« | »

NYT Publishes More US Military Secrets

From the reliably despicable New York Times:

U.S. Is Said to Expand Secret Actions in Mideast


May 24, 2010

WASHINGTON — The top American commander in the Middle East has ordered a broad expansion of clandestine military activity in an effort to disrupt militant groups or counter threats in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and other countries in the region, according to defense officials and military documents.

The secret directive, signed in September by Gen. David H. Petraeus, authorizes the sending of American Special Operations troops to both friendly and hostile nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa to gather intelligence and build ties with local forces. Officials said the order also permits reconnaissance that could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

While the Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities far from designated war zones, the new order is intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term, officials said. Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” Al Qaeda and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces, the document said. The order, however, does not appear to authorize offensive strikes in any specific countries…

This directive’s goals sound a lot like those of the New York Times, except they are out “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” our country. And of course they are tireless in their efforts ““prepare the environment” for future attacks on America or its military forces — rather than any enemy.

General Petraeus’s order is meant for small teams of American troops to fill intelligence gaps about terror organizations and other threats in the Middle East and beyond, especially emerging groups plotting attacks against the United States.

But some Pentagon officials worry that the expanded role carries risks. The authorized activities could strain relationships with friendly governments like Saudi Arabia or Yemen — which might allow the operations but be loath to acknowledge their cooperation — or incite the anger of hostile nations like Iran and Syria. Many in the military are also concerned that as American troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees.

The precise operations that the directive authorizes are unclear, and what the military has done to follow through on the order is uncertain. The document, a copy of which was viewed by The New York Times, provides few details about continuing missions or intelligence-gathering operations.

Otherwise, they would have published that information, too.

Several government officials who described the impetus for the order would speak only on condition of anonymity because the document is classified. Spokesmen for the White House and the Pentagon declined to comment for this article. The Times, responding to concerns about troop safety raised by an official at United States Central Command, the military headquarters run by General Petraeus, withheld some details about how troops could be deployed in certain countries.

How noble of The Times. Besides, if they keep it vague, it puts all of our soldiers under the cloud of being ‘spies.’

The seven-page directive appears to authorize specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear program or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive. The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalizing Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President Obama ever authorizes a strike…

The directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order, signed Sept. 30, may also have helped lay a foundation for the surge of American military activity in Yemen that began three months later.

Special Operations troops began working with Yemen’s military to try to dismantle Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of Osama bin Laden’s terror network based in Yemen

Of course publishing this won’t put those Special Ops troops at risk.

Which begs the question, will the New York Times be so cavalier with the lives of our troops if they are openly homosexual?

Talk about a conflict of interest.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, May 25th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “NYT Publishes More US Military Secrets”

  1. proreason says:

    The Slimes is a bigger threat to national security than terrorism.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    “Many in the military are also concerned that as American troops assume roles far from traditional combat, they would be at risk of being treated as spies if captured and denied the Geneva Convention protections afforded military detainees.”

    Oh gee, you mean like any of the others prisoners who’ve been brutally murdered or used for military purposes: reporters, soldiers, hikers, jews? I guess they were all spies too. Yep, that’s usually what they’ll call ’em.

    And they report it like they at the NYT are the one’s undertaking these missions instead of directly endangering them. What sociopaths. They 100% truly believe they speak for America too while their entire sycophant empire crumbles around them. Get lost. Nobody with a semblance of honor is ever going to pay your ‘reliably despicable’ little post-America propoganda rag for ‘news’ anymore. You exist just to confirm for us the worst about what we believe about your beliefs.

    • proreason says:

      “What sociopaths. They 100% truly believe they speak for America too while their entire sycophant empire crumbles around them. Get lost. Nobody with a semblance of honor is ever going to pay your ‘reliably despicable’ little post-America propoganda rag for ‘news’ anymore. You exist just to confirm for us the worst about what we believe about your beliefs.”


  3. sheehanjihad says:

    Everyone involved in exposing secret documents for our enemies to benefit from should be shot. I don’t mean anything other than that. Traitors like these shitbirds need to be shot for this. Why is it that I can’t say anything negative about Obama without risking arrest, but an entire newspaper can publish secret military information with impunity? Why? WTF??

    But this had to be leaked…by someone who is working in the offices of the military…and that person is the black hearted son of a bitch who needs to be exectuted at their desk and left there for all to see. This just flat sucks….we are being taken over by totally insane operatives with the complete backing of this administration! Again, WTF? Someone is going to have to stop this crap…and soon.

  4. Gil says:

    ARREST? sheehanjihad you take your life in your hands just to say a word against the “won.” Remember he has said right wingers are terrorists? Well..

