ISIS suicide bomber in Iraq was former Guantanamo prisoner

https://i1.wp.com/images14.fotki.com/v777/photos/5/1222605/8418084/club_gitmo-vi.jpg

Image via socialismisnottheanswer.wordpress.com

 

Free Republic

An ISIS suicide bomber in Iraq who detonated a truck bomb at an army base outside Mosul has been identified as a British citizen who was held at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Ronald Fiddler, also known as Jamal al-Harith after he converted to Islam in the 1990s, was captured in a Taliban prison in 2002.  He was suspected of having links to Osama bin Laden and was transferred to Guantanamo.

Al-Harith claimed he was mistreated at the prison camp and that British agents were complicit.  He was transferred back to the U.K. in 2004 and was awarded a million pounds in compensation.

USA Today:

He was announced as a suicide bomber who targeted coalition forces outside Mosul this week when ISIS released a picture of him smiling in a 4×4 that was seen in video footage speeding down a track. ISIS claimed Harith caused multiple casualties, according to the Times of London.

Harith, 50, traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, in 2014, raising fears that the money given to him had been passed on to ISIS. He was known to fellow militants as Abu-Zakariya al-Britani.

Harith, who was accused of having links to Osama bin Laden, was held in Guantanamo Bay without charge for two years after he was discovered in a Taliban prison in Afghanistan in 2001, the Times of London reported.

Manchester-born Harith’s brother Leon Jameson told the newspaper that his brother “wasted his life.”

“It is him, I can tell by his smile,” he said of the ISIS image. “If it is true then I’ve lost a brother, so another family (member) gone.”

Memo to ISIS: Make sure you send a thank-you note to the British government.  A million pounds buys a lot of bombs to kill innocent civilians

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com

Fed Appeals Court: Immigrant Who Voted Illegally Can be Deported

JUDICIAL WATCH

Weeks after the House Minority leader blasted President Donald Trump for pledging to investigate voter fraud, a federal appellate court has ruled that a Peruvian immigrant can be deported from the U.S. for illegally voting in a federal election. The decision comes on the heels of a spat between Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and the president. The California Democrat accused Trump of making false claims of election fraud and said that undermining the integrity of our voting system is “really strange.” Most Democrats in Congress agree with the former House Speaker and strongly oppose an investigation, asserting it will limit access to voting.

Not surprisingly, the overwhelming majority of the mainstream media coverage promotes the Democrats’ inaccurate version of the facts. One news network referred to Trump’s voter fraud claims as “baseless” and simply an excuse to enact restrictive voting laws. Another wrote that “Trump’s ‘iIlegals voting’ comments are false and divisive,” calling voter fraud by undocumented immigrants “patently false.” In an editorial titled “The Latest Voter Fraud Lie,” a mainstream newspaper writes that the “baseless claims continue to get converted into policy in the form of stricter voting laws like requiring prospective voters to show a photo ID…” A multitude of similar media reports have flooded the news wires in the week’s following Trump’s meeting with congressional leaders to address the issue.

This week’s appellate court ruling provides a jolt of reality that the media has chosen to ignore. Election fraud was a significant concern in 2008 and 2010, which is why Judicial Watch launched an election integrity project in 2012. The project is a legal campaign to force cleanup of voter registration rolls as well as monitor elections. As an example of the pervasive fraud, Judicial Watch uncovered that 1,046 aliens, or residents who are not U.S. citizens, were on the voter rolls in eight Virginia counites leading up to the 2016 presidential election. If that rate of non-citizen registration held in the rest of Virginia’s counties, that would mean that about 6,500 non-citizens are registered to vote in the state. Additionally, Judicial Watch’s investigation found that 57,923 Virginians were registered to vote in at least one other state as well as 19 deceased individuals. Similar issues have been uncovered in several other states as part of Judicial Watch’s ongoing probe into election fraud.

The Latin American woman in the recent court ruling who voted illegally is hardly an isolated case. Her name is Margarita Del Pilar Fitzpatrick and she lied about being an American citizen on an Illinois Department of Motor Vehicle form. It was that easy. Fitzpatrick, a legal U.S. resident with three kids, voted in two federal elections in 2006 and claims that she had official approval to cast a ballot after presenting her Peruvian passport and green card. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals, the government’s highest administrative body for interpreting and applying immigration laws, determined that Fitzpatrick should be deported because non-U.S. citizens cannot vote in federal elections and can be removed from the country for doing so.

The Peruvian woman did not back down, appealing the decisions in federal court. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the two previous rulings in favor of deportation, though it acknowledged that Fitzpatrick “led a productive and otherwise-unblemished life in this country.” In its decision, the court states that the motor vehicle form sternly warns aliens not to check the U.S. citizen box and that Fitzpatrick is “literate in English and has no excuse for making that misrepresentation.” Aliens are forbidden to vote in federal elections, the ruling says, adding that “another statute provides for the removal of aliens who vote in violation of either state or federal law.” During oral argument, the appellate judges inquired whether Fitzpatrick is the kind of person the Attorney General and Department of Homeland Security want removed from the United States. “The answer was yes,” the ruling states.

How Can House Democrats’ Muslim IT Scandal Not be News?

Secure Freedom Minute fsm logo

 

SECURE FREEDOM MINUTE

Imagine the following: A small group of white supremacist computer geeks were discovered to be stealing government property from dozens of Republican congressional offices for whom they provided information technology services. They are also suspected of stealing legislators’ emails and other House communications – possibly including traffic involving the most sensitive national security-related committees on which some of their employers served.

Think this story would be basically ignored by the mainstream media?

Well, that is exactly what is happening to an actual scandal with all these features – only the congressmen are all Democrats and the IT contractors are all Muslims, originally from Pakistan. And with the notable exception of the Daily Caller and a few other, online publications, all we’ve heard from the press has been crickets.

This travesty demands a rigorous damage-assessment, an overhauled counter-intelligence capability and a truly free press.

Iran Warns Trump Against Disclosing Secret Iran Deal Documents

https://rjaybee.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/iran-nuclear-deal-congress1.jpg?w=1189&h=669

Image via richards-watch.org

 

The Washington Free Beacon

Senior Iranian officials are warning the Trump administration about disclosing secret deals related to the nuclear deal that have long been hidden from the public by the Obama administration, according to recent comments that prompted pushback from senior sources on Capitol Hill.

Iran’s warning comes on the heels of a Washington Free Beacon report disclosing that former national security adviser Michael Flynn had been pushed out of office partly due to his intention to release these sensitive documents to the American public.

Leading lawmakers in Congress launched multiple investigations last year into the Obama administration’s efforts to keep these documents secret and out of public view. Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the matter said that the Trump White House is working on ways to publicize this information despite warnings from Iran.

Secret side deals related to the nuclear agreement remain unclassified but have been stashed in a secure location on Capitol Hill, making it difficult for staffers and lawmakers to view them. Individuals seeking to view these documents must have security clearance and are barred from taking notes or speaking about what they see.

Continue reading

New Papers Reveal Obama State Dept Knew Benghazi Attack Not Caused by Protests

Family Security Matters

by MICHAEL W. CHAPMAN

State Department documents released through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by the government watchdog Judicial Watch reveal, contrary to Obama administration claims, the State Department knew as early as Sept. 12, 2012 that the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya was a “direct breaching attack.” It was not sparked “under the cover of a protest” or in response to an anti-Islamic YouTube video.

Commenting on one specific document, a Sept. 12, 2012 email summary of a conversation between then-Undersecretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy with congressional staffers, Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, “This document removes any further doubt that the State Department and the Obama administration knew immediately after the assault on Benghazi that it was a well-orchestrated terrorist attack and not a ‘spontaneous demonstration’ over a ‘hateful video,’ as the Obama administration repeatedly claimed.”

“These documents show that the Benghazi scandal is not over … not by a long shot,” said Fitton.

Continue reading

Judicial Watch Obtains 216 Pages of Documents Containing Official Emails Sent Through Private, Unsecured Email Accounts of Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Three Other Top Officials

Unsecure Emails Sent through Private, Webmail-Based Accounts Contained Information about Johnson’s Meetings with Kuwaiti Ambassador, Saudi Interior Ministry

Johnson’s Private Email Was So Unsecure It Was Used in Email Fraud Scam

 

Judicial Watch

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today announced it has obtained 216 pages of documents containing official, sensitive emails of Jeh Johnson and three other top Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials sent through private, unsecured, webmail-based email accounts.  The documents include emails discussing high-level meetings Johnson was to have with the Kuwaiti ambassador and Saudi Arabian Interior Ministry officials, as well as a West African $4.5 million online consumer fraud scam.

The document production came in response to a May 23, 2016, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch after Homeland Security failed to respond to a December 29, 2015, FOIA request seeking emails “relating to official United States Government business sent to or from” Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and three other top Homeland Security officials that used “non-‘.gov’” email addresses (Judicial Watch, Inc., v. United States Department of Homeland Security (No. l:l6-cv-00967)).

This is the first production of emails sent through private, web-based email accounts of Johnson, Deputy Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, Chief of Staff Christian Marrone and General Counsel Stevan Bunnell that were also sent to government email accounts.  The emails released reveal that:

  • The Kuwaiti ambassador to the US sent an email to Johnson’s unsecure email account attempting to set up a meeting for him with Kuwait’s Interior Ministry and discussing Kuwait’s Interior Minister’s having meetings with the heads of CIA, FBI and DNI.
  • The US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia emailed to Johnson’s unsecure email account, discussing Johnson’s upcoming meetings at the Saudi Interior Ministry in Jeddah.
  • DHS Chief of Staff Marrone held sensitive discussions with an unidentified individual regarding the earnings of Lockheed Martin and a space vehicle launch consortium between Lockheed and Boeing, which the sender said to “use wisely.”  Marrone also received procurement documents related to launch vehicles and their “Launch Infrastructure Capability.”
  • Johnson gave a “Progress Report” speech in which he cited the Homeland Security Department’s “strides in cybersecurity.”
  • An unidentified individual spoofed Johnson’s name and email account in a phishing scam, telling recipients that they could get money from “an abandoned fund worth U.S.D. 4.5 million in West Africa” if they would send back their personal details.

Prior to the Obama administration’s leaving office, a federal court ordered the Department of Homeland Security to preserve email records sought by Judicial Watch.  In petitioning the court for the preservation order, Judicial Watch argued:

A court order requiring preservation of these emails is particularly necessary now as DHS has suggested that these officials may have been acting without authorization by sending emails from these accounts … As such, there is no assurance that these officials will abide by a “request” by the agency to preserve these emails, particularly after their employment ends. …

Judicial Watch previously uncovered documents revealing that Secretary Jeh Johnson and 28 other agency officials used government computers to access personal web-based email accounts despite an agency-wide ban due to heightened security concerns.  The documents also reveal that Homeland Security officials misled Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) when Perry specifically asked whether personal accounts were being used for official government business.

“It is ironic and disconcerting that Secretary Johnson and his aides touted Homeland Security’s great ‘strides in cybersecurity’ while using unsecured, private, web-based email accounts that the Department had officially prohibited,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “The fact that the documents found in these email accounts were so heavily redacted and that Johnson’s name and email account were spoofed in a phishing scam is indicative of just how lax communications security was inside Homeland Security during the Obama administration.”

Trump’s Court Battle in Perspective

https://i2.wp.com/www.financetwitter.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/President-Donald-Trump-in-Oval-Office.jpg

image via financetwitter.com

Family Security Matters

by ROGER ARONOFF

Now that a federal appeals court panel has upheld the freeze on President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and immigration, he will likely have his first case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the not too distant future. This may have been an unforced error on the part of the President. While I believe it was wrong and counter-productive for President Trump to belittle the Washington state judge and suggest that even a “bad high school student” would understand the law, the media, in their hyper-hostility toward Trump, are demonstrating their complete double standard. Where was their criticism of Obama when he attacked and pressured the courts to rule in his favor, or condemned them after rulings went against him? The press was missing in action.

President Obama wasn’t shy about criticizing the courts. He did so during his 2010 State of the Union address where he criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling on Citizens United. “With all due deference to separation of powers,” said [1] Obama, “last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.” Justice Samuel A. Alito made news by mouthing “Not true” in response to the president’s comments.

Just “two days before oral arguments” in the Obamacare case known as King v. Burwell, writes [2] Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, Obama told Reuters, “In our view, [there was] not a plausible legal basis for striking [the IRS rule] down.”

Continue reading