(Reuters) – A British soldier was hacked to death by two men shouting Islamic slogans in a south London street, in what Prime Minister David Cameron said appeared to be a terrorist attack.
A dramatic clip filmed by an onlooker just minutes after the killing showed a man with hands covered in blood, brandishing a bloodied meat cleaver and a knife.
“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day,” the black man in his 20s or 30s, wearing a wool jacket and jeans and speaking with a local accent, shouted in the footage obtained by Britain’s ITV news channel.
“This British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
The attack was the first apparent Islamist killing in London since suicide bombers struck transport in July 2005. The capital was shocked by the bizarre scene of a killer covered in gore, declaring his motive to onlookers.
Police shot the two suspects while trying to arrest them, and the wounded men were taken into custody. No information was immediately released about the identity of the suspects, but two sources familiar with the investigation told Reuters authorities were investigating a possible link to Nigeria.
“I apologize that women had to witness that, but in our lands our women have to see the same thing. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you,” the videotaped man said before crossing the street and speaking casually to the other attacker.
Cameron chairs an emergency national security meeting on Thursday after cutting short a visit to France to return to London.
“The police are urgently seeking the full facts about this case but there are strong indications that it is a terrorist incident,” Cameron said before cutting short talks with French President Francois Hollande to return home.
“We have had these sorts of attacks before in our country and we never buckle in the face of them,” he said.
The attack happened on the edge of London’s sprawling Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, a south London working class district which has long-standing historic links to the military.
In signs of a backlash after the attack, more than 100 angry supporters of the English Defence League, a far-right street protest group, took to the streets, some wearing balaclavas and carrying England’s red and white flag. They were contained by riot police.
Separately, two men were arrested in connection with separate attacks on mosques outside London. No one was hurt.
HELP FOR HEROES
The authorities did not immediately confirm the identity of the slain man, but a source told Reuters the man may have been a member of the military. The British government normally withholds the identities of slain servicemembers until their families are informed.
Mark Twain once talked about history not necessarily repeating, but he noted that history sure does rhyme.
Richard Nixon was unable to survive one direct hit upon his administration, namely, the Watergate scandal. Conversely, Obama is facing five scandals which dwarf Watergate in terms of criminality, abuse of power, malfeasance of office and outright treason.
The damage inflicted upon the American people by the criminal syndicate occupying the White House is unparalleled in American history. Yet, Obama is going to survive and this article will describe how Obama is this century’s version of the famous escape artist, Houdini.
The Alternative Media Is Doing Its Job
In Part One of this series, I detailed how various researchers have determined that it only takes 10% of the population to passionately hold to an ideal for the ideal to reach critical mass and go viral. I also described how the knowledge that this country is being run by a criminal syndicate is taking hold and we have likely passed the 10% threshold as evidenced by the fact that America is outraged by (1) Benghazi-Gate; (2) IRS-Gate; (3) AP Spy-Gate; (4) Whistleblower-Gate; and even (5) Fast and Furious is beginning to make a second pass. The alternative media is being so effective that it is forcing the MSM to jump off Obama’s ship and claim they do not support him any longer (e.g. MSNBC Chris Mathews).
The Calm Before the Storm
Even the great fence-sitter, Glenn Beck, is beginning to throw words around like “impeachment” in reference to Obama. And this is coming from a man who cannot decide if he is in the MSM or the alternative media. Remember, according to Beck, 9/11 is exactly as the Bush administration claims it was, an al-Qaeda venture. This is the same al-Qaeda that we are allegedly fighting in Afghanistan while supporting in Syria in our effort to oust Assad.
Regardless of the pedigree of many reporters who are now hinting at the fact that we are witnessing the last days of the Obama administration, the President himself seems unbelievably calm.
Obama is calm because he knows that he is going to survive the largest onslaught of simultaneous scandal exposures in our country’s history. There has never been a time in our history in which a sitting president has been besieged with this much exposed fodder aimed at his removal. If Watergate forced Nixon to resign, Obama should have been crushed by the comparative weight of his scandals and he should have already exited the White House. Why hasn’t this happened?
Sacrificial Lambs Buy Time
It is not likely that the Mafioso inhabitant presently residing in the White House will ever leave office prematurely. In fact, I think it is likely that Obama may not leave the Oval Office in 2016 as well.
If this were 1974, I would be advising Obama to pack his bags and I would also be advising him that he should be begging Joe Biden to grant him a pardon for his criminal acts including the facilitation of the murder of Ambassador Stevens. Make no mistake about it, Obama will survive these crises. However, Holder and possibly even DHS director, Janet Napolitano, may not.
Undoubtedly, Obama will offer up the head of Eric Holder as a sacrificial lamb and he will be gone by Labor day, if not much sooner, and this will buy Obama time to enact his endgame strategies which will negate the five Watergate wolves trying to break through his door.
Holder’s departure will bring celebrations in the alternative media and their followers will be dancing in the streets. We will also smell blood and want more removals. But the head of the president will never be touched despite the fact that all of us will soon be screaming for Obama’s scalp. It will just never happen.
What Will Save This President?
There is one game-changing event which will suddenly and irreversibly negate the momentum that the alternative media has achieved in terms of exposing and removing this criminal administration from power.
In the last eight months, I have repeated the mantra that most of what drives this government today is the preservation of the Petrodollar on behalf of the Federal Reserve. I have also detailed how Iran is selling its oil to Russia, China and India for gold, thus threatening the preeminence of the Petrodollar in which the other countries of the world must first purchase dollars from the Federal Reserve for the “privilege” of purchasing oil. This process provides the only backing that our dollar possesses.
Iran, China, Russia and India are destabilizing the dominance of our currency. Before you cheer the fact that the Federal Reserve is about ready to take a much-deserved bloodbath, please realize that you have a job to go to every Monday morning because of this one-sided arrangement and it is all about to end unless Iran can be toppled.
Why Syria?
Have you yet figured out why Obama will survive these crushing scandals and assume power in this country in a manner only reserved for such despots as Stalin? The road to Obama’s immediate survival runs through Damascus.
On the surface, Syria seems so very insignificant on the global chessboard. However, the key to invading Iran and seizing their oil fields is to first control Syria, because the occupation of Syria is an insurmountable checkmate against Russian ground troops’ intervention.
If the US takes over the Syrian revolution that we started through our al-Qaeda proxy forces, the US will gain a huge tactical advantage in the Middle East. The installation of short- and medium-range missile batteries in Syria will serve as a deterrent and a blocking mechanism for Russian ground troops’ ability to intervene in Iran.
If Russia allows the US to control Syria, Russia will lose any chance of preventing a US/NATO takeover of Iran. Russia and China have heavily vested themselves in gold. If Iran is stopped from selling its oil for gold, China, Russia and India will have wasted an enormous amount of the respective GNP’s in acquiring gold. And the acquisition of gold will be for naught if the US is about to re-establish the dominance of the Petrodollar as the world’s reserve currency through a successful invasion of Iran.
For awhile, it appeared as if Russia did not have the stomach for WWIII and they were going to let us topple Assad without so much as a whimper. I have been shocked as I have watched Russia apparently acquiesce to an impending takeover of Syria by US-led forces. However, recent Russian events make it clear that WWIII is on the horizon.
White House releases additional documents related to Benghazi response
One hundred pages of emails were passed out by the White House Wednesday as the Obama administration tried to put an end to the long simmering dispute over what took place when the American compound in Benghazi was attacked. NBC’s Peter Alexander reports.
By Michael O’Brien, Political Reporter, NBC News
Under increasing scrutiny from congressional Republicans, the White House on Wednesday released copies of emails and other additional supporting documents related to its response to last fall’s attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya.
The White House released the materials in the wake of Republicans’ clamor for more information about how the Obama administration crafted its explanation for the incident, which came at the height of last year’s campaign season, and resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
The emails convey different parts of the administration — the White House, the State Department, and the CIA — trading drafts of talking points for use not just by representatives of the administration, but also by members of Congress.
From the very first draft, the talking points included references to “Islamic extremists” who might have participated in the attack.
The most significant changes involved removing references to Ansar al-Sharia to not hinder the investigation into the attack, and changing reference to the Benghazi location to a “mission” or “diplomatic post,” rather than a consulate.
Those talking points, though, were subjected to scrutiny and a series of tweaks from different agencies to ensure the talking points did not get out in front of investigators, who did not yet appear to have a full grasp of the underpinnings of the attack at that point.
Did the White House selectively leak e-mail to distort Benghazi timeline story? Update: Axelrod: Release all the Libya e-mails
posted at 9:21 am on May 15, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
In order to understand just how badly the White House may have fumbled this ball, let’s go back to last week. Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard reported from Congressional sources on a White House-State Department e-mail string that made clear that the administration wanted the talking points on Benghazi massaged to protect sources and its own political goals. ABCs Jon Karl later reported from the e-mails themselves, showing that the White House and State Department went through 12 versions of talking points before settling on the final version, which CIA Director Davod Petraeus called “useless” and advised against using.
Yesterday, however — not too long before Jay Carney’s press briefing at the White House — Jake Tapper got a leaked version of an e-mail sent by Ben Rhodes that seemed to contradict the reporting from Hayes and Karl:
CNN has obtained an e-mail sent by a top aide to President Barack Obama about White House reaction to the deadly attack last September 11 on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, that apparently differs from how sources characterized it to two different media organizations.
The actual e-mail from then-Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes appears to show that whomever leaked it did so in a way that made it appear that the White House was primarily concerned with the State Department’s desire to remove references and warnings about specific terrorist groups so as to not bring criticism to the department.
During the press conference, Carney seized on this report to claim that the Benghazi story was a trumped-up non-story:
Guests n MSNBC’s Now with Alex Wagner were in general agreement that the Benghazi scandal makes the White House look terrible, with one even bringing up the possibility of impeaching Obama.
Gregory Hicks (Whistleblower) Embarrassed By Blame Placed On YouTube Video. Benghazi Hearing
Published on May 8, 2013
Trey Gowdy (R-SC) used his short time addressing former deputy chief of mission for the U.S. in Libya, Gregory Hicks, to establish the fact that the American diplomatic staff in Libya were “embarrassed” by the White House’s effort to blame the Benghazi attack on an inflammatory YouTube video. Gowdy established that the State Department had informed the Libyan government on the day after the attack that “Islamic terrorists” were likely behind the assault.
“When Ambassador [Christopher] Stevens talked to you perhaps minutes before he died, as a dying declaration, what did he say to you?” Gowdy asked.
“He said, ‘Greg, we’re under attack,” Hicks replied.
Gowdy and Hicks established that there was no demonstration outside the consulate that day. He noted that U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice proceeded to blame the attack on a video. When asked what his reaction to Rice’s statements was, Hick’s replied, “I was stunned. My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.”
RELATED: LIVE STREAM: Witnesses Testify At House Committee Hearing On Benghazi
Gowdy read from a portion of an email form an aide to former Sec. Hilary Clinton which stated that the State Department had informed the Libyan government that the individuals who carried out the attack were linked to “Islamic terrorists.”
“Mr. Hicks, I want to know, number one, why in the world would Susan Rice go on five Sunday talk shows and perpetuate a demonstrably false narrative?” Gowdy asked. “And secondarily, what impact did it have on the ground in Benghazi the fact that she contradicted the president of Libya?”
Hicks declined to answer the first question, but said Rice’s statements helped facilitate introducing FBI investigators into Libya. Bureacuracy in Llbya hampered the investigation’s progress, however, and the crime scene was left unsecured for 18 days.
Gregory Hicks claimed he was scolded for giving critical evidence to investigators without the presence of a ‘minder’ from State. Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
While US diplomats were pulling bodies from a burning Libyan consulate and frantically smashing up hard drives last 11 September, their superiors blocked rescue efforts and later attempted to cover up security failings, according to damaging new evidence that may yet hurt Hillary Clinton‘s presidential hopes.
In vivid testimony to Congress on Wednesday, Gregory Hicks, deputy to murdered US ambassador Christopher Stevens, revealed for the first time in public a detailed account of the desperate few hours after the terrorist attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi.
He also said that Stevens went to Benghazi to beat a 30 September deadline to convert the mission to a permanent posting. There was additional time pressure because Clinton planned to visit Libya later in the year and to announce the opening of the post, Hicks said.
But Hicks and two other state department witnesses also singled out the government response for criticism. Until now that criticism had been largely dismissed as a partisan effort by Republican congressman to smear former Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time.
Hicks claimed Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills, telephoned him to complain that he had given critical evidence to congressional investigators without the presence of a “minder” from the state department. “A phone call from that senior a person is generally considered not to be good news,” said Hicks, who said he had since been demoted. “She was upset. She was very upset.”
The career diplomat also alleged he was actively discouraged by officials from asking awkward questions about why other top Clinton aides, including the UN ambassador Susan Rice, initially blamed the attack on a spontaneous protest that got out of control. He described that briefing he described as “jaw-dropping, embarrassing and stunning”. It is now thought the attacks, involving up to 60 heavily armed militia, were co-ordinated by Ansar al-Sharia, a group affiliated to al-Qaida, and timed to coincide with the 11th anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington.
The allegations of a state department cover-up follow equally embarrassing claims that military leaders blocked efforts to dispatch special forces troops to the Benghazi consulate.
In testimony that first emerged on Monday, Hicks claims that four special forces soldiers with him in Tripoli were “furious” when they were told by superiors in Washington that they could not join a relief flight to Benghazi organised by the Libyan government in the hours after the initial attack.
Mark Thompson, a former marine who heads the foreign emergency support team, also alleged that the White House blocked his efforts to dispatch a specialist group from the US that is designed to respond to incidents such as the Benghazi attaack.
Hicks said he was told that US air force jets based in Italy could have reached the consulate in “two to three hours” but were blocked, out of fear of offending the Libyan government, and because a refuelling tanker could not be found.
Pentagon officials have repeatedly argued that none of the available military assets could have reached Benghazi in time to prevent the death of ambassador Stevens and three other consular staff. But Hicks insisted even if they had been too late, better attempts should have been made. “People in peril in future need to know that we will go to get them,” he said. “That night we needed to demonstrate that resolve even if we still had the same outcome.”
Hicks also rejected the defence given by Hillary Clinton when pressed on the initial delay in attributing the attack to terrorists, arguing the US undermined its Libyan allies who were rightly pointing to Ansar al-Sharia.
“President Magarief was insulted in front of his own people, in front of the world. His credibility was reduced. His ability to govern was [damaged]. He was angry … He was still steamed about the talk shows two weeks later. I definitely believe it negatively affected our ability to get the FBI team quickly to Benghazi.”
Hicks said that the day of the attack was a routine day until they say news of the earlier Cairo embassy-storming attempt. He informed his superior, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens of the attempt.
Later in the day he received a message the attack had started. He went to the tactical operations center, while on the phone with the ambassador. The call was cut due to poor cell performance. After reaching the center, Hicks received more information about the attack and next called the annex chief to activate their emergency response team.
He then called the operations center at the State Department to report the attack and their response. He then called senior officials in Libya to request assistance from the local government. After that was done he reported it to Washington.
According to Hicks, the night unfolded in four phases. There was an attack on the diplomatic annex. The villa was invaded were several of the casualties were. The 6 person response team from Bengazhi managed to temporarily clear the diplomatic compound. The body of Shawn Smith was pulled out during this time. There was a second wave of attackers and the teams evacuated to another location.
The second phase commenced when the team returned to the annex later in the night. They suffered several probing attacks but repelled them. The Tripoli response team begins to arrive during this phase.
Phase three is when the ambassador’s body was recovered. Reports came out that the ambassador was taken to hospital that was suspect to be controlled by Islamic militants. Hicks received conflicted reports of the location of the ambassador. He then received reports that the embassy in Tripoli was under attack and the staff prepared to evacuate. He is also keeping Washington informed
At 2:00 A.M. he receives a call from Sec. of State Clinton; They mostly talked about the search of the ambassador and the need to evacuate. Clinton agrees with evacuation. The PM of Libya called around 3:00 A.M. to inform Hicks of the ambassadors’ death. Hicks immediately telephoned Washington of the news.
The team destroyed all of the information in the annex as is standard US diplomatic procedure. They decided to evacuate at dawn and arrived at another compound. The mortar attack started when they arrived. The attack killed several.
Hicks claims that they were in them process of evacuating to a plane but the security officer who was in charge did not have authorization to go ahead.
Reps. Chaffetz & Lynch Clash Over Intimidation Of Benghazi Witnesses On Fox News Sunday
Published on May 5, 2013
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) and Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) paid a visit to Fox News Sunday this week to talk Benghazi. Speaking of the investigation into the review and the charge that witnesses have been blocked from testifying, the pair clashed over the arguments, with Lynch asserting that Democrats have been left out of the whole process.
“The Republicans control the House,” Lynch said. “We don’t have the ability to hold a hearing. The Democrats have been completely kept out of this whole process. This has been a one-sided investigation, if you want to call it that. … I think it’s disgraceful.”
Chaffetz said that witnesses have “absolutely” been threatened and intimidated from coming forward. They’re “scared to the death” of what the State Department is doing, he asserted. Lynch jumped in to argue that Chaffetz’s assertions were “completely false” — that the attorneys have not asked for the information yet and, in fact, the State Department would cooperate.
Not surprisingly, Chaffetz was insistent about his story, further adding that Democrats are more than welcome to participate in the process. But they simply haven’t. The congressmen refuted nearly every point they made to each other, neither agreeing on much about where the situation stands.
Chris Wallace later jumped in to pose the question about how much then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew about the security requests (which she said she never saw). Every cable that goes to the department, he told Chaffetz, has Clinton’s name on it — so that’s not necessarily a way to argue that Clinton should have seen that cable. Chaffetz by asking for the release of the unclassified document.
