Jim sent this in:

An Islamic group and one of its top contacts within the U.S. Congress are in the midst of a plot to neutralize FBI counterterrorism efforts. And they’ve found a willing collaborator in Attorney General Eric Holder.

The news conference was scheduled following the release of autopsy results showing that Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah was shot at least 20 times, including once in the back, as well as being found handcuffed in the prone position. However, there was no mention that Abdullah’s leader is serving a life sentence in prison for killing one cop and wounding another.

CAIR and other groups had called for an independent investigation of the shooting. On January 13, 2010, Rep. Conyers sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder to request that the civil rights division investigate both the October shooting and whether the FBI violated the Constitution by using informants in mosques.

For those of you who follow college football (yours truly included), then you probably have been following the controversial Bowl Championship Series.

The format that they use is to a degree flawed, that much is for certain. But the Obama administration, in another power grab attempt, is looking to review the legality of the BCS. The main problem that the administration is having with the BCS? Apparently, it violated antitrust laws.

It appears that critics (presumably people whose teams suck and never go to bowl games) and lawmakers want the system to revert to the playoff system, as opposed to the ratings system currently in place. According to Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, in a letter that went to Senator Orrin Hatch (one of the whiners) and others:

“Importantly, and in addition, the administration also is exploring other options that might be available to address concerns with the college football postseason.”

“The administration shares your belief that the current lack of a college football national championship playoff with respect to the highest division of college football … raises important questions affecting millions of fans, colleges and universities, players and other interested parties.”

Jim sent this in:

While visiting Iraqi political leaders, U.S. commanders and American troops in Iraq, the gaff-ridden Vice President Joe Biden promised that the Obama Justice Department will appeal a federal court ruling dismissing manslaughter charges against five Blackwater security personnel shootings case.

According to reports regarding the incident that occurred at the height of the bloody insurgency,
17 Iraqi civilians were killed in Nisoor Square, Baghdad when civilians were fired on by Blackwater security officers without provocation. Blackwater officials countered that the Iraqis killed in shoot-out were involved in an ambush of a Blackwater convoy.

The Iraqis claim the Blackwater guards fired on white sedan that failed to slow down and then fired into surrounding area as people tried to flee, with the New York Times quoting “anonymous” FBI agents saying that “at least 14 of the Iraqi killings were unjustified. (Recall that the New York Times also reported that we lost the war and that our military was broken, as well.)

During President George W. Bush’s final month in office, five Blackwater security guards — contracted to provide protection services — were charged with 14 counts of manslaughter

When a U.S. federal court judge threw out charges against five Blackwater security guards over the alleged killing, Iraqis became furious as did many U.S. politicians. Vice President Biden told the Iraqi news media that the dismissal of the Blackwater charges was “not an acquittal”.

Expressing “personal regret” over the killings, Biden said the U.S. Justice Department would file its appeal against the court’s decision next week.

“While we fully respect the independence and the integrity of the US judicial system, we were disappointed with the judge’s decision to dismiss the indictment, which was based on the way some evidence had been acquired,” he stated.

“The United States is determined to hold to account anyone who commits crimes against Iraqi people,” Mr. Biden added.

Not surprising is the fact that never did the VP use the words “alleged” or “accused” in his statements, words the Obama White House routinely used when talking about the “Underwear Bomber” or the Fort Hood shootings by an Islamic army major.

“We still don’t know what happened in that Blackwater incident. However, I imagine Biden and Obama do, since they seem to save their vitriol for U.S. citizens serving in Iraq,” said former New York City detective and military intelligence officer Sid Frances.

But political strategist Mike Baker put it more succinctly: “I wish this [Obama Administration] were as gung-ho about killing terrorists as they are with prosecuting Americans placed in the fog of war.”

“These progressives always praise the courts when they agree with the judges’ rulings, but if they don’t they denigrate the judicial decision or label the judges as right-wingers,” said Baker. “How about leaving the labels behind and reading the U.S. Constitution?”

