Defense Dept Refused Cooperation on Benghazi Witness?

Posted on by

Related reading: The witness was located and interviewed

Rep. Westmoreland: No Democrat Members Attended Yesterday’s Witness Interviews

June 10, 2016
Press Release

Washington, D.C. — Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03), a member of the Select Committee on Benghazi and Chairman of the Subcommittee of the NSA and Cybersecurity on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, released the following statement after none of the five Benghazi Committee Democrats showed up for either of yesterday’s interviews with drone sensor operators from the time of the attacks, including “John from Iowa”:

“It’s a shame none of the Democrat members of the Benghazi Committee showed up to hear what these two service members had to say about their service to our country on the night of the Benghazi attacks.”

After the Select Committee on Benghazi subpoenaed Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger to testify under oath next week, Communications Director Jamal Ware issued the following statement in response to Democrats’ mischaracterizations of the drone sensor operators’ testimonies:

“Democrats belie their own political motivation and lack of interest in conducting a serious investigation when they would rather accept briefings provided by the Pentagon than talk to the actual Air Force operators who were conducting missions over Benghazi that night. Since not a single Democrat member could be bothered to show up to hear what the sensor operators had to say, I find it surprising their spokesman is so willing to mischaracterize the witnesses’ testimony. In fact, the operators were able to tell the committee what they were directed to look for, what information they were focused on gathering, what information was relayed up the chain of command and what capabilities the drones possessed. Video footage the administration refuses to let the American people see and briefers instructed what to say cannot do that.

“Chairman Gowdy wants answers under oath and he wants them quickly—a subpoena accomplishes both. The Democrats and administration incessantly whine about the committee’s length, so they shouldn’t be surprised when the committee cuts to the chase.”

The dishonest Democrats are falsely claiming the Benghazi Committee “waited … 659 days” to specifically request the Department of Defense (DOD) find “John from Iowa.” But the truth – as made clear by the timeline of events the committee released yesterday – is that DOD was unable to comply with the committee’s February 26 request for relevant drone personnel. So on March 24, the committee sent DOD a list of outstanding requests and noted an investigator trying to gather any publicly available information about relevant drone personnel came across a news report about “John from Iowa,” an individual who called into a talk radio show in May 2013 and claimed to be a drone sensor operator on the night of the attacks.

In other words, the committee requested “John from Iowa” as soon as it became aware of him.

The February 26 and March 24 dates are confirmed by an email from DOD staff to the committee acknowledging the timing of the committee’s requests.

 

Select Committee Subpoenas Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger

June 10, 2016
Press Release

Washington, D.C. — Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee subpoenaed Assistant Secretary of Defense Stephen Hedger, a Pentagon political appointee, to testify in private, under oath on Wednesday, June 15:

“This Pentagon political appointee claimed in an official letter to the committee the Department of Defense could not find a requested witness, despite expending ‘significant resources’ searching for him. This witness is still on active duty and confirmed Thursday the Air Force knew exactly who he was – a drone sensor operator who was operating over Benghazi on the night of the attacks. Mr. Hedger will now have the opportunity to detail exactly what ‘resources’ he ‘expended’ and how. I look forward to him explaining the serious questions that have arisen with respect to this matter, including whether they are related to incompetence or deliberate concealment of the witness from a congressional inquiry.”

In his April 28 letter to Chairman Gowdy that was leaked to the press, Hedger stated he “would appreciate a meeting with you at your nearest convenience to discuss these issues[.]”

In response, Gowdy wrote that the “overtly partisan” letter “intentionally mischaracterizes both the nature of the Committee’s investigation and its interaction with the Department of Defense. It is also riddled with factual inaccuracies, which not only does a disservice to the public but also does a disservice to the women and men who work for the Department of Defense.” He stated that Pentagon political staffers are “welcome to waste taxpayer dollars writing partisan, factually deficient letters to our committee, coordinate the language with House Democrats, and then leak it to the media,” but that “will not prevent this committee from interviewing all witnesses who can help us write the final, definitive accounting of what happened before, during, and after the attacks that killed four Americans in Benghazi[.]”

On May 20, three months after the committee’s request, the Department of Defense provided a complete list of names of drone personnel from the time of the attacks. While it is unclear if the Department knew at the time it had finally provided the name of “John from Iowa,” the committee did. Based on this drone sensor operator’s testimony to the committee Thursday, it now appears the Department had knowledge well in advance of who and where John was. In fact, the Department had been in contact with him regarding his public statements prior to the committee’s request. The committee intends to question Hedger about this discrepancy and other matters.