Clinton, he argued, “claims” to take full responsibility for what happened, but simultaneously “pleads ignorance.”
Former deputy chief of mission in Libya Gregory Hicks, center, prepares to testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on May 8, 2013. He is flanked by fellow witnesses Mark Thompson, deputy coordinator for operations in the State Department’s counterterrorism bureau, and Eric Nordstrom, formerly the department’s regional security officer in Libya. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
(CNSNews.com) – A senior U.S. diplomat in Libya was instructed by State Department lawyers – for the first time in his 22-year foreign service career – not to speak to a visiting lawmaker who was investigating last September’s attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, a congressional panel heard Wednesday.
“I was instructed not to allow the RSO [regional security officer], the acting deputy chief of mission and myself to be personally interviewed by Congressman Chaffetz,” Gregory Hicks, who was the number two official at the embassy in Libya at the time of the attack, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who chairs the committee’s subcommittee on national security, homeland defense and foreign operations, visited Libya to investigate the Sept. 11 attack in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, foreign service officer Sean Smith and Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.
“So, the people at State told you, ‘Don’t talk to the guy who’s coming to investigate’?” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) asked Hicks during Wednesday’s hearing.
“Yes, sir,” Hicks replied.
“Have you ever had anyone tell you, ‘Don’t talk with the people from Congress coming to find out what took place’?”
“Never.”
“Never,” Jordan continued. “And you’ve had dozens and dozens of congressional delegations that you’ve been a part of.”
“Yes, sir.”
“First time it’s ever happened.”
“Yes, sir.”
Hicks confirmed in response to further questioning that, when Chaffetz arrived in Libya a State Department lawyer had sought to be present at every meeting with the congressman.
In conjunction with the upcoming release of his new book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, John W. Whitehead sits down to discuss several “pressure points” that are threatening the Bill of Rights and undermining our essential freedoms. In part one of this special series, Whitehead examines the increased presence of militarized police.
Invasion of the Body Searchers: The Loss of Bodily Integrity in an Emerging Police State [SHORT]
By John W. Whitehead
January 14, 2013
If you want a recipe for disaster, take police officers hyped up on their own authority and the power of the badge, throw in a few court rulings suggesting that security takes precedence over individual rights, set it against a backdrop of endless wars and militarized law enforcement, and then add to the mix a populace distracted by entertainment, out of touch with the workings of their government, and more inclined to let a few sorry souls suffer injustice than to challenge the status quo.
The resulting concoction, I can promise you, will be a messy, noxious stew unfit for consumption, miserable to digest and with after-effects that will leave you reeling and clutching your stomach in dismay. Such is the nature of life in the emerging police state that is America today, where roadside police stops have devolved into government-sanctioned exercises in humiliation and degradation with a complete disregard for privacy and human dignity.
Consider, for example, what happened to 38-year-old Angel Dobbs and her 24-year-old niece, Ashley, who were pulled over by a Texas state trooper on July 13, 2012, allegedly for flicking cigarette butts out of the car window. First, the trooper berated the women for littering on the highway. Then, insisting that he smelled marijuana, he proceeded to interrogate them and search the car. Despite the fact that both women denied smoking or possessing any marijuana, the police officer then called in a female trooper, who carried out a roadside cavity search, sticking her fingers into the older woman’s anus and vagina, then performing the same procedure on the younger woman, wearing the same pair of gloves. No marijuana was found.
Leila Tarantino was allegedly subjected to two roadside strip searches in plain view of passing traffic during a routine traffic stop, while her two children—ages 1 and 4—waited inside her car. During the second strip search, presumably in an effort to ferret out drugs, a female officer “forcibly removed” a tampon from Tarantino’s body. No contraband or anything illegal was found.
Meanwhile, four Milwaukee police officers have been charged with carrying out rectal searches of suspects on the street and in police district stations over the course of several years. One of the officers is accused of conducting searches of men’s anal and scrotal areas, often inserting his fingers into their rectums and leaving some of his victims with bleeding rectums. Half-way across the country, the city of Oakland, California, has agreed to pay $4.6 million to 39 men who had their pants pulled down by police on city streets between 2002 and 2009.
