Showing posts with label DOD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DOD. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 09, 2026
Friday, August 22, 2025
Trump mobilizing up to 1,700 National Guardsman in 19 states to widen crime and immigration crackdown
Trump mobilizing up to 1,700 National Guardsman in 19 states to widen crime and immigration crackdown
Deployments reportedly set to take place largely in Republican-controlled states
Deployments reportedly set to take place largely in Republican-controlled states
Josh Marcus in San Francisco
Saturday 23 August 2025 02:02 BST
Trump hands out pizzas to National Guard troops as he claims DC now 'a different city'
The Trump administration reportedly plans to mobilize up to 1,700 National Guard troops across 19 states in the coming weeks to support its immigration and anti-crime crackdowns, in a dramatic expansion of the controversial operation that’s seen federal agents and Guard troops carrying out activities across Washington, D.C.
The troops, who will largely be activated across Republican-controlled states, will serve in support of the administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, as well as other law enforcement priorities, according to comment from unnamed Pentagon officials and documents obtained by Fox News.
The Guardsmen assisting ICE will be carrying out tasks that may include “personal data collection, fingerprinting, DNA swabbing and photographing of personnel in ICE custody," an official told outlet.
The deployments will take place across the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, per Fox.
Texas is reportedly slated to have the largest deployment.
The Trump administration reportedly plans to mobilize up to 1,700 National Guard troops across 19 states in the coming weeks to support its immigration and anti-crime crackdowns, in a dramatic expansion of the controversial operation that’s seen federal agents and Guard troops carrying out activities across Washington, D.C.
The troops, who will largely be activated across Republican-controlled states, will serve in support of the administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, as well as other law enforcement priorities, according to comment from unnamed Pentagon officials and documents obtained by Fox News.
The Guardsmen assisting ICE will be carrying out tasks that may include “personal data collection, fingerprinting, DNA swabbing and photographing of personnel in ICE custody," an official told outlet.
The deployments will take place across the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, per Fox.
Texas is reportedly slated to have the largest deployment.
Sunday, June 22, 2025
Monday, January 27, 2025
Wednesday, October 16, 2024
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Defense Secretary Fires Top Advisor Over Alleged Misconduct
Carter referred to "allegations of misconduct" but did not specify what the allegations referred to.
By Yeganeh Torbati
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter removed his senior military assistant, Lieutenant General Ron Lewis, from his position on Thursday over allegations of misconduct that Carter learned of this week.
Carter has referred the matter to the inspector general of the Defense Department, he said in a brief statement on Thursday. After the inspector general's investigation is complete, the Army may take action, a senior defense official said.
As senior military assistant, Lewis served as a top adviser to Carter on military matters. He accompanied Carter last week on his trip to Asia.
Carter referred to "allegations of misconduct" but he did not specify what the allegations referred to. A senior defense official also declined to specify the nature of the allegations.
"I expect the highest possible standards of conduct from the men and women in this department, particularly from those serving in the most senior positions," Carter said in his statement. "There is no exception."
The senior defense official said Lewis would report to the Army Vice Chief of Staff while the allegations are investigated.
"The secretary was very surprised to learn of these allegations," the official said.
The inspector general's office confirmed it had received a referral from Carter's office regardingLewis and said it would conduct an investigation. It gave no further details.
Carter first learned of the allegations on Tuesday evening and spoke to Lewis on Thursday morning, the senior defense official said.
Lewis, an Army air cavalry officer, has served as Carter's trusted aide on and off for years, including as his military assistant when Carter was undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
Lewis deployed to Afghanistan as deputy commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division, returning in February 2014. (Editing by Bill Rigby and Tom Brown)
Posted: 11/12/2015 08:01 PM EST
WASHINGTON, Nov 12 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter removed his senior military assistant, Lieutenant General Ron Lewis, from his position on Thursday over allegations of misconduct that Carter learned of this week.
Carter has referred the matter to the inspector general of the Defense Department, he said in a brief statement on Thursday. After the inspector general's investigation is complete, the Army may take action, a senior defense official said.
As senior military assistant, Lewis served as a top adviser to Carter on military matters. He accompanied Carter last week on his trip to Asia.
Carter referred to "allegations of misconduct" but he did not specify what the allegations referred to. A senior defense official also declined to specify the nature of the allegations.
"I expect the highest possible standards of conduct from the men and women in this department, particularly from those serving in the most senior positions," Carter said in his statement. "There is no exception."
The senior defense official said Lewis would report to the Army Vice Chief of Staff while the allegations are investigated.
"The secretary was very surprised to learn of these allegations," the official said.
The inspector general's office confirmed it had received a referral from Carter's office regardingLewis and said it would conduct an investigation. It gave no further details.
Carter first learned of the allegations on Tuesday evening and spoke to Lewis on Thursday morning, the senior defense official said.
Lewis, an Army air cavalry officer, has served as Carter's trusted aide on and off for years, including as his military assistant when Carter was undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics.
Lewis deployed to Afghanistan as deputy commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division, returning in February 2014. (Editing by Bill Rigby and Tom Brown)
Posted: 11/12/2015 08:01 PM EST
.
Monday, July 27, 2015
Why is Russia Sending Bombers Close to U.S. Airspace?
To see video click on link below:
http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=90052&siteSection=kdow_hom_non_fro&videoId=29440761
Two Russian bombers intercepted by U.S. fighter jets off the California coast on July Fourth could be seen as having raised a metaphorical middle finger to the United States. according to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, they said "Good morning, American pilots.
Source
.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
US Military Admits Spending Millions to Study Manipulation of Social Media
Posted on July 10, 2014 by WashingtonsBlog
Part of a Long-Term Effort to Spread Propaganda Through the Internet
The Guardian reports:
The activities of users of Twitter and other social media services were recorded and analysed as part of a major project funded by the US military, in a program that covers ground similar to Facebook’s controversial experiment into how to control emotions by manipulating news feeds.
Research funded directly or indirectly by the US Department of Defense’s military research department, known as Darpa, has involved users of some of the internet’s largest destinations, including Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and Kickstarter, for studies of social connections and how messages spread.
***
Several of the DoD-funded studies went further than merely monitoring what users were communicating on their own, instead messaging unwitting participants in order to track and study how they responded.
***
The project list includes a study of how activists with the Occupy movement used Twitter as well as a range of research on tracking internet memes and some about understanding how influence behaviour (liking, following, retweeting) happens on a range of popular social media platforms like Pinterest, Twitter, Kickstarter, Digg and Reddit.
***
Unveiled in 2011, the SMISC [Social Media in Strategic Communication] program was regarded as a bid by the US military to become better at both detecting andconducting propaganda campaigns on social media.
“Through the program, Darpa seeks to develop tools to support the efforts of human operators to counter misinformation or deception campaigns with truthful information.” ["Truthful" as in government-approved? ]
***
Studies which received military funding channeled through IBM included one called “Modeling User Attitude toward Controversial Topics in Online Social Media”, which analysed Twitter users’ opinions on fracking.
***
“As another example, when anti-government messages are spread in social media, government would want to spread counter messages to balance that effort and hence identify people who are more likely to spread such counter messages based on their opinions.”
***
A study at Georgia Tech … concluded: “Breaking news stories and world events – for example, the Arab Spring – are heavily represented in social media, making them susceptible topics for influence attempts via deception.” [We can't tell if the researchers were pro or anti-deception; but given that the U.S. and Britain have used Twitter to intentionally spread falsehoods in other countries, we can take a wild guess.]
***
One of multiple studies looking into how to spread messages on the networks, titled “Who Will Retweet This? Automatically Identifying and Engaging Strangers on Twitter to Spread Information” did just this.
The researchers explained: “Since everyone is potentially an influencer on social media and is capable of spreading information, our work aims to identify and engage the right people at the right time on social media to help propagate information when needed.”
This story can only really be understood with a little context:
- We noted 6 years ago that the Pentagon is using artificial intelligence programs to try to predict how people will react to propaganda
- We’ve documented for 5 years that the Defense Department uses disinformation and disruption (andhere) on the web to discredit activists and manipulate public opinion, just like it smears traditional television and print reporters who question the government too acutely
- We’ve long reported that the government censors and manipulates social media. More proof here
- Edward Snowden revealed NSA documents showing that the U.S. government is attempting tocontrol, infiltrate, manipulate, and warp online discourse, and that spy agencies manipulate and disrupt web discussions to promote propaganda and discredit government critics
Postscript: We explained one aspect of this story – the importance of controlling which stories “go viral” – in February:
The government spends a great deal of manpower and money to monitor which stories, memes and social movements are developing the momentum to actually pose a threat to the status quo. For example, the Federal Reserve, Pentagon, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies all monitor social media for stories critical of their agencies … or the government in general. Other governments – and private corporations – do the same thing.
Why?
Because a story gaining momentum ranks high on social media sites. So it has a high probability of bursting into popular awareness, destroying the secrecy which allows corruption, and becoming a real challenge to the powers-that-be.
“Social proof” is a related concept. Social proof is the well-known principle stating that people will believe something if most other people believe it. And see this. In other words, most people have a herd instinct, so if a story ranks highly, more people are likely to believe it and be influenced by it.
That is why vested interests go to great lengths – using computer power and human resources – to monitor social media momentum. If a story critical of one of these powerful entities is gaining momentum, they will go to great lengths to kill its momentum, and destroy the social proof which comes with alot of upvotes, likes or recommendations in social media.
They may choose to flood social media with comments supporting the entities, usingarmies of sock puppets, i.e. fake social media identities. See this, this, this, this and this.
Source
.
Wednesday, July 09, 2014
Did Pentagon Help Fund Facebook's Mood Manipulating Experiment?
Written by Joe Wolverton, II, J.D.
Did the Defense Department pay Facebook to manipulate the emotions of users without their knowledge?
For those unfamiliar with Facebook’s latest apparent participation with the Pentagon (we know Facebook has helped the NSA, which falls under the Pentagon's authority), here’s a summary published by Wired:
For one week in 2012, Facebook altered the algorithms it uses to determine which status updates appeared in the News Feed of 689,003 randomly selected users (about 1 of every 2,500 Facebook users). The results of this study were just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
As the authors explain, “[b]ecause people’s friends frequently produce much more content than one person can view,” Facebook ordinarily filters News Feed content “via a ranking algorithm that Facebook continually develops and tests in the interest of showing viewers the content they will find most relevant and engaging.” In this study, the algorithm filtered content based on its emotional content. A post was identified as “positive” or “negative” if it used at least one word identified as positive or negative by software (run automatically without researchers accessing users’ text).
Users were not aware of their “participation” in the mind-control experiment and were never afforded an opportunity to opt out of the study. As Wired explained, “The closest any of us who might have participated in Facebook’s huge social engineering study came to actually consenting to participate was signing up for the service.”
It’s despicable that Facebook would abuse the trust of users in this manner and meddle with users' mental state in a Kafka-esque experiment, but the story becomes more sinister when one digs a little deeper into the source of the funding for the study.
Two of the three authors of the paper that reported the findings of the research are employed by the University of California-San Francisco and Cornell, respectively. Why does this matter?
The original press release issued by Cornell reported that “The study was funded in part by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the Army Research Office.” As soon as this little admission against interest started stoking fires of controversy, Cornell retracted the story, insisting that “the study received no external funding.”
This is hard to believe, particularly in light of the known participation of Cornell and its professor of Communication and Information Science, Jeffrey Hancock, with a hush-hush Pentagon study of social media and how to manipulate it. As The Guardian reported a couple of weeks ago:
A US Department of Defense (DoD) research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies. The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term "warfighter-relevant insights" for senior officials and decision makers in "the defense policy community," and to inform policy implemented by "combatant commands."
Launched in 2008 — the year of the global banking crisis — the DoD 'Minerva Research Initiative' partners with universities "to improve DoD's basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US."
Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model "of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions." The project will determine "the critical mass (tipping point)" of social contagions by studying their "digital traces" in the cases of "the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey."
Twitter posts and conversations will be examined "to identify individuals mobilised in a social contagion and when they become mobilised.”
For more on the connection between Hancock, Cornell, and the Defense Department, consider this story:
In the official credits for the study conducted by Facebook you'll find Jeffrey T. Hancock from Cornell University. If you go to the Minerva initiative website you'll find that Jeffery Hancock received funding from the Department of Defense for a study called "Cornell: Modeling Discourse and Social Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes". If you go to the project site for that study you'll find a visualization program that models the spread of beliefs and disease.
Cornell University is currently being funded for another DoD study right now called "Cornell: Tracking Critical-Mass Outbreaks in Social Contagions" (you'll find the description for this project on the Minerva Initiative's funding page).
As explained above, it’s not as if this cringe-worthy collaboration between the social media giant and agents of the federal government is anything new.
Facebook is known to have participated in PRISM. Under PRISM, the NSA and the FBI are “tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person's movements and contacts over time,” as reported by the Washington Post.
The joint venture has been functioning since 2007, but came to light only in a PowerPoint presentation that was part of the cache of documents leaked by Edward Snowden.
Snowden claimed that the program was so invasive that “They [the NSA and the FBI] quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type."
According to the information Snowden released, Facebook gives the government access to the private information of millions of users.
In 2012, the National Operations Center (NOC), a part of the Department of Homeland Security, recently released its Media Monitoring Initiative giving itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media, primarily Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. NOC agents track the online movements and postings of every level of writer or commentator, from Brian Williams to nearly anonymous bloggers.
This is very disturbing. Between the Minerva Initiative and this latest apparent collaboration between Facebook and the Pentagon, the U.S. government (specifically, the armed forces) is studying “risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest” and ways to fiddle with the feelings of the millions of Facebook users.
Finally, could there be any correlation between the goals of this manipulation of emotions and the latest features installed in Facebook’s mobile application? Not only would Facebook, using money from the Pentagon, be able to use complex algorithms to know where users are psychologically, but it could track their physical location, as well.
Photo of The Pentagon, Arlington, Va.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Did the Defense Department pay Facebook to manipulate the emotions of users without their knowledge?
For those unfamiliar with Facebook’s latest apparent participation with the Pentagon (we know Facebook has helped the NSA, which falls under the Pentagon's authority), here’s a summary published by Wired:
For one week in 2012, Facebook altered the algorithms it uses to determine which status updates appeared in the News Feed of 689,003 randomly selected users (about 1 of every 2,500 Facebook users). The results of this study were just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
As the authors explain, “[b]ecause people’s friends frequently produce much more content than one person can view,” Facebook ordinarily filters News Feed content “via a ranking algorithm that Facebook continually develops and tests in the interest of showing viewers the content they will find most relevant and engaging.” In this study, the algorithm filtered content based on its emotional content. A post was identified as “positive” or “negative” if it used at least one word identified as positive or negative by software (run automatically without researchers accessing users’ text).
Users were not aware of their “participation” in the mind-control experiment and were never afforded an opportunity to opt out of the study. As Wired explained, “The closest any of us who might have participated in Facebook’s huge social engineering study came to actually consenting to participate was signing up for the service.”
It’s despicable that Facebook would abuse the trust of users in this manner and meddle with users' mental state in a Kafka-esque experiment, but the story becomes more sinister when one digs a little deeper into the source of the funding for the study.
Two of the three authors of the paper that reported the findings of the research are employed by the University of California-San Francisco and Cornell, respectively. Why does this matter?
The original press release issued by Cornell reported that “The study was funded in part by the James S. McDonnell Foundation and the Army Research Office.” As soon as this little admission against interest started stoking fires of controversy, Cornell retracted the story, insisting that “the study received no external funding.”
This is hard to believe, particularly in light of the known participation of Cornell and its professor of Communication and Information Science, Jeffrey Hancock, with a hush-hush Pentagon study of social media and how to manipulate it. As The Guardian reported a couple of weeks ago:
A US Department of Defense (DoD) research programme is funding universities to model the dynamics, risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest across the world, under the supervision of various US military agencies. The multi-million dollar programme is designed to develop immediate and long-term "warfighter-relevant insights" for senior officials and decision makers in "the defense policy community," and to inform policy implemented by "combatant commands."
