Category Archives: U.S. Constitution

Hey SEALS, Turnover your Weapons

Posted on by

Twisted priorities at the Pentagon, mandated by the White House and congressional budgets, then couple that with waste, fraud and abuse, ladies and gentlemen, our problems are much worse than can be defined.

Just WHOA…

SOCOM investigating Navy SEAL weapons shortages

STRIPES: WASHINGTON — The general in charge of U.S. Special Operations Command said Tuesday that he is looking into claims that Navy SEALs and other elite forces have shortages of key equipment.

Gen. Joseph Votel assured House lawmakers that the command will resolve any problems that it discovers in equipping special operators, such as a lack of service weapons, in preparation for increasingly common missions around the world.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and other House lawmakers raised the alarm earlier this month on supply shortages in the special operations community, causing soldiers to dip increasingly into their own pockets to purchase basic military gear such as helmets, global positioning devices and medical supplies.

Most concerning, according to Hunter, is SEALs are now asked to hand over their personalized weapons after returning from deployment so they can be handed off to other SEALs who are deploying.

“I look forward to talking to Navy Special Warfare Command about this specific issue and make sure we understand it,” said Votel, who was testifying to members of the House Armed Services Committee. “If there is something that we are contributing to that is impacting the readiness of our operators, we’ll certainly take immediate actions to kind of correct that.”

Votel said the issue might be related to maintenance and the high usage of SEAL weapons.

“These guys do put a lot of rounds through the weapons,” he said. “What we do try to do is ensure with that many rounds going through our weapons that they do have the right level of depot maintenance when they do come back from deployments or long training periods.”

Hunter, who wrote a letter in February to the Navy Special Warfare Command about the concerns, brushed aside the general’s suggestion.

“This is not a factor of too many rounds going through the weapon barrel, and then you just change out the barrel anyway,” Hunter said.

He said the weapons are the most important pieces of equipment for the SEALs. They put time into calibrating their weapons and applying optics and lasers, then are forced to turn them over for reconfiguration.

“I’ve had multiple SEALs at multiple times over the last six months come to me in San Diego … and tell me how things have changed dramatically from five or six years ago, meaning they don’t get weapons now to work up with for two years,” Hunter said. “They get their weapon when a guy comes back and hands over the weapon.”

The military has increased its reliance greatly on special operations forces since 9/11. As such operations hit a high mark, other reports of supply shortages have come up as well.

Last month, the nonprofit group Troops Direct reported the Marine Corps Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team deployed to Benghazi, Libya after the embassy attack there and lacked crucial equipment including sniper supplies and batteries.

Meanwhile, troops often have to buy their own medical equipment such as tourniquets, and shell out about $1,000 each for their own helmets or $500 for GPS devices, according to the group.

The shortfalls in SEAL weapons have surfaced, as the Navy Special Warfare Command budget increased by $11 million during the past couple of years, according to Hunter.

Rep. Richard Nugent, R-Fla., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said he could not understand why the Navy would rotate SEALs’ service weapons and that he wanted answers.

“That’s the [weapon] you sleep with, the one you work with, so I will be interested to hear from Rep. Hunter the answer you come back with,” Nugent told Votel.

****

Lacking basic gear, special operators stuck buying their own equipment

STRIPES: WASHINGTON – Sean Matson, who recently left active-duty as a Navy SEAL, said the military measured his head four times – each time before deployment – with plans to provide him a more advanced ballistic helmet.

But the new helmet never materialized. During a deployment in Africa, Matson and six of his fellow SEALs each shelled out about $900 for updated helmets that held the lights, communications devices and batteries needed for their missions.

“There was never a clear solution to it, so guys were going out spending $800-$900 on their own ballistic helmet,” said Matson, who is now CEO of the military supply company Matbock.

Elite troops such as the SEALs are more and more forced to dip into their own pockets to purchase basic military gear such as helmets, global positioning devices and medical supplies, according to Matson and others involved in the military’s unofficial civilian-side supply network who came to Capitol Hill on Thursday.

House lawmakers have taken notice and said they will request an explanation from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.

“These are the guys we assume have the best gear all the time,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a Marine Corps combat veteran.

Hunter said special operations troops have been approaching him in his California district complaining about the inability to get needed materials and he has been investigating the issue.

Numerous individual instances point to a systemic problem in the military’s supply chain but a blind spot exists between Defense Department vendors and the troops who need the gear and supplies, Hunter said.

“It’s been impossible for me to find out how the money is getting stopped and why it is not going down to where it’s supposed to be,” he said.

Aaron Negherbon is the executive director of the nonprofit group Troops Direct, which ships needed and requested supplies – from boot laces to tablet devices — to servicemembers who cannot get it through their commands.

Less than two days after the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, Negherbon said he was contacted by the commander of a Marine Corps Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security Team that was being deployed there.

The commander told him the team lacked a variety of crucial equipment, including sniper supplies, he said.

“They came to us for…batteries because they didn’t have any of those … It is kind of like, ‘What the heck is going on?’” Negherbon said.

He said troops often have to buy their own medical equipment such as tourniquets, and shell out about $1,000 each for their own helmets or $500 for a GPS device that they need for duty during a deployment.

“The question is, why can’t you get this?” Negherbon said.

Often the answer seems to be a higher command does not have the money budgeted or the equipment was approved but not available from vendors.

“That is a good thing, we know where the problem is but [those issues] are very profound,” he said.

A small group of House Republican lawmakers gathered Thursday to hear the concerns.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., an Air Force combat veteran, said the military has to weigh the concerns of supplying needed equipment with the desire of troops to always have the newest gear on the market.

Still, Kinzinger said the shortfalls in the supply chain could become a major issue if deployments ramp up again to the levels seen during the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Rep. Chris Gibson, R-N.Y., an Army veteran, said the group should write a letter to Carter, saying they have serious concerns about supply breakdowns, including the inability of Matson and his fellow SEALs to get helmets capable of mounting lights, though the equipment was approved.

“If you’ve got a situation where unit is approved for an Ops-Core [brand ballistic] helmet and it’s not getting it, we need to understand what the problem is … that is unacceptable,” he said.

The Court Telling Texas NO on Barring Refugees

Posted on by

Federal Court Declines to Bar the Resettlement of

Syrian Refugees in Texas

02/26/2016

FAS: In a decision issued on February 8, 2016, a federal district court denied the State of Texas’s request that the federal

government and a private refugee relief organization be temporarily barred from resettling Syrian refugees within the

state pending resolution of Texas’s challenge to such resettlement. Texas had filed this suit in December 2015, after

terrorist attacks in Paris, France and San Bernardino, California, perpetrated by persons with ties or allegiance to the

Islamic State, due to concerns that terrorists could enter the United States through the refugee resettlement program.

The court’s decision focused on the standards that plaintiffs must meet to obtain a preliminary injunction, discussed

below. However, in so doing, the court construed language in Section 412 of the Immigration and Nationality Act

(INA) requiring the federal government to “consult regularly … with State and local governments” about refugee

placement. The court’s reading of this provision could have implications for certain congressional proposals to give

states greater control over refugee resettlement.

Overview of the Court’s Decision

The court denied the preliminary injunction, in part, because it found that Texas had failed to establish a substantial

threat of irreparable injury if the federal government and the private refugee relief organization were allowed to resettle

Syrian refugees in Texas. Such a showing is required for a preliminary injunction, along with a showing that (A) the

party seeking the injunction has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (B) the alleged injury, if the injunction

is denied, outweighs any harm that would result if the injunction is granted; and (C) the grant of an injunction will not

disserve the public interest.

