KSM 9/11 terror mastermind trial set to resume this week

Reporting from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba--While American’s prepare to cast their ballots in the presidential election, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will enter a courtroom in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The government charges Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi with attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel, or aircraft, terrorism, and conspiracy in connection with the attacks on 9/11. The U.S. terrorist attack killed 2,976 persons and a military tribunal will try the accused. Defense and prosecuting attorney’s are finalizing their arguments and the alleged 9/11 mastermind will return to the military tribunal on Monday. His attorney’s did not indicate weather KSM would remain orderly or attempt to disrupt the courtroom, as the terrorist has done in previous court appearances. The controversial Cuban detention facility is home to 166 prisoners, exactly 166 more than Mr. Obama promised voters would be on the Island after he was elected. President Obama has trimmed the population by 66 detainees, sent some to their home countries, and some like Said al Shihri, a former Gitmo resident who was released for re-indoctrination training, was killed by Obama’s controversial drone program in Yemen. A pre-trial press conference revealed details that the government and defense attorney’s will argue in order to gain the upper hand. The clear strategy for the defense will be the CIA’s black sites and the government’s attempt to hide behind national security claims and keep evidence classified. The defense attorney’s plan to argue the information obtained from torture is inadmissible in court and therefore the government’s case should be severely weakened. On the other hand, the government prosecutor, General Martin, says the evidence is a “rubric of relevance” and “relevance is a good gatekeeper.” He reassured members of the media that the government would not be using any statements obtained through torture. The General also told the media that members of the armed forces and lawyers are doing a good job under tough circumstances. Attorney General Eric Holder delayed the original Gitmo trial process by trying to move the suspects, including self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, from the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to New York to be tried in federal court. Recent polling on this issue finds the majority of Americans supported military tribunals over a federal courtroom in downtown Manhattan, and Gitmo has been preparing the detention facilities for a number of years. For those thinking justice delayed is justice denied, may feel the taxpayers’ tab for a military trial isn’t what they expected. The last criminal trial that was held in New York City came with a price tag of more than $200 million per year. Taxpayers should also know the last federal trial of the 20th hijacker, Mohammad al-Qahtani took four years to complete and it is now more than 11 years since the 9/11 terrorist attack. The “Laws of War Covenants and Treaties” under which KSM and others are being charged, state in their preambles that they are agreements between countries, not political or criminal organizations. Seemingly, the 9/11 attackers were an organization that was also not a signatory to the “Laws of War” and other international covenants or treaties. While most American’s would agree their actions were evil and criminal, the acts of a criminal organization do not rise to the acts of nations, therefore, the basic precept of the US government to impose international law seems tenuous. The members of al-Qaeda conspired as a criminal gang, like drug cartels, to attack multiple western countries for political/religious reasons, not to gain territory of a foreign state. If that is the case, American’s could question the use of drone strikes in sovereign countries (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Sudan) since Congress has not declared war against three of these nations. The “Laws of War” require that nation’s control the people within their sovereign territory so other nations cannot impose their wills upon foreign nationals within that sovereign territory that are not acting on behalf of a nation (i.e. separatist movements in Spain, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Chechen, and now Syria). International law is used to arrest, hold, and extradite individuals within a sovereign nation at the request of another sovereign nation (Wikileaks, Blind Sheik), but the “Laws of War” are not an instrument of use for individual criminal acts. Even military leaders or state leaders are only subject to international convention and the “Laws of War” because their countries are signatories of the covenants. For example, Libya is refusing to turnover Gadhafi's son to The Hague for trial because the state is willing to try him under its laws just as Iraq did with brutal dictator Saddam Hussein. Critics argue that the Guantanamo defendant’s actions, regardless how heinous, amount to nothing more than international criminal actions and if the acts had been committed in the U.S. they would be tried under federal law, just as Jose Padilla was in 2002. As the weeklong trial unfolds several questions will be posed. For instance what exactly is the government’s standard of proof? In a “rule of law” society, as the American Constitution intended, the government must prove some basics: The Sixth Amendment requirement of a speedy trial by an impartial jury of their peers, in the district wherein the crime occurred, and the defendant’s ability to confront their accusers (and evidence). If they are charged with federal crimes, as civilians, they are to appear in a federal courtroom. (Note: KSM wasn’t arrested in the U.S., the government “snatched and grabbed” him in Pakistan). If the government prevails in its prosecution under tribunals of non-combatants vice following the “rule of law” it is conceivable it could undermine America’s capability to apply the law equally under Lady Justice’s purview and American jurisprudence may forever be tainted. Check back Monday afternoon to see if KSM speaks or remains silent… Previous KSM story: http://www.examiner.com/article/terror-on-trial-new-york-congress-moves-to-defund-the-process */ For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

20,000 shoulder to air missiles missing in Libya

It's just been revealed that 10-20,000 shoulder-to-air missiles capable of bringing down a civilian airplane are missing in Libya and most likely in the hands of al-Qaeda or their affiliates. Anti-Libya War critic Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) blasted those testifying about the four murdered Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens and two SEALs, at the Congressional hearings a short time ago. The 9/11/12 terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate prompted widespread concerns for American interests in the region and outrage from several congressional members. Kucinich called the Obama administration’s war in Libya unconstitutional and questioned Congress’ ability to curtail the illegal war efforts in multiple countries. Kucinich also asked Eric Nordstrom, the former Libyan Security Officer for the State Department if al-Qaeda has strengthened in the region as a result of the U.S. war and drone attacks. He replied, “yes.” Previous Libya story: http://www.examiner.com/article/meltdown-middle-east-and-obama-s-foreign-policy-1 And: http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-warned-of-violent-middle-east-protests-dhs-report-reveals-1 © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Friendly fire? Or is the FBI off target again with agent’s death?

