Malala visits Obama in the White House link here
"I thanked President Obama for the United States' work in supporting
education in Pakistan and Afghanistan and for Syrian refugees,"
Yousafzai said in a statement published by the Associated Press. "I also
expressed my concerns that drone attacks are fueling terrorism.
Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment
among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will
make a big impact."
BBC 16 questions (well, statements) for Glenn Greenwald link here
NSA and the Conspiracy to Committ Journalism link here
Business Insider ""Top Republican replaces Obamacare With Obamacare link here
My Blog Post http://libdemtweets.blogspot.com/2013/10/issa-replaces-obamacare-with-obamacare.html
LIBDEM TWEETS---tweets from @libdem2 and @libdemwasjailed
Showing posts with label Drones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drones. Show all posts
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Saturday sept 28
US DRONES IN AFRICA MAP http://publicintelligence.net/us-drones-in-africa/
NSA Gathers Data on Social Connections of U.S. Citizens link here
Since 2010, the National Security Agency has been exploiting its huge collections of data to create sophisticated graphs of some Americans’ social connections that can identify their associates, their locations at certain times, their traveling companions and other personal information, according to newly disclosed documents and interviews with officials.
The spy agency began allowing the analysis of phone call and e-mail logs in November 2010 to examine Americans’ networks of associations for foreign intelligence purposes after N.S.A. officials lifted restrictions on the practice, according to documents provided by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor.
The policy shift was intended to help the agency “discover and track” connections between intelligence targets overseas and people in the United States, according to an N.S.A. memorandum from January 2011. The agency was authorized to conduct “large-scale graph analysis on very large sets of communications metadata without having to check foreignness” of every e-mail address, phone number or other identifier, the document said. Because of concerns about infringing on the privacy of American citizens, the computer analysis of such data had previously been permitted only for foreigners.
The agency can augment the communications data with material from public, commercial and other sources, including bank codes, insurance information, Facebook profiles, passenger manifests, voter registration rolls and GPS location information, as well as property records and unspecified tax data, according to the documents.
They do not indicate any restrictions on the use of such “enrichment” data, and several former senior Obama administration officials said the agency drew on it for both Americans and foreigners.
N.S.A. officials declined to say how many Americans have been caught up in the effort, including people involved in no wrongdoing.
The legal underpinning of the policy change, she said, was a 1979 Supreme Court ruling that Americans could have no expectation of privacy about what numbers they had called.
In 2006, months after the wiretapping program was disclosed by The New York Times, the N.S.A.’s acting general counsel wrote a letter to a senior Justice Department official, which was also leaked by Mr. Snowden, formally asking for permission to perform the analysis on American phone and e-mail data. A Justice Department memo to the attorney general noted that the “misuse” of such information “could raise serious concerns,” and said the N.S.A. promised to impose safeguards, including regular audits (HMM EVERY 3 MONTHS BY FISA??), on the metadata program. In 2008, the Bush administration gave its approval.
The concerns in the United States since Mr. Snowden’s revelations have largely focused on the scope of the agency’s collection of the private data of Americans and the potential for abuse. But the new documents provide a rare window into what the N.S.A. actually does with the information it gathers.
A series of agency PowerPoint presentations and memos describe how the N.S.A. has been able to develop software and other tools — one document cited a new generation of programs that “revolutionize” data collection and analysis — to unlock as many secrets about individuals as possible.
MY COMMENT----WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES IT SAY GOVT CAN MONITOR AMERICANS TO CATCH FOREIGN TERRORISTS??!!! 4TH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST THAT----ITS LIBERTY OVER SECURITY---WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT
Justices Say GPS Tracker Violated Privacy Rights
Jan 2012 link here
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled unanimously that the police violated the Constitution when they placed a Global Positioning System tracking device on a suspect’s car and monitored its movements for 28 days.
broad privacy principles to bring the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable searches into the digital age, when law enforcement officials can gather extensive information without ever entering an individual’s home or vehicle.
But five justices also discussed their discomfort with the government’s use of or access to various modern technologies, including video surveillance in public places, automatic toll collection systems on highways, devices that allow motorists to signal for roadside assistance, location data from cellphone towers and records kept by online merchants.
“We hold that the government’s installation of a GPS device on a target’s vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a ‘search,’ ” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor joined the majority opinion.
“The use of longer-term GPS monitoring in investigations of most offenses,” Justice Alito wrote, “impinges on expectations of privacy.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the concurrence.
MY COMMENT----I WONDER WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF NSA SPYING WENT TO SUPREME COURT----
Metadata great for finding journalists' sources---not at catching terrorists link here
The National Security Agency says that the telephone metadata it collects on every American is essential for finding terrorists. And that's debatable. But this we know for sure: Metadata is very useful for tracking journalists and discovering their sources.
On Monday, a former FBI agent and bomb technician pleaded guilty to leaking classified information to the Associated Press about a successful CIA operation in Yemen. As it turns out, phone metadata was the key to finding him.
FBI investigators started looking for the source of the story. They interviewed more than 550 officials, but they came up short.
So, in a highly controversial move, investigators secretly obtained a subpoena for phone records of AP reporters and editors. The records, which included the metadata of who had called whom, and how long the call lasted, covered a period in April and May of 2012. That was right around the time that the AP was reporting the Yemen story.
Once investigators looked at that phone metadata, they got their big break in the case.
SPY Q and A with Chris Boyce
A smart young dropout is welcomed into a promising career in the top secret world of U.S. defense contracting, but he’s quickly shocked to discover the deception practiced by America’s intelligence agencies at the highest levels. Disillusioned and outraged, he takes matters into his own hands and begins exfiltrating highly-classified documents right under the nose of his employer.
Today, that might describe NSA leaker Edward Snowden. But back in 1975, it was 22-year-old Christopher Boyce, who joined TRW as a telex operator and found himself handling some of the the government’s most sensitive communications. From inside TRW’s “Black Vault,” Boyce claims he learned the CIA was actively undermining the elected, left-wing government of Australia.
But instead of leaking to the press, as Snowden, and WikiLeaks leaker Chelsea Manning, would do decades later, Boyce became a spy. He embarked on a personal mission to damage the U.S. defense and intelligence complex, supplying classified crypto keys and program information to his friend Andrew Daulton Lee, who in turn traveled to Mexico and sold the information to the KGB.
Boyce and Lee were arrested in 1977 and both convicted of espionage.
The saga was the subject of the book and film The Falcon and the Snowman
I think that if contractors are going to leak info they need to go where they’re going to have asylum, stay there and then leak. And then that way the story becomes what they’re leaking and not the chase.
WIRED: If you were 30 years younger, do you think you would have been more like an Edward Snowden than someone who was going to sell secrets to the Russians?
Boyce: I have a quarter of a century of experience in the federal prison [system]. I almost spent 10 years in solitary confinement, and I just don’t think I could ever do that to myself again. I couldn’t bring the rage of the government down on my head again. Snowden’s a braver man than I would be now. I couldn’t do that again, and I’m sure there are hundreds and hundreds of other NSA contractors who also are thinking, ‘I couldn’t bring the power of the fed government down on me like that.’
So to what degree do you think the ‘problem’ is the public doesn’t have access to enough information about what governments are doing versus the problem being just general apathy?
Boyce: Well, I agree with what my wife Cait said here not so long ago: The average American is more interested in how much cream and sugar he has in his coffee than his civil liberties.
I have to tell you that I’m very pessimistic. I think the surveillance state will get stronger and stronger. I’m not optimistic at all that civil liberties are going to be protected, and I think that’s the direction that we’re headed.
SYRIA chem weapons UN agreement link here
The UN Security Council has unanimously adopted a binding resolution on ridding Syria of chemical weapons.
At a session in New York, the 15-member body backed the draft document agreed earlier by Russia and the US.The deal breaks a two-and-a-half year deadlock in the UN over Syria, where fighting between government forces and rebels rages on.
The vote came after the international chemical watchdog agreed on a plan to destroy Syria's stockpile by mid-2014.
Next Citizens United can be worse link here
What’s at stake in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission — for which oral arguments are scheduled on Oct. 8 — is the limit to individual political spending. The federal government sets separate limits for each election cycle on how much an individual can give to candidates, party committees and political action committees. But it also currently limits overall spending to $123,200. It’s that overall limit that the McCutcheon fight is about. Proponents say it prevents corruption; opponents say it limits speech.
“We’re not challenging — and the plaintiff in McCutcheon is not challenging — any of the individual contribution limits,” says Rick Esenberg, a Marquette University Law School professor and president and general counsel of the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which filed a brief opposing the limit. Why, they ask, is it OK to donate $2,600 to 18 campaigns, but not 19? The case was brought by the Republican National Committee and Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman and conservative activist.
At the federal level only a small group — 646 individuals — bumped up against that aggregate limit during the 2012 election cycle, according to The Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets blog. But spending limits in a handful of states are lower, meaning that if they fall money could come flowing in.
While McCutcheon only affects the federal limit, experts are watching it closely and many on both sides believe the state limits either won’t survive or would become very vulnerable if the federal cap is nullified.
WIKILEAKS
Microphone was placed in Ecuador Embassy in London before visit to Assange link here
NYPD Whistleblower Adrian Schoolcraft link here
Cory Booker
"I think it's pretty well known that the mayor talks with people from all walks of life on Twitter," Booker spokesman Kevin Griffis told Daily Intelligencer. "There have been a couple of stories about that over the years. Really, the most shocking part of this story was learning there is a vegan strip club in Portland."
Lee said she did donate $100 to his Senate campaign.
HBO Newsroom---Operation Genoa (CNN operation Tailwind report)
Wikipedia Operation Tailwind
CNN retraction document
CNN video report
CNN program transcript
TIME magazine report
CNN retraction document
CNN video report
CNN program transcript
TIME magazine report
Monday, September 23, 2013
monday sept 23
Kenya Mall Attack link here
Kenyan security forces say they are in the final stages of clearing the Westgate shopping complex in Nairobi, and ending the deadly three-day siege.
Explosions and heavy gunfire were reported earlier as soldiers stormed the mall, where suspected al-Shabab militants are thought to be holed up.
The Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) said three "terrorists" had been killed and all escape routes sealed off.
The Victims link here
The Kenya attack----what happened (from BBC) link here
Somalia Al Shabab said attack was for Kenyan troops in Somalia----they are there with
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24211925
At least 62 people have been killed after militants believed to be from the Somali Islamist group al-Shabab stormed the Westgate shopping centre in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. Kenyan journalist Joseph Warungu asks whether more could have been done to prevent the attack.
When the Westgate crisis is finally over, the Kenyan government will need to ask itself some hard questions:
1) With the lessons learnt from the 1998 US embassy bombings and Westgate, how can we prevent such a terrible incident from happening again?
2) How can we review and restructure our security organs and co-ordinate them better so that they can be more effective in future?
3) With Kenyans' historical mistrust of the police, how can we rebuild their trust so that they easily and freely share valuable intelligence with the police?
4) How can we ensure that corruption does not become the terrorist's best weapon of mass destruction?
With President Uhuru Kenyatta himself losing a relative in the Westgate attack and pledging to stand firm against terrorism, Kenyans are hopeful that their government will focus its undivided attention on these pressing security concerns.
The Westgate shopping mall has a round-the-clock security operation with guards thoroughly inspecting each and every car that enters the premises. The guards don't even allow anyone to sit and wait in their parked vehicles.
So how is it possible for terrorists to breach all this security and reach one of the most prestigious shopping centres in Kenya?
The answer is that 15 people with AK-47s and grenades are difficult to stop.
Al-Shabab means The Youth in Arabic. It emerged as the radical youth wing of Somalia's now-defunct Union of Islamic Courts in 2006, as it fought Ethiopian forces who had entered Somalia to back the weak interim government.
There are numerous reports of foreign jihadists going to Somalia to help al-Shabab and it has formed links with al-Qaeda.
It is banned as a terrorist group by both the US and the UK.
It has imposed a strict version of Sharia law in areas under its control, including stoning to death women accused of adultery and amputating the hands of thieves.
Now, it is clear that the group is using those resources to punish Kenya on its own soil, mostly for its role within Somalia, but also, to some degree, because of growing American support for the Kenyan security forces.
Al Shabab was formed in the middle of last decade as the small, armed militia for Somalia’s Islamic Courts Union, which had risen to power after driving a group of C.I.A.-financed Somali warlords from Mogadishu.
The Cairo Court for Urgent Matters said the ruling applied to the Islamist movement, its non-governmental organisation and any affiliated groups.
It also ordered the interim government to seize the Brotherhood's funds and form a panel to administer its frozen assets until any appeal had been heard.
The military authorities have launched a crackdown on the group since ousting President Mohammed Morsi on 3 July.
The 85-year-old Islamist movement was banned by Egypt's military rulers in 1954, but registered an NGO called the Muslim Brotherhood Association in March in response to a court case bought by opponents who contested its legal status.
Following Mr Morsi's overthrow and the suspension of the Islamist-friendly 2012 constitution, the Cairo administrative court and the social solidarity ministry were tasked with reviewing the Brotherhood's legal status.
Sunday's double suicide bombing is thought to be Pakistan's deadliest attack against Christians.
Many burials have taken place and candlelight vigils have also been held in memory of the victims.
Two Islamist militant groups with Taliban links said they ordered the attack to hit back at US drone strikes.
Witnesses said they heard two blasts, the second more powerful than the first. Suicide vests were later found outside the church, officials said.
Reports say the walls of the church was dimpled from the force of the ball bearings that had been packed into the explosives, in an effort to cause as much damage as possible.
More than 120 people were wounded in the assault.
It is unclear exactly who was behind the attack, with two militant groups claiming responsibility. Jandullah and the Junood ul-Hifsa - both with past links to the Pakistani Taliban - said they had ordered the double bombing in retaliation for US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal north-west.
The Pakistani Taliban, however, condemned the attack. Correspondents say the group frequently denies responsibility for attacks which take a heavy civilian toll.
It is the latest in a series of attacks on Pakistani Christians, who represent about 1.6% of the country's overwhelmingly Muslim population.
11 Afghan police killed link here
At least 11 Afghan policemen have been killed in an attack by Taliban militants on a checkpoint on the border with Pakistan, officials say.
The attack took place at a border post in the district of Shorabak in Kandahar province on Sunday morning.
A Taliban spokesman confirmed that the group had carried out the attack.
Afghan police are bearing the brunt of much of the Taliban's insurgency as foreign forces prepare to withdraw before the end of next year.
NATO troops have gradually been handing over responsibility for security to their Afghan counterparts, who now lead about 90% of all security operations.
Israel to act against foreign diplomats link here
Israel has threatened to take action against a French diplomat after video emerged of her pushing or hitting an Israeli soldier.
The incident took place on Friday near the Bedouin village of Khirbet al-Makhul in the West Bank.
Israeli forces had prevented European and UN diplomats from delivering aid to residents whose homes were demolished under a High Court order.
Israel's Foreign Ministry says the diplomats were breaking the law.
It said that border police and IDF soldiers did not use force to remove a French diplomat, Marion Fesneau-Castaing, from her vehicle as had been reported. However in footage of events she could be seen raising her hand to a border police officer.
At the hearing in Alberta, Canada, lawyers for Omar Khadr, 27, will challenge his terms of imprisonment.
He was 15 when he was detained wounded in Afghanistan after a gun battle during which he killed a US soldier.
Khadr was last seen in October 2010, though under strictly limited conditions, before a military court in Guantanamo, where he pleaded guilty to war crimes.
He received five concurrent eight-year sentences.
After being transferred to Canada last year, he was first held at the maximum security Millhaven Institution in eastern Ontario, largely in isolation.
Kenyan security forces say they are in the final stages of clearing the Westgate shopping complex in Nairobi, and ending the deadly three-day siege.
Explosions and heavy gunfire were reported earlier as soldiers stormed the mall, where suspected al-Shabab militants are thought to be holed up.
The Kenya Defence Forces (KDF) said three "terrorists" had been killed and all escape routes sealed off.
The Victims link here
The Kenya attack----what happened (from BBC) link here
Somalia Al Shabab said attack was for Kenyan troops in Somalia----they are there with
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-24211925
At least 62 people have been killed after militants believed to be from the Somali Islamist group al-Shabab stormed the Westgate shopping centre in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. Kenyan journalist Joseph Warungu asks whether more could have been done to prevent the attack.