Launched in 2008 — the year of the global banking crisis — the DoD 'Minerva Research Initiative' partners with universities "to improve DoD's basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the US."
Among the projects awarded for the period 2014-2017 is a Cornell University-led study managed by the US Air Force Office of Scientific Research which aims to develop an empirical model "of the dynamics of social movement mobilisation and contagions." The project will determine "the critical mass (tipping point)" of social contagions by studying their "digital traces" in the cases of "the 2011 Egyptian revolution, the 2011 Russian Duma elections, the 2012 Nigerian fuel subsidy crisis and the 2013 Gazi park protests in Turkey."
Twitter posts and conversations will be examined "to identify individuals mobilised in a social contagion and when they become mobilised.”
For more on the connection between Hancock, Cornell, and the Defense Department, consider this story:
In the official credits for the study conducted by Facebook you'll find Jeffrey T. Hancock from Cornell University. If you go to the Minerva initiative website you'll find that Jeffery Hancock received funding from the Department of Defense for a study called "Cornell: Modeling Discourse and Social Dynamics in Authoritarian Regimes". If you go to the project site for that study you'll find a visualization program that models the spread of beliefs and disease.
Cornell University is currently being funded for another DoD study right now called "Cornell: Tracking Critical-Mass Outbreaks in Social Contagions" (you'll find the description for this project on the Minerva Initiative's funding page).
As explained above, it’s not as if this cringe-worthy collaboration between the social media giant and agents of the federal government is anything new.
Facebook is known to have participated in PRISM. Under PRISM, the NSA and the FBI are “tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio, video, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track a person's movements and contacts over time,” as reported by the Washington Post.
The joint venture has been functioning since 2007, but came to light only in a PowerPoint presentation that was part of the cache of documents leaked by Edward Snowden.
Snowden claimed that the program was so invasive that “They [the NSA and the FBI] quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type."
According to the information Snowden released, Facebook gives the government access to the private information of millions of users.
In 2012, the National Operations Center (NOC), a part of the Department of Homeland Security, recently released its Media Monitoring Initiative giving itself permission to “gather, store, analyze, and disseminate” data on millions of users of social media, primarily Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. NOC agents track the online movements and postings of every level of writer or commentator, from Brian Williams to nearly anonymous bloggers.
This is very disturbing. Between the Minerva Initiative and this latest apparent collaboration between Facebook and the Pentagon, the U.S. government (specifically, the armed forces) is studying “risks and tipping points for large-scale civil unrest” and ways to fiddle with the feelings of the millions of Facebook users.
Finally, could there be any correlation between the goals of this manipulation of emotions and the latest features installed in Facebook’s mobile application? Not only would Facebook, using money from the Pentagon, be able to use complex algorithms to know where users are psychologically, but it could track their physical location, as well.
Photo of The Pentagon, Arlington, Va.
Joe A. Wolverton, II, J.D. is a correspondent for The New American and travels nationwide speaking on nullification, the Second Amendment, the surveillance state, and other constitutional issues. Follow him on Twitter @TNAJoeWolverton and he can be reached at jwolverton@thenewamerican.com This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Government Shuts down Catholic Services on Navy Base; Church locked; Priest threatened with arrest; Thomas More Law Center Files Federal Lawsuit
ANN ARBOR, Mich., Oct. 14, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In the wake of the government shutdown, despite provisions in the Pay Our Military Act, Catholics at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia are being denied religious services, according to the complaint filed by the Thomas Moore Law Center. The Catholic priest who serves this community has been prohibited from even volunteering to celebrate Holy Mass without pay, and was told that if he violated that order, he could be subject to arrest. Protestant services continue to take place. Only Catholic services have been shutdown.
This is an astonishing attack on religious freedom by the federal government, and the latest affront towards the military since the beginning of the shutdown.
As a result, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, today, filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Father Ray Leonard, a Catholic priest contracted to serve as base chaplain and Fred Naylor, one of Father Leonard's parishioners and a retired veteran with over 22 years of service. Fr. Leonard is a civilian Catholic Pastor contracted by the Department of Defense (DoD) to serve as a military chaplain at Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base in Georgia.
Fr. Leonard who served Tibetan populations in China for 10 years, informed the court in an affidavit; "In China, I was disallowed from performing public religious services due to the lack of religious freedom in China. I never imagined that when I returned home to the United States, that I would be forbidden from practicing my religious beliefs as I am called to do, and would be forbidden from helping and serving my faith community."
On October 4, 2013, Fr. Leonard was ordered to stop performing all of his duties as the base's Catholic Chaplain, even on a voluntary basis. He was also told that he could be arrested if he violated that order. The approximately 300 Catholic families, including Fred Naylor's, served by Fr. Leonard at Kings Bay have been unable to attend Mass on base since the beginning of the shutdown.
Additionally, Fr. Leonard was locked out of his on-base office and the chapel. Fr. Leonard was also denied access to the Holy Eucharist and other articles of his Catholic faith. The order has caused the cancellation of daily and weekend mass, confession, marriage preparation classes and baptisms as well as prevented Fr. Leonard from providing the spiritual guidance he was called by his faith to provide.
The submarine base is remotely located. It consists of roughly 16,000 acres, with 4,000 acres comprised of protected wetlands. There are approximately 10,000 total people on the base.
A Catholic Church is located off base in the town of St. Mary's. However, many of the parishioners both live and work on base and do not own a car and cannot otherwise access transportation. Therefore a sixteen (16) mile journey to and from the off-base church is simply not possible. Moreover, many of the sailors have an extremely limited amount of time off. With their time highly regimented, they are not given a long enough break time for this exceptionally long walk and the Mass service.
Defendants in the lawsuit are the Department of Defense (DoD), Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, the Department of the Navy, and the Secretary of the Department of the Navy, Ray Mabus.
Currently, about 25% of the US Armed Forces is Catholic and due to a shortage of active duty Catholic Priests, the DoD contracts Catholic Priests to provide religious services, sacraments and support for other religious practices for military base communities. Catholic Priests serve the Military Archdiocese.
For active duty service members, on base religious services are extremely important given issues associated with off base transportation, extremely limited time off and the highly scheduled lifestyle of active military duty. Additionally, as service members tend to have high rates of divorce, depression and suicide, the need for readily available spiritual encouragement and guidance is critical.
The Pay Our Military Act, which was enacted before the beginning of the government shutdown, provides provisions for the funding of employees whose responsibilities contribute to the morale and well-being of the military. The government has previously been criticized for interpreting the Act to not include military death benefits. Now, in yet another bizarre interpretation of the Act, some chaplains are not considered covered by these provisions, leaving Catholic members of some military facilities without spiritual guidance.
The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America's Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values, including the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.
SOURCE Thomas More Law Center Copyright 2013 PR Newswire
Source
.
Thursday, June 06, 2013
Report: Leon Panetta revealed classified SEAL unit info
Play Slideshow
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 6/5/13 9:38 AM EDT Updated: 6/6/13 12:04 AM EDT
Former CIA Director Leon Panetta revealed the name of the Navy SEAL unit that carried out the Osama bin Laden raid and named the unit’s ground commander at a 2011 ceremony attended by “Zero Dark Thirty” filmmaker Mark Boal.
Panetta also discussed classified information designated as “top secret” and “secret” during his presentation at the awards ceremony, according to a draft Pentagon inspector general’s report published Wednesday by the Project on Government Oversight. Continue Reading
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/leon-panetta-seal-leak-92263.html#ixzz2VRC7owly
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 6/5/13 9:38 AM EDT Updated: 6/6/13 12:04 AM EDT
Former CIA Director Leon Panetta revealed the name of the Navy SEAL unit that carried out the Osama bin Laden raid and named the unit’s ground commander at a 2011 ceremony attended by “Zero Dark Thirty” filmmaker Mark Boal.
Panetta also discussed classified information designated as “top secret” and “secret” during his presentation at the awards ceremony, according to a draft Pentagon inspector general’s report published Wednesday by the Project on Government Oversight. Continue Reading
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/leon-panetta-seal-leak-92263.html#ixzz2VRC7owly
.