And then there’s the increasingly popular practice of doing blood draws at DUI checkpoints, where drivers who refuse a breathalyzer test find themselves subjected to forcible blood extractions to test for alcohol levels. Police in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, actually had a registered nurse and an assistant district attorney on hand “to help streamline the ‘blood draw’ warrants and collect blood samples from suspected impaired drivers” at one exercise in holiday drunk driving enforcement. A similar case, Missouri v. McNeely, which deals with a driver who failed a sobriety test, then refused a breathalyzer test and was subjected to a warrantless blood draw, is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Revealed: Three Benghazi survivors set to go before House committee to testify about 2012 attack identified as career State Department officials as their attorneys claim ‘Obama administration tried to silence them’
Gregory N. Hicks was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya
Mark I. Thompson is a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in Counterterrorism Bureau
Eric Nordstrom is a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya
The House Oversight committee will hear their testimony on May 8, forcing the Obama administration’s hand
President Obama has professed ignorance of any effort to prevent whistle-blowers from telling Congress about the night terrorists attacked
PUBLISHED: 13:30 EST, 4 May 2013 | UPDATED: 14:54 EST, 4 May 2013
On Wednesday, the three State Department officials will appear on Capitol Hill before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to talk about the September 11, 2012, assault on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi that resulted in the deaths of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Fox News revealed Saturday that the key witnesses are: Gregory N. Hicks, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya.
First hearing: Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, testifies on Capitol Hill on October 10
Wintess: Gregory N. Hicks, a veteran officer of the Foreign Service – was in Tripoli on the night of the attack when he received a distress call from Ambassador Stevens
For Nordstrom, the upcoming hearing would not be the first time that he was called to testify on the events of last September.
‘For me the Taliban is on the inside of the [State Department] building,’ the former mission deputy chief angrily said while speaking at a hearing chaired by California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa in October 2012.
During his testimony at the time, Nordstrom detailed for lawmakers how he and the late ambassador had repeatedly asked to increase security at the embassy in the months leading up to the attack, but said that their pleas fell on deaf ears as the situation in the country continued deteriorating.
Witness accounts: The three career diplomats who were in Libya during the 2012 attacks will appear before a congressional hearing to testify about the deadly events of last September
The two other State Department officials have never publicly spoken about the attacks.
At the time of the deadly attacks, Hicks was the highest-ranking American diplomat serving in Libya.
Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, a Republican and members of the House committee, said that Hicks – a veteran officer of the Foreign Service – was in Tripoli on the night of the attack when he received a distress call from Ambassador Stevens.
‘We’re under attacks! We’re under attacks’ Stevens reportedly yelled into his cell phone.
According to the Utah congressman, Hicks reacted to the news by calling Washington to alert officials and set off an ‘inter-agency response.’
What remains: As the investigation into the attack continues, the consulate remains damaged
According to the State Department website, Thompson ‘advises senior leadership on operational counterterrorism matters, and ensures that the United States can rapidly respond to global terrorism crises.’
Victim: U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed during the attack
Hicks and Thompson are believed to be represented pro bono by Joe diGenova, a former US attorney, and his wife, Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Of the three men, Nordstrom is the only one who does not consider himself a whistle-blower.
According to diGenova and Toensing, their clients’ accounts of the attacks in Benghazi were dismissed by then-Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Accountability Review Board, and the two civil servants have been subjected to an intimidation campaign by their superiors meant to stop them from telling the truth about the tragic events in Libya.
The revelation of the witnesses’ identities comes just days after the Obama administration denied that it was prohibiting any U.S. personnel who survived last year’s attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya from testifying before Congress about what they experienced.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee announced on Wednesday that it will convene a hearing on May 8 aimed at ‘exposing failure’ in the Obama administration to respond to security threats to that diplomatic mission, and to present to the public and to Congress an accurate version of the attack that left Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans dead.
‘This Administration has offered the American people only a carefully selected and sanitized version of events from before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks, committee Chairman Issa, a Republican congressman from California, said in a statement. ‘Not surprisingly, this version of events casts senior officials in the most favorable light possible.’
Jay Carney insisted in a press briefing that no administration employees had sought security clearances so they could testify about he Benghazi raid, even after the House Oversight Committee asked for those very clearances
Issa’s committee has already shed public light on the U.S. State Department’s denials of requests for more robust security at the consulate in Benghazi. And in an October 2012 hearing, it produced evidence contradicting the administration’s initial claim that the the Sept. 11, 2012 military-style assault on the diplomatic compound began as a ‘protest’ sparked by a low-budget YouTube video that lampooned the Muslim prophet Muhammad.
‘Next week’s hearing will expose new facts and details that the Obama Administration has tried to suppress,’ Issa said.
At least four surviving witnesses to the Benghazi attack have retained attorneys to help them navigate the process of testifying before Congress about what they saw. They are all employees of the CIA and the State Department, according to a Fox News report.
