9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America

We remember

January 17, 2012

Week one ‘Haditha’ Marine trial analysis Part II: the counter-attack upon houses 1 and 2

by @ 5:47 pm. Tags: , ,
Filed under Haditha, Iraq, Wuterich

United States Marine Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich stands accused of 9 counts of voluntary manslaughter, 2 counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, 3 counts of dereliction of duty, and “responsible for the deaths of 19 civilians” in Haditha, Iraq. The trial is expected to take four weeks. The prosecution began its case last Monday. If you have not, please first read Part I. Part II completes my analysis of the trial to date and includes key testimony that the media has failed to report. Part II begins immediately after SSgt Wuterich has eliminated the threat posed by five military-aged men moving near a white car across the road from the lead Humvee in his resupply convoy. [Updated January 20, 2012]

Approximately 200 feet behind Wuterich, a buried IED had been set off. The driver of the 4th Humvee was dead and two more lay wounded. From about 75 ft away, Wuterich had eliminated by fire the threat posed by five military-aged men near a white car. He turned, went to the 3rd Humvee, radioed-in HQs a situation update, and then went to his wounded Marines. “Doc” Whitt, Tatum, and Salinas preceded him, while under enemy fire, in reaching the stricken vehicle.

Salinas testified Thursday he exchanged fire with a man to his south on the side of house #1:

“Rounds were impacting on the fourth vehicle. I went back to render aid to my Marines that were wounded. There was destruction everywhere. There was a fog, a haze. When the smoke was clearing out I could see an object. It was LCpl Crossan. He was missing a couple of fingers. His body armor was obstructing his airway … “I got as low as I could because I heard rounds coming. It was the impact of the rounds hitting the high back. I got low on the deck,” he said.

Salinas described an ugly, bitter war, a no-quarter environment where innocent victims found themselves on November 19, 2005. Al Anbar Province lived [what] was a waste land after two bloody years of internecine warfare.

“On the outside of the house, on the east side of the house, I saw a small silhouette. Things look small that far away. It was a tall man. There was rounds impacting around me, so I engaged him. I used my M-16. I shot more than twice but not the entire magazine,” he told prosecutor Lt Col Sean Sullivan. “Then I took my 203 (M-203 40mm grenade launcher attached underneath his rifle) and fired rounds on the house — fired two or three.” It was while trying to find Crossan’s fingers, he explained.

LT William Kallop was Wuterich’s platoon leader and led the quick reaction force to Route Chestnut in Haditha. Kallop testified Friday that:

“…he believed the ambush was the beginning of the long anticipated counterattack by insurgents who had infiltrated into the city. … Wuterich gave him a brief report. After making sure the squad leader of the Quick Reaction Force began evacuating the two wounded Marines still lying on the road, he gave Wuterich the order to “clear South” to suppress incoming fire the ambushed Marines had observed coming from what later became known as House 1 and 2.”

The Los Angeles Times reported Saturday:

“[Kallop] believed insurgents inside the house were firing on Marines and thus the house could be deemed “hostile.” … A Marine lawyer, testifying after Kallop, gave a different interpretation of the rules of engagement. Maj. Kathryn Navin, who had lectured Marines before they deployed, said a house cannot be declared hostile unless the people inside are known to have “hostile intent” or have committed “hostile acts.” But Kallop said that in training at Camp Pendleton and March Reserve Air Base, and at briefings delivered in Iraq, Marines were not told they needed to identify individual targets as threatening when assaulting a “hostile” structure.

What the Times did not report was Major Navin had previously testified a house “could be declared ‘hostile.’” That fact came out during cross-examination when Navin was asked to read a transcript of her own testimony from August 2007, according to trial observer Heidi (Hamilton) Anselmo who I spoke with by phone last night. When asked by defense counsel to explain her previous testimony, Navin offered, “Maybe I got mixed up.”

President Barack Obama, former President George W. Bush, and literally hundreds of U.S. military officers would be facing prosecution if [Major Navin's interpretations of] the Marine Corps’ ROE applied to them; they have ordered airstrikes upon houses without first personally identifying that everyone within them had “hostile intent” or had committed “hostile acts.” While at the ambush site, Kallop received reports from Wuterich and other Marines of enemy fire coming from house #1. Salinas had marked it as a target with M203 grenades. It was then clear to Kallop, Wuterich, and Salinas the enemy was using the house for military purposes and eliminating the threat posed to their Marines was necessary self-defense (See the ROE card they carried.)

