Showing posts with label DOD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOD. Show all posts

Saturday, September 5, 2015

DOD Sec. Says Gitmo Terrorists Need Indefinite Lockup as Obama Tries Closing Prison

While President Obama works to deliver on his longtime promise to close the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba his Defense Secretary offers a jolt of reality; around half of the detainees—the world’s most dangerous terrorists—need to be locked up “indefinitely.”

So what are the commander-in-chief’s plans for the radical Islamic jihadists currently incarcerated in the top-security compound at the U.S. Naval base in southeast Cuba? The all-star terrorist roster includes 9/11 masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi as well as Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the Al-Qaeda terrorist charged with orchestrating the 2000 attack on the Navy destroyer USS Cole. Where will the U.S. government take these terrorists if the president goes through with his plan, which started out as a campaign promise to restore America’s position as a global leader on human rights.

In all the years that Obama has talked of closing the Gitmo prison, he has never touched on what would happen to the terrorists held there. The president has tried emptying out the compound by releasing dozens of prisoners—many of them have rejoined terrorist causes—to foreign countries, but at least half of the remaining 116 are too dangerous to free. 

Obama’s own Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter, confirmed that recently, saying that “some of the people who are there at Guantanamo Bay have to be detained indefinitely, they’ve just got to be locked up.” This evidently applies to many of those who have been released over the years. For instance, an al Qaeda operative (Saudi Ibrahim al-Rubaysh) released from Gitmo appears on the U.S. government’s global terrorist list and Uncle Sam is offering a $5 million reward for information on his whereabouts.

The administration has considered relocating the captives to military facilities in the U.S., including Ft. Leavenworth in Kansas and the Navy Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. This has ignited outrage among officials in both states. Kansas Senator Pat Roberts was quick to say “not on my watch will any terrorists be placed in Kansas.” Roberts also co-authored a mainstream newspaper op-ed with South Carolina Senator Tim Scott vehemently rejecting the idea. “The notion that Kansas, South Carolina or any other state would be an ideal home for terrorist detainees is preposterous,” the piece reads. “Transferring these prisoners to the mainland puts the well-being of states in danger, posing security risks to the public and wasting taxpayer dollars. The detention facilities at Guantanamo are doing a fantastic job of holding these terrorists.”

The governors of both states—Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas—have also vowed to take any action in their power to stop the transfers, including suing the federal government. A South Carolina newspaper editorial points out that the state is already taking a hit for the team by serving as the “de facto permanent home” to high-level nuclear waste associated with the nation’s weapons programs. “Fearing South Carolina is again about to become the home that no other state wants to be has leaders rightly standing up against federal plans to transfer terrorist detainees from the U.S. prison facility at Guantanamo Bay near Cuba to military prisons in South Carolina and Kansas,” the editorial states. “This goes beyond the states’ collective call of duty as there is no agreement on a plan for what to do with the detainees in the long term.”

Judicial Watch has covered Guantanamo extensively and has repeatedly traveled there to monitor the U.S. military commission proceedings against the world’s most dangerous terrorists. JW has witnessed a deep commitment to justice by military and civilian lawyers defending the captives and has reported on many of the perks that the incarcerated terrorists receive from American taxpayers. For instance, they get laptops and computer lessons, “Islamically permissible” halal meals and better medical care than U.S. veterans. Last year the Obama administration let Gitmo inmates operate a “Business School Behind Bars” with an accused Al Qaeda financier as the self-appointed “dean of students.” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was also permitted to dispatch propaganda from his Guantanamo jail cell (undoubtedly aiding and abetting more terrorism) and a fighter in Osama bin Laden’s 55th Arab Brigade was allowed to published a sob letter in an international media outlet describing the “humiliating and brutal treatments” he suffers at the U.S. military prison.

