typnPwViLaZw xVDI0MpmlJ4YW6 PVtzme1nzKd6

SOCOM's OPLAN71 not first Anti Terrorist Special Opps Group.
First Special Opps Group consisted of MP's and SF combined and trained together in W. Germany and they worked out of NATO Site 35 in Kitzigen W. Germany and was in full opperation in 1979 through 1981 when I was part of that group.
One of our assignments was taking out terrorists responcible for Beruit Embasey hostage takings in 1979 and the the people behind the Octoberfest bombing in W. Germany 1980 I think it was.
In 79-80 I and my unit had 243 confirmed kills which were all government sanctioned.
I Received Army Meritorious Service Medal for my part in this.

In regards to the following statement made by 54_Dzippo;
quote:
"The Curtiss-Wright Case .--Further Court support of the Hamiltonian view was advanced in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 28 in which Justice Sutherland posited the doctrine that the power of the National Government in foreign relations is not one of enumerated but of inherent powers; 29 this doctrine was then combined with Hamilton's contention that control of foreign relations is exclusively an executive function with obvious implications for the power of the President."

The United States Supreme Court ruled that even illegal alliens and illegal imigrants have the same rights to equal protection under our Laws and Constitution of the United States of America.

* Propaganda/psyops
* shoot/bomb brown people
* destroy local agriculture/economy
* sell arms to rivals
* attack civilians
* pillage, loot, leave troops behind indefinitely

Isn't this just what we usually do?

This is amazing! You start out by saying this is a TOP SECRET plan, highlight its 6 strategice objectives (an outline) and then end with saying "I'm not asking for much here though. It seems if the government now "has a plan" for defeating terrorists, they should at least tell us the outlines of what it is."

If the military gave you any more of the outline of the plan - the "how" they plan to execute the plan - it wouldn't seem to be TOP SECRET anymore. It would be out there in the open for you and anyone else with idle curiousity to read - or not so idle in the case of our enemies.

Seems to me an education in classification levels such as TOP SECRET would be something you need to dig into and understand a bit better.

SOCOM is doomed before it starts. Thousands of those primitives riot across the globe because of CARTOONS! We need to act as the Romans did- educate their next generation in our universities, expose them to the benefits of the modern world, which isn't ALL good, then send them home to change their own countries, after the youngsters inherit. The Israelis proved that killing individuals, no matter how highly placed, DOESN'T significantly change the situation.

Posted Thu 26 January 2006 11:19
I am sorry to inform all of you that from what I see the President is in violation of the law and the 4th Amendment.
Unfortunately I believe after reading the "Patriot Act" that the President is required by law to have had a warrant issued for each and every wiretap, computer surveillance and all other surveillances that have been done on American soil either to citizens or non-citizens. Surveillance of any kind can be done during time of war on foreign soil as long as that the countries government does not catch you. Hence the existence of the CIA and NSA.
It is also my belief that the alleged terrorists that have already been convicted will be set free on appeal because as my Law Professor said they used " Fruit of the Poison Tree" as evidence to convict those terrorists. Granted this is not good for our country or the prosecution as that "Double Jeopardy" will apply and we will not be able to convict them again.
This unfortunately will be George W. Bush's downfall to impeachment and conviction without a doubt.
You can argue and debate between yourselves all day but it does not and will not change the future of this situation. After reading other threads I think you call it Military.com I will apologize now for my poor English, grammar and spelling. I admit that I have a G.E.D. and that I never finished High School. And over the years I have tried to continue my education in college. I am currently studying law.
I am not here to pick a fight with anyone. And I will not take part in the attacking of others on this forum. I will on occasion read this forum again. I thought that a legal point of view even if it falls short of that that would come from a Lawyer would be appreciated.
Have a nice day.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Wed 25 January 2006

outlaws93
Dodging the Hurricane

Posted Thu 26 January 2006 11:36
you only wish....
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Thu 18 August 2005

54D_Zippo
When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will

Posted Thu 26 January 2006 12:32
quote:
violation of the 4th Amendment
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." It is also generally considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government.

First Our Constitution guarantees certain rights to American Citizens not to foreign governments, groups or individuals.
FISA Law of 1978 has never been tested in court as to its legality.
Many Constitutional Legal Authorities that there may be a Contitutional Violation of Executive Powers by FISA in it's requirements, formalities, and attempeted limitation of power and duty of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch as well as other legal issues. FISC Appeal

quote:
The Curtiss-Wright Case .--Further Court support of the Hamiltonian view was advanced in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 28 in which Justice Sutherland posited the doctrine that the power of the National Government in foreign relations is not one of enumerated but of inherent powers; 29 this doctrine was then combined with Hamilton's contention that control of foreign relations is exclusively an executive function with obvious implications for the power of the President.
Posts: 2240 | Registered: Wed 05 March 2003

Sp4MP
Basic Training

Posted Thu 26 January 2006 13:33
xtnkr
Basic Training
Posted Thu 26 January 2006 13:02
quote:
Originally posted by RockyMarne:
To agree with Bush is to be fundementally at odds with what makes America a unique country.A country where we don't have to justify our actions to our government,but where our government must justify its actions to us.

Rocky: I couldn't agree with you more. The FISA Court process was set up to give the President the flexibility to do what he and his advisors felt was necessary to defend this country, and then register the activity with the court to request the appropriate type warrant up to 3-days AFTER THE FACT! There is something fundamentally wrong with the notion that we should lay down our fundamental rights to anyone, for any reason. Benjamin Franklin once said something to the effect of "any man who is willing to trade his fredom for security does not deserve either." It makes me cringe when I hear GW spout off about his legal authority to play the domestic spy game without follwing the FISA protocol. Nixon was nearly impeached, and ultimately resigned in disgrace for taking the same liberties, and trying to justify illegal wire-taps and other activities with the same lame 'national security' excuse. We need to be wary of everything coming out of the Oval Office on this one. It stinks like last year's kimchi, and I don't buy the crap about briefing Congress on his activities being a get out of jail free card. Was Congress also briefed on the administration's repeated failure to seek FISA court approval for the activities that they "reported" to congress? I really doubt that part made it into the briefing script. War President or not, I don't buy the line we're being fed on this issue. My loyalty is to the Constitution, not those who would shred it, right before our un-seeing eyes....
Posts: 12 | Registered: Wed 27 July 2005

Sp4MP
Basic Training

Posted Thu 26 January 2006 13:16
It is a case for the courts proving at least one of the victims takes it to court.
All of the alleged terrorists that have been convicted are Appealing their convictions therefore it has been taken to court.
As I explained earlier the illegally obtained evidence commonly called "Fruit of the Poison Tree" by lawyers and judges would be the only thing they need to have their convictions overturned.
A sad day for our country when it happens but it will because that is how our Judicial System works.
And at that point they cannot be tried again because of the Double Jeopardy rule of law.
President George Walker Bush should be impeached for TREASON also for aiding the terrorists in their attacks on the United States of America as that he in his illegal actions has in fact aided the terrorists to be able to get away with what they have done to our country.