View the timeline of events regarding “John from Iowa.”

Core of Hillary FBI Investigation, Wilful Drone Discussions

Posted on by

Emails in Clinton probe dealt with planned drone strikes: WSJ

Reuters/WSJ: Emails between U.S. diplomats in Islamabad and State Department officials in Washington about whether to challenge specific U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are at the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side” -government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters – as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe, the Journal said.

Some of the emails were then forwarded by Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said, according to the newspaper.

Investigators have raised concerns that Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems, and a recent report by the State Department inspector general found that Clinton had broken government rules by using a private email server without approval, undermining Clinton’s earlier defenses of her emails.

The still-secret emails are a key part of the FBI investigation that has long dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign, the officials told the Journal. Clinton this week clinched the Democratic presidential nomination for the Nov. 8 election.

The vaguely worded messages did not mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, officials said, according to the Journal.

The emails were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, the officials said, according to the newspaper.

Law enforcement and intelligence officials said State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information, the Journal reported.

Context at the time:

Pakistan UAV attacks have become one of the Obama administration’s signature efforts in the terror war. Although the CIA does not divulge how many drones it operates, press reports suggest the agency has as many as 16 such systems. But in the early days of his presidency, Barack Obama was advised by at least two former high-ranking CIA officers not to over-rely on the use of drones.

Former CIA analyst Bruce Riedel, commissioned by the president to review US policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, concluded that robot airplanes could only function successfully when allied to high-quality “on the ground” intelligence.

That view was shared by General Michael Hayden, CIA director at the start of the Obama presidency. In his book Obama’s Wars, Bob Woodward recounts how Hayden believed that “The great lesson of World War II and Vietnam was that attack from the air, even massive bombings, can’t win a war.”

Noah Shachtman, contributing editor of Wired.com, warns that the lesson of not having troops on the ground could be over-learned: “The idea that any terrorist problem could be solved by drones alone just isn’t realistic. Drones are only as effective as the human informants who tell them where to strike.” For him, a drones-only policy could become “a way of maintaining political cover and a veil of secrecy over operations that might ordinarily be wide open”. More here.

**** Additionally for later context:

NPR: In 2013, President Obama tightened rules for drone strikes in order to reduce civilian casualties. NPR’s Audie Cornish talks to Wall Street Journal correspondent Adam Entous who learned that the president secretly waived the new rules for CIA operations in Pakistan.

In 2015: The killings revealed last week of two hostages – an American and an Italian – have raised new questions about how the CIA operates in Pakistan. Warren Weinstein and Giovanni La Porto were aid workers. They were killed in January by a U.S. drone strike aimed at al-Qaida militants. The Wall Street Journal reports the CIA conducted that strike under a secret waiver approved by President Obama in 2013. Obama laid it out in a speech at National Defense University in 2013. And he didn’t reveal all the rules. The actual guidance that he issued is – remains classified. But he did talk about three of them. He said that operations targeting individuals needed to have near certainty that there would be no civilians killed or injured in those strikes. He also said that the CIA and the Pentagon, when conducting strikes like this, need to know that there is an imminent threat to the United States posed by the militants that they intend on targeting. And another guideline that he laid out was the idea that the United States is not going to kill people in order to punish them for acts that they did in the past. This is about preventing them from attacking the United States or U.S. persons or assets overseas in the future.

Pakistan is important because this is the staging area for al-Qaida and other militant groups that are looking to cross the border into Afghanistan and attack American forces there. Attacking al-Qaida in Pakistan is a way to prevent them from later attacking U.S. forces across the border. So the White House and the president said that there would be a thorough review of this incident in order to ensure that mistakes like this do not happen again. And within this debate within the administration, several members of the president’s inner circle are making the case that now is the time to rein in the program.

But it’s really hard to tell what direction this is going to go in the end because of strong support, not only within the administration for the drone program and wanting to have the flexibility to use it, but also within the Congress. You have very powerful committees, members of the president’s own party, who very much support this program and don’t want to see it go away. Additional information here.

Obama Cool with Giving up Internet Control, But Wait…

Posted on by

Duffy And Cruz Introduce the Protecting Internet Freedom Act

Jun 8, 2016
Press Release
Bill prohibits Obama administration from unilaterally giving away the Internet

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Sean Duffy (R-WI) Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today introduced the Protecting Internet Freedom Act, which would prevent the Obama administration from giving the Internet away to a global organization that will allow over 160 foreign governments to have increased influence over the management and operation of the Internet.

