The hard-working staff here at Spoiler Alerts has probably written close to 2,000 columns since coming to The Washington Post. Among those that generated a steady stream of responses was one from 2019 headlined “UFOs exist and everyone needs to adjust to that fact.” That column did not say that aliens have visited Earth. Among the things it did say was that there literally are objects flying around that no one, including U.S. Navy pilots, can identify, and we have to puzzle out what that means.
In the two years since that column appeared, the U.S. government continues to tiptoe toward the normalization of the idea of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Last year the Department of Defense released three videos (one recorded in 2004 and the other two in 2015) of U.S. Navy pilots seeing something and having no idea what it was. In its news release, the Pentagon said, “the aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as ‘unidentified,’” putting the U in UFO.
Read more at:
We need to talk about UFOs again - The Washington Post
Showing posts with label US Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Military. Show all posts
2/23/19
USA: Microsoft workers protest against US military Hololens project awarded to Microsoft
Microsoft workers protest $480m Hololens US military deal
Read more at:
6/28/18
US military: gets $675 billion of US taxpayers money for new weaponry
House backs $675 billion spending bill for Pentagon as social and medicare programs are chopped
For the complete report go to:
4/5/18
USA - Martial Law Soon ? Trump's New Favorite Solution: The Military - by David A. Graham
Three times in the last two weeks, President Trump has turned in
frustration from an intractable problem and landed upon an apparently
elegant solution: the military.
First it was Congress’s decision not to fund the president’s border wall in the omnibus spending bill. Trump twice tweeted that he wanted to “build WALL through M,” which most observers understood to mean “Mexico,” until The Washington Post revealed it actually referred to the military.
Next came Trump’s idea to deploy the military to the border and provide security in the absence of a wall.
Finally, Trump set off a frantic scramble Tuesday when he appeared to announce a withdrawal of American troops from Syria as a solution to the intractable conflict there. Asked whether he intended to pull troops out, Trump replied, “I want to get out. I want to bring our troops back home. I want to start rebuilding our nation.”
In each of these cases, the attraction of military action for the president is clear. He has found his agenda largely stalled in Congress, where legislators have no interest in funding the wall or any other number of signature Trump projects, and the president has shown neither the interest nor the patience to lobby them. Even working through executive-branch processes has not produced the results that Trump wants, as courts have blocked some of his most treasured moves, especially his Muslim travel ban.
The military, however, seems to offer something more akin to the experience that Trump enjoyed as the chief executive of a privately held company, where he could make a decision and see it quickly implemented. As commander in chief, he has authority over the military, and the military is, at least in theory, better equipped to respond quickly and efficiently to orders than the rest of the government. What each of these cases has shown, however, is that even the military doesn’t offer a frictionless tool for evading political and practical reality.
Trump is hardly alone among presidents in turning to the Pentagon as a method of acting when other means wear out. Dog-wagging and jingoism make military deployments an alluring option for any president, especially one who is struggling in Congress, opinion polls, or both. President Obama became quickly enamored of drone strikes. President Clinton bombed the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Sudan. President Reagan invaded Grenada. Presidents at the ends of their terms tend to concentrate on foreign affairs, sometimes at the barrel of a gun, once they’ve achieved all they can domestically.
What is unusual about Trump is how quickly he has landed on the military as his silver bullet, and the range of cases in which he has employed it.
The prehistory of this impulse began before he took office. In assembling his team, Trump hired several retired generals, and he interviewed a range of current and former generals and admirals for top jobs. This seemed to serve a dual purpose. It both satisfied Trump’s appreciation for a martial aesthetic and for the majesty of a uniform, and it brought to him prospective lieutenants with a strong sense of can-do spirit and duty, unlike some of the civilians who had already written off working for Trump.
