What Does The Gang of Eight Know About The Gun Running From Libya To Syrian Jihadis?

imagesCAOERYUZOn August 1, 2012 Reuters reported that President Obama had signed a “secret” presidential finding authorizing US support to the Syrian rebels that stopped short of lethal weapons. A supplemental “memorandum of notification”, or MON, would need to be added to the finding by the president in order to legalize lethal weapons support.

It has been widely reported that weapons have gone from Libya to Turkey and on to Syria. The question is was it legal? Did the president inform the “Gang of Eight” congressmen as is required by law? And do those congressmen have a duty to the American public to tell us if the president is illegally supplying arms to jihadists?

Current Members of the Gang of Eight – they all know!
John Boehner (R), Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Nancy Pelosi (D), House Minority Leader
Harry Reid (D), Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R), Senate Minority Leader
Mike Rogers (R), Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
 Dianne Feinstein (D), Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Dutch Ruppersberger (D), Ranking Minority Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Saxby Chambliss (R), Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Audio: House Speaker John Boehner knows something about CIA Annex (and he’s not telling) (shoebat.com)

Here is the relevant portion transcribed:

Ingraham: Mr. Speaker, Rand Paul asked a question about funneling perhaps arms from Turkey through that CIA Annex to be shipped ultimately to Syrian rebels. Hillary Clinton – there was about four or five beats before she answered the question. Do you know anything about this and have you been briefed on any possibilities…?

Boehner: I’m somewhat familiar with the chatter about this and the fact that these arms were moving toward Turkey but most of what I know about this came from a classified source and really can’t elaborate on it.

Excerpt of interview of retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin by Terence P.  Jeffrey: (and follow the link to the video)

CNSNews.com asked Gen. Boykin: “What possibly was the State  Department doing in Benghazi at that point with that sort of skeletal  group?”

“Well, I think that they were anticipating that they would eventually  be given a directive to support the Syrian rebels and that that would  be the hub of that activity,” said Boykin.

“So, I think they kept the facilities open, they kept them  functioning, they had somebody there that had to be there because of the  communications equipment, because of the potentially classified  material that was still there,” said Boykin. “And I think that they  stayed there in anticipation of supporting the Syrian rebels. They’d  probably been given a heads up on that.”

Boykin stressed that he could not prove that the U.S. was conducting  or planning a covert action to support the Syrian rebels that would  involve the facilities in Benghazi, only that he had information  supporting this supposition.

“Now, with regards to supporting the rebels in Syria, I can’t prove  that there was a covert action program,” said Boykin. “I’ve got a lot of  information that says there was. But if there was and it was done  legally, I have no issue with it. But if it was done without the proper  process being followed, including the Congress being notified–and  generally when the Congress is notified they appropriate money for  it–I’ve got a big issue with it because we don’t operate that way.  That’s outside of the way America should be functioning.”

In June 2011, when the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence  considered the nomination of General David Petraeus to be director of  the CIA, Petraeus submitted a written outline of the legal process for  initiating a covert action. Key elements include that the action must be  formally approved by the president and that key leaders in Congress  must be notified.

“The CIA carries out covert action on behalf of the president,”  Petraeus told the committee. “It is the president, his national security  staff, or other members of the executive branch that propose ideas for  covert action programs that will support the national security  objectives of the U.S. CIA then develops a plan for carrying out the  program, including the preparation of a draft Presidential Finding or  Memorandum of Notification (MON) and supporting paperwork.

“The CIA then submits that plan to the National Security Staff, after  coordination with the ODNI and the Intelligence Community, as  appropriate,” Petraeus said. “The proposed Finding or MON is reviewed by  the National Security Staff and then sent to the president for  approval. Once approved, and after required notification to the two  intelligence committees, the president typically will direct the CIA to  implement the program. Once implemented, the Agency itself, as well as  the NSC and the intelligence committees of Congress, review the conduct  of the program on an ongoing basis.”

Petraeus told the committee he would refuse an order to conduct an illegal covert action.

“If confirmed as Director of the CIA, I would refuse to carry out any  activity that I believed to be illegal,” he said. “As outlined above,  the CIA has an active role in the development of any covert action  program, and I intend to be a strong voice for the CIA in that process.  If I assessed that a covert action proposal would be ineffective or  otherwise unsuited to the Agency’s capabilities, I would recommend  against such a program, and, if necessary, raise my concerns directly  with the president.”

Gen. Boykin said that if there was a legal U.S. covert action in  Libya to help arm the Syrian rebels, or a plan for such an action,  Congress should inform the American people about it.

“In the context of why Ambassador Stephens was there that day, I  think that the American public needs an explanation,” said Boykin. “And  if that explanation is that he was there to meet with the Turkish  General Counsel who was helping to facilitate the flow of arms, then I  think that needs to come out.

“I do not think that the details of the covert action need to be  explained to the American public,” said Boykin. “Otherwise, why would  you have a covert action program? No, I for one don’t think we should be  supporting the rebels in Syria. There’s no good outcome in Syria but I  won’t get off on that tangent. I don’t think that they necessarily have  to explain to us exactly the mechanism or the mechanics of a covert  action program.”

Boykin said he did not believe it would harm U.S. interest for  Congress to simply reveal the fact of such a covert action without going  into the details.

“Absolutely, they could tell us,” said Boykin. “First of all if it  was legal, the Congress has been briefed so the Congress could tell you  tomorrow whether there was an operation to supply arms and material to  the rebels in Syria. If it was legal.”

When told that the CIA, in responding to his interview with  CNSNews.com, said that the supposition that the U.S. was conducting or  planning a covert action to support the Syrian rebels through Benghazi  was “both baseless and flat wrong,” Gen Boykin said: “I am totally  supportive of covert action and believe it is an important method for  advancing U.S. policy. I believe there must be an explanation for why  the ambassador was there on 9/11. I believe there has been significant  information that has come out recently calling into question whether the  ambassador was either involved in or making preparations for supplying  material to the Syrian resistance forces.”

During his 36-year career in the U.S. Army, Lt. Gen. Boykin served as  an original member of Delta Force, as the commander of Delta Force, as  the commander of U.S. Special Forces Command, as the commander of the  U.S. Army Special Forces Center and as deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence. In 1994-1995, he did a tour with the CIA. He is  currently executive vice president of the Family Research Council.

Go to CNS News to read more and listen to the entire interview

Islamophobia Propaganda Campaign at Work Eroding Freedom of Speech

Free Speech – For Some

Center for Security Policy | Jan 30, 2012
By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

According to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), there is a grave threat to America that must be suppressed at all costs.  The threat is that Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin might be allowed to exercise his constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.

This proposition is bizarre on multiple levels.  For one, General Boykin, who is a friend and greatly admired colleague of mine, is one of the United States’ most accomplished and decorated military heroes.  He served in and led our most elite special forces units for decades, including in many of our most dangerous recent combat operations.  He also held a number of senior positions in the intelligence community, including as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence.

For another, Jerry Boykin is also an ordained minister.  And the sorts of events CAIR has lately insisted he must not address include prayer sessions convened by the mayor of Ocean City, Maryland and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

What makes the suppression of General Boykin’s right to express himself – and, for that matter, to enjoy freedom of religion – all the more outrageous is the nature of the organization demanding that he be silenced.  Four federal judges have affirmed that CAIR is associated with the Muslim Brotherhood and was spawned by one of its American affiliates – the Islamic Association for Palestine.  Indeed, we know from wiretapped conversations at the time of its founding that CAIR was established by Muslim Brotherhood operatives as a political arm and fundraising mechanism for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization and the Brotherhood’s franchise in “Palestine.”

Unfortunately, CAIR and its fellow Muslim Brotherhood fronts are not simply trying to muzzle Jerry Boykin.  They have gone after a number of other truth-tellers about the doctrine the Brothers seek to insinuate into this country – the totalitarian, supremacist politico-military-legal program the Islamists call shariah. 

For example, another colleague, former Congressman Fred Grandy, was removed from his position as one of Washington’s most popular talk radio show hosts when he refused to allow Muslim critics to dictate who could appear on his program and what they could say.

Last fall, Stephen Coughlin – one of the nation’s foremost non-Muslim experts on shariah – was similarly subjected to a CAIR-led effort to deny his ability to speak.  In that case, he was denied by the Obama administration the opportunity to provide training to Central Intelligence Agency personnel about what impels our enemies to engage in murderous and stealthy forms of jihad, namely shariah.

More recently, New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has been subjected to a campaign of vilification by CAIR and its friends.  His offense?  Mr. Kelly gave an interview to the makers of a superb documentary, “The Third Jihad,” and allowed that film to be used in training his officers.

CAIR’s desire to suppress this film is not hard to understand.  After all, The Third Jihad brilliantly exposes what it and other Muslim Brotherhood fronts are up to in this country.  In the words of the Brotherhood’s own strategic plan, that is “a kind of grand jihad…in destroying and eliminating the Western civilization from within” by our own hands.

The movie’s narrator and central figure is Zuhdi Jasser.  Dr. Jasser happens to be one of the most prominent and courageous of American Muslims who oppose political Islam and its use of shariah to justify the subversion and destruction of our Constitution, form of government and society. 

Obviously, it is difficult to pillory Zuhdi Jasser the way CAIR et.al. attack such non-Muslims as Messrs. Boykin, Grandy, Coughlin and Kelly, namely as “Islamophobic.”  The Brotherhood and its official, multinational counterpart – the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) – brandish this term as a means of intimidating, smearing and silencing those who understand what they are about and oppose them effectively.  In fact, the more effective the opposition, the more intense are the Islamists’ efforts to silence those mounting it.

Dr. Jasser’s right to free expression is being subjected to a similar kind of suppression.  As he put it recently in the New York Post, “One of the chief ways that radical Islamists across the globe silence anti-Islamist Muslims is to publicly push them outside of Islam, to declare them non-Muslims, not part of the community (ummah), and so subject them to takfir (declaring them apostates). That is what the vicious distortions about this film do to my work and the work of so many others within the House of Islam who are trying to publicly take on the American Islamist establishment.”

Of particular concern is the fact that the U.S. government is now effectively encouraging what amounts to free speech for some – and abetting it.  Team Obama has begun according Islamophobia the status of a serious problem.  Worse yet, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has joined forces with the OIC in trying to find ways to suppress this fictitious problem by treating instances of what should be protected free speech as prosecutable “incitement.”   

To paraphrase the famous German pastor, Martin Niemöller, first they are coming for the “Islamophobes” and for Muslims who oppose shariah’s political agenda.  How soon will they decide that you have no right to speak freely, either?

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is President of the Center for Security Policy (www.SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM.

 

Watch one of General Boykin’s speeches on Islam and judge for yourself who the real threat to America is