Tag Archives: Green-on-Blue Attack

How Will We Screen Out Terrorists Among Syrian Refugees?

Over the weekend, President Barack Obama announced the United States will welcome 10,000 Syrian refugees for resettlement over the next 12 months. Now, sane Americans must wonder how government officials will screen out terrorists among the refugees entering the country through refugee processing centers in almost every state.

This U.S. Department of State map shows where refugees, including those from Syria, will be sent.

This U.S. Department of State map shows where refugees, including those from Syria, will be sent.

The transcript of a State Department background briefing for reporters Sept. 9 offers some clues about how those ostensibly in charge of the nation’s foreign affairs programs — including Secretary of State John “F’n” Kerry and other left-wing political appointees — plan to ensure no members of the Islamic State and other Islamic terror groups enter the United States under the guise of being refugees. Michael Gordon of The New York Times asked the first question:

“Could you tell us, please, what the range of numbers is? You say you want to – the Secretary wants to increase the number of refugees that are admitted, so what is the range you’re looking at and what does that cost? And then it seems that part of the problem is vetting, in that the UN has submitted a list but it takes a long time to vet these people. Are you looking at committing more resources to speed up that vetting process? Thank you.”

As someone who spent four years investigating the federal government’s use of so-called credibility assessment technologies in places like Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, I’m more aware than most of the capabilities that exist within our defense and intelligence agencies for conducting background checks and vetting (a.k.a., “screening”) foreign nationals. That awareness makes me more than a bit interested in the response of an unidentified “senior State Department official” to Gordon’s question. It appears below with acronyms deciphered by yours truly:

“The Secretary talked about a range of different numbers, but I will not be sharing them with you today. And there was varying views within the group from the judiciary committees of the House and Senate about how receptive they were to increasing the numbers of refugees coming.

“And the process to bring refugees here is careful and deliberate, and that’s – as a result, it takes a while. It takes between 18 to 24 months between when a refugee is referred to us and when they – if approved, when they end up arriving in the United States. And a big reason for this is the care that’s put into the security vetting for them. It involves several aspects. Part of it is that every refugee has their sort of case file put together with help from organizations that we fund overseas, and then those files and the refugees’ families themselves are interviewed by someone from the Department of Homeland Security, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. And then we also check their names against a whole series of U.S. Government databases to make sure that they’re not already in there – some sort of derogatory information about them.

“What we’re trying to do is weed out people who are liars, who are criminals, or would-be terrorists. And this is something that slows down the process and it’s taken very seriously by everyone involved in it.”

The response, especially the description of the security vetting process having “several aspects” and being “careful and deliberate,” reminds me of what I was told repeatedly over a period of several months in 2012 by U.S. military public affairs officers speaking on behalf of the now-defunct International Security Assistance Force, precursor to the Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. An excerpt from a July 12, 2012, statement appears below:

“We (ISAF) have today, just as we discussed back in April, advise the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) in assisting them to develop improvements to the overall vetting and recruitment process for the ANSF. The 8-step vetting process, which we have discussed in the past, is the result of our advising on this issue. Just like everything else that we (ISAF) advise on in Afghanistan, it is an ongoing and continuous process. We continually advise our Afghan partners on ways to improve processes. Again, the Afghans have the lead and are responsible for vetting their recruits into their security forces.”

Two months after receiving the statement above via email, I learned Afghans had not been in charge of all of the vetting taking place in that country. Instead, U.S. Army personnel were doing much of the vetting and, by September 2012, had grown “increasingly frustrated” with the eight-step vetting process that turned out to be largely ineffective at stopping so-called “Green-on-Blue” or “Insider” attacks, the often-deadly surprise attacks waged against U.S. and coalition forces by allegedly-trustworthy Afghans wearing the uniforms of Afghan military, police or security agencies.

And therein lies the problem with vetting 10,000 Syrian refugees, a group Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, described as “clearly a population of concern” during a meeting of the House Committee on Homeland Security last week. [UPDATE at 7:55 p.m. Central: UK Prime Minister David Cameron has been warned that two out of every 100 Syrian refugees are Islamic State fighters.]