The bill would ensure the continued protection of Internet freedom by prohibiting the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) from allowing the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract to expire, unless specifically authorized by Congress. The Protecting Internet Freedom Act would also ensure that the United States maintains sole ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains, which are vital to national security.

Obama administration backs plan to relinquish Internet control

FNC: The Obama administration is getting behind a plan that would have the U.S. government relinquish its last bit of control over the Internet – a move Republican lawmakers are fighting tooth-and-nail.

The transfer was set in motion two years ago when a Commerce Department agency said it would cede oversight over an obscure, but powerful, Los Angeles-based nonprofit called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

The agency, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, announced Thursday that the game plan they got back from ICANN – which would hand over the reins to a “multi-stakeholder” group, and not a single government – is now in line with what they want.

“The Internet’s multistakeholder community has risen to the challenge we gave them to develop a transition proposal that would ensure the Internet’s domain name system will continue to operate as seamlessly as it currently does,” NTIA Administrator Lawrence Strickling said in a statement. AFP first reported on the decision.

ICANN manages some of the most important elements of the Internet, including the domain name system and IP addressing. Domains include those tiny suffixes at the end of Internet addresses, like .com and .org; Internet Protocol addresses are the numerical sequences assigned to devices in a network.

Foreign governments had complained about the U.S. oversight, maintained through contracts with ICANN.

Yet the Obama administration has faced stiff resistance to a hand-off for months from vocal critics on Capitol Hill and in the tech community. One concern is that, in the void left by America’s transfer of oversight, other nations that don’t share the United States’ commitment to free speech and expression could make a grab at Internet influence.

On Wednesday, Republican Texas Sen. Cruz and Republican Wisconsin Rep. Sean Duffy introduced legislation to prevent the transfer of functions related to the Internet Domain Name System unless specifically authorized by Congress.

The Protecting Internet Freedom Act also aims to ensure that the U.S. maintains sole ownership of the .gov and .mil top-level domains.

“The Obama administration is months away from deciding whether the United States Government will continue to provide oversight over core functions of the Internet and protect it from authoritarian regimes that view the Internet as a way to increase their influence and suppress freedom of speech,” Cruz said in a statement. “This issue threatens not only our personal liberties, but also our national security. We must act affirmatively to protect the Internet and the amazing engine for economic growth and opportunity the Internet has become, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.”

In a press release, the lawmakers suggested the plan would “allow over 160 foreign governments to have increased influence over the management and operation of the Internet.”

Groups supporting the Protecting Internet Freedom Act include Americans for Limited Government, National Religious Broadcasters and Frontiers of Freedom.

Strickling reportedly is not calling his agency’s endorsement of the plan a formal “approval” yet – but if Washington stamps the plan, AFP reported, the U.S. government contract with ICANN would expire at the end of September. The plan reportedly is meant to prevent any single government from taking control and is not predicted to cause major changes for ordinary Internet users.

The push to transfer oversight dates back years.

In a July 2012 speech at an Internet governance forum, Strickling discussed giving the “global Internet community” more of a “direct say” in the process, and he said the Obama administration was making a “concerted effort” to expand international participation.

The latest push to transition oversight began with a 2009 agreement between NTIA and ICANN. The Commerce agency, though, has noted that the goal of completely privatizing the domain name system dates back to 1997, and that the U.S. government reiterated that goal when it partnered with ICANN a year later.

Two years ago, Strickling responded to criticism of the plan by asserting the transfer plan “in no way diminishes our commitment to preserving the Internet as an engine for economic growth and innovation.”

 

9th Circuit Decision Against Conceal Carry

Posted on by

So the most liberal circuit court in the land has rendered a 7-4 decision on the 2nd Amendment and has applied modern day political correctness and Obama/Democrat policy to interpreting the spirit of a Constitutional protection. This will be appealed to the Supreme Court sometime in the near future.

   Judge Fletcher

Clearly to show danger, the only response as I see it should have been ‘San Bernardino’. If that is not enough, mention Tel Aviv, Paris or Brussels, or Garland, or Boston…..

Watch out for Arizona and Nevada to respond….

The full 52 page decision is here.

No constitutional right for concealed guns: California appeals court

Reuters: Firearm owners have no constitutional right to carry a concealed gun in public if they face no specific danger, a divided federal appeals court in California ruled on Thursday, in a victory for gun control advocates.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which sets a legal precedent in western states, was seen as unlikely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future.

The San Francisco-based court, in a 7-4 decision, found San Diego and Yolo counties in California did not violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects the right to bear arms, when they denied some applicants a concealed firearm license.

