Category: J.M. Phelps

No Place in a Civilized World


This weekend, a U.S.-led coalition, including Britain and France, launched an attack in Syria. In response to Bashar Assad’s callous disregard for humanity, President Donald Trump — under the authority of Article II of the Constitution — authorized the use of U.S military force against the atrocious Syrian regime. For civilized people of the world, the use of chemical weapons is utterly inexcusable.

The U.S. and our allies have made the just decision to send a clear signal, once again, to Bashar Assad and the Syrian government in response to the chemical weapons attack committed on April 7. The use of chemical munitions against innocent civilians will not be tolerated. We, along with our allies, will continue to deter the use and proliferation of chemical weapons with decisive action and great force.

In an effort to strongly deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons, national security analyst, Lieutenant Colonel Robert (Bob) Maginnis, U.S. Army (retired), says “we targeted them as a message. A year after the first incident in which we responded with cruise missiles, the second incident is more severe because obviously they didn’t understand the intent of the first message.”

The Russian-backed Syrian government continues to deny any use of chemical weapons. Vladimir Putin calls the attack an “act of aggression,” while Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls the strike a “military crime.” Rightly, President Trump denounced Russia and Iran for their support of “rogue states, brutal tyrants, and murderous dictators.”

Based on intelligence gathering and in the best interests of national security, the U.S. and her allies have responded to the brutality of the Assad regime. Lt. Col. Maginnis asserts it is good we are working as a coalition. He also confirms Defense Secretary James Mattis “has made it clear there wasn’t any question in his mind that the Syrian regime had used chlorine gas.” Nonetheless, there is still some hesitancy about confirming whether or not there was sarin gas in the mixture.

He goes on to state, “There was acknowledgment that a Russian-made helicopter was circling about and evidently had dropped drums of chlorine gas and/or sarin gas in the vicinity of where the casualties took place.” Nearly a week later, “It would appear the delay in the execution of this attack was due to the need to confirm beyond a reasonable doubt the regime was directly involved,” suggests Maginnis. “Having said that, we obviously planned well the targets near Damascus that were doing research and development and storing chemicals.”

He believes the Russians and Iranians will “squawk and complain, but the reality is that we believe this was an unacceptable attack by the Syrian regime.” Therefore, our response cannot be recognized as illegitimate or unjust when the use of chemical munitions is used against innocent civilians.

“Having said that,” Maginnis notes, “you have to make the argument as to what is our national interest involved here. That’s where it becomes a bit dicey.” He would argue the British have seen the use of nerve agent in their own country in the recent past, which pointed clearly at the Russians. “Given that and given the fact that chemical weapons are known to be in the possession of the Iranians, the North Koreans, and obviously the Syrians,” he believes this warrants the U.S. involvement for the stability of the world.

“There were concerns that if the proliferation of these weapons is not dealt with decisively as they were last evening and a year ago, frankly, they could easily proliferate,” says Maginnis. “Rogues like Bashar Assad, Kim Jong Un, and others are more than willing to sell these types of deadly substances to anyone that can afford them.”

In one example, over the last two years, North Korea has been supplying chemical weapons to the Syrian government. The civilized world cannot ignore the sale and use of such weapons. We need not be fearful as to how the Russians and Iranians will respond in this case. Maginnis believes they’ll think twice.

Dr. Herb London of the London Center for Policy Research states, “The Russians do not want a direct confrontation with the United States. Putin wants to play his hand very carefully.” In addition, Maginnis says, “Jerusalem is watching very closely, and Assad is watching very closely to ensure these people are constrained and do not get out of hand.”

As we move forward from the aftermath of this strike, can the United States and her allies prevent further humanitarian catastrophe from rogue regimes like that of Bashar Assad? Barbaric actions such as his need to be controlled, as we cannot allow them to continue to proliferate in a civilized world.

A few questions remain. One, have we sent a clear enough message to Assad and his brutal followers this time around? Of course, we can expect them to deny the existence of chemical munitions and the severity of the missile attack. Second, will the American people back the decision of our President of the United States in matters like this one? Indubitably, many American people will be persuaded by the wealth of misinformation and bias sprouting from the talking heads of America and the Middle East.

J.M. Phelps is a Christian activist and journalist based in the Southeastern U.S. He is also editor and publisher of the website Lantern of Liberty.