Intelligence officer Major Don Dinsmore will testify today at the trial. He fought what is known as the ‘intelligence battle’ for 3/1 that day in Haditha, recorded in real time the enemy’s positions and activities, assessed the information, and sent a stream of intelligence to the Marines on the ground. Each of Kilo Company’s four platoons fought battles within a half-mile of the initial IED blast. Before you read media reports after Dinsmore testifies, perhaps you should first read Nat Helm’s report about his July 2007 interview of Cpl Joe Haman. His squad was manning a combat observation post that morning 600 meters south of the IED-initiated ambush. Including Haman, 7 Marines and a Navy Corpsman were wounded during a “grenade throwing contest” with insurgents later that morning:

“Somebody said his [Terrazas] number, but we didn’t know who it was. We just knew somebody had been killed or wounded,” Haman said. … About 30 minutes before Haman’s squad was called into action … Then a nearby helicopter reported to headquarters that a large group of insurgents were fleeing out the back of the small cluster of houses now under counter-attack by Wuterich’s squad. The pilot spotted the insurgents when they abandoned the houses where the civilians died, Haman said.”

During his first combat action, Wuterich led three combat veterans of the 2nd Battle of Falluja in a combat assault upon house 1 and 2 to eliminate the threat. The Haditha massacre of innocent civilians was designed by lesser men; justice needs brought to them for that war crime. In Haditha, honorable Marines fought as they were trained. The enemy is solely to blame for every death that occurred that day; Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents hid among and initiated fights behind defenseless women, children, and old men.

Regardless of anyone’s opinion about the need to invade Iraq, America owed Frank Wuterich far better than a court-martial. [He led] Marines caught within an ambush in a series of counter-attacks to defeat the enemy while complying the best he could with ambiguous Rules of Engagement.

SSgt Wuterich lived up to his enlistment oath to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over” him, at dire risk to his own life. America sends its sons and daughters to war to fight, win, and survive, not on suicide missions. They bravely fight counter-insurgent warfare on our behalf and must live with haunting memories of collateral damages. The criminalization of our warriors must end.

January 16, 2012

Week one ‘Haditha’ Marine trial analysis Part I: An ambush on Route Chestnut and the white car

by @ 5:23 am. Tags: , ,
Filed under Haditha, Iraq, Wuterich

United States Marine Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich stands accused of 9 counts of voluntary manslaughter, 2 counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, 3 counts of dereliction of duty, and “responsible for the deaths of 19 civilians” in Haditha, Iraq. The trial is expected to take four weeks. The prosecution began its case last Monday. What follows is key testimony that the media has failed to report and my analysis of the trial to date. [Note: This analysis was updated on January 17, 2012.]

The ambiguous Rules of Engagement card carried by our Marines that day included these requirements: “Do not fire into civilian populated areas or buildings unless the enemy is using them for military purposes or if necessary for your self-defense. Minimize collateral damage.” Near its end, it correctly defined the mission: “Attack enemy forces and military targets. Spare civilians and civilian property, if possible.”

Tuesday, LCpl Stephen Tatum testified:

Tatum acknowledged the night before the convoy his squad had been briefed to expect trouble. They were warned to watch out for snipers active everywhere in Haditha and the infamous white cars that insurgents were using as Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs).

SSgt Wuterich and Sgt Sanick Dela Cruz were undoubtedly at the mission briefing. White cars would be on their minds the next morning — November 19, 2005 — when Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment was at war. [Update 7:25 PM: LT Kallop also testified that he conducted the mission briefing; Wuterich and Dela Cruz were present.]

On Friday, LT William Kallop, Kilo Company’s 3rd platoon and quick reaction force (QRF) leader testified:

He told the eight member panel that intelligence reports rolling in prior to the ambush indicated that the al Qaeda-led insurgency was regrouping around Haditha to try and reestablish control of the embattled region. “There was fire around the city at this time. One time Iraqi soldiers fired and told us they saw insurgents running. One of our Marines had shot an individual running,” Kallop told prosecutor Maj. Nicholas Gannon. [I will return to his testimony during my analysis of the counter-attack upon houses 1 and 2.]

3/1 took over the 90,000-person city of Haditha without firing a shot in early October 2005. Over the next 6 weeks, they discovered and eliminated 190 IEDs, and sent two-dozen suspected insurgents off to higher HQs for interrogation. (Also see Al Qaeda in Haditha: The Battle the Media Ignored.) On October 7, 2005, CNN reported, “The city itself is almost literally an improvised explosive device (IED) field.” Indeed. The company that K Co 3/1 replaced the previous month sustained the highest percentage of casualties of the entire Iraq War: 26 Lima Company 3/25 Marines were dead and another 32 had been wounded. (Also see The Battle of Haditha.)