In finding that Texas failed to meet its burden of showing irreparable injury, the court noted that the evidence produced

by Texas showed only that “Syrian refugees pose some risk.” Texas did not, in the court’s view, demonstrate that

terrorists have infiltrated the refugee program, or that the particular individuals whose settlement Texas sought to block

are refugees “intent on causing harm.” It thus found the evidence “insufficient” to establish a substantial risk of

irreparable injury. The court similarly rejected Texas’s argument that it was irreparably harmed because the defendants’

failure to provide Texas with detailed information about any refugees settled in Texas deprived Texas of an alleged

“statutory right to foreknowledge” of refugees’ backgrounds that had been created by INA §412’s requirement that

federal agencies consult with state and local governments about refugee placement. The court further found that a

clause in Texas’s contract with the relief organization, which purported to establish a presumption of irreparable harm

if the organization were to breach the contract was immaterial, since the clause is not binding on the court and does not,

in itself, justify the “extraordinary relief” of a preliminary injunction.

The court also found that Texas was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the refugee resettlement plans

because “it has no viable cause of action” against the federal government. Texas’s argument here had been based, in

part, on its view that the federal government’s actions in resettling refugees in Texas run afoul of INA § 412, which, in

relevant part, provides that federal officials:

shall consult regularly (not less often than quarterly) with State and local government and private nonprofit

voluntary agencies concerning the [refugee] sponsorship process and the intended distribution of refugees among

the States and localities before their placement in those States and localities.

In particular, Texas took the view that this provision, along with the terms of its contract with private relief

organization, required it to receive detailed demographic, medical, security, and other information about individual

refugees before they are resettled in Texas.

The court did not reach the merits of this argument, instead finding that Texas cannot sue to enforce INA § 412 because

this provision does not create a private right of action. The court based this conclusion on Supreme Court precedents

finding that private rights of action to enforce federal law must be created by Congress, and the “judicial task is to

interpret the statute Congress passed to determine whether it displays an intent to create” such a right. In INA § 412,

the court found no such intent since the provisions of this section do not “confer any rights directly on the States.”

Instead, they are framed as a “general … command to a federal agency” to federal officials to consult with their state

counterparts. Such general prohibitions or commands have been seen as insufficient to create private rights of action in

other cases.

Implications of the Court’s Decision

The court’s finding that INA § 412 does not create a private right of action could have implications for certain proposals

in the 114th Congress to give states and localities greater input in the refugee resettlement process. Many proposed bills

would expressly authorize state officials to decline the resettlement of particular refugees within their jurisdictions, a

power which they lack under current law, as discussed in an earlier Sidebar posting. However, some bills take a

different approach and instead require that the federal government give state and local officials certain notices before

placing refugees within their jurisdiction. If Congress wants to ensure that states and localities can enforce such notice

requirements, it may wish to draft the latter type of measures in such a way that the statute can be seen as conferring

rights directly on the states and local governments, rather than imposing general commands on federal agencies. Only if

measures are so drafted would states and localities potentially be able to enforce the notice requirements (and even then

other limits on the federal courts’ jurisdiction could apply, such as the mootness doctrine, if for example, the refugees

are already settled within the state).

 

Pentagon’s Plan to Close Gitmo

Posted on by

Read it and permission granted to shake your head.

DOD Releases Plan to Close GTMO

02/23/2016

FAS: Conceding that “the politics of this are tough,” President Obama announced this morning the release of the Department

of Defense (DoD) plan to close the prison facility at the U.S. Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The document

reiterates current procedures for transferring detainees to their home countries or other countries abroad, but perhaps

more controversially, promises to “work with Congress to relocate [certain detainees] from the Guantanamo Bay

detention facility to a secure detention facility in the United States, while continuing to identify other non-U.S.

dispositions.” The plan does not specify a particular location within the United States where detainees would be housed

(although it states 13 possible sites have been identified), but emphasizes the Attorney General’s 2014 conclusion that

relocation to the United States would not risk ascribing to transferees additional rights under the U.S. Constitution or

immigration laws. (This analysis, required by section 1039 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2014, is

attached as an appendix to the plan).