“We hold that the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public,” Judge William Fletcher wrote in a 52-page opinion.

The two California counties had limited their permits to applicants showing “good cause” to be armed, such as documented threats or working in a wide range of risky occupations.

The ruling places the 9th Circuit Court in line with other U.S. appellate courts that have upheld the right of officials in the states of New York, Maryland and New Jersey to deny concealed carry applications in certain cases.

Under California’s concealed carry law, more than 70,000 residents or less than 1 percent of the state’s population had active permits last year, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 2013, in the middle of a raging national debate on guns, declined to weigh in on whether firearm owners have a constitutional right to carry their weapons in concealment outside the home.

Gun rights group the California Rifle and Pistol Association declined to provide immediate comment.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan wrote that the court had gone too far in limiting the right to concealed firearms. “The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class’ amendment,” she wrote.

If plaintiffs appeal, the Supreme Court may refrain from reviewing the case because other U.S. circuit courts have also upheld certain requirements for concealed carry permits, said University of California, Los Angeles, law professor Adam Winkler in an email.

The decision by the full 9th Circuit reversed a 2-1 decision in 2014 by a panel of the appellate court that found California residents have an inherent right to a concealed weapon for self defense.

The decision:

Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, sought to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but alleged they were denied licenses to do so because they did not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties.

Under California law, an applicant for a license must show, among other things, “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. Appellants contend that San Diego and Yolo Counties’ published policies defining good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The en banc court held that the history relevant to both the Second Amendment and its  incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment lead to the same conclusion: The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry – including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined — is necessarily allowed by the Amendment. The en banc court stated that there may or may not be a Second Amendment right for a member of the general public to carry a firearm openly in public, but the Supreme Court has not answered that question. Read the full opinion here.

 

DHS Wont Tell us but UK’s GCHQ Does

Posted on by

Terrorist groups acquiring the cyber capability to bring major cities to a standstill, warns GCHQ chief

 

Terrorists and rogue states are gaining the capability to bring a major city to a standstill with the click of a button, the Director of GCHQ has warned.

GCHQ Director Robert HanniganHostile groups are acquiring the capability to launch devastating attacks, warns Hannigan Credit: TELEGRAPH

Telegraph: In a rare public appearance, Robert Hannigan said the risk to cities like London would increase as more physical objects, such as cars and household appliances, are connected online – the so-called “internet of things”.

developing the kind of cyber programmes that could attack the UK, but that terrorist groups were also looking to take advantage of the technology.

“At some stage they will get the capability,” he said.

“There are certainly states and groups with the intent to do it, terrorist groups, for example, who have no threshold when it comes to the loss of life.

“We’re not quite there yet, but as the world becomes ever more connected that will become a greater risk.”

Speaking as the controversial Investigatory Powers Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons, Mr Hannigan also defended the surveillance of internet activity by the intelligence services, saying seven attacks against the UK had been foiled in the last 18 months due to bulk data analysis.

******
Simple Explanation of Internet of Things

Islamic State issues anti-hacking guidelines after Anonymous threats

The extremist terrorist group Isil sent out a warning to members on how to protect from hackers like Anonymous

The warning was put out via Telegram, an encrypted instant messaging app, on the Khilafah news channel, which is thought to be an unofficial pro-ISIS news source.

This was discovered by researchers at the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation, a London think tank which studies extremism and terrorism.

Nick Kaderbhai, a research fellow from the think tank told the Huffington Post UK, “Anyone can subscribe to it (technically) however the more IS channels you subscribe to the more open you are to investigation.”

The message was titled #Warning, and said “The #Anonymous hackers have threatened in new video release that they will carry out a major hack operation operation on the Islamic state (idiots).”

ISIS sent out a message on encrypted chat app Telegram with instructions to avoid being hacked  Photo: Huffington Post UK

Instructions included warnings to use VPN, a tool ot make the user’s location online, and to change IP address constantly. It also told members to avoid using direct messages on Twitter, because is is open to hackers.

“Do not make your email same as your username on Twitter this mistake cost many their accounts…so be careful,” it read.

The hacker collective, which consists of unrelated volunteers, coders and activists from around the world, launched its anti-Islamic State online campaign, called #OpISIS, after the Charlie Hebdo massacre in Paris last January.

Making good on its threats, Anonymous posted a list of roughly 800 Facebook, Twitter and email accounts believed to be related to ISIL on Monday.

To date, according to an in-depth investigation by Foreign Policy, they have taken down 149 Islamic State-related websites and exposed 101,000 Twitter accounts and 5900 propaganda videos.