An insider attack that killed 3 Marines in Afghanistan last year is under new scrutiny as the U.S. Attorney’s Office in NY investigates the case and a congressman questions why an officer who warned about a serious threat beforehand received a career-ending evaluation.
Marine Corps Times (h/t Liz) The incident came amid a wave of insider attacks across Afghanistan and raised serious questions about the ease with which it occurred. The alleged shooter is a teenage boy named Aynoddin who worked for Sarwar Jan, an Afghan police commander, as a sex slave. Marines in Garmser said Afghan villagers complained repeatedly that Jan invited Afghan boys to bases shared with U.S. forces for sex.
Brezler, a mobilized reserve Marine at the time, “immediately told his fellow Marines what he knew about the peril they faced,” and realized afterward that he passed “imminent threat” information classified as “NATO SECRET” over an unclassified computer network, King’s letter states. Brezler reported his mistake to his chain of command in the Corps, and subsequently received an adverse fitness report.
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) says in his letter that it is “unfair for Maj. Brezler’s good-faith effort to warn his fellow Marines, of what sadly proved to be mortal danger, to derail his reserve career.” Read More
Will they all have to start wearing kilts next? A change to the Marine Corps’ uniform hats could take the hard-nosed Leathernecks from the Halls of Montezuma to the shops of the notoriously ‘gay’ Christopher Street.
NY Post Thanks to a plan by President Obama to create a “unisex” look for the Corps, officials are on the verge of swapping out the Marines’ iconic caps – known as “covers” — with a new version that some have derided as so “girly” that they would make the French blush.
“We don’t even have enough funding to buy bullets, and the DoD is pushing to spend $8 million on covers that look like women’s hats!” one senior Marine source fumed to The Post. “The Marines deserve better. It makes them look ridiculous.”
The thin new covers have a feminine line that some officials think would make them look just as good on female marines as on males — in keeping with the Obama directive.
“The Marine Corps is being ‘encouraged’ by DoD to standardize on a unisex/universal dress and service cap,” Marine brass noted in an internal memo obtained by The Post. Male and female Marines currently wear gender-specific caps. The controversial covers have been dubbed the “Dan Daly” hat, after a World War I sergeant from Long Island who twice won the Medal of Honor.
“The new cap looks too French, and the last people we want to associate our Marines with would be the French military,” wrote one commenter on the Marine Times Web site.
As of now, the new covers are only in the proposal stage. Marines have until Friday to cast their votes on whether to adopt them or keep the old hat with modifications. Marine Corps head Gen. James Amos will make the final decision.
According to the memo obtained by The Post, requiring all troops to use the Daly cover will cost $8,221,958. Going with the traditional cap will save $284,043, because the current female caps are more expensive. “Why are we even focused on this while we are laying troops off for no budget?” another Marine Times commenter asked.
“None of the [members] liked the idea of a universal cover for all Marines,” the internal memo noted. “The group members did not like the appearance of the Dan Daly cap on the male Marine.”
Two Middle Eastern men training at Fort Leonard Wood are in custody after they tried to abduct a 12-year-old girl in Pulasky County. Mohammed Mahmoud Omar Mefleh, 34, and Antoine Clela, 31, were charged with enticement of a child and harassment.
As one of these perverts is named Mohammed we can only be thankful it was a 12-year-old and not a 6-year-old.
Frontpage Magazine (h/t Henry P) The victim told police she was playing with a sibling in her yard when Mefleh and Clela approached her several times and tried to lure her into their vehicle. She told officers they kept asking for sexual favors. The suspects are with a foreign military in a Middle Eastern country and are part of a training mission at Fort Leonard Wood, just a couple miles from where the attempted abduction took place.
Wounded, bandaged and hooked up to tubes in an Afghanistan intensive care unit, a U.S. Army Ranger, thought by hospital staff to be unconscious, heard his commander’s voice and addressed him with the iconic symbol of respect: a salute.
The Blaze Josh Hargis, a Purple Heart recipient with the 3rd Ranger Battalion, was injured after 13 improvised explosive devices went off while he was conducting a mission in Afghanistan to capture a high value target, according to the website Guardian of Valor. Several members of the unit were killed by a woman wearing a suicide vest and others injured by the IEDs that went off afterward.
Hargis’ commander sent his wife, Taylor, a letter explaining what her husband endured along with a photo, which the Guardian of Valor is calling the “salute seen around the world.”
The commander’s letter said that Hargis held on for two hours after being “seriously wounded” before making it to the hospital. Once there, he endured hours of surgery.
Before being transferred from Afghanistan to Germany where he would make his flight back to America, Hargis had a Purple Heart pinned on to his blanket in a ceremony, which included other Rangers, doctors and nurses at his bedside.
“During the presentation the [Ranger Regimental] Commander publishes the official orders verbally and leaned over Josh to thank him for his sacrifice. Josh, whom everybody in the room (over 50 people) assumed to be unconscious, began to move his right arm under the blanket in a diligent effort to salute the commander as is customary during these ceremonies,” the letter read. ”Despite his wounds, wrappings, tubes and pain, Josh fought the doctor who was trying to restrain his right arm and rendered the most beautiful salute any person in that room had ever seen.”
If the fact that the Obama Administration has blocked aging veterans from visiting the World War II memorial and denied death gratuity benefits for fallen warriors doesn’t expose blatant contempt for our military, how about this? Army First Lieutenant Clint Lorance, a 28-year-old combat leader in the 82d Airborne Division from Celeste, TX, was recently found guilty of two counts of murder in Afghanistan and sentenced to 20 years in Ft. Leavenworth.
Washington Times by Allen West (h/t Maria J) The story of First Lieutenant Lorance has not been covered by a single major media source.
In July 2012, Lorance was ordered to take command of a platoon in the southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar, a region where I also spent two and a half years training and advising the Afghan National Army. The platoon Lorance now commanded had lost its previous leader to enemy attack.
During a patrol in enemy territory, Lorance ordered a marksman to engage two unarmed Taliban fighters on a motorcycle operating as scout spotters.
In Afghanistan and Iraq, a common enemy tactic is for unarmed fighters on motorcycles with cell phones to track unit movements. In fact, enemy combatants had previously used the tactics against this same platoon. Lorance, who was operating in a combat zone, saw the scout spotters and assessed them as a threat to his platoon. Aerial surveillance later backed up Lorance’s on-the-ground assessment.
It seems obvious that enemy scouts reporting a unit position and movements in order to facilitate an ambush would define “hostile intent.” But not according to the watered-down Rules of Engagement with which our warriors must contend.
In little more than a year, First Lieutenant Lorance was tried and sentenced to prison. Swift justice to be sure, but why then did it take four years to try and convict Nidal Malik Hasan, who fatally shot 13 and wounded more than 30 during his 2009 rampage at Ft Hood Texas?
The irony of the dilemma currently facing our troops, those who have volunteered to protect and defend our freedoms, is appalling. Shall they fight and kill the enemy but then risk imprisonment because of insidious rules by lawyers? Or shall they be killed and denied their rightful benefits for their families, because of insidious declarations by lawyers and politicians?
We are sending the wrong message to our enemies, and we are clearly sending the wrong message to those who would sacrifice their lives for our nation.
If you would like to help Clint, click here: DEFEND VETERAN LORANCE, MAKE A DONATION
While the leaders of the two superpowers are shaking hands for the camera in St. Petersburg, their Navies are sending a different message. Here is the latest breakdown of the world’s key Navies in the Mediterranean theater of Naval operations as of last night. There are also reports the Chinese have joined the fray on the Russian side.
Zerohedge (h/t Henry P)
The Army psychiatrist/Muslim terrorist sentenced to death for the Fort Hood shooting rampage has been forcibly shaved. Maj. Nidal Hasan began growing a beard in the years after the November 2009 shooting that left 13 plus one fetus dead and 32 wounded.
ABC News (h/t Martin) The beard prompted delays to his court-martial because it violated Army grooming regulations. He was convicted of all charges last month at his court-martial at the Central Texas Army post and sentenced to death.
Now, Hasan is an inmate at the U.S. Detention Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., home to the military death row. Lt. Col. S. Justin Platt, a spokesman for military prison, said in a statement Tuesday that Hasan had been shaved. He did not specify when or provide details, however.
Hasan said he grew the beard because his Muslim faith required it and was not meant as a show of disrespect. However, Col. Gregory Gross, the original judge presiding over Hasan’s court-martial, ordered Hasan to be clean-shaven or be forcibly shaved before his trial. The dispute over that decision led to appeals that delayed the trial by more than three months before the appeals court ousted the judge. The appeals court ruled that Gross did not appear impartial while presiding over Hasan’s case and that the command, not a judge, is responsible for enforcing military grooming standards.
Col. Tara Osborn, assigned to replace Gross as the judge presiding over the case, allowed Hasan to keep the beard for the course of the trial last month.
Nidal Hasan had a willing accomplice in the murders of 14 and attempted murders of 32 others – ‘political correctness.’
“No warship has the right to pass through the Suez Canal to attack Syria” ”No American war ship or British or else is allowed to pass through the Suez Canal ship,” ordered the Egyptian Minister of Defense.
Perhaps this is the reason for the sudden delay in Obama’s decision about attacking Syria?
French IRIB According Farsnews, citing Reuters, General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi insisted that no authorization be given to warships that would attack Syria. The decision was taken as part of the Egyptian government’s respect of the the joint defense agreement signed between Egypt and Syria, Reuters announced, making an attack against Syria difficult for the United States and Great Britain, according to the same agency.
Muslim jihadist mass murderer, Major Nidal Hasan, is telling the truth about his Islam-inspired motives for the massacre at Fort Hood, so why is nobody listening?
National Review by Mark Steyn (h/t David P) On December 7, 1941, the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked. Three years, eight months, and eight days later, the Japanese surrendered. These days, America’s military moves at a more leisurely pace. On November 5, 2009, another U.S. base, Fort Hood, was attacked — by one man standing on a table, screaming “Allahu akbar!” and opening fire. Three years, nine months, and one day later, his court-martial finally got under way.
The intervening third-of-a-decade-and-more has apparently been taken up by such vital legal questions as the fullness of beard Major Hasan is permitted to sport in court. This is not a joke: See “Judge Ousted in Fort Hood Shooting Case amid Beard Debacle” (CBS News). Army regulations require soldiers to be clean-shaven. The judge, Colonel Gregory Gross, ruled Hasan’s beard in contempt, fined him $1,000, and said he would be forcibly shaved if he showed up that hirsute next time.
At which point Hasan went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which ruled that Colonel Gross’s pogonophobia raised questions about his impartiality, and removed him. He’s the first judge in the history of American jurisprudence to be kicked off a trial because of a “beard debacle.” The new judge, Colonel Tara Osborn, agreed that Hasan’s beard was a violation of regulations, but “said she won’t hold it against him.”
The U.S. Army seems disinclined to hold anything against him, especially the 13 corpses plus an unborn baby. Major Hasan fired his lawyers, presumably because they were trying to get him off — on the grounds that he’d had a Twinkie beforehand, or his beard don’t fit so you must acquit, or some such.
As a self-respecting jihadist, Major Hasan quite reasonably resented being portrayed as just another all-American loon gone postal. So he sacked his defense team, only to have the court appoint a standby defense team just in case there were any arcane precedents and obscure case law he needed clarification on. I know that’s the way your big-time F. Lee Bailey types would play it, but it doesn’t seem to be Major Hasan’s style.
On the very first day of the trial, he stood up and told the jury that “the evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter.” Later, in one of his few courtroom interventions, he insisted that it be put on the record that “the alleged murder weapon” was, in fact, his. The trial then came to a halt when the standby defense team objected to the judge that Major Hasan’s defense strategy (yes, I did it; gimme a blindfold, cigarette, and tell the virgins here I come) would result in his conviction and execution.
Major Hasan is a Virginia-born army psychiatrist and a recipient of the Pentagon’s Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, which seems fair enough, since he certainly served in it, albeit for the other side. Most Americans think he’s nuts. He thinks Americans are nuts. It’s a closer call than you’d think.
In the immediate aftermath of his attack, the U.S. media, following their iron-clad rule that “Allahu akbar” is Arabic for “Nothing to see here,” did their best to pass off Major Hasan as the first known victim of pre-Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. “It comes at a time when the stress of combat has affected so many soldiers,” fretted Andrew Bast in a report the now defunct Newsweekheadlined, “A Symptom of a Military on the Brink.”
Major Hasan has never been in combat. He is not, in fact, a soldier. He is a shrink. The soldiers in this story are the victims, some 45 of them. And the only reason a doctor can gun down nearly four dozen trained warriors (he was eventually interrupted by a civilian police officer, Sergeant Kimberly Munley, with a 9mm Beretta) is that soldiers on base are forbidden from carrying weapons.
That’s to say, under a (Bill Clinton) 1993 directive, a U.S. military base is effectively a gun-free zone, just like a Connecticut grade school. That’s a useful tip: If you’re mentally ill and looking to shoot up a movie theater at the next Batman premiere, try the local barracks — there’s less chance of anyone firing back.
Maybe this Clinton-era directive merits reconsideration in the wake of Fort Hood? Don’t be ridiculous. Instead, nine months after Major Hasan’s killing spree, the Department of Defense put into place “a series of procedural and policy changes that focus on identifying, responding to, and preventing potential workplace violence.”
Major Hasan says he’s a soldier for the Taliban. Maybe if the Pentagon were to reclassify the entire Afghan theater as an unusually prolonged outburst of “workplace violence,” we wouldn’t have to worry about obsolescent concepts such as “victory” and “defeat.” The important thing is that the U.S. Army’s “workplace violence” is diverse.
After Major Hasan’s pre-post-traumatic workplace wobbly, General George W. Casey Jr., the Army’s chief of staff, was at pains to assure us that it could have been a whole lot worse: “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty.” And you can’t get much more diverse than letting your military personnel pick which side of the war they want to be on.
Like I said, we think he’s nuts; he thinks we’re nuts. Right now, there’s a petition on the Internet seeking to persuade the United States government to reclassify Hasan’s “workplace violence” as an act of terror.
There are practical consequences to this: The victims, shot by an avowed enemy combatant in an act of war, are currently ineligible for Purple Hearts. The Pentagon insists the dead and wounded must be dishonored in death because to give them any awards for their sacrifice would prejudice Major Hasan’s trial and make it less likely that he could be convicted.
Hence, the Internet petition. Linking to it from their homepage, my colleagues at National Review Online promoted it with the tag: “Thirteen people lost their lives with dozens of others wounded. And now the man responsible wants to claim it was workplace violence.” That’s not true — and actually it’s grossly unfair to Major Hasan. He’s admirably upfront about who and what he is — a SOA “Soldier of Allah,” as he put on his business card.
On Tuesday, he admitted he was a traitor who had crossed over from “the bad side” (America’s) to “the good side” (Islam’s). He has renounced his U.S. citizenship and its effete protections such as workplace-violence disability leave. He professes loyalty to America’s enemies. He says, “I am the shooter.” He helpfully informs us that that’s his gun. In this week’s one-minute statement, he spoke more honestly and made more sense than Obama, Gates, Casey, the Armed Forces Court of Appeals, two judges, the prosecution and defense lawyers, and mountains of bureaucratic reports and media coverage put together.
But poor old Hasan can say “Yup, I did it” all he wants; what does he know?
Unlike the Zimmerman trial, Major Hasan’s has not excited the attention of the media. Yet it is far more symbolic of the state of America than the Trayvon Martin case, in which superannuated race hucksters attempted to impose a half-century-old moth-eaten Klan hood on a guy who’s a virtual one-man melting pot. The response to Nidal Hasan helps explain why, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, this war is being lost — because it cannot be won because, increasingly, it cannot even be acknowledged. Which helps explain why it now takes the U.S. military longer to prosecute a case of “workplace violence” than it did to win World War II.
In a statement released to FOX News, Hasan said the U.S. Military is at war with his religion. “My complicity was on behalf of a government that openly acknowledges that it would hate for the law of Almighty Allah to be the supreme law of the land,” the Army psychiatrist said. Hasan then apparently asked if this was a war on Islam, said, “You bet it is.”
FOX News (h/t Martin) However, he does not address the shooting at the Texas Army Base in November 2009 that killed 13 and injured more than 30 others. Hasan also says he regrets his years in the Army, claiming that his service was inconsistent with his religious beliefs. “I would like to begin by repenting to Almighty Allah and apologize to the (Mujahideen), the believers, and the innocent. I ask for their forgiveness and their prayers. I ask for their forgiveness for participating in the illegal and immoral aggression against Muslims, their religion and their lands,” he said.
If convicted, on 13 counts of premeditated murder and 32 counts of attempted premeditated murder, Hasan faces execution or life in prison without parole.
Lt. Gary Daugherty returns after 6-month deployment.
h/t Tammy Bruce