The inflection point came in April 2017, when Trump ordered missile strikes on Syria. This was widely interpreted as a major reversal. During the campaign, he had offered a sort of non-intervention, complaining about the expense of nation-building overseas and preferring to spend money domestically, although a broad reading of candidate Trump’s statements would indicate an aversion to lengthy occupations, not to bellicosity per se. (There is even a caveat to this caveat: his suggestion that the U.S. should have taken Iraq’s oil, a vast colonial project.) In any case, the strikes won Trump widespread acclaim, including from centrist and establishment pundits who portrayed the strikes as signs of more realistic engagement with the world, or even an indication that Trump was becoming “presidential.” (This even though the strikes proved to be hastily ordered and not connected to any broader strategic purpose.)
The lesson must have been clear to Trump: Ordering military action gave him a chance to quickly and prominently produce results, and it would earn him praise from a press that otherwise detested him. Since then, he has become fond of talking up the power of the armed forces.
Famously, Trump lobbed a vague but ominous threat of “fire and fury” at North Korea in August 2017, one of many times when he rattled the American saber in Pyongyang’s direction. These threats were more or less in the mainstream of American foreign policy, although he made them more explicit than other presidents, and it’s not clear the U.S. has any particularly attractive military option in North Korea.
Note EU-Digest: What is next for Trump as the Commander in Chief of the US military forces : Martial Law - in case he is rebuffed too many times by the Congress to carrying out his plans? Lets hope not.
Read more: Trump's New Favorite Solution: The Military - The Atlantic
First it was Congress’s decision not to fund the president’s border wall in the omnibus spending bill. Trump twice tweeted that he wanted to “build WALL through M,” which most observers understood to mean “Mexico,” until The Washington Post revealed it actually referred to the military.
Next came Trump’s idea to deploy the military to the border and provide security in the absence of a wall.
Finally, Trump set off a frantic scramble Tuesday when he appeared to announce a withdrawal of American troops from Syria as a solution to the intractable conflict there. Asked whether he intended to pull troops out, Trump replied, “I want to get out. I want to bring our troops back home. I want to start rebuilding our nation.”
In each of these cases, the attraction of military action for the president is clear. He has found his agenda largely stalled in Congress, where legislators have no interest in funding the wall or any other number of signature Trump projects, and the president has shown neither the interest nor the patience to lobby them. Even working through executive-branch processes has not produced the results that Trump wants, as courts have blocked some of his most treasured moves, especially his Muslim travel ban.
The military, however, seems to offer something more akin to the experience that Trump enjoyed as the chief executive of a privately held company, where he could make a decision and see it quickly implemented. As commander in chief, he has authority over the military, and the military is, at least in theory, better equipped to respond quickly and efficiently to orders than the rest of the government. What each of these cases has shown, however, is that even the military doesn’t offer a frictionless tool for evading political and practical reality.
Trump is hardly alone among presidents in turning to the Pentagon as a method of acting when other means wear out. Dog-wagging and jingoism make military deployments an alluring option for any president, especially one who is struggling in Congress, opinion polls, or both. President Obama became quickly enamored of drone strikes. President Clinton bombed the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Sudan. President Reagan invaded Grenada. Presidents at the ends of their terms tend to concentrate on foreign affairs, sometimes at the barrel of a gun, once they’ve achieved all they can domestically.
What is unusual about Trump is how quickly he has landed on the military as his silver bullet, and the range of cases in which he has employed it.
The prehistory of this impulse began before he took office. In assembling his team, Trump hired several retired generals, and he interviewed a range of current and former generals and admirals for top jobs. This seemed to serve a dual purpose. It both satisfied Trump’s appreciation for a martial aesthetic and for the majesty of a uniform, and it brought to him prospective lieutenants with a strong sense of can-do spirit and duty, unlike some of the civilians who had already written off working for Trump.
The inflection point came in April 2017, when Trump ordered missile strikes on Syria. This was widely interpreted as a major reversal. During the campaign, he had offered a sort of non-intervention, complaining about the expense of nation-building overseas and preferring to spend money domestically, although a broad reading of candidate Trump’s statements would indicate an aversion to lengthy occupations, not to bellicosity per se. (There is even a caveat to this caveat: his suggestion that the U.S. should have taken Iraq’s oil, a vast colonial project.) In any case, the strikes won Trump widespread acclaim, including from centrist and establishment pundits who portrayed the strikes as signs of more realistic engagement with the world, or even an indication that Trump was becoming “presidential.” (This even though the strikes proved to be hastily ordered and not connected to any broader strategic purpose.)
