The Death of Money: Project Prophecy 2.0

Money Morning

Mystery Air Force X-37B space plane to land soon

CNN.com

The U.S. Air Force's mysterious unmanned space plane, the X-37B, is about to come back to Earth after more than two years in orbit on a mission the military won't tell us much about.

The X-37B is expected to land at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the Air Force said.

The base did not give an exact time for the landing, but a notice to aviators and mariners on the Federal Aviation Administration's website said airspace around the Southern California base would be closed from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PT Tuesday.

"Team Vandenberg stands ready to implement safe landing operations for the X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle, the third time for this unique mission," Col. Keith Baits, commander of the 30th Space Wing, said in a statement.

The X-37B, which looks like a small space shuttle, lifted off from Cape Canaveral in Florida on December 11, 2012. At the time, the Air Force said its mission would last about nine months.

The X-37B "is designed to demonstrate reusable spacecraft technologies for America's future in space and operating experiments which can be returned to, and examined, on Earth," an Air Force statement said.

"Technologies being tested in the program include advanced guidance, navigation and control, thermal protection systems, avionics, high temperature structures and seals, conformal reusable insulation, lightweight electromechanical flight systems, and autonomous orbital flight, re-entry and landing."

But as the spacecraft has been in orbit for more than 22 months, speculation on other uses abounds, including testing of a secret space weapon or spying activities.

The previous mission of the X-37B, which landed at Vandenberg on June 11, 2012, lasted 469 days, according to the Air Force. That mission was flown by the second of the Air Force's two X-37B orbiters. The current mission is the second for the first of the orbiters, which was refurbished after it spent 224 days in orbit following an April 2010 launch.

When the current mission launched, the Air Force said it might not be the last.

"Officials anticipate multiple missions will be required to satisfy the test program objectives, but the exact number of missions has not been determined," a statement said.

The X-37B spacecraft is 29 feet, 3 inches long and 9 feet, 6 inches high with a wingspan of 14 feet and 11 inches. It weighs about 5.5 tons. It is lifted into space by United Launch Alliance's Atlas V rockets.

Is there a bigger story behind the Bergdahl exchange?

The Pentagon Is Getting Closer To Robot Soldiers, Leading Roboticist Warns

Business Insider

In the not-too-distant future, the U.S. military may turn more combat roles over to robotic soldiers, NPR reports.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) started robotics trials last December with the ultimate goal of creating robots that can perform advanced functions such as driving cars, manipulating everyday objects, and having a free range of motion.

While the robots are being developed with the altruistic goal of providing disaster relief, prominent roboticists are concerned that advances in robotics sponsored by DARPA can be shifted to military use.

Roboticist Illah Nourbakhsh warned NPR:

If researchers set out to build a robot that can drive a regular car, climb a ladder and operate a jack hammer, "That means that that robot can manipulate an AK-47. That means that robot can manipulate the controls of all the conventional military machines as well," he says.

The overall concern with the gradual shift towards replacing soldiers with autonomous robots, which Nourbakhsh believes is a likely outcome, is who will be held accountable for the robots' actions.

There is also a very real concern that if wars are waged by robots, humans may become more comfortable with the thought of killing.

Former U.S. commander General Stanley McChrystal told BBC's Today Program, "There’s a danger that something that feels easy to do and without risk to yourself, almost antiseptic to the person shooting, doesn’t feel that way at the point of impact."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-rise-of-robots-in-the-military-2014-3#ixzz2wpRQSeTY

Pentagon to relax rules on personal religious wear — including beards, turbans

By Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube, NBC News

Brett Flashnick / AP file

U.S. Army Spc. Simran Lamba, center, the first enlisted Soldier to be granted a religious accommodation for his Sikh articles of faith since 1984, stands in formation with fellow soldiers before taking the oath of citizenship, prior to his graduation from basic training at Fort Jackson, S.C., in 2010.

The Pentagon on Wednesday is expected to announce widespread changes to rules governing religious items and religion-based physical attributes that service members can maintain while in uniform — including beards, some religious tattoos, and turbans.

NBC News obtained an early draft of the new Department of Defense instruction which states that the military will make every effort to accommodate “individual expressions of sincerely held beliefs” (conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs) of service members.

It goes on to say that unless doing so could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, good order and discipline, health and safety, or any other military requirement, commanders can grant service members special permission to display their religious articles while in uniform.

Keep reading on usnews >>

Robert Gates addresses claims made in 'Duty'

Former Pentagon chief Gates dings Obama’s leadership, Biden’s foreign policy chops

nbcpolitics

By Carrie Dann, NBC News

The former defense secretary who served under both President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush has less than glowing praise for America’s top two elected officials.
In a new memoir, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” former Pentagon chief Robert Gates writes that Obama lacked commitment to the decisions he made about his strategy in Afghanistan, the New York Times reported Tuesday.
“As I sat there, I thought: The president doesn’t trust his commander, can’t stand Karzai, doesn’t believe in his own strategy and doesn’t consider the war to be his,” Gates writes in the new book. “For him, it’s all about getting out.”
He also writes that the White House's national security staff lacked experience and tended towards  "micromanagement of military matters."
His words for Vice President Joe Biden are even more harsh, the paper reports.
“I think he has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades,” Gates wrote of Biden, whom he also described as a “man of integrity.”
Before becoming vice president, Biden served as the longtime head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
While critical of Biden, Gates appears to favor former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The NYT writes that Gates has “especially high praise” for Clinton.
The Washington Post adds, however, that Gates says both Clinton and Obama admitted to basing their opposition to the 2007  "surge" in Iraq in part on political considerations.
"Hillary told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary. . . . The president conceded vaguely that opposition to the Iraq surge had been political. To hear the two of them making these admissions, and in front of me, was as surprising as it was dismaying," Gates writes, according to the Post.
Both Clinton and Biden are considered possible contenders for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

