So, who is it?

Odd, but with a purpose:

The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

The question is, whose purpose?  The WaPo's version of the story weighs heavily on Congressman Rogers' comments regarding a sense that Obama counter-terrorism policy is handcuffing efforts to get the bad guys. This suggests the leak didn't originate in the White House.  Indeed AP (ABC) quotes "four US officials", which suggests they weren't "administration officials".  Jay Carney would not confirm when asked for comment today, but he didn't deny it either.  

Media outlets were using the story to highlight the new, improved "targeted killing policy", ie, Obama Kill List.   Imagine Bush being associated with anything remotely like it, and the reaction.  It's funny that Obama told Hollande at Monticello today, "I can do anything I want".  Yes, a joke, but not far from the truth as he again changed Obamacare today and if he were to contradict his own targeted killing policy by eliminating a US citizen suspected terrorist, who's going to impeach him?  John Boehner? 

So on to the speculation.  Some say a trial balloon designed to gage public reaction to targeted killing of a US citizen.  Hey, they poll everything nowadays. 

Others speculate it was designed to smoke said terrorist out of his hidey hole by indicating that one of his coming days may end poorly should the President decide to go all Obamacare on his targeted killing rules. 

Some speculate it's about letting the country in question know we know, while others look at this as career outsiders prodding the President to act before it's too late.  

Whatever the case a lot of politics could be played, such as mentioning that top secret info was given to the press amidst an administration that has prosecuted more leakers than all the other administrations combined.   Will Holder go after someone here or will his reluctance telegraph the leak's origin?  Will a Fox News reporter be wiretapped for good measure?   Surely the leader of the country in question is already under surveillance.

But seriously, how best to decipher this riddle.  How about taking the above paragraphs one at a time, keeping in mind they were presumably written by an AP reporter and not the White House--bold added for effect:

The case of an American citizen and suspected member of al-Qaida who is allegedly planning attacks on U.S. targets overseas underscores the complexities of President Barack Obama's new stricter targeting guidelines for the use of deadly drones.

The target is undoubtedly a US citizen because there was no qualifier language included.  He is a suspected member of AQ, allegedly planning attacks on OVERSEAS targets according to the writer, but maybe not the government.  Anyway, the 'homeland' is not assumed to be under threat.  Onward...

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen. The Pentagon drones that could are barred from the country where he's hiding, and the Justice Department has not yet finished building a case against him.

So there are CIA drones operating over the country in question.  Story doesn't say whether the country in question knows this or not; allows it; or simply can't stop them.  Wherever it is they do not allow US military operations, at least drones.  Finally, if the Justice people haven't written up a full case then it's unlikely he's one of the luminaries on the Rewards for Justice most-wanted terrorist site, since most of them have been around awhile.  But based on the leak of the story they believe he's about to do or direct something. 

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

That's interesting, since it suggests the country might not be hostile to the US, just that it cannot or does not allow US military action. Sometimes that is done to assuage the local population. Since Obama changed the world and everyone loves us now, it's hard to figure out who it could be.  But the language also suggests the country could be hostile and just will not go after this AQ belligerent against our wishes.  Which brings in Putin! 

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

So he's a facilitator, not an operative or combatant.  He's been around long enough to be responsible for the deaths of Americans OVERSEAS, but as earlier comments indicated the Justice people don't have a case on him yet so he must be a relatively newer discovery.   Since they mentioned IEDs that suggests a war zone like Iraq or Syria but IEDs can be used anywhere. 

So that's it.  They didn't specify if the guy was "Core" or with one of the affiliates, which doesn't help much, but we do have a few American citizens on the Rewards for Justice wanted list.  These two come to mind first:
1. Adam Gadahn, aka Azzam the American, aka, Adam the Assclown
2. Abdul Rahman Yasin.  Whether he's considered AQ or even still operating is unclear.  He was one of the bomb mixers of the first WTC attack who boogied to Baghdad after the attack and hasn't been seen since the invasion.  Saddam seemed to be hiding him so bringing him up might be inconvenient.   


There's also:
3. Jehad Mustafa, a Wisconsin native now working for al-Shabaab 

Some may think about Adnan Shukrijumah, aka, Jafar the Pilot (a very very HVT) due to his extensive time living in the United States.  But he's not a US citizen.

Stumped at the moment, but it's Monday.   

Do have some closing observations/questions.  Is it a coincidence that the WaPo released a video of the extraordinary rendition capture of Anas al-Libi today?  Not sure if that was authorized by the admin either.  If not, what's the point?   Finally, is it a clue that all passengers booked on Caribbean Airlines flights from Guyana to the United States from today through Tuesday were told to make alternative plans due to threats received?  "Jafar the Pilot" is a citizen of Guyana, by the way.  

Snow on the Run

On to Russia.   Will Putey Poot grab him and hold him for a reset card on Syria or let him pass through on his way to Venezuela via communist Cuba?   We will see.

Meanwhile, the story continues to produce a litter of cats and dogs, living together in mass chaos.   Here's Valerie and Joe Plame writing in the Guardian about the massive national security complex, something with which I agree with them.

At the same time they can't resist bashing their old nemesis Cheney for referring to Snowden as a traitor and how nauseating that is for them--the same couple who bashed Cheney for allegedly releasing information on a secret spy.  So when Plame's national security secret was released that was bad and may have caused people in the field to get dead or enemies to gain secrets, terrible breach of the law.  Now it's all about the public's right to know (yet not one mention of Obama in their piece).  Guffaw.

MORE  6/23/13

A good source of info.   Sorry folks, my jury is still out on this whole thing.  No doubt Snowden committed a crime by busting his clearance, but he might be a whistleblower.  Yes, he gave up unrelated info on NSA spying on Hong Kong and China--within their legal purview--but this info was likely spilled to provide some leverage to get out of town without being extradited (Hong Kong has "questions" for US on this, etc).

But when you lie down with dogs you get their fleas.  If he's going to use communist China, crony Russia, Wikileaks, communist Cuba and Marxist Venezuela to facilitate his freedom to leak more about America, that's a problem.  

TRUTH  6/23/13

The reason NSA, Bush, Obama and most of Congress and Mark Thiessen say we need this program is because it's basically the only tool left in the war on terror that can prevent an attack.  As Thiessen says, we don't interrogate anymore (Army Field Manual--they can remain silent) so there's little else to do but spy on communications.   But it's clear to any rational observer that the spying (even gathering metadata) violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment even if the SCOTUS says otherwise.

Obama sees this huge conundrum, keeps it quiet, then when busted says "we need to have a national debate".  Aside from the fact that such a debate should have been before his election, yes, let's have one.   Here are the choices--do we the people want to 'go it alone' as Thiessen says and react to the next attack instead of trying to prevent it, or do we the people want to give up some freedom and trust the government to do the right thing?   It's not a simple construct.

The president/CinC has the constitutional responsibility to uphold the 4th Amendment but he also has the responsibility to protect the American public from attacks both foreign and domestic.  If he tosses this program aside and another 9/11 scale event occurs we the people will largely blame him for 'not keeping us safe' or 'connecting the dots'.  And yes, some of the same people bashing him now over Snowden will be the ones protesting the loudest.

Maybe we should ask the question--why are we fighting?  What's the GWoT really about?  In my view it's about a clash of cultures between a secular and democratic west, largely rooted in free markets (such that they are) against a fundamentalist, repressive, orderly religious society that doesn't like the excesses and corruption they see from the west and believe they are on a mission from Allah to stop it, even if it means using the most banal and barbaric tactics.  Both sides present their respective rule of law: the West's secular courts system versus the fundamentalists' Sha'ria system.

The non-religious totalitarian societies have tacitly glommed on to the fundamentalist because they have a common enemy in the west.  Wikileaks is an example--they could care less what kind of communications are coming out of Russia or China or any other Marxist enclave.  This latter axis is totalitarian in nature, with ruling bodies handing down judgments instead of citizens (yes, in a perfect Wikileaks world a panel of experts would decide everything and/or it would be based on mob rule, the kind of 'peoples democracy' they envision).  A world run by Sha'ria would be like Iran--a group of Mullahs behind the scenes dictating everything.