Kenya's timeline of terror
- 1998: US embassy in Nairobi bombed, killing 224 people - one of al-Qaeda's first international attacks
- 2002: Attack on Israeli-owned hotel near Mombasa kills 10 Kenyans. Simultaneous rocket attack on an Israeli airliner fails
- 2011: Suspected al-Shabab militants raid Kenyan coastal resorts and a refugee camp, targeting and kidnapping foreigners
- 2011: Kenya sends troops into Somalia to tackle al-Shabab
- 2011-13: Numerous grenade attacks near Somali border and in Nairobi
When the Westgate crisis is finally over, the Kenyan government will need to ask itself some hard questions:
1) With the lessons learnt from the 1998 US embassy bombings and Westgate, how can we prevent such a terrible incident from happening again?
2) How can we review and restructure our security organs and co-ordinate them better so that they can be more effective in future?
3) With Kenyans' historical mistrust of the police, how can we rebuild their trust so that they easily and freely share valuable intelligence with the police?
4) How can we ensure that corruption does not become the terrorist's best weapon of mass destruction?
With President Uhuru Kenyatta himself losing a relative in the Westgate attack and pledging to stand firm against terrorism, Kenyans are hopeful that their government will focus its undivided attention on these pressing security concerns.
So how is it possible for terrorists to breach all this security and reach one of the most prestigious shopping centres in Kenya?
The answer is that 15 people with AK-47s and grenades are difficult to stop.
Who are Al Shabab? link here
Somalia's al-Shabab, which has carried out the deadly attack on a shopping centre in neighbouring Kenya, is linked with al-Qaeda. It has been pushed out of all of the main towns it once controlled in southern and central parts of Somalia, but still remains a potent threat.Al-Shabab means The Youth in Arabic. It emerged as the radical youth wing of Somalia's now-defunct Union of Islamic Courts in 2006, as it fought Ethiopian forces who had entered Somalia to back the weak interim government.
There are numerous reports of foreign jihadists going to Somalia to help al-Shabab and it has formed links with al-Qaeda.
It is banned as a terrorist group by both the US and the UK.
It has imposed a strict version of Sharia law in areas under its control, including stoning to death women accused of adultery and amputating the hands of thieves.
NYT article link here
Counterterrorism officials say that the Shabab’s sophistication has only increased as it has made common cause with groups including franchises of Al Qaeda in Yemen and Northern Africa and the Boko Haram organization in Nigeria, sharing tactics, techniques, training and financing.Now, it is clear that the group is using those resources to punish Kenya on its own soil, mostly for its role within Somalia, but also, to some degree, because of growing American support for the Kenyan security forces.
In recent years, Kenya has worked closely with the Americans on military cooperation, hunting Al Qaeda and combating piracy. The C.I.A. station in Nairobi is among the largest in Africa. And the United States ambassador to Kenya, Robert F. Godec, was formerly the State Department’s deputy coordinator for counterterrorism.
NPR on Al Shabab link here
MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD ACTIVITIES BANNED IN EGYPT link here
A court in Egypt has banned "all activities" by the Muslim Brotherhood.The Cairo Court for Urgent Matters said the ruling applied to the Islamist movement, its non-governmental organisation and any affiliated groups.
It also ordered the interim government to seize the Brotherhood's funds and form a panel to administer its frozen assets until any appeal had been heard.
The military authorities have launched a crackdown on the group since ousting President Mohammed Morsi on 3 July.
The 85-year-old Islamist movement was banned by Egypt's military rulers in 1954, but registered an NGO called the Muslim Brotherhood Association in March in response to a court case bought by opponents who contested its legal status.
Following Mr Morsi's overthrow and the suspension of the Islamist-friendly 2012 constitution, the Cairo administrative court and the social solidarity ministry were tasked with reviewing the Brotherhood's legal status.
Who's Who in Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood link here
Churches attacked in Pakistan link here
Protests and vigils have taken place across Pakistan as Christians demand better protection after suicide blasts killed at least 80 people at a church.Sunday's double suicide bombing is thought to be Pakistan's deadliest attack against Christians.
