Myrick says, “This latest claim by Hezbollah in Lebanon only adds to their intentions to target U.S. interests.” But it is the effective penetration of a U.S. intelligence agency by Iran and Hezbollah that disturbs most.
“The reality is someone who knew of these names must have leaked them to the organization [Hezbollah],” says Phares. “That person or persons is either a member of Hezbollah or they are working with the terrorist group. The U.S. Congress should investigate the possible penetration Hezbollah may have developed over the years enabling it to have these kinds of access to names.”
Clare Lopez, deputy director of the U.S. Counterterrorism Advisory Team, says, “Up against Hezbollah on its own turf, it seems that U.S. intelligence is out of its league. Hezbollah’s intelligence capabilities, learned from the Iranians, are highly sophisticated and include the full classical tradecraft skillset as well as very competent counterintelligence capabilities.”
A former member of the U.S. Intelligence Community who spoke to us on condition of anonymity, says, “This should come as no surprise to anyone who understands the sophistication of these jihadist enemies and their professionalism in the skills of classical clandestine tradecraft. U.S. Intelligence Community failures to identify, effectively confront, and defeat the Islamic jihadist enemy speak not only to erosion of that skillset within the CIA, but also to catastrophic failure to master an understanding of the enemy ideology, the ideology of Islamic jihad.”
The former operator added, “Intent and motivation are as critical as capability to the enemy’s strategy and absent their accurate assessment, will lead as surely to defeat as failure to measure capability. America’s enemies have penetrated its Intelligence Community in the past and betrayal of top CIA assets abroad has been tracked to moles deep inside the system more than once.”
How this plays out is anyone’s guess for the near future. But what we cannot continue to neglect are the overt threats and activities of Iran and Hezbollah, the developing sophistication of their covert capabilities, their global reach and obvious intent, and the fact that – as former Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff says – Hezbollah “makes Al Qaeda look like a minor league team.”
Due tothe current resident in the white house, we have muslims in high positions throughout government; National Security apparatus included. I will never get over the killing of our 31+ Seals; to this day we still don’t have the truth about that. Most likely, we are being sold out from within our current government.
the MUSLIMS WHERE BRAGGING ABOUT IT, IN ONE VIDEO FROM A JOURNALIST ASKING QUESTIONS,
THEY SAID THEY HAVE THEIR PEOPLE IN CIA INTELLIGENCE AND IN POLICE JOBS AND GOVERNMENT
AND SAID THAT SHARIA IS COMING IN A FEW MORE YEARS.
……
…………………………
….and my fellow conservatives grow all huffy and indignant should I call them out on their Islamophobia.
WORDSMITH
WOULD IT BE BETTER TO HAVE DEEP ROOTED AMERICANS WHICH HAVE FOUGHT IN WARS TO BE ELECTED
TO PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF THEIR COUNTRY, EVEN WITH DISABILITY, THEY COULD DO A BETTER JOB THAN WHO IS THERE NOW, BECAUSE THEY CARE MORE THAN ANYONE FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES
JUST IMMIGRATED IN THE LAST 10 YEARS WHICH IN NO WAY POSESS THE BOUNDING OF ONE WHO WENT TO FIGHT WARS, AND HAVE BEEN ROOTED WITH THE FOUNDER’S KNOWLEDGE
AND LAWS, THEY WILL PROTECT THE FREE SPEECH AS WELL AS THE CONSTITUTION BETTER THAN PROTECTING THE OTHER COUNTRIES AND TRYING TO FIX THEIR PROBLEMS INSTEAD OF THE ONES OF THIS AMERICA,
BYE
On the heels of this story of infiltration, that it seems timely to point out the chicken little hyperbole now being spread by the anti-war (like InfoWars, in tandem with the ACLU on the National Defense Authorization Act.
The Senate and House versions of these bills are primarily to provide funding tables for military construction, defense and national security authorizations. But what the anti-war and leftist are objecting to are what they call increased war powers to the CiC.
The House bill, HR 1540, was introduced in April, and passed the House May 26th with overwhelming bipartisan support (322 Ayes, 96 Nays, 13 Present/Not Voting). No surprise that GOP primary candidate,Ron Paul, was one of the minority in opposition, saying that:
Now the same bunch is hot on the trail to cast the presentation of the Senate version, introduced May 12th, in the same light, as exhibited by the Sky Valley Chronicle’s (Monroe, WA) screaming headline, “AN EGYPTIAN MILITARY MODEL IN THE U.S.?” Both bills, BTW, teamed up with both a GOP and Dem sponsor… a rare moment of Congressional compromise and cooperation (as the House vote proves).
And what are their knickers all in a twist about? For Paul and the ACLU, it was Section 530 and 1034, amending the AUMF (which Ron Paul wants repealed… pfttt).
In other words, they are correcting a beef I have had since the onset… that of describing the enemy that is the global Islamic jihad networks as only AQ. They now are including all who engage in hostilities against the US that share the AQ ideology.
This, of course, has the same bunch who were upset about the killing of pseudo American al Awlaki, in an uproar, saying “Congress will give President Obama and every future president the power to order the military to pick up and imprison – without charge or trial – American civilians anywhere in the world.”
I guess the bill was large enough with other matters that they didn’t want to read Subtitle D–Military Justice and Legal Matters, which lays out the specifics of judicial review. So it seems the hyperbole is somewhat overblown, and merely codifies what the US has been doing from the start… detaining suspected terrorists and their associated links… but still allows for military tribunals and judicial review.
This becomes important because if the US finds the Lebanese mole in the CIA, I’m frankly not interested in hearing a bunch of hoo hah about the violation of his rights. First order of business is to get the suspects out of the information loop to prevent further intel leaks that endanger our troops and US citizens. And I’m quite sure that some ACLU or Lawyer’s Guild type… if they can find the time in between bailing out their infestant anarchists out of jail… will step up to the plate to defend the suspected mole’s rights in any situation.
This, however, is one more reason why Ron Paul’s foreign policy and national security stances simply make him unfit for the Oval Office, IMHO. On the flip side, I find him a viable and powerful voice INRE fiscal matters as a member of Congress. And that’s where he needs to stay.
There is a wonderful article (linking to an on-line book) about polyglots at PJMedia.
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/11/23/polywhat-polyglot/?singlepage=true
http://www.mediafire.com/?eys33on91ryn5gv
Polyglots are people who teach themselves several more languages after (usually) being raised speaking two languages.
The man who was in the article taught himself over 20 different languages.
The book, called The Polyglot Project, contains over 500 pages of first-hand accounts from people all over the world who have one thing in common: their love of learning multiple foreign languages.
There is NO REASON to hire anyone who speaks Arabic, Farsi or Pashtun if he/she MIGHT have a loyalty issue.
On the other hand, Nan G, there is “NO REASON” to assume any of those who speak Arabic, Farsi or Pashtun have divided loyalties based on their mastering of the language alone, or because they are Muslim. For we are in deep doo doo if we do not have adept interpreters in our intelligence field. And, even more importantly, we need Muslims who speak these languages to use as our own infiltrators.
I guess this comes down to whether you believe all Muslims want the third world oppressive rule, as advocated by the jihad movements, or if they have become sufficiently acclimated to western freedoms to completely reject that oppression. I tend to believe American Muslims have no desire to live a life as is exemplified in the strict Islamic countries. It’s one of the reasons they migrate here. Are there bad apples? Always. But that’s not confined only to Muslims.
@MataHarley:
Mata, You brought Bradley Manning to my mind.
You are absolutely correct that we should not assume Muslims suffer dual loyalties as opposed to others in intel-gathering- disseminating.
What we need to do is TEST new recruits.
Test their loyalty by false data put in front of them from time to time UNTIL we can be assured they are not passing it on – or watering it down.
Bradley Manning is being tried right now.
Don’t know how its going.
@MataHarley: You’re formatting that roughdraft comment #5 into a blogpost, right? 😉
MataHarley #7:
Someone who immediately comes to mind is Ali Soufan. I consider him a hero in the GWoT even if I disagree with his EIT opposition. And his understanding of Arabic and the culture has been a definite asset.
I’ve had his book since it came out but am only up to the USS Cole investigation. I highly recommend the Black Banner to anyone, left or right.
@MataHarley: One problem I have with this bill is its deliberate use of ambiguous language. ‘Appropriate force’, ‘associated forces’, ‘substantially supporting’ … also the reference to ‘coalition partners’ (maybe I’m off base here… is there a particular coalition with a well-defined set of member nations being referred to?). It’s written in such a way as to let Congress pass messy matters of interpretation off to lawyers and agencies, rather than actually come out and specify exactly what is being allowed.
Also, a note on Ron Paul – he’s retiring from Congress. It’s always nice to see him get some props for his fiscal conservatism, but he won’t be staying.
@bbartlog, I understand that ambiguous legalese can be annoying. But then that’s the way all laws are written. They can’t define specific force or name specific terrorist groups (which was the problem to begin with… only al Qaeda) since that is all pertinent to a situation. Especially since terrorist groups come up with new entities daily. Or many do not affiliate with a loosely named organization. It’s virtually impossible to layout what can be used absolutely in any given situation with clarity as every situation is unique.
The AUMF used similar language… “… the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001”. This battlefield is (and never was) confined to just the Sept 11th attacks. Nor should it be. The enemy has never been just al “the Base” Qaeda. These terrorists are not card carrying, due paying members of any organization. Just a band of thugs who made up a name, that may change tomorrow to a new name… or splinter off into warring factions. And who are willing to work with each other against a common enemy.
Vagaries in legalese are the same in civil or criminal case law in the US. Any situation must be evaluated in legal context to the specific event to which it pertains. Those enforcing the law (police, CIA, FBI, Homeland Security, and the CiC etc) do so as they believe the situation warrants.
To attempt to define, or interpret, specifics is the same narrow argument that what’s his face (truly forgot who the heck he is already… LOL) was taking INRE avowing the UC Davis police were unequivocally incorrect in pepper spraying the students – saying there was “no threat” – based on a campus wide guideline manual. However that manual was just an overview, and all campuses have their own policy and procedures… including definitions of “threat”. In his limited opinion, and based on specific camera angles of the event, there was “no threat”.
Yet what constitutes a threat on that campus, and in light of the evidence of the campus police being surrounded by two rings of protesters (not reflected on those YouTube camera angles) the situation did indeed rise to what was an indirect, conditional or veiled threat to their safety. Could that manual, or even the individual policy and procedures manuals, definitively state describe every given situation, such as that?
“Appropriate” is an appropriate word… if it’s questioned as inappropriate, that’s what military tribunals and judicial reviews are for. It’s just that, in the case of terrorists, you don’t let them run willy nilly in action while you collect enough evidence (unless you’re looking for the bigger fish by following them…). You remove them from the chain to limit their damaging impact. In civil and criminal law, you can’t be detaining them until all that evidence is already in place.
Even at that, as demonstrated with al Awaki, the ordering authority (in that case the CiC) had to have some pretty convincing evidence before the CIA would act on the orders. This was the case with al Awaki when the CIA would not have acted without some written legal opinion on the authority to target an American citizen.
It’s our checks and balances that create (in most cases) a circle of protection. A POTUS cannot dictate illegal actions under color of law and expect that the agencies will willingly, and without question, carry out that order without substantiation of legal authority.
Last, I’m not sure what your objection is to coalition references. It neither defines who is, or isn’t allowed to be a coalition member. Nor does it demand there be coalition partners. In fact, what one of the sections does is extend the authority of reimbursement to certain existing coalition partners that are receiving cash for their cooperation in intel/etal (i.e. Pakistan) from the 2008 version.
@Nan G, it sounds like you are suggesting a form of entrapment as a test for specific individuals. Interesting proposal that I’m not sure I agree with. But then I’m not sure I disagree. But I will say that deliberately flooding the intel system with false data is a way to muddy the waters, and might lead to miscommunication further down the chain, and construed as being correct. It would seem to me that trying to keep the volume of tips, facts and pieces of genuine intel is tough enough to manage without tainting it with entrapment tests. Jus’ one girl’s opinion.
@bbartlog:
Ron Paul’s fiscal Conservatism? Ha! More like fiscal fraud. Good riddance to the phony.
Hard Right, I know the “phony fiscal conservatism” you speak of when you tacitly reference his love for pork. But you have to admit it would be extremely entertaining to have Ron Paul as a Treasury Secretary, considering his disdain for the Fed, don’t you think?
But POTUS? Not with my vote.
@Wordsmith:
That’s because per my memory, you can be rather sloppy with your brush. For the record, I was not one of the thumbs up on the post by Cali because I don’t agree.
@MataHarley:
You got me there Mata. That would be worth the price of admission.
@Hard Right:
Brush?! It’s called fingerpainting, friend! 😀
Although I think I was very delicate and specific with my fingers upon entry, here…
@MataHarley:
Mata, I did NOT say, “a test for specific individuals. ”
I said, “What we need to do is TEST new recruits.”
All of them can be tested, over time.
Years ago, when I did undercover work in internal theft in big businesses, I used to set up a tempting thing on some unsuspecting employee on a regular basis.
You would not believe how often people will immediately call management because they found a bag of cash or a bag of merchandise with a receipt in it.
OTOH, every once in a regular while, someone you’d least expect will pocket the company’s property and try to walk out with it.
@Wordsmith:
Yes you were, but you have been less than fair before from what I recall. I should also add you weren’t wrong about everyone you said that about. Just some.