The lesson must have been clear to Trump: Ordering military action gave him a chance to quickly and prominently produce results, and it would earn him praise from a press that otherwise detested him. Since then, he has become fond of talking up the power of the armed forces.
Famously, Trump lobbed a vague but ominous threat of “fire and fury” at North Korea in August 2017, one of many times when he rattled the American saber in Pyongyang’s direction. These threats were more or less in the mainstream of American foreign policy, although he made them more explicit than other presidents, and it’s not clear the U.S. has any particularly attractive military option in North Korea.
Note EU-Digest: What is next for Trump as the Commander in Chief of the US military forces : Martial Law - in case he is rebuffed too many times by the Congress to carrying out his plans? Lets hope not.
Read more: Trump's New Favorite Solution: The Military - The Atlantic
7/26/17
USA - Transgenders: Donald Trump’s transgenders ban announcement is met with swift backlash - Michael Glassman -
Immediately after President Donald Trump tweeted Wednesday that he was
barring transgender Americans from serving in the military, the head of
the U.S. armed forces was met with stunned disbelief over the slap in
the face to thousands of service members.
Read more: Donald Trump’s transgender ban announcement is met with swift backlash - Salon.com
Read more: Donald Trump’s transgender ban announcement is met with swift backlash - Salon.com
11/1/16
Drones Kill not only military targets: Pentagon Ignored Evidence of Civilian Casualties in ISIS Strikes, Human Rights Group Says - by Ryan Devereaux
In a press release issued recently, Amnesty said it has presented the Pentagon with evidence that 11 coalition airstrikes in Syria over the past two years appear to have led to the deaths of as many as 300 civilians — and that so far that evidence has been met with silence.
“U.S. authorities have provided no response to a memorandum Amnesty International sent to the Department of Defense on September 28 to raise questions about the conduct of coalition forces in Syria,” the group claimed.
“We fear the U.S.-led coalition is significantly underestimating the harm caused to civilians in its operations in Syria,” Lynn Maalouf, deputy director for research at Amnesty’s Beirut regional office, said in a statement. “Analysis of available evidence suggests that in each of these cases, coalition forces failed to take adequate precautions to minimize harm to civilians and damage to civilian objects.”
Maalouf added that some of the strikes in question “may constitute disproportionate or otherwise indiscriminate attacks.”
U.S. Army Maj. Josh T. Jacques said CENTCOM, the component of the U.S. military running the coalition war against the Islamic State, “is aware of the letter from Amnesty International and is currently evaluating the allegations of civilian casualties it contains.”
“The coalition takes great care — from analysis of available intelligence to selection of the appropriate weapon to meet mission requirements — in order to minimize the risk of harm to non-combatants,” Jacques said in an email to The Intercept. “Civilian casualty allegations come from various sources, including our own internal reviews and unit self-reporting, media reports, non-governmental organizations, or other U.S. government departments.”
While the Syrian military and its Russian allies have been responsible for the vast majority of civilian casualties resulting from airstrikes within Syria’s borders, the 27-page memorandum Amnesty sent to the Pentagon last month painted a detailed picture of nearly a dozen incidents in which coalition operations frequently described by U.S. officials as the most careful and precise in the world appear to have gone deeply awry.
“For several incidents, no military objective could be discerned and reports indicate that the only casualties were civilian,” the memo noted. “The loss of civilian life was so high in a few attacks that it is difficult to see how a significant enough military advantage could have been anticipated that would have outweighed the risk to civilians.”
More than a third of the deaths Amnesty catalogued were the result of bloody operations to liberate areas around and in the Syrian city of Manbij from Islamic State control over the summer. While death counts from airstrikes during that offensive varied, Amnesty claims that attacks launched on one village, al-Tukhar, may have resulted in the greatest loss of civilian life in the history of the coalition’s war on ISIS, with 73 civilians — including 27 children — killed, according to evidence Amnesty compiled.