Many burials have taken place and candlelight vigils have also been held in memory of the victims.
Two Islamist militant groups with Taliban links said they ordered the attack to hit back at US drone strikes.
Reports say the walls of the church was dimpled from the force of the ball bearings that had been packed into the explosives, in an effort to cause as much damage as possible.
More than 120 people were wounded in the assault.
It is unclear exactly who was behind the attack, with two militant groups claiming responsibility. Jandullah and the Junood ul-Hifsa - both with past links to the Pakistani Taliban - said they had ordered the double bombing in retaliation for US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal north-west.
The Pakistani Taliban, however, condemned the attack. Correspondents say the group frequently denies responsibility for attacks which take a heavy civilian toll.
It is the latest in a series of attacks on Pakistani Christians, who represent about 1.6% of the country's overwhelmingly Muslim population.
At least 11 Afghan policemen have been killed in an attack by Taliban militants on a checkpoint on the border with Pakistan, officials say.
The attack took place at a border post in the district of Shorabak in Kandahar province on Sunday morning.
A Taliban spokesman confirmed that the group had carried out the attack.
Afghan police are bearing the brunt of much of the Taliban's insurgency as foreign forces prepare to withdraw before the end of next year.
NATO troops have gradually been handing over responsibility for security to their Afghan counterparts, who now lead about 90% of all security operations.
Israel to act against foreign diplomats link here
Israel has threatened to take action against a French diplomat after video emerged of her pushing or hitting an Israeli soldier.
The incident took place on Friday near the Bedouin village of Khirbet al-Makhul in the West Bank.
Israeli forces had prevented European and UN diplomats from delivering aid to residents whose homes were demolished under a High Court order.
Israel's Foreign Ministry says the diplomats were breaking the law.
It said that border police and IDF soldiers did not use force to remove a French diplomat, Marion Fesneau-Castaing, from her vehicle as had been reported. However in footage of events she could be seen raising her hand to a border police officer.
Former GITMO detainee to appear in court link here
A former Guantanamo detainee is expected in court, in what would be his first public appearance since his capture in an Afghan firefight in 2002.At the hearing in Alberta, Canada, lawyers for Omar Khadr, 27, will challenge his terms of imprisonment.
He was 15 when he was detained wounded in Afghanistan after a gun battle during which he killed a US soldier.
Khadr was last seen in October 2010, though under strictly limited conditions, before a military court in Guantanamo, where he pleaded guilty to war crimes.
He received five concurrent eight-year sentences.
After being transferred to Canada last year, he was first held at the maximum security Millhaven Institution in eastern Ontario, largely in isolation.
NSA leaks ----interview with Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger link here
AP leak investigation Yemen Al Qaeda bomb plot double agent
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/fbi-ex-agent-pleads-guilty-in-leak-to-ap.html?_r=0
A former F.B.I. agent has agreed to plead guilty to leaking classified information to The Associated Press about a foiled bomb plot in Yemen last year, the Justice Department announced Monday. In a twist, the former agent had already been under investigation in a separate child pornography case, and he has also agreed to a guilty plea in it.
Federal investigators said they were able to identify the man, Donald Sachtleben, a former bomb technician, as a suspect in the leak case only after secretly obtaining A.P. reporters’ phone logs, a move that set off an uproar among journalists and members of Congress of both parties when it was disclosed in May.
“This prosecution demonstrates our deep resolve to hold accountable anyone who would violate their solemn duty to protect our nation’s secrets, and to prevent future, potentially devastating leaks by those who would wantonly ignore their obligations to safeguard classified information,” said Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States attorney for the District of Columbia.
The 43-month sentence for leak-related offenses is the longest ever imposed by a federal civilian court in such a case, although a military judge last month sentenced Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Pfc. Bradley Manning, to 35 years in prison for leaking archives of documents to WikiLeaks.
Article from May
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/fbi-ex-agent-pleads-guilty-in-leak-to-ap.html?_r=0
A former F.B.I. agent has agreed to plead guilty to leaking classified information to The Associated Press about a foiled bomb plot in Yemen last year, the Justice Department announced Monday. In a twist, the former agent had already been under investigation in a separate child pornography case, and he has also agreed to a guilty plea in it.