Military Training Document: Anti-Christian SPLC a Trusted Source to Define 'Extremism'

By Ken Klukowski

For months, the Obama-Hagel Pentagon has promised that reports of military trainers teaching troops that traditional Christian groups are extremists akin to terrorists were isolated incidents by rogue instructors. Now an official Army document contains evidence to the contrary.

Fox News's Todd Starnes reported Wednesday on a Ft. Hood briefing where reportedly soldiers were told that evangelical Christians and Tea Party supporters are a threat to the United States and are “tearing the nation apart.” Soldiers were reportedly told that they could be charged with committing a military crime if they supported or donated to such organizations.

Ft. Hood denies these allegations, but a separate source claiming to have been present during the briefing asserts the original account is true.

Ironically, in the place where an Islamic radical—Maj. Nidal Hassan—committed an act of terrorism that murdered fourteen Americans, including the unborn child of one of the female victims—a presentation on terrorism singled out Bible-believing Christians and supporters of the Constitution as serious threats to this nation. Islamic terrorism was barely mentioned.

This is just the latest outrage in a long train of disgraces. Just days ago, soldiers at Camp Shelby in Mississippi were instructed that the Christian conservative American Family Association is a domestic hate group. A month earlier, a security presentation portrayed the Founding Fathers as extremists. Before that, Breitbart News reported on a Christian chaplain who was officially censored by military commanders for talking about the importance of religious faith. And several months before that, Lt. Col. Jack Rich at Ft. Campbell, Kentucky, instructed soldiers that traditional Christian beliefs are incompatible with “Army values.”

All this started in April, when Breitbart News broke the story of top Pentagon brass meeting with an anti-Christian activist calling for court-martialing observant Christians who share the gospel of Jesus Christ with others in the military. This activist calls them “fundamentalist monsters” who are “enemies of the Constitution” and should be punished for “sedition and treason.”    

All along, the nation was told these were a series of isolated incidents, not authorized by military leadership. Now military documents suggest otherwise. Judicial Watch used a FOIA request (Freedom of Information Act) to obtain a document from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), which is part of the Department of Defense (DOD). In this 133-page training document, entitled “Extremism,” on pages 32-33, under “Lesson Emphasis,” it claims to:

provide[s] information that describes sources of extremism information, definitions, recruitment of DoD personnel, common themes in extremist ideologies, common characteristics of extremist organizations, DoD policies, and command functions regarding extremist activities.

On the same page, it cites the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as an approved source for information—and its affiliate Teaching Tolerance. It was SPLC that labeled the American Family Association a “domestic hate group,” along with the Family Research Council (FRC, where I do religious liberty work as a senior fellow), the Traditional Values Coalition, and various Tea Party organizations and conservative border-security/immigration groups. In short, SPLC labels as hate groups organizations that promote a traditional Christian view of marriage and other social issues, believe in border enforcement, or promote constitutional limited government.

Ironically, SPLC is the only group in this news report linked to terrorism, as convicted domestic terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins told the FBI in a videotaped and signed confession that he chose his targets for an attempted mass-shooting at FRC from SPLC’s hate group list, including a map of how to get to FRC’s office. He then had the names and locations of other traditional groups he was going to target after murdering whoever he could in FRC's building.

This DEOMI document goes on several pages later to say that service members cannot participate in such organizations, raise funds for them, encourage others to support them, or attend public rallies organized by them. It then adds, “Furthering the objectives of extremist organizations is viewed as detrimental to the good order, discipline, or mission accomplishment of the unit and is, therefore, subject to appropriate disciplinary action.” It tasks service members with “assist[ing] unit commanders in being vigilant about the existence of such activities.”

Keep reading on breitbart >>

Ex-Pentagon general target of leak investigation, sources say

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read on investigations >>

China labels US the ’real hacking empire’ after Pentagon report

behindthewall

chinhdangvu.blogspot.com

By Sui-Lee Wee, Reuters

BEIJING -- China on Wednesday accused the United States of sowing discord between it and its neighbors after the Pentagon said Beijing is using espionage to fuel its military modernization, branding Washington the "real hacking empire.”

The latest salvo came a day after China's foreign ministry dismissed as groundless a Pentagon report that accused China for the first time of trying to break into U.S. defense computer networks.

The Pentagon also cited progress in Beijing's effort to develop advanced-technology stealth aircraft and to build an aircraft carrier fleet to project power further offshore.

The People's Liberation Army Daily called the report a "gross interference in China's internal affairs.”

"Promoting the ‘China military threat theory’ can sow discord between China and other countries, especially its relationship with its neighboring countries, to contain China and profit from it," the newspaper said in a commentary that was carried on China's Defense Ministry website.

The United States is "trumpeting China's military threat to promote its domestic interests groups and arms dealers,” the newspaper said, adding that it expects "U.S. arms manufacturers are gearing up to start counting their money.”