The Iraq government maintains that the Blackwater guards fired without provocation, but Blackwater officials said the shooting by their employees occurred as a result of an ambush on its convoy and that while the guards are considered civilians, they followed the rules of engagement.

The Bush Administration gave the Iraqis a thumbs down on a trial of American citizens in Iraq, and charges in the U.S. were thrown out when the judge ruled in December that the guards’ constitutional rights had been violated and that the justice department had mishandled evidence.

The ruling provoked anger in Iraq and this month the Iraqi government began collecting signatures for a class action lawsuit on behalf of people killed or wounded in incidents involving Blackwater, according to the European press including the BBC.

This incident has had a significant impact on security companies operating in Iraq and their activities have been closely supervised if not entirely eliminated.

Jim sent this in:

When the best-selling author of political-thriller novels, Vince Flynn (Act of Treason, Consent to Kill), appeared on Fox News Channel’s Glenn Beck Show last Friday, he blasted Attorney General Eric Holder. 

Flynn flatly stated that he suspected Holder’s reason for trying murderous terrorists in a civilian court in New York City is that it would give Holder an opportunity to continue his vendetta against agents from Central Intelligence Agency. Flynn believes Holder will use the trials to embarrass — perhaps even prosecute – the CIA agents who faithfully protected Americans from the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Flynn, who boasts of his numerous friendships with the men and women serving in US intelligence and law enforcement agencies, statement just might have hit the nail right on the head.

Last summer, the Obama White House announced that the CIA will no longer interrogate suspected terrorists. Any and all interrogations will be conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation under the direct supervision of a member of the Obama Administration, although no one has been named “Interrogation Czar.”

The move was part of Attorney General Eric Holder’s intention to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA agents involved in interrogations already investigated by the CIA’s Inspector General’s Office. Holder’s critics have pointed out that his law firm represented several terrorists who were tried by the U.S.

Groups such as Amnesty International, Code Pick and others are applauding Attorney General Holder’s decision to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate cases brought to the Department of Justice against members of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The premise of this questionable investigation is the allegations of misconduct by interrogators who questioned suspected terrorist leaders and their foot soldiers.

According to the CIA’s inspector general’s report, during Bush-era interrogations of suspects, CIA agents carried out mock executions — although no one was physically harmed — and the agents made threats of violent torture.

“Attorney General Holder has been biting at the bit since he took office in January to go after someone — anyone — regarding what he views as torture, although the IG’s report reveals there were only threats of doing physical harm to the terrorists and their associates,” said former NYPD Det. Sid Frances, a former intelligence officer.

“The timing of this news is suspect, as well. Obama’s having trouble with his left-wing supporters and with this move by Holder, the Obama Admninistration is throwing them a bone to keep them from deserting him during his push to pass a health care bill,” said the decorated detective and former Marine.

Larry Cox, Amnesty International USA’s executive director, issued the following statement about the release of various documents and announcements regarding Holder’s action:

“That the Bush administration was prepared to abandon America’s human rights legal obligations is a cautionary tale for those who think any nation can disregard human rights in the fight against terrorism. The report demonstrates that the US government agencies’ internal monitoring systems are unreliable in upholding American values or laws. Compliance comes through disclosure and reform.”

“The IG’s report demonstrates that it is more important than ever that a comprehensive and independent investigation with the full force of the law is created to reveal and hold accountable those who requested, devised and carried out illegal counter-terrorism practices. It’s time to appoint a special prosecutor to prove that U.S. laws will be enforced, no matter who violated them,” said Cox.

Meanwhile, many security and intelligence professionals are not happy about this latest round of accusations and its creation of a new media feeding frenzy during a time of war.