Ambush on Route Chestnut

An eerie quiet was broken at 7:15 a.m. on November 19. 2005. A white car carrying 5 military-aged men (MAMs) had approached SSgt Wuterich’s 4-Humvee resupply convoy from ahead and been waived to give way by LCpl Justin Sharratt who was manning his M240G Machine Gun in the lead Humvee’s turret. The white car stopped off to the side, inside the squad’s security perimeter, just as a buried IED was set off beneath the last Humvee in the convoy, splitting the vehicle and LCpl Miguel “TJ” Terrazas in half, and wounding Lance Corporals James Crossan and Salvador Guzman. The blast initiated an ambush and the squad immediately came under small arms fire. Every Marine’s weapon was not immediately turned on the white car — the five men inside it were not immediately turned into goo. SSgt Wuterich had to rapidly make a threat assessment, secure the squad’s defensive perimeter, suppress enemy fires, and defend his Marines caught in that kill zone.

The enemy’s complex attack would soon embroil all of Kilo Company, leave 1 Marine dead, and wound 10 Marines and 1 Navy Corpsman.

SSgt Wuterich had spotted the white car stopped ahead of him. He followed his training. First he radioed higher HQs of the attack, reported his casualties, and requested that the QFR respond to his location. [Correction made January 17, 2012: As Wuterich was driving, LCpl Graviss actually radioed-in the initial report and he overheard it. Wuterich radioed-in a second report soon after the encounter with the white car.] He dismounted the 3rd Humvee and approached the white car from the east with his M-16 at the ready.

Wuterich has previously stated that when he was still more than 30 meters away, three MAMs dismounted to the south from the passenger side, and the other two dismounted to the north, from the driver’s side, moved west away from him, and then turned south around the back of the white car. He saw that Sgt Dela Cruz was north across the road, heard him shouting commands at the five, and the men were not complying. A chest-high dirt pile was but a few feet south of them and in the direction the five were moving.

LCpl Tatum, Cpl Hector Salinas, and Navy Corpsman HN1 Brian Whitt rushed from their Humvees, under enemy fire, to the stricken vehicle.

Salinas testified Thursday that as he passed close behind Dela Cruz, he saw him aiming his M-16 at the five MAMs, and heard him shouting “Stop! Stop!” at them in Arabic. As Nat Helms reported, Dela Cruz’s testimony Wednesday seemed incredible:

It is either the fourth or fifth version of his observations since he failed a polygraph, and then elected to accept immunity from prosecution, counting the two versions he presented at trial today. … “They were standing there looking around, some with their hands in the air and some behind their heads,” Dela Cruz said while demonstrating the decedent’s movements. “One of the Iraqis in the middle dropped, sir. Then they were falling back behind the car. I looked over at Sgt. Wuterich – Sergeant Wuterich was kneeling in a firing position, sir. I looked back at the Iraqis and I didn’t see [any] more of them.”

Why would Dela Cruz have shouted “Stop! Stop!” in Arabic at the five if, “They were standing there looking around?”

Those Marines had been trained on defending against VBIEDs and reminded the night before on how to identify them on the battlefield. If they perceived a vehicle and those inside it as threats, they were to engage the occupants before the device could be set off and from a distance.

SSgt Wuterich perceived a threat and engaged it by fire.

Part II: The counter-attack upon houses 1 and 2.

January 14, 2012

Marines pee’d hot urine on the poor dead civilian Taliban

Those urinators [sic] ain’t right, but their most frightful fear should have been of their immediate supervising NCO, as in either their team leader, squad leader, platoon sergeant or first sergeant to determine how “broke” those troops really are.

Back in days gone by, one mean sumbitch would have gleaned from the scuttlebutt their indiscipline. A stripe-heavy Master of Disaster and Chaos NCO would have diagnosed the problem faster than any computer analysis machine now known to man. He’d have already advised the company commander on the appropriate action, what to fix at company level or refer to higher echelon for more stringent application of the regulations (administrative discharge or investigation), or greater punishment under the UCMJ.

While the first commander in the chain-of-command is responsible for good order and discipline, all commanders above them in the chain of command, up to and including the 2 or 3-star convening authority (CA), share that responsibility. Each commander above the company level has full authority by statute to inquire via either UCMJ Article 15-7 (informal) or 15-6 (formal) investigation, while expecting NCIS to concurrently investigate within its separate, statutory authority. The CA always get reports from the field. Once any hint of indiscipline lands on the CA’s desk or command field table, they can order all lower commanders to stand aside. Alternately, the CA can leave it to lower commanders to investigate, decide, or send it up with a recommendation to the CA to apply the Manual for Courts-Martial hammer.

There is a rub; the already thinning firewall I left behind when I left, right ‘o left the military in 1994 has so many holes chewed through it, it virtually is Swiss cheese. It no longer is the duty of their platoon sergeant and first sergeant to have already been all over those troops. Marines pee’d hot urine on the poor dead civilian Taliban. I smell “Rat!” But no, no, no, we are not supposed to presume that appointed and elected officials are guilty of either political budgetary arm-bending or violating the statute prohibiting undue influence upon the convening authority.

Shades of Haditha, those urinators [sic] are on tape, guilty before proven innocent, as stated back-channel out the mouths of (fill in politicians’ names here) … And no, no, no don’t dare speak ill of the dead Jack Murtha. But it is okay for the media to mention ‘Haditha’ Marine Sanick Dela Cruz within their reports. So what? He is immune from prosecution. If there was maintenance or justice to be done on that “battle rattled” Sergeant, the U.S.S. Ship of Sanity sailed long ago, without him on board, and was lost at sea.

Note: Apparently, I confused some in this post so here is a clarification.

January 7, 2012

Jury seated in last ‘Haditha’ Marine trial

by @ 7:15 am. Tags: , ,
Filed under Haditha, Iraq

The North County Times reported on Friday’s progress in the court-martial of the last U.S. Marine to stand trial in connection with the November 19, 2005 civilian deaths in Haditha, Iraq:

An eight-member jury was seated at Camp Pendleton on Friday to decide the fate of a staff sergeant charged with war crimes in the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians during the height of the conflict.

The jury of four officers and four enlisted men will hear opening statements on Monday in the trial of 31-year-old Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich.

Wuterich is accused of being responsible for 19 of the 24 Iraqi deaths that came after his Kilo Company squad from the base’s 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, searched for the people responsible for a roadside bombing that killed one Marine and injured two others on Nov. 19, 2005, in the city of Haditha.

Wuterich has pleaded not guilty to charges of manslaughter, assault and dereliction of duty for failing to follow the rules of engagement stemming from the more than 6-year-old incident. He faces a prison sentence of up to 150 years if convicted of all the charges.

Controversy surrounding the prosecution and its unpopularity within the ranks of the Marine Corps was evident at the close of Friday’s proceedings when the lead prosecutor, Maj. Nicholas Gannon, told the military judge that all his witnesses were reluctant to aid the government.

“I can’t think of a single witness that I would say is desirable of being helpful to the United States,” Gannon said.

See Defend Our Marines for reports by Nat Helms who is attending the trial.

Attorneys in military cases are allowed to request the removal of potential jurors — called “panelists” in military law — for cause or simply because they don’t like what the panel candidates had to say. The Colonel, deemed too close to the convening authority, a Master Gunnery Sergeant who provoked somebody’s ire, and a Gunnery Sergeant who mentioned Hiroshima and Haditha in the same breath were stricken from the roles after the prosecutors and defense attorneys jousted over their continued presence.

During the voir dire proceeding, almost all of the Marines questioned by Sullivan and Faraj stumbled through explanations of what the Rules of Engagement said in November 2005, offering vague impressions of how they were changed after former Marine Commandant General Michael W. Hagee visited Iraq in 2006 following the Haditha fiasco. The potential panelists had an equally tough time explaining when and why escalation of force can be implemented, and what to do when apparent non-combatants find themselves on the firing line. Each of those questions represent fundamental building blocks the panelists must consider when deciding the guilt or innocence of Wuterich, a rookie squad leader who commanded the Marines that counter-attacked their ambushers.

January 6, 2012

The first day of the court martial of the last ‘Haditha’ Marine

by @ 1:05 am. Tags: ,
Filed under Haditha, Iraq

The court martial of SSgt Frank Wuterich began Thursday and may take several weeks to conduct. It will continue Friday and reconvene Monday morning at 8 am PST.

I spoke with Nat Helms this evening. He is attending the trial at Camp Pendleton: (Updated)

Jury selection is today: eleven enlisted and officers and three alternates will go through UCMJ version of the Voir Dire selection. LtCol. David Jones presiding. Panel must have at least five and can have seven or nine members although somewhere in the middle is likely.

Nat will do his best to post a daily diary, his takeaway each day of the trial, by 11 pm Eastern, at Defend Our Marines. He told me there are 11 Marines being considered for the panel, 5 officers and 6 enlisted. All but 1 of the 11 are “grunts” with combat experience.

In related news, the trial judge dismissed four of the (non-manslaughter) charges in the case. SSgt Wuterich still faces the most serious charges, 9 counts of voluntary manslaughter, two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, and three counts of dereliction of duty. The dropped charges, misconduct for allegedly asking his subordinates to lie and what amounts to recklessly endangering civilians, were dropped due to procedural errors; it will likely not inhibit the prosecution’s ability to use related evidence at trial.

One interesting item in today’s news reports was the lead prosecutor told reporters Wuterich was “responsible” for 19 deaths. That was a strange statement to make. Major Gannon mentioned in the same breath that Wuterich was charged with only 9 counts of voluntary manslaughter, to include the 5 men who dismounted a nearby white car immediately after an IED ripped through the squad’s trail Humvee. Originally, SSgt Wuterich was charged with 24 counts of murder.

Do the math.

Four of those counts were dropped after the convening authority determined those killed in house #4 presented a clear threat. Five counts of voluntary manslaughter are for those killed near the white car. That leaves 15 deaths to be accounted for, but 5 (white car) and 15 equals 20, not 19, the number for which Wuterich is allegedly “responsible.”

Opening arguments, the competing theories, have not been presented. Will the prosecutors concede that the man killed after he bolted from house #1 (while it was being swept by fire) towards house #2 also was a clear threat? If so, it will present the defense with several interesting arguments … Enough said as my investigative duties and career in military law enforcement ended before some who are currently serving were born.

SSgt Wuterich stands in the dock of justice facing the possibility of conviction and a long prison sentence. Yet all charges against six of the eight Marines involved in the so-called Haditha massacre were dismissed. And the seventh Marine was acquitted of all charges during his 2008 court martial.

Another strong ray of hope might be found in the concluding statement made by Article 32 investigating officer Lt Col Paul Ware:

Finally, although I believe the Government will fail to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that SSgt Wuterich committed any offenses other than dereliction of duty, due to the serious nature of the charges, I recommend referral to a general court martial.

Pass the word, stay tuned into Defend Our Marines, and Semper Fi.

May 30, 2011

Military Commission 9/11 murder and conspiracy charges to be resworn against KSM et al

We received tonight from the Office of Military Commssions that the charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four senior cohorts will be resworn Tuesday:

30 May 2011
2000 hours

Dear 9/11 Families,

We wanted to inform you that charges will be sworn tomorrow against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Bin ‘Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa al Hawsawi for their involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The eight charges common to all five of the accused are: Conspiracy, Murder in Violation of the Law of War, Attacking Civilians, Attacking Civilian Objects, Intentionally Causing Serious Bodily Injury, Destruction of Property in Violation of the Law of War, Hijacking Aircraft, and Terrorism.

The Conspiracy charge details 167 overt acts allegedly committed in furtherance of the 9/11 attacks, and alleges the following against the five accused in the following order:

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is alleged to have been the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks by proposing the operational concept to Usama bin Laden as early as 1996, obtaining approval and funding from Usama bin Laden for the attacks, overseeing the entire operation, and training the hijackers in all aspects of the operation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin ‘Attash is alleged to have administered an al Qaeda training camp in Logar, Afghanistan where two of the September 11th hijackers were trained. He is also alleged to have traveled to Malaysia in 1999 to observe airport security by U.S. air carriers in order to assist in formulating the hijacking plan. It is also alleged that he provided a letter to Usama bin Laden detailing his findings on airport security, including how to get a razor-knife on board an aircraft.

Ramzi Binalshibh is alleged to have originally been selected by Usama bin Laden to be one of the September 11th pilot-hijackers with his Hamburg, Germany associates Mohamed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, and Marwan al Shehhi. It is alleged that after filming a “martyr video” in preparation for the operation, but then failing four times to get a visa to travel to the United States to attend flight school, Binalshibh continued to assist the conspiracy by engaging in numerous financial transactions in support of the 9/11 operation. It is also alleged that Binalshibh then became the communication hub between the pilot-hijackers and senior al Qaeda leadership regarding the planning details of the operation.

Ali Abdul Aziz Ali is alleged to have sent approximately $120,000 to the pilot-hijackers for their expenses and flight training, and alleged to have facilitated travel to the United States for nine of the hijackers. It is also alleged that Ali attempted to enter the United States just prior to the September 11th 2001 attacks but was denied a U.S. visa to travel.

Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi is alleged to have assisted and prepared the hijackers with money, western clothing, traveler’s checks and credit cards. He is also alleged to have facilitated the transfer of thousands of dollars between the accounts of alleged 9/11 hijackers and himself around September 11th, 2001.

These charges are allegations and the five accused are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a military commission.

After charges have been sworn, they will be presented to the Legal Advisor for the Convening Authority (CA) for his review and advice. After this review, the CA – in his sole discretion – may then refer the charges to a military commission. The CA will also determine whether or not to refer the charges to a capital military commission (meaning whether or not the death penalty will be sought in the case). If referred (capital or non-capital), a military judge would then be assigned and a panel of eligible military officers would be selected as potential members of the military commission. The accused would then be arraigned within 30 days of the service of the referred charges.

May 16, 2011

Did enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees work, lead to bin Laden, and were they ethical?

Today at the American Enterprise Institute, panelists Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First, former Attorney General Judge Michael Mukasey, former Acting General Counsel of the CIA John Rizzo, AEI fellow Marc Thiessen, and Brookings Institute fellow Benjamin Wittes discussed whether the enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees worked, lead to Osama bin Laden, and if they were ethical. One interesting point made by John Rizzo was while he served at the CIA until October 2009, the current administration asked the CIA to recommend a list of interrogation techniques above those in the Army Field Manual:

I hope to someday hear a robust debate on the ethics of not aggressively interrogating high-value detainees. One way you protect civilians during war is to deny Geneva Convention protections to unlawful combatants — a right to remain silent — to not allow them to only give their name, rank, date of birth, and serial number.

May 6, 2011

Debra Burlingame: ‘Those interrogators, CIA case officers are patriots’

Debra Burlingame was interviewed on WMAL radio this morning about her confronting Barack Obama during a meeting at Ground Zero. She explained her reasons for asking the President to express his opinion to Attorney General about dropping the investigation of CIA officers who conducted the enhanced interrogations of detainees:

Try as they might, the Obama administration can not deny the courier was first identified and determined to be a valuable person to find and follow in the hunt for Osama bin Laden during those enhanced interrogations.

May 5, 2011

Debra Burlingame on Ground Zero meeting with President Obama and CIA interrogations investigation

Debra Burlingame was one of fifty 9/11 family members who met in a closed-door meeting with President Barack Obama today near Ground Zero. She asked him, considering that by all reports the enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees was “part of the mosaic” of the intelligence that led to Osama bin Laden, if he would at least give his opinion to Attorney General Eric Holder about dropping the investigation of CIA interrorgators. President Obama replied, “No, I won’t.” Here is the video of her Fox News interview:

Debra Burlingame: Obama’s bin Laden photo and burial decisions ‘play right into’ enemy’s hand

Debra Burlingame, the sister of pilot Charles “Chic” Burlingame III whose plane was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon on 9/11, discussed with Neil Cavuto today yesterday President Barack Obama’s decision to not release Osama bin Laden’s death photos and to give him a respectful sea burial.

Before watching the video, consider this: America is allegedly at war against al Qaeda and its violent affiliates; Obama (and Bush before him) is not at war alone against this enemy. Killing bin Laden was a major tactical victory and we, America, needed to use it to demoralize the enemy towards total victory. And we needed to exploit whatever intelligence that was gathered during the operation. So, what did this adminstration do? They bragged about the kinds of intelligence gathered at the scene for the sole purpose of domestic political popularity and undermined the intelligence value of what was gathered. Obama and his administration deserve condemnation for putting their political aspirations ahead of the interests of protecting the American people and defeating the enemy.

Obama has stated that al Qaeda’s ideology is “a perversion of Islam,” bin Laden “murdered Muslims on September 11,” and the latter “was not a Muslim leader.” Why give a perverted, mass-murdering, non-Muslim a religious ceremony in line with Muslim tradition?

Nothing has been found of 1,125 of those slaughtered on 9/11; their families had no body to respectfully prepare, to pray over, or to properly lay to rest. My wife lost her brother that day. I would have bagged bin Laden up, weighed him down, and tossed him over the side with the garbage.

[9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America is proudly powered by WordPress.]