So if we're to win this 'war' we have to win over hearts and minds to the western way.  Bush started the democracy kick to do just that.  He felt that people were inherently all the same and wanted the same things, and that democracies were less likely to invade their neighbors, start wars or sponsor terrorists.   The Arab Spring is sort of a continuation of that theme despite it's current ugly appearance.  It's likely the Obama folks feel that despite the rise of groups like HAMAS, the Muslim Brotherhood or enemy combatants like Ansar al-Sharia or al-Nusra, in the end the people will see the light and depose these strong horses in favor of more moderate secular democracies once they get a taste of self-rule. At least we can hope that's why they are pushing it.  At any rate the jury is still out on that concept.  What other way is there to export our values? 

But in doing so we must maintain our own values and precepts.  The worst thing in the world is the superpower telling everyone how to behave and pointing to American values when we're busy trashing them on a daily basis.  Obama said he wanted to close GITMO and reign in the Bush-era spying and secrecy but he's now been exposed as a fraud on that account, which damages the reputation of the West.  The theory that we're just BS'ing to raid their lands, take their oil and resources and make them loyal customers to our commercial products just gets more legs.   

So, do we the people want to deconstruct the spying network and fly this freebird alone, or do we want to talk democracy and freedom but chase down people like Snowden and others for exposing the security apparatus, making ourselves look like rank hypocrites?   Can any politician weather the storm after a mass-casualty attack by saying, "well folks, freedom isn't free"?   Are we as a society mature and patriotic enough to agree with that powerful statement while cleaning up the rubble of a destroyed city and burying our dead?   Or does that notion go counter to the very reason we have a Commander-in-Chief in the first place--to protect us from enemies--and besides, Google and the supermarket track everything we do anyway?    I just don't know the 100 percent correct answer.        

Presumed Guilty

Now that Rep Peter King seems to think Glenn Greenwald should be arrested for being a reporter, here's a question for him:

Does he want James Rosen arrested and prosectued under the Espionage Act for helping a State Dept employee leak about North Korea?   Just a wild guess--he doesn't.  Actually the story says he doesn't.  

He may or may not care about the AP reporters who published leaks about the Yemeni spy in 2012, a story that emerged on the fateful Friday May 10th after a year in mothballs, got some life, then disappeared again behind a wall of fresh scandals.  But back when that broke he wasn't calling for any reporters to be arrested, just the leakers.

Criminy, people need to chill.  The Snowden story is so weird that Tom Clancy might call it silly and cliche.  A pole dancer girlfriend?  Really?  Shouldn't we suspect a Russian honey trap or something?   We need to understand exactly what in the devil is going on before rational judgments can be made.  Is the administration doing something illegal?  That would make Snowden more a whistleblower.  King's reaction by itself is at least some proof that he felt he couldn't trust revealing information to a congressional committee or federal IG.  

Or, is Snowden indeed a traitor who fled to a communist protectorate to leak about vital US secrets in order to get back at America in some kind of weird-ass Ron Paul revenge scheme?  Let's wait and see before declaring someone guilty and committing them to a rhetorical guillotine without trial.  After all, rights are part of what this whole mess is supposed to be about.  King and others should never take them lightly.

The Fabric of the Nation...

...appears to be unraveling before our very eyes.

This Edward Snowden thing has turned blue to red and red to blue.  On the NSA thing we've got Lindsay Graham siding with the likes of David Axelrod while Elijah Cummings sides more with Rand Paul; on Syria we have John McCain agreeing with Susan Rice and Samantha Power about Responsibility to Protect, while Obama doesn't want direct involvement; many Democrats are siding with the Tea Party on the IRS thing while Obama true believers are left to bizarrely defend the very Bush policies they claimed made them vote for the One in the first place. Many Bush-era neocons are now misremembering their once rabid support for programs like TSP.

Meanwhile the president himself has been put in the position of almost prosecuting himself for the outing of a program he said the country shouldn't have and he would eliminate.  Er Sir, about that liberty versus security debate you think we should have--it's over, you won, twice, by coming down against secret spying.

Giants Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and company are probably lying about their role in the spy backdoor thing since they are compelled to cooperate.  That leaves Glenn Beck to praise Glenn Greenwald.  On the IRS, people have always hated and feared them, now they can't be trusted.   

Wait, sorry, I'm losing track of all the scandals.

OK, back to Snowden. China now appears to hold custody of a guy who dumped US secrets about possible spying on them via the PRISM program and other drag-the-net routines while we have been complaining about Chinese hackers attacking internet companies.  This as Obama said he was going to "pivot to the Pacific" in the second term, well the Chinese just hoisted a big F you sign, with a capital F.   The Russians have launched nuke subs into their southern waters again.  Picture Kevin Bacon saying all is well.   


But wait, could all of these scandals simply be an elaborate "look, squirrel" setup designed to allow Congress to slip immigration reform under the radar while nobody is watching?  All of them have magically appeared on the horizon since the three people testified over Benghazi and it began to hit the fan on Friday May 10th.   Benghazi is the only one the administration calls a side show and has declared over, despite lingering questions (like where was the president that night).

Of course for that to be true we'd have to establish a connection between Eric Holder, whose department sent the letter to AP on that fateful Friday just as Benghazi was beginning to blow up (and the Paid Liar had a special private meeting with 14 select news orgs), the same day the IRS planted a question to allow that scandal to break out (which was likely coordinated between the IRS and some in the White House), and Snowden, who was purportedly in the process of arranging for a liberal newspaper to take his story, to be written by a liberal advocate journalist.  Even the James Rosen email spying revelation seemed to come out of the blue, released after erroneously being held for years---right as all this Shiite was going down.

Maybe, just maybe Mickey Kaus is right.  Maybe the biggest things going on are Benghazi and immigration and somebody doesn't want anyone focusing on them anymore.   This will be proven soon, if true.  If so, expect more outrageous, shocking stories to blast out as the bill crawls through the Senate to the House.   Personally I'm not convinced, sounds too elaborate with a very large circle of knowledge, but stranger things...

Suddenly it's a Problem

The recent SCOTUS ruling on campaign donations has caused a grass fire on the left centered in the White House. Obama has been fairly animated about how the ruling will destroy democracy as we've known it due to evil corporate influence, calling up quotes from the Rough Rider himself. It's not the first time a prez has used his bully pulpit but the question here is why he's so inflamed.

Nobody wants foreign meddling in our national elections nor do they want large corporations--such as Google, Microsoft, Richard Branson's group and anything owned by George Soros--deciding the outcome of those elections! Oh yes, and of course big oil, big pharma, and big anything else as decided by the elite liberal elites who formulate such outrages.

Anyway, perhaps the most prudent thing for the common conservative to do is to take their cue from the president's own visceral reaction and support the decision. After all, he's no Teddy Roosevelt, and based on his track record of socialist-leaning programs and appointments it's probably a safe bet.

Not only that, but it's funny to see some Democrats blowing a gasket worrying about foreign meddling in our elections after trying to ignore Clinton's Chinagate scandal and more recently Obama's donations (never formally a scandal). Apparently the name Norman Hsu has escaped their memories, although that wouldn't be surprising since it was hardly there in the first place.

Who knows, maybe this change will actually mean less shady Norman Hsus to worry about as the money flows directly from the corporate boardrooms. Maybe disclosure rules will allow a free and robust internet truth community to fact-check every ad and track the donations, which might keep the campaigns honest. And heck, most people ignore those political commercials anyway.

Obama's Asian Adventure

Obama's trip to 'Asia' is producing some interesting copy so far. Of course his bow before the Japanese Emperor has made some news as did the dodge of a reporter's question about Fat Man and Little Boy.

The latter was not hard to understand considering the fact he's promoting a world without nukes. As to the bow, just part of the global apology tour.

But some might be surprised by this WaPo story about Chinese racial bigotry:

So nothing prepared Lou, whose father is a black American, for the furor that erupted in late August when she beat out thousands of other young women on "Go! Oriental Angel," a televised talent show. Angry Internet posters called her a "black chimpanzee" and worse. One called for all blacks in China to be deported.

Don't they know it's offensive to use the word "Oriental" in the Orient Asia now?

Ironically, Obama's half-brother lives in the southern Chinese city of Shenzhen. He kept a low profile during the elections, preferring not to be interviewed while the press was recounting Barack's dream of their shared father, a book that mentioned a "Mark" as having a less than rosy recall of the old man.

No wonder we didn't hear from Mark at the time--it appears his view was based more on reality than dreams.

But he's been in the news lately with the launch of a partial biography. Curiously, the Chinese racist angle didn't come up in some recent portrayals, which included mention of a Chinese girlfriend.

Anyway, what's the protocol for greeting a Maoist? Was this it?