While the U.S. has confirmed that it launched an investigation into the high-profile incidents in Manbij, its broader efforts at investigating alleged civilian casualty incidents in the war on the Islamic State have been repeatedly called into question.
A Defense Department official said that the Pentagon had not yet incorporated Amnesty’s report, but as of October 13, had received 249 allegations of civilian casualties stemming from coalition operations in Syria and Iraq. Of the complaints received, 62 resulted in closed investigations, with 31 conclusions announced publicly — 13 in Syria and 18 in Iraq. The Pentagon deemed 179 of the allegations not credible. In Syria, five investigations remain open. All told, the Pentagon claims that 55 civilians have been killed and 29 injured over two years and thousands of airstrikes in Syria and Iraq.
The figures pale in comparison to civilian casualty estimates offered up by human rights organizations and other monitoring groups, which claim that anywhere from 600 to more than 1,000 civilians have died in coalition airstrikes. In the case of the 11 strikes Amnesty examined, the human rights group reported that to date CENTCOM has acknowledged only a single civilian casualty resulting from those operations.
According to a new report from The Intercept, nearly 90 percent of people killed in recent drone strikes in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets” of the attacks.
Read more: Pentagon Ignored Evidence of Civilian Casualties in ISIS Strikes, Human Rights Group Says
3/14/16
Global Terrorism: Treating U.S. Terror Psychosis - by Michael J. Brenner,
 |
| Global War on Terror, has cost the US approximately $ 2 trillion |
Its symptoms are the experience of persistent delusions and a distorted sense of objective reality. This psychosis stems from trauma and acute stress. In our case, the traumatic event was 9/11.
This terror psychosis is now well into its second decade and shows no signs of easing, even though there have been no attacks of a similar scale against the United States over the past 13 years.
To deal with the problem, the United States has sent armies to the farthest reaches of the globe.
One purpose of these futile campaigns was to stamp out militant Islamic movements that had no direct role in attacking America (i.e., the Taliban, whether of the Afghan or Pakistani variant).
The United States has built an elite army within an army in the form of the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). Numbering 60,000, these forces are designed to undertake select clandestine missions – in principle.
In practice, they are assigned a wide range of intelligence and political missions as well as commando-type ones. This force is almost as large as that which Imperial Britain deployed to police its entire far-flung empire.
All of this costs money – loads of it. In the process of prosecuting the Global War on Terror, the country has spent roughly $2 trillion.
Read more: Treating U.S. Terror Psychosis - The Globalist
3/23/15
NATO: Czechs told not to throw tomatoes, eggs at US military convoy
Czech people were told not to throw tomatoes and eggs at a US
military convoy rumbling through Eastern Europe, the local media said,
citing the laws of the land. Those in love with egg & tomato hurling
may get up to three years if convicted.
“Should anyone emerge with the intent to attack the convoy, with [items] such as tomatoes or eggs, it would qualify as disorderly conduct according to Czech legislation (up to 2 years without parole, in recidivist cases up to 3 years) or damage to property (sentences in the range of 6 months to 3 years).”
This statement was aired on Czech TV Nova and cited by the Russian Insider last week, ahead of the planned US military convoy.
Read more: Czechs told not to throw tomatoes, eggs at US military convoy — RT News
“Should anyone emerge with the intent to attack the convoy, with [items] such as tomatoes or eggs, it would qualify as disorderly conduct according to Czech legislation (up to 2 years without parole, in recidivist cases up to 3 years) or damage to property (sentences in the range of 6 months to 3 years).”
This statement was aired on Czech TV Nova and cited by the Russian Insider last week, ahead of the planned US military convoy.
Read more: Czechs told not to throw tomatoes, eggs at US military convoy — RT News
3/20/15
Eastern Europe: US plans show of force with ‘Dragoon Ride’ through Eastern Europe
The United States is planning a military exercise that will weave its
troops through Eastern Europe before they arrive at their home base in
Germany – a show of force intended to reinforce its commitment to the
Baltic states.