The remarks in the newspaper underscore the escalating mistrust between China and the United States over hacking, now a top point of contention between Washington and Beijing.

A U.S. computer security company, Mandiant, said in February a secretive Chinese military unit was likely behind a series of hacking attacks that targeted the United States and stole data from more than 100 companies.

That set off a war of words between Washington and Beijing.

China has said repeatedly that it does not condone hacking and is the victim of hacking attacks -- most of which it says come from the United States.

"As we all know, the United States is the real 'hacking empire' and has an extensive espionage network," the People's Daily, a newspaper regarded as a mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, said in a commentary.

"In recent years, the United States has continued to strengthen its network tools for political subversion against other countries,” the article said.

"Cyber weapons are more frightening than nuclear weapons," the People's Daily said. "To establish military hegemony on the Internet by repeatedly smearing other countries is a dangerous and wrong path to take and will ultimately end up in shooting themselves in the foot."

17 Air Force officers stripped of authority to launch nuclear missiles

Security Clearance

www.usaukonline.com

By Barbara Starr

In an unprecedented action, an Air Force commander has stripped 17 of his officers of their authority to control and launch nuclear missiles.
The 17 are being sent to undergo 60 to 90 days of intensive refresher training on how to do their jobs. The action comes after their unit performed poorly on an inspection and one officer was investigated for potential compromise of nuclear launch codes, according to Lt. Col. John Dorrian, an Air Force spokesman.
The story was first reported by The Associated Press.
The action was taken by the deputy commander of the 91st Operations Group, Lt. Col. Jay Folds, whose officers run launch control centers for the Minuteman III nuclear missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota.
Folds announced the action in an emotionally charged April e-mail to his unit, saying in part, "Did you know that we, as an operations group, have fallen - and its it time to stand ourselves back up?"
In that e-mail, Folds says, "We're discovering such rot in the crew force," while they are on alert status - standing watch over the nuclear force - that the unit is accepting of violations of weapons safety rules, and code compromises.
In words not often used by military officers, Folds told his troops to "crush any rules violators" and said, "We are, in fact, in a crisis right now."
CNN obtained a copy of the e-mail, which was also first obtained by the AP.
Dorrian confirmed that Folds was referring to a potential deliberate violation of Air Force rules regarding nuclear launch codes and the failure of his troops to report when they see potential violations.
The Air Force action affects only the 17 personnel deemed to need the training; others remain on duty.
The unit underwent a regular comprehensive inspection in March, according to Dorrian. The inspection consisted of an evaluation of 22 tasks. At the time, the unit was announced as having passed with a 'satisfactory" rating, which is third on a scale of five.
But on one of the 22 tasks involving launch operations, it was rated "marginal" which is one step above "unsatisfactory." Dorrian called it the equivalent of a "D" grade.
Then the incident of potential compromise of launch codes occurred. Dorrian said the investigation found no compromise, but did find the codes were "potentially handled improperly," by one officer, who is now facing discipline. All of this then led to Folds' e-mail and action, according to Dorrian.
Dorrian noted that while some in the Air Force might view Folds' e-mail as "emotional," his actions are fully supported at the highest levels of the Air Force. In other portions of his e-mail Folds told his unit:
– "Turn off the TVs."
– "Clean your patches, uniforms and get your hair cut."
– "Bring to my attention immediately any officer who bad mouths a senior officer."
While some nuclear officers are sent for retraining every year, this is the most extensive action taken to date, Dorrian confirmed. It comes after a 2008 Pentagon report was sharply critical of the Air Force for not focusing on the post-Cold War nuclear mission, and for a bomber that, in a flight over multiple states, carried nuclear-tipped missiles without the Air Force realizing it.

Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley was fired: Army forsakes combat hero for Muslims

wnd

www.familysecuritymatters.org

The U.S. Army has further punished a highly respected and decorated officer in the wake of Muslim groups complaining about the approved course he taught on radical Islam at National Defense University.

In October, we reported that Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley was fired from his position at the school for the way he conducted a class on how to respond to a variety of scenarios instigated by radical Muslims. A visitor to the class found the discussions offensive to Muslims and informed some 57 Islamic organizations, which then complained to Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In addition to the firing, Gen. Dempsey promptly orchestrated a negative Officer Evaluation Report against Dooley that deeply tarnished a career that had received only sterling reviews from West Point through nearly 20 years in the service. Dempsey never discussed the incident with Dooley.

On Sunday, the Washington Times reported Dooley has been punished again, this time as he pursued the role of battalion commander. According to the Times, an Army command selection board studied Dooley’s record and candidacy for a command assignment. The five-member panel agreed to keep Dooley under consideration. Shortly thereafter, Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, who at the time was Army vice chief and subsequently became head of U.S. Central Command, overruled the board in a brief memo. His actions could effectively spell the end of Dooley’s career.

“There was no reason given, and that’s also a very disturbing aspect of it,” said Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, who is representing Dooley in his original appeal of his firing and negative review. “The way they’re treating him now is not only a total miscarriage of justice on a personal level, but it also is really removing an effective combat leader from the Army, and it ultimately effects the national security of the United States.”

Thompson told WND he doesn’t believe this order originated with Gen. Austin. Instead, he believes Gen. Dempsey gave the order and Austin chose to follow so as not to impair his own career. However it happened, he said Lt. Col. Dooley is the victim of a dangerous policy.

“Instead of being loyal to the people that are loyal to you, they would rather throw Lt. Col. Dooley under the bus for their own advancement or to appease the Muslims, which ultimately could lead to the destruction of the United States internally. If we cannot accurately describe who the enemy is, how can we win a war?” asked Thompson.

Dooley’s appeal of his initial punishment is still processing through the military bureaucracy. Thompson said Dooley will file a federal suit to defend his constitutional rights if the Army appeal is denied.

Pentagon: North Korea moving closer to developing nuke that can hit U.S.

NBC News

Jon Chol Jin / AP

A man walks by a poster reading "Severe punishment to the U.S. and their followers" in the central district of Pyongyang, North Korea, on Thursday, May 2, 2013.

By Andrew Rafferty, Staff Writer, NBC News

North Korean advances in nuclear technology are moving the country closer to its goal of being able to strike the United States with an atomic weapon, according to a new Pentagon report submitted to Congress on Thursday.

Though the unclassifed version of the report gave no timetable for when North Korea may have the ability to hit North American soil with a weapon, it did say recent progress is in line with the country's desires to soon be able to carry out such an attack. 

"These advances in ballistic-missile delivery systems, coupled with developments in nuclear technology ... are in line with North Korea's stated objective of being able to strike the U.S. homeland," the report said. 

The report added: "North Korea will move closer to this goal, as well as increase the threat it poses to U.S. forces and allies in the region, if it continues testing and devoting scarce regime resources to these programs."

The Pentagon assessment to lawmakers is required by law and comes after a period of escalating tensions between the two countries. The report calls North Korea one of America's "most critical security challenges" in the region because of its pursuit of nuclear weapons coincides with "provocative and destabilizing behavior."

Washington and Pyongyang began 2013 in a standoff after the North launched of a satellite into space last December, which the report cites as a major contributor to the country's long-range capabilities. That was followed by a nuclear test in February of 2013, which led to sanctions from the United Nations that only brought more threats from the cantankerous country.

Still, the report also noted that North Korea has yet to complete some of the necessary steps required for the country to develop a weapon that can reach the U.S.  It stated that they have not yet tested a re-entry vehicle necessary for a warhead to get back inside the Earth's atmosphere and hit a target.

The report also indicates that newly minted leader Kim Jong Un will follow in his father's footsteps in practicing "coercive diplomacy" and development of military capabilities to deter outside attacks.

Acusan a exfuncionaria de EEUU de espiar para el gobierno cubano

martinoticias

Una exfuncionaria del gobierno estadounidense, la puertorriqueña Marta Rita Velázquez, fue acusada de haber espiado para el gobierno de Cuba, reveló este jueves el Departamento de Justicia, en un parte de prensa que aparece en su sitio digital y en el del Buro Federal de Investigaciones, FBI.

Velázquez, conocida también como "Marta Rita Kviele" y "Barbara", es acusada de haber pasado información de defensa estadounidense a La Habana y de haber reclutado a otros espías, según la acusación, que había permanecido en secreto por varios años hasta que fue hecha pública este jueves.

Las autoridades estadounidenses difundieron el jueves cargos criminales de asociación ilícita para espiar que habían formulado en 2004 contra una puertorriqueña acusada de ayudar a la inteligencia cubana a reclutar a una prominente espía actualmente en prisión.

La acusación contra Marta Rita Velásquez, de 55 años, conllevaría una cadena perpetua de ser hallada culpable. El Departamento de Justicia señaló en un comunicado que Velásquez, reside fuera de Estados Unidos desde 2002 y actualmente está radicada en Estocolmo, Suecia.

El subprocurador interino para la seguridad nacional John Carlin acusó a Velásquez de facilitar a la inteligencia cubana el reclutamiento de Ana Belén Montes, quien cumple 25 años de cárcel tras declararse culpable en 2002 de espiar durante los 16 años que trabajó para la oficina de inteligencia militar (DIA, por sus siglas en inglés).

Durante sus años en la DIA, Ana Belén Montes reveló las identidades de cuatro agentes encubiertos a autoridades cubanas y usaba una radio de onda corta para recibir órdenes.

En junio de 2002 Velázquez renunció a USAID, cuando comenzaron a aparecer reportes de prensa sobre la captura de Ana Belén Montes y su presunta cooperación con investigadores estadounidenses, y salió del país para no volver.

Velázquez puso en contacto a Montes con los servicios de inteligencia cubanos en 1984, cuando la llevó a Nueva York para una reunión con un agente de la isla comunista, que la acusación llama "M", quien se identificó como miembro de la misión de intereses cubanos en Estados Unidos.
   
Luego de que Montes fuera reclutada, Velázquez la acompañó en 1985 en un viaje clandestino a Cuba para que recibiera entrenamiento en espionaje. Para cubrir sus pasos, las dos mujeres usaron pasaportes falsos para ir desde Madrid a Praga, y de ahí a La Habana, reveló la acusación.
   
Velázquez trabajó unos años en el Departamento de Transporte, hasta que en 1989 entró a la agencia de desarrollo internacional (USAID) del Departamento de Estado, donde gozó de una amplia autorización para acceder a documentos clasificados.

Graduada en reconocidas universidades de Estados Unidos, ocupó cargos en las embajadas estadounidenses en Nicaragua y Guatemala. Desde 1979 hasta 1990 vivió en Washington, según la acusación, a la que tuvo acceso la AFP.
   
La espía recibía instrucciones de los servicios de inteligencia cubanos "a través de transmisiones de alta frecuencia encriptadas" y en contactos con otros agentes fuera de Estados Unidos, según el Departamento.

La orden de arresto contra Velazquez revelada el jueves fue emitida hace 9 años. Ella permanece fuera de Estados Unidos desde el 2002 y Washington no ha podido lograr su regreso. El tratado de extradición entre Estados Unidos y Suecia no permite la extradición por razones políticas, una categoría que incluye el espionaje. 

Defying court’s rules, anti-secrecy group posts tape of Bradley Manning statement

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Read on openchannel >>

Bradley Manning Tells Court Public Have the Right to Know About US War Crimes

TheRealNews

WikiLeaker Manning reveals why he spilled United States secrets

By Jim Miklaszewski and Courtney Kube, NBC News

FORT MEADE, Md. – A military judge on Thursday accepted guilty pleas by  Army Pfc. Bradley Manning to 10 lesser charges against him, leaving the ex-intelligence analyst to face 12 other counts for allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of government documents to the WikiLeaks website. 

The acceptance of the "naked guilty pleas" -- meaning there is no agreement between the government and the defense that would limit the sentence – at a pre-trial hearing means that Manning faces up to 20 years in prison, even if he is ultimately acquitted of the most-serious charges against him. 

Col. Denise Lind, the military judge presiding over the case, also accepted Manning’s “not guilty” pleas to the remaining charges, including "aiding the enemy." His court martial on those charges, which carry a maximum sentence of life in prison, is scheduled to begin on June 3. 

During the day-long pre-trial hearing, Manning acknowledged that his actions were a discredit to the service and that he knew WikiLeaks was not authorized to have the information he provided. 

At one point when Lind asked him whether he knew what he was doing was wrong, he answered simply, "Yes, your honor."

More than an hour of Thursday's hearing was consumed by Manning's composed reading of a 35-page prepared statement that offered his first public explanation of his motives for leaking the government documents to WikiLeaks. He said he did so to “spark domestic debate” on foreign policy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

www.susankatzkeating.com

Manning painted himself as a young man with an "insatiable thirst for geopolitical information" and a desire for the world to know the truth about what was happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. But he said he became increasingly disillusioned after being sent to Iraq by actions that "didn't seem characteristic" of the U.S., the leader of free world.

Manning said under oath that the first documents he sent to WikiLeaks in early 2012 were the combined information data network exchanges for Iraq and Afghanistan, which he described as the daily journals of the "on-the-ground reality" of the conflicts in Iran and Afghanistan. 

He said he sent the information while on leave and staying at his aunt's house in Potomac, Md., using a public computer at a Barnes & Noble store in Rockville or North Bethesda. He said included a brief note calling the information the most significant documents of our time, and closing with, "Have a good day." 

He said he tried to send the information to the Washington Post and the New York Times before turning to WikiLeaks.  He said he later sent information to WikiLeaks eight other times from his personal laptop at Contingency Base Hammer in Iraq. 

Manning is facing 22 criminal charges that include "aiding the enemy" and could face a life sentence if convicted of the most serious charges. 

Manning said he decided to release the first batch information because he was depressed and frustrated, and felt "a sense of relief" when he returned to Iraq. He said he finally had a "clear conscience" because someone else knew what was happening.

More on usnews >>

Sequester May Slow Pentagon Response to WikiLeaks

Secrecy news/

skydancingblog.com

By Steven Aftergood

The across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration that are expected to take effect on March 1 could impede the government’s ability to respond to WikiLeaks and to rectify the flaws in information security that it exposed, a Pentagon official told Congress recently.
Zachary J. Lemnios, the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, was asked by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to describe the “most significant” impacts on cybersecurity that could follow from the anticipated cuts to the Pentagon’s budget.
Mr. Lemnios replied that “cuts under sequestration could hurt efforts to fight cyber threats, including [...] improving the security of our classified Federal networks and addressing WikiLeaks.”
The sequester could also interfere with the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative that began under President Bush, he said, and could hold up plans to “initiat[e] continuous monitoring of unclassified networks at all Federal agencies.”
Mr. Lemnios’ response to Sen. Portman’s question for the record (which had not specifically mentioned WikiLeaks) followed a March 2012 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Emerging Threats and Capabilities that was published in December 2012 (at page 42).
Generally speaking, computer security within the military is a daunting problem, Mr. Lemnios told the Committee, particularly since “The Department operates over 15,000 networks and 7 million computing devices across hundreds of installations in dozens of countries around the globe.”
The challenge of cybersecurity cannot be fully described in public, said Dr. Kaigham J. Gabriel of DARPA. “The complete picture requires a discussion at the special access level.”  But he told the Committee last year that several basic points can be openly acknowledged:
“Attackers can penetrate our networks:  In just 3 days and at a cost of only $18,000, the Host-Based Security System” — the Pentagon’s baseline computer security system — “was penetrated.”
“User authentication is a weak link: 53,000 passwords were provided to teams at Defcon; within 48 hours, 38,000 were cracked.”
“The Defense supply chain is at risk: More than two-thirds of electronics in U.S. advanced fighter aircraft are fabricated in off-shore foundries.”
“Physical systems are at risk: A smartphone hundreds of miles away took control of a car’s drive system through an exploit in a wireless interface.”
“The United States continues to spend on cybersecurity with limited increase in security: The Federal Government expended billions of dollars in 2010, but the number of malicious cyber intrusions has increased.”
Though it was presumably not intentional, the WikiLeaks project galvanized government information security programs and accelerated efforts to devise “insider threat” detection mechanisms, along with intensified surveillance of classified and unclassified government computer networks.
“New classes of anomaly detection methods have been developed and are based on aggregating events across time and multiple sources to identify network and host-based behavior that might be malicious,” James S. Peery of Sandia National Laboratories told the Senate Armed Services Committee at last year’s hearing.  “These approaches and behavioral-based methods have been successful in finding previously undiscovered malware.”
“One drawback of this technology, though, is that it has a very high false positive rate,” he said.

Benghazi – Where was the Commander-in-Chief?

canadafreepress

Paul E. Vallely

After the testimonies of Secretary Panetta, General Dempsey, and Hillary Clinton on the Benghazi tragedy, it appears the Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama was off duty and not available to make a hard decision to press the military Chain of Command to rescue Americans under attack. The cover up appears to be a White House order to “Stand Down” and not issue a rescue mission operational order. For over seven hours he did nothing; no communications with his National Security team, and then he flew to Las Vegas for a campaign stop. “Weakness and dithering and flying to Las Vegas the next day for celebrity fund-raising parties are somehow better.”

The testimony revealed that Obama stated to Panetta and Dempsey, “Do what you have to do.” Where was the order to execute a rescue mission NOW Mr. President? The investigation regarding the 9/11 al Qaeda raid on Benghazi and the deaths of four brave Americans began, but to date it has no end or acceptable findings, and provides no answers for the families of the four murdered Americans.

I have promised Charles Woods, Father of Ty Woods, and family, that at Stand up America, we will press this investigation to the end. Malfeasance and ineptitude borne from a foreign policy steeped in naiveté in the least and complete indifference to threat conditions provided by the Intelligence Community has degenerated into a massive cover up of the facts on the ground and is minimized by political corruption and ineptness by the National Security team.

What we have had is myriad conflicting and/or changing stories and moving people and parts from all manner of sources, players, and decisions makers. We have internet rumors, official statements, hearings, in camera probes, an ARB report, talking heads ad nauseum, political spin and a very clear ‘circling of the wagons’ where blame encompasses all involved within the Obama circle of influence.

We have witnessed hearings that were more congratulatory than probative, and a steady parade of the changing of the guard. Facts cannot be disputed, yet access to facts has been impossible. The objective has been to obscure actions to prevent the ability to sift through the events, conjecture, political rhetoric, and the steady attempt to move beyond the elections and to the cabinet changes; especially by those of us without high clearance in ‘fly-over’ country.

The cumulative effect of all these facets is that one must suspend all manner of logic and reason to swallow the miasmic trail. This is precisely the point – there has been an obvious attempt to muddy the waters, ‘chill the mark’, and deflect focus. It expected the onlooker to be so confused they have to just look away, feel bad for the losses, and swallow that this is all a learning experience and rest assured that they will all try harder, now under newer administration.

The most cogent report to date on Benghazi was crafted Senators Lieberman and Collins but it does not go deep enough into the weeds with regard to dereliction of duty, omissions, waivers, mission, objective, and names to hold responsible. We need to know without varnish, spin, and purposeful evasion what did and did not take place during the events as they unfolded, and an adult, clear minded understanding of what was at stake that prompted people to make poor and deadly decisions. We must first start with how the lines of communication would have unfolded, where decision making nodes occurred, what those decisions were, and why they were made.

Most important, where was the President? Was he ‘absent’? Absent, really? No, he just did not want to make himself available and have to make a difficult decision or have his actions traced with any paper trail. He seems to hide or not be available when the going gets tough? What, the President is unavailable during a crisis?

All citizens must ask the following questions and more, and demand a complete map to understand how our government is supposed to work at the highest levels in times of crisis by those who took the oath of office:

1. Career professionals in the CIA, the Military, the State Department, and other integral professionals including the National Security Team are trained and expected to ensure all Americans and USA interests are protected at all costs. To many, Benghazi was likely the apex of their respective careers to prove their worth and value. How could so many fail and hide the realities of terror attacks and threats and as one Senator asked who was in charge or supposed to be in charge?
2. The entire National Security apparatus was well aware of the events leading up to and including the attack(s) on Libya and beyond, so why the indifference and lack of any response?
3. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey admitted during their testimony that there is no firehouse mentality, the question is why as this is outside the scope of Rules of Engagement and historical training?
4. The Benghazi annex was the largest CIA base in North Africa.  The primary mission was to chase the illicit and illegal arms stream as well as the Middle East militia members. The question is how far reaching and effective was this mission for the end result to be terror attacks and death and how politically charged was this to the administration’s overall goals in the Magreb and Middle East and beyond?
5. Secretary Panetta and General Dempsey clearly both revealed that the meeting with Barack Obama on 9-11 was thirty minutes long and only 20 of the thirty minutes centered on Benghazi. Just how deep was the commitment of Obama to re-election versus Foreign Service officers in Libya and beyond as more than 20 locations had demonstrations or attacks against the United States during the week of 9-11?
6. Did Hillary Clinton sign a waiver to deny Marine security at both locations in Libya to include Tripoli and Benghazi despite Congressional laws against her actions (SECCA) perhaps in favor of government contractors like Blue Mountain or DynCorp and did the administration wave off rescue missions?
7. While General Ham was in Washington, DC. on 9-11-12, who gave orders for any and all actions or lack of actions in Benghazi including the dispatch and re-dispatch of surveillance drones and in favor of what?
8. Given that several hundred terror-related incidents occurred in Libya over the previous 24 months in Benghazi, where are the surveillance drone videos, and who assessed the conditions on the ground with regard to weapons and militias?
9. The members of the Accountability Review Board (ARB) were chosen by Hillary Clinton and with the classified and non-classified publication of the ARB, the matter of the terror attack has been insufficiently addressed. Congress gave Hillary Clinton many questions, both within and without the scope of her testimony. Where are her written responses and those members of the ARB that she promised after her testimony?

The weak link also appears to be the representations made by Hillary Clinton and others about the communications protocols in the event of a most critical incident (referred to as ‘critics’ in the community) in one of the ‘hottest’ spots on Earth. It is a matter of procedure that communications between selected embassies, if not all embassies, have an Imminent Danger Alert System that is directly ‘on-hook’ with at least four destinations which include: the White House Situation Room (WHSR), the State Department Operations Center, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Pentagon. ‘Critics’ are graded with an urgency status, and in the matter of Benghazi, the ladder of escalation included the top urgency status, calling for an immediate and urgent response.

Why haven’t we seen or heard the Situation Reports (SitReps) from the witnesses from Benghazi including all those located or functioning out of either or both the compound and annex? How many non-American people were there or co-located there? Due to the nature of the attack(s), how many people in total have died or been injured and for those that died, were autopsies performed? Why haven’t the estimated 32 survivors been interviewed; where and who are they?

Secretary Clinton correctly admitted that Marine detachments are assigned to diplomatic posts to guard classified material from being compromised. So why aren’t our elected Congressmen NOW publicly discussing the “Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999” (SECCA) over her decision not to have Marines at Benghazi? In the absence of a Marine assignment how many government contractors were under contract to assume the same duties of Marines and why would we allow the Libyan government to approve our hires?

The functional security budget for Benghazi alone was $ 11 million. Blue Mountain was a ‘no bullet’ contract and the hiring of the February 17th Brigade to provide outside security to the compound was mired in a labor dispute due to the number and time of working hours, working conditions, and pay scale. Many members of the February 17th Brigade were on strike at the time of the attacks and many fled prior.

The administration allowed a well armed, well trained, 16 member security forces to be removed from Libya in August, about a month before the attack. They were to eventually be replaced by a Libya security force who Ambassador Stevens wrote could not be trusted because it was forbidden to vet the personnel under Libyan government rules.

The House Oversight Committee had documentation that the WHSR started receiving emails that the mission was under hostile surveillance as early as 1 PM, on the day of the attack. The WH/DoD/Pentagon ordered the drone to the location to video the actions at the compound. No order or permission was provided to the CIA annex to render assistance to those under attack at the mission as the attack was imminent and later under assault.

Those at the annex, without DC knowledge or approval, later did provide lethal protections and countermeasures as no other military assistance was dispatched. As soon as the attacks began, the mission sounded an audible alarm for the whole compound, alerting Tripoli and the Diplomatic Security in Washington DC. The Diplomatic Security headquarters in DC which resides in the State Department also went to the Department of Defense while DSHQ maintained opened communications with the mission during the whole attack. At this time, the CIA annex was also alerted and told to prepare to aid personnel.

Where was the President? ‘Absent’ yet?

The administration refuses to fully describe the nature of the personnel in Tripoli that were dispatched to Benghazi on a chartered aircraft. They were however, not Marines, but likely a hired substitute group FAST team of government contractors. It has been stated under oath that there were no assets within any favorable distance or within time constraints to respond to the attack in Benghazi, why? As Libya was the highest threat and greatest hotspot for attack, no proactive measures were in place for more than two years and no one took any initiative to either offer, or better still, demand rescue and safety measures for Benghazi or other locations including Cairo, Tunis, or any number of other diplomatic posts.

Where was the ‘Fire Station’ set up for any and all contingencies that were more than likely to occur? There were no contingency plans or a ‘firehouse’ set up in one of the most fire prone areas where Americans were in harm’s way. Leadership?

Given the ‘on-hook’ destinations of communications coming from Benghazi pleading for assistance, there were an estimated 300 to 400 personnel in national security positions that were receiving the emails, the encrypted mobile texts, or simply desperate phone calls via secured systems. After the dismissal of the national security officials, all actions were handed off to the NSC and the military command center – ‘nothing else to see here folks back to business as usual.’

Remember, the President of the United States is NEVER, EVER more than a few minutes from secure communications… ‘Absent’? AWOL?

Dianne Feinstein, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said lawmakers viewed the video of the mission showing the post before the attack, the full set of incidents, and the exodus. These videos were a combination of surveillance cameras at the compound and the drone feed. The video(s) included the Ambassador’s body being dragged out of a building. This speaks to and proves that an ‘anti-Muslim’ YouTube video was clearly not the reason for the attack as fabricated by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Susan Rice. David Petraeus did provide an immediate assessment that the attack was performed by a radical Islamists group known as Ansar al Sharia.

They knew immediately, and there never was any question despite what many surrogates have said, even during Thursday’s hearings.

