Gov't Deperately Claiming Bradley Manning Aiding al Qaeda

[Wendigo]

Less Than Liz

All attorneys need to be zealous advocates for due process.

Even if it weren't for professional ethics, the other way kind of puts them out of a job, too.

[agrab0ekim]

Dostya

agrab0ekim

he STOLE classified evidence and LEAKED it to a site which posted it PUBLICALLY AROUND THE WORLD

I think he should be shot on spot, a trial is too good for him.

I'm thinking you'd be a poor human rights attorney.

You'd be quite surprised on that front.
This is different than human rights, he is an acitve soldier in an active combat releasing classified information. That is both spying and treason, the punishment of both is death (or can be, blah blah should still be only death). Since it is happenign during an active battle, it is proper to dispense of a court marshall if decided upon by the authorities.
boom, just answered the legal issue as well as any ethical issue AND liz's due process concern. Woot for me

[agrab0ekim]

pockybot

I wonder if the right wingers also hate Manning because he's gay?

In fact, why do right wingers hate Obama? Doesnt Obama's endless drone use and persecution of Manning PROVE he's one of the neocon good ol boys?

So let me get this straight...soldiers go in and massacre a bunch of people in Haditha, they get off scott free. Guys make jokes while murdering vans of men women and children. They get off scott free. Blackwater and some solders go on other joy killings, and torture is very rampant at some interrogation facilities. Not to mention the indiscriminate bombing of Fallujah which left many Iraqis dead.

But Manning, he's the bad guy for exposing all that.

It's ironic...Bush and company LIE to go to war...it's all good. Manning SHOWS us the lies and the horror, and his life is over.

Funny, I dont see the Manning haters too upset about Bush's Saudi pals who pretty much were directing the 9/11 attacks and then receiving billions from the US government.

we have proper whistleblowing procedures, he didn't follow them
Had Manning done this right, then I'd be cheering for him like you want us to. Throwing all classified information to the public IS NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THIS

[Dostya]

agrab0ekim

Dostya

agrab0ekim

he STOLE classified evidence and LEAKED it to a site which posted it PUBLICALLY AROUND THE WORLD

I think he should be shot on spot, a trial is too good for him.

I'm thinking you'd be a poor human rights attorney.

You'd be quite surprised on that front.
This is different than human rights, he is an acitve soldier in an active combat releasing classified information. That is both spying and treason, the punishment of both is death (or can be, blah blah should still be only death). Since it is happenign during an active battle, it is proper to dispense of a court marshall if decided upon by the authorities.
boom, just answered the legal issue as well as any ethical issue AND liz's due process concern. Woot for me

Sounds like a great dictatorship you have there. What's it called, 1910's Europe?

[Wendigo]

Military tribunal in lieu of courtmartial's only allowed when in the field, and regularly constituted courts can't be provided. Not the case for Manning.

[Ban]

agrab0ekim

This is different than human rights, he is an acitve soldier in an active combat releasing classified information.

Not sure how that changes the human rights issue. Soldiers don't have human rights?

agrab0ekim

That is both spying and treason, the punishment of both is death (or can be, blah blah should still be only death).

Kind of the determination of Congress. We've only had a few dozen treason cases, and most of them ended in prison sentences. I don't think we've executed anyone for treason since Ex Parte Quirin, and nobody for espionage since the Rosenbergs.

agrab0ekim

Since it is happenign during an active battle, it is proper to dispense of a court marshall if decided upon by the authorities.

Listen, if we can manage a trial, even if it's a military tribunal, during both the Civil War and World War II, we can manage it now.

agrab0ekim

boom, just answered the legal issue as well as any ethical issue AND liz's due process concern. Woot for me

It seems like you're sidestepping all these concerns on fairly thin grounds. Being able to distinguish is fine, but there ought to be a rational relationship between the point you're distinguishing on and the outcome. The fact of the war does not automatically equal no due process.

[Kasumi of Vientown]

agrab0ekim

he STOLE classified evidence and LEAKED it to a site which posted it PUBLICALLY AROUND THE WORLD

I think he should be shot on spot, a trial is too good for him.

Obama has done far worse then Bradley Manning

http://navysealsagainstobama.com/

Quote:

Obama Exploits the Navy SEALs
Leif Babin
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193024150056072.html

…

Adm. William H. McRaven, America’s top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book “Spec Ops” that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls “operational security,” or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It’s difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora’s box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We’ve already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to “60 Minutes” that Dr. Afridi had provided “very helpful” intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington’s loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day.”

Quote:

Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
Michael Mukasey
The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577374552546308474.html

…

Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

…

Abraham Lincoln, on the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender ended the Civil War, delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage—a call that would doom him because the audience outside the White House included a man who muttered that Lincoln had just delivered his last speech. It was John Wilkes Booth.


The man from whom President Obama has sought incessantly to distance himself, George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success “a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.” He attributed it to “the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks.”

He did mention himself at the end: “Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.”

Quote:

Will The Navy SEALs Swift Boat Obama?
Michael Hastings
BuzzFeed
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/will-resentful-navy-seals-swift-boat-obama

…

What was supposed to be an easy win—a victory lap on the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death, trumping up the president’s most militant moment—appeared to be slipping away.

The frustration—or, even anger—within the SEAL community is real, and has been brewing for months, particularly among a politically conservative core of operators. It started immediately after the raid, with questions among the Special Forces and intelligence community of whether the president should have waited to announce the kill to exploit the intelligence cache at Osama’s compound. It simmered after a Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 30 Americans, 22 of them Navy SEALs from Team Six.

Was it a coincidence, SEALs asked themselves, catastrophe hit Team Six so soon after being named as the team responsible for the killing?

The White House narrative on the Geronimo mission would soon come under scrutiny as well, after Chuck Pfarrer, a former member of Seal Team Six, published a book length account questioning the official version of the story. The controversial book was viciously attacked—a JSOC spokesperson called it a “fabrication”—and it was widely dismissed by the press.

What the pushback revealed, however, was an extreme sensitivity in the White House as to who would have the privilege to tell the Bin Laden story, best expressed in a compelling, if well stage-managed, story in the New Yorker. The piece recounted the Abbottabad raid based on interviews with senior administration and military officials, while imbuing the story with the drama of a SEAL’s eye view. Yet the author conceded he had not actually interviewed the men who did the shooting.

Quote:

SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign
Toby Harnden
Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html

…

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

…

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

Quote:

McCain on Bin Laden raid: ‘The thing about heroes, they don’t brag’
Justin Sink
The Hill
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/224625-mccain-on-bin-laden-raid-the-thing-about-heroes-they-dont-brag

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) continued to hammer the Obama re-election team over its use of the death of Osama bin Laden in a campaign commercial, echoing Mitt Romney’s statement that any president – including Jimmy Carter – would have made the same call.

“I say any president, Jimmy Carter, anybody, any president would have, obviously, under those circumstances, done the same thing. And to now take credit for something that any president would do is indicative of take over campaign we’re under — we’re — we’re seeing…So all I can say is that this is going to be a very rough campaign,” McCain told Fox News in an interview set to air Monday night. “And I’ve had the great honor of serving in the company of heroes. And, you know the thing about heroes, they don’t brag.”

Quote:

Navy SEALs Are Hammering Obama For Taking Credit For Their Work
Brett LoGiurato
Business Insider
http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-seals-hammer-obama-on-osama-bin-laden-ad-2012-5

…

For someone not currently engulfed in politics on the other side, let’s go to Clint Bruce, who “gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer,” according to the Mail:

Quote:

“We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate. It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.

“Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.”

The debate continues to rage over Obama’s campaign ad, in which Bill Clinton voices over the narrative that Obama made the tough decision that led to the death of the mastermind behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Quote:

SEALs: Obama Taking Credit for bin Laden ‘Cheap Shot’
Martin Gould
NewsMax
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/SEALs-slam-Obama-binLade/2012/04/30/id/437580

…

Current and former US Navy SEALs have joined the attacks on President Barack Obama for attempting to take credit for killing Osama bin Laden and using them and Special Forces members as ‘ammunition’ for his campaign.

SEALs bashed the president to Britain’s MailOnline after Obama released a campaign ad called “One Chance,” to coincide with this week’s first anniversary of the raid that killed the al-Qaida figurehead.

