The Obama administration has banned the U.S. military from using anti-personnel landmines in a unilateral decision that goes against warnings from top military leaders and many in Congress.

The administration stated in a series of announcements this week that landmines will no longer be used and that the Defense Department would begin destroying stockpiles of the devices, which have historically been used to protect U.S. forces from enemies in warzones.

The controversial executive decision, which comes as America steps up strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), has been in the works for some time despite protests from top U.S. military leaders, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“The United States will not use anti-personnel landmines,” President Obama announced this week in New York City.

“So we will begin destroying our stockpiles not required for the defense of South Korea,” a military zone that the administration says poses unique challenges, according to Obama. “And we’re going to continue to work to find ways that would allow us to ultimately comply fully and accede to the Ottawa Convention,” a treaty banning landmines that the United States has not actually signed.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-bans-landmine-use-aga...

Views: 387

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The controversial executive decision, which comes as America steps up strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), has been in the works for some time despite protests from top U.S. military leaders, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“The United States will not use anti-personnel landmines,” President Obama announced this week in New York City.

“So we will begin destroying our stockpiles not required for the defense of South Korea,” a military zone that the administration says poses unique challenges, according to Obama. “And we’re going to continue to work to find ways that would allow us to ultimately comply fully and accede to the Ottawa Convention,”

a treaty banning landmines that the United States has not actually signed.

Obama’s announcement was criticized by leading lawmakers, who warned that the decision is not backed by U.S. military commanders who view the use of landmines as a key tool in the protection of American forces.

It’s disappointing to see that, once again, the White House has overruled the advice of our military commanders,” Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R., Calif.), chair of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), said in a statement.

“With the security situation around the world deteriorating, the last thing we should be doing is a unilateral jettisoning of sound defensive options,” McKeon said. “We’re all in this together, and we all share the risk when the best advice of our best military experts is ignored.”

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has advised the administration against the decision and referred to these landmines as “an important tool.”

“I have rendered my military advice that I consider land mines, especially the ones that we have … to be an important tool in the arsenal of the Armed Forces of the United States,” Dempsey told Congress earlier this year.

Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of United Nations Command and U.S. Forces Korea, also explained the need for landmines when asked by Congress earlier this year.

“I have provided my best military advice on the issue as well. And it is my assessment that landmines are a critical element in the defense of the Republic of Korea and our interest there,” Scaparrotti said. “And they are a critical element of our contingency plans, as well.”

While the United States will continue to employ the devices in the Korean Peninsula, “where our actions are governed by the unique situation there,” the Defense Department “will no longer produce or acquire anti-personnel landmines,” State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said in a statement this week.

The “announcement also means that we will not assist, encourage, or induce others to use, stockpile, produce, or transfer anti-personnel landmines outside of the Korean Peninsula,” Psaki said. “And we will diligently undertake to destroy stockpiles of these landmines that are not required for the defense of the Republic of Korea.”

THIS WILL MAKE YOUR BLOOD BOIL: 

This is the upcoming cover for "The Economist" for their Sept 27, 2014 issue: 

http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers?print_region=76980

http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers/2014-09-25/ap-e-eu-la-...

JMHO--where do they get off putting this tyrant in a military uniform--he isn't even fit to wash the uni let alone wear one--this is a direct slap in the face of our Veterans and all current serving brave men and women in our military who took an oath to defend the Constitution, unlike this fraud who does everything he can to trample and destroy the Constitution. 

WOW--they didn't do a very good job of photoshopping GW Bushe's body with BHO's pinhead: 

Actually BABY Bush Flew F102s 336 hours

There is controversy about his service but he was Discharged Honorably in 1972 ?

The F102 called the delta dart  was retired about then and he did not move up to a newer aircraft

BTW  the F102 was not the easiest plane to fly, it was super sonic and did not handle well at low speed. It was one of the early century series 

Make that the Delta Dagger

The Dart was an F106

How will this clueless POS even know if the military pays absolutely any attention to his stupid edict? 

