Tag Archives: Cuba

Americans Deserve More Facts About GITMO, Bombings

During the past 24 hours, it seems I’ve hit the mother lode in the form of top news stories lacking pertinent facts that should be shared with the American people.

A U.S. Sailor, foreground, assigned to the Navy Expeditionary Guard Battalion conducts an early morning patrol while detainees stand by in the background at the recreation yard inside Camp Delta at Joint Task Force (JTF) Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, July 7, 2010. JTF Guantanamo provides safe, humane, legal and transparent care and custody of detainees, including those convicted by military commission and those ordered released by a court. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth)

A U.S. Sailor, foreground, assigned to the Navy Expeditionary Guard Battalion conducts an early morning patrol while detainees stand by in the background at the recreation yard inside Camp Delta at Joint Task Force (JTF) Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, July 7, 2010. JTF Guantanamo provides safe, humane, legal and transparent care and custody of detainees, including those convicted by military commission and those ordered released by a court. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth)

Yesterday, the Miami Herald published a piece by by Carol Rosenberg under the headline, First flight: 8 of first 20 ‘worst’ still at Guantanamo. It begins with a look back at what happened 13 years ago after 20 men in orange jumpsuits were brought from Afghanistan to the U.S. Navy detention facility in Cuba. By the time it ends, however, it fails to offer much in the way of details about the variety of interrogation methods — good, bad and ugly — employed by U.S. military and intelligence officials at GITMO as they sought information that might have helped the U.S.-led war effort succeed.

Conversely, I share never-before-published details about what happened to the “first 20” of more than 700 detainees (a.k.a., “enemy combatants” or “prisoners of war”) to arrive at the U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo (a.k.a., “GITMO”) in my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo. [FYI: For more details, read my Sept. 9 post, Investigation Reveals Never-Before-Published Truths About Early Days of ‘Global War on Terror’ at Guantanamo Bay. Better yet, order a copy of The Clapper Memo.]

In Steven Aftergood’s article, “Insider Threat” Program Lags Behind Schedule, published by the Federation of American Scientists, he makes no mention of the fact that the “insider threat” program launched by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence more than two years ago relies heavily upon employees being subjected to polygraph exams.

Conversely, I share never-before-published details about the flaws in the polygraph and about a newer, more effective and more reliable credibility assessment technology that proved itself more than a decade ago at Guantanamo Bay and should be incorporated in any program to identify so-called “insider threats.” In addition, I shared insider details about how the non-polygraph technology was unceremoniously banned from use by the Department of Defense personnel despite having realized top-notch results in myriad uses and scenarios around the world. Again, the details appear in The Clapper Memo.

Click image above to read other OKC Bombing-related articles.

Click image above to read other OKC Bombing-related articles.

Finally, a Boston Magazine article attempts to offer comparisons between the men alleged to have been behind the Oklahoma City and Boston Marathon bombings, respectively: Timothy McVeigh and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. My biggest problem with the article is that it fails to mention the fact that an Oklahoma City Bombing Trial is taking place now in federal court in Salt Lake City and the implications at stake.

Conversely, I used a headline of a Dec. 30 piece to ask one questions about the Oklahoma City bombing: Does ‘Domestic Terrorism’ Label Apply to OKC Bombing? Below the headline, I shared reasons to doubt the the official narrative that is set to turn 20 years old April 19 — unless, that is, the outcome of the new Oklahoma City Bombing Trial turns that narrative upside down.

So, there you have it — proof that many of the news stories you’re reading have a lot of holes to be filled in by folks like me.

UPDATE 4/19/2015 at 1:23 p.m. Central: Check out the limited-time free-books offer here.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Video Serves As Multimedia ‘I Told You So’

I dipped into the Bob McCarty Interview Archives and spliced together some clips, most of which are than five years old, to serve as a sort of multimedia “I TOLD YOU SO.”

Not only is it aimed at those who thought then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s so-called “hope and change” would improve their lives, but it’s aimed at protesters in Ferguson who’ve resorted to violence and looting instead of the peaceful, non-violent protests they promised.

Recorded at the site of anti-socialism rallies near St. Louis, the interviews feature first-generation Americans from India, Romania, Cuba and Brazil who speak their minds about their country at a crossroads. Plus, it shows how to protest the right way.

If you like this video and my other efforts, please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Retired Defense Intelligence Agency Investigator Accuses DoD Polygraph Veteran of Violating Espionage Act of 1917

The folks at Anti-Polygraph.org published a startling claim today related to Dr. Donald Krapohl, a longtime polygraph loyalist whose name appears three times in my book, The Clapper Memo:

TRUE BELIEVER by Scott W Carmichael

TRUE BELIEVER by Scott W Carmichael

Scott W. Carmichael, a recently retired counterintelligence investigator with the Defense Intelligence Agency, has accused Donald Krapohl, Special Assistant to the Chief, National Center for Credibility Assessment (NCCA) and longtime editor of the American Polygraph Association quarterly, Polygraph, of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. In an e-mail message to retired FBI polygraph examiner Robert Drdak dated 3 September 2014, a copy of which was received by AntiPolygraph.org, Carmichael alleges that Krapohl manipulated Drdak in an elaborate scheme to funnel classified information about polygraph countermeasures to the government of Singapore.