    Still Waiting For Keith Olbermann To Condemn Obama’s Assassination Program…
    Posted by Susan Swift May 23rd 2010 at 7:45 am in Featured Story, MSNBC | Comments (122)

    More than a week since a New York Times story on the Obama-approved program to assassinate U.S. citizens named as terrorists, Keith Olbermann still has not condemned that program. One reader correctly observed that Olbermann reported on the story in early April but, inexplicably, without commentary or expressing an opinion and, instead, he gave a commendably fair and balanced presentation almost worthy of broadcast on Fox News. As Glenn Greenwald noted at Salon:

    What’s most striking to me about all of this is that — as I noted yesterday (and as Olbermann stressed) — George Bush’s decision merely to eavesdrop on American citizens without oversight, or to detain without due process Americans such as Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, provoked years of vehement, vocal and intense complaints from Democrats and progressives. All of that was disparaged as Bush claiming the powers of a King, a vicious attack on the Constitution, a violation of Our Values, the trampling on the Rule of Law. Yet here you have Barack Obama not merely eavesdropping on or detaining Americans without oversight, but ordering them killed with no oversight and no due process of any kind. And the reaction among leading Democrats and progressives is largely non-existent, which is why Olbermann’s extensive coverage of it is important. Just imagine what the reaction would have been among progressive editorial pages, liberal opinion-makers and Democratic politicians if this story had been about George Bush and Dick Cheney targeting American citizens for due-process-free and oversight-less CIA assassinations.

    And back then, as he did with Bush, Olbermann castigated Obama as a fascist; a criminal committing impeachable offenses. Oh, wait. I’m sorry. No, he didn’t.

    To be fair to Olbermann, his mystifyingly outrageous lack of outrage over this story appears contagious among the liberal MSM — so much so that it apparently forced a group of prominent liberals to fundraise in order to publish an advertisement in the New York Review of Books entitled “Crimes are Crimes No Matter Who Does Them,” which condemned Obama’s terrorist-assassination program. Signatories to the ad include liberal stalwarts Noam Chomsky, Cindy Sheehan and Williams Ayers (though, in all fairness to Ayers, he may have more understandably self-serving motives for condemning a CIA program that summarily hunts down and assassinates suspected U.S. citizen-terrorists.)

    Seriously, I commend these liberals, actors and accused domestic terrorists for spending their own money to criticize their beloved president.

    These liberals have stumbled upon this frightening truth: Who gets targeted by the next CIA drone may come down to political definitions. Just reread the administration’s 2009 DHS report entitled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It defines domestic “right wing extremists” to include: … groups, movements, and adherents that… are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

    So, should prayer warriors outside abortion mills and legal Arizona residents be watching their six? Just asking. Given the literal life-or-death consequences of Obama’s new targeting program, no room exists for error or political propaganda, whether liberal or conservative.

    And, by the way, I’m still waiting for Olbermann’s equal outrage at the current president for conduct presumably “worse” than Bush’s alleged fascist/criminal conduct. The crickets are deafening.

    Maybe Olbermann could invite Cindy Sheehan or Bill Ayers on “Countdown” and ‘splain it to us. Wait. No. They have to take out an ad.


  5. Gil says:

    It’s ok.. they will probably go after (Leftist) Chicago’s mayor first.. not.

    Is Chicago’s Mayor Daley guilty of ‘terroristic threats’?
    May 22, 2010
    St. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

    In a Thursday press conference, Mayor Daley responded to a question about the effectiveness of Chicago’s ultra-restrictive gun laws in a rather alarming fashion.

    “It’s been very effective,” Daley said, picking up a gun from the dozens displayed on a nearby table. “If I put this up your butt, you’ll find out how effective it is. Let me put a round up your, you know.”

    The gun Daley had picked up, I should add, was a rifle with a long bayonet–easily capable, in other words, of doing fatal damage even without being fired. A good John Kass column about this press conference, with video of the “up your butt” remark, can be seen here).

    The reporter was not the only one who should perhaps be concerned about what the good mayor said at that press convference–Daley also seems to have some rather ominous wishes for members of the Supreme Court.

    “You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court, Maybe they’ll see the light of day,” Daley said at a City Hall news conference. “Maybe one of them will have an incident and they’ll change their mind overnight, going to and from work.”

    The idea, evidently, is that perhaps a Supreme Court justice who had been planning to rule against Chicago’s handgun ban in McDonald v. Chicago would become a victim of “gun violence” (but survive), and thus magically converted, would now share Daley’s vision of mandated defenselessness.

    In some jurisdictions, these remarks could probably be interpreted as thinly veiled “terroristic threats.”


  6. Gil says:

    THE ANCHORESS ON TOM FRIEDMAN: “Every murderous totalitarian government of the 20th century began with some insulated group of faux-intellectuals congratulating each other on how smart they are, and fantasizing about how, if they could just install a dictatorship-for-a-day, they could right all the wrongs in the world. It is the ultimate fantasy of the narcissist. And we’ve got whole generations of them, in control of our media and our government, all intent on ‘remaking America.’”

    Now with the power of assassination of opposition in their hands.. what could go wrong?

  7. Right of the People says:

    Martial law anybody?

    I know it smacks of conspiracy theory but I wouldn’t put it past the boy king if it suited his purposes and this just adds to my feelings of unease.

    I fear for my country, I truly do.

    • proreason says:

      He thinks he can do no wrong.

      Martial law would be a minor thing for this guy.

      He knows best. His mission is to reverse the evil that people like us have done to his chosen people for centuries.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »