Benghazi Critique by USAF Pilot

Assets available to respond to Benghazi - Ordered to STAND DOWN!                   [PhiBetaIota.net]               

EDITORIAL NOTE [8SEP2018]
We have been waiting for the Obama Administration to end to publish the full identities of all those involved in the cover-up, and to prosecute those involved -- from Hillary all the way down the chain!
The time has come for full justice to be served.
------

[This post was originally published in 2013, following a number of 

similar posts with ancillary data]

We're posting this commentary by Phil "Hands" Handley [Colonel, USAF (Ret)] who wrote this commentary in response to the announcements by Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the closest rescue assets were 18 hours away in Fort Bragg, NC!  Colonel Handley, with considerable knowledge of the Air Force regional assets available, provides details of precisely what support the Air Force could have rendered, had they not been ordered to STAND DOWN!

[We've taken the liberty of adding to the map above many of the assets available in the area from the US 6th Fleet -- although the Secretary of the Navy denies any US Navy craft were in the area -- they were "deployed elsewhere"!]

Handley flew 275 combat missions, and flew operationally all but 11 months of his 26 year career in fighters such as the F-86 Sabre, F-4D, F4E, F15 Eagle, and even drove the C-130A workhorse into hazardous areas.

Unlike most of the obsequious, pusillanimous popinjays strutting the halls of the Pentagon today, his medals are real, and earned in actual combat; they include 21 Air Medals, three Distinguished Flying Crosses, and the Silver Star -- so this man has credibility, more than we can say for any flag rank officer in the Pentagon today!

BETRAYAL IN BENGHAZI

The combat code of the US Military is that we don't abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don't run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying. 

Among America 's fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds. 

The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEAL's who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty.

Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility. 

It has been over 18 months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a "lap dog" press has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming.

The recent testimonies of the three "whistle-blowers" have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle. It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention "that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference" mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft. 

This is simply Bull Shit, regardless how many supposed "experts" the Administration trot out to make such an assertion.

The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don't just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing.

The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base ,Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based.

Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local): When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him 
"Greg, we are under attack!" 
        (his last words), 
Hicks immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing "Emergency Response Plan."

At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to "stand down". 
By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various "Command and Control Agencies" so everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on.

At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.

So nothing could have been done, eh? 

Nonsense!

If one assumes that tanker support really "was not available" 

what about this:

  

When at 10:00 PM AFRICOM alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.

By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours. 

While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.

  

The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.

  

Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.

Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to return to Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away.

As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act -- screw them. It is time our "leadership" get its priorities straight and put America 's interests first.

The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with "72 virgins" and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless P.O.S. terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to "tug" on Superman's cape.

Reports on Obama's frequent trips to Vegas were rare

Of course all this depends upon a Commander In Chief more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm's way than getting his crew rested for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. 

It also depends upon a Secretary of State who actually understood "What difference did it make?", and a Secretary of Defense who was watching the feed from the drone and understood what the attack consisted of instead of making an immediate response that "One of the military tenants is that you don't commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation." 

YGBSM! ( You Gotta Be Shittin' Me)

Ultimately it comes down to the question of who gave that order to stand down? 
Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does "have their back" when the chips are down. 

TO AVOID THIS HAPPENING AGAIN, 

WHOEVER GAVE THE "STAND DOWN" ORDER NEEDS TO BE EXPOSED!!!!

Curtailing Big Brother

Click here for related article [Federation of American Scientists (FAS.org)]

This post is designed to keep interested parties aware of changes in our government's system of monitoring its citizens, and protecting us from all those terrorist [i.e., US Citizen] threats.

Today, we're reviewing and commenting on changes to the composition of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [FISC], created via the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA].

As a result of Edward Snowden's revelations on NSA surveillance abuses, and FAS's disclosure of the details of FISC's rubber stamping of thousands of DOJ requests [note the image heading this blog post], Congress is rewriting the procedural and operational rules governing the FISC.

The judicial issue at hand is that
"...the FISC operates largely in secret and in a non-adversarial manner with the government as the only party ... [to a] non-adversarial process [which] prevents the court from hearing opposing viewpoints on difficult legal issues facing the court."

Congressional changes proposed include:

A.  A specialized Article III Court that hears applications and grants orders approving certain foreign intelligence gathering activities
B.  A Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review - to evaluate and review FISC rulings.
C.  That the FISC sit en banc - i.e., all 11 judges would review applications when making 'significant' interpretations of foreign intelligence statutes.
D.  Alter the 'voting rules' of either the FISC when sitting en banc or the FIS Court of Review to create a higher threshold of government surveillance.

Changing the Court Composition:

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has appointed two promising new members to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for seven year terms:

A.  James E Boasberg of the DC Federal District Court
     1) He replaces Presiding Judge Reggie Walton
     2) Background:
          a) Law degree from Yale - 1990
          b) Graduated from Oxford -1986
          c) Clerked for Judge Nelson on 9th Circuit US Court
              of Appeals 
          d) Litigation attorney in private practice: 1991 - 1996
          e) Assistant US Attorney in Washington, DC specializing
              in homicide prosecutions
          f)  Associate Judge - DC Superior Court.
          g) Notable: In CEI v. EPA, ruled against CEI's FOIA request for
              disclosure of secondary secret emails to disguise its conduct
              of business.

B.  Richard C Tallman of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
      1)  He replaces Judge Morris S. Arnold
      2)  Background:
            a) Law degree from Northwestern University
            b) Clerked for Judge Sharp on US District Court
                 for the Western District of Washington
            c)  Assistant US Attorney in Seattle, Washington
            d) Private practice specializing in White-Collar
                 criminal defense
            e)  Notable: in Bull v San Francisco, he dissented from
                 majority opinion which endorsed SF jail procedure of
                 strip searching those charged with minor, non-violent offenses;
                 Tallman opposed as it violated the Unreasonable Search clause of 
                  the Fourth Amendment.

Other members of the FISC [with end of term noted]:
             a) Rosemary Collyer            [2020]
             b) Raymond Dearie             [2019]
             c) Claire Eagan                     [2019]
             d) Martin Feldman              [2017]
             e) Susan Webber Wright    [2016]
             f)  James Zagel                     [2008]
             g) Dennis Saylor                  [2018]
             h) Thomas Hogan               [2016]
             i)  Mary McLaughlin            [2015]


Background:

The FISC was created as a safeguard to review special operational requests to by-pass Constitutional restrictions on surveillance of US citizens.  As you can see from the chart above, the number of requests was relatively modest until 2001.  During that period, requests were reviewed, evaluated, and acted on, based on their merit.  Most were denied for lack of substance.  Those that were granted were well-documented and proved to the Court that there was a definitive need for the action.

But, then came 9/11, when all the rules were tossed out to protect us from terrorists, and George W Bush [whom I fully supported] signed the Patriot Act -- which eroded the Constitution; that was followed by the Protect America Act of 2007, and in 2008, FISA was amended to increase the secrecy of the FISA Court process; this was followed by the National Defense Authorization Act, which, when combined with the preceding Acts created in response to 9/11, shredded the Constitution's guarantees of personal rights and freedoms, and unleashed the demons of oppressive government and Big Brother. 

And what politician dared to vote against legislation with the labels of Patriot and National Defense, and Protect America!

The Court was then flooded with requests which absolutely, positively HAD to be acted on IMMEDIATELY lest another attack on the public be missed and end in catastrophe.  Both the Law Enforcement and the Intelligence Communities arrived with stacks of requests, the bearers panting that terrorists were en-route, ready to destroy civilization.

I can validate 100 requests an hour with my rubber stamp!

The Court was overwhelmed, and the process eventually became rubber stamping.

The Court was degraded, eventually to be headed by the malleable Judge Reggie Walton, a jurist of mediocre credentials, selected in 2007 because of his "tough on crime" attitude.

But perhaps it was because, according to one wag, he could be persuaded to endorse a search warrant scribbled in crayon on toilet paper.

[But, we don't believe that.]

The FISA and the FISC were created with the best intentions, to address a perceived threat to national security, ostensibly because only extreme measures could counter the extreme - albeit ephemeral threat.  But, the Court has been unreasonable in granting virtually unlimited access to all of America's private information, and denying public access to just what our government has collected, and continues to collect [e.g., Google's battle with the FISC to deny access to its user data.]

I take issue with the Court proceedings, particularly during the current Administration.

I feel competent to criticize since I've been part of the original process;  I directed the operations of the DOD Clandestine Service [DCS] from 1984 - 1990, the objectives of which included collection operations against threats to national security, to include  terrorist elements around the world. 

[To clarify, neither JimmyBob Clapper nor Mikey Flynn created the DOD Clandestine Service, even though that's their claim.]

Based on our experience in the DCS, I can assure you, AND Congress, that there are very few, if any, operational circumstances which justify the rubber stamping of surveillance or the spying requests by the Department of Justice or any element of the Intelligence Community, to include the NSA.

Back then, my legal staff consisted of a retired federal judge and three federal attorneys who reviewed our operational plans before they were signed into action and funded.  The authorized plans covered a broad range of anticipated contingencies, but occasionally, operational issues arose necessitating questionable actions in need of immediate review due to exigent circumstances; one such incident involved the news that a US Military officer had been targeted for assassination and we needed to employ all surveillance assets available to protect him.

For such exigent situations, I had 24/7 access to the US Assistant Attorney General, who could authorize an operation responding to an imminent threat to national security.  These operations included NSA coordination and support; the basic caveat was that there could be no surveillance of US citizens without a clear and justifiable warrant.  If such were the case, the Assistant Attorney General would either directly authorize the operation, or, as necessary, coordinate by phone with the FISC and then grant us authorization to proceed. Such events rarely took more than 30 minutes, although we did have to provide detailed documentation after the fact.

We dealt with Intelligence collection operations as critical, or more critical than those the Intelligence Community faces today; they were fully functional and fully compliant with the existing Congressional restrictions imposed by the Church Committee back in 1975 -- the essence of which was:

                                           DO NOT SPY ON US CITIZENS!

Since 9/11, the very worst elements of the Intelligence Community took control and whispered in Congress' ear the need to destroy the Constitution to protect National Security.  The Patriot Act was strengthened with the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA] which was subsequently endorsed again by Congress in 2013, and again in 2014.

My emphasis to Congress is that the Law Enforcement and Intelligence Communities can get along quite well following the standard warrant process.  Every request to the FISC should be scrutinized  carefully, and the need for a hasty turn-around is rare.  The new appointees to the FISC bench seem quite well qualified, and the new legislation proposed to adjust the FISA/FISC procedures seems to be on the right track.

My emphasis to readers is that they urge their elected representatives to enact these proposed reforms so that we can regain the Constitutional Rights our Forefathers established for us.

         

SEC: Corruption Central?

SEC Enforcement doesn't include self-regulation               [Economic Times]

Click here for related article [Jia Lynn Yang Washington Post]

After we learned a while back that a former Wall Street executive -- now employed by the SEC Enforcement Division -- had been caught tipping off his pals at his old financial firm about SEC investigations into their activities [punishment was a slap on the wrist rather than prosecution] we figured it couldn't get much worse there. 

But, we forgot.  This is the obama Administration, in which corruption is the watchword; if you're not corrupt and milking the federal government for all it's worth, you're not playing the game right.  It turns out the SEC hasn't been this corrupt since the Clinton Administration.

For background:

The SEC was formed in 1934, following the 1929 Stock Market collapse,  to monitor and regulate the Market -- Stock, Mercantile, Commodities, etc., to make sure there is no sleight of hand of, God forbid, INSIDER TRADING! 

For the uninitiated, insider trading is buying and selling by exploiting classified or restricted information which is not available to the public; e.g., if you read a confidential filing that IBM has a record profit for this quarter, and you buy stock figuring it will take off.  The Enforcement Division of the SEC investigates and prosecutes investors and financial gurus for Insider Trading.  For example, SAC Capital Portfolio Advisor, Mathew Martoma, face a substantial fine and several years in prison if he is convicted of "insider trading".

Old Joe; it takes a crook to catch one

Oddly, President Roosevelt appointed old Joe Kennedy [JFK's dad] as the first Chairman, not because he was above reproach, but rather, because he was the most corrupt and ruthless SOB on Wall Street, and FDR figured it took a ruthlessly corrupt guy like Kennedy to understand the ins and outs and to know where and how the corruption functioned.  To his credit, he cleaned up Wall Street, mostly by outing and prosecuting his old adversaries -- but, in the end, it all worked out.


According to a report published by UVA, The Stock Picking Skills of SEC Employees, investigated the trading activities of SEC employees and noted that they systematically beat the market by trading immediately before costly enforcement actions, based on "... privileged, non-public information."

"In short, it appears that SEC employees continue to take advantage of non-public information to trade profitable in stocks under their regulatory purview."


Now, to allay your concerns that SEC regulators are exploiting their insider information to make small fortunes for themselves, the SEC spokesman, John Nester advised
"Each of the transactions was individually reviewed by the Ethics Office, and most of the sales were required by SEC policy.  Staff had no choice.  They were required to sell."  Theoretically, these new rules apply to regulators assigned to investigate a company -- thus, they must sell -- maybe.

The researchers obtained their information under FOIA requests, but still had to work around limits on the information provided.  Examples of the SEC regulator trades included ahead of enforcement actions against

DJ Plunge [04/2010]

a) Bank of America      [04 Feb 2010]

b) General Electric       [27 July 2010]

c) Citigroup                  [29 July 2010]

d) Johnson & Johnson  [08 April 2010]

e) JP Morgan                [07 July 2010]




In these cases, SEC regulators sold their shares in these companies shortly before news of enforcement actions was released to the public.


So, under the current SEC leadership's interpretation of the regulation, it is not only acceptable to trade on classified insider information, it is expected that they do so. 

Kind of like expecting a beat cop to hold up the local grocery store; after all, he has a gun, and people with guns are expected to do criminal things -- right?