skip to main |
skip to sidebar
But it makes me wonder, is it now an "Overseas Contingency Operation part 2"? I wish that I could just rename things to make them "complete". Seems a bit hasty to me... Anyways, read the original here.
'The War on Terror Is Over'
9:29 PM, APR 23, 2012
BY DANIEL HALPER
The Weekly Standard
In the wake of the Arab Spring, the Obama administration is grappling with how to handle Islamists, radical adherents to Islam. Particularly, the issue has come to the fore in regards to Egypt, which, as Reuel Marc Gerecht notes, "is now certain" to elect "an Islamist" as its leaders the next time the Egyptian people go to the polls.
But some in the Obama administration are now seeing things differently.
"The war on terror is over," a senior official in the State Department official tells the National Journal. "Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism."
This new outlook has, in the words of the National Journal, come from a belief among administration officials that "It is no longer the case, in other words, that every Islamist is seen as a potential accessory to terrorists."
The National Journal explains:
The new approach is made possible by the double impact of the Arab Spring, which supplies a new means of empowerment to young Arabs other than violent jihad, and Obama's savagely successful military drone campaign against the worst of the violent jihadists, al Qaida.
For the president himself, this new thinking comes from a "realiz[ation that] he has no choice but to cultivate the Muslim Brotherhood and other relatively 'moderate' Islamist groups emerging as lead political players out of the Arab Spring in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere."
This new outlook is radically different than what was expressed under President George W. Bush immediately after September 11, 2001. "Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," Bush said on November 6, 2001. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
For President Barack Obama, it would seem, one can be both with us and against us--or not with us, but not quite against us.
I don't recall anyone being "disappointed" in the media when Abu Ghraib photos were released. I seem to recall every Democrat from LA to NYC jumping all over it as a sign that George Bush was the devil. But when it happens under their administration, now we should see "restraint". Please. Neither one of them should've happened (the incidents). Whether the photos should've been released to the public is debatable. But treat both sides equally, as opposed to the "politically bashing the wife policy". Read the original here.
W.H. 'Disappointed' L.A. Times Published Photos 'Two Years After the Incident'
1:41 PM, APR 18, 2012
BY DANIEL HALPER
The Weekly Standard
White House spokesman Jay Carney reacted to the publication of photos in the Los Angeles Times of U.S. soldiers posing with corpses in Afghanistan by saying the Obama administration is "disappointed.. [with] the decision to publish two years after the incident," according to a pool report.
Carney is suggesting, it would seem, that the photos might put at risk U.S. soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan. And that, since the photos were taken two years ago, there would not seem to be pressing need for the Los Angeles Times to publish the photos while the soldiers are in that war theater.
Carney also blasted the photos themselves--at least, the actions of those American in the pictures. "[The] conduct depicted in those photographs is reprehensible and does not in any way represent the high standards of the US military," Carney told the press aboard Air Force One. "And the president certainly shares in the defense secretary's opinion that this should be investigated and those held responsible will be held accountable."
The spokesman said he was unsure whether the president had actually seen the photos in question, though Carney is sure that Obama is aware of the scandal.
Here's an exchange in congressional testimony between Sen. Sessions and SecDef Panetta. I learned in Government class, that only Congress has the authority to declare war. I know that has gotten muddy with the advent of the military action by Executive Order, but I don't recall anywhere that we have to get permission from the rest of the world in order to do anything. Am I surprised that apparently, this is the new "precedent" under this administration. Not so much. Here's the exchange:
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Do you think you can act without Congress and act, and initiate a no-fly zone in Syria? Without Congressional approval?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Again, our goal would be to uh, to seek international permission and we, and we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach and whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress, I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Well, I'm almost breathless about that. Because what I heard you say is we're going to seek international approval and then you will come and tell the Congress what we might do. And we might seek Congressional approval.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Well-
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Now, I want to say to you, that's a big dis-, wouldn't you agree? You've served in the congress...
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Yeah-
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Wouldn't you agree? That that's...uh...would be pretty breathtaking to the average americans? So, would you like to clarify that?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
<Stutter and stammer> You know, I've also served with Republican presidents and Democratic presidents, who have always reserved the right to defend this country if necessary.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
But before you do this, you would seek permission from the international authorities...?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If we're working with an international coalition, and we're working with NATO...we would want to be able to, be able to get appropriate permissions in order to be able to do that. That's something that all of these countries would want to have some legal basis on which to act.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
What legal basis are you looking for? What, what entity?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Well, obviously the UN, if NATO made the decision to go in, that would be one...if we, if we developed an international coalition beyond NATO, then oviously some kind of UN security resolution.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
So you're saying that NATO would give you a legal basis? And an ad-hoc coalition of nations would provide a legal basis?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If we were able to put together a coalition...and we're able to move together, then obviously we would seek whatever legal basis we would need in order to make that justified. I mean, we can't just pull them all together, in a combat operation, without getting the legal basis in which to act.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Who are you asking for the legal basis from?
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
If it's um, if the UN passed a security resolution as it did in Libya, we would do that, if NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, we would rely on that. So we have options here, if we want to build the kind of international approach to dealing with the situation.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R):
Well, I'm all for having international support, but I'm really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat. I don't believe it's close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that's required to deploy the United States military is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta:
Let me, just for the record, be clear again, Senator, so there's no misunderstanding. When it comes to the national defense of this country, the President of the United States has the authority under the Constitution, to act to defend this country. And we will. If it comes to an operation where we're trying to build a coalition of nations, to work together, to go in and operate as we did in Libya or Bosnia, for that matter Afghanistan, we want to do it with permissions either by NATO or the international community.
Original Video: via Sen. Sessions Youtube:
Read the original here.
Pentagon successfully tests hypersonic flying bomb
AFP-
The Pentagon on Thursday held a successful test flight of a flying bomb that travels faster than the speed of sound and will give military planners the ability to strike targets anywhere in the world in less than a hour.
Launched by rocket from Hawaii at 1130 GMT, the "Advanced Hypersonic Weapon," or AHW, glided through the upper atmosphere over the Pacific "at hypersonic speed" before hitting its target on the Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands, a Pentagon statement said.
Kwajalein is about 2,500 miles (4,000 kilometers) southwest of Hawaii. The Pentagon did not say what top speeds were reached by the vehicle, which unlike a ballistic missile is maneuverable.
Scientists classify hypersonic speeds as those that exceed Mach 5 -- or five times the speed of sound -- 3,728 miles (6,000 kilometers) an hour.
The test aimed to gather data on "aerodynamics, navigation, guidance and control, and thermal protection technologies," said Lieutenant Colonel Melinda Morgan, a Pentagon spokeswoman.
The US Army's AHW project is part of the "Prompt Global Strike" program which seeks to give the US military the means to deliver conventional weapons anywhere in the world within an hour.
On August 11, the Pentagon test flew another hypersonic glider dubbed HTV-2, which is capable of flying 27,000 kilometers per hour, but it was a failure.
The AHW's range is less than that of the HTV-2, the Congressional Research Service said in a report, without providing specifics.
The Pentagon has invested 239.9 million dollars in the Global Strike program this year, including 69 million for the flying bomb tested Thursday, CRS said.
Read the original here.
Correcting the ‘fairy tale’: A SEAL’s account of how Osama bin Laden really died
Published: 12:42 AM 11/07/2011 | Updated: 1:30 PM 11/07/2011
By Vince Coglianese
Forget whatever you think you know about the night Osama bin Laden was killed. According to a former Navy SEAL who claims to have the inside track, the mangled tales told of that historic night have only now been corrected.
“It became obvious in the weeks evolving after the mission that the story that was getting put out there was not only untrue, but it was a really ugly farce of what did happen,” said Chuck Pfarrer, author of Seal Target Geronimo: The Inside Story of the Mission to Kill Osama Bin Laden.
In an extensive interview with The Daily Caller, Pfarrer gave a detailed account of why he believes the record needed to be corrected, and why he set out to share the personal stories of the warriors who penetrated bin Laden’s long-secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
In August the New Yorker delivered a riveting blow-by-blow of the SEALs’ May 1, 2011 raid on bin Laden’s hideaway. In that account, later reported to lack contributions from the SEALs involved, readers are taken through a mission that began with a top-secret helicopter crashing and led to a bottom-up assault of the Abbottabad compound.
Freelancer Nicholas Schmidle wrote that the SEALs had shot and blasted their way up floor-by-floor, finally cornering the bewildered Al-Qaida leader:
“The Al Qaeda chief, who was wearing a tan shalwar kameez and a prayer cap on his head, froze; he was unarmed. ‘There was never any question of detaining or capturing him—it wasn’t a split-second decision. No one wanted detainees,’ the special-operations officer told me. (The Administration maintains that had bin Laden immediately surrendered he could have been taken alive.) Nine years, seven months, and twenty days after September 11th, an American was a trigger pull from ending bin Laden’s life. The first round, a 5.56-mm. bullet, struck bin Laden in the chest. As he fell backward, the SEAL fired a second round into his head, just above his left eye.”
Chuck Pfarrer rejects almost all of that story.
“The version of the 45-minute firefight, and the ground-up assault, and the cold-blooded murder on the third floor — that wasn’t the mission,” Pfarrer told TheDC.
“I had to try and figure out, well, look: Why is this story not what I’m hearing? Why is it so off and how is it so off?” he recounted. “One of the things I sort of determined was, OK, somebody was told ‘one of the insertion helicopters crashed.’ OK, well that got muddled to ‘a helicopter crashed on insertion.’”
The helicopters, called “Stealth Hawks,” are inconspicuous machines concealing cutting-edge technology. They entered the compound as planned, with “Razor 1″ disembarking its team of SEALs on the roof of the compound — not on the ground level. There was no crash landing. That wouldn’t occur until after bin Laden was dead.
Meanwhile, “Razor 2″ took up a hovering position so that its on-board snipers, some of whom had also participated in the sea rescue of Maersk Alabama captain Richard Phillips, had a clear view of anyone fleeing the compound.
The SEALs then dropped down from the roof, immediately penetrated the third floor, and hastily encountered bin Laden in his room. He was not standing still.
“He dived across the king-size bed to get at the AKSU rifle he kept by the headboard,” wrote Pfarrer in his book. It was at that moment, a mere 90 seconds after the SEALs first set foot on the roof, that two American bullets shattered bin Laden’s chest and head, killing a man who sought violence to the very end.
President Obama stepped up to a podium in the East Room of the White House that night to announce bin Laden’s death. That rapid announcement, explained Pfarrer, posed a major threat to U.S. national security.
“There was a choice that night,” Pfarrer told TheDC. “There was a choice to keep the mission secret.” America, Pfarrer explained, could have left things alone for “weeks or months … even though there was evidence left on the ground there … and use the intelligence and finish off al-Qaida.”
But Obama’s announcement, he said, “rendered moot all of the intelligence that was gathered from the nexus of al-Qaida. The computer drives, the hard drives, the videocasettes, the CDs, the thumb drives, everything. Before that could even be looked through, the political decision was made to take credit for the operation.”
And in the days that followed, as politicians sought to thrust their identities into the details of the bin Laden kill, the tale began to grow out of control, said Pfarrer.
“The president made a statement, and as far as that goes, that was fine, that was the mission statement,” he explained. “But, soon after … politicians began leaking information from every orifice. And it was like a game of Chinese telephone. These guys didn’t know what they were talking about. Very few of them had even seen the video feed.”
Pfarrer suggests that much of the misinformation was likely born out of operational ignorance, even among those sitting in the White House.
“One of the things that happened was that there were only a handful of people who know about this mission,” he said. “On the civilian side, there were only a handful of people in the situation room who were watching the drone feed. They were looking at the roof of a building taken from a rotating aircraft at 35,000 feet.”
“None of those guys, not a single one of them, had a background in special operations, with the exception of General Webb who was sitting there running a laptop,” Pfarrer went on. “No one knew or could even imagine what was going on inside the building. They didn’t know.”
“There was an alternative feed going to CIA headquarters where Leon Panetta sat there with the communications brevity codes [a guide sheet for the mission's radio lingo] in his lap and a SEAL off-screen by his side to be able to tell him what was going on,” he said. “But these guys, none of them, really knew what they were looking at.”
As the media raised more questions, officials gave more answers.
Whether or not bin Laden resisted ultimately developed into a barrage of murky official and unofficial explanations in the days following. And statements from as high as then-CIA Director Leon Panetta offered confirmation that the endeavor was a “kill mission.”
Pfarrer dismisses that assertion.
“An order to go in and murder someone in their house is not a lawful order,” explained Pfarrer, who maintains that bin Laden would have been captured had he surrendered. “Unlike the Germans in World War II, if you’re a petty officer, a chief petty officer, a naval officer, and you’re giving an order to murder somebody, that’s an unlawful order.”
Pfarrer also suggests some of the emerging claims were simply self-aggrandizing “fairy tales.”
“The story they tried to tell — it’s preposterous. And the CIA tried to jump in. About mid-June the CIA tried to jump into the car and drive the victory lap. There’s this whole stuff about the CIA guy joining the operation, the gallant interpreter — he couldn’t even fast rope!” exclaimed Pfarrer, referring to a technique for descending from an airborne helicopter.
“There’s this fairy tale about him walking out of the compound during the operation to tell crowds of Pakistanis to go home and everything’s OK.”
Pfarrer tried to put this in perspective: “Do you mean that during the middle of this military operation at night, with hovering helicopters over this odd house in this neighborhood, that people came out of their houses to ask what’s going on, instead of [remaining] huddled in their basement?”
“And I think that there were so many of these leaks that were incorrect, the administration couldn’t walk them all back,” Pfarrer explained. “And so, in the middle of May, they froze everything.”
It was that freeze-out that left Chuck Pfarrer with nowhere to turn for the real story but the SEALs themselves.
Seal Target Geronimo delivers an account of the night Osama bin Laden died with a level of detail unlike anything previously reported. Pfarrer bills the story as “absolutely factual.”
“That’s the other thing. I’m prepared for the White House to say, you know, ‘this is full of inaccuracies,’ et cetera,” offered Pfarrer. He told TheDC that in order to protect American interests, his book is “full of names that are made up, and it is full of bases that are not quite where they really should be.”
“But the timeline of my events,” he cautions, “and the manner in which it happened is 100 percent accurate. And they’ll know that.”
Follow Vince on Twitter
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/07/correcting-the-fairy-tale-a-seals-account-of-how-osama-bin-laden-really-died/3/#ixzz1d3Beo5af
I understand if you don't approve of waterboarding. However, it may just be me, but it seems a bit disingenuous to rail against George Bush for have lawyers approve enhanced interrogation, but no one seems to care that Barack Obama's lawyers have approved a secret government hit list that may contain more than 1 confirmed US citizen. I didn't say it's secret. Press Secretary Carney said it was. Read the original here.
Carney On Secret Kill List: "Not Going To Engage In A Conversation About That"
Bill Press, questioner: "Jay, the New York Times reported Sunday on a memo that the Justice Department gave the White House authorizing the assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Can you confirm the existence of the memo, and will it be released as Senator Feinstein requested?"
Jay Carney, White House press secretary: "Bill, as you know I'm not going to discuss matters of that nature. I can simply say as a general matter of fact that Mr. Awlaki was an operation leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). He was directly involved in plots to perform terror that would have resulted in terrorist acts against the United States, and, you know, it is, I think it is important to remember that when we assess the overall question.
Press: "Were there any other Americans or targets on that list?"
Carney: "Again I'm not going to, as others who are here when this happened, I'm just not going to engage in a conversation about that."
Read the original here.
Sources: Obama Administration To Drop Troop Levels In Iraq To 3,000
The Obama administration has decided to drop the number of U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of the year down to 3,000, marking a major downgrade in force strength, multiple sources familiar with the inner workings and decisions on U.S. troop movements in Iraq told Fox News.
Senior commanders are said to be livid at the decision, which has already been signed off by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta.
Panetta, touring sites Tuesday in advance of the Sept. 11 10th commemoration, insisted "no decision has been made" on the number of troops to stay in Iraq.
"That obviously will be the subject of negotiations with the Iraqis and as a result of those negotiations. As I said no decision has been made of what the number will be," he said.
Currently, about 45,000 U.S. troops are stationed in Iraq. The generals on the ground had requested a reduced number of troops remaining in Iraq at the end of the year, but there was major pushback about "the cost and the political optics" of keeping that many in Iraq. The military's troop-level request was then reduced to 10,000.
Commanders said they could possibly make that work "in extremis," in other words, meaning they would be pushing it to make that number work security-wise and manpower-wise.
Now, sources confirm that the administration has pushed the Pentagon to cut the number even lower, and commanders are concerned for the safety of the U.S. troops who would remain there.
"We can't secure everybody with only 3,000 on the ground nor can we do what we need to with the Iraqis," one source said. Another source said the actual total could be as high as 5,000 when additional support personnel are included.
A senior military official said by reducing the number of troops to 3,000, the White House has effectively reduced the mission to training only.
"There is almost no room for security operations in that number; it will be almost purely a training mission," this official said. The official added that a very small number of troops within that 3,000 will be dedicated to counter-terrorism efforts, but that's not nearly what Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, wanted.
This shift is seen by various people as a cost-saving measure and a political measure. White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday that the U.S. has operated responsibly to meet the year-end deadline to remove troops from Iraq, per a 2008 Status of Forces Agreement.
He added that negotiations with the Iraqis will determine the outcome, and while costs are a factor in every decision, the administration makes decisions on what is best for the United States.
The only administration official fighting for at least 10,000 forces to stay in Iraq at the end of the year was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sources said. But she has lost the battle.
Responding to the news, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has traveled to Iraq many times, said that in all the conversations he has had on force strength, he has "never heard a number as low as 3,000 troops to secure the gains Iraqis have won over the years."
Lieberman said his first question for the administration is whether the number is one Iraqis had requested or if it was chosen according to other criteria.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said reducing the troop presence to 3,000 "would put at risk all the United States has fought for in Iraq."
"The biggest winner of a U.S. decision to move to 3,000 troops in Iraq would the Iranian regime. The ayatollahs would rejoice," he said.
Any of the plans will require Iraqi approval, and on that front, the Pentagon recently secured a commitment from the Iraqis to start negotiations, but they have not agreed to any number.
"Discussions with the Iraqis on our post-2011 strategic relationship are ongoing, and no decisions on troop levels have been made," said Panetta spokesman George Little. "We continue to proceed with troop withdrawals as directed by the president."
On Tuesday, the head of the three-province Kurdish autonomous region in the north of Iraq, warned that if American troops leave sectarian violence might resurface. Massoud Barzani urged the central Iraqi government to sign an agreement with the U.S. to keep forces in the country.
Fox News' Bret Baier contributed to this report.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/06/sources-obama-administration-to-drop-troop-levels-in-iraq-to-3000/#ixzz1XGohwhwt
I thought every other country was supposed to love the US now? Or maybe they just love our money...Read the original here.
Pakistan could "pull troops Afghan from border" if U.S. cuts aid
By Zeeshan Haider | Reuters – 2 hours 22 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan could pull back troops fighting Islamist militants near the Afghan border if the United States cuts off aid, the defense minister said on Tuesday in an interview with Pakistani media.
The United States Monday said it would hold back $800 million -- a third of nearly $2 billion in security aid to Pakistan -- in a show of displeasure over Pakistan's removal of U.S. military trainers, limits on visas for U.S. personnel and other bilateral irritants.
"If at all things become difficult, we will just get all our forces back," Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar said in an interview with the Express 24/7 television to be aired later on Tuesday.
The television aired excerpts of the interview Tuesday.
"If Americans refuse to give us money, then okay," he said. "I think the next step is that the government or the armed forces will be moving from the border areas. We cannot afford to keep military out in the mountains for such a long period."
In Pakistan, the defense minister is relatively powerless. Real defense and military policy is made by the powerful Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Kayani, and the head of the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha.
Monday, the military said it could do without U.S. assistance by depending on its own resources or turning to "all-weather friend" China.
Mukhtar later told Reuters Pakistan wanted the money spent on the maintenance of the army in the tribal areas. "This is what we are demanding," he said. "It is our own money."
The United States provides hundreds of million of dollars a year to reimburse Pakistan for deploying more than 100,000 troops along the Afghan border to combat militant groups.
Other funding covers training and military hardware. The White House announcement puts $300 million in reimbursement and another $500 million in aid in question.
Pakistan is an important ally of the United States but relations between the two uneasy allies have been on the downward spiral since last year when a CIA contractor killed two Pakistanis in January and then U.S. Navy SEALS killed Osama bin Laden in a secret raid in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad in May without informing Islamabad beforehand.
Islamabad sees the May 2 raid as a breach of its sovereignty and has drastically cut back on the numbers of U.S. troops allowed in the country and has set clear limits on intelligence sharing with the United States.
In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan on Monday said the $800 million in U.S. aid put on hold could be resumed if Pakistan increased the number of visas for U.S. personnel and reinstated the training missions.
(Editing by Chris Allbritton and Nick Macfie)
Read the original here.
Justice Department Launches Criminal Probe Into Deaths During CIA Interrogations
The Justice Department is moving forward with criminal investigations relating to CIA interrogations of two detainees who died in the agency's custody.
The decision is the result of a nearly two-year preliminary review into the Bush-era interrogations by prosecutor John Durham, Attorney General Eric Holder said Thursday
In a statement, Holder said further investigation of the other cases under review is "not warranted."
"Mr. Durham and his team reviewed a tremendous volume of information pertaining to the detainees. That review included both information and matters that had never previously been examined by the department. Mr. Durham has advised me of the results of his investigation, and I have accepted his recommendation to conduct a full criminal investigation regarding the death in custody of two individuals. Those investigations are ongoing," Holder said. "The Department has determined that an expanded criminal investigation of the remaining matters is not warranted."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/30/justice-department-to-conduct-full-probe-cia-interrogations/#ixzz1QmrAyUll
Read the original here.
Obama Has No Idea What To Do With Captured Terrorists « Hot Air
Say, anyone have any idea how to handle a captured terrorist? Apparently not anyone in the White House, even after more than two years of running the war on terror, according to Vice Admiral William McRaven’s confidence-builder[1] in yesterday’s testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee. While Leon Panetta told Congress a few months ago that the Obama administration had a process figured out, they seem to have kept it from the people doing the capturing:
The top military official involved in the raid that killed Osama bin Laden [2]said Tuesday that the Obama administration has no clear plan for handling terrorist leaders if they are caught alive outside a war zone.
Vice Adm. William H. McRaven[3] told a Senate panel that contingency plans for detaining terrorism suspects are developed on an ad hoc basis and approved by the White House, but that there are no set rules. “That is always a difficult issue for us,” he testified. “No two cases seem to be alike.”
Panetta said earlier this year that if the US captured Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri, the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay[4]. That’s news to McRaven, who told Senator Kelly Ayotte that Gitmo is still “off the table.” Rendition is off the table, too, at least not to the countries most likely to have originated the terrorists — Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afghanistan — because of “political resistance.”
So what do we end up doing? Oh, you’ll love this plan, emphases mine:
In response to senators’ questions, McRaven said that “in many cases” prisoners captured in secret operations by Navy SEALs or the Army’s Delta Force are taken to a U.S. Navy ship until they can be tried in a U.S. court or transferred to the custody of an allied country. But if neither option turns out to be feasible, the prisoner is ultimately let go, he said.
“If we can’t do either one of those, then we will release that individual,” McRaven said in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). “I mean, that becomes the unenviable option,but it is an option.”
And so we get to the back-door plan to close Gitmo and end military commissions for captured terrorists. If the Obama administration can’t try a terrorist in criminal court, it just lets the terrorist go rather than use the military commission system created and authorized by Congress to deal with them. Who cares if the terrorist goes on to kill Americans? Hey, at least we didn’t use that awful Gitmo — the one we’re still using, and that Panetta thought was good enough for bin Laden and Zawahiri just four months ago.
Perhaps the Senate can get more information on the Terrorist Catch and Release Plan. How many times have we had to use the “unenviable option” already? Has any of the released terrorists conducted any attacks afterward? Did we lose any Americans in capturing released terrorists? When exactly did the war on terror transform into a sport-fishing expedition?
References
^ confidence-builder (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the raid that killed Osama bin Laden (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Vice Adm. William H. McRaven (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay(hotair.com)
^ confidence-builder (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the raid that killed Osama bin Laden (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ Vice Adm. William H. McRaven (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ the terrorist masterminds would likely be taken to Guantanamo Bay(hotair.com)
Interesting tactic I suppose. I'm not quite sure what the strategy is here. Considering Congress's issue is with the apparent violation of the War Powers Act, I don't know why the President just hasn't gotten Congressional approval. I'm sure the vast majority of Congress would approve action in Libya with a clear mission, he just hasn't asked. Either he really has 0 clue about what he's doing or he's that afraid of his liberal anti-war base being angry at him. Read the original here.
Clinton asks Congress, whose side are you on?Jun 22, 10:16 PM (ET)
By BRADLEY KLAPPER
MONTEGO BAY, Jamaica (AP) - U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is questioning the priorities of lawmakers criticizing the U.S. intervention in Libya.
She's asking bluntly, "Whose side are you on?"
Setting up a showdown on Libya, House Republicans agreed Wednesday to vote on dueling measures, one to give President Barack Obama limited authority to continue U.S. involvement in the NATO-led operation against Moammar Gadhafi and the other to cut off funds for military hostilities.
The measures reflect widespread dissatisfaction with Obama's decision not to seek congressional consent for the 3-month-old war.
Clinton says Congress is free to raise objections but questions the priorities of the critics. She says the Obama administration and its partners are rightly siding with the Libyan people.
She spoke about Libya during a brief stop in Jamaica.
The community organizer? Or the military commanders? Just asking. Read the original here.
Barack Obama And Pentagon Split On Afghanistan Pullout | World News
Barack Obama[1] is set to reject the advice of the Pentagon by announcing on Wednesday night the withdrawal of up to 30,000 troops from Afghanistan[2]by November next year, in time for the US presidential election.
The move comes despite warnings from his military[3] commanders that recent security gains are fragile. They have been urging him to keep troop numbers high until 2013.
The accelerated drawdown will dismay American and British commanders in Kabul, who have privately expressed concern that the White House is now being driven by political rather than military imperatives.
"This is not something we feel entirely comfortable with," a Whitehall official told the Guardian.
Obama's nationally televised address, the sixth he has given since becoming president, is intended to mark the beginning of the end of American military deployment in Afghanistan, from a present high of almost 100,000 troops.
The White House confirmed that the withdrawal will be "significant".
Obama's decision is aimed at placating an American public tired of a 10-year war that has cost 1,522 US lives. The killing of Osama bin Laden added impetus to calls to pull out.
Nato commanders led by General David Petraeus have set out the risks of withdrawing too many troops too soon, and warned Obama there has been no noticeable dividend from the death of the al-Qaida[4] leader. They had urged him to keep in place the bulk of the extra 30,000 troops he committed to the "surge" until the end of 2012, so a drawdown can begin in 2013. That would give the military another full "fighting season" to attack Taliban[5]strongholds and target insurgent leaders.
"They say they need another full year of this," one official told the Guardian. "They want as much as possible for as long as possible."
This year's fighting season, which is now underway, has shown that the Taliban is still strong, despite the pounding given to them over the winter by ISAF forces. In the first week of June, there were 701 security incidents across Afghanistan.
The withdrawal has created deep divisions in Washington. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, argued for a modest reduction – at one point as low as 2,000 – citing the advice of US commanders in Afghanistan that they need to protect gains made during the winter against the Taliban.
But senior White House staff, conscious that the president has an election to fight next year, argued in favour of a reduction that would send a signal to the US public that an end to the war is in sight.
The Associated Press reported that Obama could announce 10,000 troops to be brought home by the end of the year, and a further 20,000 next year – all of the 30,000 extra troops he ordered to Afghanistan as part of the "surge" in 2009. That would still leave about 70,000 troops, with all combat troops scheduled to leave by 2014, provided that Afghan forces are ready to take over.
The US military[6] could fill some of the gaps by keeping combat troops in place and pulling out mainly support staff.
The US drawdown is a compromise that will not satisfy Democratic party doves seeking a quick end to US involvement.
When Obama first became president, he lost out in his first major battle with the Pentagon. But, as he has grown in confidence, he has been more willing to take them on, ignoring Gates's advice to avoid US military involvement in Libya and now again on Afghanistan.
Gates, who, along with secretary of state Hillary Clinton, was scheduled to meet Obama at the White House to finalise the details, acknowledged on Tuesday that US political considerations as well as conditions on the ground in Afghanistan contributed to the decision.
He said the war's unpopularity in the US and with Congress had to play a significant part in the president's thinking.
David Cameron was told in advance about the scale of Obama's withdrawal of US forces, but the prime minister is not intending to make an immediate corresponding announcement on the scale of the British military drawdown that will start later this year. He is expected to delay his own announcement until next week.
The timeframe may reflect continuing tensions between Cameron and the military over the scale of troop reductions.
Until recently, the Ministry of Defence was expecting the White House to take a cautious approach. The likelihood of a substantial drawdown was described as being "miles off" what US officials were telling their counterparts in Whitehall.
In a BBC2 documentary, Afghanistan: War Without End?, to be shown on Wednesday night, General Sir Peter Wall, the head of the British army, appeared to challenge Cameron's intention to pull out of Afghanistan in 2015 regardless of the political or security position in the country.
Wall said that while the British army is "committed to deliver against that timeline … Whether or not it turns out to be an absolute timeline or a more conditions-based approach nearer the time, we shall find out."
In an interview for the programme, Cameron said he will withdraw troops from combat in 2015 irrespective of whether Afghanistan has been hardened against the return of al-Qaida by then: "No, the deadline is a deadline and it won't slip, because I'm very clear that the British people deserve to have a clear endpoint."
Cameron's determination to withdraw without conditions is expected to be fiercely criticised in a report from the Commons defence select committee, due to be published in the next fortnight. The Conservative chairman of the committee, James Arbuthnot, has been a strong advocate of a conditions-based timetable for withdrawal.
References
^ More from guardian.co.uk on Barack Obama (www.guardian.co.uk)
^ More from guardian.co.uk on Afghanistan (www.guardian.co.uk)
^ More from guardian.co.uk on Military (www.guardian.co.uk)
^ More from guardian.co.uk on al-Qaida (www.guardian.co.uk)
^ More from guardian.co.uk on Taliban (www.guardian.co.uk)
^ More from guardian.co.uk on US military (www.guardian.co.uk)
POTUS doesn't need Congressional approval for Libyan action. Read the original here via HotAir.com.
The War Powers Act Doesn’t Apply To Libya Because We’re Not Engaged In “Hostilities” « Hot Air
So predictable[1] that even a dummy like me saw it coming[2].
The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.
They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.
“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”
In fact, we’re really not “constrained” by the UN’s Libya resolution. That’s why it was big news last week when NATO finally admitted that it’s targeting Qaddafi[3]after spending the past three months insisting that it was only acting to protect Libyan civilians. There’s no “constraint” if the meaning of the resolution can change at the coalition’s whim, and since when is congressional oversight of U.S. military action satisfied by UN constraints anyway? But never mind that. The bigger issue, per the boldfaced bits, is that the White House is actually offering three distinct rationales for why the WPA might not apply. Do all three need to obtain in order to render the Act inoperative or will any one suffice? I doubt even Obama is hubristic enough to send ground troops into battle without congressional approval, so the “no forces at risk” condition is mandatory. Not sure about the other two, though. What happens if France and Britain decide to end the mission, forcing NATO to hand things back over to the U.S., and O elects to ramp up the drone strikes in an all-out bid to topple Qaddafi? There still wouldn’t be any forces at risk, but the “support role” and “no chance of escalation” conditions would be violated. Where would that leave us in terms of deciding whether the WPA applies?
Whatever. They’re doing this not because they feel duty-bound to explain but because Boehner put them in a bind[4] yesterday at a moment when there may, finally, be light at the end of the tunnel for the mission. The rebels are advancing towards Tripoli[5] under cover of NATO air power and, according to David Ignatius[6], an envoy sent by Qaddafi’s intelligence chief is prepared to offer a deal in which Qaddafi would cede power and “retreat into the desert” in return for sparing his life. O’s probably hoping/expecting that his “no hostilities” argument will give Boehner enough political cover to hold off on legal action for a few more weeks until we see how things shake out on the ground. Not everyone in the House is prepared to be so accommodating — below you’ll find video of Kucinich and a few others announcing their intent to sue The One over the WPA — but my guess is that that suit will fail under the “political question” doctrine[7] anyway, so Boehner will be in no hurry to join it. One question I’m left with: What’s the difference, according to the White House’s War Powers logic, between what we’re doing in Libya right now and what we’re doing in Yemen? Special Ops has been using drones and remotely piloted planes in Yemen for years; CIA drones are set to join the battle[8] soon to provide more firepower against Al Qaeda. So while there are no U.S. forces at risk, the mission is escalating and we’re not in a support role. Does that mean the WPA does or doesn’t apply? Or is it the White House’s position that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force[9] passed after 9/11 lets it go after AQ anywhere, in perpetuity, so that a new congressional authorization isn’t needed?
References
^ So predictable (www.nytimes.com)
^ saw it coming (hotair.com)
^ it’s targeting Qaddafi (hotair.com)
^ put them in a bind (hotair.com)
^ advancing towards Tripoli (news.sky.com)
^ David Ignatius (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ “political question” doctrine (en.wikipedia.org)
^ join the battle (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (news.findlaw.com)
^ So predictable (www.nytimes.com)
^ saw it coming (hotair.com)
^ it’s targeting Qaddafi (hotair.com)
^ put them in a bind (hotair.com)
^ advancing towards Tripoli (news.sky.com)
^ David Ignatius (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ “political question” doctrine (en.wikipedia.org)
^ join the battle (www.washingtonpost.com)
^ 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (news.findlaw.com)
Gizmodo says that anonymous government sources have leaked the full details of the Bin Laden raid to the AP. Hopefully, this won't negatively impact future operations. I for one, did not need the WH to confirm for me that the SEALs and their dogs are badass. I really just hope politics didn't just trump operations with this story. Read the original here.