This weekend, a U.S.-led coalition, including Britain and France, launched an attack in Syria. In response to Bashar Assad’s callous disregard for humanity, President Donald Trump — under the authority of Article II of the Constitution — authorized the use of U.S military force against the atrocious Syrian regime. For civilized people of the world, the use of chemical weapons is utterly inexcusable.

The U.S. and our allies have made the just decision to send a clear signal, once again, to Bashar Assad and the Syrian government in response to the chemical weapons attack committed on April 7. The use of chemical munitions against innocent civilians will not be tolerated. We, along with our allies, will continue to deter the use and proliferation of chemical weapons with decisive action and great force.

In an effort to strongly deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons, national security analyst, Lieutenant Colonel Robert (Bob) Maginnis, U.S. Army (retired), says “we targeted them as a message. A year after the first incident in which we responded with cruise missiles, the second incident is more severe because obviously they didn’t understand the intent of the first message.”

The Russian-backed Syrian government continues to deny any use of chemical weapons. Vladimir Putin calls the attack an “act of aggression,” while Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calls the strike a “military crime.” Rightly, President Trump denounced Russia and Iran for their support of “rogue states, brutal tyrants, and murderous dictators.”

Based on intelligence gathering and in the best interests of national security, the U.S. and her allies have responded to the brutality of the Assad regime. Lt. Col. Maginnis asserts it is good we are working as a coalition. He also confirms Defense Secretary James Mattis “has made it clear there wasn’t any question in his mind that the Syrian regime had used chlorine gas.” Nonetheless, there is still some hesitancy about confirming whether or not there was sarin gas in the mixture.

He goes on to state, “There was acknowledgment that a Russian-made helicopter was circling about and evidently had dropped drums of chlorine gas and/or sarin gas in the vicinity of where the casualties took place.” Nearly a week later, “It would appear the delay in the execution of this attack was due to the need to confirm beyond a reasonable doubt the regime was directly involved,” suggests Maginnis. “Having said that, we obviously planned well the targets near Damascus that were doing research and development and storing chemicals.”

He believes the Russians and Iranians will “squawk and complain, but the reality is that we believe this was an unacceptable attack by the Syrian regime.” Therefore, our response cannot be recognized as illegitimate or unjust when the use of chemical munitions is used against innocent civilians.

“Having said that,” Maginnis notes, “you have to make the argument as to what is our national interest involved here. That’s where it becomes a bit dicey.” He would argue the British have seen the use of nerve agent in their own country in the recent past, which pointed clearly at the Russians. “Given that and given the fact that chemical weapons are known to be in the possession of the Iranians, the North Koreans, and obviously the Syrians,” he believes this warrants the U.S. involvement for the stability of the world.

“There were concerns that if the proliferation of these weapons is not dealt with decisively as they were last evening and a year ago, frankly, they could easily proliferate,” says Maginnis. “Rogues like Bashar Assad, Kim Jong Un, and others are more than willing to sell these types of deadly substances to anyone that can afford them.”

In one example, over the last two years, North Korea has been supplying chemical weapons to the Syrian government. The civilized world cannot ignore the sale and use of such weapons. We need not be fearful as to how the Russians and Iranians will respond in this case. Maginnis believes they’ll think twice.

Dr. Herb London of the London Center for Policy Research states, “The Russians do not want a direct confrontation with the United States. Putin wants to play his hand very carefully.” In addition, Maginnis says, “Jerusalem is watching very closely, and Assad is watching very closely to ensure these people are constrained and do not get out of hand.”

As we move forward from the aftermath of this strike, can the United States and her allies prevent further humanitarian catastrophe from rogue regimes like that of Bashar Assad? Barbaric actions such as his need to be controlled, as we cannot allow them to continue to proliferate in a civilized world.

A few questions remain. One, have we sent a clear enough message to Assad and his brutal followers this time around? Of course, we can expect them to deny the existence of chemical munitions and the severity of the missile attack. Second, will the American people back the decision of our President of the United States in matters like this one? Indubitably, many American people will be persuaded by the wealth of misinformation and bias sprouting from the talking heads of America and the Middle East.

J.M. Phelps is a Christian activist and journalist based in the Southeastern U.S. He is also editor and publisher of the website Lantern of Liberty.



Source link

Terror by Shipping Container


Earlier this year, Clare Lopez, Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, reported that Gulftainer seeks to acquire cargo container terminal leases for dozens of other ports in the United States. Her alarming statement is holding true.

