26 posts tagged “military”
Thrift store MP3 player contains secret military files
(CNN) -- A man walks into a thrift store.
It sounds like the opening line to a bad joke. And this case was a bad joke -- for the Pentagon.
Chris Ogle of New Zealand was in Oklahoma about a year ago when he bought a used MP3 player from a thrift store for $9. A few weeks ago, he plugged it into his computer to download a song, and he instead discovered confidential U.S. military files.
"The more I look at it, the more I see, and the less I think I should be," Ogle said with a nervous laugh in an interview with TVNZ.
The files included the home addresses, Social Security numbers and cell phone numbers of U.S. soldiers. The player also included what appeared to be mission briefings and lists of equipment deployed to hot spots in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most of the information appears to date to 2005.
The New Zealand journalist who first reported the story was able to contact at least one of the soldiers by dialing a phone number found in the files. He hung up once she explained why she was calling...
Afterthoughts:
A minor rant: Who in the hell are these people that are storing
confidential military files on MP3 players? Why is it so easy for
said person to copy the files onto it? and in my life experience if one
person is doing something at work, everyone is probably doing it. As I
key this comment I would bet someone at the Pentagon is heading out to
lunch with a thumb drive in their pocket. Sometimes I think my head is
going to explode.
In the first such strikes since the inauguration of President Barack Obama, suspected U.S. missile barrages today killed at least 18 people in the lawless tribal region near the Afghan border, Pakistani officials said.
The two raids suggested that the new U.S. administration intends to press ahead with attacks against Islamic militants in the rural areas, even though the campaign has been politically costly to Pakistan's Western-leaning civilian government. President Obama indicated during the campaign for the White House that he would continue to carry out strikes against "high-value" Al Qaeda and Taliban targets on Pakistani soil, particularly if the Pakistani military were unable or unwilling to act. That declaration ruffled some feathers in Pakistan, where the U.S. raids are extremely unpopular.
Although Pakistani leaders have repeatedly lodged formal diplomatic objections to the American airstrikes, the government is widely believed to have given tacit permission to U.S. forces to carry out such raids -- as long as they do not involve sending ground forces into Pakistani territory.
Pakistani news reports cited security officials as saying that at least five of those killed in today's strikes in the North and South Waziristan tribal agencies -- long known as a haven for Al Qaeda and the Taliban -- were militants. Dozens of such raids have been carried out in the last six months by the Bush administration, killing several important Al Qaeda-linked figures. But scores of Pakistani civilians, including women and children, also died, according to local officials.
The first of today's attacks took place in the North Waziristan village of Zharki, with missiles striking at least two structures, according to security officials. A short time later, a separate strike was reported in South Waziristan. The American military in Afghanistan refused any comment on the raids, but U.S. forces are known to operate unmanned Predator drones from bases on the Afghan side of the border, together with newer Reaper aircraft...
via Americablog:
Yesterday, the Obama transition team included a
question about DADT in their weekly online Q&A with incoming White
House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. In that Q&A, Gibbs reads a question from Thaddeus in Lansing, Michigan. Thaddeus asks:
Gibbs answers:
"Is the new administration going to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy?"
"Thaddeus, you don't hear a politician give a one-word answer much, but it's 'Yes.'"
The Posse Comitatus act of 1878, described in Wikipedia:
The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law () passed on June 16, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force and State national Guard forces (when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order" on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.
The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.
Okay, they say they were there for "training" purposes on setting up roadblocks. C'mon they could come up with something better than that couldn't they? Is this the first step in making the public climatized to military road blocks within our borders? I don't know but the "training purposes" meme just doesn't work for me. I would think / hope that even conservative republicans would be a bit concerned about this.
The California Highway Patrol in the
High Desert and the Twentynine Palms Marine Base are receiving dozens
of calls complaining about a controversial DUI checkpoint. Military
Police joined the CHP for a recent checkpoint in Yucca Valley. The
Friday night checkpoint was in front of the Yucca Valley Home Depot on
Highway 62. What has High Desert residents confused is that they are
not used to military police so far from the Marine Base. From the local radio to internet blogs, residents were concerned the Military Police presence violated federal law. The
original California Highway Patrol news release mentioned the military
presence. One released shortly later doesn't mention the military,
arising community suspicion of a cover-up. Congress passed the
Posse Comitatus Act more than a hundred years ago forbidding the
military from enforcing civilian law such as traffic stops. Marine
Lt. Thomas Beck tells News Channel 3 the Military Police were not
arresting people. They were just watching the checkpoint to see how
they should do it on base...
In case anyone thought otherwise...
US troops to stay in Iraqi cities after June
By ROBERT H. REID – December 13, 2008
BAGHDAD (AP) — Some American troops will remain in Iraqi cities after a June 30 deadline for combat soldiers to leave urban areas, the top U.S. commander said Saturday.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, meanwhile, dismissed suggestions by his own spokesman that the Iraqi government may ask some U.S. troops to remain behind as trainers after the Dec. 31, 2011 deadline for the withdrawal of all American troops set by the new U.S.-Iraq security agreement.
Those comments are likely to rekindle debate here about the agreement, which was ratified by parliament last month and takes effect Jan. 1. But Iraqi voters must approve the deal in a referendum by the end of July.
Suggestions of loopholes in the withdrawal timeline could be exploited by Iraqi politicians seeking to undermine al-Maliki ahead of the referendum. A number of Sunni and Shiite politicians, as well as the powerful Shiite clergy, accepted the deal after assurances from al-Maliki that the timeline for the U.S. departure was firm.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of coalition forces in Iraq, told reporters that troops who serve in training and mentoring teams would not be included in the mandate to pull combat troops from the cities.
"We believe that's part of our transition teams," Odierno said at the U.S. Balad air base where he met with Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He said the training and mentoring teams would stay at urban security stations to support Iraqi soldiers and police.
He did not say how many troops would remain in urban security stations but said all locations would be coordinated with the Iraqi government based on its requirements and needs. He said repeatedly that he expects to have all U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011...
"It's important that we maintain enough presence here that we can help them get through this year of transition," Odierno said...
Obama team denies it will delay ‘Don’t Ask’ repeal
By CHRIS JOHNSON, Washington Blade | Nov 25, 3:14 PM
A member of Barack Obama’s transition team is denying media reports that the president-elect has decided to delay efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until 2010.
An Obama transition team spokesperson, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the decision on how to approach repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which prohibits gays from serving openly in the military, would be made after more experts have joined the Obama administration.
“These decisions will not be made before the full national security team is in place,” the spokesperson said...
Injured veterans engaged in new combat
In a little-noticed regulation change, the Pentagon's definition of combat-related disabilities is narrowed, costing some wounded veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits.
By David Zucchino
November 25, 2008
Marine Cpl. James Dixon was wounded twice in Iraq -- by a roadside bomb and a land mine. He suffered a traumatic brain injury, a concussion, a dislocated hip and hearing loss. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.Army Sgt. Lori Meshell shattered a hip and crushed her back and knees while diving for cover during a mortar attack in Iraq. She has undergone a hip replacement and knee reconstruction and needs at least three more surgeries.
In each case, the Pentagon ruled that their disabilities were not combat-related.
In a little-noticed regulation change in March, the military's definition of combat-related disabilities was narrowed, costing some injured veterans thousands of dollars in lost benefits -- and triggering outrage from veterans' advocacy groups.
The Pentagon said the change was consistent with Congress' intent when it passed a "wounded warrior" law in January. Narrowing the combat-related definition was necessary to preserve the "special distinction for those who incur disabilities while participating in the risk of combat, in contrast with those injured otherwise," William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of Defense, wrote in a letter to the 1.3-million-member Disabled American Veterans.
The group, which has called the policy revision a "shocking level of disrespect for those who stood in harm's way," is lobbying to have the change rescinded.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said the Pentagon's "more conservative definition" limited benefits for some veterans. "That was not our intent," Levin said in a statement.
He added: "When the disability is the same, the impact on the service member should be the same no matter whether the disability was incurred while training for combat at Ft. Hood or participating in actual combat in Iraq or Afghanistan."
Pentagon officials argue that benefits should be greater for veterans wounded in combat than for "members with disabilities incurred in other situations (e.g., simulation of war, instrumentality of war, or participation in hazardous duties, not related to combat)," Carr wrote.
But veterans like Dixon and Meshell said their disabilities were a direct result of wounds suffered in combat.
Dixon said he was denied at least $16,000 in benefits before he fought the Pentagon and won a reversal of his noncombat-related designation.
"I was blown up twice in Iraq, and my injuries weren't combat-related?" Dixon said. "It's the most imbecile thing I've ever seen."
Meshell, who is appealing her status, estimates she is losing at least $1,200 a month in benefits. Despite being injured in a combat zone during an enemy mortar attack, she said, her wounds would be considered combat-related only if she had been struck by shrapnel.
Meshell said the military had suggested that at least some of her disability was caused by preexisting joint deterioration. "Before I went over there, I was fine -- I was perfectly healthy," Meshell said. "This whole thing is causing me a lot of heartache."
Kerry Baker, associate legislative director of Disabled American Veterans, has accused the Pentagon of narrowing the definition of combat-related disabilities to save money. He said the change would reduce payments for tens of thousands of veterans -- those already wounded and those injured in the future...
I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Ridley. Quick, common sense post.
I just ran across this. If it's true... dissent will come to this VOX page.
Delay in repelling Don't Ask Don't Tell
...Today’s Washington Times features an interview with Aubrey Sarvis of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. Rather than aggressively advocating for an immediate repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” he is instead advising Obama’s transition team to wait until 2010.
That doesn’t sound like activism – it sounds like spineless appeasement. If John McCain had won the election and told gay rights advocates to wait a couple of years before addressing the military’s gay ban, we’d howl with derision at his homophobia. But because Obama is a Democrat, our supposed advocates give him cover. Obama promised to repeal the discriminatory gay ban, a position endorsed by scores of retired generals and admirals and supported by a majority of Americans according to recent opinion polls.
It’s 2008, not 1993. Times have changed since President Clinton caved to pressure and enacted “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” We will never experience the change that was promised if our activists accede to every demand of the Democratic Party. More than 12,000 careers have been destroyed because of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Why should brave service members have to wait years longer to simply serve their country openly?
There is no rational justification for prolonging the repeal effort any longer. No more waiting, no more excuses and no more cover for duplicitous, squeamish politicians from our timid activist groups.
Colin Powell answered a question Sunday on Meet the Press, that shouldn't be overlooked or minimized. He was talking about members of the Republican Party who are pushing the "Did you know Obama is really a Muslim?" meme.
This is how Gen. Powell would answer the quetion:
...the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.
I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son's grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards--Purple Heart, Bronze Star--showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn't have a Christian cross, it didn't have the Star of David, it had the crescent and star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he could go serve his country, and he gave his life...
Meet the Press transcript October 19, 2008
General Colin Powell is a true statesman. He is a person of courage.