Sources: Raiders Knew Mission A One-Shot Deal - Navy News | News From Afghanistan & Iraq
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/05/ap-raiders-knew-mission-a-one-shot-deal-051711/
By Kimberly Dozier - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday May 17, 2011 5:41:30 EDT
WASHINGTON — Those who planned the secret mission to get Osama bin Laden in Pakistan knew it was a one-shot deal, and it nearly went terribly wrong.
The U.S. deliberately hid the operation from Pakistan, and predicted that national outrage over the breach of Pakistani sovereignty would make it impossible to try again if the raid on bin Laden’s suspected redoubt came up dry.
Once the raiders reached their target, things started to go awry almost immediately, officials briefed on the operation said.
Adding exclusive new details to the account of the assault on bin Laden’s hideout, officials described just how the SEAL raiders loudly ditched a foundering helicopter right outside bin Laden’s door, ruining the plan for a surprise assault. That forced them to abandon plans to run a squeeze play on bin Laden — simultaneously entering the house stealthily from the roof and the ground floor.
Instead, they busted into the ground floor and began a floor-by-floor storming of the house, working up to the top level where they had assumed bin Laden — if he was in the house — would be.
They were right.
The raiders came face-to-face with bin Laden in a hallway outside his bedroom, and three of the Americans stormed in after him, U.S. officials briefed on the operation told The Associated Press. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to describe a classified operation.
U.S. officials believe Pakistani intelligence continues to support militants who attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and actively undermine U.S. intelligence operations to go after al-Qaida inside Pakistan. The level of distrust is such that keeping Pakistan in the dark was a major factor in planning the raid, and led to using the high-tech but sometimes unpredictable helicopter technology that nearly unhinged the mission.
Pakistan’s government has since condemned the action, and threatened to open fire if U.S. forces enter again.
On Monday, the two partners attempted to patch up relations, agreeing to pursue high-value targets jointly.
The decision to launch on that particular moonless night in May came largely because too many American officials had been briefed on the plan. U.S. officials feared if it leaked to the press, bin Laden would disappear for another decade.
U.S. special operations forces have made approximately four forays into Pakistani territory since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, though this one, some 90 miles inside Pakistan, was unlike any other, the officials say.
The job was given to a SEAL Team 6 unit, just back from Afghanistan, one official said. This elite branch of SEALs had been hunting bin Laden in eastern Afghanistan since 2001.
Five aircraft flew from Jalalabad, Afghanistan, with three school-bus-size Chinook helicopters landing in a deserted area roughly two-thirds of the way to bin Laden’s compound in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad, two of the officials explained.
Aboard two Black Hawk helicopters were 23 SEALs, an interpreter and a tracking dog named Cairo. Nineteen SEALs would enter the compound, and three of them would find bin Laden, one official said, providing the exact numbers for the first time.
Aboard the Chinooks were two dozen more SEALs, as backup.
The Black Hawks were specially engineered to muffle the tail rotor and engine sound, two officials said. The added weight of the stealth technology meant cargo was calculated to the ounce, with weather factored in. The night of the mission, it was hotter than expected.
The Black Hawks were to drop the SEALs and depart in less than two minutes, in hopes locals would assume they were Pakistani aircraft visiting the nearby military academy.
One Black Hawk was to hover above the compound, with SEALs sliding down ropes into the open courtyard.
The second was to hover above the roof to drop SEALs there, then land more SEALs outside — plus an interpreter and the dog, who would track anyone who tried to escape and to alert SEALs to any approaching Pakistani security forces.
If troops appeared, the plan was to hunker down in the compound, avoiding armed confrontation with the Pakistanis while officials in Washington negotiated their passage out.
The two SEAL teams inside would work toward each other, in a simultaneous attack from above and below, their weapons silenced, guaranteeing surprise, one of the officials said. They would have stormed the building in a matter of minutes, as they’d done time and again in two training models of the compound.
The plan unraveled as the first helicopter tried to hover over the compound. The Black Hawk skittered around uncontrollably in the heat-thinned air, forcing the pilot to land. As he did, the tail and rotor got caught on one of the compound’s 12-foot walls. The pilot quickly buried the aircraft’s nose in the dirt to keep it from tipping over, and the SEALs clambered out into an outer courtyard.
The other aircraft did not even attempt hovering, landing its SEALs outside the compound.
Now, the raiders were outside, and they’d lost the element of surprise.
They had trained for this, and started blowing their way in with explosives, through walls and doors, working their way up the three-level house from the bottom.
They had to blow their way through barriers at each stair landing, firing back, as one of the men in the house fired at them.
They shot three men as well as one woman, whom U.S. officials have said lunged at the SEALs.
Small knots of children were on every level, including the balcony of bin Laden’s room.
As three of the SEALs reached the top of the steps on the third floor, they saw bin Laden standing at the end of the hall. The Americans recognized him instantly, the officials said.
Bin Laden also saw them, dimly outlined in the dark house, and ducked into his room.
The three SEALs assumed he was going for a weapon, and one by one they rushed after him through the door, one official described.
Two women were in front of bin Laden, yelling and trying to protect him, two officials said. The first SEAL grabbed the two women and shoved them away, fearing they might be wearing suicide bomb vests, they said.
The SEAL behind him opened fire at bin Laden, putting one bullet in his chest, and one in his head.
It was over in a matter of seconds.
Back at the White House Situation Room, word was relayed that bin Laden had been found, signaled by the code word “Geronimo.” That was not bin Laden’s code name, but rather a representation of the letter “G.” Each step of the mission was labeled alphabetically, and “Geronimo” meant that the raiders had reached step “G,” the killing or capture of bin Laden, two officials said.
As the SEALs began photographing the body for identification, the raiders found an AK-47 rifle and a Russian-made Makarov pistol on a shelf by the door they’d just run through. Bin Laden hadn’t touched them.
They were among a handful of weapons that were removed to be inventoried.
It took approximately 15 minutes to reach bin Laden, one official said. The next 23 or so were spent blowing up the broken chopper, after rounding up nine women and 18 children to get them out of range of the blast.
One of the waiting Chinooks flew in to pick up bin Laden’s body, the raiders from the broken aircraft and the weapons, documents and other materials seized at the site.
The helicopters flew back to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, and the body was flown to a waiting Navy ship for bin Laden’s burial at sea, ensuring no shrine would spring up around his grave.
When the SEAL team met President Obama, he did not ask who shot bin Laden. He simply thanked each member of the team, two officials said.
In a few weeks, the team that killed bin Laden will go back to training, and in a couple months, back to work overseas.
Finally, someone mentions the obvious. With everyone wringing their hands over whether this was an "execution" or a"murder" they ignore the obvious. This was the military takedown of the leader of a warring faction, NOT an arrest by law enforcement.
Read the original here.
Power Line - Stop Digging! Please!
May 5, 2011Posted by John at 8:07 PM
Someone needs to explain the First Rule of Holes to the Obama administration. Military and intelligence professionals executed an important mission brilliantly, carrying out their assigned task of killing Osama bin Laden and dumping his body into the ocean. Ever since, the administration has undercut the professionals' achievement with a succession of now-inoperative accounts of the raid's climactic moments.
First we had John Brennan spinning a tale about bin Laden blazing away at the SEALs while using his wife--now deceased--as a human shield. Every detail of that story turned out to be false. Then the administration claimed that it looked as though Osama was reaching for a gun, so the SEALs had to shoot him. Next, the theory was that Osama was clothed, not naked, so he could have had a bomb under his clothes and had to be shot. Another iteration emerged this afternoon, as an administration official toldAFP[1] that guns were found in the room where Obama was shot, so he was a threat to the SEALs:
US Navy SEALs who led a raid on Osama bin Laden's compound found an AK-47 and a pistol in his room, a US official told AFP Thursday, offering more details about the operation.
"He had weapons in his room, more than one," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He was not compliant. He did not surrender," the official said. ...
Given the possible threats, the gunfire from the courier and Bin Laden's reputation, "the team made the right decision."
All of these narratives--apart from the disadvantage, in some instances, of being untrue--share a common defect. They assume that the SEALs are in the dock as accused murderers, and need to be seen as acting in self-defense. This is ridiculous. The SEALs may have acted in "national self defense," the doctrine that Eric Holder articulated[2] to the Senate Judiciary Committee. But in the immediate context of the raid on bin Laden's compound, the SEALs were not defending themselves. They were on the attack, as they needed to be to carry out their orders. Whether bin Laden was shooting at them, reaching for a gun, clothed or naked, or in the same room with a weapon is irrelevant. The SEALs went into Pakistan to kill bin Laden, and succeeded brilliantly. The administration needs to forget about self-defense and stand behind the orders it gave the military.
References
^ AFP (liten.be)
^ Eric Holder articulated (www.powerlineblog.com)
The left had no problem deeming former President George Bush as evil. The boolean search for "George Bush is evil" yields 32,000+ hits. However, ABC can't find 1 person who can definitively say they think that Osama Bin Laden was evil. This is just ridiculous, PC, moral relativism run amok. I agree with Dennis Miller, "There is good in the world, there is evil in the world, and when good has a chance to hinder evil in any way, they must take it."
Read the original here.
ABC News Religion Correspondent: I Can't Judge Whether Bin Laden Was 'Evil'
According to the man ABC News[1] relies on for religious analysis, it's impossible to say whether Osama bin Laden was "evil." Father Edward Beck[2], the network's religion correspondent, appeared with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday and offered moral equivalence on the subject of the terrorist's death.
When the O'Reilly Factor anchor pressed Beck on whether bin Laden truly represented malevolence, Beck replied, "That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil."
O'Reilly pressed Beck on this point, prompting the ABC News analyst to assert, "No, I think that's up to God to ultimately decide who's evil."
After asserting that the United States shouldn't celebrate bin Laden's death "like a Super Bowl," Beck compared American happiness over the terrorist's death to Middle East examples, such as celebrating on 9/11: "Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mid East who celebrate when America falls?"
(This prompted Bernie Goldberg, who appeared in an unrelated O'Reilly Factor segment, to interject about Beck. He derided, "The idea that... the Palestinians celebrated when they attacked the World Trade Center, we're just as bad if we celebrate when Osama bin Laden takes a bullet to the head. That's pathetic. That's pathetic. I mean, and that isn't Catholicism, that's liberalism.")
Beck, in his role as the religion correspondent, has appeared on Good Morning America and other ABC News programs. He has co-hosted Faith Matters Now, a web-only program for the network's religion section. This is the man ABC looks to on spiritual issues? Someone who won't even go so far as to declare bin Laden to be an evil man?
On June 02, 2008[3], Beck appeared on Good morning America to explain away some of the radical statements heard at Barack Obama's now former church.
A transcript of the May 03 O'Reilly Factor segment can be found below:
BILL O'REILLY: "Unresolved Problem" segment tonight. Military action always controversial in some circles and after Osama bin Laden was killed by the Navy SEALs, a few people had a problem with it, citing moral grounds. One of them is Father Edward Beck, religion contributor for ABC News. He joins us know. Now, you told our guys -- and I'm just going to quote you here -- "I'm uncomfortable with killing of Osama bin Laden being celebrated like a Super Bowl win," and you're referring to the people in front of the White House and other places, Times Square, very jubilant about bin Laden dying. Why are you uncomfortable with that?
FATHER EDWARD BECK: Rudolph Giuliani said he went to a church, which I think is a more appropriate action. It cannot be celebrated like a Super Bowl because it's a tragedy that this happened. Just because Osama killed all of these people, understandable a tragedy, killing him does not justify that action.
O'REILLY: OK. You see I disagree with you 180 degrees here. And you remember after World War II, V-Day, VJ-Day and everybody was celebrating the end of the war because we had defeated our enemies who had tried to kill us and slaughtered countless millions of civilians. That celebration, entirely appropriate. Wasn't it? It was an appropriate celebration, was it not?
BECK: Bill, when you watch-
O'REILLY: For victory over the evil forces, wasn't it?
BECK: Yes, but when you watch these people celebrating, how does it make us any better than those in the Mideast who celebrate when America falls?
O'REILLY: Well, here's why I think you're wrong on this.
BECK: This is not a Christian perspective.
O'REILLY: I think I'm a good Christian and I was very happy to see bin Laden killed because he was killing people and he was capable of doing more killing.
BECK: But how does his death then justify what happened to 3,000 people? You'd have to kill 3,000 people for you to talk about justice.
O'REILLY: No, no. If you -- if there is a criminal enterprise underway which al Qaeda certainly is, you would see that point, right?
BECK: Yes.
O'REILLY: OK. And the criminal enterprise cannot be stopped with any other method other than killing, then you have to kill. And when-
BECK: But you don't celebrate it.
O'REILLY: -the criminal enterprise is stopped- why not? That is a good thing.
BECK: Because it's maybe a necessary evil. But, what about love of enemies? What about Jesus from the cross saying these are my killers. These are terrorists. But I forgive them. They know not what to do.
O'REILLY: Personal forgiveness something the 9/11 families are entitled to. I'm not going to be -- entreat (ph) that because I didn't lose anybody in my family. But I'll tell you what, Jesus had rendered a Caesar and that meant that if you have to defend your country you are OK with defending your country. That's not an anti-Christian thing to do.
BECK: That was about money. He said love of enemies. Pray for those persecute you.
O'REILLY: But render to Caesar was a general thing- a general thing, all right, where the government takes care of the government, I take care of spiritual matters. You can't tell me that Jesus Christ doesn't want to see al Qaeda defeated. You can't sit there and tell me that.
BECK: I would say God is not going to take sides like we take sides. God has a different kind of justice.
O'REILLY: I mean, there's got to be a good and an evil in the world. You telling me that God doesn't take sides against evil? Is that what you're telling me?
BECK: I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that we don't judge what the evil is and how it's acted upon.
O'REILLY: Who is we? I judge evil. Who's we?
BECK: By what standards?
O'REILLY: By the standards of hurting innocent people. That's how I judge it.
BECK: Christianity says you can't kill somebody. All life is sacred.
O'REILLY: Christianity says I have a right to defend myself and so does my country.
BECK: Yes, as in a last resort. If that means killing somebody-
O'REILLY: And that's what it was.
BECK: Don't celebrate it. It's a necessary evil. Don't cheer about it like we're in a bar.
O'REILLY: You're celebrating a victory of your country. You're celebrating a victory of your country.
BECK: That's not what they're celebrating. They wanted Osama bin Laden dead. Now that he's dead, let's raise the flag. Well, you know what? It may be good that he's dead.
O'REILLY: I think you misinterpreted that, Father, with all due respect. I think that they were celebrating a victory over evil. And I don't think you understand, with all due respect again, the evil that al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden had brought to the world. I'll give you the last word.
BECK: Bill, my father was a New York City firefighter. After 9/11 I was in the triage center at Chelsea Piers. I was counseling people. I've talked to people who've lost sons at 9/11.
O'REILLY: Let me ask you this.
BECK: I know what that's like.
O'REILLY: Was bin Laden evil?
BECK: That's not for me to judge. His actions were certainly were evil --
O'REILLY: Not for you to judge?
BECK: His actions certainly were evil and they caused a lot of harm and disruption.
O'REILLY: So you can't as a human being make a determination on good and evil? You cannot do that?
BECK: No, I think that's up God to ultimately decide who's evil.
O'REILLY: See? I can and I'm -- I'll probably be punished for it by the deity but --
BECK: I see a man's actions. I don't know a man's heart ever, totally.
O'REILLY: Well, I think I know bin Laden's heart.
BECK: I can say the actions were wrong and despicable and needed to be punished.
O'REILLY: All right. You're a standup guy for coming in. I appreciate it.
References
^ ABC News (abcnews.go.com)
^ Father Edward Beck (fatheredwardbeck.blogspot.com)
^ June 02, 2008 (newsbusters.org)
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2011/05/04/abc-news-religion-correspondent-i-cant-judge-whether-bin-laden-was-e#ixzz1LUK9xmPf
Read the original here.
Joe Biden Opens His Mouth About US Navy SEALs – Telegraph Blogs
Since President Barack Obama announced that “a small team of Americans” had killed Osama bin Laden, US government officials have carefully stuck to the line that they will not talk about which units were involved.
Obama did not say it was the SEALs. In numerous television appearances, Obama’s counter-terrorism chief John Brennan didn’t and his deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough didn’t. Despite the numerous news reports that named the SEALs, none of the anonymous briefers from the CIA and Pentagon would confirm it.
Here’s a typical response to a question about the SEALs from a senior defence official in a Pentagon briefing on Monday:
QUESTION: Can I ask you, can you confirm that it was a (Navy) SEAL team? And was this a specially designated team that had been practising or reviewing intelligence for a while and they were the unit of choice?
SENIOR DEFENCE OFFICIAL: Not going to comment on units or numbers.
But here’s what the legendarily verbose and loose-lipped Vice President Joe Biden said at a dinner at Washington’s Ritz Carlton Hotel last night to mark the 50th anniversary of the Atlantic Council:
Let me briefly acknowledge tonight’s distinguished honorees. Admiral James Stavridis is a, is the real deal. He can tell you more about and understands the incredible, the phenomenal, the just almost unbelievable capacity of his Navy SEALs and what they did last Sunday.
And:
Folks, I’d be remiss also if I didn’t say an extra word about the incredible events, extraordinary events of this past Sunday. As Vice President of the United States, as an American, I was in absolute awe of the capacity and dedication of the entire team, both the intelligence community, the CIA, the SEALs. It just was extraordinary.
If the President is so concerned about inflaming the Muslim world (I'm curious to know who isn't inflamed by a bullet to the face, but would be about the picture of it), then why wasn't he concerned about the release of photos in April 2009?
via UK Telegraph
Barack Obama To Release Up To 2,000 Photographs Of Prisoner Abuse
* Female soldiers posing with hooded, shackled prisoners who were stripped naked
* Hooded prisoners on transport planes with Playboy magazines opened to pictures of nude women on their laps
The administration initially planned to release only the 21 photos sought by the ACLU, but General David Petraeus ordered that all 2,000 photographs be released to keep from "dragging this issue out forever".
The Pentagon fears a backlash in the Middle East similar to the one provoked by pictures from Abu Ghraib prison, near Baghdad, in 2004 which became emblematic of American mistakes in Iraq.
Amrit Singh, an ACLU lawyer, said that "these photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by US personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib".
The Bush administration had resisted releasing the images to the public, contending that the disclosure would fuel anti-American feeling and violate US obligations towards prisoners under the Geneva Conventions. Several people have already been tried at courts martial for using guns to threaten detainees in cases connected to the photographs.
Mr Obama's decision could undercut his struggle to persuade Congress not to institute a "truth commission" to investigate alleged prisoner abuse and force former Bush administration officials to testify and account for their actions and advice.
Momentum for a major public inquiry was dramatically increased when Mr Obama released four memos last week written by three officials from Mr Bush's Justice Department.
Running to 126 pages, they contained the legal rationale for the CIA's methods of extracting information from al-Qaeda suspects used between 2002 and 2005.
The methods, eventually prohibited by the Bush administration, included sleep deprivation for up to 11 days, forced nudity and stress positions as well as "waterboarding", a form of simulated drowning in which "water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches" for "20 to 40 seconds".
In the memos, it was revealed that the waterboarding technique had been used 266 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, two senior al-Qaeda prisoners.
Other possible disclosures as a result of the ACLU legal action include transcripts of prisoner interrogations, a secret CIA inspector general's report and materials from a Justice Department investigation into detainee abuse.
The Obama administration, under fierce pressure from the Left and some congressional Democrats, faces a tough decision about whether to release the information in full, redact parts of it or continue the Bush administration's court battle to keep it secret.
Mr Obama's decision to release the four memos came after the most divisive argument yet in his young administration, which passes the landmark of 100 days next Wednesday.
He was opposed by Leon Panetta, his CIA chief, who argued for redactions of key passages, and John Brennan, a former senior CIA official who is now the top counter-terrorism adviser at the White House.
The most enthusiastic support for the release came from Eric Holder, Mr Obama's attorney general and the man who will decide whether former Bush administration officials should face prosecution, and his legal counsel Gregory Craig.
Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief, and Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, are said to have supported Mr Obama with some reservations. It subsequently emerged that Adml Blair had briefed his staff that some important information was extracted from prisoners during harsh interrogations.
Posts