Comprised of the US Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment, the convoy will trek some 1,100 miles to Vilseck, Germany after its training mission concludes in Poland, Lithuania and Estonia, Stars and Stripes reported.
Beginning on March 21, the troops will move out from these locations and run through Latvia, the Czech Republic and then on to Germany by April 1.
The exercise, called a “Dragoon Ride,” will involve the military’s Stryker vehicles – which the US is expected to station in Europe – and stop in a new locale every night. These vehicles are typically transported by rail, but the decision to convoy them to Germany is meant to demonstrate American and NATO commitment to the region.
Read more: US plans show of force with ‘Dragoon Ride’ through Eastern Europe — RT USA
Comprised of the US Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment, the convoy will trek some 1,100 miles to Vilseck, Germany after its training mission concludes in Poland, Lithuania and Estonia, Stars and Stripes reported.
Beginning on March 21, the troops will move out from these locations and run through Latvia, the Czech Republic and then on to Germany by April 1.
The exercise, called a “Dragoon Ride,” will involve the military’s Stryker vehicles – which the US is expected to station in Europe – and stop in a new locale every night. These vehicles are typically transported by rail, but the decision to convoy them to Germany is meant to demonstrate American and NATO commitment to the region.
Read more: US plans show of force with ‘Dragoon Ride’ through Eastern Europe — RT USA
1/3/15
USA : WHY DO THE BEST SOLDIERS IN THE WORLD KEEP LOSING? by Rodolfo Acuña
The most recent cover of The Atlantic made me think of this
problem. It has a photo of an American soldier and posed the question
“Why Do The Best Soldiers in the World Keep Losing?
If taken the reader lacked a historical memory, the question would seem reasonable or even probative. However, if you had an epistemological base the question is open to discussion. I will not go into the merits of who was right because as in the case of World War II, the U.S. was more right than the Axis.
However, when you talk about who was the best soldiers that is another story. After all the Germans fought on two fronts, overwhelmed by the Russians and half the world. The U.S. was surely the best equipped and had numbers. But would that make them better soldiers? The Japanese were also overwhelmed by numbers and equipment.
The U.S. cannot claim a major part in World War I, we were sojourners. However, we played a decisive role in supply in the Allies who did not want our soldiers, just our money. Not to mention to Winchester and the Gatling gun.
Go back in time, were we better soldiers than the Indians, I think not. Again, technology, numbers and germ warfare were the decisive facts. Numbers and technology also vanquished the Mexicans In the case of the Spanish American War, the U.S. did not best the Spain. The Cubans and Puerto Ricans had won the war and the U.S. stabbed them in the back by leaving them out of peace negations.
From Korea on down we have actually lost as the Atlantic alludes to. Numbers and technology and the American peace Movements proved superior. I make these observations because for me memory determines a valid narrative.
Read More: WHY DO THE BEST SOLDIERS IN THE WORLD KEEP LOSING? BY Rudy Acuña 12-28-2014 | Rodolfo Acuña
If taken the reader lacked a historical memory, the question would seem reasonable or even probative. However, if you had an epistemological base the question is open to discussion. I will not go into the merits of who was right because as in the case of World War II, the U.S. was more right than the Axis.
However, when you talk about who was the best soldiers that is another story. After all the Germans fought on two fronts, overwhelmed by the Russians and half the world. The U.S. was surely the best equipped and had numbers. But would that make them better soldiers? The Japanese were also overwhelmed by numbers and equipment.
The U.S. cannot claim a major part in World War I, we were sojourners. However, we played a decisive role in supply in the Allies who did not want our soldiers, just our money. Not to mention to Winchester and the Gatling gun.
Go back in time, were we better soldiers than the Indians, I think not. Again, technology, numbers and germ warfare were the decisive facts. Numbers and technology also vanquished the Mexicans In the case of the Spanish American War, the U.S. did not best the Spain. The Cubans and Puerto Ricans had won the war and the U.S. stabbed them in the back by leaving them out of peace negations.
From Korea on down we have actually lost as the Atlantic alludes to. Numbers and technology and the American peace Movements proved superior. I make these observations because for me memory determines a valid narrative.
Read More: WHY DO THE BEST SOLDIERS IN THE WORLD KEEP LOSING? BY Rudy Acuña 12-28-2014 | Rodolfo Acuña
9/10/14
US Miklitary Outsourcing: Instead of Boots on the Ground, US Seeks Iraq Contractors
Wary of putting combat troops in Iraq, the U.S. government is gauging
contractors' interest in advising the Iraqi Defense Ministry and
Counter Terrorism Service in a range of capacities, including force
development, logistics and planning and operations.
The U.S. Army Contracting Command posted a notice last month seeking contractors willing to work on an initial 12-month contract, who should be "cognizant of the goals of reducing tensions between Arabs and Kurds, and Sunni and Shias."
They would focus on administration, force development, procurement and acquisition, contracting, training management, public affairs, logistics, personnel management, professional development, communications, planning and operations, infrastructure management, intelligence and executive development, the notice stated.
Those services "fall within the existing mission" of the Office of Security Assistance-Iraq, "which is to help build institutional capacity of Iraq's security ministries," Defense Department spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said in an email.
Read Morre: Instead of Boots on the Ground, US Seeks Iraq Contractors | Military.com
The U.S. Army Contracting Command posted a notice last month seeking contractors willing to work on an initial 12-month contract, who should be "cognizant of the goals of reducing tensions between Arabs and Kurds, and Sunni and Shias."
They would focus on administration, force development, procurement and acquisition, contracting, training management, public affairs, logistics, personnel management, professional development, communications, planning and operations, infrastructure management, intelligence and executive development, the notice stated.
Those services "fall within the existing mission" of the Office of Security Assistance-Iraq, "which is to help build institutional capacity of Iraq's security ministries," Defense Department spokesman Commander Bill Speaks said in an email.
Read Morre: Instead of Boots on the Ground, US Seeks Iraq Contractors | Military.com
1/24/14
US Economy: Monumental, Unrestrained Military Spending is Crippling America - by Miachael Payne
If you want to know why the US can't create jobs, why
unemployment is rampant, why the education system is deteriorating, the economy
is lifeless, and why the US has landed a national debt of $17.3 trillion? It's because funds
that should be used to stabilize and rebuild the US's foundations are
being directed, instead, to the massive, military establishment and empire of
bases across the world.
Here's the modern-day adaptation of what President
Eisenhower said
as he left the presidency in 1953: "for each billion dollars that this government spends on excessive weaponry and
on maintaining the military empire, that is a billion dollars that cannot be spent
on this nation's critically important domestic needs; from restoring our
manufacturing sector and creating new jobs to improvements in our education
systems and funding important social programs, including facilities for mental
health problems."
America needs a
strong military, but not a giant monolith spanning the world. It needs a force
to defend America
from any nation or terrorists who pose a direct, imminent threat to this
country but not an overly aggressive military force whose intent is to dominate
the world.
The power that the U.S.
military establishment holds over America is pervasive and very
troubling. The degree to which military matters dominate this country's
priorities and direction is staggering. As it sucks the wealth out of this
nation, it stifles creativity, it suffocates innovation, both of which once
made this country exceptional.
Eisenhower predicted almost exactly what is happening in America today. But,
though he had a vision of the future, in no way could he have predicted that
this disturbing scenariowhich is being played out toda.
Read more: Article: Monumental, Unrestrained Military Spending is Crippling America | OpEdNews
11/13/12
Shame and Scandal in the US Military: Why Is Love Pentagon an FBI Case?
While General David Petraeus's sexy email scandal has given us many things—a clearer picture of Petraeus's public relations machine, insight into the military-industrial-housewife complex, the understanding that 60-year-olds are no more responsible about sexy Internet use than are tweens—we still don't understand exactly where it came from. The best guess so far is that an unnamed shirtless FBI agent had a crush on a married Tampa socialite, and got the investigation going to impress her.
Think about what got the investigation started: Jill Kelley got between five and 10 harassing anonymous emails. They did not threaten violence. According to The Daily Beast's Michael Daly, they said things like, "Who do you think you are? … You parade around the base." Another email "claimed to have watched Ms. Kelley touching 'him' provocatively underneath a table," according to The Wall Street Journal. It's hard to imagine small town cops getting excited about those messages.
When Kelley told her friend who worked at the FBI about them, the agency wasn't all that excited, either. The cyber squad in the Tampa field office "was not even sure the case was worth pursuing," Daly reports. "What tipped it may have been Kelley’s friendship with the agent. The squad opened a case, though with no expectation it would turn into anything significant."
At Slate, Emily Bazelon writes that given her reporting on cyberbullying, she doubts cops would have opened a case. Broad stalking and harassment charges "shouldn't trigger an investigation based on so little evidence," she says. But once it got going, it grew easily, thanks to outdated laws and new technology. The New Yorker's Patrick Radden Keefe notes there's a delicious irony in Petraeus being brought down by the national security capabilities he boasted about as "diabolical."
The FBI doesn't need a warrant to access email that's more than 180 days old, because a 1986 law declares that "abandoned," The New Yorker explains. Once they figured out it was Paula Broadwell sending the emails, they were able to go into Broadwell's email account, The Daily Beast reports, and discovered Broadwell "really knew Petraeus." The FBI figured out the two were leaving messages for each other in the drafts folder of a shared account, and that they were having an affair. That's when the investigation "morph[ed]" into an investigation into whether classified information was leaked, The New Yorker says. But despite concluding no crime had been committed, Slate notes, the FBI notified the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, anyway. Clapper asked Petraeus to resign. And still, the investigation keeps going, with the FBI raiding Broadwell's house Monday night.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that Gen. John Allen was emailing with Kelley, too, though there's no accusation that classified information was leaked in that case, and even the "flirtatious" nature of the emails is disputed. And we still don't know if Agent Shirtless ever managed to impress Jill Kelley.
Read more: Why Is Love Pentagon an FBI Case? - National - The Atlantic Wire
Think about what got the investigation started: Jill Kelley got between five and 10 harassing anonymous emails. They did not threaten violence. According to The Daily Beast's Michael Daly, they said things like, "Who do you think you are? … You parade around the base." Another email "claimed to have watched Ms. Kelley touching 'him' provocatively underneath a table," according to The Wall Street Journal. It's hard to imagine small town cops getting excited about those messages.
When Kelley told her friend who worked at the FBI about them, the agency wasn't all that excited, either. The cyber squad in the Tampa field office "was not even sure the case was worth pursuing," Daly reports. "What tipped it may have been Kelley’s friendship with the agent. The squad opened a case, though with no expectation it would turn into anything significant."
At Slate, Emily Bazelon writes that given her reporting on cyberbullying, she doubts cops would have opened a case. Broad stalking and harassment charges "shouldn't trigger an investigation based on so little evidence," she says. But once it got going, it grew easily, thanks to outdated laws and new technology. The New Yorker's Patrick Radden Keefe notes there's a delicious irony in Petraeus being brought down by the national security capabilities he boasted about as "diabolical."
The FBI doesn't need a warrant to access email that's more than 180 days old, because a 1986 law declares that "abandoned," The New Yorker explains. Once they figured out it was Paula Broadwell sending the emails, they were able to go into Broadwell's email account, The Daily Beast reports, and discovered Broadwell "really knew Petraeus." The FBI figured out the two were leaving messages for each other in the drafts folder of a shared account, and that they were having an affair. That's when the investigation "morph[ed]" into an investigation into whether classified information was leaked, The New Yorker says. But despite concluding no crime had been committed, Slate notes, the FBI notified the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, anyway. Clapper asked Petraeus to resign. And still, the investigation keeps going, with the FBI raiding Broadwell's house Monday night.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that Gen. John Allen was emailing with Kelley, too, though there's no accusation that classified information was leaked in that case, and even the "flirtatious" nature of the emails is disputed. And we still don't know if Agent Shirtless ever managed to impress Jill Kelley.
Read more: Why Is Love Pentagon an FBI Case? - National - The Atlantic Wire
6/21/12
US: 3 000 American soldiers to serve in Africa next year as US expands shadow war, sets up air bases
The United States will have 3 000 soldiers serving in Africa next year as it scales up its presence on the continent in the face of a growing number of threats, including al Qaeda and al Shabaab. It has also established a dozen air bases on the continent since 2007, mainly for surveillance purposes.
The US Army last month announced it would deploy a brigade to Africa in 2013 as part of a pilot programme that assigns brigades on a rotational basis to regions around the globe. At least 3 000 soldiers will serve tours across the continent next year, training foreign militaries and aiding locals.
As part of a “regionally aligned force concept,” soldiers will live and work among Africans in safe communities approved by the US government, Major General David R. Hogg, head of U.S. Army Africa, told Army Times.
Africa has emerged as a greater priority for the US government because terrorist groups there have become an increasing threat to US and regional security. At the moment there are more than 1 200 soldiers currently stationed at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.
Read more: 3 000 American soldiers to serve in Africa next year as US expands shadow war, sets up air bases | DefenceWeb
The US Army last month announced it would deploy a brigade to Africa in 2013 as part of a pilot programme that assigns brigades on a rotational basis to regions around the globe. At least 3 000 soldiers will serve tours across the continent next year, training foreign militaries and aiding locals.
As part of a “regionally aligned force concept,” soldiers will live and work among Africans in safe communities approved by the US government, Major General David R. Hogg, head of U.S. Army Africa, told Army Times.
Africa has emerged as a greater priority for the US government because terrorist groups there have become an increasing threat to US and regional security. At the moment there are more than 1 200 soldiers currently stationed at Camp Lemonnier, Djibouti.
Read more: 3 000 American soldiers to serve in Africa next year as US expands shadow war, sets up air bases | DefenceWeb
4/22/12
US Military: Rock musician and gun-rights advocateTed Nugent cut from concert after Obama remarks
The US Army cut rock musician and gun-rights advocate Ted Nugent from a summer concert program at Fort Knox, Kentucky, on the same day he met with two US Secret Service agents over recent comments he made about President Barack Obama.
Nugent, 63, told NRA supporters in St. Louis that he would be "dead or in jail" next year if Obama is re-elected in the November 6 election.
In comments directed at administration officials, Nugent said, "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November."
On Thursday, Nugent said he had a "solid" meeting with the Secret Service agents and the Secret Service said the matter had been resolved with no further action expected.
For more: Ted Nugent cut from concert after Obama remarks | ENTERTAINMENT News
Nugent, 63, told NRA supporters in St. Louis that he would be "dead or in jail" next year if Obama is re-elected in the November 6 election.
In comments directed at administration officials, Nugent said, "We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November."
On Thursday, Nugent said he had a "solid" meeting with the Secret Service agents and the Secret Service said the matter had been resolved with no further action expected.
For more: Ted Nugent cut from concert after Obama remarks | ENTERTAINMENT News
2/18/09
IHT: Army rethinking plan to reduce US troops in Europe
For the complete report from the International Herald Tribune click on this link
Army rethinking plan to reduce US troops in Europe
The U.S. Army is reconsidering again its plan for drawing down troops in Europe and thinking of leaving more troops there than planned. Gen. Carter Ham, the Army commander in Europe, said Thursday that because U.S. troops in Europe have been used so much in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they do not get to participate in exercises with European allies as much as he would like. Currently 42,000 American soldiers are in Europe, but a plan already approved by the military would reduce that number to 32,000 within five years.
Note EU-Digest: There is no valid reason for US troops to continue to be stationed in the EU or the rest of Europe. If anyone can explain why they need to be they are welcome to say so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)