Showing posts with label military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military. Show all posts

Sunday, February 12, 2017

The U.S. military's stats on deadly airstrikes are wrong. Thousands have gone unreported

The American military has failed to publicly disclose potentially thousands of lethal airstrikes conducted over several years in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, a Military Times investigation has revealed. The enormous data gap raises serious doubts about transparency in reported progress against the Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban, and calls into question the accuracy of other Defense Department disclosures documenting everything from costs to casualty counts.

In 2016 alone, U.S. combat aircraft conducted at least 456 airstrikes in Afghanistan that were not recorded as part of an open-source database maintained by the U.S. Air Force, information relied on by Congress, American allies, military analysts, academic researchers, the media and independent watchdog groups to assess each war's expense, manpower requirements and human toll. Those airstrikes were carried out by attack helicopters and armed drones operated by the U.S. Army, metrics quietly excluded from otherwise comprehensive monthly summaries, published online for years, detailing American military activity in all three theaters. 


http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/airstrikes-unreported-syria-iraq-afghanistan-islamic-state-al-qaeda-taliban

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Friday, November 11, 2016

Mikey Weinstein Threatens To Sue Michele Bachmann For ‘Lies’ In Military Religion Fundraising Email

For the record...



Attorney and activist Mikey Weinstein, president of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, told U.S. News & World Report Tuesday that he’s considering a lawsuit against Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) over a recent fundraising email that he claims spreads “complete and utter lies” about him.


Bachmann launched a new fundraising campaign last week, seeking to capitalize on a recent controversy over a Pentagon announcement clarifying that religious proselytization is not permitted in the armed services.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/mikey-weinstein-michele-bachmann_n_3230940.html

Voting is beautiful, be beautiful ~ vote.©

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Republican Debate Audience Boos Gay Soldier Stephen Hill After DADT Repeal Question

Republican Debate Audience Boos Gay Soldier Stephen Hill After DADT Repeal Question






During the Republican debate Thursday night, host Megyn Kelly dropped a YouTube clip on Rick Santorum: a question from Stephen Hill, a soldier in Iraq who, up until this week, had to "lie about who [he] was" in order to serve in the army.
Santorum provided Hill no succor, saying that the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" injected "social engineering" into the military.
SANTORUM: I would say any type of sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military. The fact they are making a point to include it as a provision within the military that we are going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to, and removing don't ask don’t tell. I think tries to inject social policy into the military. And the military's job is to do one thing: to defend our country...
KELLY: What would you do with soldiers like Stephen Hill?
SANTORUM: What we are doing is playing social experimentation with our military right now. That’s tragic. I would just say that going forward we would reinstitute that policy if Rick Santorum was president. That policy would be re-instituted as far as people in, I would not throw them out because that would be unfair to them because of the policy of this administration. But we would move forward in conformity with what was happening in the past. Which was- sex is not an issue. It should not be an issue. Leave it alone. Keep it to yourself whether you are heterosexual or homosexual.
Of course, the big news of the exchange will once again be about an audience reaction. After Fox cut back from the clip of Hill, several members of the audience were heard, in a shocking demonstration of disrespect for one of our soldiers, lustily booing him. Very sad.
Sidenote: Fred Karger responded to that exchange by telling the Huffington Post, "Santorum is truly nuts. Just Google him. Congress repealed DADT. Federal court found it unconstitutional."
UPDATE: After the debate, Talking Points Memo reporter Evan McMorris-Santoro caught up with Jon Huntsman. When asked about the incident, Huntsman said the booing was "unfortunate." McMorris-Santoro also talked to a Perry representative, who used similar language, calling it "very unfortunate."

Friday, April 8, 2011

Conyers: We Cannot Turn Our Back on Federal Prosecution of TerroristsColin Powell, Former FBI Director Sessions, and Marine Generals Agree With Conyers: Federal Trials Are OK for Terror Cases







Conyers: We Cannot Turn Our Back on Federal Prosecution of TerroristsColin Powell, Former FBI Director Sessions, and Marine Generals Agree With Conyers: Federal Trials Are OK for Terror Cases


(Washington)—Today, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers (D-Mich.) issued the following statement in response to the Attorney General’s announcement that the Department of Justice will refer Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 9-11 co-conspirators to the Defense Department for military commission prosecution:

Today the Attorney General announced that the alleged plotters of the September Eleventh attacks will be referred to the Defense Department for prosecution in military tribunals.

I regret this decision. Thousands of American civilians were killed that day on U.S. soil and in airplanes above our skies. Our federal courts are the strongest, most reliable venue for bringing justice to those who perpetrated these terrible acts. Military Commissions – even as improved in 2009 – are untested. They bring great legal risk. And they cause unnecessary friction with our allies around the world.

By contrast, our federal courts are time tested. They produce strong verdicts and stiff sentences that we know can withstand appeal, and which have earned respect around the world from friend and foe alike. We cannot turn our back on this essential tool in the fight against evil and terror, which is bigger than any five defendants.

That said, I do understand the position in which the Administration finds itself. For better or worse, Congress has made it impossible to bring these individuals to court for trial. This intrusion on prosecutorial judgment is shameful. And the political demagoguing on this issue, like many other questions of terrorism, has been an embarrassment to the Congress.

Like the Attorney General, I too am frustrated that almost a decade after 9/11, these alleged co-conspirators have not been held responsible. This is another tragic legacy of the Bush Administration’s failed approach to matters of national security. From the secret prisons in which KSM and others were held for years, to the flawed military commission system that the even the Rehnquist court was not willing to uphold, to the waterboarding and other tortures that have made prosecution especially difficult – our ability to win swift and sure justice in these cases has been needlessly strained.

Our federal courts have a proven track record handling hundreds of complex terrorism cases over the years. It was a US federal court that imposed the death sentence on Timothy McVeigh for bombing the Murrah building in Oklahoma City. It was a federal court that in 2000 sentenced the Kenya and Tanzania Embassy bombers to prison for life without parole. It was a federal court that sent Omar Abdel-Rahman away for life for the first World Trade Center bombing. The Bush Administration itself recognized this, taking the case of shoe bomber Richard Reid to federal court and reporting in its final budget request to Congress that “Since 2001, [the Department of Justice] has increased its capacity to investigate terrorism and has identified, disrupted, and dismantled terrorist cells operating in the United States. These efforts have resulted in the securing of 319 convictions or guilty pleas in terrorism or terrorism-related cases arising from investigations conducted primarily after September 11, 2001.”

Military and law enforcement professionals also agree. For example:

· Former Secretary of State Colin Powell – “Let's get this population of 192 [at Guantanamo Bay] sorted out. I have no problem with them being tried here in the United States.”

· Marine Corps Generals Joseph Hoar, Charles Krulak and 31 fellow officers -- “[C]ritics claim that a trial in federal court will provide a platform for these terrorists to spread their message of hate. On the contrary, we are confident that these trials will showcase America at its best, a nation of laws. In the war of ideals, we can only lose if we forfeit ours.”

· Former FBI Director William Sessions – “If we're looking for justice for the victims of terror, if we're looking to securely lock up those who have committed or sought to commit terrorist acts against American citizens, our federal courts provide the proven and reliable way to ensure that justice. The federal courts have a demonstrated track record in bringing terrorists to justice.”

· Former Bush Administration Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey and Office of Legal Counsel Head Jack Goldsmith – “One reason commissions have not worked well is that changes in constitutional, international and military laws since they were last used, during World War II, have produced great uncertainty about the commissions' validity. This uncertainty has led to many legal challenges that will continue indefinitely -- hardly an ideal situation for the trial of the century. By contrast, there is no question about the legitimacy of U.S. federal courts to incapacitate terrorists. Many of Holder's critics appear to have forgotten that the Bush administration used civilian courts to put away dozens of terrorists, including "shoe bomber" Richard Reid; al-Qaeda agent Jose Padilla; "American Taliban" John Walker Lindh; the Lackawanna Six; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was prosecuted for the same conspiracy for which Mohammed is likely to be charged. Many of these terrorists are locked in a supermax prison in Colorado, never to be seen again.”

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Justices Rule for Protesters at Military Funerals

Members of the Westboro Baptist church regularly protest at military funerals.
Christopher Berkey/Associated Press
Members of the Westboro Baptist church regularly protest at military funerals.
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: March 03, 2011
WASHINGTON - The First Amendment protects hateful protests at military funerals, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in an 8-1 decision.
"Speech is powerful," Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. "It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and - as it did here - inflict great pain."
But under the First Amendment, he went on, "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker." Instead, the national commitment to free speech, he said, requires protection of "even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
The case arose from a protest at the funeral of a Marine who had died in Iraq, Lance Cpl. Matthew A. Snyder. As they had at hundreds of other funerals, members of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., appeared with signs bearing messages like "America is Doomed" and "God Hates Fags."
The church contends that God is punishing the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality.
The father of the fallen Marine, Albert Snyder, sued the protesters for, among other things, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and won a substantial jury award that was later overturned by an appeals court.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the ruling that three factors required a ruling in favor of the church group. First, he said, its speech was on matters of public concern. While the messages on the signs carried by its members "may fall short of refined commentary," the chief justice wrote, "the issues they highlight - the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our nation, homosexuality in the military and scandals involving the Catholic clergy - are matters of public import."
Second, he wrote, the relationship between the church and the Snyders was not a private grudge.
Third, the members of the church "had the right to be where they were." They were picketing on a public street 1,000 feet from the site of the funeral, they complied with the law and with instructions from the police, and they protested quietly and without violence.
Chief Justice Roberts suggested that the proper response to hurtful protests are general laws creating buffer zones around funerals and the like, rather than empowering of juries to punish unpopular speech.
The opinion acknowledged that "Westboro's choice added to Mr. Snyder's already incalculable grief" and emphasized that the ruling was narrow and limited to the kinds of protests staged by the church.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer joined the majority opinion but wrote separately to say that other sorts of speech, including television broadcasts and Internet postings, might warrant different treatment.
The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 21 news organizations, including The New York Times Company, filed a brief supporting the church.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented in the case, Snyder v. Phelps, No. 09-751. He likened the protest to fighting words, which are not protected by the First Amendment.
"In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated," he wrote, "it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims."