “It’s obvious on its face that this information came from individuals who are in the administration.” said Sen. John McCain as the ‘leaks’ furor dominated the Sunday talk shows. “The president may not have done it himself, but the president certainly is responsible as commander in chief.”


Skillful, willful leaking has long
been part of the dark art of
enhancing presidential prowess.

Skillful, willful leaking has long been part of the dark art of enhancing presidential prowess. And – especially with those secrets so closely held that only a vanishingly few people know them – the likelihood of accidental or inadvertent disclosure is tiny.

Critics accuse the president – or loyal aides close to him – of deliberately leaking to boost Mr. Obama’s image as being even tougher, and more effective, at waging war on terrorists than his predecessor, George W. Bush. But those leaks risk the lives of agents in the field and make future and on-going covert operations more difficult.

Even as all sides claimed they only wanted to stop the leaks and haul the leakers before the courts, a partisan battle was under way. “The White House ... claimed that my criticism of the Administration’s involvement in, and culpability for, leaks of sensitive and classified information is ‘grossly irresponsible.’ No, what is grossly irresponsible is U.S. officials divulging some of the most highly classified programs involving the most important national security priorities facing our nation today,” said Sen. McCain, who lost to Mr. Obama in the 2008 presidential elections.

One revealing anecdote recently emerged about the bin Laden raid and high-level willingness to keeping secrets when political advantage is in play. According to then Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in both the Bush and Obama administrations, those who watched the raid with the President agreed.

“In the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday, the next day,” Mr. Gates said. It has since been leaked that the following day, Mr. Gates confronted one of Mr. Obama’s closest aides and suggested a new communications policy, consisting of “Shut the f–– up!”
In the current case, Mr. Obama’s embattled Attorney General Eric Holder has named two Justice Department prosecutors to probe the leaks.

“In the Situation Room, we all
agreed that we would not release
any operational details from the
effort to take out bin Laden. That
all fell apart on Monday, the next
day,” Mr. Gates said.

That, too, is coming under fire for being inadequate.

“Can you have the U.S. attorney assigned through the Attorney General to investigate something that is clearly going to be at the most senior levels of all of the executive branch – DOD (Department of Defense) and FBI, the attorney general’s office and even the president. I mean, some of the leaks – and the public leaks– are self-described aides or people who were in the Situation Room. That’s a pretty small but pretty important group of people,” said Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Sen. McCain was blunter. “Mr. Holder’s credibility with Congress is – there is none,” he said, adding that when a CIA agent Valerie Plame was outed during the Bush administration, a special independent counsel was appointed to investigate and – eventually – a top aide to former Vice President Dick Cheney went to prison.

The current leaks about kill lists for drone strikes and cyber warfare and double-agents deep inside al-Qaeda’s bomb-making cell in Yemen constitute the “most egregious breach of intelligence in anybody’s memory, (and) certainly requires a special counsel who is completely independent,” he said.

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/whos-leaking-the-white-houses-classified-national-security-information/article4246577/

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Dead Birds...Lots of Dead Birds. Tons and Tons of Dead Fish. Seals Washing Ashore In Alaska Being Tested For Fukushima Radiation. Happy 2012


Dead blackbirds fall again in Arkansas town
Posted: Dec 31, 2011 9:39 PM MST Updated: Dec 31, 2011 11:33 PM MST

By JEANNIE NUSS
Associated Press

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) - Thousands of dead blackbirds rained down on a town in central Arkansas last New Year's Eve after revelers set off fireworks that spooked them from their roost, and officials were reporting a similar occurrence Saturday as 2012 approached.

Police in Beebe said dozens of blackbirds had fallen dead, prompting officers to ban residents from shooting fireworks Saturday night. It wasn't immediately clear if fireworks were again to blame, but authorities weren't taking a chance.

Officer John Weeks said the first reports of "birds on the streets" came around 7 p.m. as residents celebrated the year's end with fireworks in their neighborhoods.

"We started shutting down fireworks," he said. "We're working on cleaning up the birds now."

He said police were working with animal control workers and others to remove the birds and determine a death count.

"We're not sure if they're going to continue to fall throughout the night. I can't tell you," Weeks said.

Scientists say the loud cracks and booms from celebratory fireworks likely sent the birds into such a tizzy that they crashed into homes, cars and each other before plummeting to their deaths last New Year's Eve. The birds landed on roofs, sidewalks, streets and fields. One struck a woman walking her dog. Another hit a police cruiser.

The blackbird die-off, coupled with tens of thousands of dead drum fish that washed up on the shores of the Arkansas River, flung the state into the national headlines and drew conspiracy theorists and filmmakers to the town about 30 miles northeast of Little Rock that shares Arkansas Gov. Mike Beebe's last name.

Some people speculated that the birds had been poisoned; others said their deaths marked the beginning of the apocalypse.

"It's just got to be a pain in my career," Beebe Police Chief Wayne Ballew said.

Prior to this New Year's Eve, Ballew said he wouldn't be surprised if people sit out on their front porches in case the winged creatures fall from the sky again.

"I guess we could have an annual blackbird watch," he said with a laugh. "People can just bring their umbrellas, open them up and walk through the neighborhood and hope they don't get hit."

Charles Moore didn't plan to have an umbrella at the ready, but said he would have his camera out on New Year's Eve. Last year, he drifted off to sleep before the ball - and birds - dropped.

"When we got up on New Year's Day and walked out to get the paper, we saw all the carnage out there," he said. "So we thought we would be on the watch for it this time."

___

Follow Jeannie Nuss at http://twitter.com/jeannienuss

Ark. Town Again Hit by Dead Blackbirds

Cops ban fireworks after repeat of last New Year's Eve carnage begins

(AP) - Thousands of dead blackbirds rained down on a town in central Arkansas last New Year's Eve after revelers set off fireworks that spooked them from their roost, and officials were reporting a similar occurrence yesterday as 2012 approached. Police in Beebe said dozens of blackbirds had fallen dead, prompting... More »




20 tons of dead fish wash up on Norway beaches- cause of massive fishkill unknown

January 2, 2012NORWAY – The inhabitants of Troms could hardly believe their eyes on the morning of New Year’s Eve, a very large amount, an estimated 10 to 20 tons of dead herring washed up on the beach, writes Northern Lights. Tromsø city is the ninth largest urban area in Norway by population. The city is warmer than most other places located on the same latitude, due to the warming effect of the Gulf Stream which originates at the tip of Florida. Various theories abound for the incident but no one knows for sure what’s happened in the popular hiking area in Nordreisa municipality. However, various theories have been tossed around, explains Jan-Petter Jorgensen (44), who stumbled upon the mass death in sight on the beach with his dog Molly. People say that something similar happened in the 80′s, and there is speculation among others on the river which flows into the ocean behind a promontory on the site, may have had something to do with it. Maybe the fish have been caught in a deprived oxygen environment, and then died of fresh water? Jorgensen estimates each individual fish to be of 100-150 grams, and that the total might be about up to 20 tons. Now he’s worried about what might happen if no one comes and removing carcasses. -Dagbladet -translated
contribution Mr. B, Roger Aak 
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/20-tons-of-dead-fish-wash-up-on-norway-beaches-cause-of-massive-fishkill-unknown/

Slew of dead birds found along roadway in Mt. Sterling, Kentucky



December 27, 2011KENTUCKY – There’s a bizarre scene in Montgomery County where dozens of birds are dead. More than 30 birds are lying dead on Indian Mound Drive at the intersection of Grassy Lick Road in Mt. Sterling. All the birds appear to be the same species, and seem to have died and landed at this spot all at once. No word yet about what caused their death. The strange sight was first spotted on Christmas morning by people who live nearby. “Yesterday morning around 9:30 am when I pulled out on to the bypass, and there was a whole slew of birds,” explains local resident Karen Williams. “I didn’t know where they came from. I didn’t know. I thought if someone shot them there was an awful lot of shooting going on but I don’t know,’ said Williams. –LEX 18
Source

Birds accused of losing bearings in New Mexico and flying into trucks- 50 found dead



December 15, 2011 BLOOMFIELD, N.M. — A strange sight in Bloomfield where 40 to 50 dead birds were reportedly found along U.S. 64 last week. Some of the black and speckled birds were lying on their backs with their small feet sticking up in the air, and at least one was missing its head. The Daily-Times  reports about 30 dead birds were north of the highway and about 20 additional piles of flattened feathers were on the highway. Wildlife biologist John Kendall with the Bureau of Land Management investigated the cluster. He thinks they likely roosted in shrubs north of the highway Wednesday night and died when they flew into the side of a large truck driving the highway late Wednesday or early Thursday. It’s also unlikely the birds died from environmental causes because they were so close together when they died. –The Republic 

John Kendall, a wildlife biologist for the Bureau of Land Management, investigated the cluster and identified the species of bird. The starlings likely roosted in shrubs north of the highway Wednesday night and died when they flew into the side of a large vehicle driving the highway late Wednesday or early Thursday morning, he said. “It certainly is unusual,” Kendall said. “Usually birds are smarter than that.” –ABQ Journal 
Source

Thousands of birds crash into Walmart parking lot but wildlife expert’s explanation for the event makes even less sense



December 14, 2011UTAH – Thousands of migratory birds died on impact after apparently mistaking a Wal-Mart parking lot and other areas of southern Utah for bodies of water and plummeting to the ground in what one wildlife expert called the worst downing she’s ever seen. Crews went to work cleaning up the dead birds and rescuing the survivors after the creatures crash-landed in the St. George area Monday night. By Tuesday evening, volunteers had rescued more than 2,000 birds, releasing them into nearby bodies of water. “They’re just everywhere,” said Teresa Griffin, wildlife program manager for the Utah Department of Wildlife Resource’s southern region. “It’s been nonstop. All our employees are driving around picking them up, and we’ve got so many people coming to our office and dropping them off.” Officials say stormy conditions probably confused the flock of grebes, a duck-like aquatic bird likely making its way to Mexico for the winter. The birds tried to land in a Cedar City Wal-Mart parking lot and elsewhere. “The storm clouds over the top of the city lights made it look like a nice, flat body of water. All the conditions were right,” Griffin told The Spectrum newspaper in St. George. “So the birds landed to rest, but ended up slamming into the pavement. No human injuries or property damage have been reported. Griffin noted most downings are localized “but this was very widespread. I’ve been here 15 years and this was the worst downing I’ve seen,” she told the newspaper. Officials said they were continuing the rescue effort that started Tuesday afternoon and included an enthusiastic group of volunteers. The surviving grebes were released into bodies of water in southern Utah’s Washington County, including a pond near Hurricane. –Bellingham Herald
Source

Diseased seals washing ashore in Alaska being tested for possible Fukushima radiation exposure



December 29, 2011ALASKA - Scientists in Alaska are investigating whether local seals are being sickened by radiation from Japan’s crippled Fukushima nuclear plant. Biologists at first thought the seals were suffering from a virus, but they have so far been unable to identify one, and tests are now underway to find out if radiation is a factor. Scores or multiples of twenty, ring seals have washed up on Alaska’s Arctic coastline since July. Their symptoms include: bleeding lesions on the hind flippers, irritated skin around the nose and eyes, and patchy hair loss on the animals’ fur coats. John Kelley, Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Marine Science at the University of Alaska Fairbanks said, “We recently received samples of seal tissue from diseased animals captured near St Lawrence Island with a request to examine the material for radioactivity. There is concern expressed by some members of the local communities that there may be some relationship to the Fukushima nuclear reactor’s damage.” Test results would not be available for several weeks. –ENE News
Source
This time last year...



Could this have something to do with the animal deaths?

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Bin Laden, Seals, Significant Information Cache, Echoes of the Bush Years, Fake Bin Laden Photo, Geronimo

In Bin Laden’s Compound, Seals’ All-Star Team

WASHINGTON — There were 79 people on the assault team that killed Osama bin Laden, but in the end, the success of the mission turned on some two dozen men who landed inside the Qaeda leader’s compound, made their way to his bedroom and shot him at close range — all while knowing that the president of the United States was keeping watch from Washington.
John Moore/Getty Images
A Seal member preparing to capture top insurgents in 2007 near Fallujah, Iraq. Members of Team 6 are the elite of the elite.
Multimedia

Readers' Comments

The men, hailed as heroes across the country, will march in no parades. They serve in what is unofficially called Seal Team 6, a unit so secretive that the White House and the Defense Department do not directly acknowledge its existence. Its members have hunted down war criminals in Bosnia, fought in some of the bloodiest battles in Afghanistan andshot three Somali pirates dead on a bobbing lifeboat during the rescue of an American hostage in 2009.
The raid early Monday in Pakistan has nonetheless put a spotlight on a unit that has been involved in some of the American military’s most dangerous missions of recent decades.
Leon E. Panetta, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said the Seal commandos went into the mission with only a 60 percent to 80 percent certainty that Bin Laden was in the compound. Mr. Panetta said the commandos made the “split-second decision” to shoot him — the unarmed Qaeda founder had a rifle within reach, an American official said Wednesday — when they found him in his third-floor bedroom.
There was no debate among former Seal members that whoever had shot Bin Laden had done the right thing.
“It’s dark; there’s been a lot of bullets flying around, a lot of bodies dropping; your mission is to capture or kill Bin Laden; who knows what he’s got tucked in his shirt?” said Don Shipley, 49, a former Seal member who runs Extreme Seal Experience, a private training school in Chesapeake, Va. Mr. Shipley was reacting to earlier Obama administration accounts of an extended firefight at the compound, but on Wednesday, administration officials revised the narrative, saying that the only shots fired came at the beginning of the raid, from a courier.
“It happens in an absolute blink of an eye for these guys,” Mr. Shipley said. “And there’s that target in front of you. Second chances cost lives.”
Lalo Roberti, 27, a former Seal member who teaches at Mr. Shipley’s school and took part in a gruesome rescue mission in Afghanistan in 2005, concurred. “For us to take a shot, it has to be bad,” Mr. Roberti said. “Especially for the ‘6’ guys.”
Inside the Navy, there are regular unclassified Seal members, organized into Teams 1 to 5 and 7 to 10. Then there is Seal Team 6, the elite of the elite, or, as Mr. Roberti put it, “the all-star team.”
Former Seal members said this week that the unit — officially renamed the United States Naval Special Warfare Development Group, or Devgru — was chosen for the bloody Bin Laden raid, the most high-profile operation in the history of the Seals, because of the group’s skills in using lethal force intelligently in complex, ambiguous conditions.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/05/world/middleeast/05seals.html

Bin Laden raid nets 'significant' information cache

By Kevin Johnson and Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

Updated 24m ago |
 0 |  0
WASHINGTON — The cache of information seized from the Pakistani compound of Osama bin Laden and his reliance on couriers suggests that the terror leader — despite nearly a decade spent in hiding — still sought to provide strategic guidance to terrorists within the organization, a U.S. government official said Wednesday.
  • Attorney General Eric Holder said he has serious concerns about national security from possible revenge attacks for Osama bin Laden's death.
    By Mark Wilson, Getty Images
    Attorney General Eric Holder said he has serious concerns about national security from possible revenge attacks for Osama bin Laden's death.
By Mark Wilson, Getty Images
Attorney General Eric Holder said he has serious concerns about national security from possible revenge attacks for Osama bin Laden's death.
The official, who declined to be identified because the person is not authorized to speak publicly, said the material contained on about five computers, 100 remote electronic storage devices, such as flash drives, and 10 hard drives is one of the "most significant in the history of the war on terror."
An initial review of the information already has produced some potential threat information, but the official did not elaborate, saying the review was in its early stages.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in testimony Wednesday before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said there was no "specific or credible" intelligence worthy of a national terror alert.
On Capitol Hill, Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday that teams of federal officials gathered from across the government are reviewing the information in the hope that it will offer fresh leads about plots and the whereabouts of surviving terrorists.
Holder, in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he fully expected that the information analysis, overseen by the CIA, would yield new names that will be added to the nation's terror watch lists.
Former CIA director Michael Hayden, who directed the spy agency and the hunt for bin Laden between 2006 and 2009, described the seizure as a "vast quantity of digital material."
"That's really good news," Hayden said in an interview with USA TODAY, adding that some of the information may be encrypted and require additional analysis.
"Fundamentally, you do a first cut (review of the information) to make sure there's not imminent threat information," Hayden said. "Then you parcel it out among experts to do a deep dive into it.
"Every individual piece (of information) has to be held up to the light," the former director said.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-05-04-holder-bin-laden-hard-drives_n_n.htm