Predicting that the closure of the detention facility will save between $140 million and $180 million over FY 2015

operating costs, the plan lays out how the Administration hopes to resolve the disposition of the 91 detainees remaining

at Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. Government, it says, is pursuing three lines of effort:

1. identifying transfer opportunities for detainees designated for transfer;

2. continuing to review the threat posed by those detainees who are not currently eligible for transfer and who are

not currently facing military commission charges; and

3. continuing with ongoing military commissions prosecutions and, for those detainees who remain designated for

continued law of war detention, identifying individualized dispositions where available, including military

commission prosecution, transfer to third countries, foreign prosecutions or, should Congress lift the ban on

transfers to the United States, transfer to the United States for prosecution in Article III courts and to serve

sentences.

The plan acknowledges that current law prohibits the transfer of detainees into the United States. Current legislative

barriers to the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States include two provisions in the 2016 NDAA (P.L.

114-92). Like previous provisions in national defense authorization and appropriations legislation (beginning with

section 14103 of the 2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-32)) section 1031 of the 2016 NDAA prohibits

the use of funds for transfer or release of individuals detained at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,

to the United States. This prohibition expires on December 31, 2016. Section 1032, also reiterating prohibitions from

previous years, prohibits until December 31, 2016, the use of funds to construct or modify facilities in the United States

to house detainees transferred from Guantanamo Bay.

These provisions are also carried over in the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Omnibus) (P.L. 114-113), Division

B, Title V (Commerce, Justice and Science) sections 527 and 528, and Division C, Title VIII (Department of Defense)

sections 8103-8104, except that the prohibitions cover funds appropriated in “this or any other Act.” The transfer

provision is repeated in Division F, Title V (Homeland Security) section 532. Title IV, section 412 of Division J

(Military Construction and Veterans Affairs) repeats the prohibition on building modifications or construction in the

United States to house Guantanamo detainees. Title VI of Division M (Intelligence) repeats the prohibitions with

respect to the Intelligence Community.

The plan appears to be a response to a 2016 NDAA provision that directed DOD to submit a comprehensive detention

strategy, which included such elements as an assessment of possible detention sites within the United States. Some

have criticized the DoD plan as failing to address sufficiently the required elements of the report. Additionally,

although nothing in the DoD plan suggests that the White House is considering using an executive order to bypass the

statutory restrictions and transfer detainees into the United States, it has been suggested that the President has

constitutional authority to close the detention facility despite legislative prohibitions currently in force. Others,

however, disagree, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have denied in a recent letter to certain Members of Congress that there

is any intent to take actions contrary to statutory restrictions.

 

 

Prediction: An Extraordinary Plea Deal for Hillary et.al

Posted on by

Will a plea deal be enough to stop the formal Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States for Hillary? Understanding the waivers, the dismissiveness and the constant ‘witch-hunt’ diatribe, likely not. Hillary is not qualified to be president and should have her own security clearance stripped and permanently.

Yet, the political machinery is always running on 12 cylinders.

The lead person at the Department of Justice assigned to the Hillary servergate case is Richard S. Scott, whom by the way was the exact lawyer assigned to the General David Petraeus case. It is unknown who is leading the other investigations concerning Hillary’s circle of people that were her firewalls much less her email forwarding clerical types like Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.

 

It should also be noted that David Petraeus hired David E. Kendall to represent him, a lawyer whom by the way has been Hillary’s lawyer for decades.

When one examines the investigation and full case of David Petraeus, there are some, only some similarities to Hillary’s investigation. Yet, Petraeus did plea to one count, a violation of 18 U.S.C.{} 1924, which held a maximum term of one year in prison, $100,000 fine or both and no more than 5 years probation.

