Video- Mrs. Obama visits the Pentagon to thank military and civilian employees for their service to the nation 4/9/10

The deadly loophole: Gunning for trouble

By GottaLaff

Hey kiddies, guess what? Another mentally unbalanced person got their hands on a gun because of guess what?

Go on, guess.

Give up?

The gun show loophole! Yayyy!

Yes, the right wing, anti-government Pentagon shooter, John Patrick Bedell, got his gun at a gun show through the gun show loophole, with no background check. Feel safer yet?

QuickDraw McLoopHole had already been declared too, er, abnormal to buy one through a federally licensed dealer, but pfft! That didn't matter:

Two guns used in high-profile shootings this year at the Pentagon and a Las Vegas courthouse both came from the same unlikely place: the police and court system of Memphis, Tenn.

Law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that both guns were once seized in criminal cases in Memphis. The officials described how the weapons made their separate ways from an evidence vault to gun dealers and to the shooters.

Wow, hmm, gee, how'd that happen?

[O]n the day of the Pentagon shooting, March 4, the Tennessee governor signed legislation revising state law on confiscated guns. Before, law enforcement agencies in the state had the option of destroying a gun. Under the new version, agencies can only destroy a gun if it's inoperable or unsafe.

Seems Version 2.0 needs to be updated.

But with that in mind, it's only natural that oversight would tighten up, right?

[...] 24 states — mostly in the South and West, where gun-rights advocates are particularly strong — have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions.

Gee, that doesn't seem logical. Oops, did I say "logical"? Logic has nothing to do with this!

What, am I nuts?

No, but QuickDraw was:

[T]he weapons first went to licensed gun dealers, but later came into the hands of men who were legally barred from possessing them: one a convicted felon; the other mentally ill.

Change we can't believe in.

But come on, realistically, what are the chances of some psycho ending up finding that one special dealer who would slip him a lethal weapon:

Law enforcement officials say Bedell, a man with a history of severe psychiatric problems, had been sent a letter by California authorities Jan. 10 telling him he was prohibited from buying a gun because of his mental history.

Nineteen days later, the officials say, Bedell bought the Ruger at a gun show in Las Vegas. Such a sale by a private individual does not require the kind of background check that would have stopped Bedell's purchase.

But privatizing stuff is the GOP's answer to everything. What could possible go wrong? Death? Don't be silly. Murder? Ridiculous! Selling lethal weapons to a disturbed individual who would subsequently go on a shooting spree? Impossible!

Here's the deal, gun owners: Nobody's trying to take your firearms from you. But keeping them out of the hands of unstable felons and the mentally ill doesn't do anything to threaten your freedoms.

The real and growing threat is to innocent lives, not the Constitution.

Military to Review Sodomy Ban

By GottaLaff

That months-long review on Don't Ask Don't Tell? It extends to rules on sodomy and oral sex:

The Pentagon's chief legal counsel said a nine-month study on gays in the military will likely review rules for troops on sodomy and oral sex.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits sodomy and oral sex, even among consenting adults and married couples.

No wonder this is taking a year. I'm sure the Pentagon feels that some things just need a whole lot of scrutiny... a slow, long, extended, penetrating examination of... the facts.

It's important to be thorough.

Pentagon Steps Up Talks on Ending ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

By GottaLaff

Step up the stepping up, okay Pentagon?

The Pentagon is stepping up internal discussions on how gay men and lesbians might be able to serve openly in the armed services, military officials said on Thursday, in anticipation of fulfilling President Obama’s campaign pledge to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law.

The discussions, centered in a small group assembled by Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are in preparation for a possible Senate hearing on the 1993 law this month.

"Possible" hearing? Why must it be only "possible"? Why can't it finally be a "probable" hearing, or an "impending" hearing? That was semi-rhetorical.

Now for the part that never fails to induce an eye roll:

Despite the uncertainty of timing, another military official said that the Department of Defense was beginning to look at the practical implications of a repeal — for example, whether it would be necessary to change shower facilities and locker rooms because of privacy concerns, whether to ban public displays of affection on military bases and what to do about troops who are stationed or make port calls in nations that outlaw homosexuality.

My eyes roll because of the antiquated mind sets and concerns of people, groups, and entire nations.

If straight men and women can (supposedly) resist giving in to impulses, why wouldn't gay men and women have the same ability? Why do homophobes and others continue to perceive Teh Gay as impetuous, licentious horndogs who apparently can't control themselves long enough to refrain from jumping anyone and everyone of their own gender?