The ad features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama’s decision to order bin Laden killed, and suggests that his Republican rival Mitt Romney might not have made the same call. It has already been criticized by all sides, with even Arianna Huffington, founder of the liberal Huffington Post, calling it “despicable.”

Chris Kyle, the former SEAL credited with a record 160 confirmed killings, called it “a cheap shot.”

“He’s trying to say that Romney wouldn’t have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican,” Kyle told the Mail’s Toby Harnden. “Obama is taking more credit than he is due.”

Kyle’s comments echoed those of Romney himself. Campaigning in New Hampshire on Monday he said, “Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” adding that he “of course” would have done the same.

[Chris Powell]

Kasumi of Vientown

*snips anti-Obama SEAL stories*

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57425555-503544/are-navy-seals-really-angry-with-obama/

CBS News

The culture in the military has grown increasingly conservative in recent years, one former special operations soldier told CBS News, and there was broad apprehension about President Obama when he took office - including in the SEALs. But according to the former special operative, senior special operations leadership has warmed to Mr. Obama during his time in office because the president has shown he is a risk-taker (as evidenced by his decision to go forward with the bin Laden mission) who has "given them a longer leash" than former President George W. Bush did.

"They're tickled s*itless because the guy has approved missions and the use of predator drones to a greater extent than his predecessor," said the former special ops soldier. (John Brennan, the president's top counter-terrorism official, on Monday offered a rare discussion and defense of the Obama administration's campaign of drone strikes, which have killed suspected militants as well as civilians. )

This isn't to say that some SEALs aren't angry with the president. There has been frustration over the fact that the bin Laden mission was announced so quickly after it occurred, which potentially limited the value of intelligence that was gathered. Leif Babin, a former SEAL, complained in the Wall Street Journal in January that such information is offered "for political gain" and ultimately endangers troops. Babin specifically complained that the bin Laden mission was laid out in such significant detail by the administration, potentially endangering operational security in future missions.

But the notion that rank-and-file SEALs are outraged that the Obama campaign put out a video questioning whether Mitt Romney would have authorized the bin Laden mission - something suggested in the Daily Mail story - is dubious.

CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan, who has accompanied SEALs on missions, says they simply aren't engaged with the political jockeying in Washington.

"The political aspect is not even a dimension that comes into their orbit," said Logan. "It's so far beyond anything to do with that."
The suggestion by Hastings, meanwhile, that some SEALs feel the president may deserve blame for the shooting down of a Chinook helicopter last August doesn't reflect the consensus inside special ops: Sources say that incident is widely seen as the result of errors on the ground, not some sort of incitement or security breach by the administration. Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith declined comment on Hastings' story.

I'm sure some SEALS like him and some don't. Breaking news that...

Also, why wouldn't Obama use that as an accomplishment of his presidency about ordering the Bin Laden kill? It's an accomplishment his predecessor never realized and I'm pretty damn sure that any other politician who pulled it off would use it as well.

[The Infamous Unami]

Heimdalr

Chains4w

I felt all warm inside when I read he was on suicide watch.

Well. That's more due to pathology than ideology, to be sure.

Watch out yo, I be crazy.

On topic though, there are numerous avenues through which someone can report wrongdoing in a classified environment. He wasn't trying to report a specific wrongdoing, he was trying to undermine US diplomacy and foreign policy, all of which he apparently considered illegal.

Broadcasting this to the world, instead of proper channels (IG, Cong. Intelligence Committee) is not protected by law no matter what is being revealed. However, the blanket nature of his disclosure, coupled with his statements to Adrian Lamo show that he is not trying to seek justice for a violation of the law, but to sabotage through subversion, theft and disclosure.

He deserves the life sentence that approaches after his trial.

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Chris Powell

Kasumi of Vientown

*snips anti-Obama SEAL stories*

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57425555-503544/are-navy-seals-really-angry-with-obama/

CBS News

The culture in the military has grown increasingly conservative in recent years, one former special operations soldier told CBS News, and there was broad apprehension about President Obama when he took office - including in the SEALs. But according to the former special operative, senior special operations leadership has warmed to Mr. Obama during his time in office because the president has shown he is a risk-taker (as evidenced by his decision to go forward with the bin Laden mission) who has "given them a longer leash" than former President George W. Bush did.

"They're tickled s*itless because the guy has approved missions and the use of predator drones to a greater extent than his predecessor," said the former special ops soldier. (John Brennan, the president's top counter-terrorism official, on Monday offered a rare discussion and defense of the Obama administration's campaign of drone strikes, which have killed suspected militants as well as civilians. )

This isn't to say that some SEALs aren't angry with the president. There has been frustration over the fact that the bin Laden mission was announced so quickly after it occurred, which potentially limited the value of intelligence that was gathered. Leif Babin, a former SEAL, complained in the Wall Street Journal in January that such information is offered "for political gain" and ultimately endangers troops. Babin specifically complained that the bin Laden mission was laid out in such significant detail by the administration, potentially endangering operational security in future missions.

But the notion that rank-and-file SEALs are outraged that the Obama campaign put out a video questioning whether Mitt Romney would have authorized the bin Laden mission - something suggested in the Daily Mail story - is dubious.

CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan, who has accompanied SEALs on missions, says they simply aren't engaged with the political jockeying in Washington.

"The political aspect is not even a dimension that comes into their orbit," said Logan. "It's so far beyond anything to do with that."
The suggestion by Hastings, meanwhile, that some SEALs feel the president may deserve blame for the shooting down of a Chinook helicopter last August doesn't reflect the consensus inside special ops: Sources say that incident is widely seen as the result of errors on the ground, not some sort of incitement or security breach by the administration. Buzzfeed editor Ben Smith declined comment on Hastings' story.

I'm sure some SEALS like him and some don't. Breaking news that...

Also, why wouldn't Obama use that as an accomplishment of his presidency about ordering the Bin Laden kill? It's an accomplishment his predecessor never realized and I'm pretty damn sure that any other politician who pulled it off would use it as well.

http://navysealsagainstobama.com/

Quote:

Obama Exploits the Navy SEALs
Leif Babin
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204740904577193024150056072.html

…

Adm. William H. McRaven, America’s top special-operations commander, wrote in his 1996 book “Spec Ops” that there are six key principles of success in special operations. Of paramount importance—especially given the risk and sensitivity of the missions and the small units involved—is what the military calls “operational security,” or maintaining secrecy. If the enemy learns details and can anticipate the manner and timing of an attack, the likelihood of success is significantly reduced and the risk to our forces is significantly increased.

This is why much of what our special-operators do is highly classified, and why military personnel cannot legally divulge it to the public. Yet virtually every detail of the bin Laden raid has appeared in news outlets across the globe—from the name of the highly classified unit to how the U.S. gathered intelligence, how many raiders were involved, how they entered the grounds, what aircraft they used, and how they moved through the compound. Such details were highly contained within the military and not shared even through classified channels. Yet now they are available to anyone with the click of a mouse.

It’s difficult for military leaders to enforce strict standards of operational security on their personnel while the most senior political leadership is flooding the airwaves with secrets. The release of classified information has also opened a Pandora’s box of former and retired SEALs, special operators, and military personnel who have chosen to violate their non-disclosure agreements and discuss intricate details of how such operations are planned and executed.

We’ve already begun seeing specific examples of strategic harm from the post-bin Laden leaks. In June, Pakistan arrested several individuals who allegedly provided information to the CIA in advance of the raid. One of those charged with treason was a Pakistani doctor, Shakil Afridi. This Sunday, Mr. Panetta confirmed to “60 Minutes” that Dr. Afridi had provided “very helpful” intelligence to the CIA. That may have condemned Dr. Afridi to death or life imprisonment.

Such disclosures are catastrophic to U.S. intelligence networks, which often take years to develop. Recklessness not only puts lives at risk but could set U.S. intelligence-collection efforts back decades. Our ability to carry out future operations is significantly degraded—something not lost on Pakistan.

A week after the bin Laden raid, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates expressed dismay about Washington’s loose lips, telling a town hall meeting of U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune: “Frankly, a week ago Sunday, in the Situation Room, we all agreed that we would not release any operational details from the effort to take out bin Laden. That all fell apart on Monday—the next day.”

Quote:

Michael Mukasey: Obama and the bin Laden Bragging Rights
Michael Mukasey
The Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303916904577374552546308474.html

…

Consider the events surrounding the operation. A recently disclosed memorandum from then-CIA Director Leon Panetta shows that the president’s celebrated derring-do in authorizing the operation included a responsibility-escape clause: “The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out.”

Which is to say, if the mission went wrong, the fault would be Adm. McRaven’s, not the president’s. Moreover, the president does not seem to have addressed at all the possibility of seizing material with intelligence value—which may explain his disclosure immediately following the event not only that bin Laden was killed, but also that a valuable trove of intelligence had been seized, including even the location of al Qaeda safe-houses. That disclosure infuriated the intelligence community because it squandered the opportunity to exploit the intelligence that was the subject of the boast.

…

Abraham Lincoln, on the night after Gen. Robert E. Lee’s surrender ended the Civil War, delivered from the window of the White House a speech that mentioned his own achievements not at all, but instead looked forward to the difficulties of reconstruction and called for black suffrage—a call that would doom him because the audience outside the White House included a man who muttered that Lincoln had just delivered his last speech. It was John Wilkes Booth.


The man from whom President Obama has sought incessantly to distance himself, George W. Bush, also had occasion during his presidency to announce to the nation a triumph of intelligence: the capture of Saddam Hussein. He called that success “a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.” He attributed it to “the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks.”

He did mention himself at the end: “Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.”

George W Bush didn't rush to take credit for the capture of Saddam Hussein, and there was no special secrets involved in that capture, and no secret Intel gained, or is there was he sure didn't brag about it and make it instantly useless.

Barrack Obama agreed not to reveal the results of the assault to the public, and went back on his word to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates 24 hours later, or perhaps less.

Quote:

Will The Navy SEALs Swift Boat Obama?
Michael Hastings
BuzzFeed
http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/will-resentful-navy-seals-swift-boat-obama

…

What was supposed to be an easy win—a victory lap on the anniversary of Bin Laden’s death, trumping up the president’s most militant moment—appeared to be slipping away.

The frustration—or, even anger—within the SEAL community is real, and has been brewing for months, particularly among a politically conservative core of operators. It started immediately after the raid, with questions among the Special Forces and intelligence community of whether the president should have waited to announce the kill to exploit the intelligence cache at Osama’s compound. It simmered after a Chinook helicopter was shot down, killing 30 Americans, 22 of them Navy SEALs from Team Six.

Was it a coincidence, SEALs asked themselves, catastrophe hit Team Six so soon after being named as the team responsible for the killing?

The White House narrative on the Geronimo mission would soon come under scrutiny as well, after Chuck Pfarrer, a former member of Seal Team Six, published a book length account questioning the official version of the story. The controversial book was viciously attacked—a JSOC spokesperson called it a “fabrication”—and it was widely dismissed by the press.

What the pushback revealed, however, was an extreme sensitivity in the White House as to who would have the privilege to tell the Bin Laden story, best expressed in a compelling, if well stage-managed, story in the New Yorker. The piece recounted the Abbottabad raid based on interviews with senior administration and military officials, while imbuing the story with the drama of a SEAL’s eye view. Yet the author conceded he had not actually interviewed the men who did the shooting.

Quote:

SEALs slam Obama for using them as ‘ammunition’ in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign
Toby Harnden
Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit-bin-Laden-killing-election-campaign.html

…

Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.

In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

…

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice – it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

I could bold excerpts of the remaining articles, but I choose not to. The fact of the matter is that we know that not every president would take credit for something he had nothing to do with and using it as a political chess piece, and in the mean time endanger our Navy Seals, possibly getting 22 of them killed.

Obama broke a promise to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and destroyed our ability to take advantage of the secret intelligence we gained when they killed Osama Bin Laden. What Barrack Obama did was negligent and irresponsible, and if anyone else did it they would have been charged with TREASON.

[Ban]

Kasumi of Vientown

http://navysealsagainstobama.com/

This domain was registered just today, apparently as a result of something Michael Hastings said. One wonders if it is actually run by a Navy SEAL, since the whois info is blocked out by that Domain By Proxy thing GoDaddy offers.

I would assume not, which seems to miss the point of what Hastings was saying. The legitimacy of such a site comes from whether it is run by a group that can truly claim the "mantle of veteran."

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Ban

Kasumi of Vientown

http://navysealsagainstobama.com/

This domain was registered just today, apparently as a result of something Michael Hastings said. One wonders if it is actually run by a Navy SEAL, since the whois info is blocked out by that Domain By Proxy thing GoDaddy offers.

I would assume not, which seems to miss the point of what Hastings was saying. The legitimacy of such a site comes from whether it is run by a group that can truly claim the "mantle of veteran."

That is irrelevant. That website merely lists a bunch of articles that already existed on different news sites Regardless of the validity of that particular site, it does not change the basic facts I demonstrated in my previous post.

[Wendigo]

People also claim to be SEALs or former SEALs like nobody's business.

[Ban]

Kasumi of Vientown

That is irrelevant. That website merely lists a bunch of articles that already existed on different news sites Regardless of the validity of that particular site, it does not change the basic facts I demonstrated in my previous post.

I think it's relevant. It's relevant in judging the validity of the selected articles. If the focus is on merely reprinting a bunch of opinion pieces from conservative commentators, or selectively editing the content of more neutral pieces, the choices made by the author of the website, then who is choosing to do so matters. If it's just somebody assuming the authority of the SEALs right there in the URL, then the strength of the overall work is muted by the usurpation.

In fact, it's hypocritical, because the author does the exact same thing he or she accuses Obama of: exploiting the name of the SEALs for a political end.

[Kasumi of Vientown]

Wendigo

People also claim to be SEALs or former SEALs like nobody's business.

Ban

Kasumi of Vientown

That is irrelevant. That website merely lists a bunch of articles that already existed on different news sites Regardless of the validity of that particular site, it does not change the basic facts I demonstrated in my previous post.

I think it's relevant. It's relevant in judging the validity of the selected articles. If the focus is on merely reprinting a bunch of opinion pieces from conservative commentators, or selectively editing the content of more neutral pieces, the choices made by the author of the website, then who is choosing to do so matters. If it's just somebody assuming the authority of the SEALs right there in the URL, then the strength of the overall work is muted by the usurpation.

In fact, it's hypocritical, because the author does the exact same thing he or she accuses Obama of: exploiting the name of the SEALs for a political end.

George W Bush didn't rush to take credit for the capture of Saddam Hussein, and there was no special secrets involved in that capture, and no secret Intel gained, or is there was he sure didn't brag about it and make it instantly useless.

Bush instead said the following:

Quote:

He called that success “a tribute to our men and women now serving in Iraq.” He attributed it to “the superb work of intelligence analysts who found the dictator’s footprints in a vast country. The operation was carried out with skill and precision by a brave fighting force. Our servicemen and women and our coalition allies have faced many dangers. . . . Their work continues, and so do the risks.”

He did mention himself at the end: “Today, on behalf of the nation, I thank the members of our Armed Forces and I congratulate them.”

Didn't president Bush handle that situation infinitely better then Obama handled the death of Bin Laden? Yes, he damn sure did.

Barrack Obama agreed not to reveal the results of the assault to the public, and went back on his word to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and others about 24 hours later.

You might think that Obama as president doesn't have to keep his word, but SEAL Team 6 risked their lives to get Bin Laden, and they also collected a treasure trove of information on Al Qaeda which the intelligence community could have used to strike devastating blows to that terrorist organization, and in the space of a few breaths Barrack revealed Bin Laden was dead and we had all that information, making none of it trustworthy.

What Barrack Obama did was negligent and irresponsible, and if anyone else did it they would have been charged with TREASON or perhaps even ESPIONAGE.

Anyway, the death of Bin Laden should have remained a secret as long as it took to get the full benifit out of all that information, and when it was revealed, no details should have been released. Also, Barrack had no business claiming the glory for Bin Laden's death, that was grossly inappropriate.

The people he should have acknowledged were the men and women fighting overseas, just like President George W Bush was humble enough to do.