Federal investigators said they were able to identify the man, Donald Sachtleben, a former bomb technician, as a suspect in the leak case only after secretly obtaining A.P. reporters’ phone logs, a move that set off an uproar among journalists and members of Congress of both parties when it was disclosed in May.
“This prosecution demonstrates our deep resolve to hold accountable anyone who would violate their solemn duty to protect our nation’s secrets, and to prevent future, potentially devastating leaks by those who would wantonly ignore their obligations to safeguard classified information,” said Ronald C. Machen Jr., the United States attorney for the District of Columbia.
The 43-month sentence for leak-related offenses is the longest ever imposed by a federal civilian court in such a case, although a military judge last month sentenced Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Pfc. Bradley Manning, to 35 years in prison for leaking archives of documents to WikiLeaks.
Article from May
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-obtains-wide-ap-phone-records-probe
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Obama's Syria Speech Sept 10 and my comments
The Speech Text (MY COMMENTS ARE IN PARENTHESIS AFTER THE QUOTE)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html
PRESIDENT OBAMA: My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. (do bombs distinguish?? bullets?? does any weapon ONLY hit soldiers??) And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity. (who has held us accountable when WE used napalm, agent orange, nukes in japan, or white phosphorus or depleted uranium??)
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. (again none of this is an immediate threat that cannot be worked on with diplomacy)
If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
That’s my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But I’m also the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops,(SO CAN WE FIX THE VA BACKLOG NOW??? link here ) while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I’ve spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want all of us in Washington -- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. (I do wish GOP who oppose strike in Syria would be with you on domestic issues)
It’s no wonder, then, that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress, and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.
First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. (even for chemical weapons??) I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. (I DO appreciate that reassurance, but still fear a slide into war) This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities. (My hope is it is avoided altogether OR is very limited--no more than a week--we need CLEAR ACHIEVABLE GOALS)
Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. (THIS is the Obama I appreciate---knowledge of history) But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America. (again more nuance and wisdom----THANKS!!)
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where -- as one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?”
It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria (possibly) if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. (HOPEFULLY)
Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, (any since the civil war started?? link here OK no evidence of NEW sanctions since civil war started link here CORRECTIONS here here here) warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. (good to hear)
It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action.
Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.(Lets help those vets who already served!!! link here)
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. (and unfortunately a supporter of dictators and leader of coups as well here and here) This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. (Unless its Israel here) The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.
And so, to my friends on the right, (wait, you have friends on the right???) I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, (are you admitting you're a centrist??) I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. (well, your friends on the left ask a lot of you as well)
Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way? (we would continue to be the United States, who picks and chooses When and where to apply the laws we say we uphold)
Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.
America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. (GLAD to hear you say that again, but we CAN try diplomacy and interactions and negotiations to TRY to fix problems around the world) But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
Transcript courtesy of the White House.
Fact check Obama's Syria case still lacks proof
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=c4pHyAza
No Satellite images or intercepts shown, video lacks evidence of who launched attacks, and number of dead is still larger than anyone else says.
The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/running-transcript-president-obamas-sept-10-speech-on-syria/2013/09/10/a8826aa6-1a2e-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html
PRESIDENT OBAMA: My fellow Americans, tonight I want to talk to you about Syria -- why it matters, and where we go from here.
Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.
This was not always the case. In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe. In World War II, the Nazis used gas to inflict the horror of the Holocaust. Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them. (do bombs distinguish?? bullets?? does any weapon ONLY hit soldiers??) And in 1997, the United States Senate overwhelmingly approved an international agreement prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, now joined by 189 governments that represent 98 percent of humanity. (who has held us accountable when WE used napalm, agent orange, nukes in japan, or white phosphorus or depleted uranium??)
On August 21st, these basic rules were violated, along with our sense of common humanity. No one disputes that chemical weapons were used in Syria. The world saw thousands of videos, cell phone pictures, and social media accounts from the attack, and humanitarian organizations told stories of hospitals packed with people who had symptoms of poison gas.
Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gasmasks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighborhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces. Shortly after those rockets landed, the gas spread, and hospitals filled with the dying and the wounded. We know senior figures in Assad’s military machine reviewed the results of the attack, and the regime increased their shelling of the same neighborhoods in the days that followed. We’ve also studied samples of blood and hair from people at the site that tested positive for sarin.