Friday, May 24, 2013
NBC Affiliate: Ft. Hood Shooter Still Drawing Paycheck, Victims Denied Benefits; When Will 'Nightly News' Cover?
By: Ken Shepherd | May 23, 2013 | 18:10
Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Hassan is still drawing his military paycheck while the Defense Department has refused to deem Hassan's victims as suffering combat-related wounds, which would entitle them to Purple Hearts and additional pay and benefits to aid the cost of their rehabilitation, Scott Friedman of Dallas, Texas, NBC affiliate KXAS reported on Wednesday morning.[watch the original KXAS report below the page break]
Yesterday, native Texan and MSNBC anchor Tamron Hall aired Friedman's report on her NewsNation program in her "Gut Check" segment in which she asked her viewers to weigh in on her Facebook page, "Should the Pentagon designate the Fort Hood shooting a terrorist attack?" [For their part, 76 percent of her viewers agreed that it should.] Although this is a pretty compelling report, at time of publication, neither NBC's Nightly News nor Today programs have aired the story.
Read More
,
.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Pentagon Began Relationship With Anti-Christian Extremist in 2009
Anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein has been meeting with the Obama administration since 2009. (Facebook)
The Obama-Hagel Pentagon is trying to minimize Breitbart News' blockbuster story last week of top brass meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein, whom we reported calls Christians "monsters" imposing a "rapacious reign of theocratic terror" and who says sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military is an act of "sedition and treason" that must be punished.
The Pentagon sent out an email suggesting its April 23 meeting with Weinstein was a one-time event, saying only, "Weinstein requested, and was granted, a meeting at the Pentagon [on] April 23, with the Air Force Judge Advocate General and others, to include the Deputy Chief of Chaplains, to express his concerns of religious issues in the military."
However, this was not a single meeting. Instead, it was part of a relationship that began one month after Barack Obama was sworn in as president. And it goes much higher up the military food chain than was reported last week: Weinstein met with a four-star general who was the highest-ranking officer in the United States Air Force.
The New York Times reported on March 1, 2009, in a story entitled, "Questions Raised Anew About Religion in Military," that Weinstein met with the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwarz, on Feb. 24, 2009. The story noted this was the first time Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) had "gotten an audience with a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Weinstein sued the Department of Defense (DoD) during the Bush administration as part of his anti-Christian crusade, so Pentagon top brass knew exactly who he was and what he was about when the new Obama administration met with him in 2009. This means he had been fully vetted when the Obama-Hagel DoD decided to meet with him again on April 23 to discuss how to stop evangelizing (that is, Christian proselytizing) within the military.
The Bush administration fought Weinstein, saying that any instances of senior officers pressuring subordinates on religious matters were "not systematic problems, but isolated instances." And biblical Christians fully object to any coercion, since evangelism is about people embracing the Christian faith wholeheartedly and sincerely, which no person could ever force upon another. It's a matter of the heart, between every human being and their Creator.
By contrast, while the Bush administration fought Weinstein, the Obama administration has embraced this anti-Christian activist.
The New York Times story gives a laundry list of Weinstein and MRFF's grievances against the DoD during the Bush administration, including a "ceremony that began and ended with a Christian prayer ... the appearance of uniformed officers at religious events, [and] displays of crucifixes at military chapels."
The story indicates that "Christian prayers" are prayers offered "in Jesus' name." It goes without saying that whenever anyone prays, they pray according to their own religious faith. (For example, you're not likely to find a Muslim imam offering a Jewish prayer.) It's just as common to hear a Christian mention Jesus in a prayer as it is to find a Muslim invoking the name of Muhammed.
It's also no surprise that troops might wear their uniforms when attending church services. Again, the Constitution does not forbid such things, since those troops have the right to peacefully practice and express their personal faith just like any other American.
But the fact that Weinstein has become an unpaid advisor to the Obama-Hagel Pentagon is evidence of how hostile an environment parts of the DoD are becoming to Christian service members under this administration, and possibly devout adherents of other peaceful faiths as well.
Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to set the rules of conduct and discipline within the military, and Congress must do so now to protect the rights of our troops to live and share their faith.
Ken Klukowski is director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council. This article originally appeared on Breitbart.com.
The Obama-Hagel Pentagon is trying to minimize Breitbart News' blockbuster story last week of top brass meeting with anti-Christian extremist Mikey Weinstein, whom we reported calls Christians "monsters" imposing a "rapacious reign of theocratic terror" and who says sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ in the military is an act of "sedition and treason" that must be punished.
The Pentagon sent out an email suggesting its April 23 meeting with Weinstein was a one-time event, saying only, "Weinstein requested, and was granted, a meeting at the Pentagon [on] April 23, with the Air Force Judge Advocate General and others, to include the Deputy Chief of Chaplains, to express his concerns of religious issues in the military."
However, this was not a single meeting. Instead, it was part of a relationship that began one month after Barack Obama was sworn in as president. And it goes much higher up the military food chain than was reported last week: Weinstein met with a four-star general who was the highest-ranking officer in the United States Air Force.
The New York Times reported on March 1, 2009, in a story entitled, "Questions Raised Anew About Religion in Military," that Weinstein met with the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwarz, on Feb. 24, 2009. The story noted this was the first time Weinstein and his Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) had "gotten an audience with a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Weinstein sued the Department of Defense (DoD) during the Bush administration as part of his anti-Christian crusade, so Pentagon top brass knew exactly who he was and what he was about when the new Obama administration met with him in 2009. This means he had been fully vetted when the Obama-Hagel DoD decided to meet with him again on April 23 to discuss how to stop evangelizing (that is, Christian proselytizing) within the military.
The Bush administration fought Weinstein, saying that any instances of senior officers pressuring subordinates on religious matters were "not systematic problems, but isolated instances." And biblical Christians fully object to any coercion, since evangelism is about people embracing the Christian faith wholeheartedly and sincerely, which no person could ever force upon another. It's a matter of the heart, between every human being and their Creator.
By contrast, while the Bush administration fought Weinstein, the Obama administration has embraced this anti-Christian activist.
The New York Times story gives a laundry list of Weinstein and MRFF's grievances against the DoD during the Bush administration, including a "ceremony that began and ended with a Christian prayer ... the appearance of uniformed officers at religious events, [and] displays of crucifixes at military chapels."
The story indicates that "Christian prayers" are prayers offered "in Jesus' name." It goes without saying that whenever anyone prays, they pray according to their own religious faith. (For example, you're not likely to find a Muslim imam offering a Jewish prayer.) It's just as common to hear a Christian mention Jesus in a prayer as it is to find a Muslim invoking the name of Muhammed.
It's also no surprise that troops might wear their uniforms when attending church services. Again, the Constitution does not forbid such things, since those troops have the right to peacefully practice and express their personal faith just like any other American.
But the fact that Weinstein has become an unpaid advisor to the Obama-Hagel Pentagon is evidence of how hostile an environment parts of the DoD are becoming to Christian service members under this administration, and possibly devout adherents of other peaceful faiths as well.
Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to set the rules of conduct and discipline within the military, and Congress must do so now to protect the rights of our troops to live and share their faith.
Ken Klukowski is director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council. This article originally appeared on Breitbart.com.
.
Friday, April 12, 2013
Defense Department classifies Catholics, evangelicals as extremists
associated press photographs
By Lachlan Markay - The Washington Free Beacon
Friday, April 5, 2013
The Defense Department came under fire Thursday for a U.S. Army Reserve presentation that classified Catholics and Evangelical Protestants as “extremist” religious groups alongside al Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan.
The presentation detailed a number of extremist threats within the U.S. military, including white supremacist groups, street gangs, and religious sects.
The presentation identified seventeen religious organizations in a slide titled “religious extremism.” They include al Qaeda, Hamas, the Filipino separatist group Abu Sayyaf, and the Ku Klux Klan, which the slide identifies as a Christian organization.
“Religious extremism is not limited to any single religion, ethnic group, or region of the world,” the slide explains, in language that closely resembles the text of a Wikipedia page on “extremism.”
Read more
.
Monday, March 11, 2013
DoD Plans to Use Preemptive Deadly Force on Hackers, Cyber Threats
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Freda Art
Eric BlairActivist Post
A new report from the Department of Defense outlines the military's capability to deter cyber threats with some pretty heavy firepower, including nuclear weapons.
The paper written by the Defense Science Board described the best types of bombs to use on hackers to be "Global selective strike systems e.g. penetrating bomber, submarines with long range cruise missiles, Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS), survivable national and combatant command," while "Nuclear weapons would remain the ultimate response and anchor the deterrence ladder" for cyber threats.
"The report ... implies that the United States might have to rely on nuclear weapons to retaliate after a large-scale cyber attack," Foreign Policy writes.
Although it seems that Foreign Policy is reporting shocking revelations, they're actually engaged in subtle misinformation. They claim that this strike capability is only to be used in "retaliation" after a cyber attack as opposed to preemptive strikes to prevent cyber threats, which the military is already authorized to do.
For all the talk of the indefinite detention section of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a little known provision gave President Obama the authority to "conduct offensive operations in cyberspace".
Here's what Section 954 of the 2011 NDAA says:
SEC. 954. MILITARY ACTIVITIES IN CYBERSPACE.
Congress affirms that the Department of Defense has the capability, and upon direction by the President may conduct offensive operations in cyberspace to defend our Nation, Allies and interests, subject to—
(1) the policy principles and legal regimes that the Department follows for kinetic capabilities, including the law of armed conflict; and
(2) the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).Prior to this NDAA provision, in July 2011, the Pentagon announced cyberspace to be their "operational domain" and claimed that the U.S. can "under the laws of armed conflict, respond to serious cyber attacks with a proportional and justified military response at the time and place of our choosing," said Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn during the release of The Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace.
This week we heard Rand Paul speak much about the "law of armed conflict" or "Martial Law" in his talking filibuster of John Brennan over drone strikes on American soil, which is a related concern since the NDAA also officially labeled theU.S. as part of the battlefield.
Paul reiterated that if Americans can be treated the same as an enemy under the law of armed conflict, there is no due process protection, as well as more flexible rules of engagement than those that restrict the police. Just ask the Guantanamo prisoners or Bradley Manning how due process works under the laws of war. Or ask the family of the 16-year-old American murdered by a targeted drone strike about the rules of engagement.
Therefore due process will not be needed to take offensive action against cyber threats under the laws of war. In other words, hackers everywhere may be facing a lethal force if they're suspected of engaging in cyber attacks against the U.S. or its allies and interests.
The report, however, urges US military leaders to develop "cyber escalation scenarios and red lines" that could prompt the use of force. Or simply put, when can they pull the trigger on a cyber threat. Of course, just as the legal justification for drone strikes has remained classified, surely, this will as well.
Here is a nifty illustration they provided to help us visualize how the threat levels are designed for hackers:
It's also important to note that the military has been authorized to conduct a cyberwar with "kinetic capabilities", meaning it can operate wherever the threat is in the world. A borderless war like the war on terror. This eliminates any need for the President to seek an individual declaration of cyber war against China in Congress even though nuclear weapons could potentially be involved.
Does anyone in Congress understand just how dangerous it is to authorize the use of preemptive deadly force against cyber threats without due process?
Does anyone in Congress understand just how dangerous it is to authorize the use of preemptive deadly force against cyber threats without due process?
.
.
Tuesday, March 05, 2013
Leaked Document: Military Internment Camps in U.S to be Used for Political Dissidents
Published on Mar 4, 2013
Internment camps for political dissidents in the U.S. aren't a conspiracy theory. The Department of Defense document entitled "INTERNMENT AND RESETTLEMENT OPERATIONS" or FM 3-39.40 proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Follow us on Facebook:http://facebook.com/StormCloudsGathering
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/collapseupdates
If you support our work please consider making a donation:http://StormCloudsGathering.com/donate
Visit our website: http://StormCloudsGathering.com
Get weekly email updates: http://tinyurl.com/naturalrightsnewsl...
Download link for FM 3-39.40: http://info.publicintelligence.net/US...
Army hiring for these internment camps:
http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-job...
....
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Invasion! DHS Source Tells Why Military Train in U.S. Cities
A news article was sent to me earlier this week. It appeared in the Beaufort Gazette. The article stated that later this week about 150 Marines and Navy personnel will holdrealistic urban training in Jasper County, South Carolina.
This was one of many joint military-local law enforcement exercises that had come to my attention in less than one month. Held in cities across the U.S., they were becoming more common and more intense. But why? Why train in populated towns and cities where accidents could produce unnecessary casualties?
The Gazette further reported that the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit will train within Ridgeland town limits. The times and exact locations for the training are not being announced, according to 2nd Lt. Gerard R. Farao.
A little background on the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (26th MEU). It is one of seven Marine Expeditionary Units. A MEU is a Marine Air-Ground Task Force with a strength of about 2,200 personnel. The MEU consists of four major parts: a command element, a ground combat element, an aviation combat element, and a logistics element. The 26th MEU was establishment in the early 1970s and has deployed extensively, and participated in numerous combat and contingency operations. The 26th MEU is based out of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
I was once stationed at Camp Lejuene, NC. As a Navy Corpsman, I helped care for Marines. I tell you this because inevitably there will be those that assume I hold some anti-military motive. Quite the contrary. This writer is a Navy veteran, receiver of a Navy Commendation medal for lifesaving, Fleet Marine Force Expeditionary medal (2) and several letters of commendation – among other ribbons and medals. I also spent time at Camp Lejuene.
At no time during my time there were “realistic urban training” exercises conducted in towns and cities. This is a recent development.
According to 2nd Lt. Farao, and reported by the Gazette, residents will likely see and hear military vehicles and possibly see aircraft. Farao states the training is part of a certification for deployment to Mediterranean and African shores. Furthermore, he stated participants will be in uniform and carry weapons. Some exercises will take place at night and residents might hear “popping” sounds as Marines fire blanks.
The training has been coordinated with local, county and state agencies and officials, including the Ridgeland police and fire departments, according to a Marine Corps news release.
Although there is no danger, Farao said residents should stay away if they see training under way or uniformed personnel.
Realistic Urban Training is happening all over the U.S. In Miami, Florida on January 26, 2013, Army Backhawk helicopters swooped through the city at night, firing door-guns and chasing make-believe bad guys like something out of an action movie. The fired blanks echoed off of the buildings, scaring many residents into taking cover. The local news reported excitedly about the exercise, stating it was only a drill and for residents not to be concerned. However, there was no journalistic follow up asking hard questions. Such as, who authorized an exercise without informing the public? Why conduct this type of training in a populated U.S. city and put citizens at risk? Isn’t this a violation of Posse Comitatus? No hard follow up questions were asked, and to my knowledge, have not been since.
Not even when the same exercise occurred in Houston, Texas on January 29, 2013. The U.S. Army along with other agencies took over the Carnegie Vanguard High School in Houston on Monday. Alarmed residents called police and complained about gunshots and helicopters. No details were provided about the training. Watch the KTRK-TV Houston report and hear how alarmed residents responded after hearing gunshots and seeing military helicopters flying over their homes.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013. The same types of exercises were conducted in Galveston, Texas. The Houston Chronicle reported The training involved about 80 soldiers from the U.S. Army Special Operations Command in coordination with local law enforcement. According to Sgt. 1st Class Michael Noggle, an Army spokesman based at Fort Bragg, N.C., “We were invited by the city of Galveston to conduct joint training exercises to enhance the effectiveness of both services in order to better protect the residents of Galveston.”
He went on to say in an email that “The purpose of the realistic urban training is to give our Special Operators an opportunity to hone their skills in a controlled, but unfamiliar, realistic urban environment that cannot be replicated with the bare-boned facades found on military installation ranges.”
I’ve highlighted a few examples, but there are more. In a search I came upon these others. Los Angeles, CA, Plainville and Worchester, Massachusetts. As reported in the other stories, residents were unaware of the drills until helicopters swooped over their neighborhoods. And here’s more: Minneapolis, MN, and this in East Saint Louis, MO. There are many more, but these links provide a foundation for further research.
I spoke with a high-ranking, military source in DHS. Preferring to remain unnamed for obvious reasons, he told me, “DHS and DOD are conducting desensitizing exercises all across the U.S.,” he paused, then added, “we’re being prepared for mass civil unrest in major U.S. cities. DOD will be expected to help – when we’re requested.”
I asked if there was a timeline for expecting civil unrest in our cities and why should we expect it to begin with. I was told that there were many reasons, but that the continued devaluation of our currency, the predicted history-setting prices for gasoline this summer and the continued gun control debate are forming a perfect storm of civil discontent. When this storm hits, it will most assuredly produce mass casualties. When does DHS expect this to happen? This summer.
From a high-ranking source deep within DHS, who has strong DOD ties, we are being told that joint DOD-local law enforcement exercises are to desensitize us to military occupation. When asked if there was any concern about violating Posse Comitatus, he stated “no concern at all,” and added, “That’s been a non-issue for a long time.”
Reuters recently reported Jesse Jackson’s request for armed TSA in the streets of Chicago. Is it no longer a question of IF we see armed soldiers patrolling U.S. streets – but WHEN? And notice the way most mainstream media presents these training exercises. They are presented nearly like entertainment. The ones approaching public service announcements mostly center on what areas to avoid because of traffic closures.
No major concerns about military patrolling our streets are being spoken in national dialogue. Those that do are assigned fringe status. But in closing, I’d ask where do these training orders originate? Who is responsible for issuing the orders and at what level in DOD/DHS do they originate from? Since it crosses all military branches, we can assume it comes from the highest levels. Perhaps we should begin asking our elected officials to dig a little deeper into the subject. And if they will not, perhaps we – the People – should.
This was one of many joint military-local law enforcement exercises that had come to my attention in less than one month. Held in cities across the U.S., they were becoming more common and more intense. But why? Why train in populated towns and cities where accidents could produce unnecessary casualties?
The Gazette further reported that the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit will train within Ridgeland town limits. The times and exact locations for the training are not being announced, according to 2nd Lt. Gerard R. Farao.
A little background on the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (26th MEU). It is one of seven Marine Expeditionary Units. A MEU is a Marine Air-Ground Task Force with a strength of about 2,200 personnel. The MEU consists of four major parts: a command element, a ground combat element, an aviation combat element, and a logistics element. The 26th MEU was establishment in the early 1970s and has deployed extensively, and participated in numerous combat and contingency operations. The 26th MEU is based out of Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.
I was once stationed at Camp Lejuene, NC. As a Navy Corpsman, I helped care for Marines. I tell you this because inevitably there will be those that assume I hold some anti-military motive. Quite the contrary. This writer is a Navy veteran, receiver of a Navy Commendation medal for lifesaving, Fleet Marine Force Expeditionary medal (2) and several letters of commendation – among other ribbons and medals. I also spent time at Camp Lejuene.
At no time during my time there were “realistic urban training” exercises conducted in towns and cities. This is a recent development.
According to 2nd Lt. Farao, and reported by the Gazette, residents will likely see and hear military vehicles and possibly see aircraft. Farao states the training is part of a certification for deployment to Mediterranean and African shores. Furthermore, he stated participants will be in uniform and carry weapons. Some exercises will take place at night and residents might hear “popping” sounds as Marines fire blanks.
The training has been coordinated with local, county and state agencies and officials, including the Ridgeland police and fire departments, according to a Marine Corps news release.
Although there is no danger, Farao said residents should stay away if they see training under way or uniformed personnel.
Realistic Urban Training is happening all over the U.S. In Miami, Florida on January 26, 2013, Army Backhawk helicopters swooped through the city at night, firing door-guns and chasing make-believe bad guys like something out of an action movie. The fired blanks echoed off of the buildings, scaring many residents into taking cover. The local news reported excitedly about the exercise, stating it was only a drill and for residents not to be concerned. However, there was no journalistic follow up asking hard questions. Such as, who authorized an exercise without informing the public? Why conduct this type of training in a populated U.S. city and put citizens at risk? Isn’t this a violation of Posse Comitatus? No hard follow up questions were asked, and to my knowledge, have not been since.
Not even when the same exercise occurred in Houston, Texas on January 29, 2013. The U.S. Army along with other agencies took over the Carnegie Vanguard High School in Houston on Monday. Alarmed residents called police and complained about gunshots and helicopters. No details were provided about the training. Watch the KTRK-TV Houston report and hear how alarmed residents responded after hearing gunshots and seeing military helicopters flying over their homes.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013. The same types of exercises were conducted in Galveston, Texas. The Houston Chronicle reported The training involved about 80 soldiers from the U.S. Army Special Operations Command in coordination with local law enforcement. According to Sgt. 1st Class Michael Noggle, an Army spokesman based at Fort Bragg, N.C., “We were invited by the city of Galveston to conduct joint training exercises to enhance the effectiveness of both services in order to better protect the residents of Galveston.”
He went on to say in an email that “The purpose of the realistic urban training is to give our Special Operators an opportunity to hone their skills in a controlled, but unfamiliar, realistic urban environment that cannot be replicated with the bare-boned facades found on military installation ranges.”
I’ve highlighted a few examples, but there are more. In a search I came upon these others. Los Angeles, CA, Plainville and Worchester, Massachusetts. As reported in the other stories, residents were unaware of the drills until helicopters swooped over their neighborhoods. And here’s more: Minneapolis, MN, and this in East Saint Louis, MO. There are many more, but these links provide a foundation for further research.
I spoke with a high-ranking, military source in DHS. Preferring to remain unnamed for obvious reasons, he told me, “DHS and DOD are conducting desensitizing exercises all across the U.S.,” he paused, then added, “we’re being prepared for mass civil unrest in major U.S. cities. DOD will be expected to help – when we’re requested.”
I asked if there was a timeline for expecting civil unrest in our cities and why should we expect it to begin with. I was told that there were many reasons, but that the continued devaluation of our currency, the predicted history-setting prices for gasoline this summer and the continued gun control debate are forming a perfect storm of civil discontent. When this storm hits, it will most assuredly produce mass casualties. When does DHS expect this to happen? This summer.
From a high-ranking source deep within DHS, who has strong DOD ties, we are being told that joint DOD-local law enforcement exercises are to desensitize us to military occupation. When asked if there was any concern about violating Posse Comitatus, he stated “no concern at all,” and added, “That’s been a non-issue for a long time.”
Reuters recently reported Jesse Jackson’s request for armed TSA in the streets of Chicago. Is it no longer a question of IF we see armed soldiers patrolling U.S. streets – but WHEN? And notice the way most mainstream media presents these training exercises. They are presented nearly like entertainment. The ones approaching public service announcements mostly center on what areas to avoid because of traffic closures.
No major concerns about military patrolling our streets are being spoken in national dialogue. Those that do are assigned fringe status. But in closing, I’d ask where do these training orders originate? Who is responsible for issuing the orders and at what level in DOD/DHS do they originate from? Since it crosses all military branches, we can assume it comes from the highest levels. Perhaps we should begin asking our elected officials to dig a little deeper into the subject. And if they will not, perhaps we – the People – should.
.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Bush's War on Terrorism Replaced by Obama's Overseas Contingency Operations
Oct. 11, 2009
Bush's War on Terrorism Replaced by Obama's Overseas Contingency Operations
By Jim Kouri
One cannot help but wonder how the war on terrorism gave way to our Overseas Contingency Operations. Or is this merely another example of what George Orwell termed "Newspeak?"
In a report released on September 25 by the Government Accountability Office, this latest euphemism -- created by President Barack Obama and his national security team -- is peppered throughout the documents submitted to the US Congress. Congress has provided the Department of Defense with $893 billion in supplemental and annual appropriations, as of June 2009, primarily for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
DOD's reported annual obligations for OCO have shown a steady increase from about $0.2 billion in fiscal year 2001 to about $162.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated $151 billion in war-related requests.
A total of $89.1 billion has been obligated through the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 through June 2009. The United States' commitments to OCO will likely involve the continued investment of significant resources, requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the nation faces an increasing long-range fiscal challenges such as the recession and projected increases in government health services.
The magnitude of future costs will depend on several direct and indirect costs and, in some cases, decisions that have not yet been made. DOD's future costs will likely be affected by the pace and duration of operations, the types of facilities needed to support troops overseas, redeployment plans, and the amount of equipment to be repaired or replaced.
DOD compiles and reports monthly and cumulative incremental obligations incurred to support OCO in a monthly report commonly called the Contingency Operations Status of Funds Report. DOD leadership uses this report, along with other information, to advise Congress on the costs of the war and to formulate future OCO budget requests. DOD reports these obligations by appropriation, contingency operation, and military service or defense agency. DOD has prepared monthly reports on the obligations incurred for its involvement in OCO since fiscal year 2001.
As of June 2009, Congress has appropriated a total of about $893 billion primarily for OCO since 2001. Of that amount, $151 billion was appropriated for use in fiscal year 2009. DOD has reported obligations of about $744 billion for OCO from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2008 and for fiscal year 2009 (October 2008 through June 2009).
The $149 billion difference between DOD's appropriations and reported obligations can generally be attributed to the remaining fiscal year 2009 appropriations; multiyear funding for procurement; military construction; and research, development, test, and evaluation from previous OCO-related appropriations that have yet to be obligated; and obligations for classified and other items, which DOD considers to be non-OCO related, that are not reported in DOD's cost-of-war reports.
Of DOD's reported obligations for OCO through June 2009 (about $744 billion), about $570 billion is for operations in and around Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and about $146 billion is for operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and elsewhere as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The remainder of about $28 billion is for operations in defense of the homeland as part of Operation Noble Eagle. DOD's reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom have consistently increased each fiscal year since operations began. The increases in reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom are in part due to continued costs for military personnel, such as military pay and allowances for mobilized reservists, and for rising operation and maintenance expenses, such as higher contract costs for housing, food, and services and higher fuel costs.
In fiscal year 2009, through June 2009, DOD reported obligations of about $89.1 billion, which is more than one half of the total amount of obligation it reported for all of fiscal year 2008. Reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom for the same period continue to account for the largest portion of total reported OCO obligations by operation--about $61.5 billion. In contrast, reported obligations associated with Operation Enduring Freedom total about $27.4 billion, and reported obligations associated with Operation Noble Eagle total about $138.2 million.
With the impending US troop surge in Afghanistan, it would be safe to assume there will be increases in DOD expenditures. Would it be unfair to surmise that Overseas Contingency Operations are more expensive than waging a global war on terrorism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush's War on Terrorism Replaced by Obama's Overseas Contingency Operations
By Jim Kouri
One cannot help but wonder how the war on terrorism gave way to our Overseas Contingency Operations. Or is this merely another example of what George Orwell termed "Newspeak?"
In a report released on September 25 by the Government Accountability Office, this latest euphemism -- created by President Barack Obama and his national security team -- is peppered throughout the documents submitted to the US Congress. Congress has provided the Department of Defense with $893 billion in supplemental and annual appropriations, as of June 2009, primarily for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
DOD's reported annual obligations for OCO have shown a steady increase from about $0.2 billion in fiscal year 2001 to about $162.4 billion in fiscal year 2008. For fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated $151 billion in war-related requests.
A total of $89.1 billion has been obligated through the third quarter of fiscal year 2009 through June 2009. The United States' commitments to OCO will likely involve the continued investment of significant resources, requiring decision makers to consider difficult trade-offs as the nation faces an increasing long-range fiscal challenges such as the recession and projected increases in government health services.
The magnitude of future costs will depend on several direct and indirect costs and, in some cases, decisions that have not yet been made. DOD's future costs will likely be affected by the pace and duration of operations, the types of facilities needed to support troops overseas, redeployment plans, and the amount of equipment to be repaired or replaced.
DOD compiles and reports monthly and cumulative incremental obligations incurred to support OCO in a monthly report commonly called the Contingency Operations Status of Funds Report. DOD leadership uses this report, along with other information, to advise Congress on the costs of the war and to formulate future OCO budget requests. DOD reports these obligations by appropriation, contingency operation, and military service or defense agency. DOD has prepared monthly reports on the obligations incurred for its involvement in OCO since fiscal year 2001.
As of June 2009, Congress has appropriated a total of about $893 billion primarily for OCO since 2001. Of that amount, $151 billion was appropriated for use in fiscal year 2009. DOD has reported obligations of about $744 billion for OCO from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2008 and for fiscal year 2009 (October 2008 through June 2009).
The $149 billion difference between DOD's appropriations and reported obligations can generally be attributed to the remaining fiscal year 2009 appropriations; multiyear funding for procurement; military construction; and research, development, test, and evaluation from previous OCO-related appropriations that have yet to be obligated; and obligations for classified and other items, which DOD considers to be non-OCO related, that are not reported in DOD's cost-of-war reports.
Of DOD's reported obligations for OCO through June 2009 (about $744 billion), about $570 billion is for operations in and around Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and about $146 billion is for operations in Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, the Philippines, and elsewhere as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.
The remainder of about $28 billion is for operations in defense of the homeland as part of Operation Noble Eagle. DOD's reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom have consistently increased each fiscal year since operations began. The increases in reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom are in part due to continued costs for military personnel, such as military pay and allowances for mobilized reservists, and for rising operation and maintenance expenses, such as higher contract costs for housing, food, and services and higher fuel costs.
In fiscal year 2009, through June 2009, DOD reported obligations of about $89.1 billion, which is more than one half of the total amount of obligation it reported for all of fiscal year 2008. Reported obligations for Operation Iraqi Freedom for the same period continue to account for the largest portion of total reported OCO obligations by operation--about $61.5 billion. In contrast, reported obligations associated with Operation Enduring Freedom total about $27.4 billion, and reported obligations associated with Operation Noble Eagle total about $138.2 million.
With the impending US troop surge in Afghanistan, it would be safe to assume there will be increases in DOD expenditures. Would it be unfair to surmise that Overseas Contingency Operations are more expensive than waging a global war on terrorism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Defense Contracting in Afghanistan at Record High
September 1st, 2009 by Steven Aftergood
There are more Department of Defense contractors in Afghanistan today than there are uniformed U.S. military personnel, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service. Not only that, the ratio of contractors to troops in Afghanistan is higher than in any prior military engagement in U.S. history.
“As of March 2009, there were 68,197 DOD contractors in Afghanistan, compared to 52,300 uniformed personnel. Contractors made up 57% of DOD’s workforce in Afghanistan. This apparently represented the highest recorded percentage of contractors used by DOD in any conflict in the history of the United States,” the CRS report (pdf) said. A copy of the report was obtained by Secrecy News.
At a time when the deployment of U.S. forces in Afghanistan may be increased (or reduced), the CRS report casts a detailed and fairly nuanced spotlight on the role of defense contractors there. The report notes, for example, that more than 75% of the DoD contractor personnel in Afghanistan are local nationals. Only about 15% are U.S. citizens.
Contractors provide essential logistical, translation and other services, while offering increased flexibility. But they also pose management challenges in monitoring performance and preventing fraud. In the worst cases, “abuses and crimes committed by armed private security contractors and interrogators against local nationals may have undermined U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the CRS report noted. See “Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis,” August 13, 2009.
.
.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Electric Grid Still Vulnerable to Electromagnetic Weaponry
Electric Grid Still Vulnerable to Electromagnetic Weaponry
Posted July 27, 2009
By Janet Raloff, for Science News' Science & the Public Blog
Posted July 27, 2009
By Janet Raloff, for Science News' Science & the Public Blog
Electromagnetic pulse is hardly a household term. But perhaps it should be. Every computer we buy, every system we turn over to computer control, every device that relies on electronic components — all cars, TVs and phones, for instance — makes us more vulnerable to such a high-energy rain of electrons.
EMP is a powerful and potentially devastating form of electromagnetic "fallout." It’s usually associated with nuclear weapons, although it can be triggered by any major explosive bursts. Unlike radioactive fallout, this rain won’t directly harm living things. It will just catastrophically fry all electronics and modern electrical systems by inducing staggeringly large and rapid current or voltage surges.
