The L. A. Times reports* that on April 10, the Boston Regional Intelligence Center issued an 18-page “joint special event assessment” warning that the finish line of the Boston Marathon was an “area of increased vulnerability” and that there might be “small scale bombings.”
* “Intelligence report identified vulnerability before Boston bombing,” Brian Bennett and Richard A. Serrano
After the Obama Administration said they reserved the right to kill a terrorist American citizen on American soil with a drone under “extraordinary circumstances,” Rand Paul took to the Senate floor for a 13-hour filibuster.
Today he said, “If someone come out of a liquor store with a weapon and $50 in cash, I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him.”
President Obama was talking only about terrorists, Rand Paul is talking about every petty crook in this country. How incoherent and nonsensical is his position? What was that filibuster all about?
It’s now pretty obvious that Rand Paul doesn’t hate drones, he just hates President Obama.
“Getting Ridiculous,” Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo:
“A new Gallup poll shows that 66% of respondents do not believe drone strikes should be used against suspected terrorists within the United States. And an even larger number, 79% of respondents, don’t believe strikes should be permitted in the United States against suspected terrorists who are US citizens.
“In other words, we now know that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose a preposterous idea that no one had ever considered doing. Set aside any constitutional or moral questions about counter-terrorism or the rights of US citizens, the whole point of using drones is to mount attacks in areas where you have no pervasive and secure control over the ground — something that the US has everywhere inside the United States.
“Really, wholly apart from any constitutional or legal issue, why would the US government use a drone to attack a suspected terrorist in the US — as opposed to arresting them or in a more extreme situation attacking them in their compound/house like the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department did with Chris Dorner last month. And if things really got totally out of hand, why not a conventional bomber or fighter jet since there’s no anti-aircraft capacity in the US that the US military or US government doesn’t control?
“A real question is whether police and SWAT teams should use militarized tactics in raids within the US. That’s a real question. Whether we think drone attacks inside the US are alright or not is a silly one.
“The whole thing confirms my belief that in most cases the ‘drone issue’ is a distraction from actual civil liberties or war powers questions.” Emphasis added.
We have so many real problems and face so many real threats, it just drives me crazy to see energy wasted on imaginary ones.
Interesting story up at the National Journal* explaining why the President doesn’t want to show the House and Senate Intelligence Committees all of the Justice Department drone memos. The article says it’s because they “contain secret protocols with foreign governments, including Pakistan and Yemen, as well as ‘case-specific’ details of strikes.”
The Administration believes that even if released just to certain members of Congress, the sensitive information would become public and embarrass the governments we have protocols with, which may include additional countries like Mali and Algeria.
This would explain why the Administration is supposedly trying to get John Brennan’s nomination for CIA out of the Senate Intelligence Committee by giving up some Dem votes over the drone memos and going for GOP votes by giving them more info on Benghazi.
National security issues can create some strange bedfellows!
* “What’s in the Secret Drone Memos,” Michael Hirsh and Kristin Roberts
The hostage death toll in the Algeria terror attack at the BP natural gas plant has risen to 37. Three Americans are among them, while seven Americans survived.
The death toll from the terror attack at the BP gas facility in Algeria, for which Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility, has risen to 81. The Algerian military found 25 more bodies, in such bad shape that they couldn’t tell if they were terrorists or foreign workers held as hostages. Plus, one of the freed hostages, a Romanian, has died.
The Algerians are searching the site for explosives because the terrorists had planned to blow up the entire plant.
A final military assault has ended the terrorist hostage crisis at a BP natural gas plant in Algeria that has been going on since Wednesday.
It is reported that a total of 23 hostages are dead, along with 32 terrorists.
685 Algerian workers and 107 foreign workers have been freed.
The State Department confirms that the Algerian military launched an assault on Islamic extremists who are holding foreigners hostage at a BP natural gas plant.
Algeria claims it freed 600 hostages, while Islamic terrorists claim that the raid killed 35 hostages and 15 kidnappers.
Americans are among those held, but their fate is unknown.
This Algerian act of terror was in retaliation for France’s fight against terrorists in Mali because Algeria is allowing France to use its air space.
Islamic extremists have attacked a BP natural gas site in Algeria and seized 41 European, Japanese, and American hostages. Seven of the hostages are believed to be American. Two foreigners were killed in the initial attack.
Algerian troops have surrounded the facility.
Looks like a rescue mission for the Israelis…
Gen. Petraeus testified for about four hours today to both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees in closed session.
He told them what we already know, that the Benghazi attacks on our Consulate and our CIA building on 9/11 were terrorist attacks by a local extremist group linked to Al Qaeda, Ansar al-Sharia.
Petraeus said the CIA gave the White House information that was different from what Rice said on five Sunday talk shows.
At some point, the language in the CIA’s talking points was changed from “Al Qaeda-affiliated individuals” to “extremist organizations.” Neither Petraeus nor Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Acting CIA Director Mike Morell, who both testified yesterday, said they knew who changed those talking points.
Rice had both classified and unclassified information. Officials with access to both obviously aren’t going to divulge the classified stuff on Sunday talk shows.
But it seems to me they shouldn’t have had her appear at all rather than sell an explanation the Administration knew not to be true. Or she should have been more non-committal and not pushed the whole spontaneous demonstration/anti-Mohammed YouTube video thing. You have to walk a fine line between spilling your guts and lying.
If the Al Qaeda reference was considered classified information at that point and was changed for national security reasons, that’s okay.
But if it was taken out for political reasons, that’s very different and very wrong. If the Administration deleted the Al Qaeda reference because they thought it hurt Obama’s re-election argument that he had Al Qaeda on the run, that it would detract from his getting bin Laden, that’s both shameful and stupid. Americans know that Al Qaeda still exists and remains a threat to us.
Embattled Farmers 