quote:
Originally posted by mrobinso:
I'm going to keep this post as professional and respectful as possible, so lets keep the name calling down and the reasoned discourse moving. It seems to me that there are a number of issues, all of which have an impact on the legality of Pres. Bush's actions. First and foremost: are we legally at war? Notice the difference between legally and realistically. I would argue that realistically we are and have been at war for some time. Legally, it is a much more muddled issue. There has not been a declaration of war from congress. There has been a joint authorisation for the use of military force. Unfortunately, in the legal sense, that is not the same thing. A declaration of war probably would expand the president's powers to allow what has ocurred. I don't think, given the history of joint authorisations that they do. The philosophical difference between a declaration of war and an authorisation is this: a declaration of war is the unconditional committment of the United States and all its resources to defeat a particular nation or group. An authorisation of military force is just that, an act that enables the president to use the military in pursuit of the foreign policy of the U.S. While there is a very good case to be made that war should have been declared in the aftermath of September 11th, the fact is that for whatever reason, it was not.
The next issue is whether or not pragmatic considerations justify something that may or may not be legal. I am going to be very cynical here in my own views. It seems that Pres. Bush made a gamble when he implemented this program. If it had stayed secret, he might very well, a decade from now, been hailed as a leader with the balls to do the questionable thing because it saved lives. He may very still well be known as that... None of us are mind readers after all. At the point at which the program was outed while it was still running, Pres. Bush's gamble had failed. One possible interpretation of the fact that Bush briefed the senate select committee(s) is that he was trying to do just that, keep it under wraps in the highest echelons of the government till such time as it was no longer needed.
The third issue is whether or not the courts actually have a place in this discussion. For better or worse, the courts can only intervene when a case is appealed to appear before them. As far as I can tell, this has not happened in this case because of the fact that the surveilence has been kept secret. That is to say, the people don't know they're being spied on, so they don't think they have any cause to resort to the courts. Furthermore, until this hit the news, many of them probably did not have the knowledge to accurately file an appeal because they did not know what the program was.
I apologize if I made my own opinion too blatant in the above post, but I thought it might be interesting to hear some rational discussion on those points. On a personal level, I agree that it has probably done some good, but the US is not a country that runs purely on pragmatic considerations. If we did, we certainly wouldn't have many of the rights we do, as they give our government headaches day in and day out. I would also have a lot less of a problem with this program if I didn't think it was a dangerous expansion of the executive branch's powers without the ability of the judiciary or legislature to check it.
Flame away if you like, but I've tried to avoid rhetoric and stick to reasoned writing as much as possible.
Posts: 12 | Registered: Wed 25 January 2006

quote:
Originally posted by 54D_Zippo:

quote:
violation of the 4th Amendment
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor. Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." It is also generally considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government.

First Our Constitution guarantees certain rights to American Citizens not to foreign governments, groups or individuals.
FISA Law of 1978 has never been tested in court as to its legality.
Many Constitutional Legal Authorities that there may be a Contitutional Violation of Executive Powers by FISA in it's requirements, formalities, and attempeted limitation of power and duty of the Executive Branch by the Legislative Branch as well as other legal issues. FISC Appeal

quote:
The Curtiss-Wright Case .--Further Court support of the Hamiltonian view was advanced in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 28 in which Justice Sutherland posited the doctrine that the power of the National Government in foreign relations is not one of enumerated but of inherent powers; 29 this doctrine was then combined with Hamilton's contention that control of foreign relations is exclusively an executive function with obvious implications for the power of the President.
Posts: 13 | Registered: Wed 25 January 2006

We're in trouble if this is Rummy's brain? child. When RR was pres. and before mother Russia imploded, Rummy and Dick devised a plan that would result in the two of them, plus, running the US from separate mile-deep bunkers somewhere. (Of course, I think, presuming the p. and v.p. were dead.) The moment it was known that Russia had launched nukes in our direction, Rummy and Dick, separately, would be picked up, rushed to an air field, launched, fly, land, be picked up, rushed to their bunkers, descend and begin to run the country. Apparently they had never read that from launch to targets took 20 minutes. Nor had they read that no food could be grown in the resulting contaminated soil for 100 years. And then there's the water supply....(Even their wives knew nothing of this demented scheme.) On the other hand, if the p. and/or v.p. were not killed outright, he/she/they would be launched in Airforce I, from where they would run the country, flying east to west, north to south over this "perfectly intact" nation of ours, endlessly. Apparently they'd never run out of food, water, fuel. Communication systems would still be operational. Ground crews etc. would be impervious to bombs, fall-out etc.???? I repeat, if this is Rummy's brain?child we're not only in trouble, we're in deep shit.

Pretty scary to think special ops could foment "enemies" in a borderless, endless war, and thus give rise to a reason for the masses to fear/cower and condone/approve mass increases in military budgets and power, the latter including unprecedented presidential power. It is so horrific to imagine that it is much easier to remain in denial and become diverted and entertained elsewhere.

I am sure Arkin's worries are unfounded. In a couple of days or a month the administration will present its plan in whichever form acceptable to the Pentagon. Transparancy has its limits, and laws have expiration dates. SOCOM cannot opeate within the outdated regulatory framework of congressional oversight which leads to endless leaks to the media, undermining america's military effectiveness.

History has shown we may have the biggest intelligence, but also the most irresponsible journalists.

If these posts are any indication, Americans are polarized into two angry camps - pro-war and anti-war. There is nothing to say to the pro-war camp. But those against war, please don't forget that you can always take action in your individual self-interest by eliminating your war tax. It's very easy when you grown your own food, build your own house, and get yourself out of debt. But if you don't reduce your war tax, then you have communicated something very loud and clear with your wallet: Your consent for perpetual war.

suck

yo u suck girrrr!

yo u suck girrrr!

Nice to see that the mere mention of Special Forces no longer has people wetting their pants in awe.
This sounds like a program for state terrorism.

Kudos to Bojangles for defending the English language from the doublethinkers and Newspeakers.

Another Post repoter who thinks mental masturbation is informative and acurate. These guys are idiots....good thing we dont have to rely on them to produce something of need.

Arkin, I don't know where you've been, but the Afghan war was lead by Special Ops, which also lead the way in Iraq. They've also been extremely active in the Horn of Africa. Do your research before you write drivel. You're paid enough money to at least be right.

I think it's always important to give rich people better ways to 'uk you....

hello twinkie, you wanto kick some ass go down to miami and start insulting some hispanics or be a real man and insult someone that is armed when you're not....

you're a fool back off...

To Soldier of Fortune.

After this government has been known to use taxpayer $s for propaganda, both here and abroad, secretly monitor us outside of the law when the law already allowed for it, enact a series of infringements on our Constitutional rights and have the audacity to call it the Patriot Act, detain US citizens without due process, detain foreigners with some new customized "enemy combatants" category and hold them without ANY respect to international law, protect the President's right to secrecy regarding things like energy policy and now the weather (in the pre-Katrina debate in another part of today's paper), how can anyone think that with all the secrecy that this administration operates under that allowing them to have a secret army fighting around the world is, in some way, a good idea? How many other readers out there just read the above list and thought of a couple infringements of their own?

Don't give me 9-11. If they attacked us because of our freedoms then why are we limiting our freedoms? Isn't that, by definition, handing them a victory?

Do you know what the Constitution is? Have you read it? This administration had 5 Supreme Court cases in one session in 2004. Those are, by definition, challenges to Constitutional law. This administration is a sworn enemy to your rights. Every libertarian and NRA member should be way more alarmed at having their basic abilities to communicate infringed upon then from making sure felons can't buy guns.

Wake up! Read your Constitution and see for yourself how adversarial this administration is to our founding father's intentions. In case you haven't read it in a while the first amendment of the Constitution starts like this, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion".

Peace.

Point of order - since this admin is so successful at framing the lingo everyone uses regarding the "war in Iraq" I wish to make a point to change the vernacular.

This is NOT a war. We won the war in Iraq in the first few weeks when we scattered the army, seized the capital and toppled the government. War over (dare I say: Mission Accomplished). This is an occupation. One in which the military is being used to affect political, social, economic changes for which they are simply not trained.

I suggest that this columnist, and all who care to be more precise, call this the "occupation of Iraq". Let the government continue with their "enemy combatants" and "detainees" which is in lieu of, ironically, "prisoner of war" (it's a war when they want it to be and something else altogether when it serves a purpose). We should not succumb.

The "occupation of Iraq" is not part of the "war on terror" since terrorists had no real ties to Iraq. Calling it a war when the gov't does not acknowledge prisoners of war, nor the ongoing misuse of the military, is worthy of correction.

OPLAN 71 sounds like a great plan - in lieu of invading Iraq.

With the occupation at a pretty high smolder how on earth is anyone going to keep track of this operation? How would Americans feel if Venezuela sent a hellfire missle from a drone plane and obliterated Pat Robertson for his comments about Chavez? I wouldn't like it.

How do Americans think it makes other countries feel when secret ops and attacks are carried out without respect to the rights of their governments?

Secret ops in theory good, in practice bad.

hey interesting development, neh!? Are you a Harry Belafonte fan? Are you going to call Colin Powell a terrorist next? I think its a great idea to allow the Special Forces the ability to act secretly. That way they can intersect more terrorists when they are least expecting it. If we give the Special Forces the chance to work unrestricted instead of having to get everything approved by fifty-three different people before they act then the terrorist will have less opportunity to avoid the sniper's bullet! Instead of complaining, why don't you all realize that the only reason you have the ability to write these idiotic messages is the freedom that the military and the special forces provide for you.

This has been a LONG TIME in returning to Special Forces Operations. Long ago, in a foreign land(s), SF operations were outside of the Army Chain of Command. Between 1961-1962 (Switch Back) all S.F. operations were brough back into the Army's chain of command. S.F. operators, teams, and groups longer operated independently. They became support troops for Westmorland et al.

Perhaps a new Bright Star is appearing on the horizon.

sounds like their expanding their advertising campaigne to use the United States Military to take over a region of the world and mail them Walmart stores.

What part of this is not transparent?

Am I just smarter than the rest of the people in the United States or is it that you're all so stupid?

How is this any different than the "Indian Wars?"

Where we rape pillage, steal and destroy an entire civilization and say....

"HEY, they're attacking us!!!!!!!!!!!"

THEY are uncivilized, savages, terroristas....

I say arrest the bush congress and the white hoser staff and let's declare the war over.....we'd have captured the 'effing terrorists....sell their lands, sell their connections riches and reimburse the united states government for the losses incurred and let the people enjoy the riches that THEIR LIVES have paid for.............windfall profits on oil.....

I bet there's some bush related friends that mad e money on oil futures......

DONTYOU THINK????????

DON'T YOU GET IT.....YOUR LIVES, not THEIRS are paying for them to become RICHER>>>>>>>

THEY ARE SPENDING YOUR MONEY AND MANIPULATING MARKETS while tootling on about patriotism, mom, and what ever turns your stupid little hamster wheel....

emotional ploys.

WAKE UP.

does "Establish conditions that counter ideological support for terrorism." mean that they can actively participate in propaganda camaigns, intimidating protesters, lobby for congressional support (creating a back door for lobbyists), 'eliminating' candidates who oppose the current regime?

I wonder what the underlying facts are.....

"Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship."
Harry S Truman

One question only: it the new unit
under the absolute control of, been urusped by Israel (the Israel First American Jews, the Necons--Wolofitz, Perle, Feith,Abrams, Libby, on and on, you know them), as
all US international policy has been these
last five years at DOD? Can the unit use nukes? Is it mostly about Iran? Goodby American values, not that they exist now.

Anything that comes out of the office of the Secretary of Defense is a disaster waiting to happen. Notice the words force, coerce, and compel. As in Iraq, These idiots are going to create terrorists where none existed before. Al-Qaida couldn't have a better recruiter than the Bush Administration.

The story referred to above is not, in fact, from WorldNetDaily; it was lifted by that site from ours, the InsideDefense.com NewsStand.

The real story can be found here:

http://defense.iwpnewsstand.com/simulate

More on the QDR here:

http://defense.iwpnewsstand.com/defensenewsstand_spclsubj.asp?s=qdr05

Will this new war plan work in places like Iran & Korea? It certainly does not seem to work in Iraq no? Nor against Osama either yes? It's like this dude learns nothing the past three years.

Good morning, Vietnam!

This sounds like Operation Phoenix is alive and well. And grown monstrously large.

Charles of Mercury Rising
http://www.phoenixwoman.blogspot.com

Just what we need - a Gestapo with a worldwide jurisdiction. And accountable to no one, beacuse the need for plausible deniability will make sure the Sec of Defense keeps the president out of the loop. We are careening toward fascism.

You are absolutely spot on with your concerns, Mr. Arkin. Our own history as a nation has shown that when the military and other more secret branches of the government operate without oversight, bad things tend to happen.

The big question I would ask if I was a Congress member: "Does OPLAN 71, which is global in nature, also have a DOMESTIC component?"