Wednesday, August 5, 2015

Members of the Military Have a Right to Effective Self-Defense

(Photo: Army Sergeant First Class Michael Sauret) Read more at: - Google Search

Since 2008, at least 34 service-members and civilians have died in multiple-casualty shootings at military facilities. Dozens more have been injured. Fort Hood, Little Rock, the Washington Navy Yard, Fort Hood again, and Chattanooga — the names are sadly familiar, with at least three attackers apparently sharing jihadist motivations.

 Reading the accounts of these attacks, they tend to share the same, terrible storylines. In each case there’s a deadly lag between the time of the attack and the first police response; in each case trained (but unarmed) warriors either desperately try to scramble to safety or throw themselves at attackers in suicidal, hopeless charges. In only one instance — at Chattanooga — is there evidence that a service-member fired shots in self-defense, and in that case he may have actually defied Department of Defense directives to attempt to save his own life and the lives of others.

It has never made much sense to mandate that America’s military bases and recruiting centers become, in essence, gun-free zones, where our most well-trained men and women live largely under the protection of civilian police. In 1992, when President George H. W. Bush’s administration implemented the policy, American soldiers were under threat from Islamic terrorists as they are now. Today, the nonsensical nature of the policy is just even more obvious, when we know that ISIS, al-Qaeda, and so-called “lone wolf” jihadists are actively seeking to kill American soldiers here at home. 

Thankfully, years overdue, the Department of Defense is taking steps to increase security and may at long last allow at least some of our warriors to defend themselves. Last Wednesday, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter issued a two-page memorandum in response to the “ongoing threat” from the deadly euphemism of the month, “Homegrown Violent Extremists.” In the memo, he noted that existing Pentagon policy includes the “option of additional armed personnel” for “security, law enforcement, and counterintelligence duties.” In other words, there is already some leeway to implement basic security measures (which raises a separate question as to why “additional armed personnel” hadn’t already been deployed). But he went further, directing “all Components to consider any additional protection measures including changes to policies and procedures that protect our force against the evolving threat.” He gave a short timeline, indicating that he wants to review proposals by August 21, in less than three weeks.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

[MUST READ] Obama Cronyism + Your Personal Data = Trouble by Michelle Malkin

Michelle MalkinIt's the most far-reaching scandal in Washington that no one wants to talk about: Tens of millions of federal employees had their personal information hacked as a result of Obama administration incompetence and political favoritism.

Ethnic community organizer-turned-Office of Personnel Management head Katherine Archuleta recklessly eschewed basic cyber security in favor of politically correct "diversity" initiatives during her disastrous crony tenure. This Beltway business-as-usual created an irresistible opportunity for hackers to reach out and grab massive amounts of sensitive data — compromising everyone from rank-and-file government employees to CIA spies.

Could it get worse? You betcha.

Amid increasing concerns about these massive government computer breaches, the Defense Department is expected to announce the winner of a lucrative high-stakes contract to overhaul the military's electronic health records system this week.

The leading finalist among three top contenders is Epic Systems, a Wisconsin-based health care software company founded and led by top Obama billionaire donor Judy Faulkner. Thanks in significant part to President Obama's $19 billion stimulus subsidy program for health data vendors, Epic is now the dominant EMR player in the U.S. health IT market.

According to Becker's Hospital Review, CVS Caremark's retail clinic chain, MinuteClinic, is now adopting Epic's system, and "when the transition is complete, about 51 percent of Americans will have an Epic record." Other major clients include Kaiser Permanente of Oakland, Calif., Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, Arlington-based Texas Health Resources, Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Mount Sinai Health System in New York City, and Duke University Health System in Raleigh, N.C.

As I've reported previously, Epic employees donated nearly $1 million to political parties and candidates between 1995 and 2012 — 82 percent of it to Democrats. The company's top 10 PAC recipients are all Democratic or left-wing outfits, from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (nearly $230,000) to the DNC Services Corporation (nearly $175,000) and the America's Families First Action Fund Democratic super-PAC ($150,000).

Faulkner received a plum appointment to a federal health IT policy panel in 2011. Brandon Glenn of Medical Economics noted that "it's not a coincidence" that Epic's sales "have been skyrocketing in recent years, up to $1.2 billion in 2011, double what they were four years prior."

Stunningly, Epic "has the edge" on the gargantuan Pentagon medical records contract, The Washington Post reported on Monday. This favored status comes despite myriad complaints about the interoperability, usability and security of Epic's closed-end proprietary software. Just last week, the UCLA Health system run by Epic suffered a cyber attack affecting up to 4.5 million personal and medical records, including Social Security numbers, Medicare and health plan identifiers, birthdays, and physical addresses. The university's CareConnect system spans four hospitals and 150 offices across Southern California.

The university's top doctors and medical staff market their informatics expertise and consulting services to other Epic customers "to ensure the successful implementation and optimization of your Epic EHR." Will they be sharing their experience having to mop up the post-cyber attack mess involving their Epic infrastructure?

UCLA Health acknowledged that the hack forced it to "employ more cybersecurity experts on its internal security team, and to hire an outside cybersecurity firm to guard its network," according to CNN.

Now another Obama crony is poised to cash in on her cozy ties and take over the mega-overhaul of millions of Pentagon and Veterans Affairs medical records to the tune of at least $11 billion.

Can you say "Epic fail"?

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

The Real Reason Our Troops at Chattanooga Were Unarmed Is Absolutely Infuriating

Service members on base and outside at remote recruiting sites are not being deprived of weapons just because of short-sighted directives. It’s much worse than that. They have no access to guns to protect themselves – though in most states the civilians they pass in the streets off-post can legally and easily carry concealed – because senior military leaders are more terrified of career-ending “incidents” than the safety of their troops.
It’s a disgrace, but it’s only another example of the moral rot within the leadership of our Armed Forces that began before the Obama era but which now, under his poisonous leadership, threatens to destroy the greatest military in human history.
“Senior military leaders are more terrified of career-ending ‘incidents’ than the safety of their troops.”
Let’s be very clear – the Department of Defense (DoD) directive that limits the carrying of weapons absolutely allows commanders the discretion to arm their troops.
Let’s look at what the rules actually say. DoD Directive 5210.56, paragraph 4, reads, in part:
  1. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
  2. Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. …
Each service has specific regulations that further implement the DoD Directive. For example, Army Regulation (AR) 190-14, paragraphs 2-1 and 2-2, reserves the general power to arm troops in the continental United States to the Secretary of the Army, but it expressly provides that “[o]fficers of field grade rank or higher … may authorize the carrying of firearms for law enforcement and security duties” that include “[p]rotect[ing] DOD assets and personnel.”
So, the idea that military leaders have their hands tied is nonsense – the governing directives and regulations expressly allow senior leaders to arm their troops when there is a threat. And there is a threat – as we saw in Chattanooga, as we saw at Fort Hood. These freaks are not picking military personnel at random. They are continuing the radical Islamic war against America here on our soil, and our warriors remain stubbornly disarmed and defenseless.
So why would a commander not order troops who have qualified on their M9 pistols to draw sidearms and ammo and carry them during their duties, at least until this crisis passes? Perhaps their discretion has been withdrawn from higher command – that’s possible, especially with this toxic administration. But more likely it’s because of fear.

Saturday, June 13, 2015

Obama transfers six more Gitmo detainees, including alleged bin Laden bodyguards

Six detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention center, including two alleged Osama bin Laden bodyguards, have been transferred to Oman, the Pentagon said Saturday.
The terror-related detainees are all from neighboring and embattled Yemen. They departed Friday from the U.S. detention center, at a Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, created in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks to get terror-suspects off battlefields.
This is the first time in roughly the past five months that Guantanamo suspects have been transferred, as Congress considers new restrictions on such moves.
President Obama campaigned in 2008 to close the facility. The new transfers mark the departure of more than half of the 242 detainees who were at the facility when Obama was sworn into office in 2009. The number is now 116.
National Security Council spokesman Ned Price on Saturday repeated the Obama administration’s argument that keeping open the facility weakens national security by draining resources, damages U.S. relations with key allies and partners and emboldens violent extremists.
“As the president has repeatedly made clear, the administration is determined to close the” facility, he said. “We are taking all possible steps to reduce the detainee population at Guantanamo and to close the detention facility in a responsible manner.”
Congressional Republicans and other critics of releasing detainees argue they have the strong potential to return to the battlefield or commit other acts of terror.
Each of six the new transferees was unanimously approved through the 2009 Executive Order Task Force. And they were approved by six federal departments or agencies -- the departments of Defense, State, Justice and Homeland Security; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.   

Still, Obama remains far from achieving his closure goal, with just a year and a half left in office and as Capitol Hill lawmakers threaten to make the movement of prisoners even harder.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

Ignoring Terrorism but Celebrating Gay Pride

President Obama and his administration apparently haven’t had enough time—though it’s been more than a year—to develop a strategy to combat the anti-American terrorist group known as the Islamic State. But the Department of Defense has certainly found enough time and money to celebrate June as “Pride Month” at the Pentagon and highlight the “husbands” of top male generals

The celebrations include events inside the Pentagon, posters and PowerPoint presentations, and even a special video from the news agency of the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense also conveyed its approval by “rainbow-ing” its website.

DoD News quotes Defense Secretary Ash Carter as saying that diversity and inclusion are critical to recruiting and retaining the force of the future. He made the comments at Tuesday’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) “Pride Month” event held at the Pentagon.

Surveys show about one or two percent of the population is homosexual, and the percentage in the military is probably even lower. Yet, considerable Pentagon resources are now being devoted to highlighting their involvement in the Armed Forces and getting more of the LGBT community to join.

This month’s rainbow-colored Pentagon “pride” poster celebrates “victories that have affirmed freedom and fairness,” to quote President Obama, except for the more important but elusive “victory” over the Islamic State.

Obama’s embarrassing disclosure about having an incomplete strategy to win over global Islamic terrorism has certainly received its share of media attention. “We don’t have, yet, a complete strategy,” he said. “The details are not worked out.”

The comments were followed by a report that the Islamic State is more of a tough fighting force than previously believed because the wives of the leading terrorist figures in the group “may play a greater role in operations and communications,” and the U.S. has been ignoring them, according to CNN.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Military members, veterans missing out on key ObamaCare provision

One of the most touted benefits of President Obama’s health care overhaul law is the provision allows parents to keep their adult children on their health insurance until age 26.
However, Trace Gallagher reported on “The Kelly File” Monday, this benefit is not being extended to a significant group of Americans: members of the U.S. military.
TRICARE, the Department of Defense program that provides health coverage to active duty and retired military members and their families, only covers young adult dependents up until age 21, or age 23 if they are enrolled full-time in college.
TRICARE recipients can then purchase a plan for their young adult dependents, according to their website.
Air Force veteran Eddie Grooms said he was disappointed to learn he could not add his 21-year-old daughter to his insurance provided by the military, as he thought he had been promised under the health care overhaul.
“It’d be nice if they leveled with everybody and let them know so that people could make plans, because this is going to hit all, I mean it’s going to hit thousands of retirees over time,” Grooms said.

Saturday, November 2, 2013

[VIDEO] 52 Felons Given 'Routine Unauthorized Access' to Navy Installations

( – A DoD official told the Senate Homeland Security Committee on Thursday that about 50 convicted felons were given access to Navy installations without the proper checks, and no one has been held accountable.
A Sept. 16, 2013 DoD inspector general’s report, which was released the same day as the Navy Yard shooting, found that the Navy Commercial Access Control System (NCACS) “did not effectively mitigate access control risks associated with contractor installation access” because Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNJC) officials tried to “reduce access control costs.”
“As a result, 52 convicted felons received routine, unauthorized installation access, placing military personnel, dependents, civilians, and installations at an increased security risk,” the report said.
The IG report found that the convicted felons received “routine, unauthorized access to Navy installations for 62 to 1,035 days since Eid Passport's initial public record checks did not identify the felony convictions. This placed military personnel, dependents, civilians, and installations at an increased security risk.”
Via: CNS News
Continue Reading.....