In a unanimous vote, the board of directors of Diamond State Port Corporation moved forward with preparations for a 50-year lease of the Port of Wilmington (Delaware) to GT USA Wilmington, a subsidiary of Gulftainer, on April 6, 2018. Gulftainer has already acquired a 35-year lease in Port Canaveral, Florida, as reported by investigative journalists Mary Fanning and Alan Jones.

In their first occasional paper, Gulftainer’s co-ownership between the Emir of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the brother of Jafar Dhia Jafar, Saddam Hussein’s top nuclear scientist, is revealed. In their second report, they expose a joint venture between Gulftainer and a Russian company that produces a cruise missile launch system called the Club-K — which appears identical to a standard 40-foot shipping container on the exterior. This is immensely disturbing as “we are only able to scan less than one percent of the incoming containers,” according to Van Hipp in The New Terrorism and How to Defeat It.

Inside any one of the 3,000 containers a ship could transport into our country, is there potential for a Trojan Horse operation? The answer is yes. There’s always a chance one could find four or more cruise missiles armed with biological, chemical, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), nuclear, or conventional payloads. Lopez asserts “you would never know the difference between the Russian Club-K container cruise missile launch system and an ordinary standard ocean container. They look exactly alike.”

With a new lease on the way in a Delaware port, Gulftainer is said to have gone through a vetting process performed by multiple federal cabinet departments and federal agencies. The corporation’s CEO, Peter Richards, claims the deal is not a threat to national security, nor does it have any ties to Russia.

Similarly, the trepidation of Gulftainer’s ties to the United Arab Emirates were addressed by Richards. He said, “I object to people lying about us. I can’t believe people can be so simple-minded to believe the trash out there.”

Dr. Joseph King, a former U.S. Customs special agent and supervisor for 33 years, believes otherwise. “To imply that it’s not a national security threat is not the least bit believable,” says King. “If you’ve been to the ports, the operators are the ones who control everything. It’s a myth to believe the government is there to enforce or control anything. It’s ridiculous.”

He goes on to say “it’s a fallacy to think Customs and the Coast Guard are shoulder to shoulder at the front line, stopping and checking everything coming into the country. It’s easily detectable. Look at the amount of illegal aliens that come into the country. Look at the amount of heroin and cocaine that comes into this country.” He notes how the U.S. has spent billions of dollars trying to fight illegal immigration and drug trafficking, yet we still haven’t been able to come even remotely close to preventing either problem.

If we can’t keep illegal immigrants and shipments of drugs from entering our country at rampant rates, are the American people supposed to believe we are capable of keeping out a 40-foot container housing hidden cruise missiles that can be deployed domestically or simply be held somewhere until one of our enemies decides to use it?

It makes sense that the person who does the hiring is the one who controls the port. One of their responsibilities is hiring the IT people, for example. This includes those who actually set up the IT system. King says a certain number of foreign workers can be “brought in on H-1 visas — and be put in control.” It begs the question, can we always trust this process?

King continues, “The fact of the matter is that you can bring in anything you want. It can be controlled however you want, if you’re the operator. You can take a seal off the 40-foot container and replace it with another seal. You can take a document number and change it around. You can change a container from foreign to domestic. Customs wouldn’t even take a second look at it. This could include anything you want, whether it’s drugs, guns, people, or nuclear bombs. The supply chain is ultimately controlled by the operator of the port, not by a U.S. government official or an American corporation.”

Apart from the Trojan Horse possibilities that could wreak havoc in our country, the other end of the spectrum deals with intelligence gathering. Both the port in Florida and the port in Delaware are ideal places for intelligence gathering, human and electronic, according to King. “Regardless of whether it’s being used to bring in humans or nuclear weapons,” King concludes, “both are great places to be used as bases for intelligence operations.”

Before it’s too late, it’s time for our congressmen and our federal cabinet departments and agencies to seriously consider and address all the possibilities. The facts are beyond dispute. There is an association between Gulftainer, Russia, and the potential for nuclear weapons entering the country unbeknownst to the American people. Undoubtedly, there are many around the world who would love to bring America to her knees by taking advantage of the smallest crack in the system, so let’s sure up our ports and not give them an avenue to do so.

J.M. Phelps is a Christian activist and journalist based in the Southeastern U.S. He is also editor and publisher of the website Lantern of Liberty.

