December 23, 2012

You are here: Home / Archives for Politics / USA / Military

Bombshell: Senator Suggested False Flag Attack To Kennedy 2 Years Prior To Operation Northwoods Proposal

August 31, 2012 By 1 Comment

Originally posted by Mr.H on share.banoosh.com

According to newly released documents by the John F. Kennedy Memorial Library, former Californian democratic senator George Smathers proposed an Operation Northwoods style false flag attack on Gitmo to then Massachusetts senator Kennedy. The Guardian reports Kennedy and Smathers were seriously entertaining the possibility of assassinating Fidel Castro. Kennedy was obviously against the entire idea. Smathers went on to propose the option of bombing American troops to provide an excuse for military intervention in Cuba. Significant about Smather’s confessions is the now apparent fact that the idea of bombing the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay was obviously floating in political circles as well as military ones some time before the actual formalization of the false flag proposals in the Operation Northwoods documents, ultimately rejected by President Kennedy in 1962. The other significant aspect of the confession by Smathers is that the proposals described within Northwoods in March of 1962 literally reflect the false flag proposal submitted to Kennedy in 1960 by senator Smathers.

In the freshly released documents by the JFK Memorial Library, Smathers- who frequently joined John F. Kennedy on trips to the south- admits that he proposed the idea of a false flag attack on Gitmo during a conversation with the President-to-be. After the “killing Castro” propiosal was discarded by Kennedy, Smathers suggested provoking an incident at the US Naval base at Guantanamo Bay on the eastern tip of Cuba as a pretext for a US invasion. Smathers:

“I did talk to him about a plan of having a false attack made on Guantanamo Bay which would give us the excuse of actually fomenting a fight which would then give us the excuse to go in and do the job. He asked me to write him something about it. And I think I did.”

As noted this very proposal by Smathers in 1960 is stunningly similar to the infamous Northwoods document, signed by chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, in which the Joint Chiefs of Staff propose some pretty criminal things, among which the one proposed by Smathers to Kennedy in 1960. Under “Incidents to establish a credible attack” the Joint Chiefs came up with the following proposals in regards to the US naval base at Gitmo:

1- Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
2- Land friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base.
3- Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
4- Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
5- Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
6- Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
7- Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
8- Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
9- Capture militia group which storms the base.
10- Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires.
11- Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims.

In a February 2 1962 memorandum titled “Possible Actions to Provoke, Harass or Disrupt Cuba,” written by Gen. William H. Craig and submitted to Brig. Gen. Edward Lansdale, the commander of the Operation Mongoose project outlines Operation Bingo- a plan to “create an incident which has the appearance of an attack on U.S. facilities (GMO) in Cuba, thus providing an excuse for use of U.S. military might to overthrow the current government of Cuba.”

In the context of Operation Mongoose, a highly classified US military operation, the refusal of Kennedy to put his signature under the before mentioned proposals is especially significant. According to countless sources from inside and outside the American intelligence communities, Mongoose was the infrastructure under which the assassination of Kennedy in ’63 has been carried out. Mongoose was in fact one of the largest covert operations ever conducted in the United States. It involved universities, military bases, individuals, businesses and government agencies- all neatly compartmentalized, of course.

Later, just about the time the Joint Chiefs of Staff submitted their operation Northwoods document to the President, Smathers recalled Kennedy telling him:

“George, I’d love to have you over … but I want you to do me a favour. I’d like to visit with you, I want to discuss things with you but I don’t want you to talk to me anymore about Cuba.”

Smathers said he didn’t bring it up again until the President invited him to an informal dinner some time after:

“I remember the President was actually fixing our own dinner and I raised the question of Cuba and what could be done and so on,” he related. “And I remember that he took his fork and just hit his plate and it cracked and he said, ‘Now, dammit, I wish you wouldn’t do that. Let’s quit talking about this subject.”

The revealing aspects of the Smathers confessions released by the JFK Memorial Library can hardly be overestimated. By the time Kennedy was presented with Operation Northwoods, he must have recognized the striking similarities to the Gitmo false flag proposal by Smathers. And just like in 1960, he firmly rejected the plans.

Source: https://share.banoosh.com/2012/08/21/bombshell-senator-suggested-false-flag-attack-to-kennedy-2-years-prior-to-operation-northwoods-proposal/

Filed Under: Corruption, Crime, Cuba, False Flag Attacks, Law, Media, Military, Murder, Politics, Tyranny, USA, War

Apple Rejects App That Tracks U.S. Drone Strikes

August 30, 2012 By 4 Comments

Originally posted by Christina Bonnington and Spencer Ackerman on Wired.com, August 30, 2012

It seemed like a simple enough idea for an iPhone app: Send users a pop-up notice whenever a flying robots kills someone in one of America’s many undeclared wars. But Apple keeps blocking the Drones+ program from its App Store — and therefore, from iPhones everywhere. The Cupertino company says the content is “objectionable and crude,” according to Apple’s latest rejection letter.

A mockup of developer Josh Begley’s drone-strike app for iOS. Wired.com

It’s the third time in a month that Apple has turned Drones+ away, says Josh Begley, the program’s New York-based developer. The company’s reasons for keeping the program out of the App Store keep shifting. First, Apple called the bare-bones application that aggregates news of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia “not useful.” Then there was an issue with hiding a corporate logo. And now, there’s this crude content problem.

Begley is confused. Drones+ doesn’t present grisly images of corpses left in the aftermath of the strikes. It just tells users when a strike has occurred, going off a publicly available database of strikes compiled by the U.K.’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which compiles media accounts of the strikes.

iOS developers have a strict set of guidelines that must be adhered to in order to gain acceptance into the App Store. Apps are judged on technical, content and design criteria. As Apple does not comment on the app reviews process, it can be difficult to ascertain exactly why an app got rejected. But Apple’s team of reviewers is small, sifts through up to 10,000 apps a week, and necessarily errs on the side of caution when it comes to potentially questionable apps.

Apple’s original objections to Drones+ regarded the functionality in Begley’s app, not its content. Now he’s wondering if it’s worth redesigning and submitting it a fourth time.

“If the content is found to be objectionable, and it’s literally just an aggregation of news, I don’t know how to change that,” Begley says.

Begley’s app is unlikely to be the next Angry Birds or Draw Something. It’s deliberately threadbare. When a drone strike occurs, Drones+ catalogs it, and presents a map of the area where the strike took place, marked by a pushpin. You can click through to media reports of a given strike that the Bureau of Investigative Reporting compiles, as well as some basic facts about whom the media thinks the strike targeted. As the demo video above shows, that’s about it.

It works best, Begley thinks, when users enable push notifications for Drones+. “I wanted to play with this idea of push notifications and push button technology — essentially asking a question about what we choose to get notified about in real time,” he says. “I thought reaching into the pockets of U.S. smartphone users and annoying them into drone-consciousness could be an interesting way to surface the conversation a bit more.”

But that conversation may not end up occurring. Begley, a student at Clay Shirky’s lab at NYU’s Interactive Telecommunications Program, submitted a threadbare version of Drones+ to Apple in July. About two weeks later, on July 23, Apple told him was just too blah. “The features and/or content of your app were not useful or entertaining enough,” read an e-mail from Apple Begley shared with Wired, “or your app did not appeal to a broad enough audience.”

Finally, on Aug. 27, Apple gave him yet another thumbs down. But this time the company’s reasons were different from the fairly clear-cut functionality concerns it previously cited. “We found that your app contains content that many audiences would find objectionable, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines,” the company e-mailed him.

It was the first time the App Store told him that his content was the real problem, even though the content hadn’t changed much from Begley’s initial July submission. It’s a curious choice: The App Store carries remote-control apps for a drone quadricopter, although not one actually being used in a war zone. And of course, the App Store houses innumerable applications for news publications and aggregators that deliver much of the same content provided by Begley’s app.

Wired reached out to Apple on the perplexing rejection of the app, but Apple was unable to comment.

Begley is about at his wits end over the iOS version of Drones+. “I’m kind of back at the drawing board about what exactly I’m supposed to do,” Begley said. The basic idea was to see if he could get App Store denizens a bit more interested in the U.S.’ secretive, robotic wars, with information on those wars popping up on their phones the same way an Instagram comment or retweet might. Instead, Begley’s thinking about whether he’d have a better shot making the same point in the Android Market.

