US drones was targeting unidentified militants who posed no threat

Top secret documents show that half of those killed in a year were ‘unknown extremists’

The US government was accused of hiding the truth about its drone programme after leaked intelligence files revealed that it was targeting unidentified militants who posed no immediate threat to the United States.

Despite President Barack Obama’s public promise that the CIA’s armed Predators and Reapers were only firing on those suspected of plotting against America, top-secret documents show that in one year alone almost half of those killed were simply listed as “unknown extremists”.

The documents, obtained by US news agency McClatchy, also reveal Pakistan’s intelligence agency was co-operating with the US at the same time as its government was condemning drone strikes on its soil.

“There is now mounting evidence that the Obama administration is misleading the American public – and the world at large – about the drone war it is waging in Pakistan,” said Jennifer Gibson, a lawyer working with the British human rights charity Reprieve.

“The reports show a significant number of the strikes have nothing to do with al-Qa’ida. Instead, they may have been a quid pro quo exchange between two countries’ spy agencies. The result  is that the US often doesn’t know who it is killing.”

The US has come under increasing international pressure to open up its decision-making process to scrutiny following claims that the drone programme has killed hundreds of civilians among an estimated death toll of 2,500, predominantly in Pakistan and Yemen. Preparations are in place to transfer more control of the programme from the CIA to the Pentagon, in a move said to herald greater transparency.

The US intelligence reports leaked to McClatchy covered, its reporters said, most of the drone strikes in Pakistan during 2006 to 2008 as well as 2010 to 2011. Most of the attacks targeted al-Qa’ida but many were aimed at the Haqqani network and factions of the Pakistani Taliban.

At least 265 of the 482 people killed by the CIA programme in the 12 months up to September 2011 were listed as Afghan, Pakistani or “unknown extremists”.

This contrasts sharply with US administration’s claim that drones are only used to target “senior operational leaders” in al-Qa’ida, those involved in the 11 September 2001 attacks or individuals plotting imminent attacks on the US.

Last night a spokesman for the US Department of Defence said neither they nor the CIA commented on intelligence matters.

OBAMA FAILS TO REGISTER PROPAGANDA ‘ORGANIZINGFORACTION.NET’; INSTEAD THE SITE DIRECTS TO NRA HOME PAGE

 

At the beginning of the year, President Barack Obama’s new 501(c)4 political nonprofit, Organizing For Action, was launched with all the usual bells and whistles.

But the tech wizards at OFA forgot one important rule in today’s Internet world: Register all the iterations of your website address before someone else does.
Now Obama’s team is filing complaints against the folks smart enough to get the addresses before he did.
As Obama’s OFA made its debut, no one in his purportedly Internet-savvy campaign had obtained the corresponding .com, .net, .org or .us sites, nor did OFA register other names that are close to its official one, as is the sensible practice. In the case of the .net address, a fellow named Derek Bovard had already registered the .net address by the time Obama’s team took notice.

Bovard has routed his new site to the homepage of the National Rifle Association.
So, whenever anyone goes to www.organizingforaction.net they end up seeing the homepage of the NRA.
Naturally, Obama and his fellow community organizers were furious. So furious, in fact, that they have replied by filing complaints against Bovard–and, apparently, a variety of other people who had registered domain names that OFA now wants.

Obama’s group filed the complaints with the authority that governs website domain addresses, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The complaints were filed under Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) rules. Obama’s case number is 1483257 and was filed on Feb 6. UDRP cases are usually decided within one to two months after first filing.
Bovard told Breitbart that he feels he has a solid case that he owns the .net address fair, square, and legally.

“We have been granted ‘Service Mark’ #85838531 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for the website as ‘Providing an on-line website featuring information on the United States Constitution and Conservative values’ and we were also the first to use it in ‘commerce.’ So I don’t believe they have any valid legal ground to stand on in regards to this website name. Before purchasing this site I had checked TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) for any existing Trademarks or Service Marks and found none. I also searched for any existing companies called Organizing for Action and found none. So I bought it, legally.”

Bovard said he intends to use the site address to provide “information on the United States Constitution and Conservative values.”

“This site is going to be used strictly to discuss political views and ideas based on Conservative Values, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Freedom of Speech in the USA which seems to be overlooked quite often. My partner and I are firm believers in not only the First and Second Amendment Rights, but in ALL Rights granted to us by our country, my country.”

Bovard also disputed several reports that he offered the address for sale to team Obama.
“I also want to make it perfectly clear that I have no intentions of selling this website name to Obama’s group nor did I purchase it with the intent of selling it to them or anyone else. It’s never been for sale, I’ve never solicited it for sale. I have indicated a personal opinion about it’s worth but that’s it.”

“We have taken what little action we could to contribute to the fight against anyone who attempts to defy or go against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the rights contained within them. We are sickened by the mockery being made of our country and our government and then advertising this mess to our fellow citizens and the rest of the world,” Bovard said in an email.

Over 700 Retired Spec-Ops Soldiers Send Letter To Congress Demanding Benghazi Investigation

” Seven hundred plus retired Special Forces veterans have signed an open letter addressed to the U.S. House of Representatives. “Special Operatipons Speaks” is demanding that there be a select committee be formed by Congress to investigate the attack that took place on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. The following is the text of the letter that was sent. You can also sign the petition to demand Congress act on forming this select committee by clicking here.

To:  Members of The U.S. House of Representatives

Subject: The Benghazi attacks on 9/11/ 2012

The undersigned are a representative group of some 700 retired Military Special Operations professionals who spent the majority of their careers preparing for and executing myriad operations to rescue or recover detained or threatened fellow Americans. In fact, many of us participated in both the Vietnam era POW rescue effort, The Son Tay Raid, as well as Operation Eagle Claw, the failed rescue attempt in April of 1980 in Iran, so we have been at this for many years and have a deep passion for seeking the truth about what happened during the national tragedy in Benghazi.

The purpose of this letter is to encourage all members of the US House of Representatives to support H.Res. 36, which will create a House Select Committee on the Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. It is essential that a full accounting of the events of September 11, 2012, be provided and that the American public be fully informed regarding this egregious terrorist attack on US diplomatic personnel and facilities. We owe that truth to the American people and the families of the fallen.

It appears that many of the facts and details surrounding the terrorist attack which resulted in four American deaths and an undetermined number of American casualties have not yet been ascertained by previous hearings and inquiries. Additional information is now slowly surfacing in the media, which makes a comprehensive bipartisan inquiry an imperative. Many questions have not been answered thus far. The House Select Committee should address, at a minimum, the following questions:

1. Why was there no military response to the events in Benghazi?

a. Were military assets in the region available? If not, why not?

b. If so, were they alerted?

c. Were assets deployed to any location in preparation for a rescue or recovery attempt?

d. Was military assistance requested by the Department of State? If so, what type?

e. Were any US Army/Naval/USMC assets available to support the US diplomats in Benghazi during the attack?

f. What, if any, recommendations for military action were made by DOD and the US Africa Command?

2. What, if any, non-military assistance was provided during the attack?

3. How many US personnel were injured in Benghazi?

4. Why have the survivors of the attack not been questioned?

5. Where are the survivors?

6. Who was in the White House Situation Room (WHSR) during the entire 8-hour period of the attacks, and was a senior US military officer present?

7. Where were Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey during the crisis, and what inputs and recommendations did they make?

8. Where were Tom Donilon, the National Security Advisor, Denis McDonough, his deputy, Valerie Jarrett and John Brennan during the attacks, and what (if any) recommendations or decisions did any of them make?

9. Why were F-16 fighter aircraft based in Aviano, Italy (less than two hours away) never considered a viable option for disruption (if not dispersal) of the attackers until “boots on the ground” (troop support–General Dempsey’s words) arrived?

10. Were any strike aircraft (such as an AC-130 gunship) in the area or possibly overhead that would cause former SEAL Tyrone Woods to laser-designate his attacker’s position and call for gunship fire support, thereby revealing his own location that led to his death?

11. Who gave the order to “STAND DOWN” that was heard repeatedly during the attacks?

12. What threat warnings existed before the attack, and what were the DOD and DOS responses to those warnings? What data (which will reveal exact timelines and command decisions) is contained within the various SITREPS, records, logs, videos and recordings maintained by the myriad of DOD, Intelligence Community and State Department Command Centers that were monitoring the events in Benghazi as they unfolded?

13. Why did the Commander-in Chief and Secretary of State never once check in during the night to find out the status of the crisis situation in Benghazi?

14. What was the nature of Ambassador Stevens’ business in Benghazi at the time of the attack?

15. What guidance has been provided to survivors and family members since the time of the attack, and who issued that guidance?

16. Why are so many agencies now requiring their personnel that were involved in or have access to information regarding the events that took place in Benghazi sign Non-Disclosure Agreements?

This was the most severe attack on American diplomatic facilities and personnel since the attacks on the US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.  Thus far, it appears that there has been no serious effort to determine critical details of this attack. This is inexcusable and demands immediate attention by the Congress. Congress must show some leadership and provide answers to the public as to what actually occurred in Benghazi. Americans have a right to demand a full accounting on this issue.

A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments.  That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked.  That is an unacceptable message.

The House Select Committee should focus on getting a detailed account of the events in Benghazi as soon as possible. H. Res. 36 will provide a structure for the conduct of a thorough inquiry of Benghazi and should be convened immediately.

We ask that you fulfill your responsibilities to the American people and take appropriate action regarding Benghazi. With over sixty members of the US House of Representatives calling for this Select Committee already, it seems that the time is right to take appropriate action on Benghazi.

These brave men are calling up their representatives to do what they have done time and again and that is fulfill their oath. May God grant those in Congress the intestinal fortitude to stand up and do this very thing.”

There is a website devoted to the Benghazi Debacle that we just became aware of . You may want to bookmark it and check for regular updates .

Further Links To The Above Story : 

Hundreds of former military special ops demand a real Benghazi probe

700 Special Ops vets call for Benghazi committee

Special ops veterans’ group calls for select probe of Benghazi attack

 

Related articles

• 700 Retired Spec Ops Calling Congress To Form A Select Committee To Investigate Benghazi(patdollard.com)
• More Stonewalling On Benghazi (youviewed.com)
• 700 Ex Spec Ops Ask For Committee On Benghazi (sweetness-light.com)
• 700 Retired Spec Ops Ask House To Do Full Investigation Into Benghazi (stoptheaclu.com)
• 700 Retired Spec Ops Professionals to Congress: Form a Select Committee to Investigate Benghazi(ncrenegade.com)
• 700 Retired Military Special Ops Tell Congress To Form Select Committee On Benghazi(thedaleygator.wordpress.com)

Preparations for the visit come as Secretary of State John Kerry returns to the Middle East this weekend to patch up relations between Turkey and Israel.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is preparing to meet the Hamas government in Gaza, a move that could further inflame regional tensions.

Preparations for the visit come as Secretary of State John Kerry returns to the Middle East this weekend to patch up relations between Turkey and Israel. Kerry will spend Saturday visiting Israel, the West Bank, and Turkey as he seeks to find common ground between skeptical Middle East leaders, according to reports.

Erdogan’s trip will follow a tenuous diplomatic breakthrough between the Islamist Turkish prime minister and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who recently apologized to Erdogan for a deadly 2010 incident between the two nations that claimed the lives of eight Turks.

It remains unclear just how much headway Kerry will be able to make given Erdogan’s hesitance to embrace Israel fully and back away from his support for Iran and Hamas, according regional experts.

Erdogan has long acted as one of Hamas’s top cheerleaders, leading the charge to legitimize the terrorist group. The relationship blossomed long before the deadly 2010 flotilla raid harmed relations between Turkey and Israel.

“This certainly didn’t start with the flotilla,” said David Pollock, a former Middle East adviser at the State Department. “It goes back not only longer, but deeper because support for Hamas is not just against Israel but is in line with Erdogan’s overall Muslim Brotherhood orientation, his Islamic orientation.”

“The question that I would ask is not only why does Erdogan support Hamas against Israel but also support Hamas against the Palestinian Authority and [PA President] Mahmoud Abbas,” said Pollock, who currently serves as a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

The PA has opposed Erdogan’s planned trip to Israel, claiming it will only “deepen divisions among the Palestinians,” according to regional media reports.

Erdogan announced he would visit Gaza and Hamas after Netanyahu offered his apology, leading State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell to express “deep concern” during a press briefing on March 27.

Erdogan, recently dubbed by President Barack Obama as one of his top five international friends, is attempting to consolidate power by appealing to all sides, experts said.

“He tries to play both sides,” Pollock said. “He patched things up supposedly with Netanyahu on Obama’s recent visit [to Israel], but he continues to show support for Hamas. It’s possible in his mind he actually believes Hamas can be brought around to accept peace with Israel, but if he does, it isn’t true. There’s a real contradiction here.”

Erdogan has said he is Hamas’ champion, even claiming in the past that he wants to “represent Hamas on international platforms.”

The Turkish prime minister remains committed to engaging Hamas at every opportunity despite its ongoing terrorist activities.

“We should not be squeezing them into the corner,” he said in a 2009 speech before the European Union.

Erdogan has even vowed to personally escort any flotilla that seeks to break Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip—a promise that was made well after the deadly 2010 incident.

Hamas leaders also view Erdogan as a top ally.

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh named his grandson after Erdogan so that the Turkish leader’s name “reverberated on every tongue” in the Gaza Strip, according to a 2010 report in Today’s Zaman.

Erdogan and Hamas have rallied around their opposition to Israel.

Erdogan has dubbed Israeli military operations against Hamas fighters “state terror.”

When Israel launched its 2008 military incursion into Gaza to combat ongoing terrorist rocket attacks, Erdogan described it as “an act of disrespect toward Turkey.”

“The crucial break point for Erdogan in this area was not the flotilla, but the Gaza war in December of ’08,” said Pollock. “That was the turning point. He took it very personally.”

Hamas attacks on Israel are justified in Erdogan’s view.

“I do not think that Hamas is a terrorist organization,” he said in April 2010, according to the Hurriyet Daily News. “I said the same thing to the United States. I am still of the same opinion. They are Palestinians in resistance, fighting for their own land.”

Erdogan’s recent bid to soften tensions with Israel are aimed at boosting his own image, according to Tony Badran, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

“Turkish officials are of the belief that, ‘We are going act as a mediator that is going to lead the [peace] process,’” Badran said. “That’s how they’re putting it out. He’s trying to raise the profile of Turkey as a mediator once again, specifically using the Palestinians as a platform”

The United States has been left with few diplomatic options given the regional climate.

“Realistically, we have to deal with this guy,” said Pollock. “He’s in charge of a very, very important country for the region and for us. I think he has hismishegas [craziness], but he’s demonstrated that he can be quite pragmatic toward us and even toward Israel. We have to make the best of not a great situation.”

Obama raises California money for Democrats while trying not to jeopardize his 2nd-term agenda

Making a down payment on his vow to go all in for Democrats in 2014, President Barack Obama is courting well-heeled donors in California on a two-day fundraising jaunt that requires the president to walk a fine line: Berate Republicans too much, and Obama could put fragile prospects for achieving his second-term goals in jeopardy.

Obama’s California swing, which started Tuesday with two fundraisers for House Democrats, kicks off a concerted effort to help his party win back the House and keep its Senate majority next year. It’s a mission that, if successful, would improve his playing field and help him secure his legacy during his final two years in office, a lame-duck period in which a president’s influence quickly ebbs.

Making his pitch to donors Tuesday night in San Francisco, Obama said he’s prepared this year to work with Republicans to pass legislation aimed at gun violence, an immigration overhaul and fiscal stability.

“But, realistically, I’d get a whole lot more done if Nancy Pelosi is speaker of the House,” Obama said with the California congresswoman and House Democratic leader at his side.

The short-term pitfalls are clear. Obama has spent much of the past month pursuing warmer relations with Republicans in Congress whose votes he needs to enact his agenda. Republicans on the receiving end of Obama’s ongoing “charm offensive” — the president will dine with Senate Republicans next week for a second time — say his partisan tone when he leaves Washington makes them question his sincerity when he says he’s willing to meet Republicans halfway.

“He’s doing a pretty lousy job of it,” Reince Priebus, the chair of the Republican Party, said in an interview. “If he was someone who was as conciliatory as he proclaims to be, you would think he would have a few decent relationships with Republicans, but he doesn’t. Instead, he spends most of his time campaigning.”

White House officials are mindful of the balancing act Obama must carry out to avoid undermining relations with Republican lawmakers when he hits the campaign trail for Democrats. Aides say the president can carry out both goals at once by avoiding explicit attacks on Republicans, instead focusing on elements of his agenda that enjoy broad public support and urging voters to support candidates who will back that agenda.

“The president’s appeal to his supporters won’t interfere with his continued efforts to work with Republicans to move that agenda through the Congress,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

Almost immediately after winning re-election in November, Obama made clear he would put his full weight behind efforts to elect Democrats in the 2014 midterms, upping his commitment from previous years. During Obama’s first term, some Democrats complained he didn’t do enough to help — especially in 2010, when Democrats lost control of the House.

This time, Democratic officials say, Obama will headline at least 20 fundraisers: six for House Democrats, six for Senate Democrats and two joint House-Senate events, plus another half-dozen or so for the Democratic National Committee, which is still retiring the debt it racked up last year helping Obama win a second term.