The reality is, we need skilled men and women in the military, and DADT is impeding enlistments.

The reality is, there have been hetero sexual assaults galore in the military-- including contractors, as Al Franken pointed out-- but for whatever reason, the Pentagon has trivialized those, and instead has their night-visioned eagle eye focused on on man-on-man/woman-on-woman lust.

The reality is, it's 2010.

Time to grow up, wise up, man/woman up, and put an end to discrimination and discharges based on who somebody is attracted to.

State Department Still Unsure of Its Role One Year Later

By GottaLaff

(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted: marcn, mindfrieze)

I have a very smart friend, Allen McDuffee, who also happens to be extremely nice and a good writer. He has a new post up at Truthout. I'll share a little of it with you, and then you can read the whole thing here:

One year after Obama takes office and appoints Hillary Clinton secretary of state, the State Department struggles to determine whether it really wants to separate from the Pentagon.

At a December 3 closed briefing to a group of foreign policy journalists from the Knight Center for Specialized Journalism on the concept of "smart power" under the Obama administration, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said that the Obama administration was taking "a more holistic approach to national affairs." [...]

Citing the Obama administration's mantra of the Three D's: Defense, Diplomacy and Development, Kelly said that implementing "smart power is a rebalancing of our foreign policy." Smart power - a concept that combines the hard power of the military with the soft power of diplomacy - has gained increasing acceptance in foreign policy and military circles as a reaction to right size the Bush administration's heavily militaristic policies.

Yet, while insisting on the smart power model as the right model for the United States, the State Department is still struggling with its relationship to the Pentagon, how it will "reimagine itself" and, ultimately, how hard and soft power will work together in practice.

It's the thought that counts.

More here.

Pentagon thought Canada spied on us via Canadian coins

By GottaLaff

Note: I have made corrections and amended the title. Thank you to those who caught my mistake.

Yes, it's true, according to an e-mail, the Pentagon thought Canada had implanted radio transmitting devices into coins in order to spy on the U.S. of A.

Espionage warnings from the Defence Department caused an international sensation a few years ago over reports of mysterious coins with radio frequency transmitters, until they were debunked. The culprit turned out to be a commemorative quarter in Canada.

But at the height of the mystery, senior Pentagon officials speculated whether Canadians were involved in the spy caper, according to emails marked "Secret/NoForn" and obtained this week by The Associated Press under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.

No, not Canada! Not our BFF! 'Kay, we would so break up with them over that.

Not that we'd ever really, really doubt the Canadians, right?

"I don't think it is an issue of the Canadians being the bad guys," the Pentagon's counterintelligence chief wrote, "but then again, who knows."

What? Wait. "Who knows"? "Who knows"?? Eeks! Dude! That's even more uncool than some famous celebrity athlete guy cheating on his wife and leaving incriminating voice mails!

Canada is among the closest of U.S. allies, its continental northern neighbour and the leading oil supplier for the U.S. The intelligence services of the two countries are extraordinarily tight and routinely share sensitive secrets.

Oh em gee, I so know! We totally confide in each other at, like, every meet-up, and that whole oil thing is, like, amazing! This whole double ultra superdupersecret spy coin thingy is so bogus. I mean, I am so seriously serious.

In sensational warnings that circulated publicly in late 2006 and early 2007, the Pentagon's Defence Security Service said coins with radio transmitters were found planted on U.S. army contractors with classified security clearances on at least three occasions between October 2005 and January 2006 as the contractors travelled through Canada.

No way. Like, I mean, that was during the BushCo years! OMG, were the contractors, like, Blackwater dudes? Come on, tell! Isweartogod I can keep a secret.

In January 2007, the government abruptly reversed itself and said the warnings were not true.

'K good, cuz that would have so been a major deal breaker and there is like, no way we coulda stayed together.

What suspicious contractors believed to be "nanotechnology" on the coins actually was a protective coating the Royal Canadian Mint applied to prevent the poppy's red colour from rubbing off. The mint produced nearly 30 million such quarters in 2004 commemorating Canada's 117,000 war dead.

This is totally humiliating. I want. To. Die. No, seriously, totally, I mean it. I hope we can still be BFF. Pleeeeze? It will never EVER happen again. Sweartogodandeverythingprecious.