Carmichael played a key role in the investigation of Cuban spy Ana Belen Montes, according to the A-P.org, and authored a 2009 book about her case, TRUE BELIEVER: Inside the Investigation and Capture of Ana Montes, Cuba’s Master Spy. The claim, in turn, is said to stem from an e-mail exchanged between Carmichael and Robert Drdak, a retired FBI polygraph examiner.

To the non-lawyer in me, who spent four years investigating the federal government’s use of credibility assessment technologies — including the polygraph — and cases like the one involving Montes, this allegation of espionage appears serious no matter which way one looks at it! Does it surprise me? Not one bit.

To understand the seriousness of this allegation and why I’m not surprised by it, read the A-P article, then order a copy of my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo. Only after you read my book will you understand the this scandal and who, in addition to Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., is involved.

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Ted, Bobby, Marco and Rick Share Something in Common

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico who served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

INELIGIBLE: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

INELIGIBLE: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA).

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

As we enter the 2016 campaign season with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) mentioned as potential presidential candidates, a great many Americans remain confused about the definition of the term “natural born Citizen.” Although each of these men are eligible to serve as governors, as U.S. Senators, as members of the U.S. House of Representatives, or even justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, none are eligible to serve as president or vice president because they are not “natural born Citizens,” as required by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

Cruz was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father; Jindal was born in the U.S. to a father and mother, both of whom were citizens of India; Rubio was born in the U.S to parents, both of whom were citizens of Cuba; and Santorum was born in the U.S. to an American mother and an Italian father. Under provisions of the 14th Amendment, all are “citizens at birth,” but none are “natural born” citizens because of their non-citizen parentage.

Writing in a MinuteMenNews.com article while aware that Senator Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father, Greg Conterio relies on language contained in 8 USC §1401 to support his contention that Cruz is a “natural born” citizen. That statutory language defines a “citizen at birth” as “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is… not a citizen of the United States.” At no point does the statute mention the term “natural born Citizen,” nor does it attempt to show that the terms “natural born Citizen” and “citizen at birth” are synonymous. To the contrary, when the Founders inserted the words “natural born Citizen” in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, as a principal qualification for those who wished to serve as president of the United States, it was their intention that all those born with any taint of foreign allegiance should be barred from the presidency and the vice presidency. Hence, the term “natural born Citizen.”

Under the 14th Amendment, all those born in the United States to American citizen parents, as well as those born to foreign nationals or parents of mixed nationality, are “citizens at birth.” In other words, all “natural born” citizens are “citizens at birth,” but not all “citizens at birth” are “natural born.” However, Conterio contends that the terms “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen at birth” are synonymous, just as the terms “dog” and “domestic canine” are synonymous. That simply is not true. Those terms are no more synonymous than the terms “apple” and “orange.” But then, Conterio goes on to argue that, “Based on U.S. law, the terms ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen at birth’ are synonymous.” However, in the next breath he reverses course, saying, “The Founders said ‘Natural Born Citizen,’ and the U.S. Code says ‘Citizen at Birth,’ which mean two completely different things.” So which is it? Either the terms are “synonymous” or are they “two completely different things?” They can’t be both.

What many who support the eligibility of Cruz, Jindal, Rubio, and Santorum refuse to consider is that there are only two jobs in all of America that require the incumbents to be “natural born” citizens. Those jobs are president and vice president of the United States. Every other job in America, in government or in the private sector, can be filled by natural born citizens, by citizens at birth, by naturalized citizens, or, in some cases, by non-citizens with work visas. Those who agree that there are several categories of citizenship, but then argue that the Constitution puts no unique requirements on candidates for president and vice president, have an obligation to explain what they see as the difference between a “natural born” citizen and any other kind of citizen.

In his analysis, Conterio relies heavily on an April 3, 2009 memorandum prepared by attorney Jack Maskell of the Congressional Research Service. The Maskell memorandum, which has been widely discredited, was produced for one reason and one reason alone: to give political cover to members of Congress who voted to certify Obama’s Electoral College votes, knowing or strongly suspecting that he was not eligible for that office.

The gist of Maskell’s argument is that “…there is no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States government… Furthermore, there is no specific federal agency or office that ‘vets’ candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility… ”

No specific federal agency or office that “vets” candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility? Upon being sworn into office in early January, following each biennial General Election, all members of Congress are required to swear the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The congressional oath of office clearly requires all members of Congress to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That includes all those who would seek to gain access to the presidency without the necessary qualifications.

The presidential selection process provides three vetting opportunities for president and vice president. Unfortunately, all three vetting opportunities failed miserably in 2008-09. The first occurred at the close of the Democratic national convention, in Denver, when the convention chairman, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and the convention secretary, Alice Travis Germond, certified Barack Obama and Joe Biden to the 50 state election boards so that ballots could be printed.

Because Hawaii has specific certification requirements under Hawaii Revised Statutes §11-113, Pelosi and Germond certified to the State of Hawaii, as follows: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States respectively, and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution.”

The certifications sent to the other 49 states read, simply: “THIS IS TO CERTIFY that at the National Convention of the Democrat Party of the United States of America, held in Denver, Colorado, on August 25 though (sic) 28, 2008, the following were duly nominated as candidates of said Party for President and Vice President of the United States, respectively.” Affixed were the names and home addresses of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The phrase, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution” was purposely omitted.

Other than that, all of the documents were identical… even to the misspelling of the word “through” in the second line of the certifications. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that Democrats knew when they nominated him that Obama was not a “natural born” citizen and, therefore, ineligible to serve. Pelosi was aware that certifying falsely to Obama’s eligibility was a criminal offense, so the question arises, what did she know, and when did she know it?

The second vetting opportunity occurred on Dec. 15, 2008, when the Democratic members of the Electoral College met to elect Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Even though most electors had been warned in advance that Obama did not meet the constitutional requirements to serve as president, all 365 Democratic electors, anxious to have another Democrat in the White House, violated their electoral oaths and cast their ballots for Obama.

The third and final vetting opportunity occurred on Jan. 8, 2009, when the Congress met in joint session to certify the votes of the Electoral College. Prior to that date, essentially every member of Congress had been advised that Obama’s citizenship status was seriously in doubt. So, if a member of Congress suspected that the Electoral College had erred, it was his/her solemn obligation to make those suspicions known and to object to the certification of the Electoral College vote. Yet, all 535 members of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, purposely violated their oath of office by failing to demand an examination of Obama’s qualifications.

Why did they do so? Although we can’t read the minds of 535 members of Congress, we can “bet the farm” that most failed to question Obama’s eligibility because they were terrified at what would happen in the streets of America if the first black man ever elected by the Electoral College was turned away at the last moment on a constitutional “technicality.” Instead, the double-redundant “fail safe” system envisioned by the Founders suffered catastrophic failure.

But now, with the potential candidacies of Cruz, Jindal, Rubio and Santorum, Republican principles will soon be put to the test. We will see whether Republicans, who, unlike Democrats, believe in the strict construction of the Constitution and the rule of law, will have sufficient reverence for the words of the Constitution to deny the nomination to a candidate who does not meet the necessary qualifications. Knowing Republicans as I do, I feel certain that they will distinguish themselves by refusing to nominate an unqualified candidate.

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Fox News Reports More GITMO Detainees Return to Terror

Fox News Channel is generating a lot of buzz today with a report about sources saying 20 to 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees have returned to fight as members of terror groups after being released during the past two to three years.  You might want to file it under “old news.”

 

A U.S. Sailor, foreground, assigned to the Navy Expeditionary Guard Battalion conducts an early morning patrol while detainees stand by in the background at the recreation yard inside Camp Delta at Joint Task Force (JTF) Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, July 7, 2010. JTF Guantanamo provides safe, humane, legal and transparent care and custody of detainees, including those convicted by military commission and those ordered released by a court. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth)

A U.S. Sailor, foreground, assigned to the Navy Expeditionary Guard Battalion conducts an early morning patrol while detainees stand by in the background at the recreation yard inside Camp Delta at Joint Task Force (JTF) Guantanamo, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba, July 7, 2010. JTF Guantanamo provides safe, humane, legal and transparent care and custody of detainees, including those convicted by military commission and those ordered released by a court. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Michael R. Holzworth)

As the author of The Clapper Memo, a nonfiction book in which I reveal never-before-published details from individuals in charge of interrogating detainees at GITMO during the early years of the Global War On Terror, I’ve reported on this topic several times, often turning to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for information. And here I go again.

According to the latest Summary of the Reengagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba released last month, 107 of 620 individuals released from GITMO were confirmed as having returned to the fight as of July 15, while 77 others were suspected of doing so. Among those confirmed as returning to the fight, 23 are listed as “dead,” 25 “in custody” and 59 “not in custody.” Among those suspected of reengaging, 2 are listed as “dead,” 14 “in custody,” and 61 “not in custody.”

According to 2013 version of the same report, 100 of 603 individuals released from GITMO were confirmed as having returned to the fight as of July 15, 2013, while 74 others were suspected of doing so. Among those confirmed as returning to the fight, 2 were listed as “dead,” 27 “in custody” and 56 “not in custody.” Among those suspected of reengaging, 2 are listed as “dead,” 25 “in custody,” and 47 “not in custody.”

If the numbers given FNC reporters Justen Fishel and Jennifer Griffin by their sources are accurate, then they reflect a sizable increase in recidivism. If not, then it’s just old news being hyped to drive ratings.

To learn more about what went on inside GITMO during the early days after Sept. 11, 2001, order a copy of The Clapper Memo.

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.