Border Patrol agent Nicolas Ivie’s tragic death outside Naco, Arizona earlier this week should not be handled as political football for Washington’s spin mills. On October 2, the desert was quiet, well lit under a day old full moon, when gunfire erupted. It's been reported that three Board Patrol agents responded to a tripped ground sensor, set to warn agents of intruders north of the U.S. border. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) claims Border Patrol agents were somehow separated, took defensive positions and began shooting at one another under a dark Arizona night. At 1:30 am the moon would have been near its zenith and 95-98 percent brightness. It was not dark. However, many agents are not buying the friendly-fire theory. “One of the first things agents learn when they attend the Border Patrol Academy is ‘situational awareness’ and knowing where their partners are located in relation to a possible smuggling scene,” according to a source that wishes to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “It’s also interesting that the FBI is not talking about the four sets of footprints, three heading south to Mexico and one set headed east toward highway 80 to Douglas.” Carol Capas, spokesperson for the Cochise County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that agents were tracking footprints at the scene. And backing-up this story is a Reuters report a day after the murder that said, “Mexican troops arrested two men on Wednesday suspected of involvement in the killing of a U.S. Border Patrol agent shot dead in Arizona while responding to a tripped ground sensor, Mexican security officials said.” There are also reports that Mexican authorities found the body of another suspect dead, shot in the head twice, suicide they say. "While it is important to emphasize that the FBI's investigation is actively continuing, there are strong preliminary indications that the death of United States Border Patrol Agent Nicholas J. Ivie, 30 and the injury to a second agent were the result of an accidental shooting incident involving only the agents," said FBI spokesperson James Turgal. Why is the administration so quick to protect the cartels or smugglers as they did in the Brian Terry murder case? Terry was gunned down by Mexican rip crew bandits who often rob other smugglers or illegal immigrants crossing the border into the U.S. It’s been nearly two years since the December 2010 murder and the only thing that has been confirmed is two of the weapons recovered came from the failed gunwalking program “Fast and Furious.” An underreported fact is FBI officials removed a third weapon at the murder scene because it belonged to one of their informants, which was allegedly not inventoried in the Terry case. (Link story) Why? Those familiar with crime scene procedures agree the Terry murder scene was mishandled from the beginning. Typically murder/crime scenes are cordoned off, extensively photographed, statements are taken and within a few days the autopsy is released to media - law enforcement pursues and arrests its perpetrator and a trial commences. Yet, two years later the Terry family is still waiting for answers? As the country watched the Obama administration try to distort the facts in the Fast and Furious scandal, the same figureheads are orchestrating the Ivie murder investigation. It’s important to remember the country is now less than a month away from Election Day and the political consequences could not be more important. Additional unconfirmed reports in southern Arizona say Agent Ivie’s final radio transmission said; “we're taking fire.” Another inconsistency with the friendly fire conclusion is the second agent Johnson was shot in the buttocks and ankle that suggests he was not facing the shooter. Also, if it were an instantaneous exchange of gunfire agent Ivie would not have been able to radio in to the station. According to reports yesterday agent Ivie died instantly with a gunshot would to the head. Border Patrol agents typically carry a combination of 40 caliber semi-automatic handguns, 12-gage shotguns, M-16 or AR-15 type rifles, while the weapon of choice for smugglers is an AK-47 type rifle. A trained veteran agent would undoubtedly know the difference between the sounds of a handgun, rifle or AK-47. Gun experts have said the wounds to agent Ivie’s head would clearly show if an AK-47 or AR-15 killed agent Ivie. Also a statement released today indicates a high-powered rifle and handgun were recovered near the scene of the shooting. What are the details surrounding these two “newly reported” weapons? When were they recovered and who exactly found them – information pertaining to the firearms has yet to be released. Couple all that with the following statement by a fellow Arizona agent; “It was three of our guys checking a sensor and those f******s waited for our guys at the sensor and ambushed them. One had a rifle and the other two had handguns and opened fire. One dead... We busted 10 mules with 10 double bundles of drugs last week. Sounds like retaliation.” Sheriff Babeu talked about numerous perils agents and law enforcement face on a daily basis. “Bersin and other high level cabinet members acknowledged that there are bounties placed on federal and even local law enforcement members by the drug cartels and (which is consistent with) what we have seen in Pinal County, which is 70 miles north of the border. (Read story here) The FBI’s friendly fire narrative On Thursday the FBI, began to leak the possibility of friendly fire. By Friday, mainstream media was reporting the FBI theory without question. Sound familiar? As we know with the tragic murder of agent Brian Terry in December 2010, the friendly fire scenario was also used. Sources in Arizona believe the FBI may be using the friendly fire story to suppress evidence about this incident. Earlier in the week USA Today reported Cochise County Sheriff Department Commander Marc Denney’s opinion that “It was basically an ambush.” Looks like the FBI investigators want the residents of Arizona to believe that Border Patrol agents are such rookies they would engage in a firefight with themselves. The FBI isn’t talking about the four sets of footprints. Was there another border patrol agent from the Douglas BP Station? Was there a drug smuggler who had a car nearby? Was he American or a Mexican national? Nobody at the FBI is talking. Another lingering question that hasn't been answered is why would the border patrol agents shoot first? The agents are taught to only return fire if they are under fire. There are strict rules of engagement within the border patrol. This rule ensures agents aren’t shooting without imminent danger and agents must account for any missing rounds in their magazines after each shift. Agents say this keeps them accountable. Border Patrol was founded in 1924, and they have a proud history of not firing their weapons at each other, something the FBI wants to change. Another fact to remember is Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is trying to bring Border Patrol under their agency, something agents are vehemently against. Nearly two years after agent Terry’s murder, the family, law enforcement and media still don’t have a comprehensive report. What was discovered was the fatally flawed “Fast and Furious” program operated by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) a gunwalking scheme where more than 2,000 high-powered firearms crossed the U.S./Mexico border and into the willing drug cartel hands. “Leadership failed and everything I've learned as a rank-and-file police officer, Army private and field grade officer; whoever's in charge is responsible in the end. Whether he knew it or whether he should have known, Eric Holder (the nation’s top cop at Main Justice) created an environment and a dynamic that resulted in the murder of not only one agent that we can prove, but also hundreds of Mexicans have been killed with Fast and Furious weapons. This guy was not held accountable; he has not resigned so he should be fired. I believe he, and others in the government, should be held accountable even criminally,” Sheriff Babeu concluded. It's also important to note that prior to Brian Terry’s murder in Peck Canyon, Border Patrol were engaged in several gunfights with drug smugglers. In 2009, another Border Patrol agent was wounded in Peck Canyon while engaged in a firefight with rip crews. And yet, agent Terry carried bean bag rounds in his weapon, reportedly a memo from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stated agents were to use less-than lethal force against smugglers. The families of the fallen agents deserve to know the truth. They deserve to have the investigation unfold without the unmistakable aura of politics being played. If Americans can't trust the integrity of law enforcement, who can they trust, NCIS Hollywood? Whether this was friendly fire or enemy fire the families are entitled to the truth. The FBI’s track record seems to be faltering and agent Ivie's death should not receive the ho hum, nothing is going on here political treatment. Arizonian’s are not buying Department of Homeland Security’s Secretary Janet Napolitano’s story, that the borders are secure, in fact, Cochise County still has murdered rancher, Rob Krentz’s death unsolved. The border fence is far from being finished in Cochise County, much of it remains barbed wire or no fence at all, according to Capas of the Sheriff’s Department. Just like the recent 9/11 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, the government sought to blame the murders of four Americans on a YouTube video. It took more than a week for the White House to come clean and tell the American people what really unfolded. Fellow Border Patrol agent Joel Ivie said his brother “was a hero.” And just like agents, Ivie and Terry, the Navy SEALs who died in Libya protecting fellow Americans from a terrorist attack, the families deserve the truth and transparency from their government, whether friendly or enemy. The truth will only prevail if all in law enforcement agencies abide by the "rule of law" 100 percent of the time. The truth is not an inconvenient alternative, it must prevail every time to preserve the trust and honor law enforcement is tasked to uncover. Previous murder BP agent Ivie stories: http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-administration-deemed-border-security-murders-as-an-acceptable-risk And: http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-border-patrol-agent-murdered-arizona. © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Obama administration deemed border security murders as an acceptable risk

Documents recently uncovered from Border Patrol agents highlight the Obama administration’s failure to heed multiple warnings from Border Patrol, local law enforcement, activist groups and border region ranchers that restlessly warned government officials that proposed wilderness reserves would lead to national security breaches and murder. “We now have further evidence that the Obama administration at every level thinks the border situation is entirely acceptable and they lack full border enforcement security within designated wilderness areas that risks our border patrol agents and law enforcement deputies safety,” said outspoken Pinal county Sheriff Paul Babeu. Emails, meetings and videotapes reveal the administration was aware of national security issues, agent safety issues, bounties placed on Border Patrol agents by drug cartels, and the trafficking of drugs and humans. The administration was told, they saw it and they acknowledged it, and yet, they moved forward. As a result of their “acceptable risk” policy, Border Patrol agents Brian Terry and Nicolas Ivie were murdered. Yesterday, Cochise County Sheriff spokesperson Carol Capas confirmed agent Ivie was murdered on federal land. The emails, memo’s and white papers contained serious allegations that national security would be hampered in the wilderness areas along the southern border. There are supporting documents and news reports confirming drug cartels “bounty program” that incentivized smugglers to kill agents along the border. Emails (FOIAs from NAFBPO), despite extensive government redacting, confirm the administration began talks regarding the expansion and creation of wilderness areas, these proposed new designations went through Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, Department of Interior, Congress and Senate committees. All the agencies were advised of the national security implications and the emails predate Agent Terry’s December 2010 murder. Email exchanges between agencies include Customs and Border Protection Deputy Commissioner David Aguilar, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, Michael Fisher, Congressman Udall, Senator Jeff Bingaman, Commissioner of CBP and former drug czar, Alan Bersin, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as well as the Chamber of Commerce. The brouhaha behind the FOIAed emails The brouhaha began with Democrat Senator Bingaman’s S.1689 legislation that sought to expand wilderness areas along the U.S./Mexico border. An example of a memo dated May 10, 2010 between Bingaman’s office and Border Patrol discussed the need for “concessions to law enforcement in S.1689” regarding maps and written impacts on patrolling the border. Also dated the same day is a “memo with Bingaman press release- that noted the (Obama) administration supported this bill.” Moving along to May 12, 2010 memos from Border Patrol in Tucson and Albuquerque want info on “snakes in the grass,” DHS talking points and a copy of the talk on border tours.” Particularly concerning, on May 18, 2010 “Santa Teresa (BP) Office is aware of problems of WSA/WA (wilderness areas). These environmental protections (WA) severely limit BP’s (Border Patrol) ability to carry out its National Security Mission along the international border and surrounding area.” The memo also redacted some changes before it went on to explain, “The wilderness areas has (sic) strict access requirements and covers a large area where enforcement capabilities are limited.” Luna County Sheriff Raymond Cobos said the wilderness designation would “hamstring effective law enforcement” and Hidalgo County Sheriff Saturnino Madero found it “highly inadvisable” to place such restrictions on his officers. One of the final emails on June 18, 2010 to Border Patrol was “asking what White House tour should see along the four Border States? And what are the five top challenges.” In July of 2010, agencies involved with S.1689 and widening the range of wilderness preserves along the southern border hit a bump in the road and revealed, “sit back on it, it is a very sensitive issue of late.” Unfortunately the questionable program of limiting Border Patrol access to “wilderness preserves” continued and six months later Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in a shootout by “rip crews” in an Arizona desert. Terry was also following orders stemming from a nonsensical memo from DHS’s Janet Napolitano asking agents to use less than lethal force - rubber bullets – against armed traffickers. It now appears that DHS didn’t learn its lesson from agent Terry’s death. Consistent throughout the 500+ pages of emails are repeated warnings from Border Patrol regarding national security and the opposing narrative that the Obama administration was more concerned with protecting the wilderness zones, than agents in the field. Dona Ana County Sheriff Todd Garrison said it would be “the height of folly to place such restrictions on law enforcement in this border area.” One Border Patrol agent’s comment seemed particularly straightforward, “Do you really think that the coyotes (human traffickers) or drug cartels are going to read a little sign in English/Spanish declaring it is unlawful to enter a federal preserve? No. That means one thing to these banditos, Border Patrol will not be patrolling.” This statement is whispered by a majority of agents and local law enforcement in the field. “It should not be a surprise that that we have had four Arizona border patrol agents murdered in the last two years and the Obama administration, even some members of the media, do not want us to talk about this (issue) and say we make this political,” Babeu stated. “These are deaths of our heroes!” The Sheriff responds passionately about the treatment Arizona has garnered by the media and Obama administration. “All law enforcement officials risk their lives in Arizona.” However, he places the recent rash of murders by cartel thugs squarely on the Obama administration, and Janet Napolitano, former Arizona governor and current Secretary at DHS. “The four border states risk their lives to a more significant degree than we need to because of the failures of this administration and bureaucrats who make decisions thousands of miles away without our safety and security in mind. Contrary to Janet Napolitano's proclamations that the border is more secure than ever, last year in October we had the largest drug bust in Arizona history with “operation pipeline express” that netted nearly $3 billion in product, money and weapons that we seized from the Sinaloa drug traffickers.” According to the Sheriff and a story this reporter covered (story here) multiple agencies worked jointly to take marijuana, black tar heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines from 76 Sinaloa cartel individuals operating 70 miles north of the Mexican border. Officers’ also recovered 108 weapons, two came from Operation Fast and Furious a national program that let guns walk. “These were not handguns that our police and sheriffs carry, these were scoped rifles and AK-47s, semi automatic weapons. These are all prohibited processors for violent criminals from a foreign country and they think they own the place.” The recent revelation of Fast and Furious high-powered weapons returning to the U.S. with drug traffickers is the gift that keeps on giving. “So now we have more evidence that these weapons our own government facilitated to the cartels, to be used for fighting, have now been brought back into the United States for use by these felons on our country, “ Babeu lamented. Emails say tricky language won’t secure the border No evidence was found to support claims by sponsors of the bill that many field agents had been interviewed and had stated that wilderness restrictions on the border would “be no problem.” A document dated May 4, 2010 that originated in the El Paso BP Sector, inadvertently escaped some redaction: “If completely realized, the restrictions of the WD (wilderness) will re-define the very nature of how the objectives and elements of the National Strategy are carried out in pursuit of gaining operational control of our nation’s borders.” Another example was found in a February 10, 2010 email, “Santa Teresa concept of operations. The mission is preventing terrorist and terrorist weapons from entering the US. We operate under the MOU, but the station needs the ability to patrol within the areas (WA) with less restrictions.” Two weeks later a request for Border Patrol statistics and apprehensions, narcotic seizures and general activity along border trails were requested from the Senator’s office. Contents of the emails concluded that the main issue of wilderness land designations on the border had little to do with national security and public safety. It was driven almost exclusively by political concerns. In an official CBP letter dated June 1, 2010, CBP Commissioner Alan Bersin (whose March 27, 2010 Easter recess appointment expired at the end of 2011 because he could not get the Senate approval), “expressed his gratitude and appreciation to Senator Bingaman for allowing Border Patrol access to a single east-west road adjacent to the border, authority for hot pursuit of suspects, allowing low level over flights, and for a strip of land five (5) miles wide within which to patrol the US/Mexico border. His letter concludes with the observations that the restrictive language of S.1689 should be a model for future consideration of wilderness designation along the border.” It was conveniently not noted that the road access was only five miles from the border, that low level flights were authorized, (but not landing), that law enforcement efforts and border security activities could only be conducted in accordance with section 4(c) of the wilderness act. Leading up to a June 2010 meeting, government officials placed several gag orders to quell media coverage as well as leading opposition groups. The gag order was directed to the office of Border Patrol on May 28, 2010, following a letter to a local news agency by a Mr. Jerry Schickedanz relating the conflict between Brandemuehl and the PIO El Paso Sector. A subsequent inquiry from a graduate student from University of Arizona concerning cooperation between land managers and the Border Patrol caused Headquarters, Border Patrol to instruct the El Paso Sector to “sit back on it.” It is a very sensitive issue of late. This typical gag order instructed that all wilderness questions be forwarded directly to CBP. More concern for open borders than agent’s lives The Commissioner is the highest level of authority in the CBP chain of command. This public document conclusively establishes that Bersin favored environmental considerations over national security and public safety. “On Wednesday, Assistant Secretary of International Affairs and Chief Diplomatic Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Alan Bersin, told a gathering of the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce in Washington D.C.: ‘The Guatemalan border with Chiapas is now our southern border,’” written by a fellow Examiner. This reporter has videotape from 2010 clearly authenticating the higher-ups knew the deadly conditions waiting border agents. A direct question posed to Mr. Bersin in July of 2010, acknowledges border agents had bounties placed on their lives and that CBP was doing everything to protect agents in the field. This was well before the murder of Border Patrol agents Terry and Ivie. “There has been a renewed threat to kill a Border Patrol agent along the border,” Bersin told a roomful of TV cameras. The bounty on agents was issued in the “past two weeks,” according to BP sources. Border Patrol agents are taking the new threat very seriously. CBP Commissioner Bersin also confirmed the threat that a $250,000 bounty has been placed on law enforcement for a kidnapped or killed agent along the southern border.” Sheriff Babeu corroborates those statements; “Bersin and other high level cabinet members acknowledged that there are bounties placed on federal and even local law enforcement members by the drug cartels and what we have seen in Pinal County, which is 70 miles north of the border. This continuation is proof of the threat that illegal immigration and drug smuggling have not subsided.” So why was there little outcry from this obvious threat from drug cartels? Operation Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal documented federal policy that many agents heeded, “you talk about it and you lose your job- retaliation.” “The responsibility for securing this international border is the core primary responsibility of the United States government and I believe the federal government has failed to do that,” Sheriff Babeu said. “They have failed to adequately protect the citizens of my county and my state. That threat to our country is not just the volumes of illegals and drug cartels, but more importantly, the threat that is posed when people of countries of interest cross our borders. These people harbor or sponsor terrorism and are not friendly to the United States.” The primary concern for agents is, of course, the bounties placed on their lives for patrolling the border. Justice for murdered agents is extraordinarily slow; the Terry family is still waiting for his murder to reach a trial and government officials to be held accountable. When it was discovered that the New Orleans Saints football team coaches put bounties on the heads of opposing players, the league held the coaches responsible and they were rightly disciplined. “Leadership failed and everything I've learned as a rank-and-file police officer, Army private and field grade officer; whoever's in charge is responsible in the end. Whether he knew it or whether he should have known, Eric Holder (the nation’s top cop at Main Justice) created an environment and a dynamic that resulted in the murder of not only one agent that we can prove, but also hundreds of Mexicans have been killed with Fast and Furious weapons. This guy was not held accountable; he has not resigned so he should be fired. I believe he, and others in the government, should be held accountable even criminally,” Sheriff Babeu concluded. As of press time, law enforcement access to wilderness areas remains limited. Check for further details as the story is still breaking: http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-border-patrol-agent-murdered-arizona. For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak *This story is dedicated to the many federal and local law enforcement officers that dedicate their lives to the protection of the nation’s porous borders; especially those who have given their lives protecting America’s rule of law. **This reporter would like to thank all those who dare to trust the media and the members of NAFBPO who gave their time and money to FOIA the revealing emails contained in this article. ***The National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) wish to gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the following persons who provided the expert analysis and conclusions contained in this report, Mr. Frank DuBois, Mr. Jerry G. Schickedanz, PhD, Claude E. (gene) Guyant, Gene Wood and Mr. Robert Trent. © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

California Governor vetoes TRUST Act angers amnesty activists

The TRUST Act’s sponsor Democrat Tom Ammiano said: “California cannot afford to become another Arizona.” However, Governor Jerry Brown disagreed and vetoed AB1081, the TRUST Act that would have essentially made California a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. “In the end I think Governor Brown listened to his heart and knew it was wrong to release criminal immigrants into our communities where many will commit more serious crimes,” said Jamiel Shaw Sr., father of murdered 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw Jr. While the veto sent shock waves throughout the illegal immigrant community, illegal alien criminals hoping to slip by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) when they are released from prison will be subject to deportation proceedings. Shaw Sr. explained this win is only temporary and Sacramento lawmakers will continue to pander to the Latino community. “We are satisfied with the outcome, but our job won’t end with the TRUST Act’s failure,” Shaw Sr. somberly explained. “We are already regrouping and will continue to expose lawmakers who try to pass legislation that will harm our American dream.” Many inner cities in California continue to be ravaged by high crime rates and constant gang-related violence. It’s not common to see victim’s families step up to the challenge and say “no more, not in my community.” But that’s exactly what the Shaw family has done. “We have American pride and our children matter just as much as any other kids in our neighborhood. We will keep up this fight as long as we have to and then we will pass our fight onto our children to ensure our communities are safe from illegal criminals,” Shaw Sr. said. The TRUST Act would have erased the often-controversial federal Secure Communities (S-Comm) program that was set up under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to partner federal (FBI) and local law enforcement agencies to deport illegal immigrants and protect the country’s borders from criminal or possible terrorists seeking respite in the United States. S-Comm allows local police departments to send arrestee fingerprint data to ICE, which in turn uses the information to prioritize deportations. The program successfully deported 400,000 illegal immigrants last year. But that high number comes with passionate disapproval from Latino organizations and Democrat lawmakers in California. “Every year there are a barrage of new laws that try to undermine illegal immigration laws already on the books,” Shaw Sr. explained. Tom Ammiano, a Democrat, said he authored AB1081 to reform California's participation in the “Secure Communities” program. The hot-button immigration law on the books continues to face criticism from liberals in large cities who say deportations of illegal immigrants is unfair and primarily targets the Latino community. “The vote (to move forward) recognized that S-Comm is sabotaging our public safety,” Ammiano said. “The TRUST Act is the solution we need to begin rebuilding the confidence that our local law enforcement worked so hard to build, but that ICE has shattered." Ammiano said after the veto, “this issue is more than a governor's issue, it think it's a movement. And I think elected officials sometimes have trouble getting their arms around that.” Apparently Governor Brown, who vetoed AB1081, didn’t get the California lawmaker’s memo. He explained in his veto statement that the law wasn’t well written and could leave room for more victims of senseless crimes; “I am unable to sign this bill as written. Under the bill, local officers would be prohibited from complying with an immigration detainer unless the person arrested was charged with, or has been previously convicted of, a serious or violent felony. Unfortunately, the list of offenses codified in the bill is fatally flawed because it omits many serious crimes. For example, the bill would bar local cooperation even when the person arrested has been convicted of certain crimes involving child abuse, drug trafficking, selling weapons, using children to sell drugs, or gangs. I believe it's unwise to interfere with a sheriff's discretion to comply with a detainer issued for people with these kinds of troubling criminal records.” The California State Sheriff's Association couldn’t agree more. They said state and local agencies cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce and said S-Comm only focuses on serious felony and repeat offenders. One of the bill’s leading opponents, Curtis Hill, legislative representative for the State Sheriff’s association said the TRUST Act would have placed undue burden on deputies in the field. "So is he (the deputy) following federal law? Or is he applying the California law?" Bill AB1081 passed the state Assembly by a 47-26 vote; the Senate passed the legislation on a 21-13 Democrat party line vote and was vetoed late Sunday night by Governor Brown. Previous story: http://www.examiner.com/article/father-of-murdered-son-urges-ca-governor-to-veto-trust-act For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

BREAKING NEWS: Border Patrol agent murdered in Arizona

Related topics border patrol DHS drug smuggling President Obama Advertisement Shortly before 2 a.m. today, one U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed near Naco, Arizona approximately 8-10 miles north of the U.S./Mexico border. Authorities suspect drug smugglers ambushed three Border Patrol agents on horseback when they responded to tripped sensors agents place underground to alert agents of illegal entry into the U.S. Brent Cagen, of the Tucson sector Border Patrol released a statement saying, “Border Patrol agents on patrol in Naco, Ariz., were involved in a shooting Tuesday at 1:50 a.m. MST. One agent died from his injuries and another, who sustained non-life threatening wounds, was airlifted to a hospital. The name of the agent who died is being withheld pending notification of next of kin.” A third agent at the scene escaped with no injuries. According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Cochise County Sheriff Department are investigating the shooting and have no suspects in custody. Command post officials say they launched a full-scale manhunt using every vehicle necessary, including helicopters and drones, to locate any potential assailants. It’s been just about two years since Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered in the same region by a “fast and furious” gun that uncovered the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) gunwalking program that allowed more than 2,000 high-powered weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Quietly, agents on the ground are concerned that “fast and furious” guns may have been used in this latest incident. So far authorities in charge haven’t released any information regarding the type of guns used or if any guns were left at the scene. It’s worth noting that most drug smugglers use AK-47s and employ a number of “scouts” throughout the surrounding mountain perches to alert Mexican operatives if Border Patrol agents get too close. The cartels also use numerous high frequency radios to communicate while they traverse the unforgiving desert terrain. The Naco station is located in the southwestern portion of Arizona, and is a known hot spot for drug and human trafficking. It’s worth pointing out that this recent murder occurred between the Coronado National Monument and the San Bernardino National wildlife refuge. Rancher Rob Krentz was murdered in March of 2010, near the San Bernardino National Wildlife refuge, and Agent Terry was murdered in the same smuggling corridor just north of Naco, Arizona. (Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, speaks against Republican Rep. Rob Bishop's bill to waive dozens of environmental laws within 100 miles of the U.S. borders and put the Department of Homeland Security in charge. This press conference took place outside the U.S. Capitol building on June 19, 2012.) George McCubbin, president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union represents approximately 17,000 agents, criticized claims that the border is secure. “Secretary Janet Napolitano has traveled around the country saying the border is more secure than it has ever been,” McCubbin said at a July 26 press conference. “We do not believe that to be the case. She relied on information and statistics provided to her by those with an interest in having them reflect whatever position the administration wants them to reflect.” DHS has not returned any phone calls or released any statements regarding the murdered Border Patrol agent. According to President Obama, the borders are more secure than ever and he used that statement to issue an executive order granting amnesty to illegal alien “dreamer” children who were brought to this country illegally by their parents. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) who lead the charge demanding answers from Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Border Patrol and ATF regarding the murder of BP agent Brian Terry who was killed by drug smugglers in December of 2010, was saddened by the news. Grassley said “no way to know at this point how the agent was killed. But because of Fast and Furious, we’ll wonder for years if the guns used in any killing along the border were part of an ill-advised gunwalking strategy sanctioned by the federal government. It’s a sad commentary.” So far this year there have been three Border Patrol agents killed in the line of duty. The borders remain unsecure A spokesperson for Secure Border Intel said the latest murder only illustrates how unsecure the southwest border region remains and that smugglers continue to employ Wild West tactics to ensure their drugs reach the U.S. consumer. “This comes shortly after US BP Agents shot the driver of a vehicle loaded with drugs (shot taken from a Blackhawk helicopter) after the suspect crashed into USBP vehicle attempting to block its path. The smugglers used a ramp truck to breach the fence and a load vehicle painted to match a USBP sensor truck. The smugglers hold the high ground still in most of southern Arizona. They know where the Border Patrol has ground sensors and are able to monitor USBP encrypted radio communications. And due in part to the criminally incompetent actions of the ATF, they are well armed. Agents have to rely on their own tricks and tactics to out maneuver the bad guys. These armed bandits are a common sight in the mountains and canyons in southern Arizona.” The link below shows recent smuggling traffic north of Nogales, Arizona. Drugs, illegal aliens and individuals who leave supplies along the trails for smugglers are caught on camera in broad daylight. “Our borders are still not secured,” according to Secure Border Intel. To view the video, click this link: http://www.secureborderintel.org/BorderBlotter/EastOfArivaca.wmv A retired law enforcement agent and resident near the murder scene, that didn’t want his name published for fear of retaliation, said a steady stream of drugs and humans pass through the south west region of Arizona and claims Border Patrol doesn’t even respond to calls from residents. “You better believe there are plenty of opportunities for agents to apprehend the bad guys, but they are told not to bring in the illegals. The border is not secure and this latest murder is proof the government is failing to protect Americans.” This particular drug smuggling corridor is reportedly “owned and operated” by the Sinaloa drug cartel, Mexico’s most profitable trans-border drug organization run by “Chapo” Guzman, who made the Forbes most wealthy list this year. Statement by National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO) Early this morning, Tuesday, October 2, two Border Patrol Agents were shot. One, whose name we do not yet know, was killed. The shootings reportedly took place eight miles north of the international border with Mexico, near the town of Naco, Arizona. The agents were thought to be responding to sensor alerts. Drugs may have been involved but we lack any further details at this moment. We note the cruel irony that this murder takes place within a week after the Border Patrol station at Naco, Arizona, was named for Brian Terry, an agent who was killed by transnational criminals near Rio Rico, AZ in December 2010. What is clear is this: yet again, an agent has been murdered and another wounded. Despite assurances from this administration that the border is secure and under control, it remains a dangerous place, far too open to smuggling, controlled as much by the transnational criminals as by the United States. In recent years NAFBPO has argued against the baseless claims that the border is under control. It is not, and this murder offers one more example of that sad fact. Furthermore, for some time NAFBPO has been certain that as pressure on drug smuggling routes in the Nogales/Tucson corridor increases the transnational criminals will move to areas further east that are less heavily monitored. This event supports that conclusion. Despite the clear probability that transnational criminals will move their operations to less patrolled areas, some environmental groups in New Mexico want to establish wilderness areas or a national monument in Dona Ana County, adjacent to the border. If that is done, the Border Patrol will be hampered in its operations. NAFBPO is baffled at the invitation being extended to the lawless elements that would certainly expand their operations in a protected area so close to the Mexican border. The border insecurity that exists now is a national security and a public safety issue that must be addressed in serious fashion, not with hollow statements from the Department of Homeland Security that all is well. It demonstrably is not. Check for further details as the story is still breaking. For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

BREAKING NEWS: Border Patrol agent murdered in Arizona second injured

A U.S. Border Patrol agent has been killed outside Naco, Arizona in the early hours of October 2. Suspected drug smugglers have shot two agents and authorities in the region are not commenting on the condition of the second injured agent who was airlifted to the hospital. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Cochise County Sheriff Department is investigating the shooting. The Cochise Sheriff Department’s outspoken Sheriff, Larry Dever was recently killed in a single car accident. It’s been just about two years since Border Patrol agent Brian Terry was murdered by a “fast and furious” gun that uncovered the and Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) gunwalking program that allowed more than 2,000 high-powered weapons to fall into the hands of Mexico drug cartels. The names of the agents have not been disclosed. Check for further details as the story is still breaking. For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

U.S. drone strikes continue to pound Pakistan & Yemen

White House sanctioned drone strikes in the Middle East continued this week with two separate attacks in Yemen and Pakistan. While world leaders meet this week at the United Nations to discuss the betterment of international foreign relations, President Obama deftly authorized the killing of suspected terrorists from his notorious “kill list.” The covert assassination program has slowly garnered attention from a few dedicated journalists (this writer included), leading anti-war politicians as well as the ACLU. Leading the way is the British news agency’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has compiled all the known U.S. drone strike statistics, including terrorist and civilian causalities. According to the Institute of Journalism, the latest drone strike killed 5-8 people and injured at least two others. “The evening strikes on a house south of Mir Ali in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A single CIA drone reportedly fired two missiles at a mud compound, said to be ‘known as a bastion of the Taliban and al Qaeda. The strike killed Abu Kasha al-Iraqi, a high-ranking al Qaeda planner and facilitator.” The report also stated another al Qaeda operative may have been killed, but the missiles burned the structure and bodies leaving the positive identification impossible. Tribal leaders in the area said they saw four drones flying shortly before the attack and indicated the other victims were most likely foreigners. The second U.S. drone strike in Yemen killed two suspected al Qaeda militants according to China’s Xinhua International news. While the local Yemeni news website implicated the U.S. and said, “The strike was carried out by a U.S. drone.” If the reports were true, this would be the first strike after the U.S. consulate was attacked in Libya on 9/11 and set in motion a series of violent protests throughout the region. Few U.S. politicos challenge the assassination program Recently, staunch war-critic, Ralph Nader, a Democratic gadfly, told Politico.com how he really felt about the Obama Administration’s covert ‘war on terror.’ “He’s (Obama) gone beyond George W. Bush in (conducting) drone attacks. For example, he thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, and drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies.” Nader also pointed out that the President is launching drone strikes in places like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, and that these overt attacks should be considered “war crimes” and he (Obama) ought to be held to account.” “I don’t know whether George W. Bush ever read the Constitution,” Nader pontificated, but “This man taught the Constitution and this is what we got.” The feisty leftwing politician didn’t pull any punches when he expressed his disapproval for the new remote control war. Nader said in his opinion that Obama is “the more effective evil because he brings credibility, he brings the democratic heritage to it, he has legitimized the lawless war-mongering and militarism abroad of George W. Bush.” Perhaps more importantly, Americans of all stripes should be asking how a name lands on the kill list and what justifies adding U.S. citizens to a terrorist assassination list? What is the QUALIFYING criteria and is due process and equal protection being followed at the highest levels of the US government? It is no secret that President Obama has placed American’s on the kill list and has no moral quandary with killing suspected terrorists’ who happen to be American or under-aged relatives (previous article here). ACLU to the rescue – hopefully? The recent spat of CIA drone strikes haven’t escaped the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In 2010, the civil liberties group represented family members of Anwar al-Awlaki, and his minor son, both U.S. citizens targeted and killed in Yemen. Leading world news organizations, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have estimated the U.S. drone program has killed more than 4,000 people including a large number of civilian women and children since President Obama’s election. Not helping matters any is the White House bragging about “Terror Tuesdays” and the delight President Obama takes when he orders the death of an alleged al Qaeda operative, even if it’s an American citizen. The Constitutional scholar, Nobel Peace Laureate, and purveyor of “fairness” have become the sole judge, jury, and executioner. No Miranda rights, no judge and no jury --the presumption of innocence have effectively been tossed in the wastebasket of yesteryear under the guise of national security. “Something that is being debated in UN hallways and committee rooms cannot apparently be talked about in U.S. courtrooms, according to the government,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project. “Whether the CIA is involved in targeted lethal operation is now classified. It's an absurd fiction.” This policy doesn’t bode well with Pakistan's ambassador to the UN, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal intervention to cease the “totally counterproductive attacks” by the U.S. A new Pew Research Center poll confirms how counterproductive the drone strikes really are, 74 percent of Pakistanis think America is the enemy, a sentiment that has increased the last few years from 69 and 64 percent respectively. This shocking poll reverberates throughout the Middle East region as American’s watching the wall-to-wall anti-American protests the last few weeks. Christof Heyns, a UN expert in targeted killings and arbitrary executions, said U.S. drone strikes are dangerously close to “war crimes,” something of which former President George W. Bush was accused and something that now hinders his foreign travel. Heyns addressed the UN conference and explained the pros and cons of unmanned vehicles: "(Countries) may find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in (the) future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it's recognized as being an armed conflict." He further derided the use of unmanned vehicle attacks outside the war theater as unacceptable. “It's difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to (9/11 attacks) in 2001. Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.” To date there are no specific international protocols governing the use of drones, armed or otherwise, in missions crossing international boundary. Last week, three judges in the DC Court of Appeals heard a case brought by the ACLU seeking transparency from the CIA’s deadly drone program. However reporters in the courtroom said, the judges didn’t seem swayed by the ACLU’s argument that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) citizens were entitled to details regarding the CIA’s highly classified assassination program. While a decision has yet to be issued, according to a New American story, the ACLU’s request will be denied under “national security” purview. The ACLU brief asked “In response to a question about drone strikes at a public forum in 2009, then-Director Panetta called such strikes ‘the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.’ (The statement is even published on the CIA’s own website.) More recently, Panetta revealed to 60 Minutes that, as CIA director, he made recommendations to the president regarding the lethal targeting of U.S. citizens. President Obama has also repeatedly discussed the drone program, including by taking credit for the drone strike that killed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last year.” Pro Publica adds: “The ACLU collected nearly two hundred on- and off-the-record statements made to the media by current and former U.S. officials about the CIA’s use of drones for targeted killing. The statements cover most of Obama’s first term in office. Taken together, they show the extent to which the government keeps disclosures about the CIA’s drone war mostly on its own terms.” Iran reverse engineers U.S. drone technology At this week’s United Nations meeting, Iran’s notorious President Mohmoud Ahmadinejad lectured the West about their evil ways, reiterated his wish to annihilate Israel and spoke of a new world order. Ahmadinejad has previously criticized the U.S. and UN unilateral approach to Iranian submission to IAEA inspections but no such demand or sanctions have been levied against Israel for compliance with the same criteria. According to the Jerusalem Post, “The Israelis did not join the NPT and they do not recognize the IAEA. They are doing what they want; producing atomic bombs, and no one questions it. But countries that observe its regulations face a lot of pressure.” Ahmadinejad attributed the "current world order, founded on materialism, that aims to monopolize power, wealth, science and technology for a limited group. There is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and fresh thinking." Meanwhile the militant Iranians are ebbing closer to a nuclear weapon and just unveiled its first long-range drone, Shahed 129. The reconnaissance drone seen on state television is reported to travel 1,240 miles and is capable of carrying bombs or missiles. The technological advance from Iran came at the expense of an American drone that miraculously fell from the sky over the Islamic country in December of last year. The RQ-170 Sentinel, the CIA’s most revered drone has the ability to evade radar detection and can collect imagery and electronic data from high in the sky. The downed drone is even more perilous for the U.S., as Iran most likely shared the high-tech drone with the Russian and Chinese who will simply reverse engineer the unmanned vehicle to gain an edge in the race to sole superpower. Conclusion Since the “war on terror” has yet to be thoroughly defined, the Senate has yet to exercise its Constitutional duty to approve expanded wars against unnamed countries, then isn’t it reasonable to question, “kill lists?” As America was founded under the “rule of law” and as such citizens are guaranteed their 4th (unlawful arrest), 5th (due process), 6th (right to counsel) and 8th (cruel and unusual punishment) Amendment rights these questions deserve explanations. Surely Aristotle wasn’t wrong when he famously said, “The Law is reason free from passion.” Taking the emotion from this secretive CIA drone program should be cause for concern. Just as America lacks a real “war on terror” strategy, employing a “kill list” that falls under the exclusive discretion of the president screams for regulation and oversight. Questions like; what’s the criteria for being on the list; what’s this program do to our world standing; why is the CIA held unaccountable for Abu Graib atrocities that sent US soldiers to Ft. Leavenworth; and, what are the parameters of defining imminent danger? Aristotle had an answer… “All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.” For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/guns-fuel-drug-cartels-mexico © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

U.S. drone strikes continue to pound Pakistan & Yemen

White House sanctioned drone strikes in the Middle East continued this week with two separate attacks in Yemen and Pakistan. While world leaders meet this week at the United Nations to discuss the betterment of international foreign relations, President Obama deftly authorized the killing of suspected terrorists from his notorious “kill list.” The covert assassination program has slowly garnered attention from a few dedicated journalists (this writer included), leading anti-war politicians as well as the ACLU. Leading the way is the British news agency’s Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has compiled all the known U.S. drone strike statistics, including terrorist and civilian causalities. According to the Institute of Journalism, the latest drone strike killed 5-8 people and injured at least two others. “The evening strikes on a house south of Mir Ali in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A single CIA drone reportedly fired two missiles at a mud compound, said to be ‘known as a bastion of the Taliban and al Qaeda. The strike killed Abu Kasha al-Iraqi, a high-ranking al Qaeda planner and facilitator.” The report also stated another al Qaeda operative may have been killed, but the missiles burned the structure and bodies leaving the positive identification impossible. Tribal leaders in the area said they saw four drones flying shortly before the attack and indicated the other victims were most likely foreigners. The second U.S. drone strike in Yemen killed two suspected al Qaeda militants according to China’s Xinhua International news. While the local Yemeni news website implicated the U.S. and said, “The strike was carried out by a U.S. drone.” If the reports were true, this would be the first strike after the U.S. consulate was attacked in Libya on 9/11 and set in motion a series of violent protests throughout the region. Few U.S. politicos challenge the assassination program Recently, staunch war-critic, Ralph Nader, a Democratic gadfly, told Politico.com how he really felt about the Obama Administration’s covert ‘war on terror.’ “He’s (Obama) gone beyond George W. Bush in (conducting) drone attacks. For example, he thinks the world is his plate, that national sovereignties mean nothing, and drones can go anywhere. They can kill anybody that he suspects and every Tuesday he makes the call on who lives and who dies.” Nader also pointed out that the President is launching drone strikes in places like Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, and that these overt attacks should be considered “war crimes” and he (Obama) ought to be held to account.” “I don’t know whether George W. Bush ever read the Constitution,” Nader pontificated, but “This man taught the Constitution and this is what we got.” The feisty leftwing politician didn’t pull any punches when he expressed his disapproval for the new remote control war. Nader said in his opinion that Obama is “the more effective evil because he brings credibility, he brings the democratic heritage to it, he has legitimized the lawless war-mongering and militarism abroad of George W. Bush.” Perhaps more importantly, Americans of all stripes should be asking how a name lands on the kill list and what justifies adding U.S. citizens to a terrorist assassination list? What is the QUALIFYING criteria and is due process and equal protection being followed at the highest levels of the US government? It is no secret that President Obama has placed American’s on the kill list and has no moral quandary with killing suspected terrorists’ who happen to be American or under-aged relatives (previous article here). ACLU to the rescue – hopefully? The recent spat of CIA drone strikes haven’t escaped the attention of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In 2010, the civil liberties group represented family members of Anwar al-Awlaki, and his minor son, both U.S. citizens targeted and killed in Yemen. Leading world news organizations, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have estimated the U.S. drone program has killed more than 4,000 people including a large number of civilian women and children since President Obama’s election. Not helping matters any is the White House bragging about “Terror Tuesdays” and the delight President Obama takes when he orders the death of an alleged al Qaeda operative, even if it’s an American citizen. The Constitutional scholar, Nobel Peace Laureate, and purveyor of “fairness” have become the sole judge, jury, and executioner. No Miranda rights, no judge and no jury --the presumption of innocence have effectively been tossed in the wastebasket of yesteryear under the guise of national security. “Something that is being debated in UN hallways and committee rooms cannot apparently be talked about in U.S. courtrooms, according to the government,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's national security project. “Whether the CIA is involved in targeted lethal operation is now classified. It's an absurd fiction.” This policy doesn’t bode well with Pakistan's ambassador to the UN, Zamir Akram, who called for international legal intervention to cease the “totally counterproductive attacks” by the U.S. A new Pew Research Center poll confirms how counterproductive the drone strikes really are, 74 percent of Pakistanis think America is the enemy, a sentiment that has increased the last few years from 69 and 64 percent respectively. This shocking poll reverberates throughout the Middle East region as American’s watching the wall-to-wall anti-American protests the last few weeks. Christof Heyns, a UN expert in targeted killings and arbitrary executions, said U.S. drone strikes are dangerously close to “war crimes,” something of which former President George W. Bush was accused and something that now hinders his foreign travel. Heyns addressed the UN conference and explained the pros and cons of unmanned vehicles: "(Countries) may find targeted killings immensely attractive. Others may do so in (the) future … Current targeting practices weaken the rule of law. Killings may be lawful in an armed conflict [such as Afghanistan] but many targeted killings take place far from areas where it's recognized as being an armed conflict." He further derided the use of unmanned vehicle attacks outside the war theater as unacceptable. “It's difficult to see how any killings carried out in 2012 can be justified as in response to (9/11 attacks) in 2001. Some states seem to want to invent new laws to justify new practices.” To date there are no specific international protocols governing the use of drones, armed or otherwise, in missions crossing international boundary. Last week, three judges in the DC Court of Appeals heard a case brought by the ACLU seeking transparency from the CIA’s deadly drone program. However reporters in the courtroom said, the judges didn’t seem swayed by the ACLU’s argument that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) citizens were entitled to details regarding the CIA’s highly classified assassination program. While a decision has yet to be issued, according to a New American story, the ACLU’s request will be denied under “national security” purview. The ACLU brief asked “In response to a question about drone strikes at a public forum in 2009, then-Director Panetta called such strikes ‘the only game in town in terms of confronting and trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.’ (The statement is even published on the CIA’s own website.) More recently, Panetta revealed to 60 Minutes that, as CIA director, he made recommendations to the president regarding the lethal targeting of U.S. citizens. President Obama has also repeatedly discussed the drone program, including by taking credit for the drone strike that killed U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen last year.” Pro Publica adds: “The ACLU collected nearly two hundred on- and off-the-record statements made to the media by current and former U.S. officials about the CIA’s use of drones for targeted killing. The statements cover most of Obama’s first term in office. Taken together, they show the extent to which the government keeps disclosures about the CIA’s drone war mostly on its own terms.” Iran reverse engineers U.S. drone technology At this week’s United Nations meeting, Iran’s notorious President Mohmoud Ahmadinejad lectured the West about their evil ways, reiterated his wish to annihilate Israel and spoke of a new world order. Ahmadinejad has previously criticized the U.S. and UN unilateral approach to Iranian submission to IAEA inspections but no such demand or sanctions have been levied against Israel for compliance with the same criteria. According to the Jerusalem Post, “The Israelis did not join the NPT and they do not recognize the IAEA. They are doing what they want; producing atomic bombs, and no one questions it. But countries that observe its regulations face a lot of pressure.” Ahmadinejad attributed the "current world order, founded on materialism, that aims to monopolize power, wealth, science and technology for a limited group. There is no doubt that the world is in need of a new order and fresh thinking." Meanwhile the militant Iranians are ebbing closer to a nuclear weapon and just unveiled its first long-range drone, Shahed 129. The reconnaissance drone seen on state television is reported to travel 1,240 miles and is capable of carrying bombs or missiles. The technological advance from Iran came at the expense of an American drone that miraculously fell from the sky over the Islamic country in December of last year. The RQ-170 Sentinel, the CIA’s most revered drone has the ability to evade radar detection and can collect imagery and electronic data from high in the sky. The downed drone is even more perilous for the U.S., as Iran most likely shared the high-tech drone with the Russian and Chinese who will simply reverse engineer the unmanned vehicle to gain an edge in the race to sole superpower. Conclusion Since the “war on terror” has yet to be thoroughly defined, the Senate has yet to exercise its Constitutional duty to approve expanded wars against unnamed countries, then isn’t it reasonable to question, “kill lists?” As America was founded under the “rule of law” and as such citizens are guaranteed their 4th (unlawful arrest), 5th (due process), 6th (right to counsel) and 8th (cruel and unusual punishment) Amendment rights these questions deserve explanations. Surely Aristotle wasn’t wrong when he famously said, “The Law is reason free from passion.” Taking the emotion from this secretive CIA drone program should be cause for concern. Just as America lacks a real “war on terror” strategy, employing a “kill list” that falls under the exclusive discretion of the president screams for regulation and oversight. Questions like; what’s the criteria for being on the list; what’s this program do to our world standing; why is the CIA held unaccountable for Abu Graib atrocities that sent US soldiers to Ft. Leavenworth; and, what are the parameters of defining imminent danger? Aristotle had an answer… “All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.” For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/guns-fuel-drug-cartels-mexico © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

San Diego Border Patrol snags $300k in cocaine and meth

Border Patrol agents working at the Pine Valley checkpoint east of San Diego intercepted two smuggling attempts that resulted in the seizure of nearly $300,000 of cocaine and methamphetamine. Yesterday, Border Patrol agents encountered a 25-year-old female United States citizen driving a Ford F-250 pickup. During the cursory inspection, agents became suspicious of the woman’s nervous demeanor and immediately sent her to the secondary inspection area. A Border Patrol K-9 performed an inspection of the vehicle that resulted in a positive alert for drugs in the truck’s rear tires. After a thorough search, agents discovered non-factory compartments within the rear brake drums containing a total of eight bundles of methamphetamine. The narcotics weighed 8.71 pounds and had an estimated street value of $174,200, according to a Border Patrol statement. At a separate incident over the weekend, Border Patrol agents stopped a 31-year-old male U.S. citizen driving a Chevrolet C-1500. Again, agents noticed a nervous driver and passenger and referred both to the secondary inspection area. “A Border Patrol K-9 performed a cursory inspection of the vehicle resulting in an alert,” according to a statement. “Agents subsequently discovered one bundle of cocaine within the engine manifold. The narcotics weighed 10.85 pounds and had an estimated street value of $119, 350.” All three suspected drug smugglers as well as the narcotics were turned over to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for further investigation. Border Patrol seized both vehicles. Border Patrol agents encourage anyone to report suspicious activities in an effort to prevent the illicit smuggling of humans, drugs, and other contraband by calling San Diego Sector Border Patrol at (619) 498-9900. For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Egyptian leaders advise America to adopt strict blasphemy laws

Two weeks ago the Middle East and northern Africa was set ablaze by Islamic extremists. The supposed cause was a substandard 14-minute YouTube video mocking the Muslim religion, and today the White House is standing by its story that the slapstick portrayal of the Prophet Mohammed is responsible for the recent deadly protests. The mixed messaging from President Obama regarding the Middle East mayhem has empowered Muslim leaders who are now demanding that America change its Constitution and adopts strict blasphemy laws. Longtime Muslim Brotherhood member and now Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi’s Prime Minister Hisham Qandil told Egypt’s main newspaper, Al Ahram on September 15 that he expected the U.S. to change the law. America should “take the necessary measures to ensure insulting billions of people – one and a half billion people – and their beliefs does not happen, and people pay for what they do, and at the same time make sure that the reflections of the true Egyptian and Muslims is well [represented] in Western media.” The outspoken leader also warned U.S. leaders that violence would continue if changes were not made. Taking the Islamist talking points one step further was Egyptian President Morsi. He insisted that America restrict free speech when it comes to the Muslim faith. He also demanded Mr. Obama support the anti-Israel governments in Gaza as well as the West Bank. The Egyptian leader also said the U.S. must provide more financial aid so his country can purchase food and fuel. (The U.S. has already given Egypt $1.5 billion in additional foreign aid this year) Today at the United Nations, President Obama attempted to rebuff the free speech argument and said, “what we saw play out the last two weeks, was a crude and disgusting video (that) sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well--for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion--we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.” “I know there are some who ask why we don’t just ban such a video,” said Obama. “The answer is enshrined in our laws: our Constitution protects the right to practice free speech.” The President went on to condemn the onslaught of violent protests and sternly told the UN general assembly that no form of blasphemous material ever warrants actions the Middle East experienced. No video excuses killing, attacking embassies or destroying private property, Obama said. Curiously, he never used the word terrorism in his 40-minute UN speech. Last week President Obama took the apology tour to whole new level and used $70,000 of taxpayers’ dollars to advertise on Pakistani TV. The commercial featured Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama condemning the YouTube video. Many Middle East experts admit that apologies symbolize weakness in the Muslim world and explain that the U.S. government must rule through strength. Steve Emerson, of The Investigative Project on Terrorism, cautioned Americans against underestimating the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. “The reality is that this new regime is a totalitarian regime. It's friendly with Iran. It's friendly with Hamas. Its grievances are based on the fact that we support Israel. It's not that we support Israel it's the fact that Israel exists. This is an enemy regime and the fact is that 48 percent of the Egyptian people voted against it and if we don't stand up against it and try to destabilize it, honestly, the way we should have destabilized the Ayatollah Khomeini when he was first elected we are going to see the new rise of the Muslim Brotherhood block take over the Middle East.” In a recent World Net Daily radio interview, U.S. Army Lieutenant General (Ret.) William "Jerry" Boykin said that many people with high security clearances in the U.S. are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. These individuals “hold important positions in every major federal agency including the Pentagon and the Department of Defense.” Emerson continued to emphasize the strength verses weakness tactics the Obama Administration should implement. “We should not be crying out that we are sorry as we just did in a commercial in Pakistan for having the first amendment. Suppose I did a film. In Fact I am doing a film, it's coming out next week. It's called Jihad in America: The Grand Deception. We've been working on it for two years. It's a two-year documentary about the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and showing the extensive collaboration between the Obama Administration and the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States. It's pretty shocking because I think that reveals his philosophy. I think Mr. Obama is not necessarily a Muslim, I don't believe that, I think he is pro-Islamist and that philosophy is allowing totalitarian views to be imposed around the world and even in our country. It's very dangerous; it should be confrontational not friendly.” Without a doubt, the centerpiece of President Obama’s war on terror continues to be his “drone strikes” and “kill lists.” Yet, with the world watching, President Obama blamed the violent protests on a 14-minute YouTube video. Even though, the terrorists’ claiming responsibility for the 9/11 terror attack on the Benghazi consulate, that killed the U.S. ambassador and three others, claimed the assaults were in retaliation for Abu Yahya al-Libi, a known terrorist, who was killed in a drone strike ordered by President Obama. Instead of admitting the drone strikes may be part of the problem, the Obama Administration continues to undermine the First Amendment by blaming the YouTube video. The administration even tried to have the so-called anti-Muslim video removed from the Internet, but YouTube rightly says the video meets their standards. Previous story on Middle East violence: http://www.examiner.com/article/meltdown-middle-east-and-obama-s-foreign-policy Previous story on President Obama’s controversial “kill list” and “drone strike” For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Father of murdered son urges CA governor to veto TRUST Act

California’s liberal illegal immigration policies are well documented. The latest controversial legislation to reach Governor Jerry Brown’s desk is the TRUST Act, a measure that would prevent jailed illegal aliens from being turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) once they serve their time. However, one man is taking it upon himself to urge the state’s governor to veto AB1081 or the TRUST Act. “In 2008, my 17-year-old son Jamiel Shaw Jr., was brutally murdered just a few feet from his front door by an illegal alien,” Jamiel Shaw Sr. said. The impassioned father explained that his son was murdered, execution-style, by a known violent gang member, Pedro Espinoza, who was in the country illegally and was released from county jail 36 hours before he murdered Jamiel Shaw Jr. “The only thing standing between deportable criminals being turned loose all across California is Governor Brown and his veto pen,” Shaw Senior said. “For the sake of public safety, if not plain common sense, Gov. Brown must veto this irresponsible legislation.” Supporters of AB1081 claim the law is required in order to build trust within the illegal communities. Shaw Sr. couldn’t disagree more. “Police in California and many other places around the country are not interested in people’s immigration status when they report or witness a crime. Illegal aliens appear on the cover of Time magazine, address a national political convention, and seek admission to the California bar. They are hardly fearful of law enforcement.” Making Jamiel Jr.’s story even more tragic is the fact that he was weeks away from leaving Los Angeles for college. “He was being recruited by Stanford and other prestigious universities to play football and pursue his college education.” Unfortunately, Jamiel Jr. died because Los Angeles County is considered a sanctuary city that prevents law enforcement from working with ICE. Tom Ammiano, a Democrat, said he authored AB1081 to reform California's participation in the “Secure Communities” program. The hot-button immigration law continues to face severe criticism from liberals in large cities who say deportations of illegal immigrants is unfair and primarily targets the Latino community. If signed into law by the governor, the bill will prohibit local law enforcement departments from referring a detainee to ICE officials for deportation unless that person has been convicted of a violent or serious felony. “The vote (to move forward) recognizes that S-Communities is sabotaging our public safety,” Ammiano said. “The TRUST Act is the solution we need to begin rebuilding the confidence that our local law enforcement worked so hard to build, but that ICE has shattered." If the Trust Act garners the signature of the Golden State’s governor, Jerry Brown, local police and Sheriff’s Departments would no longer have permission to work with ICE unless the suspected illegal immigrant has committed a serious felony. This contentious sticking point flies in the face of Police Departments like Escondido Police Department, who not only work directly with ICE, but federal agents have offices located at the Escondido Police Department. “It works,” Escondido Police Chief Jim Maher said. The city’s successful relationship with ICE has even garnered national recognition. Nevertheless, liberal California’s overwhelming Democratic legislature is hell bent on an open arms policy when it comes to illegal immigrants looking to call California home. The proposed legislation would create a clear line between local police and ICE by setting “a minimum standard for local governments not to submit to ICE’s requests to detain people for deportation unless the individual has a serious or violent felony conviction. Guard against profiling and wrongful detention of citizens and crime victims and witnesses,” according to the bill. The bill also stipulates that localities that detain individuals with serious convictions that can lead to deportation would have to develop common-sense plans to prevent profiling and wrongful detentions. The TRUST Act’s sponsor Ammiano said: “California cannot afford to become another Arizona." The often-controversial Secure Communities (S-Comm) program was set up under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to partner federal (FBI) and local law enforcement agencies to deport illegal immigrants and protect the country’s borders from criminal or possible terrorists seeking illegal entry into the United States. The S-Comm program allows police departments to send arrestee fingerprint data to ICE, which in turn uses the information to prioritize deportations. The program successfully deported 400,000 illegal immigrants last year. But that high number comes with passionate disapproval from Latino organizations and Democrat lawmakers in California. "(Secure Communities) has burdened our local governments and put even victims and witnesses of crime at risk of deportation, making us all less safe," Ammiano said on his website. "It has even mistakenly trapped U.S. citizens in our local jails for immigration purposes." The California State Sheriff's Association couldn’t disagree more. They said state and local agencies cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce and says S-Comm only focuses on serious felony and repeat offenders. "Now all of a sudden the sheriff has to make a decision based on this legislation, if it passes, on who [he] is and is not going to keep," Curtis Hill, legislative representative for the association, told the Los Angeles Times. "So is he following federal law? Or is he applying the California law?" Sadly, families from across California have lost sons, daughters, mothers and fathers because criminal aliens were released to their community instead of being remanded by ICE. “As someone who has paid the ultimate price, I hope to spare other families the agony of a similar needless tragedy,” Shaw finished. In order to gain more attention Mr. Shaw released a YouTube video explaining his position on AB1081. Bill AB1081 passed the state Assembly by a 47-26 vote; the Senate passed the legislation on a 21-13 party line vote. For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

U.S. warned of violent Middle East protests- DHS report reveals

An intelligence report just released confirms the violent Cairo and Libyan protests that claimed the lives of four U.S. diplomats was planned. Intelligence officials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said the anti-American protests was directly related Egyptian officials seeking the release of the “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel-Rahman, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The Egyptian terrorist is currently serving a life sentence in a North Carolina prison. Speculation surrounded a recent White House visit by new Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi, leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a former member of America’s terrorist organization list. During his spring campaign Morsi said, “The Koran is our constitution. The Prophet Muhammad is our leader. Jihad is our path. And death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration. That is the Muslim Brotherhood’s motto.” However, President Barack Obama invited the newly elected president to Washington DC in order to discuss continued financial aid and reaffirming America’s long-standing alliance with Egypt. The usual hubbub about the terrorist turned president’s motives lit up the Internet. The blogosphere predicted the new Egyptian administration would renege on the 1979 Camp David Accords- Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty. So far, the new government has protected America’s favorite Middle East country, Israel. Conversely, the anti-American uprising last week changed everything. The world watched radical Islamists overrun the U.S. embassy in Cairo, deceptively over a 14-minute amateur video that mocked the Prophet Mohammed. Nearly a week later, U.S. officials admitted that two days before the “spontaneous” uprisings, a protest would commence. According to documents from DHS, the “call to action” was posted two days before the violent Egyptian protests. The radical Islamists said they would burn the U.S. embassy to the ground with everyone in it if the Blind Sheikh was not released. Catherine Herridge, of Fox News, broke the story just minutes ago. She revealed that DHS received a communiqué on 9/9/12 stated in part; “The time has come for a strong movement from you, O sons of Egypt, to release the detained sheikh…Let your slogan be: No to the American embassy in Egypt until our detained sheikh is released. Starting now, let the faithful among you form follow-up committees in charge of taking the necessary measures to force America to release the sheikh -- even if it requires burning the embassy down with everyone in it.” The latest intelligence report certainly throws a wrench in the White House’s contention that the deadly protests that spread throughout the Middle East and northern Africa were neither spontaneous nor caused by an anti-Mohammed YouTube video. Earlier today, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at the daily press briefing that there have been no “recent” talks about releasing the Blind Sheikh to Egyptian authorities. But, former Department of Justice prosecutor, Andrew McCarthy, who led the U.S. case against the Blind Sheikh, told The Blaze that a report was circulating in DC political circles seeking the release of the imprisoned sheikh. McCarthy also said, “there are very good reasons as to why it could be true.” McCarthy, a radical Islamist expert, explained that Egypt’s new president has called for the release of the Blind Sheikh. “I think the plan has been to agree to the Blind Sheikh’s release but not to announce it or have it become public until after the (U.S.) election. That is consistent with Obama’s pattern of trying to mollify Islamists,” he said. It hasn’t been a secret that the Egyptian government has repeatedly asked the U.S. to release the Blind Sheikh for humanitarian and health reasons. Nevertheless, this could spell trouble for the Obama administration as the mainstream media spun the president’s anti-Muslim video theory, clearly a falsehood now. Critics insist that the handling of this crisis is consistent with the White House pattern of leading through appeasement. “Obviously, they did not want this information to surface yet… but sometimes a situation can spin out of control,” McCarthy finished. Previous story: http://www.examiner.com/article/meltdown-middle-east-and-obama-s-foreign-policy For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Meltdown in Middle East and Obama's foreign policy

President Obama’s coveted Middle East foreign policy is unraveling faster than a badly knitted sweater. After a week of bashing presidential GOP contender, Mitt Romney, the U.S. media is slowly refocusing their attention to the real story—America was warned about possible 9/11 attacks in Libya that left four diplomats dead. The White House is asking American’s to believe that the chaos in Egypt and Libya stemmed from slapstick, poorly made, 14-minute YouTube video trailer mocking the Prophet Mohammed. The so-called spontaneous attacks that sparked anti-American protests weren’t anti-American or anti-U.S. policy at all, claimed Jay Carney, White House Press Secretary. He also said the video was a misguided attempt by an individual to provoke hate in the Muslim world. “We need to understand this is a fairly volatile situation and it’s not in response to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video. A film. We have judged to be reprehensible that in no way that has any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive,” a White House statement read. However for that statement to be plausible, American’s would have to believe that run of the mill protesters carry rocket propelled grenade launchers, can launch mortar attacks in seconds and keep military-grade arsenal handy, just in case an anti-American protest arises. Susan Rice, UN Ambassador for the U.S., confirmed President Obama’s position on the Sunday talk shows that the Libyan violence coincided with the Cairo anti-American protests. However, intel on the ground points to a well-planned four-hour attack. An unnamed militant group launched a well-coordinated assault on the Benghazi consulate as well as a nearby safe house in retaliation for Abu Yahya al-Libi, a known terrorist, who was killed in a drone strike ordered by President Obama. Confirmation comes from Libyan Interim President, Mohammed el-Megarif, who told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the Libyan assault was preplanned and predetermined to coincide with the anniversary of 9/11. This puts emphasis on President Obama’s controversial “kill list” and “drone strike” policies that provokes radical Islamists in the Muslim world. Another report from CNN stated that the security conditions in Benghazi were quickly deteriorating. A senior official from the February 17th Brigade said they warned U.S. diplomats about impending violence three days before the U.S. consulate came under fire. “The situation is frightening, it scares us,” the Libyan official said. The British government heeded Libya’s warning and closed their consulate after UK Ambassador, Dominic Asquith and his bodyguard escaped serious injury when rebels ambushed their convoy. Unfortunately, Ambassador Christopher Stevens disregarded the warning and traveled to Benghazi consulate. British news agencies have been reporting for months that American drone strikes and kill lists do not sit well with Europe and the Middle East. Instead of admitting the drone strikes may be part of the problem, the U.S. government continues to undermine the First Amendment by blaming the YouTube video. The administration even tried to have the so-called anti-Muslim video removed, but YouTube rightly says the video meets YouTube standards. Once the target of a fatwa himself, Salman Rushdie, told the Telegraph, a British newspaper that free speech must be protected from “religious extremist of all stripes” and condemned those who did not stand up to free speech. Adding to the failed Obama story line is a statement that Breitbart media uncovered when candidate Obama was campaigning in 2007; “Well, I truly believe that the day I’m inaugurated, not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I’m reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I’ve lived in a Muslim country, and I may be a Christian, but I also understand their point of view.” It’s also true that Obama thought the Muslim world would flock to him simply because he spent time in Indonesia, as a child. Nevertheless, the “hope and change” prognosticator still hasn’t convinced Islamic radicals to put down their weapons and hate. Obama’s soft approach on diplomacy certainly didn’t save Christopher Stevens, US ambassador, Sean Smith, information officer, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, in Libya. In fact, the opposite is true. A Pew Research Center poll out today shows the president losing ground with the Middle East. In 2009, Jordan had a 74 percent unfavorable view of America—today it’s 86 percent; in 2009, Pakistan had a 68 percent unfavorable view of America – today it’s 80 percent and finally in 2009, Egypt’s unfavorable view of America was 70 percent -- today it’s 79 percent. So much for the 2009 Obama Cairo speech promising to change the tides after a decade of war. The lofty speech only verified the president’s naiveté when it comes to peace within Muslim nations … “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” Sadly, those poignant words failed to take hold in Cairo and the 2012 Obama rhetoric is just that, words, without leadership. For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

Mexican official pleaded guilty in corruption case

Mexican Attorney General liaison, Jesus Quinonez-Marquez who worked in the Baja California office pleaded guilty to federal racketeering (RICO) conspiracy today and will serve 97 months behind bars. United States District Court Judge William Q. Hayes said after completing his custodial sentence, Quinonez-Marquez would be deported to Mexico where he will serve a three-year probation period. In his plea agreement, Quinonez-Marquez admitted that he dishonestly used his official position as the former Director of International Liaison for the Baja California Attorney General’s Office to further the criminal activities for a cartel controlled by Fernando Sanchez-Arellano (the FSO). “Specifically, Quinonez-Marquez admitted to using his position as a lawyer at the Attorney General’s Office to provide information to FSO members to avoid apprehension and prosecution for a double homicide which occurred in Tijuana, Mexico, on March 25, 2010, and to conspiring to launder $13 million dollars on behalf of the FSO,” according to US Attorney Laura E. Duffy. Law enforcement personnel assigned to the task force listened to hours of court-authorized wiretaps and other sophisticated investigative techniques to develop the mountains of evidence that led to the charges in this case. Duffy said there is only one more defendant awaiting trial. She indicated that Armando Villareal Heredia will likely face justice sometime in 2013. So far, 39 defendants have been arrested and convicted in this comprehensive case, from this long-term investigation conducted by the multiple agencies with the San Diego Cross Border Violence Task Force (CBVTF). The U.S. government organized CBVTF in an effort to target individuals involved in organized crime activities that affect both the United States and Mexico. Duffy praised the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) for their extraordinary team effort that lead to the 39 organized crime convictions for Operation Luz Verde. For more stories: http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/kimberly-dvorak © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.

FBI arrest corrupt CBP border officer at San Diego border

A San Diego CBP officer was arrested while on duty and charged with wire fraud and concealing a person from arrest. The FBI Border Corruption Task Force (BCTF) arrested CBP Officer Thomas Silva, a nine-year veteran at the San Ysidro Port of Entry without incident. The complaint alleges that in April 2012, Silva knowingly allowed Julio Cesar Landaverde Valdez, a federal fugitive, to enter the United States from Mexico through the San Ysidro Port. Federal agents said Landaverde Valdez, who is the defendant’s brother-in-law, was convicted for illegal alien smuggling in 2006. Daphne Hearn, Special Agent in Charge of the San Diego FBI Office said, “Silva was arrested pursuant to a federal arrest warrant based upon a complaint filed with the United States District Court, Southern District of California. The complaint charges Silva with wire fraud and concealing a person from arrest.” The multi-agency task force acted on suspicious behavior by other CBP officers. “The BCTF investigation was initiated in November 2010, after the CBP detected irregularities with Silva’s work. Specifically, the CBP reported that Silva was allowing individuals with imposter immigration documents to pass through the San Ysidro Port of Entry.” A subsequent investigation by the BCTF revealed that Silva was involved in a variety of criminal activity. Prosecutors also revealed that Silva could face an avalanche of other charges, included drug and human smuggling as well as tax evasion stemming from the government’s thorough two-year investigation. The complaint also contends that Silva engaged in a plot to “defraud Farmers Insurance Company by filing a false claim concerning the theft of his personal vehicle. Silva was paid $7,329 as a result of this false claim.” Silva was booked into the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and yesterday, U.S. Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo, set bond at $50,000. The judge also ordered the bond be backed by Silva’s family home and he will be required to wear an electronic tracking device. For more stories; http://www.examiner.com/county-political-buzz-in-san-diego/guns-fuel-drug-cartels-mexico © Copyright 2012 Kimberly Dvorak All Rights Reserved.