Earlier this year, Clare Lopez, Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, reported that Gulftainer seeks to acquire cargo container terminal leases for dozens of other ports in the United States. Her alarming statement is holding true.

In a unanimous vote, the board of directors of Diamond State Port Corporation moved forward with preparations for a 50-year lease of the Port of Wilmington (Delaware) to GT USA Wilmington, a subsidiary of Gulftainer, on April 6, 2018. Gulftainer has already acquired a 35-year lease in Port Canaveral, Florida, as reported by investigative journalists Mary Fanning and Alan Jones.

In their first occasional paper, Gulftainer’s co-ownership between the Emir of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the brother of Jafar Dhia Jafar, Saddam Hussein’s top nuclear scientist, is revealed. In their second report, they expose a joint venture between Gulftainer and a Russian company that produces a cruise missile launch system called the Club-K — which appears identical to a standard 40-foot shipping container on the exterior. This is immensely disturbing as “we are only able to scan less than one percent of the incoming containers,” according to Van Hipp in The New Terrorism and How to Defeat It.

Inside any one of the 3,000 containers a ship could transport into our country, is there potential for a Trojan Horse operation? The answer is yes. There’s always a chance one could find four or more cruise missiles armed with biological, chemical, electromagnetic pulse (EMP), nuclear, or conventional payloads. Lopez asserts “you would never know the difference between the Russian Club-K container cruise missile launch system and an ordinary standard ocean container. They look exactly alike.”

With a new lease on the way in a Delaware port, Gulftainer is said to have gone through a vetting process performed by multiple federal cabinet departments and federal agencies. The corporation’s CEO, Peter Richards, claims the deal is not a threat to national security, nor does it have any ties to Russia.

Similarly, the trepidation of Gulftainer’s ties to the United Arab Emirates were addressed by Richards. He said, “I object to people lying about us. I can’t believe people can be so simple-minded to believe the trash out there.”

Dr. Joseph King, a former U.S. Customs special agent and supervisor for 33 years, believes otherwise. “To imply that it’s not a national security threat is not the least bit believable,” says King. “If you’ve been to the ports, the operators are the ones who control everything. It’s a myth to believe the government is there to enforce or control anything. It’s ridiculous.”

He goes on to say “it’s a fallacy to think Customs and the Coast Guard are shoulder to shoulder at the front line, stopping and checking everything coming into the country. It’s easily detectable. Look at the amount of illegal aliens that come into the country. Look at the amount of heroin and cocaine that comes into this country.” He notes how the U.S. has spent billions of dollars trying to fight illegal immigration and drug trafficking, yet we still haven’t been able to come even remotely close to preventing either problem.

If we can’t keep illegal immigrants and shipments of drugs from entering our country at rampant rates, are the American people supposed to believe we are capable of keeping out a 40-foot container housing hidden cruise missiles that can be deployed domestically or simply be held somewhere until one of our enemies decides to use it?

It makes sense that the person who does the hiring is the one who controls the port. One of their responsibilities is hiring the IT people, for example. This includes those who actually set up the IT system. King says a certain number of foreign workers can be “brought in on H-1 visas — and be put in control.” It begs the question, can we always trust this process?

King continues, “The fact of the matter is that you can bring in anything you want. It can be controlled however you want, if you’re the operator. You can take a seal off the 40-foot container and replace it with another seal. You can take a document number and change it around. You can change a container from foreign to domestic. Customs wouldn’t even take a second look at it. This could include anything you want, whether it’s drugs, guns, people, or nuclear bombs. The supply chain is ultimately controlled by the operator of the port, not by a U.S. government official or an American corporation.”

Apart from the Trojan Horse possibilities that could wreak havoc in our country, the other end of the spectrum deals with intelligence gathering. Both the port in Florida and the port in Delaware are ideal places for intelligence gathering, human and electronic, according to King. “Regardless of whether it’s being used to bring in humans or nuclear weapons,” King concludes, “both are great places to be used as bases for intelligence operations.”

Before it’s too late, it’s time for our congressmen and our federal cabinet departments and agencies to seriously consider and address all the possibilities. The facts are beyond dispute. There is an association between Gulftainer, Russia, and the potential for nuclear weapons entering the country unbeknownst to the American people. Undoubtedly, there are many around the world who would love to bring America to her knees by taking advantage of the smallest crack in the system, so let’s sure up our ports and not give them an avenue to do so.