“Holder was a Clinton Justice Department bigwig who — along with another Associate Attorney General, Jamie Goerlick — actually contributed to the US being blind-sided on September 11, 2001. During the Clinton Administration, [Attorney General Janet] Reno, Holder and Goerlick prohibited FBI agents from sharing information with the CIA and vice versa. They even forbade FBI agents involved with intelligence gathering or counterintelligence from communicating with FBI agents involved in law enforcement. A terrorist couldn’t have created a better scenario,” said security analyst George McHugh.

“These people — Obama, Holder, MoveOn.Org, the ACLU and others — are working hard to make Americans less safe and terrorists more secure. It’s insanity,” he said.

President Obama picked a hell of a time to use his “transparency” card.  That’s a card he should have used when proposing his federal stimulus bill.  But what does he do instead?  He opts to let out intelligence secrets, folks. 

Actually what he did was release Bush administration memos that detailed CIA interrogation methods, which – in Obama’s opinion – constituted a “weighty decision”.  According to one of the president’s advisers, he consulted officials from the Justice Department, the CIA, the director of National Intelligence and the Homeland Security Department.

And Obama’s excuse for letting these secrets out?  David Axelrod, one of Obama’s mouthpieces, said this:

“He thought very long and hard about it, consulted widely, because there were two principles at stake. One is … the sanctity of covert operations … and keeping faith with the people who do them, and the impact on national security, on the one hand. And the other was the law and his belief in transparency.”

And not surprisingly, people from within the Bush administration are none too pleased – and I don’t blame them.  According to a top official from Bush’s administration,

“It’s damaging because these are techniques that work, and by Obama’s action today, we are telling the terrorists what they are. We have laid it all out for our enemies. This is totally unnecessary. … Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again — even in a ticking-time- bomb scenario where thousands or even millions of American lives are at stake.”

I am in total agreement with that assessment, folks.  You do not have to be a top CIA operative or from the Homeland Security Department to know that one of the sacred things in the spy business is secrecy.  By Obama releasing these memos, he has basically made it easier for our enemies to target us for future strikes.  You absolutely never give out any secrets, no matter what they are – and yes, that includes interrogation methods.

Folks, we lasted this long without being attacked and now thanks to Obama, our chances of remaining a safe country have been compromised tremendously.  I hope like hell that members of the GOP speak up about this because this is – in my opinion – a major breach of national security.  We have enough to worry about as it is, what with the economy going down the toilet and Obama going full-steam ahead with his Socialist agenda.  Now we have to deal with something that can truly jeopardize our national security and safety. 

 This should actually be grounds for treason; if spies can be indicted for treason for giving away state secrets, then there is absolutely no reason why charges cannot be brought up against Obama.  He really f***** up this time.  He jeopardizes our economy and now he is jeopardizing our national security.  And that’s unforgiveable.

Hey, remember former senator from Alaska Ted Stevens?  For those of you who probably have forgotten, he was the senator who was convicted in October of lying on Senate disclosure documents about hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts and home renovations from an Alaskan businessman; he would subsequently lose his bid for reelection that November.

You would have thought the federal prosecutors would have lined up their ducks in a row, getting their case in place to successfully prosecute Stevens; if you thought that yourself, then you would have thought wrong.  The prosecutors hit a bump in the road as the judge in charge of the case, Emmet Sullivan, held Justice Department attorneys in contempt for failing to deliver important documents to Stevens’ legal team.

Specifically, last month, ordered the Justice Department to turn over all of the agency’s internal communications regarding a whistleblower complaint against the FBI agent who was leading the investigation into Stevens.  During Friday’s hearing, Sullivan repeatedly asked the 3 Justice Department attorneys who were sitting at the prosecution’s table whether they had some good reason as to why they have withheld information.  The attorneys finally said that they didn’t, and Sullivan – to say the least – was very angry.

He then held all 3 attorneys in contempt and demanded to know repeatedly who else was involved in withholding information; finally, a governmant attorney sitting in the back of the courtroom stood up and gave her name.  How in the world can you, as a prosecuting attorney, manage to withhold information to the defense’s legal team?  Not too terribly bright, if you ask me.