Many of the emails were censored over what the Pentagon said was national security and personal privacy.

Kewl. Cuz, I mean, if anyone saw those, we'd be so grounded and laffed off Facebook and the world stage.

Serious.

H/t: Tymlee

Detainee policy appointee quits Pentagon post

By GottaLaff

Maybe he was as frustrated as many of us have been, and felt things weren't moving efficiently enough. Just speculating. Then again, he could have just been fed up with working for BushCo holdovers:

The Pentagon's top detainee affairs policy appointee has quit the Defense Department just seven months into the job, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

Phillip Carter, a former Army captain and Iraq War veteran, had been an outspoken critic of Bush-era war on terror detention policy as an attorney and blogging commentator. [...]

He quit without explanation [...]

The development apparently took the Department of Defense by surprise. [...]

It was not known whether Carter's service in uniform as a civil affairs officer in Iraq helped him fit in to the Defense Department culture where pockets of senior leadership were holdovers from the Bush administration.

******

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

H/t: minterda

Gates Threatens to Fire Leakers

Good, go get 'em.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates "is normally a mild-mannered man, at least in public, but he unleashed a torrent on his plane on Thursday morning about leaks during the investigation of the Foot Hood shootings and President Obama's deliberations on sending more American troops to Afghanistan," the New York Times reports.

Said Gates: "I have been appalled by the amount of leaking that has been going on in this process... And frankly if I found out with high confidence anybody who was leaking in the Department of Defense, who that was, that would probably be a career-ender."

Blackout: Military Personnel Banned From H1N1 Vaccine Sites

By GottaLaff

My pal Allen McDuffee has a post up that he wanted to share, and with good reason. It's pretty disturbing.

Here are some excerpts, but please read the whole thing:

Shortly after the Pentagon announced that all Armed Services personnel would soon be facing a mandatory H1N1 vaccination program, I started receiving email from soldiers, airmen, marines and sailors because of a previous story I had written on the anthrax vaccine.

[...]

With a vaccine that was so new and little known about it, like many Americans, troops were heading to the web to find answers to their very legitimate questions -- not only for themselves, but for their families who have the option of receiving the vaccine on base. What they found instead is that several websites and blogs with key information asking critical questions had been blocked from their viewing.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-mcduffee/blackout-military-personn_b_346908.html&cp

[...]

The Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sites, however, are all available for military personnel. The official word from governmental agencies is welcome but critics, regardless of whether they were considered experts, are not.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-mcduffee/blackout-military-personn_b_346908.html&cp

[...]

Making sure that servicemen and servicewomen consent to the vaccine and are informed is apparently not a concern for the Department of Defense. But the message is very clear for one service member who contacted me: "All you need to know is what we're telling you, so shut up and take the vaccine with no questions asked."

Nass, one of the experts whose site has been blocked, points out the real shame in all of this: "It's unfortunate that the service members who are defending our civil rights are not afforded the same consideration."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-mcduffee/blackout-military-personn_b_346908.html&cp

Please read the whole thing here. Then please talk me down.

Is the U.S. Preparing to Bomb Iran?

By GottaLaff

(click to enlarge; one of 3 pages, the rest are here)

Um, yikes?

The Pentagon is always making plans, but based on a little-noticed funding request recently sent to Congress, the answer to that question [see blog title] appears to be yes.

First, some background: Back in October 2007 [...] the Pentagon cited an "urgent operational need" for the new weapon.

Now the Pentagon is shifting spending from other programs to fast forward the development and procurement of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. The Pentagon comptroller sent a request to shift the funds to the House and Senate Appropriations and Armed Services Committees over the summer.[...]

Why now? The notification says simply, "The Department has an Urgent Operational Need (UON) for the capability to strike hard and deeply buried targets in high threat environments. The MOP is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON." It further states that the request is endorsed by Pacific Command (which has responsibility over North Korea) and Central Command (which has responsibility over Iran).

The request was quietly approved. On Friday, McDonnell Douglas was awarded a $51.9 million contract to provide "Massive Penetrator Ordnance Integration" on B-2 aircraft.

This is not the kind of weapon that would be particularly useful in Iraq or Afghanistan, but it is ideally suited to hit deeply buried nuclear facilities such as Natanz or Qom in Iran.

So how do we take this? As....Just a good headline for ABC? As... alarmist? Wait and see? Or with genuine concern?

Video- Sights and Sounds From 9/11/01

Former detainee accused of returning to terrorism... didn't; he's a respected politician

By GottaLaff

Lies, lies, more lies... and then when those are used up, there is an abundance of even more lies:

A former Guantanamo Bay detainee who was named by the Pentagon as one of 74 former captives who returned to terrorism after being released has done no such thing.

Instead, he has returned to doing what he was really doing before being picked up by US forces and shuttled off to Gitmo for six years: Working as a politician, a tribal elder representing Afghanistan's Kunar province.

So says a new report from McClatchy Newspapers, which profiles Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil, a tribal elder who regularly meets with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other government officials on behalf of the people of Kunar province.

Remember that time the Pentagon told us that one in sev-- well, read the next sentence:

In May, an unreleased Pentagon document was leaked to the press, alleging that one in seven released Gitmo detainees -- fully 74 individuals -- had returned to terrorism once freed.

Wrong.

And while the veracity of that claim was questioned, the leaked Pentagon document was still considered important in changing the Washington establishment's mind about President Obama's plan to shut down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Shortly after the report made it to the press, Congressional Democrats voted to oppose funding, requested by President Obama, to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

Now, with the apparent confirmation that at least one of the people accused of terrorist recidivism is actually a respected Afghan government official, questions will likely arise about the accuracy of that Pentagon report, as well as the motivations behind its being released to the press.

We can't even fathom the amount of information that is hidden from us... and often for good reason. But when it's used to deceive, that's where we must draw the line... because it affects lives.

More and more is leaking out, more and more eyebrows are being raised, and more voices need to be heard.

I only hope that America is paying attention.

Pentagon v. Dep't. of Justice: New Rift Opens Over Rights of Detainees

By GottaLaff

Agence France-Preese/Getty Images

I'm bumping and updating. Here is an interesting e-mail response to this piece that I got from an old pal who serves in the military. We correspond from time to time:

There is a battle on going between the lawyers over at the Pentagon and the DOJ as to which protections if any should be extended to the detainees; it's window dressing to give the appearance that detainee's rights are seriously being discussed. In short it is all bullshit so that Faux News can say see, you are coddling the terrorists on the one hand; and the liberals will see serious discussion as fundamental rights is in play. In the end it really is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic system of justice they both want.

What both sides (Pentagon/DOJ) want to avoid is Federal District Court because they will lose control in a real system judicial system. What is left is Military Court Martial which also has established rules so neither desire that; so what each side wants is to appear concerned but in control.

Remember under a Military Commission process the DOJ will be the prosecutors (of course there will be few military prosecutors for appearances, but the DOJ will the call the shots {the really concerned ones in this story}), while developing the rules of evidence and controlling what evidence is revealed to the defense. I believe this story was first given to the WSJ to say hey "they want the worst of worst given rights and living in your neighborhood." It really is just window dressing between to competing groups who have the same goal, "develop a system around factually weak cases, and then claim it was fair."

And let's not forget who owns the WSJ.

Original post:

Picking up on a link Paddy posted earlier, at least it's a positive that this subject is getting more attention. As you know it's become a cause of mine. Here's the latest wrinkle in the Pentagon v. DoJ:

The Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations, officials said.

The conclusion, explained in a confidential memorandum whose contents were shared with The Wall Street Journal, could alter significantly the way the commissions operate -- and has created new divisions among the agencies responsible for overseeing the commissions.

Defense Department officials warn that the Justice Department position could reduce the chance of convicting some defendants. Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion's share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

So Defense is unhappy because coerced statements can't be used to convict their abused clients? Did I get that right?

The Obama Justice Department's view is a sharp turn from that of the Bush administration, which argued detainees have no constitutional rights. It isn't clear how the Obama administration will act, but the Justice Department's legal counsel's office traditionally has the last word on constitutional interpretation in the executive branch. The White House declined to comment.

The dispute over what rights military commission defendants can claim has intensified as President Barack Obama tries to implement his decision to close the Guantanamo prison by January. [...]

Since 2004, several aspects of the commissions and their related detention system have been invalidated by the Supreme Court. A Justice Department task force has been seeking ways to try prisoners by military commission that would be more likely to survive further constitutional challenge. The task force is scheduled to complete its work by July 21. [...]

In a memorandum issued May 4, David Barron, acting assistant attorney general, said the office believes there is a "serious risk" that federal courts "would adopt a constitutional due process approach" when evaluating military commission trials, people familiar with the memo say.

Mr. Barron advised that federal courts were unlikely to require strict adherence to Bill of Rights provisions spelling out specific procedures, such as the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, or the Miranda warning, which the Supreme Court imposed in 1966 to ensure compliance with the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney.

But Mr. Barron advised that courts were likely to view the use of coerced statements to convict and punish defendants as violating any definition of the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which courts have cited in establishing a baseline of fundamental rights. As a result, some officials believe a legislative fix to the Military Commissions Act should include additional rights for defendants in order to lower the chances courts would strike it down.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D., Mich.) said Friday he has included language in a pending defense authorization bill to make commissions more closely resemble courts-martial. A 2006 Supreme Court opinion suggested military commissions could be lawful if their deviations from "court-martial practice" were justified by "practical need." The text is expected to be released this week.

Now, think: Why is David Barron handling all of this....

Mr. Barron, a professor on leave from Harvard Law School, is in charge while Mr. Obama's nominee to head the legal-counsel office, Dawn Johnsen, awaits Senate confirmation. Mr. Barron's conclusion has met Pentagon opposition. "We believe that military commissions, as distinct from other courts, are designed to not provide constitutional rights," Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, the Obama administration's chief military prosecutor, said in an interview.

The one exception, he said, was that created by the Supreme Court last year, when it ruled the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutionally stripped Guantanamo detainees of habeas corpus, a legal proceeding to challenge unlawful detention. [...]

"There is a school of thought...that if they actually convene these things in the [U.S.], the courts will quickly find that all the due process constitutional stuff we deal with in criminal courts will be applicable," said another military official familiar with the talks. "The main push for this argument comes out of" the Justice Department and the Office of Legal Counsel, the official said. "It hasn't gotten a lot of traction with other folks."

"Constitutional stuff"?

This person said Pentagon officials preferred not to provide defendants additional rights unless courts forced them to.

What do Gitmo lawyers say about all this?

On the other side, criminal defense lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees say that simply recognizing due process, without other constitutional rights, will not fix a system they contend is stacked against defendants. "The minute they're making a distinction of 'what we can get away with'...they are creating something of dubious legal viability," said Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, a Naval Reserve lawyer appointed to represent alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh.

By trying to patch a system that has been beset for years by internal disarray and court setbacks, "they are buying themselves more legal problems," she said. Rather than the "swift and certain justice" that President Obama has promised, it "means years of appeals when we're challenging all of these issues -- most of which have already been resolved" for trials in courts-martial or federal court, she said.

What a mess. It's no wonder Lt. Col. Barry Wingard and his client, Fayiz al-Kandari, are so frustrated.

If you'd like to scroll through every post I've written on this subject, most of them eye-openers, please go here. That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you use Twitter, the hashtag is #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

Surprise! Major problems found in war spending

By GottaLaff

Instead of Sarah Louise Palin whinin' about all those cuts in spendin', sayin' they're a "sign of weakness" and such, too, also... maybe she should take a little look-see at this:

Construction of a $30 million dining facility at a U.S. base in Iraq is scheduled to be completed Dec. 25. But the decision to build it was based on bad planning and botched paperwork.

The project is too far along to stop, making the mess hall a future monument to the waste and inefficiency plaguing the war effort, according to an independent panel investigating contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In its first report to Congress, the Wartime Contracting Commission presents a bleak assessment of how tens of billions of dollars have been spent since 2001. The 111-page report, obtained by The Associated Press, documents poor management, weak oversight, and a failure to learn from past mistakes as recurring themes in wartime contracting.

The report is coming out Wednesday. And what a report it is:

U.S. reliance on contractors has grown to "unprecedented proportions," says the bipartisan commission, established by Congress last year. More than 240,000 private sector employees are supporting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands more work for the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development.

Maybe they can stand down as the Iraqis stand up.

But the government has no central data base of who all these contractors are, what services they provide, and how much they're paid. The Pentagon has failed to provide enough trained staff to watch over them, creating conditions for waste and corruption, the commission says.

Gee, there's a name for that. Lack of something... overhaul? No. Overweight? Nah. Ah! Got it! Oversight:

In Iraq, the panel worries that as U.S. troops depart in larger numbers, there will be too few government eyes on the contractors left to oversee the closing of hundreds of bases and disposal of mountains of federal property.

There are big question marks in Afghanistan, too. See that? The U.S. is capable of waste and fraud in multiple countries! That's called progress! Want an example of how the Nation of Dick's favorite thugs fared? Why, here's one now!

KBR Inc., the primary LOGCAP contractor in Iraq, has been paid nearly $32 billion since 2001. The commission says billions of dollars of that amount ended up wasted due to poorly defined work orders, inadequate oversight and contractor inefficiencies.

In one example, defense auditors challenged KBR after it billed the government for $100 million in costs for private security even though the contract prohibited the use of for-hire guards.

KBR says the commission is biased. Of course they are, dear, Laffy said sarcastically. You just keep believing that.

There is so much more. Take a look, then find a good, strong wall to pound your head on.

President Obama, the Pentagon, and the leaked sexual abuse photos

By GottaLaff

Earlier I posted about the Abu Ghraib photos and that their existence has been confirmed. I went back and reread the article I linked to. Please go read the whole thing, but this part stood out:

The most prominent victim in the past of [Pentagon spokesperson, Bryan G. Whitman's, who came to prominence during the Bush administration] disinformation may have been none other than Barack Obama. On the campaign trail, in Austin, Texas, candidate Obama said he had gotten a message from an Army captain in Iraq who described how his unit had been shorted in munitions and equipment. I learned from reporters that Whitman started a whispering campaign with the Pentagon press corps telling them (not for attribution) that he didn’t believe Obama’s claims were true. Whitman’s game, however, was stopped by ABC reporter Jake Tapper, who tracked down the captain, interviewed him and fully verified the account.

Bryan Whitman remains on the job in the Pentagon today. But the effort to suppress the shocking photographs is already failing, as they leak to the public and reliable sources verify their authenticity. A senior military officer told me that in the months before the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, Pentagon officials engaged in strange maneuvers to avoiding viewing the pictures. That, he noted, didn’t make the photos any less real. But it apparently made it easier for Pentagon officials to dissemble about them. That process hasn’t stopped.

First Lady does interview with Pentagon Channel on military families

It was torture, and it didn't work

By GottaLaff

Per Keith Olbermann just now, 7 years ago, the Pentagon's top lawyer was told that torture resulted in unreliable information, and that yes, it was "torture".

LINK

VIDEO: U.S. Marine found with weapons, explosives at airport

By GottaLaff



I believe a report on this due to come out tonight. I may be wrong, but I thought I heard Rachel Maddow mention it (or was that a different report?). Per our Commenter HippieCyndi:

Apparently the Pentagon has been either monitoring or firing soldiers who are involved with right wing extreme elements quietly.

Michael Savage may have to sue the Pentagon now.

A United States Marine is being held on $50,000 cash bail after airport officials found a gun, explosives and other weapons in his suitcase. U.S. Marine Justin Reed of Jacksonville, NC was stopped at Boston's Logan Airport shortly after 7 a.m. on Sunday - 04/19/09

H/t: HippieCyndi

Pentagon to phase out unpopular 'stop-loss' program

One of the best bits of news I've heard in a while. It was nothing more than involuntary servitude.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The military will phase out its "stop loss" program, the contentious practice of holding troops beyond the end of their enlistments, for all but extraordinary situations, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced Wednesday.

Instead, the military will use incentives programs to encourage personnel to extend their service.

Starting this month, the department will provide "special compensation of $500 per month" to troops whose tour has been extended, Gates said. "This special compensation will be applied retroactively to October 1, 2008, the date when Congress first made it available."

The stop-loss program was put into place to ensure that units remained intact during deployment. Tours of duty could be extended for those whose enlistment was due to end in the middle of their unit's deployment.

Obama takes US closer to total ban on cluster bombs

Wonderful news. With all the blathering about the markets as if they're insecure adolescents (Must keep the markets upbeat, reassure them at all costs!), it's startling to see that beneath all the hoopla, the real work is getting done.

The United States has stepped closer to a total ban on the use and export of cluster bombs with the signing by Barack Obama of a new permanent law that would make it almost impossible for the US to sell the controversial weapons.

The decision was hailed by opponents of the weapons as a "major turnaround in US policy" that overrode Pentagon calls to permit their continued export.

The new legislation, tacked on to a huge budget bill, was passed earlier this week by Congress and now sets such stringent rules for the bombs' use, including a ban on sales where they might be suspected of being used where civilians are present, that it seems unlikely the US could export them again.