A traitor is a traitor and should never be a chicken in chief. Little chicken followers have no principles & no integrity - they support Osama no matter what. Just look at private dempshit & sec. habel.  These traitors have almost lost as much integrity as Osama. If I were still in the military I would be leaving it. I had sergeants & lieutenants that I had more respect for than I do dempshit & habel. These guys are incompetent. They get the Osama playbook for anarchy & failure & can not figure out which page the pisident is on. Westmoreland was wrong for Vietnam leadership. Dempshit is not worth the laces in a recruits used boots. Somebody ought to be calling for his resignation as of yesterday. Habel should be the next ambassador to Iraq & Syria. He ought to be real good at giving weapons to the Iraqi troops who will drop them for the ISIS rebels to pick up. Join me in the call for new leadership from the pisident on down to the one star generals.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

ALERT ALERT

Newt Says What The Rest Of Us Are Thinking:
It’s Time To Throw Peter Strzok In Jail

Disgraced FBI special agent Peter Strzok, a senior member of the bureau who gained notoriety in recent months over his anti-Trump text messages to a colleague, was grilled for nearly 10 hours during a joint congressional committee hearing on Thursday.

At issue was Strzok’s anti-Trump texts to former FBI lawyer and lover Lisa Page that coincided with his leading of the investigations into both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email server scandal and the alleged Trump/Russia 2016 election collusion, as well as his involvement in the subsequent Robert Mueller special counsel probe.

The hearing proved to be a heated battle, as Strzok displayed an arrogant smugness in defiance of pointed questions from Republicans that he largely danced around, while Democrats sought to upend and undermine the entire hearing with a plethora of interruptions, parliamentary maneuvers and outright praise for the man who helped let Clinton off the hook while ferociously targeting Trump.

Former House speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich was less than impressed with Strzok’s performance and cooperation in the hearing and suggested during an appearance on Fox Business that the FBI agent should be held in contempt of Congress.

“I think they have to move to hold him in contempt and throw him in jail,” Gingrich said of Congress and Strzok.

“This is a person who is willfully standing up and refusing to appear as a congressional witness and he was a government employee at the time,” he continued.

“He has every obligation to inform the legislative branch, and I don’t think they have any choice except to move a motion of contempt because he is fundamentally — and so is his girlfriend (Page) — they’re both fundamentally in violation of the entire constitutional process,” he added.

Page had been subpoenaed to appear before Congress on Wednesday but refused to appear, saying she’d been unable to review relevant documents prior to the scheduled hearing, a closed-door hearing that has since been rescheduled for Friday.

Gingrich was not the only one who thought Strzok deserved to be held in contempt of Congress, as House Judiciary Committee chairman Bob Goodlatte informed Strzok that he remained at risk of such during the hearing, according to The Daily Caller.

That warning from Goodlatte came after Strzok had refused to answer a straightforward question posed by House Oversight Committee chairman Trey Gowdy, regarding how many people Strzok had personally interviewed between a specific set of dates in relation to the Clinton email investigation.

“Mr. Strzok, please be advised that you can either comply with the committee’s direction to answer the question or refuse to do so,” Goodlatte stated. “The latter of which will place you in risk of a contempt citation and potential criminal liability. Do you understand that? The question is directed to the witness.”

Strzok still refused to answer, citing instructions received from his counsel and the FBI to not answer certain questions on certain topics.

Goodlatte replied, “Mr. Strzok, in a moment we will continue with the hearing, but based on your refusal to answer the question, at the conclusion of the day we will be recessing the hearing and you will be subject to recall to allow the committee to consider proceeding with a contempt citation.”

It is unclear if Goodlatte and the committee ultimately did consider a contempt citation for Strzok following the contentious hearing, nor is it clear if Page will be held in contempt for blowing off her subpoenaed appearance on Wednesday.

Hopefully Congress will follow through on the threats of contempt followed by actual jail time against Strzok and Page in response to their uncooperative behavior and failure to appear when subpoenaed, if only to ensure that future witnesses called before Congress for sensitive or contentious hearings don’t think they can get away with the same sort of behavior.

TEA PARTY TARGET

Cops Sent To Seize Veteran’s Guns Without A Warrant, He Refused To Turn Them Over

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” says Leonard Cottrell, after successfully staving off law enforcement and the courts from confiscating his firearms. Cottrell, an Iraq War veteran, was at work when he received a phone call from his wife. The cops were there, busting in to take his guns away. It all started after a casual conversation his son had at school.

Ammoland reports:

Police said their visit was sparked by a conversation that Leonard Cottrell Jr.’s 13-year-old son had had with another student at the school. Cottrell said he was told his son and the other student were discussing security being lax and what they would have to do to escape a school shooting at Millstone Middle School.

The conversation was overheard by another student, who went home and told his parents, and his mother panicked. The mom then contacted the school, which contacted the State Police, according to Cottrell.

The visit from the troopers came around 10 p.m. on June 14, 2018, Cottrell said, a day after Gov. Phil Murphy signed several gun enforcement bills into law.

After several hours, Cottrell said police agreed not to take the guns but to allow him to move them to another location while the investigation continued.

“They had admitted several times that my son made no threat to himself or other students or the school or anything like that,” he said.

Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was “not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing.”

The troopers searched his son’s room and found nothing, Cottrell said.

“To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” he said. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

“In the Garden State, the usual approach is to confiscate first and ask questions later, and victims of this approach often don’t know their rights. ‎In this case, the victim pushed back and confiscation was avoided — but the circumstances surrounding the incident are outrageous. A student expressing concern over lack of security is not a reason to send police to the student’s home — but it might be a reason to send police to the school to keep students and teachers safe” said Scott L. Bach, executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a member of the NRA board of directors.

NJ.com adds:

Cottrell, a disabled U.S. Army veteran who served three tours during “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” owns a shotgun and a pistol. He has all the correct permits to own the firearms, he said, and predominately uses the shotgun to hunt.

He said his wife allowed the officers to enter the home, and with her permission, they searched his son’s room — but they did not find any weapons, he said. The officers, he said, didn’t have a warrant but still wanted to take his guns. Cottrell wouldn’t let them.

“No one from the state was going to take my firearms without due process,” he said Thursday.

He said the attempted seizure resulted because of a new law Gov. Phil Murphy signed into law that makes it easier for police to confiscate guns when someone in the state poses a threat to themselves or others. The law is part of a broader statewide effort to make New Jersey’s gun laws even tougher amid the national outcry for more gun control in the wake of the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Cottrell said the officers “danced around the issue” when he confronted them about the new law.

A New Jersey State Police spokesman declined to answer questions about whether this incident had anything to do with the new gun laws.

In an email, Sgt. First Class Jeff Flynn said, “Troopers responded to Mr. Cottrell’s residence in reference to the report of a possible school threat. Based on their investigation, it was determined that Mr. Cottrell’s weapons did not need to be seized.”

David Codrea, writing for Ammoland, further added:

To appease everybody, I had my firearms stored someplace else,” New Jersey gun owner and Army veteran Leonard Cottrell Jr. told New Jersey 101.5 after a June 14 visit from State Police,. “That way, during the course of the investigation, my son doesn’t have access to them and it’s on neutral ground and everything and everybody’s happy.”

Cottrell was recalling state troopers showing up at his door to confiscate firearms after his 13-year-old son was overheard discussing lax school safety with a friend.

Indoctrinated by a pervasive snitch culture — one that never seems to deter the blatantly obvious demonic nutjobs — the eavesdropping student told his parents, who told school administrators, who in turn called the cops. (Note “If you see something, say something” carries risks of its own – if you report the wrong person, you could end up smeared as a “hater.”)

“Cottrell said he made it very clear to the police that he was ‘not going to willingly give up my constitutional rights where there’s no justifiable cause, no warrants, no nothing,’” the report continued. Despite that, his home is now a “gun free zone” and that has been publicized by the media. He has, in fact, willingly ceded those rights, and by his own words in order to make authorities “happy.”

Before judging him for that, consider the environment that is New Jersey. Then consider the overwhelming force the state can bring to bear, and its predisposition to using it, especially if it’s to enforce citizen disarmament. It’s easy to anonymously declare “Molon Labe” on the internet. In meatspace, resistance is more effective when the aggressor doesn’t get to dictate the time and place, especially if that place is your home and you have family inside.

Appeasing gun-grabbers, generally couched as “compromise,” is impossible. It’s like throwing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and expecting them to be sated and leave you alone — instead of sensing opportunity and fear, and moving in closer.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service