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

McCaskill demands explanation over staged arrival ceremonies for fallen soldiers

dover_casket (2).jpgSen. Claire McCaskill is pressing the Pentagon for answers following reports -- and an admission by the U.S. Department of Defense -- that it staged “arrival ceremonies” for fallen soldiers.
“This is even more evidence that these recovery efforts are suffering from systematic problems and a lack of coordinated leadership,” McCaskill said in a statement. “Families in this community just want officials to be honest and forthright about the government’s efforts – instead, what they’re often getting is false hope and fake ceremonies.”
Joint Prisoners of War, Missing in Action Accounting Command -- a unit in the Defense Department -- has been holding arrival ceremonies for seven years, with flag-draped coffins being carried off cargo planes as though they held the remains of American troops that had just been returned, according to an initial investigation by NBC News. However, the remains typically were on site before each ceremony began, at a lab where they were undergoing analysis. The report focused on ceremonies at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii. 
“These ceremonies, which have been held numerous times over the past seven years, reportedly represented to veterans and families that the remains had been recently recovered and were arriving in the United States for the first time,” McCaskill wrote in her Oct. 25 letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

Obama's disregard for experience and humility

A change to the Marine Corps' uniform hats could leave hard-nosed Leathernecks looking a lot less macho. 
According to the New York Post, President Obama's plan to create a "unisex" look for the Corps has officials on the verge of swapping out the Marines' iconic caps with a new hat that some have derided as so "girly" that they would make the French blush. 
"We don't even have enough funding to buy bullets, and the DoD is pushing to spend $8 million on covers that look like women's hats!" one senior Marine source fumed to The Post. "The Marines deserve better. It makes them look ridiculous." 
The thin new hats have a feminine line that some officials think would make them look just as good on female marines as on males - in keeping with the Obama directive. 
They have been dubbed the "Dan Daly" hat, after a sergeant from Long Island who won the Medal of Honor in World War I. 

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

DOD Refuses to Say If It Would Stop Priest from Giving Last Rites to Dying Serviceman

( - Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a spokesman in the Office of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, is refusing to say whether the Department of Defense would attempt to stop a civilian Catholic priest, who had been a contract chaplain for the military, from administering the last rites to a serviceman on a U.S. military base.
“I feel no particular compulsion to answer outlandish, hypothetical questions in a yes/no fashion nor does the Department, generally, answer hypotheticals at all,” Breasseale said in an email.
“Further, it is a matter of long standing Department policy to not address matters that are currently under active litigation,” Breasseale continued.
Prior to Breasseale sending this email declining to say whether DOD would try to stop a priest from administering the last rites to a serviceman, a spokesman for the National Security Staff at the White House, had responded to the question, by saying: “We'd refer you to our colleagues at DOD for comment.”
Via: CNS News
Continue Reading....

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Weekly Update: Founding Fathers Extremists

Obama DOD: Mainstream Conservative Views “Extremist”

Did you ever think there would come a day in this country when the federal government would compare a person speaking about “individual liberties” to a member of the Klu Klux Klan? Unfortunately, such is the state of affairs in Obama’s America.

Judicial Watch recently obtained “educational” materials from the Department of Defense (DOD) depicting conservative organizations as “hate groups” and advising students to be aware that “instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.”

The documents repeatedly cite the leftwing Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a resource for identifying “hate groups.”  (More on this contemptible group here.)

Pursuant to our original Freedom of Information (FOIA) request, filed on April 8, 2013, JW sought from DOD:  “Any and all records concerning, regarding, or related to the preparation and presentation of training materials on hate groups or hate crimes distributed or used by the Air Force.”

And here’s what we have received so far: 133 pages of lesson plans and PowerPoint slides provided by the U.S. Air Force.  Included in these documents is a January 2013 Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute “student guide” entitled “Extremism.”  The document is marked “for training purposes only” with the instruction “do not use on the job.” 

Popular Posts