The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked and burned on Sept. 11, 2012 in a military-style attack that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans
Julia Davis, a former Customs and Border Protections Officer, was falsely declared a domestic terrorist and subjected to retaliatory efforts against her by theDepartment of Homeland Security. Her home was raided by a 27 man “special response team.” She was twice falsely arrested and imprisoned, but later exonerated.
She is now anational security expert and has put out a historical documentary titled, Top Priority: The Terror Within. She claims that the “War On Terror” by the Department of Homeland Security is a charade and that the agency seems to be targeting concerned American patriots.
Davis says her documentary is about her time with DHS in dealing with applicants from countries with ties to terrorism, who are seeking to come into the United States. [Editor's note: Of course, the whole "War on Terror" is a fraud, but what she is exposing is that NOT EVEN DHS BELIEVES THAT IT'S REAL!]
She says that they had “very specific alerts” that on July 4, 2004, members of Al-Qaeda [Editor's note: which is itself a creation of the CIA] would be attempting to cross the border from Mexico into the US. The land port where Ms. Davis worked is the largest and busiest land port in the world, San Ysidro Port. She says that Islamic clerics say this is the best place to breech the US border because of the large number of people coming through.
She says that she began to input the information into the DHS database, which she was required to do as a supervisor, and she noticed that she had a high number of people from terrorist countries set to come through her port on July 4. She says there were 23 people from terrorist countries who were to be admitted into the US on that day. She said the average number of people coming from terrorist countries would normally be 5-10 per month. So to have 23 in a ten hour span was “alarming.”
But it goes further. Davis says that none of these people were subjected to routine checks that were in place for applicants from terrorist countries. According to Davis, “They were supposed to be fingerprinted. They were supposed to be asked why they left the US, why they were coming back, where they were living… all these different procedures that would have taken approximately an hour for each person. None of it was done.”
In fact, in some of the cases, the individuals didn’t fill out the paperwork or provide the documents they were supposed to in order to come into the United States.
They normally need help from penetration assets in the target country – manifestly the case with the Boston bombers. There is usually a support network in the target country and there always has to be someone to provide the cash.
Asking what the terrorists’ motives were is pretty pointless if the target is assigned by the sponsoring intelligence agency. It was always likely to be the DVD at Boston. There is therefore no need to ask why Chechens would attack an American target instead of a Russian one.
Since the FBI are penetrated by the DVD there is no great mystery as to why they were allowed to fly freely in and out of the USA and why the FSB’s warnings were ignored. Further intel has come to light suggesting that the FSB had done really good work in monitoring this family and their associates. Comparing them with Thames Valley Police is like comparing the US Marines with the Cub Scouts.
Since the FSB, unlike Thames Valley Police, know about the DVD, they will not have been too surprised that the attack was allowed to proceed. Not the least shameful thing is that the families will be lied to repeatedly in the years ahead, like the 7/7 families were lied to in Britain. That attack was of course sponsored by GO2, the German operation in London. We are still lying to the families of the victims of IRA terrorism thirty years after we discovered that the Germans were sponsoring the IRA and that there was a covert German agency called the DVD. I had a conversation with a minister in the Thatcher government, some years ago, who told me testily that we had known all about the DVD and the IRA in the 1980s. I could have hit him – why didn’t we do anything about it?
Two comments about prevention of further attacks. Firstly the usefulness of CCTV has once again been demonstrated. But for store CCTV these terrorists would never have been identified. The great thing about commercial CCTV is that retailers can just drop the tapes round to a local TV station. Had they been official tapes they might have been suppressed on orders from a DVD asset high up in the Department of Justice. I well recall how CCTV footage of Madeleine McCann in a transport café (truck stop) near Montpelier was suppressed by Paris, once facial recognition technology had confirmed that it was her. Where the DVD are involved you get official corruption you wouldn’t believe.
I know there are privacy issues but it’s the old public safety/privacy balance. CCTV makes streets safer. Privacy comes at a cost.
Former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called it being “cold-blooded about the self-interests of your nation.”
Obama’s the latest US warrior president. Imperial lawlessness defines his agenda. Out-of-control militarism rages. Humanity’s survival is threatened.
Syria is Obama’s war. Direct intervention looms. Claims about Syria using chemical weapons don’t wash. Syrian officials categorically deny them.
On April 27, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) headlined “Information Minister: Western Sides Are Directly Responsible for Chemical Weapons Use in Khan al-Assal,” saying:
Omran al-Zoubi said chemical weapons likely came from Turkey. “The US-British and Western allegations in general on this issue do not have any credibility.”
A missile targeting Khan al-Assal came from a terrorist-controlled location. Syria requested an investigation. According to SANA:
“Al-Zoubi held the Western sides directly responsible for what happened in Khan al-Assal, saying they want now to hide behind this ‘fabricated and false’ talk to justify their silence on failing the investigation mission requested by Syria and to exonerate the terrorists.”
“The Minister added that the US is already involved in large-scale terrorist operations in the world, and is involved in Syria now because of its support for and silence on the terrorism committed by the terrorist groups.”
The road to Tehran runs through Damascus. Waging full-scale war on Syria looms. It appears prelude to targeting Iran. Spurious Iranian threats continue.
Connect the dots. Post-Boston bombings, expect Obama to take full advantage. Media scoundrels regurgitate official lies. Doing so facilitates America’s war agenda.
Independent nations aren’t tolerated. Washington demands pro-Western ones. Outliers are targeted for regime change. War is America’s option of choice if other methods fail. Syria may be prelude to Iran.
On April 25, the Jerusalem Post headlined ” ‘Red lines’ at the ‘Post’ conference,” saying:
“Red lines” dominate today’s headlines. Israel and Washington repeat them. In late February, former Israeli intelligence head Amos Yadlin’s New York Times op-ed headlined “Israel’s Last Chance to Strike Iran,” saying:
“Today, Israel sees the prospect of a nuclear Iran that calls for our annihilation as an existential threat.”
Iran, of course, threatens no one. It hasn’t attacked another nation in over two centuries.
“An Israeli strike against Iran would be a last resort, if all else failed to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons program,” Yadlin added.
Now he’s warning that Israel’s on “a collision course (with Iran) by the end of the year.”
He’ll speak at the Jerusalem Post’s second annual conference. It’s theme is “Fighting for the Zionist Dream.” It’s scheduled for April 28 in New York.
Two panels will discuss Syrian and Iranian red lines. Yadlin will participate along with former and current key Israeli officials.
Yadlin heads Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. He spoke at its recent Tel Aviv conference. He claims Iran may cross Netanyahu’s red line by summer.
If uranium enrichment continues “at its current rate, toward the end of the year (Tehran) will cross the red line in a clear manner,” he claimed.
Earlier he said, “Despite all of the attempts made to stop the nuclear program, no one is able to stop the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program.”
“By summer, Iran will be a month or two away from a decision about the bomb,” he added. He claims Tehran has enough low-enriched uranium for six bombs.
“They have no problem converting back what they allegedly turned to nuclear fuel. Within a week, it could be turned into nuclear material for a bomb,” he said.
He urged military action. America’s credibility is on the line, he stressed. “This credibility will be achieved if the US aims a precise strike to stop the Iranian nuclear program and shows that it can deal with the escalation that would follow this strike.”
He’s not alone. Jerusalem Post deputy managing editor Caroline Glick headlined “Time to confront Obama,” saying:
Iran “crossed the threshold. Iran will be a nuclear power unless its uranium enrichment installations and other nuclear sites are destroyed or crippled. Now.”
“Iran has threatened to use it nuclear arsenal to destroy Israel.”
“(E)ither Israel must launch an attack without delay, or if we can’t, then Netanyahu has to publicly state that the time for diplomacy is over. Either Iran is attacked or it gets the bomb.”
It bears repeating. Iran threatens no one. No evidence suggests an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Annually, US intelligence says so. Israeli, American, and other Western officials know what they won’t admit publicly.
Americans troubled more by governmental abuse than terrorism
Published time: April 29, 2013 17:55
Edited time: April 30, 2013 17:12
RT
Police and private security personel monitor security cameras at the Lower Manhattan Security Initiative on April 23, 2013 in New York City. (AFP Photo / John Moore)
Even after a pair of bombings in Boston two weeks ago injured hundreds, more Americans say they are unwilling to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security than those who are.
A handful of polls conducted in the days after the Boston Marathon bombings show that US citizens are responding much differently than in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed roughly 3,000 people. Not only are Americans more opposed now to giving up personal freedoms for the sake of security than they were after 9/11, but other statistics show that distrust against the federal government continues to climb.
Just one day after the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, pollsters with Fox News asked a sample of Americans, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce thethreat of terrorism?” Forty-three percent of the respondents said they would, while 45 percent said no. Comparatively, 71 percent of Americans asked a similar question in October 2001 said they’d be willing to give up personal freedoms, while only 20 percent opposed at the time.
In the dozen years since 9/11, frequent polling conducted by Fox has suggests that the majority of Americans have all the while said they’d give up their freedoms for the sake of security. Only with the latest inquiry though are those answers reversed: the last time a majority of Americans opposed giving up privacy for security was May 2001.
