As long as 0m0slem is respected, these are our ROE against slimes.
Posted on 10/26/2012 6:30:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
BOMBSHELL: US troops in Benghazi would not have been painting targets on the ground unless there was air support overhead. But someone called it off – And the decision most likely came from the White House.
FOX News reported earlier today that security officers on the ground in Benghazi had a laser planted on a target that was firing on the annex.
The team was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. In fact, at least one member of the team was on the roof of the annex manning a heavy machine gun when mortars were fired at the CIA compound. The security officer had a laser on the target that was firing and repeatedly requested back-up support from a Spectre gunship, which is commonly used by U.S. Special Operations forces to provide support to Special Operations teams on the ground involved in intense firefights.
So there were two drones in the air recording the attack on the ground. And now we know the CIA team at the annex was in constant radio contact with their headquarters. The White House was able to watch the attack live back in Washington DC. Yet, yesterday Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said this,
“The U.S. military did not get involved during the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, last month because officials did not have enough information about what was going on before the attack was over.”
How much more information did they need?
* * * * *
Then there’s this bombshell at BlackFive from a former Delta operator:
Having spent a good bit of time nursing a GLD (ground Laser Designator) in several garden spots around the world, something from the report jumped out at me.
One of the former SEALs was actively painting the target. That means that Specter WAS ON STATION! Probably an AC130U. A ground laser designator is not a briefing pointer laser. You do not “paint” a target until the weapons system/designator is synched; which means that the AC130 was on station.
Only two places could have called off the attack at that point; the WH situation command (based on POTUS direction) or AFRICOM commander based on information directly from the target area.
If the AC130 never left Sigonella (as Penetta says) that means that the Predator that was filming the whole thing was armed.
If that SEAL was actively “painting” a target; something was on station to engage! And the decision to stand down goes directly to POTUS!
This is HUGE. It should be obvious by now that someone is not telling the truth. As Blackfive says,
“This is bigger than Watergate!… The worst has to be the team on the ground knowing that the President just left you to die.“
A caller today discussed this with Rush Limbaugh.
(VIDEO AT LINK)
Here is part of that conversation.
CALLER: Well, there’s three networks, Rush. The e-mails that have been released are unclassified e-mails. On the top secret side, a flash traffic message from the embassy Tripoli to the White House Situation Room, it’s like an IM. I mean, it’s immediately responded to. You have to acknowledge receipt of it. Okay? So it’s immediate. It gets to the person, the watch officer sitting there, boom, flashes on his screen, he has to acknowledge receipt. And then there’s a protocol for who he then sends it to. He physically turns to someone, the senior guy on watch, “This is a critical element of information. POTUS needs to hear this,” and that’s what would have happened.
So no one in the White House can deny that — well, they can deny it, but the fact is the protocol says someone marched their happy little ass up to the senior guy standing next to POTUS and said, “Sir, ambassador in Libya is in peril.” And if he was missing, that is even a higher precedence. And then the chain would have also gone out automatically to the geographic combatant commander, AFRICOM, and he would have then turned to his special operations commander and said, “I want the In-Extremis Force, you know, strip ready in five minutes.” And evidently they were strip ready in Sigonella and they would have the assets to penetrate the airspace, you know, an MC-130 papa, which is a C-130 specially equipped with electronic countermeasures. They didn’t need permission to enter Libyan airspace, okay?
I’m giving you a lot of Inside Baseball stuff, and maybe putting myself in a little peril by doing it, but the In-Extremis Force, they would have been chomping at the bit to do this. It was turned down, POTUS, at his five p.m. Eastern time meeting with the principals, that’s when he put the kibosh on everything. It was a conscious act. It has to be because, you know, the In-Extremis Force is required to be prepared to do In-Extremis non-combatant evacuation operations for its geographic responsibility, the entire continent of Africa. So there’s always somebody ready to go, and the aircraft are always prepared to go.
Read the rest here. Hat Tip Truth and Common Sense
After reading the article, it does appear that the chain of command could have been overly stretched for that mission.
Unlike Congress, the President has a Constitutionally-appointed substitute (actually a succession of about 15 of them, IIRC) to sub for him if he becomes unable to discharge his duties.
Well said. We know he is guilty of all kinds of crimes. I see it as Boehner’s (if I misspelled it, I don’t want to take the time to look it up...not worth it) job to bring Articles of Impeachment up, but he is just too much of a coward to ever do anything that takes some kahunas. As long as we have these RINO’s in there, we will never make any progress toward getting these criminals removed from office.
The whole society has the idea that POTUS and other politicians are supposed to be legally untouchable - that they can never be arrested for a crime because that would be “politicizing law enforcement”.
If anything other than the quality and amount of evidence of a crime decides who gets arrested, justice is perverted.
As long as we subscribe to the idea that politicians are untouchable, we will have them continuing to act as if they are untouchable.
Until the Congress-critters realize that THEY ARE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION FROM TYRANNY, and if they don’t take their responsibility and authority seriously then we have NO PROTECTION.... we really do have no protection. And that is NOT what the Constitution is supposed to mean.
I love the United States Constitution. I wish we would follow it.
As long as 0m0slem is respected, these are our ROE against slimes.
IN THAT COMPOSITE PHOTO, THE PERSON ON THE LEFT IS STEVENS. THE (DEAD) PERSON ON THE RIGHT IS WEARING DIFFERENT PANTS BECAUSE HIS NAME IS GADDAFI.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU’RE LOOKING AT A COMPOSITE PHOTO OF 2 COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
AFTER GADDAFI WAS KILLED, THEY HAD HIM LAYING ON THAT YELLOW MAT AWHILE, THEN THEY STUCK HIM IN A WALK-IN FREEZER AT SOME BUTCHER SHOP SO THE LOCALS COULD POSE FOR PICTURES WITH HIS BODY.
Jenifer Griffin from Fox says General Ham was at Pentagon during the attack???
Two different persons!!!
Maybe there was something going on about the clandestine operations to supply weapons to the anti-Qaddafi rebels. Stevens may have talked to someone and the Obama Regime did not want any more talk for fear it would stir members in Congress. Here is Fox’s account of the weapons:
“The American special operators, Woods, Doherty and at least two others were part of the Global Response Staff, a CIA element, based at the CIA annex and were protecting CIA operators who were part of a mission to track and repurchase arms in Benghazi that had proliferated in the wake of Muammar Qaddafi’s fall. Part of their mission was to find the more than 20,000 missing MANPADS, or shoulder-held missiles capable of bringing down a commercial aircraft. According to a source on the ground at the time of the attack, the team inside the CIA annex had captured three Libyan attackers and was forced to hand them over to the Libyans. U.S. officials do not know what happened to those three attackers and whether they were released by the Libyan forces.”
She said yesterday the story circulating the internet was not true. I didn’t know he was at the Pentagon.
Did she say if he was aware of the attack in real time?
And yet.....? As the wife of an LCMS lutheran pastor then you should be familiar with the doctrine of the two kingdoms. Why then haven't you rested in the fact that God is sovereign on this issue. The document that runs the US political world is the Constitution. Therein lies both the secular and God-willed solution. Pray, participate in the electoral process and know that if things appear to be off the rails, that too is under God's control. As long as prosecutorial discretion exists, and God forbid a zero tolerance no options justice system, some people will be unhappy. It just happens you are one of many right now including me BTW over ths issue. Do what is right and then trust God to bring justice.
Just talked to my boss (Desert Storm AF guy) who knows a bit about forward air control. He confirms that no one is going to fire up a laser designator unless there is an asset in the area ready to strike.
I am trusting God. He is the ONLY refuge I have.
I am working within the electoral system. I’m also working within the law enforcement system, and have been for some time.
I just don’t see where the Constitution says that Congress takes the place of law enforcement when it comes to either the President or anybody else. I don’t see how that could even be Constitutional, to be honest - given the separation of powers and checks and balances. Congress is in charge of judging the qualifications of its members but that is not the same thing as executing law enforcement on either Congress or the White House.
Maybe the first question is what impeachment means. Does it mean a criminal trial, or does it mean a trial on the qualifications of the person to remain in office?
OK, I’ve got my Constitution in front of me, and I’m looking at Article I, Section 3, 7:
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
I understand that to mean that being convicted in impeachment does not replace law enforcement measures. Can a criminal trial happen simultaneously or before impeachment? It doesn’t say.
But Article III, Section 2, 3 says “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such TRial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”
There is probable cause that Obama committed perjury multiple times in Arizona and other states. Sounds to me like Congress can impeach Obama if they choose to do so and in that case the trial is done by Congress in DC rather than by a jury trial in a state - but that doesn’t replace Article III’s requirement of the trial of ALL crimes by jury in the state where the crime was committed. And my understanding is that Article I says that impeachment is only about removal from office and does not replace due process by law enforcement in the states - which is not about holding office but about jail time.
My husband and I have spoken at great length about the left-hand v the right-hand kingdoms. We’ve also talked about the role of Christians within society. In Biblical times (particularly during the Roman empire) the people had no responsibility for government; what they were to render to Caesar was taxes. Even at that, Paul did speak out against the behaviors of the rulers. But what Caesar demands of Americans is much trickier. We are to be the accountability that makes the government work. Me filing criminal reports is not an optional thing. The laws of this country require that if I have knowledge of crimes that have been committed, I have to report those. If I fail to do so I am not rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar. It is also a crime on my part if I fail to report known crimes. It’s not just the Congress-critters who need to take seriously the role that they have in ensuring the sustainability of our form of government. I am also responsible. If I am a couch-potato quarterback who ignores my legal and moral responsibility to report known crimes, then I am every bit as guilty as the Congress-critters who abdicate their responsibilities.
My difficulty is that Caesar demands so much of me that it is near impossible to do it all and still feed my family. Literally. My responsibility to be an informed voter takes a LOT of time. My responsibility to report known crimes has taken and will continue to take a huge amount of time - and I’ve only really involved myself in one of many, many criminal issues that could be raised regarding this regime. Those in my family could tell you that between the time I’ve spent on those two civic (left-hand kingdom) responsibilities, I’ve got very little time left beyond what I spend working to earn income (so I can pay most of it back to the government in taxes). Which is what I need to do now, since it’s later than I had thought it was (my clock thinks Daylight Savings ended, apparently).
It makes no sense if I am legally required to report known crimes, and yet the Constitution guarantees that justice can never be executed within the system to which I am able to report the crimes. I just don’t see how that can be Constitutional.
Especially it would make no sense for me to take the time to obey futile legal requirements because the demands of the left-hand kingdom compete so dominantly for my time to engage within the right-hand kingdom. It’s a constant struggle between the needs in the left-hand kingdom and my desire to focus on the right-hand kingdom. And I don’t know how to do it all, or when I am veering too far to one or the other direction. When I am in church hearing the Word of God it is literally a re-charging, like a cell phone plugged into its source of power. If I was not receiving forgiveness and grace for all errors of priority, attitude, or behavior that I am unaware of as well as the ones I am aware of, I would be sunk. Truly sunk.
Placemark.
Can a criminal trial happen simultaneously or before impeachment?
A Sitting President's Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution
Thank you for those links. I need to get to work shortly so I haven’t read the whole thing but I’ve read through the first one to the point where it says that Presidents are supposed to be immune from criminal prosecution because it would be too political to have a jury trial for him/her and a long criminal prosecution could be used for the political purpose of rendering him/her unable to perform his/her Constitutional duties.
The thing this doesn’t account for is that the same thing could be true for any other official - none of which have Constitutionally-assigned replacements in the event that they are unable to perform their duties. Clearly the Constitution considered that there could be times when the POTUS would not be able to perform their duties, and made provision for that.
It also fails to recognize that there are evidentiary standards that are supposed to be met before criminal charges can even be filed - which, if followed with integrity, means that frivolous or unsupported charges would not even make it to an actual criminal trial. What’s disgusting about Ronnie Earl and Mike Nifong is that their clearly-political prosecutions ever even made it past a grand jury because there was no evidence to support the charges.
The idea that Congress would be the less-political place to try crimes is laughable. They are the most political body in the country.
These arguments also don’t even address the Third Article, which governs the role of the judiciary and has mandates regarding both the scope, jurisdiction, and place for the judicial branch to function.
Article III, Section 2 says that
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority/ - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.... etc”
And it also says that the trial of ALL Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury. This governs the federal courts, not the state courts, so this involves only federal crimes - which have to be tried in the state where they were committed except in instances of impeachment.
Nowhere does the Constitution prohibit the people from prosecuting crimes committed in their states, and the 10th Amendment says that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” What I’ve read so far does not address the federalism question, and the fact that a President who conducts business within a state is under the jurisdiction of that state, which has its own mandates it must follow.
One of those CONSTITUTIONAL mandates for each state is the Fourteenth Amendment, which says that the states may “not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law”. To say that a President is immune from prosecution in the individual states requires the states to deny equal protection of the law to anybody who is victimized by the President within that state.
AND these arguments would also ascertain that the President can never be subject to the laws of the country or states, since impeachment can only punish in regard to the ability to remain in office and/or be given honors or monetary gain. If the President cannot be prosecuted for crimes because it would be too political, that would presumably still be the case even if he/she was impeached. The whole argument given is for why the President is Constitutionally different than everybody else who can be impeached, so none of the stuff about impeachment (including the part about the one convicted in impeachment still being subject to trial by law enforcement) applies to the President if these arguments are accepted.
IOW, this interpretation means that the President can literally do no wrong from a law enforcement perspective.
You will never be able to convince me that this is what the people who just underwent a bloody war because of the crimes of King George III intended to write into their Constitution.
Shoot. I really have to go.
This is personal for me because I had somebody tell me that they helped create Obama’s birth certificate forgery but it would be useless for me to report it to law enforcement because the President is immune from prosecution and so are they - and that the FBI knows they did it and would cover them. This person also threatened that I would be put in jail.
This is somebody who went to the trouble of using gateways to hide who they were and tripwires to fry the computer of anybody who got anywhere close to finding out who they really were. An odd thing to do if they were “just joking”...
They are mocking justice, boasting of being able to “get away” with crimes that they freely admit having done. And they are making threats against me. Why should I believe, if they have the ability to pervert justice boastfully, that they would not be able to prosecute me for crimes I’ve never done? This “equal protection” stuff may be fun and games, or a theoretically abstract brain teaser, for some people. But for me this is no game, because it is my husband an children who will suffer if these lawless jerks are able to pervert the rule of law and equal protection in this country and each individual state.
I am asking the same question that Tyrone’s dad is asking: “Who made the decision that my family should not be protected?”
Buying ten acres isn’t blowing money on an adventure. It is a prudent application of resources and a most wise decision.
You may be asking the same question, but his has a specificity as to time and place. I know you don't like the answers, and will therefore continue to rail against the political solution, but that doesn't change them.
As for the 'other' officals, name one established by the Constitution where there is no replacement. They are in created agencies.
The idea that Congress would be the less-political place to try crimes is laughable. They are the most political body in the country.
Clearly, the Founders never envisioned a POS like the current would ever occupy that seat. Also clearly, they did envision the answer would be political when they put the remedy in the hands of Congress. Once impeached and convicted there is no bar to further prosecution on other charges.
This administration starting from the top is ill-equipped to deal with things military.....Benghazi is Barack Hussein Obama’s Bay of Pigs. However this president has another agenda, he must not bring harm to Islamists....if he can avoid it.
Not if you are putting off paying your debts so you can play at whatever adventure you next have in mind. This is just one in a long line of plans, I’ve heard too many of them that you never even started before taking up the next.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.