Description

Seymour Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and author, discusses his article “The Killing of Osama bin Laden,” detailing the Obama administration’s lies about the 2011 assassination of bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • Decades from now, when the leading political figures of this era are dead or dying and will thus not be prosecuted for anything, classified information from this era will be released. This will show that Ambassador Chris Stevens either knew something, did something, or was about to do something that the Obama regime hated. Killing one’s own ambassador would be political suicide, but when violence broke out in Benghazi, Obama, Clinton, and the rest chose not to let a crisis go to waste.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • The Drone Papers The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military’s assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama’s drone wars.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Here’s a discussion I had yesterday with my accountant. He claims that “we” need to have “legal certainty” to encourage other ti invest in our economy. And that Patents are “legal certainty”. Companies spend large amounts of money and time to do research and to innovate. While others just “copy” what the researchers, the investigators, the investors, generate: new products, new technologies, new medicine, whatever. Therefore, the innovators/investigators/investors will want protection: And if they didn’t have protection of their “creations”, “discoveries”, “inventions” or whatever you’d want to call it, the would not have the INCENTIVE to invest tons of funds on investigation, innovation and research. And therefore there would be no progress. What do you guys think? Your opinion is highly appreciated!

    Jump to Discussion Post 29 replies
  • Per the Times: A 2010 Pentagon directive on military support to civilian authorities details what critics say is a troubling policy that envisions the Obama administration’s potential use of military force against Americans. The directive contains noncontroversial provisions on support to civilian fire and emergency services, special events and the domestic use of the Army Corps of Engineers. The troubling aspect of the directive outlines presidential authority for the use of military arms and forces, including unarmed drones, in operations against domestic unrest. “This appears to be the latest step in the administration’s decision to use force within the United States against its citizens,” said a defense official opposed to the directive. Directive No. 3025.18, “Defense Support of Civil Authorities,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. commanders “are provided emergency authority under this directive.” “Federal military forces shall not be used to quell civil disturbances unless specifically authorized by the president in accordance with applicable law or permitted under emergency authority,” the directive states. “In these circumstances, those federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the president is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances” under two conditions. The conditions include military support needed “to prevent significant loss of life or wanton destruction of property and are necessary to restore governmental function and public order.” A second use is when federal, state and local authorities “are unable or decline to provide adequate protection for federal property or federal governmental functions.” “Federal action, including the use of federal military forces, is authorized when necessary to protect the federal property or functions,” the directive states. Military assistance can include loans of arms, ammunition, vessels and aircraft. The directive states clearly that it is for engaging civilians during times of unrest. A U.S. official said the Obama administration considered but rejected deploying military force under the directive during the recent standoff with Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his armed supporters. Mr. Bundy is engaged in a legal battle with the federal Bureau of Land Management over unpaid grazing fees. Along with a group of protesters, Mr. Bundy in April confronted federal and local authorities in a standoff that ended when the authorities backed down. The Pentagon directive authorizes the secretary of defense to approve the use of unarmed drones in domestic unrest. But it bans the use of missile-firing unmanned aircraft. “Use of armed [unmanned aircraft systems] is not authorized,” the directive says. The directive was signed by then-Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn. A copy can be found on the Pentagon website: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/302518p.pdf. The story continues. To read the rest: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/28/inside-the-ring-directive-outlines-obamas-policy-t/ Who’s shocked? Not this gal.

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies