Monday, 17 October 2011

CIA drone shot down U.S. Special Forces Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan

According to a White House insider a CIA drone downed the Special Forces Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011, not a rocket propelled grenade (RPG).  Former CIA director and current Secretary of Defense LeonPanetta was authorized to send a CIA drone to SEAL the fate of the eye witnesses to Barack Obama’s killing of bin Laden on Pakistani soil.
Military officials in Afghanistan have claimed that the U.S. military helicopter carrying special operations forces to a night-raid in the Tangi Valley of Wardak Province, was brought down by a rocket-propelled grenade.  
According to military officials the Taliban fired a ‘lucky shot’ in the downing of the Chinook helicopter that killed 25 American special operations personnel, five Army National Guard crewmen, seven Afghan commandos, one Afghan interpreter and a U.S. military dogOf the 25 American Special Forces, 15 Navy SEALs from the elite ‘Team Six’ unit that killed Osama bin Laden were killed.
Unbeknown to the American people is that the entire Navy SEAL team that was sent to kill bin Laden was wiped out. What a lucky shot in deed for Barack Hussein Obama if a Taliban was truly responsible for the Chinook downing. 
 Because of that “lucky shot” there are no “boots on the ground” eye witnesses to the unlawful killing of bin Laden on Pakistani soil. No one is left who can be called before a tribunal, Congressional hearing or International Criminal Court to give testimony.
  I for one don’t believe a RPG  “lucky shot” downed the Chinook.  I can, however, believe that the United States government would order the CIA to down the Chinook helicopter and murder their own people just to permanently silence all witnesses to the unlawful killing of bin Laden on Pakistani soil.  U.S. military officials have gone to great lengths to cover up the fact that the team that Obama ordered to unlawfully  infiltrate Pakistan and murder bin Laden was also murdered.  Plausible?  Yes.  Beyond reasonable doubt?  You decide.
The U.S. military is now controlled by the CIA – it is headed by former CIA directorLeon Panetta.   Immediately after it became known that bin Laden’s killers (SEAL Team Six) were among the dead the CIA controlled Pentagon was quick to issue a contradicting statement that “none of those killed had participated in the bin Laden operation”.   
They claimed the team that killed bin Laden was conducted by members of DEVGRU’s Red Squadron.  The wiped out SEAL Team Six was formed from members of DEVGRU’s Red Squadron.  SEAL Team Six members and DEVGRU’s Red Squadron members are one and the same people. 
 A civilian doesn’t know this but a grunt would know.  Every special mission team is made up of members from a number of different groups.  Only those with a specific mission critical skill are temporarily taken from their regular group to form a “special mission team”.  Team members rarely go on more than one mission together. 
 As soon as the mission is completed the Team ceases to exist – for security reasons.  That is until August 6, 2011.   On August 6, 2011 the Pentagon (CIA) broke protocol and ordered everyone who took part in the killing of bin Laden to board the same aircraft.   They put all their eggs in one basket and downed it – intentionally.  Why?   To protect Obama and the White House.
Immediately after Barack Obama arrogantly boasted that he had killed bin Laden and dumped his body in the sea the International community started to question the legality of the killing.  
 The killing raised concerns Internationally that the United States may have gone too far in acting as policeman, judge and executioner of the world’s most wanted man. International Law experts are calling the killing unlawful.  Why?  The first legality red flag was raised when the World heard that bin Laden was killed in Pakistan.  The United States is at war with Afghanistan and Iraq, not Pakistan.  
The Pakistani government and military forces are not at war with the United States.  Pakistan’s sovereignty was violated by the United States.  The United States government usurped the Pakistan political and legal authority when they sent armed U.S. Special Forces inside Pakistan to murder bin Laden.
International law experts were then alarmed when the White House stated that bin Laden was not armed when he was killed, contradicting an earlier U.S. account that he had taken part in a firefight. If bin Laden was unarmed he didn’t pose a threat to the heavily armed and highly trained (elite) SEAL team.  
The statement by the White House reveals that bin Laden was murdered which according to International Law is a very serious crime – even during war.  Murder is not lawful in peace time, nor war time. The Geneva Conventions which govern armed conflict explicitly notes that international humanitarian law applies to such conflicts. This means countries can’t go around killing people simply because they think they are a terrorist. Due process has to be applied to such people.
The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states. Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a “competent tribunal.” Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war. After a “competent tribunal” has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the “detaining power” may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so.
 An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be “treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.
The killing of bin Laden was not done by the Americans in the heat of battle, or as an act of self defense. Instead he was killed in a well executed raid by the United States military and security personnel.  As bin Laden was unarmed there was a clear alternative to killing Bin Laden available to the U.S.  Special Forces and that would have been to capture him, interrogate him and then, if there were sufficient evidence charge him with any number of serious offenses.
The Geneva Convention forbids treachery, which it defines as “killing a leader outside of the battle space.” Attacks on leaders are prohibited by Article 23b of the Hague Convention of 1899, which outlaws “treacherous attacks on adversaries,” and by the Protocol Addition to the Geneva Convention of 1949.
In addition to international law, U.S. policy has prohibited the use of assassination since 1976 when President Gerald Ford signed Executive Order 11905, which states, “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.
In Obama’s defense Greg Kehoe, a U.S. lawyer who advised the Iraqi Special Tribunal formed to prosecute Saddam Hussein, has stated that this was a war action and not a police action. And, in a war situation, any commander in chief is a “fair-game target,” and bin Laden was the commander in chief of an organization at war with the U.S. In that sense, the international war laws side with the U.S..
Do you believe International Law and Executive Order 11905 applies to Barack Hussein Obama or do you agree with Greg Kehoe?  If you agree with Kehoe you would also have to agree that Barack Hussein Obama is a also a “fair-game target”.  
Obama is the current commander in chief of the United States military and seeing as it was the United States commander in chiefs who decided to unlawfully go to war with Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and order military strikes and assassinations inside Pakistan then Barack Hussein Obama can be lawfully killed by any Afghani, Iraqi, Libyan or Pakistani civilian, military personnel or political leader.  I wonder if a sniper from either Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya or Pakistan would get a “luck shot” at their “fair-game target”.
-Press Core-