If federal government officials are not willing to subject Syrian refugees to the same highly-effective interrogation technology that was used to interrogate members of Saddam Hussein’s inner circle (a.k.a., “The Deck of Cards”) as well as hundreds of al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and other detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere around the world, then we might as well plan to see a significant increase in the number of terror attacks waged on U.S. soil.

At a bare minimum, we will likely see more cities experience the types of refugee problems the folks in Minneapolis are facing.

Click on image above to order a copy of The Clapper Memo by Bob McCarty.

Click on image above to order a copy of The Clapper Memo by Bob McCarty.

To learn more about the no-touch, no-torture, no-pain non-polygraph interrogation technology that was used with great success before its use by Department of Defense personnel was banned in October 2007 by James R. Clapper Jr., then Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and now Director of National Intelligence (i.e., nation’s top intelligence official), visit TheClapperMemo.com. There, you’ll find an overview of my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo, as well as several stellar endorsements the book has received. FYI: You’ll also be able to order a copy of the book!

h/t Zero Hedge

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.

Bob McCarty Weekly Recap: Aug. 23-29, 2015

Though I produced only a handful of articles during the period, I consider the past week a bountiful one worthy of another weekly recap.

"Green-on-Blue" Casualties: Capt. Matthew D. Roland, 27, and Staff Sgt. Forrest B. Sibley, 31.

“Green-on-Blue” Casualties: Capt. Matthew D. Roland, 27, and Staff Sgt. Forrest B. Sibley, 31.

On Monday, I republished an article under the headline, CODE RED: No Easy Day for Green Beret on Witness Stand. It’s a piece I had shared on the same day two years earlier about Army Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart‘s time on the witness stand during his military trial in 2009. Combined with the events that took place before and after the highly-decorated Green Beret combat veteran’s trial, it makes for hair-raising drama inside my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August.

Because financial news was dominating the headlines, I also shared a pertinent excerpt from my first crime-fiction novel, The National Bet, with my Facebook friends on Monday. It includes President Barack Obama saying this:

“So, what does that mean? It means this: if you have an IRA, a 401K, a pension or any other type of retirement plan, it means it will now be held in trust, safe, by the United States Government. And it means you can sleep comfortably tonight knowing it is safe.”

You can read the rest of the piece under the headline, Book Excerpt: Obama Shocks Nation With Executive Order.

On Tuesday, I received life-changing news that will significantly impact my future and my family’s future. Though I cannot reveal details, I can say that it will allow me to continue to write.

Also on Tuesday, I shared a video with my Facebook friends that I had shared with readers of this site seven years earlier. It’s a CNN interview with President Obama’s Kenyan half-brother, George Hussein Onyango Obama, who was living in a hut in a Nairobi slum. I’ll leave it up to you to decide what to make of it.

On Wednesday, I became privy to details about one of the most shocking cases of military injustice ever. As a result, I spent much of that day and the rest of the week digesting dozens of pages of documents. On Thursday, I shared the first details of the case under the headline, Army Lawyer Surfaces in New Bogus Prosecution Effort. You’ll want to stay tuned as I plan to offer extensive pre-trial reporting on the case before it goes to trial in October.

After learning about the “Green-on-Blue” attack deaths of two U.S. Air Force members in Afghanistan Thursday, I recalled the deaths of three young Marines in a similar incident three years earlier. Published Friday, the piece appears under the headline, Preventable ‘Green-on-Blue’ Attack Costs Two American Lives, and points readers to the place where they can learn how such attacks could have been prevented, my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo.

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.

Preventable ‘Green-on-Blue’ Attack Costs Two American Lives

Two U.S. Airmen were killed early Thursday in Afghanistan in what appears to have been another “Green-on-Blue (a.k.a., ‘Insider’)” attack at Camp Antonik in Helmand province. According to an Air Force news release, Capt. Matthew D. Roland, 27, and Staff Sgt. Forrest B. Sibley, 31, were at a vehicle checkpoint when two individuals wearing Afghan National Defense and Security Forces uniforms opened fire on them. NATO service members returned fire and killed the shooters.