EMP is a powerful and potentially devastating form of electromagnetic "fallout." It’s usually associated with nuclear weapons, although it can be triggered by any major explosive bursts. Unlike radioactive fallout, this rain won’t directly harm living things. It will just catastrophically fry all electronics and modern electrical systems by inducing staggeringly large and rapid current or voltage surges.
It makes a great equalizer for small nations looking to stand up to military Goliaths, argues Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (Rep.-Md.), a former research scientist and engineer who has worked in the past on projects for NASA and the military. All one needs to wreak some serious EMP damage, he charges, is a sea-worthy steamer, $100,000 to buy a scud-missile launcher, and a crude nuclear weapon. Then fling the device high into the air and detonate its warhead.
Such a system might not paralyze the entire United States, he concedes. "But you could shut down all of New England. And if you missed by 100 miles, it’s as good as a bulls eye.”
Bartlett brought up questions about the power industry’s vulnerability to EMPs this morning at a House Science subcommittee hearing convened to look at what’s needed to roll out a nationwide “smart grid.” Emerging sensor-driven systems would allow the U.S. power-distribution system to converse back and forth with any devices we plug into it.
A smart grid should, among other things, allow our dishwasher, air conditioner, clothes drier or office lighting to know when the regional demand for power is highest, forcing a need for extra — and higher-cost per kilowatt-hour — generation. Technology already exists to let our electron-fueled gizmos know what the instantaneous cost of power is. So, if we were able to program our appliances and lighting to only run when that cost was low, consumers could help reduce the peaks and valleys in electrical generation (something utilities crave) — and cut our energy costs.
But the core of smart-grid technology — computer-controlled circuits, relays and sensors — would be vulnerable sitting ducks for EMPs, Bartlett charged. And he isn’t alone in feeling so.
Western society’s vulnerability to EMPs is very real, acknowledged Suedeen Kelly, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member who testified at today’s hearing.
“This is indeed a very serious concern that we must address in the context of the smart grid,” added George Arnold of the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Gaithersburg, Md. On the bright side, he said that at least some manufacturers are “sensitive to the issue” and have informed smart-grid developers of efforts being investigated to harden key circuitry.
However, Arnold cited a report on the nation’s EMP vulnerabilities that concluded it’s not practical to try and protect the entire electrical power system — or even all high-value components. So priorities will have to be set as to which assets are most critical,and then focus on shielding them.
But that’s at some indeterminate time in the future. What if a rain of EMPs arrived tomorrow, Bartlett asked?
Depending on the altitude of a detonation, a wide area could be impacted, noted Paul De Martini. This vice president for advanced technology at Southern California Edison, in Rosemead, Calif., also testified at today’s hearing.
Aspects of an EMP weapon might resemble a lightning strike — something the power grid should be able to handle, he said. But other features of an EMP assault would be more akin to events triggered by large solar flares and could damage large elements of the nation’s bulk-transmission system. This is especially true for some “very large, high-voltage transformers that are essentially custom-made,” De Martini said.
Although a spare unit might exist at one utility or another, De Martini noted that obtaining some units — like a new 500,000-volt transformer — requires a long lead time. How long? “It could be two to three years,” he said.
That might make the idea of an EMP attack tempting for some of America’s adversaries, said Bartlett. Because the electronic revolution has not reached North Korea, for example, he argued that it could weather an EMP with “little or no effect.”
But in the United States, a community zapped by EMP weaponry could expect nothing less than physical, economic and civic paralysis. An electronic Armageddon, if you will.
To maximize the real estate zapped, the detonation must take place at relatively high altitude so that the resulting line-of-sight stream of electrons would fan out across a huge swath. For instance, I noted in a story years ago, a small nuclear detonation from a satellite orbiting 250 miles above Omaha might literally shut down traffic coast-to-coast, fry bank computers everywhere and wipe out the North American power grid. Any and everything that relied on vehicles, electricity or computers would remain out of service until the fried circuits were replaced. All gazillion of them.
Only the Amish and others not reliant on late 20th — much less our 21st — century technology would escape unscathed. No wonder the military kept almost all data on EMPs classified until the mid 1960s. Even when I wrote a feature series on EMP weaponry, more than two decades ago, the Defense Department was still reluctant to talk about the nation’s vulnerability. Since then, public discussion of EMP has all but dried up.
But clearly it remains on Bartlett’s radar screen.
At today’s hearing, he recalled sitting in a hotel room in Vienna, Austria, with three members of the Russian Duma several years back. Bartlett said one of them boasted that if Moscow wanted to really injure America, with no fear of retaliation, it would simply authorize a sub to launch a ballistic missile. “’We’d detonate a nuclear weapon high above your country,’” the Russian official told him, “’and shut down your power grid — and your communications — for six months or so.’”
Bartlett recalled another of the Russians adding, ‘“If one weapon wouldn’t do it, we have some spares. Like about 10,000.”
Earlier this week, Bartlett reported, the Secretary of Defense told him that DOD was counting on “deterrence” to protect the United States from EMP terrorism. And Bartlett said he told him: ‘Mr. Secretary, that’s not going to work.’”
America’s leaders have to understand, Bartlett argues, that “The 'smarter' we make the grid, the more vulnerable we are. And unless you’re incorporating EMP protection, you’re simply making it worse rather than better, as far as security is concerned.” To stave off attacks, the congressman recommends that the United States look to technologically limit its vulnerability — because “vulnerability invites attacks.”
If all of this sounds like a playbook for foreign terrorists, don’t worry; I’m hardly letting the cat out of the bag. A novel about an EMP attack on the United States is out, Bartlett noted this morning, and a feature film based on it is in the works.
From Janet Raloff's blog, Science & the Public
That might make the idea of an EMP attack tempting for some of America’s adversaries, said Bartlett. Because the electronic revolution has not reached North Korea, for example, he argued that it could weather an EMP with “little or no effect.”
But in the United States, a community zapped by EMP weaponry could expect nothing less than physical, economic and civic paralysis. An electronic Armageddon, if you will.
To maximize the real estate zapped, the detonation must take place at relatively high altitude so that the resulting line-of-sight stream of electrons would fan out across a huge swath. For instance, I noted in a story years ago, a small nuclear detonation from a satellite orbiting 250 miles above Omaha might literally shut down traffic coast-to-coast, fry bank computers everywhere and wipe out the North American power grid. Any and everything that relied on vehicles, electricity or computers would remain out of service until the fried circuits were replaced. All gazillion of them.
Only the Amish and others not reliant on late 20th — much less our 21st — century technology would escape unscathed. No wonder the military kept almost all data on EMPs classified until the mid 1960s. Even when I wrote a feature series on EMP weaponry, more than two decades ago, the Defense Department was still reluctant to talk about the nation’s vulnerability. Since then, public discussion of EMP has all but dried up.
But clearly it remains on Bartlett’s radar screen.
At today’s hearing, he recalled sitting in a hotel room in Vienna, Austria, with three members of the Russian Duma several years back. Bartlett said one of them boasted that if Moscow wanted to really injure America, with no fear of retaliation, it would simply authorize a sub to launch a ballistic missile. “’We’d detonate a nuclear weapon high above your country,’” the Russian official told him, “’and shut down your power grid — and your communications — for six months or so.’”
Bartlett recalled another of the Russians adding, ‘“If one weapon wouldn’t do it, we have some spares. Like about 10,000.”
Earlier this week, Bartlett reported, the Secretary of Defense told him that DOD was counting on “deterrence” to protect the United States from EMP terrorism. And Bartlett said he told him: ‘Mr. Secretary, that’s not going to work.’”
America’s leaders have to understand, Bartlett argues, that “The 'smarter' we make the grid, the more vulnerable we are. And unless you’re incorporating EMP protection, you’re simply making it worse rather than better, as far as security is concerned.” To stave off attacks, the congressman recommends that the United States look to technologically limit its vulnerability — because “vulnerability invites attacks.”
If all of this sounds like a playbook for foreign terrorists, don’t worry; I’m hardly letting the cat out of the bag. A novel about an EMP attack on the United States is out, Bartlett noted this morning, and a feature film based on it is in the works.
From Janet Raloff's blog, Science & the Public
.
.
.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)