In bin Laden victory, echoes of the Bush years

As President Obama celebrates the signature national-security success of his tenure, he has a long list of people to thank. On the list: George W. Bush.
After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush waged wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have forged a military so skilled that it carried out a complicated covert raid with only a minor complication. Public tolerance for military operations over the past decade has shifted to the degree that a mission carried out deep inside a sovereign country has raised little domestic protest.
More On This Story
And a detention and interrogation system that Obama once condemned as contrary to American values produced one early lead that, years later, brought U.S. forces to the high-walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and a fatal encounter with an unarmed Osama bin Laden.
But the bridge connecting the two administrations has also led Obama to the same contested legal terrain over how to fight against stateless enemies and whether values should be sacrificed in the pursuit of security.
“We, in the Obama administration, absolutely benefitted from an enormous body of work and effort that went into understanding al-Qaeda and pursuing bin Laden,” said Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications.
“There’s also a broader set of legal questions that we’ve been wrestling with, and some have not been resolved,” Rhodes said, such as the closing of the military brig at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where some of the al-Qaeda leaders who provided the early clues that led to bin Laden’s hideout were held. “The reason is that there’s is no consensus in this country for how to do so.”
Obama invited Bush to join him Thursday at the former site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, where the president plans to lay a wreath and meet with families of those who lost relatives in the attacks. Bush declined the invitation.
Obama campaigned against the ends-justify-the-means legal system adopted by the Bush administration to capture, detain, question and try terrorist suspects, including those at the center of bin Laden’s pursuit.
After pledging to close Guantanamo within a year of taking office, Obama has failed to do so, and he has chosen to alter, rather than scrap, the Bush-era military commission system to try terrorist suspects. Human rights groups have called the changes improvements.
Obama has abolished the use of harsh interrogation techniques, which some Bush administration officials say produced essential intelligence in the hunt for bin Laden.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-bin-laden-victory-echoes-of-the-bush-years/2011/05/03/AFz4eQsF_story.html

When Extreme Interrogation Tactics Work Is It Time To Rethink Torture?

May. 4 2011 - 9:06 pm | 48 views | 0 recommendations | comments
Just three days following the successful mission that killed Osama bin Laden, the discussion has moved on to an argument over whether extreme interrogation tactics -such as waterboarding – produced the intelligence that made it all possible.
There is growing evidence that information gained from two high value targets, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, may have gotten the ball rolling on gathering the intelligence required to identify the bin Laden couriers who ultimately led us to Osama. And while the information extracted from KSM, possibly by means involving torture, was but a small piece of the puzzle that solved the riddle – it may well have been the beginning of the process that paid off in two bullets being pumped into the world’s public enemy number one.
As might have been expected, the two sides of the torture debate are now at one another’s throats attempting to either minimize or maximize the impact of the methods employed, depending on one’s ideological position.
While I have never supported the use of torture for a number of reasons, it seems fair to now take another look at this extremely tricky question for the purpose of determining the most appropriate way to go forward in a world where terror has become a primary concern and threat.
To begin, let’s face a few realities when it comes to the morality of torture.
Let’s also be honest with one another.
Most of us who disagree with the use of torture in any circumstance – whether on ethical or legal grounds or simply because we don’t believe it works – are likely not shedding many tears over the use of waterboarding on KSM if it accomplished even a little of the information that played a role in Osama’s demise. I know I am not.
We should also acknowledge that if the life of someone we loved were on the line, few of us would hesitate to use any means available, including the most sordid methods of torture, if we believed there was a chance it might save that individual. And if the life of an entire city were on the line, I think we can all agree that none of us would object to the use of the most extreme forms of torture if it might provide the needed information to stop a nuclear explosion or some other weapon of mass destruction.
Still, we are able to recognize that, in the overwhelming majority of situations, taking the short cut of using extreme interrogation – thereby denying Constitutional due process – could easily lead to some incredibly terrible results to our system of justice.
As for those who would use the possible benefits of extreme interrogation as applied in the ending of bin Laden as an example of why all the liberals or others who oppose torture are wrong, you are trivializing a far more complicated issue and, in many cases, doing so because you simply want to win an argument when more important matters are at stake.
To you I say ‘knock it off.’
This is a tough issue and it deserves an open and meaningful examination conducted by grown-ups – not ideological mimics.
On the legal front, there are many prohibitions against using the type of interrogation methods that were employed during the Bush Administration in the effort to uncover critical intelligence in the war on terror.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) prohibits the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The Geneva Conventions –agreements to which the United States is a signatory- provide protection for people who fall into enemy hands. The Conventions do not clearly divide people into combatant and non-combatant roles, leaving an argument as to whether those captured in the ‘war on terror’ are included.
If you prefer to classify people like KSM as those who have committed a capital crime on American soil and are, as a result, better defined as criminals rather than enemy combatants, the result is no different. Torture is not a legal tool in the effort to gain information in the United States of America.
Finally, US law prohibits the use of evidence gained from torture in a court of law. This is why many see the benefits of a war tribunal for terror suspects rather than the U.S. criminal court system.
Thus, the legal barriers to the use of torture are significant – although it certainly did not stop the use of extreme interrogation during the Bush years.
As to whether or not torture is an effective tool, I do not pretend to know. Many knowledgeable people argue that it simply does not result in high quality intelligence because people being subjected to torture will say anything to make it stop.
And yet, if it turns out to be true that extreme techniques played even a small role in leading us to bin Laden, such a fact would seem to contradict the experts who argue that is has little benefit.
The bottom line here is that this is an incredibly difficult issue to resolve- and defaulting to our ideological sides will do little or nothing to bring it into focus.
So, has the time come to take a look at whether we should alter our policy on extreme interrogation in certain, very limited circumstances?
Might it make sense to choose a panel of judges, made up of representaives of all sides to this question, to determine when the circumstances require the use of these methods?
And were we to make adjustments to permit the use of torture in these rare situations, how would these decisions stand up under international law?
These are issues that now appear ripe for discussion. The question is whether or not we can do so in a thoughtful manner or is such a consideration doomed to fall into an ideological pit of stupidity and politics?
As you consider the morality, legality and ultimate benefit of such a system, remember that it goes without saying that if we use torture methods, we clear the way for our enemies to use the same on our combatants.
One final note.
Can we please stop this ridiculous argument over whom deserves credit for taking down bin Laden?
We’ve had everyone from Rush Limbaugh going out of his way to demean the President to Chris Matthews spending virtually his entire show today arguing over why Obama deserves all the credit.
Those who despise President Obama will never give him the credit he deserves just as those who dislike President Bush will do all in their power to deny his administration any of the kudos.
I think we all know that anyone in either category is not likely to change their mind.
This is a stupid, schoolyard argument that has no value whatsoever. If you believe that the lion’s share of credit goes to Obama, take heart in the knowledge that it is the President who will be on the ballot in 2012, not George Bush. And if you believe that Bush did it all by himself, then nobody is likely to dissuade you to the contrary, despite the fact that President Bush has more than acknowledged the important actions taken by the current president.http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/05/04/when-extreme-interrogation-tactics-work-is-it-time-to-rethink-torture/

Senators Seemingly Fooled By Fake Bin Laden Photo

May 04, 2011 10:06 PM
ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports:
For much of Wednesday, the debate raged in Washington: should the Obama administration release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden?
Ultimately President Obama said no. But that didn't keep a handful of senators from getting duped by what they thought was one of the Bin Laden photos.
It all started Wednesday morning as senators left a closed-door classified meeting with CIA boss Leon Panetta.
The top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., told reporters that he had seen photos of Bin Laden after the world's most wanted man had been shot in the head. Chambliss wasn't the only one.
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., told Fox-25 TV that he had seen one of the photos too.
“Listen, I've seen the picture," Brown said in an interview. “He’s definitely dead."
A third senator, New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte, emerged from the Panetta briefing to tell reporters that she, too, had seen the image of a dead Bin Laden.
Asked if she had seen any of the Bin Laden photos, Ayotte replied, “I have seen one of them.”
She added that it was “clearly his features.”
At the time the claims seemed a bit odd since a number of top senators were telling reporters at the same time they had not seen any photos. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the Intelligence panel, said she had not seen the photos. Same with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, the top Republican on the Armed Services panel.
The confusion grew when Ayotte returned to the Capitol an hour later for a vote, saying that she had been shown the photo by an unnamed colleague on the Armed Services Committee.
Since numerous lawmakers said no Bin Laden photos had been shown at the Panetta briefings -- and since a slew of fake Bin Laden photos were circulating on the internet -- could the senators have been duped?http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/05/fake-osama-bin-laden-photo-fools-senators.html

Congress to discuss use of Geronimo's name in Bin Laden mission

GeronimoA congressional oversight hearing originally scheduled to discuss, among other things, how indigenous-themed sports mascots have negatively influenced the perception of Native Americans, will now also address the linking of the name Geronimo to Osama bin Laden.
"Geronimo" was the code name for the mission where 24 Navy SEALs raided Bin Laden's three-story million-dollar compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan; "Geronimo" was also the code the SEALs used to alert their commanders that they identified their target; and finally "Geronimo-E KIA" was the coded message to confirm that they had killed Bin Laden.
The Senate Indian Affairs committee, chaired by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), will host the hearing titled "Stolen Identities: The Impact of Racist Stereotypes on Indigenous People," which will be webcast live at 2:15 p.m. ET.
"The hearing was scheduled well before the Osama bin Laden operation became news, but the concerns over the linking of the name of Geronimo, one of the greatest Native American heroes, with the most hated enemies of the United States is an example of the kinds of issues we intended to address at Thursday's hearing," Loretta Tuell, the committee's chief counsel, said in a statement.
"These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating,” Tuell said. "We intend to open the forum to talk about them."
"To associate a native warrior with Bin Laden is not an accurate reflection of history, and it undermines the military service of native people," Jefferson Keel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, said Wednesday in a statement.
Other Native Americans were also upset at the use of Geronimo's name. The chairman of the tribe of descendants of Geronimo told President Obama that not long after the House of Representatives honored the warrior, his name is again being dragged through the mud.
"We are grateful that the United States was successful in its mission against Bin Laden, but associating Geronimo's name with an international terrorist only perpetuates old stereotypes about Apaches,"Jeff Houser, chairman of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, the successor to Geronimo’s Chiricahua Apache Tribe, wrote in a statement faxed Tuesday to the White House.http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/congress-to-discuss-use-of-geronimos-name-in-bin-laden-mission.html

Adm. William McRaven: The terrorist hunter on whose shoulders Osama bin Laden raid rested

As U.S. helicopters secretly entered Pakistani airspace Sunday, the Joint Operations Center at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan was under the control of a square-jawed admiral from Texas who had labored for years to find Osama bin Laden’s elusive trail.
Vice Adm. William H. McRaven, one of the most experienced terrorist hunters in the U.S. government, had tapped a special unit of Navy SEALs for the mission two months earlier. A former SEAL himself, McRaven had overseen weeks of intensive training for a covert operation that could cripple al-Qaeda if it worked, or strain an already troubled alliance with Pakistan if it went awry.
( U.S. NAVY ) - Vice Adm.William H. McRaven’s forces have killed or captured hundreds of insurgents over the past year, mostly in nighttime raids.
More On This Story
The search for bin Laden was led by the CIA, which painstakingly pieced together scraps of intelligence that eventually pointed to a high-walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. But when President Obama gave the authorization to invade the site, CIA Director Leon Panetta delegated the raid to McRaven, who had been preparing for such a moment for most of his career.
He has worked almost exclusively on counterterrorism operations and strategy since 2001, when as a Navy captain he was assigned to the White House shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. The author of a textbook titled, “Spec Ops,” McRaven had long emphasized six key requirements for any successful mission: surprise, speed, security, simplicity, purpose and repetition.
For the especially risky bin Laden operation, he insisted on another: precision.
“He understands the strategic importance of precision,” said a senior Obama administration official who worked closely with McRaven to find bin Laden, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the operation. “He demands high standards. That’s why we’ve been so successful.”
As leader of the military’s highly secretive Joint Special Operations Command, McRaven has overseen a rapid escalation of manhunts for Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda figures around the world. Although he’s a three-star admiral, the muscular 55-year-old still sometimes accompanies his teams on snatch-and-grab missions.
On Friday, McRaven received the green light from Panetta to launch the raid at the earliest opportunity. Later that day, he met with a six-member congressional delegation that was coincidentally visiting Afghanistan. He gave the lawmakers a tour of the Bagram operations center that — unbeknownst to them — was gearing up for the critical mission.
“Little did we know he had already given the order to take out Osama bin Laden,” said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), who led the delegation.
McRaven had been just weeks away from leaving Afghanistan for a new assignment. He had led the Joint Special Operations Command since 2008, when he succeeded Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, whose team helped turn the tide of the war in Iraq by relentlessly targeting insurgent leaders, including al-Qaeda’s chief in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in 2006.http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/adm-william-mcraven-the-terrorist-hunter-on-whose-shoulders-osama-bin-laden-raid-rested/2011/05/04/AFsEv4rF_story.html