When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory. But these things happened. The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it. Because what happened to those people -- to those children -- is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.
Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. (again none of this is an immediate threat that cannot be worked on with diplomacy)
If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.
This is not a world we should accept. This is what’s at stake. And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
That’s my judgment as Commander-in-Chief. But I’m also the President of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy. So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.
This is especially true after a decade that put more and more war-making power in the hands of the President, and more and more burdens on the shoulders of our troops,(SO CAN WE FIX THE VA BACKLOG NOW??? link here ) while sidelining the people’s representatives from the critical decisions about when we use force.
Now, I know that after the terrible toll of Iraq and Afghanistan, the idea of any military action, no matter how limited, is not going to be popular. After all, I’ve spent four and a half years working to end wars, not to start them. Our troops are out of Iraq. Our troops are coming home from Afghanistan. And I know Americans want all of us in Washington -- especially me -- to concentrate on the task of building our nation here at home: putting people back to work, educating our kids, growing our middle class. (I do wish GOP who oppose strike in Syria would be with you on domestic issues)
It’s no wonder, then, that you’re asking hard questions. So let me answer some of the most important questions that I’ve heard from members of Congress, and that I’ve read in letters that you’ve sent to me.
First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.”
My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. (even for chemical weapons??) I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. (I DO appreciate that reassurance, but still fear a slide into war) This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities. (My hope is it is avoided altogether OR is very limited--no more than a week--we need CLEAR ACHIEVABLE GOALS)
Others have asked whether it’s worth acting if we don’t take out Assad. As some members of Congress have said, there’s no point in simply doing a “pinprick” strike in Syria.
Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. (THIS is the Obama I appreciate---knowledge of history) But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America. (again more nuance and wisdom----THANKS!!)
Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where -- as one person wrote to me -- “those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?”
It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria (possibly) if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism. (HOPEFULLY)
Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force? As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.”
I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, (any since the civil war started?? link here OK no evidence of NEW sanctions since civil war started link here CORRECTIONS here here here) warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.
However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. (good to hear)
It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.
I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action.
Meanwhile, I’ve ordered our military to maintain their current posture to keep the pressure on Assad, and to be in a position to respond if diplomacy fails. And tonight, I give thanks again to our military and their families for their incredible strength and sacrifices.(Lets help those vets who already served!!! link here)
My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades, the United States has been the anchor of global security. (and unfortunately a supporter of dictators and leader of coups as well here and here) This has meant doing more than forging international agreements -- it has meant enforcing them. (Unless its Israel here) The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world is a better place because we have borne them.
And so, to my friends on the right, (wait, you have friends on the right???) I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, (are you admitting you're a centrist??) I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. (well, your friends on the left ask a lot of you as well)
Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way? (we would continue to be the United States, who picks and chooses When and where to apply the laws we say we uphold)
Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.” Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used.
America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. (GLAD to hear you say that again, but we CAN try diplomacy and interactions and negotiations to TRY to fix problems around the world) But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America.
Transcript courtesy of the White House.
Fact check Obama's Syria case still lacks proof
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=c4pHyAza
No Satellite images or intercepts shown, video lacks evidence of who launched attacks, and number of dead is still larger than anyone else says.
The administration has cited satellite imagery and communications intercepts, backed by social media and intelligence reports from sources in Syria, as the basis for blaming the Assad government. But the only evidence the administration has made public is a collection of videos it has verified of the victims. The videos do not demonstrate who launched the attacks.
Administration officials have not shared the satellite imagery they say shows rockets and artillery fire leaving government-held areas and landing in 12 rebel-held neighborhoods outside Damascus where chemical attacks were reported. Nor have they shared transcripts of the Syrian officials allegedly warning units to ready gas masks or discussing how to handle U.N. investigators after it happened.
The White House has declined to explain where it came up with the figure of at least 1,429 dead, including 400 children - a figure far higher than estimates by nongovernmental agencies such as the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which has counted only victims identified by name, with a current total of 502. In his remarks, Obama more generally accused Assad's forces of gassing to death "over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)