Drones+ iPhone App from Josh Begley on Vimeo.

Source: https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/drone-app/

Filed Under: Censorship, Genocide, Internet, Media, Military, Murder, Pakistan, Technology, Terrorism, USA, War, Weapons

Giant Mega Corporation, URS Corporation, Runs Monsanto’s World HQ, Trains Troops

August 27, 2012 By 1 Comment

Special Thanks to the team at Exposing The Truth for compiling information

Monsanto’s World HQ in St. Louis, Missouri - from urscorp.com

I did a search for Monsanto’s World HQ and came upon this page.

“URS provides complete facilities management services in support of Monsanto’s world headquarters.” They (URS Corporation) have a network of offices in nearly 50 countries and provide national, state and local government services to a myriad of countries, as well as private sector services worldwide.

Who is URS Corporation?

They build weapons and train troops. “URS manages and operates government installations, military bases and laboratories.”

They help run Kennedy Space Center, where NASA is based, and work with Kennedy to “develop and execute the ‘Master Plan.’” Recently a new master plan was developed in which it was decided that NASA will sell in to the private sector.

According to Trey Carlson, Master Planner for Kennedy Space Center, one of the themes of the new “Future Development Concept” is “to adopt new business practices allowing companies and outside organizations to make investments in the center to operate their enterprises.”

“It is very challenging making the transition from a government program focused primarily on a single crewed spacecraft to a multiuser program.”

An artist rendering of the new headquarters building for NASA’s Kennedy Space Center. - nasa.gov

According to URS Corporation, they “provide vital services for every facet of daily operations at the Kennedy Space Center.”

As one of the goals of the new plan is “to build new facilities that are economically and environmentally sustainable,” it would stand to reason that URS Corporation are involved in that facet.

They are “one of the largest contractors serving the food, beverage and consumer products industries and have engineered and constructed more pulp and paper mill facilities than any other contractor.” They constructed the Hoover Dam in the 1930′s.

“Through a joint venture with Alberici Constructors, URS is building one of the world’s largest cement plants for Holcim (US) Inc.”

They “are one of the few companies globally that offer wholly integrated services spanning the full project life cycle for the mining industry” and “are the only North American contractor—and one of only four globally—to offer operations and maintenance services.”

They “have engineered more than 250,000 megawatts of electricity worldwide—more than any other contractor and equivalent to almost one-fourth of the current generating capacity in the United States. ”

“URS has provided planning, engineering or construction services for virtually every nuclear power plant operating in the United States today”

In regards to fossil fuels, they have “experience in dealing with all major suppliers in this industry.”

On oil, they “are a leading provider of design, construction and production services across the upstream, midstream and downstream supply chain” (That’s drilling, pipe-lining and refining). Since purchasing Flint Energy Services (now URS Flint) for $1.25 billion in February of 2012, they now service ” every major active North American oil and gas basin.”

They have ” longstanding relationships with the world’s leading petrochemical and specialty chemical companies.”

They “operate approximately 300 miles of toll roads in the United States” and “have design and construction experience on every type of highway, bridge, tunnel and interchange.”

They were responsible for the “Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit project—the first design-build-operate-maintain transit project in the United States” in which they “are now providing operations and maintenance under a 20-year contract.” Upon further exploration, I noticed the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail is actually operated by 21st Century Rail Corporation. Then I noticed that the $1.9 billion 20 year contract was actually awarded to 21st Century Rail Corporation. THEN I noticed that 21st Century Rail Corporation is a “team led by URS.” So if URS Corporation has the 20 year contract, but 21st Century Rail Corporation has the contract, wouldn’t it mean URS Corporation is 21st Century Rail Corporation? How many other corporations are also URS Corporation?

It is more involved than that, though. URS Corporation “supoprts a wide range of complex, multiyear programs at U.S. Department of Defense and other government facilities throughout the world,” among which include “the renovation of the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C. and the prototype design for all future U.S. embassies.”

“Since 1986, URS has trained over 20,000 student pilots at the U.S. Army Aviation Center for Excellence at Fort Rucker, Alabama.” URS Corporation “also is a leader in creating curricula for a new aviation community–Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) operators.” “Since 1990, [they] have worked with the U.S. Navy to develop flexible education programs for every level of officer operating VIRGINIA class submarines.”

The Pentagon, Headquarters of the US Department of Defense - photo by David B. Gleason

The first paragraph of their “Operations & Maintenance” page states clearly, “URS provides operations and maintenance services to weapons systems worldwide for the United States government. These services are performed for all branches of the Department of Defense, as well as the U.S. Coast Guard. URS’ services support every type of vehicle—in the air, on the ground and at sea. This includes manned and unmanned, rotary- and fixed- wing, wheeled and tracked, and above- and under-sea vessels.”

They have “longstanding relationships with the world’s leading chemical and pharmaceutical companies” and offer “innovative support services during all stages of the development and operations cycle.”

I feel like I’m talked out, and all I’ve really done is quote their website. They also offer “a full range of planning, design, construction and program and construction management services across the water and wastewater industry, including water supply planning, water storage and transmission, water quality management planning, water treatment and distribution, and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal.”

It would be difficult to display the vast array of projects taken on and listed by URS Corporation here, so I urge you to visit their project page and peruse yourself. I also urge you to visit their home page to get a glimpse at some of the categories of things they handle.

URS Corporation’s Headquarters is located at:

600 Montgomery Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-2728 USA
+1.415.774.2700 +1.415.398.1905 fax

Sources:

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/kscmasterplanrevision.html

https://ursflint.acquisitioninformation.com

https://www.urscorp.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_class_submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%E2%80%93Bergen_Light_Rail

Filed Under: Big Pharma, Biotechnology, Corporations, Featured, Food, Genetics, Military, Monsanto, USA

Darpa Looks to Make Cyberwar Routine With Secret ‘Plan X’

August 22, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Col. Todd Wood (right), commander of 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, briefs National Security Agency director Gen. Keith Alexander at Forward Operating Base Masum Ghar in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan. Photo: Sgt. Michael Blalack/U.S. Army

Originally posted by Noah Shachtman on wired.com on August 21, 2012

The Pentagon’s top research arm is unveiling a new, classified cyberwarfare project. But it’s not about building the next Stuxnet, Darpa swears. Instead, the just-introduced “Plan X” is designed to make online strikes a more routine part of U.S. military operations. That will make the son of Stuxnet easier to pull off — to, as Darpa puts it, “dominate the cyber battlespace.”

Darpa spent years backing research that could shore up the nation’s cyberdefenses. “Plan X” is part of a growing and fairly recent push into offensive online operations by the Pentagon agency largely responsible for the internet’s creation. In recent months, everyone from the director of Darpa on down has pushed the need to improve — and normalize — America’s ability to unleash cyberattacks against its foes.

That means building tools to help warplanners assemble and launch online strikes in a hurry. It means, under Plan X, figuring out ways to assess the damage caused by a new piece of friendly military malware before it’s unleashed. And it means putting together a sort of digital battlefield map that allows the generals to watch the fighting unfold, as former Darpa acting director Ken Gabriel told the Washington Post: “a rapid, high-order look of what the Internet looks like — of what the cyberspace looks like at any one point in time.”

It’s not quite the same as building the weapons themselves, as Darpa notes in its introduction to the five-year, $100 million effort, issued on Monday: “The Plan X program is explicitly not funding research and development efforts in vulnerability analysis or cyberweapon generation.” (Emphasis in the original.)

But it is certainly a complementary campaign. A classified kick-off meeting for interested researchers in scheduled for Sept. 20.

The American defense and intelligence establishment has been reluctant at times to authorize network attacks, for fear that their effects could spread far beyond the target computers. On the eve of the Iraq invasion of 2003, for instance, the Bush administration made plans for a massive online strike on Baghdad’s financial system before discarding the idea out of collateral damage concerns.

It’s not the only factor holding back such operations. U.S. military chiefs like National Security Agency director Gen. Keith Alexander have publicly expressed concern that America may not be able to properly respond to a national-level attack unless they’re given pre-defined battle plans and “standing rules of engagement” that would allow them to launch a counterstrike “at net speed.” Waiting more than a few moments might hurt the American ability to respond at all, these officers say.

“Plan X” aims to solve both problems simultaneously, by automatically constructing mission plans that are as easy to execute as “the auto-pilot function in modern aircraft,” but contain “formal methods to provably quantify the potential battle damage from each synthesized mission plan.”

Then, once the plan is launched, Darpa would like to have machines running on operating systems that can withstand the rigors of a full-blown online conflict: “hardened ‘battle units’ that can perform cyberwarfare functions such as battle damage monitoring, communication relay, weapon deployment, and adaptive defense.”

The ability to operate in dangerous areas, pull potential missions off-the-shelf, and assess the impact of attacks — these are all commonplace for air, sea, and land forces today. The goal of Plan X is to give network-warfare troops the same tools. “To get it to the point where it’s a part of routine military operations,” explains Jim Lewis, a long-time analyst of online operations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Of course, many critics of U.S. policy believe the deployment of cyberweapons is already too routine. America’s online espionage campaign against Iran has been deeply controversial, both at home and abroad. The Russian government and its allies believe that cyberweapons ought to be banned by international treaty. Here in the U.S., there’s a fear that, by unleashing Stuxnet and other military-grade malware, the Obama administration legitimized such attacks as a tool of statecraft — and invited other nations to strike our fragile infrastructure.

The Darpa effort is being lead, fittingly, by a former hacker and defense contractor. Daniel Roelker helped start the intrusion detection company Sourcefire and the DC Black Ops unit of Raytheon SI Government Solutions. In a November 2011 presentation (.pdf), Roelker decried the current, “hacker vs. hacker” approach to online combat. It doesn’t scale well — there are only so many technically skilled people — and it’s limited in how fast it can be executed. “We don’t win wars by out-hiring an adversary, we win through technology,” he added.

Instead, Roelker continued, the U.S. needs a suite of tools to analyze the network, automate the execution of cyberattacks, and be sure of the results. At the time, he called these the “Pillars of Foundational Cyberwarfare.” Now, it’s simply known as Plan X.

Source: https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/08/plan-x

Filed Under: Cyberwarfare, Internet, Iran, Law, Military, Police, Politics, Privacy, Russia, Science, Surveillance, Technology, USA, War

Israel deploys Iron Dome missile system on Egypt border

August 20, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Originally posted by breakingnews.sy on August 20, 2012

The Israeli military has stationed an Iron Dome missile-defense battery west of Eilat.

The move came days after two Grad rockets were reportedly fired from the Sinai Peninsula at the Red Sea resort city.

The remains of a Grad rocket were found north of Eilat on Friday evening.

The deployment of the battery was part of a national plan to test the Iron Dome system.

 

Source: https://breakingnews.sy/en/article/5215.html

Filed Under: Egypt, Israel, Military, Politics, War

Navy builds 50,000 square foot lab to simulate desert, jungle to test military robots

April 9, 2012 By 1 Comment

By Kurzweil AI on April 9, 2012

The 50,000 square foot

Tropical High Bay at NRL's Laboratory for Autonomous Systems Research is a 60' by 40' greenhouse that contains a re-creation of a southeast Asian rain forest (credit: NRL)

Laboratory for Autonomous Systems Research (LASR) at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. is a real-world testing lab for robots, where they’ll be tested in sandstorms, jungle humidity, and water.

It can be used for small autonomous air vehicles, autonomous ground vehicles, and the people who will interact with them. A motion capture video system allows engineers to track up to 50 objects and gather high-accuracy ground truth data of all positions of these tracked objects.

The facility includes four human-systems interaction labs that can be used as control rooms for human-subject experiments, or for development of autonomy software.

An audio system allows for injecting directional sound into the environment, such as the sound of troops marching or environmental background noises.

The labs also contain eye trackers (useful for studying how people work with advanced interfaces for autonomous systems) and multi-user/multi-touch displays.

Sounds like a great place to test those taco-delivery drones. — Ed.

Source: https://www.kurzweilai.net/navy-builds-50000-square-foot-lab-to-simulate-desert-jungle-to-test-military-robots

Filed Under: Artificial Intelligence, Military, Neuroscience, Robotics, Technology

Senator Bob Casey says the NDAA will NOT be used against the American people

December 23, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The following is a copy of an email from Bob Casey with the correspondents name blanked out:

Dear Mr. *****:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the detention provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you about this issue.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes policy and annual expenditures for the Department of Defense. The House of Representatives and the Senate recently passed the final version of the 2012 NDAA with broad bipartisan support. It is currently awaiting the President’s signature before it becomes law.

The Department of Defense is responsible for overseeing the United States Armed Forces and ensuring that our Nation is able to effectively respond to threats. It is critical that Congress provides the Department of Defense with sufficient funding to protect American lives, defend our Nation and support our servicemembers and their families. While our overseas military engagements continue, it is particularly important to provide the resources our servicemembers need to successfully conduct operations and ensure their own safety.

As your United States Senator, I am committed to ensuring the safety and security of all Americans. Since 2001, United States counterterrorism efforts have helped to ensure our national security. Our brave servicemembers and intelligence personnel work tirelessly to protect our nation against the threat of terrorism. However, it is essential that the executive branch operate with transparency and ensure that our counterterrorism efforts do not infringe on the civil liberties of American citizens. We must not sacrifice our fundamental values and ideals in the face of this critical threat.

The custody and detention provisions in the NDAA are the result of thorough consideration and bipartisan agreement. These provisions, including Sections 1021 and 1022, will allow the United States to deal effectively with the threat posed by al Qaeda, a terrorist group that has inflicted devastating harm on our Nation and continues to seek to attack our citizens, our allies, and our interests both here at home and around the world.

Section 1021 of the NDAA does not expand the executive branch’s authority to detain suspected terrorists. This section states explicitly that it is not intended to limit or expand the authority that Congress granted the President in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). The definition of a ‘covered person’ in this section is ‘a person who was a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.’ This is the position that has been adopted by the Obama Administration and upheld in U.S. courts since 2001. In addition, it requires the executive branch to brief Congress regularly on the individuals and groups to whom this authority is being applied.

It is important to note that Section 1021 does not create any ‘new’ or ‘unprecedented’ presidential power, nor does it create any ‘permanent’ detention power. The legislation explicitly states that Section 1021 shall not ‘affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’

Section 1022 of the NDAA requires that persons who are members of al Qaeda and have participated in planning or carrying out an attack against the United States or its allies be held in military custody. However, the executive branch can exercise a waiver of this requirement if the President certifies to Congress that holding a particular suspect in civilian custody will better serve U.S. national security interests. In addition, this provision applies only to non-US citizens and non-lawful resident aliens who are al Qaeda operatives and who plan or carry out attacks against the United States. It explicitly does not apply to American citizens and those who reside here lawfully.

Senator Dianne Feinstein of California proposed an amendment which would have limited the requirement of military custody in Section 1022 to suspected terrorists captured abroad. This proposal was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 55 to 45. I voted against this amendment because the waiver provision provides flexibility to the executive branch to determine whether a suspected al Qaeda operative captured on U.S. soil should be transferred to civilian custody.

Senator Mark Udall of Colorado offered an amendment to remove the detention provisions in Section 1021 from the bill altogether. This amendment would have essentially allowed the executive branch to continue to engage in existing detention practices without codification in law. By codifying the detention practices already in use, Congress is exercising its critical responsibility to oversee and create a legal framework for executive branch action. For this reason, I joined a majority of Senators in voting against this amendment.

Senator Feinstein also offered an amendment to explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens. I voted in favor of this amendment out of concern that authorizing the government to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens was at odds with fundamental American values. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 55 to 45. Finally, Senator Feinstein proposed an amendment to clarify that nothing in the bill ‘shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.’ I also voted for this measure, which passed the Senate by a vote of 99 to 1 and was included in the final version of the bill.

On December 15, 2011, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 2003, the Due Process Guarantee Act of 2011. This legislation would clarify that an authorization to use military force, a declaration of war or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States. S. 2003 would also require Congress to make a ‘clear statement’ about the limitations on authority to detain U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. This legislation has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member. Please be assured that I will examine this legislation closely.

Nothing in the NDAA authorizes the U.S. military to patrol our streets, detain ordinary Americans in their homes or conduct any law enforcement functions inside the United States. Section 1022 says only that a specific group of persons, narrowly defined as those who are ‘a part of or substantially supported al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners’ should be subject to military custody, unless the executive branch determines that civilian custody is more appropriate in a particular case. The NDAA does not address when or where a person may be captured, and does not authorize the military to exercise unprecedented powers on U.S. soil.

In addition, the NDAA will not disrupt ongoing interrogations, intelligence gathering functions and surveillance activities, and it does not require military commissions in terrorist prosecutions. The administration raised concerns that certain provisions would limit its ability to collect vital information and limit its prosecutorial options. In response, the Senate Armed Services Committee clarified that no such limitations would be placed on the President?s authority.

The NDAA absolutely does not authorize torture of detainees, irrespective of citizenship. Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire proposed S. Amdt. 1068 to the NDAA to authorize certain enhanced interrogation techniques. However, the U.S. Constitution prohibits ‘cruel and unusual punishments,’ and we must not tolerate the use of torture under any circumstances. I believe strongly that the United States has a moral obligation to uphold its commitments under the Geneva Convention regarding the treatment of prisoners. We must, therefore, hold all executive branch officials accountable for alleged violations of these commitments. I am pleased that S. Amdt. 1068 was not included the final version of the NDAA that passed the Senate. Please be assured that I support efforts to prohibit the use of ‘enhanced interrogation’ practices, and that no such practices have been endorsed in this bill.

The NDAA also does not change the fundamental, constitutional right of habeas corpus review. The writ of habeas corpus is a legal doctrine that allows individuals to challenge their detention in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution explicitly provides this right to American citizens, and the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld its applicability, even with respect to suspected terrorists. Any American citizen or lawful permanent resident held in U.S. custody will have the right to habeas corpus review. Similarly, the courts have established that persons detained under the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, including those held at Guantanamo Bay, have the right to such review. Nothing in the NDAA undermines this critical right.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, https://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office, or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

Filed Under: Featured, Martial Law, Military, Police, Politics, USA

London 2012: 13,500 Troops To Provide Olympic Security

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By BBC News

Up to 13,500 military personnel will help to provide security at the London 2012 Olympic Games, the Ministry of Defence has announced.

The Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said security would remain police-led but the armed forces would make a “significant contribution”.

Some 5,000 troops will support the police, while up to 7,500 will provide venue security at peak times, he said.

Last week, ministers revised the Games security budget from £282m to £553m.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport said it now estimated 23,700 security staff would be required at Olympic and Paralympic venues next summer, more than double the original estimate of 10,000.

In a written ministerial statement, Mr Hammond said that the MoD would increase its normal support work to the civilian authorities - such as bomb disposal, building search teams and specialist sniffer dogs.

In addition to the 5,000 personnel allocated to that role, some 3,500 would provide venue security.

This figure would rise to 7,500 on peak days during the Olympic Games, he said.

Mr Hammond told the BBC that security during the Games was “the biggest military challenge this country has faced for decades”.

But he added that military deployment during Olympic Games was routine since the 1996 Atlanta Olympics.

 

Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16195861

Filed Under: Military, United Kingdom Tagged With:

Barack Obama Declares Iraq War A Success

December 15, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By

President told an audience of soldiers at Fort Bragg that the final pullout after nearly nine years of conflict is a ‘historic’ moment.

Barack Obama marked an end to a war he once described as “dumb” by declaring the conflict in Iraq a success and saying the last US troops will leave in the coming days with their “heads held high“.

The president told an audience of soldiers at Fort Bragg that the final pullout from Iraq after nearly nine years of war is a “historic” moment and that the country they leave behind is “an extraordinary achievement”.

“Dozens of bases with American names that housed thousands of American troops have been closed down or turned over to the Iraqis. Thousands of tons of equipment have been packed up and shipped out. Tomorrow, the colours of United States Forces Iraq, the colours you fought under, will be formally cased in a ceremony in Baghdad,” he said. “One of the most extraordinary chapters in the history of the American military will come to an end. Iraq’s future will be in the hands of its people. America’s war in Iraq will be over.”

The president said the last US troops will leave in the coming days, travelling south across the desert by much the same route that American, British and coalition forces attacked Iraq in 2003.

Obama hinted at the military and diplomatic quagmire he inherited from a Bush administration that had promised Americans a quick and easy war that would see Iraqis scattering flowers at the feet of US soldiers. Instead, the American invasion unleashed a conflict - part civil war, part anti-occupation - that dragged on for years.

But the president, who came to power promising to end the war, said that for all the suffering, the result was success.

“We knew this day would come. We’ve known it for some time. But still there is something profound about the end of a war that has lasted so long,” said Obama. “It’s harder to end a war than begin one. Everything that American troops have done in Iraq - all the fighting, all the dying, the bleeding and the building and the training and the partnering, all of it has landed to this moment of success.”

Obama’s studiously avoided declaring victory or the hubris of his predecessor, George Bush, who paraded under a banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished” just as the worst of the killing in Iraq was about to begin. But the president said that the US has left Iraq better than it found it.

“Iraq’s not a perfect place. It has many challenges ahead. But we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self reliant Iraq with a representative government that was elected by its people. We’re building a new partnership between our nations and we are ending a war not with a final battle but with a final march toward home. This is an extraordinary achievement,” he said.

That interpretation is strongly disputed by critics of the way who say the conflict has destabilised the region, strengthened Iran and exposed US military shortcomings which may encourage future conflict. It is also claimed by critics that the war has strengthened hostility to the US and fueled not deterred terrorism.

The overwhelming US public support for the invasion in 2003, in part driven by the Bush administration’s misleading attempts to link Iraq to the 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks as well as its flawed claims about weapons of mass destruction, faded as the costs in American lives and dollars rose.

The president acknowledged part of the huge human cost of the war.

“We know too well the heavy cost of this war. More than 1.5m Americans have served in Iraq. Over 30,000 Americans have been wounded and those are only the wounds that show. Nearly 4,500 Americans made the ultimate sacrifice,” he said. “We also know that these numbers don’t tell the full story of the Iraq war. Not even close.”

Obama made no mention of Iraqi deaths. The cost in Iraqi lives is heavily disputed but is generally believed to run in to the hundreds of thousands.

Neither did the president talk about the financial cost of the war that earlier this week he said ran above $1 trillion - an expense that has contributed significantly to America’s economic decline.

Obama did touch on his own opposition to the invasion of Iraq in noting that while the war may have divided the country, support for the troops was solid as was their commitment.

“Our efforts in Iraq have taken many twists and turns. It was a source of great controversy at home with patriots on both sides of the debate. But there was one constant: your patriotism. Your commitment to fulfil your mission. Your abiding commitment to one another. That was constant. That did not change. That did not waver,” he said to loud cheers.

 

Source: https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/14/barack-obama-iraq-war-success

Filed Under: Iraq, Military, USA, War Tagged With:

*Diabolical” - US Senate Approves Bill To Legalize Humans Have Sex With Animals

December 14, 2011 By Leave a Comment

By CNSNews.com

THE United States Senate Thursday 12/8 approved a defence authorisation bill legalising sodomy with humans and sex with animals or bestiality.

The Senate on Thursday evening voted 93-7 to approve a defense authorization bill that includes a provision which not only repeals the military law on sodomy, it also repeals the military ban on sex with animals–or bestiality.

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

It states: “(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. (b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the effort to remove sodomy from military law stems from liberal Senate Democrats’ and President Obama’s support for removing the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

“It’s all about using the military to advance this administration’s radical social agenda,” Perkins told CNSNews.com. “Not only did they overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy.”

Now that it has passed, however, the Senate version will have to go to a conference committee, and Perkins predicts there will be several sticking points with the House. “The House in their version of the defense authorization, reinforced the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that there is a military DOMA as well, prohibiting same-sex marriage on military bases – something the Department of Defense is pushing for,” he said. “And now this is an added concern, that sodomy has been removed, and as we have discovered, that bestiality–the prohibition against it–has been removed from the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So yes, the House will have problems with this bill.”

As a reader, what do you thinkabout this?

 

Source: https://tumfweko.com/2011/12/11/america-legalizes-sex-with-animals-for-military-personnel/ (Zambia)

Filed Under: Military, Uncategorized, USA Tagged With: ,
« Older Posts