It is an indisputable fact that much of the objective in Benghazi was to restore order from a pre and post Qaddafi regime. Much of the order included identifying lethal weapons smuggling, in and out of Libya, to destinations that include Turkey, Syria, Mali, Iraq, and Algeria to list a few countries. A buyback program was initiated by the CIA in the area for high grade military weapons that included manpads and stinger missiles.

The U.S. government under the Obama administration did in fact provide lethal weaponry to Libyan rebels for the eventual overthrow of Qaddafi and the same is true in Syria. So a high grade weapons pipeline was established, chased, smuggled, and transferred. This now begs additional questions that include who did the State Department and the Department of Defense hire for all parts of all missions in the Middle East? Could it be that the four dead Americans were actually killed with weapons provided by the United States that eventually went to the wrong hands?

Did the United States solicit historically recognized jihadists/Islamists of known and unknown quantity and quality via militias from the start to the finish in overthrowing Libya strongman Qaddafi and beyond? Should attention be placed on a domestic arms security company known as Turi Defense Group out of Las Vegas who was in communication with Benghazi? Marc Turi is/was an authorized GSA arms vendor that held several government contracts for providing arms that included destinations such as Qatar and other Gulf States, all at the core of providing lethal military grade weapons as directed by the Obama administration. Incidentally, Turi lives in Arizona and his home was raided by Federal law enforcement in 2012.

The State Department applied millions of dollars to Libya under the premise of grants and humanitarian aid and to what accounting have these monies been scrutinized to date and/or will be in the near future? Simple searches on open sources have shown that more than $30 million was assigned for various objectives in Libya in a post Qaddafi landscape. Have those funds or unspent funds been accounted for?

What is the status today of the FBI investigation into Benghazi? Hillary Clinton, in her testimony, said many things, one of which was that al Qaeda is a “brand.” This speaks to the matter that there are several associated militias in Libya and MENA that include Ansar al Sharia or any other factions and may also include members of the February 17th Brigade. At the time of the attack, there were only three members of the February 17th Brigade at the compound who were actually deputized by the Libyan government.

The most shocking point spoken by Hillary Clinton was “what difference at this point does it make?” She went on to say, “to be clear, it is from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice.” These two statements are key as they speak to timing, both of which point to pre-election conditions of Barack Obama and post-election conditions as the administration maintains power to ensure the facts on Benghazi remain opaque and oblique.

All deference was paid to Libyan placeholders as they demanded that any official rescue teams had to dress in civilian clothing to keep tensions at a minimum. 300 threats were provided from the intelligence community yet blame is placed back on the intelligence community saying that none of the intelligence was actionable per Panetta’s testimony. General Ham was in constant communications with the Ambassador in Libya for many months. He delivered specific reports to General Dempsey, of which Dempsey admitted he received, and was well aware of conditions, yet never offered or suggested an increase of security or military assets as a safety measure. He also did not set up any contingency plans such as the ‘Fire Station’ to handle any eventuality. This is completely against all military policy throughout the ranks and now sends a very sad message – ‘will they have my back no matter where I am assigned?’

Both Secretary Panetta and Martin Dempsey testified that after the one single meeting for thirty minutes at the White House, there were no further conversations with the President regarding Benghazi and that includes not only Barack Obama, but Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus. The matter for all involved was closed and an Executive Privilege was attached to 9-11-12 Presidential Daily Briefings (PDHs) associated to Libya for public or investigative purposes. The investigation as we are told is in the hands of the FBI and the Department of Justice to determine if there will ever be enough to build a case for future prosecution of the terrorists involved.

Panetta admitted in his testimony that the terrorists are emboldened, regardless of capture or response possibilities now, which in summary, is the most disturbing revelation of all. The threat to American safety and assets across the globe remain at high risk, yet there is no ordered readiness condition to save our brothers and sisters or sovereign locations worldwide.

Where was the President? Our sources tell us, that though he was ‘absent’, he indeed gave the ‘stand-down’ orders. Prior to that, it was his naïve approach, inept preparation and response to obvious needs that set the scene in place – the most obvious day for retaliatory action on the part of al Qaeda. What are we being asked to believe?
______________
Research and contributing to this article are SUA Staff members Denise Simon and Monica Morrill; Edited by Scott W. Winchell.

Paul E. Vallely , MG US Army (Ret), is Chairman of Stand Up America USA, and a writer for American Daily Review. Paul’s latest book is “Operation Sucker Punch – Blood for Our Future”. He is the co-author of “Endgame- A blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror”. Paul can be reached at: standupamericaceo@gmail.com

SECRET HAGEL DONOR?: WHITE HOUSE SPOX DUCKS QUESTION ON 'FRIENDS OF HAMAS'

breitbart
By Ben Shapiro

On Thursday, Senate sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.”

Yesterday, 25 senators sent a letter to Hagel demanding information on his foreign funding. Hagel has refused all such requests, prompting the senators to state, “in the judgment of the undersigned, a Committee vote on your nomination should not occur unless and until you provide the requested information.”

Called for comment and reached via telephone, Associate Communications Director at the White House Eric Schultz identified himself, heard the question, was silent for several seconds, and then hung up the phone immediately without comment. Called back via the White House switchboard, Schultz’s phone rang through to his answering machine. Called on his cell phone, Schultz’s phone rang through to his answering machine.