In the matter of Hillary Clinton, she never had a dot gov email while one was in fact offered to her and further, an exclusive computer was also offered to her to transmit any material, classified, secret or top secret, which was turned down. Instead, Hillary and her team chose to use an unencrypted server for countless email accounts to perform diplomatic government business as well as personal business and for sure business related to the Clinton Foundation.

The final release of emails belonging to Hillary of which the State Department was charged by a court to release is complete as of February 29, 2016.

State Department spokesman John Kirby told reporters Monday that one email was being withheld at the request of an unnamed law enforcement agency, but that no other emails were classified Secret or Top Secret. He noted that one email, previously classified Top Secret by the Intelligence Community Inspector General, was downgraded to Secret. The email pertains to North Korea’s nuclear program. But Kirby said 261 other emails released Monday were marked Secret and “confidential,” bringing the total to 2,050 emails that contain classified information. Two are being withheld as one deals directly with Barack Obama and the other was over intent of the use of the server itself and the FBI has taken ownership of that email.

***

In part from CNN: The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn’t turn over for review.

Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified at the time they were sent, but over 1,800 have been retroactively classified during the State Department-ledpre-release review process.

This includes 22 emails upgraded to Top Secret — the highest level — and withheld by the State Department in full.

On a separate occasion, Clinton and Sullivan exchange emails on a set of “tps” — presumably talking points, which he’s trying to send to her on a secure fax line.

“If they can’t,” Clinton replies, “turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.”

There’s no indication whether the talking point were classified, but the exchange led to criticism from Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, a frequent Clinton critic, who called the chain “disturbing” and asked the former secretary to “come clean.”

Additional emails, on which Clinton was not copied, also shed light on how her email set-up was viewed at the State Department. Important to read the full CNN summary here.

*** 

What is most remarkable is this email from Hillary’s secret confidant Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary on Benghazi, Libya. It is exceptional the depth of his knowledge and control over events in Benghazi.

The January 25, 2013 email is here.

For: Hillary

From: Sid

Re: Libya security internal deliberations

SOURCE: Sources with direct access to the Libyan National Government, as well as the

highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services.

  1. As of January 24, 2013, while reviewing the decisions that are leading to the departure

of Western diplomatic and business personnel from Benghazi, Libyan Interior Minister Ashour

Shuwail informed Prime Minister Ali Zidan that national intelligence commander General Salim

Hassi and National Libyan Army (NLA) Chief bf Staff General Yousef Mangoush report that the

fighters of Ansar al sharia and their allied eastern militias located in the region between

Benghazi and the Egyptian border are gaining strength steadily. According to an individual with

excellent access to the new Libyan security services, Hassi’s officers believe that these

opposition militias have recovered from the government inspired popular attacks aimed at them

following the destruction of the United States Consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2013. At

the same time Mangoush believes that the opposition militias have made real use of the time that

has past, and Ansar al sharia is stronger now than before the consulate attack with their

infrastructure enhanced by support from Islamist groups in the Sahel, including al Qa’ida in the

Maghreb (AQIM). The full 4 page email.

In summary, the matter of Hillary’s countless communications violations of U.S. code as well as the 2009 Barack Obama Executive Order is far and beyond that of General Petraeus, but the political machine is spinning. The FBI will turn in a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, yet the powers at Justice will  plea it for the sake of the Democrat party nominee Hillary Clinton.

Disgusting for sure.

 

 

SecDef on Gitmo and Detainees Too Dangerous

Posted on by

A partial closing? An Executive Order to overrule the law and Congress? There are no more enemy combatants anywhere in the world? Where would a new president send enemy combatants? What about the next Secretary of Defense?

Thoughts?

Ash Carter: There Are Gitmo Detainees so Dangerous That it Is Not Safe to Transfer Them

FreeBeacon: Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters on Monday there are detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison who are so dangerous that it would not be safe to transfer them outside the care of the United States.

Carter and President Obama have drawn up a plan to move many of the remaining 91 detainees into the custody of foreign governments. Detainees not cleared for transfer overseas—those who Carter describes as too dangerous to go elsewhere—would be moved stateside in an effort to close the detention facility.

Moving Detainees From Gitmo To U.S. Is Reckless and Dangerous

February 23, 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) issued the following statement on the President’s plan to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and relocate some of the most dangerous detainees into the United States:

“President Obama is once again proving his willingness to set aside the rule of law to pursue his own reckless agenda no matter the consequences for the American people. The plan announced today would take detainees deemed too dangerous to transfer to other countries and bring them right into our own backyards. It risks the lives and safety of American citizens and it’s not what the people expect of our commander-in-chief.”

“The administration has already let nearly 150 detainees go free, only to see many of them return to terrorist groups and rejoin the fight against us. Instead of focusing on finding new homes for terrorists, the President should refocus his efforts on winning the War on Terror and bringing an end to the extremist groups seeking to do us harm.”

 

 

Carter made his comment while holding a press briefing at the Pentagon along with Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

A reporter asked Carter if the United States is thinking of transferring the Guantanamo Bay naval base back to the Cuban government, which he denied while drawing a distinction between the naval base and the detention facility.

“The base is separate from the detention facility,” Carter said in response. “The base is in a strategic location. We’ve had it for a long time. It’s important to us, and we intend to hold onto it.”

Carter then turned his attention to the detention center within the naval base, which he said is the specific focus of the Obama administration’ closure plan.

“With respect to the detention facility at [Guantanamo], which is what the president was speaking about last week … there are people in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility whom it is not safe to transfer to any other—they have to stay in U.S. detention,” Carter said. “Safety is the top priority for me, the chairman, and for the president.”

Carter then said that because some detainees are too dangerous to release, there needs to be an alternate facility in the U.S. for these individuals to go if Guantanamo is closed, which is at the heart of Obama’s proposal.

The Pentagon is reportedly looking at send prisoners to either the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colo., the military prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, or the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.

One problem for the administration, however, is that it is currently illegal to move Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil. Carter said at Monday’s briefing that Congress must change the law for the closure plan to go into effect.

“[Obama’s Guantanamo plan] can’t be done unless Congress acts, which means Congress has to support the idea that it would be good to move this facility and the detainees to the United States … it’s good if it can be done, but it can’t be done under current law. The law would have to be changed. That’s the reason we would put the proposal in front of Congress,” Carter said.

This may prove difficult for the administration, as a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress disapprove of closing Guantanamo and transferring detainees to the U.S.

Carter reaffirmed his support for the president’s plan, citing its fiscal benefits—U.S. officials say it would save the government between $65 million and $85 million per year—and benefits for U.S. military personnel charged with duty at Guantanamo. He said the plan is good “on balance” and that he does not want to pass the Guantanamo issue to the next president and Defense Secretary if possible.

The president has long maintained that Guantanamo should be closed because the detention facility is not in keeping with American values and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists.

Those who want Guantanamo to remain open argue that the facility is necessary to hold enemy combatants who are members of jihadist groups like al Qaeda to keep them off the battlefield and gather intelligence. They cite the reportedly exceptional treatment detainees receive at the facility, which military leaders have detailed to reporters, as well as experts who say that Guantanamo plays a minimal role in jihadist propaganda.

The recidivism rate for Guantanamo detainees who are released and return to terrorist activity is about 30 percent, according to experts.

A recent example that garnered attention was Ibrahim al Qosi, a former aide to Osama bin Laden who was sent to Guantanamo in 2002 and released 10 years later. Al Qosi resurfaced this month as a senior member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terror group’s most dangerous branch.

When asked about al Qosi’s return to jihadist activity at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week, Secretary of State John Kerry lamented that “he’s not supposed to be doing that.”

It is important to understand the term enemy combatant, lawful and unlawful as defined the Geneva Convention. You can read the 10 items here.