J.M. Phelps is a Christian activist and journalist based in the Southeastern U.S. He is also editor and publisher of the website Lantern of Liberty.



Source link

Pending Blackwater (in)justice


On Sunday, September 16, 2007, a Blackwater protective service detail (PSD), Raven 4, was assigned to a diplomatic protection mission at the Izdihar compound near Nisour Square in Baghdad.

The Blackwater teams always cleared alternate routes for a convoy or detail in advance, preparing for traffic, an ambush, or any other emergency.  Consequently, it had already been reported to the tactical operations center by a low profile (i.e. undercover) team that there was an unusual, heavy presence of Iraqi police and/or military in the square on this day.  The square was also near an Iraqi Army base and police station.

About one mile north of the square, A USAID (United States Agency for International Development) worker was in a meeting at the Izdihar compound when a very large bomb blast rocked the area nearby.  The bomb blast was so strong she was blown off her chair.  Smoke from the massive explosion of the vehicle borne IED (improvised explosive device) could be seen on satellite imagery.  The deafening blast was easily heard in the Green Zone, driving tactical support teams (TST), including Raven 23, quickly into action to respond the emergency.

Former Blackwater vice president and chief operating officer, Bill Matthews says, “Many of the attacks that our guys were killed in were multi-staged, multi-phased ambushes, which are often initiated with an IED and then followed up with small arms fire or more IED’s.  Very infrequently was it a single strike.  There’s usually a coordinated effort, so when you are responding to a distress signal, you are expecting a second attack of some type.”

In the weeks prior to the Nisour Square incident, the PSDs and TSTs had been briefed on an IED threats, including a white Kia sedan.  When Raven 23 entered the Square, a white sedan approached their convoy, ignoring multiple and various signals to stop.  The vehicle was engaged, and the occupants were killed in the process.  The convoy was also receiving small arms fire from within the square.

The media has most often reported this incident as a massacre.  Yet, there is video footage from a nearby tower of the immediate aftermath that tells a different story.

scren grab via YouTube

In a video still from the “crime scene,” there is not only absence of first responders, but more importantly, an absence of bodies.  If the Iraqi government and the FBI claim there were numerous Iraqis slaughtered in the square on this regretful day, where are the bodies?  Where are the first responders?  Frankly, where is the evidence of a massacre?

Tragically, members of Raven 23 (Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Paul Slough, and Nicholas Slatten) were charged with a number of very serious crimes as a result of the deaths that did occur, a number that has varied wildly as the investigation and prosecution progressed.  When all the facts are considered, only the unjust imprisonment of these four men exemplifies the fallout of this event.  Has the case been jaundiced against this Blackwater team from the very beginning?  After the case was initially — and harshly — dismissed by Judge Ricardo Urbina, it was returned on appeal for clarification.  By that time, Judge Urbina had retired and the case was assigned to another judge.  On the same day, the docket reflects that the case was directly reassigned to the judge that has it now, Judge Royce Lamberth.

There appear to have been a number of blatantly obvious mistakes associated with the case.  The case was moved to one of the most liberal circuits in the country — the DC circuit.  A valid defense motion concerning the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) was ignored, allowing jurisdiction where it did not apply.  A 30-year mandatory minimum sentence statute historically applied to drug traffickers and gangbangers in possession of automatic weapons was misapplied to the defendants after President Obama took office.  Photographic evidence was withheld from the defense for seven years, in clear violation of the ruling of Brady v. Maryland.  In addition, a witness’s statement produced on the eve of trial completely contradicted his four days of trial testimony, yet the judge refused to postpone sentencing, which would have allowed the perjury to be explored.

In spite of the sentences against Heard, Liberty, and Slough being ruled “cruel and unusual punishment,” Slatten’s conviction of murder being vacated, and all the obvious errors of the case, four men remain in prison, today.  Is there something more inflammatory still to be found below the surface?  There is a statement from Andrew McCabe suggesting the Blackwater convictions were not happening fast enough with the case.  Wikileaks also exposed that one of Hillary Clinton’s main concerns was to find a way to placate the Iraqis — financially, of course.

The defendants have not received a fair trial. Rather, they continue to appear to be scapegoats to diplomacy trumping the rule of law.  The Blackwater case gives some weight to the notion that the Obama DOJ, FBI, and folks like Hillary Clinton and Andrew McCabe may have been “meddling” with cases for quite a while.

Support raven23.com

J.M. Phelps is a Christian activist and journalist based in the Southeastern U.S.

On Sunday, September 16, 2007, a Blackwater protective service detail (PSD), Raven 4, was assigned to a diplomatic protection mission at the Izdihar compound near Nisour Square in Baghdad.

The Blackwater teams always cleared alternate routes for a convoy or detail in advance, preparing for traffic, an ambush, or any other emergency.  Consequently, it had already been reported to the tactical operations center by a low profile (i.e. undercover) team that there was an unusual, heavy presence of Iraqi police and/or military in the square on this day.  The square was also near an Iraqi Army base and police station.

About one mile north of the square, A USAID (United States Agency for International Development) worker was in a meeting at the Izdihar compound when a very large bomb blast rocked the area nearby.  The bomb blast was so strong she was blown off her chair.  Smoke from the massive explosion of the vehicle borne IED (improvised explosive device) could be seen on satellite imagery.  The deafening blast was easily heard in the Green Zone, driving tactical support teams (TST), including Raven 23, quickly into action to respond the emergency.

Former Blackwater vice president and chief operating officer, Bill Matthews says, “Many of the attacks that our guys were killed in were multi-staged, multi-phased ambushes, which are often initiated with an IED and then followed up with small arms fire or more IED’s.  Very infrequently was it a single strike.  There’s usually a coordinated effort, so when you are responding to a distress signal, you are expecting a second attack of some type.”

In the weeks prior to the Nisour Square incident, the PSDs and TSTs had been briefed on an IED threats, including a white Kia sedan.  When Raven 23 entered the Square, a white sedan approached their convoy, ignoring multiple and various signals to stop.  The vehicle was engaged, and the occupants were killed in the process.  The convoy was also receiving small arms fire from within the square.

The media has most often reported this incident as a massacre.  Yet, there is video footage from a nearby tower of the immediate aftermath that tells a different story.

scren grab via YouTube

In a video still from the “crime scene,” there is not only absence of first responders, but more importantly, an absence of bodies.  If the Iraqi government and the FBI claim there were numerous Iraqis slaughtered in the square on this regretful day, where are the bodies?  Where are the first responders?  Frankly, where is the evidence of a massacre?

Tragically, members of Raven 23 (Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Paul Slough, and Nicholas Slatten) were charged with a number of very serious crimes as a result of the deaths that did occur, a number that has varied wildly as the investigation and prosecution progressed.  When all the facts are considered, only the unjust imprisonment of these four men exemplifies the fallout of this event.  Has the case been jaundiced against this Blackwater team from the very beginning?  After the case was initially — and harshly — dismissed by Judge Ricardo Urbina, it was returned on appeal for clarification.  By that time, Judge Urbina had retired and the case was assigned to another judge.  On the same day, the docket reflects that the case was directly reassigned to the judge that has it now, Judge Royce Lamberth.

There appear to have been a number of blatantly obvious mistakes associated with the case.  The case was moved to one of the most liberal circuits in the country — the DC circuit.  A valid defense motion concerning the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) was ignored, allowing jurisdiction where it did not apply.  A 30-year mandatory minimum sentence statute historically applied to drug traffickers and gangbangers in possession of automatic weapons was misapplied to the defendants after President Obama took office.  Photographic evidence was withheld from the defense for seven years, in clear violation of the ruling of Brady v. Maryland.  In addition, a witness’s statement produced on the eve of trial completely contradicted his four days of trial testimony, yet the judge refused to postpone sentencing, which would have allowed the perjury to be explored.

In spite of the sentences against Heard, Liberty, and Slough being ruled “cruel and unusual punishment,” Slatten’s conviction of murder being vacated, and all the obvious errors of the case, four men remain in prison, today.  Is there something more inflammatory still to be found below the surface?  There is a statement from Andrew McCabe suggesting the Blackwater convictions were not happening fast enough with the case.  Wikileaks also exposed that one of Hillary Clinton’s main concerns was to find a way to placate the Iraqis — financially, of course.

The defendants have not received a fair trial. Rather, they continue to appear to be scapegoats to diplomacy trumping the rule of law.  The Blackwater case gives some weight to the notion that the Obama DOJ, FBI, and folks like Hillary Clinton and Andrew McCabe may have been “meddling” with cases for quite a while.

Support raven23.com

J.M. Phelps is a Christian activist and journalist based in the Southeastern U.S.



Source link