"Green-on-Blue" Casualties: Capt. Matthew D. Roland, 27, and Staff Sgt. Forrest B. Sibley, 31.

“Green-on-Blue” Casualties: Capt. Matthew D. Roland, 27, and Staff Sgt. Forrest B. Sibley, 31.

The attack on the special tactics experts came three years and 17 days after three Marines, Staff Sgt. Scott Dickinson, Lance Cpl. Greg Buckley Jr. and Cpl. Richard Rivera Jr., died as a result of a similar attack at Forward Operating Base Delhi. And it comes as only the most recent attack among dozens of attacks over the years that have resulted in hundreds of American and coalition casualties, including at least 150 dead and 186 wounded.

Believing they had been systematically misled about the death of their loved one at the hands of an Afghan “ally” during the days and weeks following the attack, family members of Lance Corporal Buckley filed a lawsuit against DoD seeking only information, not money. The complaint, according to a Washington Post report, was filed Oct. 16, 2014, in U.S. District Court in New York, and named the Department of Defense, the Navy Department and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service as defendants. In addition, it named Gen. James F. Amos, the now-retired commandant of the Marine Corps as defendants. The lawsuit is still active, according to Lance Corporal Buckley’s aunt, MaryLiz Grossetto, whom I contacted today by phone.

News of the lawsuit brought back memories of Grossetto’s response to a question — Should families of U.S. Soldiers be able to sue Department of Defense? — I raised Aug. 23, 2013, and posted on the Facebook page dedicated to her 21-year-old nephew who was killed during a “Green-on-Blue” (a.k.a., “Insider”) attack in Afghanistan Aug. 10, 2012.

Click on image above to read article.

Click on image above to read article.

Excerpts from her response appear below with only minor edits:

Bob, if you had asked anyone in my family that question a year ago I’m pretty sure the answer would have been “NO.”

What a difference a year makes!

A year ago, I would have thought, “God forbid something happens, that’s the risk you were willing to take.”

Of course, a year ago I was under the mistaken impression that this country was doing all it could to protect & provide for our military. Sadly, today I know that is not the case. This administration is more concerned with how the Afghans will perceive things than making sure our own men are as safe as possible.

Having learned a lot during the first year after her nephew’s death, Grossetto asked and answered some pointed questions late in her response:

Did we take measures to ensure our military would be safe? Did we order our men to carry loaded weapons at all times? Did we provide “Guardian Angels” to watch over our soldiers when they were most vulnerable? NO! WHY? Because we were too busy handing out pamphlets & ordering our soldiers to attend “culture & sensitivity training” so our heroes would not “offend” Afghans.

Did we use the best, most advanced equipment when it came to vetting these Afghan soldiers / police? NO!

Have we thoroughly investigated what happened to Extortion 17? NO!

Have we investigated & spoken the truth about Benghazi? NO!

Grossetto concluded her response this way:

So, in answer to your question, I guess we should start suing. Maybe that will help this administration get it’s priorities in order! Until Then, God Help Us All!

After reading my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo, Grossetto recognized how I had connected the dots between three memos — including one issued by James R. Clapper Jr., now the nation’s top intelligence official — and the toll from Green-on-Blue attacks like the one that killed her nephew. In addition, she offered the following endorsement of my book:

“Read this book & you will see how our government has for many, many years deprived our military of the best possible tool for vetting & weeding out the enemy.”MaryLiz Grossetto.

Grossetto’s endorsement joined those of five others, including a former U.S. Navy SEALs commander, a former U.S. Army general, the parents of a member of the U.S. Navy’s SEAL TEAM SIX and the man who served as chief investigative counsel during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Read their conclusions about the book here.

To learn more about The Clapper Memo, read other posts about the book.

To understand everything I’ve uncovered, including details about how “Green-on-Blue” attacks can be prevented, order a copy of The Clapper Memo.

SEE ALSO:

Did Pentagon Do Enough to Prevent ‘Green-on-Blue’ Attacks? Questions Remain on Third Anniversary of Deadly Attack;

News About Lawsuit Filed By Marine’s Family Gains Traction;

Veteran Interrogator’s Words Strike Chord With Author;

Family Members of Fallen Marine File Lawsuit Against DoD.; and

DoD Still Keeping Best Vetting Technology From Warfighters.

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.

Did Pentagon Do Enough to Prevent ‘Green-on-Blue’ Attacks? Questions Remain on Third Anniversary of Deadly Attack

Three years ago today, LCpl. Greg Buckley Jr., a 21-year-old Marine from Oceanside, N.Y., died along with two fellow Marines following a “Green-on-Blue” (a.k.a., “Insider”) attack waged by an Afghan “ally” wearing the uniform of his country.  Almost one year after his death, his aunt, Mary Liz Grossetto, commented on an item I had posted on the Facebook page dedicated to her nephew. It had to do with an article about family members of British service members winning the right to sue their government over their loved ones’ combat deaths which they believed were linked to bad equipment. Excerpts from her comments appear below with only minor edits:

LCpl. Greg Buckley Jr., USMC

LCpl. Greg Buckley Jr., USMC

Bob, if you had asked anyone in my family that question a year ago I’m pretty sure the answer would have been “NO.”

What a difference a year makes!

A year ago, I would have thought, “God forbid something happens, that’s the risk you were willing to take.”

Of course, a year ago I was under the mistaken impression that this country was doing all it could to protect & provide for our military. Sadly, today I know that is not the case. This administration is more concerned with how the Afghans will perceive things than making sure our own men are as safe as possible.

Grossetto came to understand a lot during that first year after her nephew died.  Later in her response, she asked and answered some pointed questions:

Did we take measures to ensure our military would be safe?  Did we order our men to carry loaded weapons at all times?  Did we provide “Guardian Angels” to watch over our soldiers when they were most vulnerable? NO! WHY? Because we were too busy handing out pamphlets & ordering our soldiers to attend “culture & sensitivity training” so our heroes would not “offend” Afghans.

Did we use the best, most advanced equipment when it came to vetting these Afghan soldiers / police? NO!

Have we thoroughly investigated what happened to Extortion 17? NO!

Have we investigated & spoken the truth about Benghazi? NO!

She concluded her response this way:

So, in answer to your question (about whether families of fallen service members should be able to sue the government), I guess we should start suing.  Maybe that will help this administration get it’s priorities in order! Until Then, God Help Us All!

After our online exchange, I shared several thoughts in a post published Aug. 25, 2013. Chief among them was my fear that most Americans are more like Grossetto was before she lost her nephew in Afghanistan.  They remain largely unaware of the hardships facing American men and women in uniform, and unaware of how many of those hardships stem from misguided decisions made by top government leaders. Misguided decisions like the ones I highlight inside my second nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo.

I remain grateful to Grossetto for the endorsement below which she offered after reading The Clapper Memo and recognizing how I had connected some critical dots regarding hundreds of American “Green-on-Blue” attack casualties:

“Read this book & you will see how our government has for many, many years deprived our military of the best possible tool for vetting & weeding out the enemy.”

Four other influential people read the book and offered similarly-powerful endorsements. Among them, a former U.S. Navy SEALs commander, a former U.S. Army general, the parents of a member of the U.S. Navy’s SEAL Team Six and the man who served as chief investigative counsel during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. After you read The Clapper Memo, I think you’ll find yourself in agreement with them. Thanks in advance!

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.

Have You Ever Wondered Why DoD Relies on the Polygraph?

EDITOR’S NOTE: The article below first appeared on this site Aug. 7, 2013. Several months later, it vanished — along with nearly 5,000 others written and published since October 2006 — as detailed in a post eight months ago. Today, I rescued it from where it appears on an alternate site in order to share it below with only minor modifications. Please read and share.

Click image above to order a copy of The Clapper Memo.

Click image above to order a copy of The Clapper Memo.

You’ve probably never wondered why the Department of Defense relies so heavily on the polygraph.  Likewise, you’ve probably never thought about how polygraph technology has maintained its place as the only DoD-approved credibility assessment technology.  After reading the details in my latest nonfiction book, The Clapper Memo, you’ll know why and how.

On no fewer than three occasions since 2004, top DoD officials — including Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper while he was serving as Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence in 2007 — have declared the polygraph to be the only such technology approved for use by DoD personnel.  Though many on the front lines, including elite U.S. Special Operations personnel I interviewed for the book, ignored the DoD declarations for as long as they possibly could (see Sample Chapter for details), the Pentagon’s polygraph-only stance remains in place today and is having an often-deadly impact in the form of “Green-on-Blue” attacks against American and Coalition Forces personnel in Afghanistan.

Part of the blame for DoD’s polygraph-only stance lies in the fact that DoD officials withheld critical information from members of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee when they were conducting an inquiry into the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and at other detention facilities in Iraq (i.e., Abu Ghraib, Camp Cropper and Camp Bucca) in 2008. That inquiry resulted in the publication of an unclassified 263-page report, “INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY,” dated November 20, 2008.

That wasn’t all they kept to themselves.  DoD officials also withheld critical information about an Air Force talking paper on Relevant/Irrelevant Screening Tests (R/IST) conducted on detainees in the Iraqi theater of operations from Aug. 1, 2004, to Oct. 15, 2006.

Notable among the 50-page document’s results, found after conducting polygraph tests on 768 detainees, was the finding that “detainee personnel are just as likely to have committed the suspected act as not.” That finding stemmed from the fact that 47 percent of the tests yielded “No Deception Indicated” results while 46 percent yielded “Deception Indicated” and seven percent “No Opinion.”

In addition to the fact the tests yielded results showing polygraph no more effective than flipping a coin, a quarter of the polygraph examiners surveyed pointed out problems posed by language barriers.

“The Arabic language itself presents an obstacle due to the different translations and dialect and at times the wrong translation of the question was noted by other interpreters,” one examiner said.

“Many interpreters were not fluent in the written Arabic language, precluding them being used by polygraph,” another reported. “They could not translate questions from English to Arabic and back again.”

“I was fortunate to have had motivated interpreters,” a third responded.  “Without them we can’t do the job (without language/culture knowledge).”

A fourth examiner reported, “there was definitely a difference in the level of interpreter experience. Some knew the language and some had a hard time.”

Click image above to order book.

Click image above to order book.

In The Clapper Memo, the 268-page product of an exhaustive four-year investigation, I highlight the fact that a non-polygraph technology was used at GITMO more than 90 times and achieved a success rate — defined as developing new, previously-unknown intelligence which was independently confirmed or confirmed existing information that otherwise could not be verified — of 92 percent despite the fact most exams were conducted using interpreters.

Now, I ask again:  Have you ever wondered how polygraph technology has maintained its position as the only Department of Defense-approved credibility assessment technology?

In their endorsement of The Clapper Memo, Gold Star parents Billy and Karen Vaughn used words such as “dirty little secrets of politics and greed” and “filthy backroom deals” to describe events and actions that have enabled the polygraph to remain DoD’s credibility assessment technology of choice.  The Vaughns lost their son, U.S. Navy SEAL Aaron Carson Vaughn, two years and one day ago in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan that is the subject of a soon-to-be-published book, BETRAYED: The Shocking True Story of Extortion 17 as told by a Navy SEAL’s Father, co-authored by Billy.

Retired U.S. Navy SEAL Capt. Larry W. Bailey, co-founder of Special Operations Speaks and former commander of the U.S. Navy SEALs Basic Underwater Demoliton/SEALs (“BUD/S”) Training Program, describes what I uncovered in The Clapper Memo as “an unconscionable cover-up.”

Others have endorsed it, too, but you should judge for yourself!  Order a copy of The Clapper Memo today!

SEE ALSO:  Horrific Tragedy Ensues After AC-130 Gunship Crew Denied Opportunity to Engage Afghan ‘Squirters’ in Tangi Valley.

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.