The Nov. 13 terror attacks in Paris has forced France to examine its security policies, including at the Charles de Gaulle Airport, where it was recently discovered that 57 employees who had access to airplanes and runways were on a terror watch list.
Now, the security passes of 86,000 workers at the Paris airport will be reviewed, according to a report by the Sunday Times of London.
Police carried out extensive searches of the airport under state-of-emergency powers after the Nov. 13 Paris attacks in which 130 people were killed and 350 injured by Islamic State militants.
Belgium, where several of the Paris attackers had lived, also has pulled security badges from several airport workers after discovering that some had links to jihadis who had traveled to Syria.
Meanwhile, anxiety has been brewing about radicalism among bus, Metro and railroad workers.
Samy Amimour, who blew himself up in the Bataclan concert hall in Paris, managed to get a job as a bus driver while on a watch list.
The recent finding of Arabic graffiti on four planes at two French airports, including one that had “Allahu Akbar” written on a fuel tank hatch, has only increased security concerns. While the graffiti in and of itself is not harmful, it raises serious questions about who has access to restricted airport locations.
An al-Qaeda suicide bomber killed key ISIS leaders.
The bombing took place on a Nov. 15 Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade meeting, an ISIS terror group in the Golan Heights. Several top leaders were at the meeting, and six of them died. The suicide bomber was a part of Al Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate. The Islamic terrorist organization took credit for the attack over Twitter and called on ISIS terrorists to surrender themselves.
Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade responded, “The martyrdom of the leaders will only make us more determined. Blood and sacrifice is welcome for God’s sake.”
Alex Fishman, military correspondent for Yediot Aharonot, told Fox News, “The Islamic State [ISIS], that controls the closest area to the Israel border in the Syrian Golan Heights, suffered a severe blow and lost its entire top command in the area in one fell swoop.”
Fox also reported this:
Regional experts suggest the successful suicide mission against such a significant affiliate shows a degree of on-the-ground vulnerability on the part of ISIS. They say it could be interpreted as justification for those who argue that only ‘boots on the ground’ can truly deal a crushing blow to ISIS, whose reported underground hiding places ensure that while they will suffer casualties from airstrikes carried out by the U.S., France and others, such tactics are unlikely to deal them a mortal blow.
This would fall in line with what The Daily Wire’s Joshua Yashmeh was reporting on Monday.
The attack is a reflection of the rivalry between the barbaric Islamic terror organizations. Al-Qaeda doesn’t like the fact that ISIS kills other Muslims, ISIS think that al-Qaeda lacks “purity.” This rivalry could be very deadly, as TIME magazine’s Jared Malsin writes:
There is mounting evidence of the potential for a competition in which ISIS, al-Qaeda, their affiliates, and individuals inspired by the those groups attempt to match or surpass one another’s acts of killing. In the short term, one group may succeed in attracting more recruits and funding, more praise from their online acolytes. But in the long term this is a contest with no winners, only losers, the victims.
Regardless, the more al-Qaeda and ISIS kill each other instead of innocent civilians, the better.
Just when you think Obama’s Iran deal couldn’t get any worse, his own State Dept. reveals that Iran didn’t sign the deal nor is it ‘legally binding’. It’s just a set of ‘political commitments’ or something:
NRO – President Obama didn’t require Iranian leaders to sign the nuclear deal that his team negotiated with the regime, and the deal is not “legally binding,” his administration acknowledged in a letter to Representative Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) obtained by National Review.
“The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is not a treaty or an executive agreement, and is not a signed document,” wrote Julia Frifield, the State Department assistant secretary for legislative affairs, in the November 19 letter. Frifield wrote the letter in response to a letter Pompeo sent Secretary of State John Kerry, in which he observed that the deal the president had submitted to Congress was unsigned and wondered if the administration had given lawmakers the final agreement.
Frifield’s response emphasizes that Congress did receive the final version of the deal. But by characterizing the JCPOA as a set of “political commitments” rather than a more formal agreement, it is sure to heighten congressional concerns that Iran might violate the deal’s terms.
“The success of the JCPOA will depend not on whether it is legally binding or signed, but rather on the extensive verification measures we have put in place, as well as Iran’s understanding that we have the capacity to re-impose – and ramp up – our sanctions if Iran does not meet its commitments,” Frifield wrote to Pompeo.
Of course we couldn’t trust Iran in the first place, but for Obama, who touted this deal as the only way to keep Iran from getting nukes, to not even get their signatures attesting to their ‘commitment’ to this so-called deal seems ludicrous. And for his State Department to then say it’s not legally binding? Just what assurances did Obama think he was getting from the Iranians to even make the guarantees he made and his numerous statements defending this deal?
Here’s the letter obtained by the NRO:
A British television network went undercover for a year among female supporters of the Islamic State group in London and reportedly found British mothers preaching that Allah will destroy Western militaries, that the “man-made” laws of Britain are to be rejected and that Muslims must travel to Syria to join the jihadist group.
In the program, “ISIS: The British Women Supporters Unveiled,” Britain’s Channel 4 reported that its investigation spanned the past year until about four weeks before the Paris attacks, which killed 129 people.
The undercover reporter, dressed in full Islamic garb, including covering her face, penetrated the closely guarded group by first setting up fake social media accounts that she used to communicate with three leading female Islamic State supporters in the U.K. who go by the names Umm Usmaan, Umm Saalihah, and Umm L, whom Channel 4 said it could not name for legal reasons.
The reporter, who presented herself as a woman named “Aisha,” said she is a Muslim who grew up in London and was willing to undertake personal risk in order to discover what has motivated an estimated 700 British Muslims to travel to Syria to fight for the jihadist group – among them 100 girls.
“Aisha” attended secret lectures in London, during which women preached the evils of the U.K. and democracy and described Jews as “filthy,” often with teenage and younger girls present.
The women pushed the notion that man-made laws are not to be followed, only the laws of Islam; therefore, democracy should be rejected.
“We do not submit to the law of any country, any nation,” said one of the women.
One of the women tweeted against wearing the traditional poppy on one’s lapel in honor of servicemen killed in war, describing a person who wears the red flower as an “apostate.”
Accusing Israel of killing Muslim children, the radical female activist Umm L said, “The amount of Muslim children – I won’t even use the word ‘Palestinian’ – Muslim children that are in custody of those filthy Jews.”
On the videos, Umm Usmaan frequently quoted Islamic religious texts to encourage people to travel to Syria, while Umm Saalihah told Muslims online to go work for the caliphate, the documentary reported.
Repeatedly, the British women attacked Britain for allegedly waging a war against them.
“Allah, one by one, he will destroy them,” one female preacher said regarding coalition fighters targeting jihadists.
Those launching air strikes on the Islamic State group in Syria were described as “cowards” and engaged in “killing innocent people.”
“Aisha” the undercover reporter saw online messages encouraging girls to travel to Syria.
“Start saving for a plane ticket and don’t tell anyone,” social media activists told the impressionable young Muslim women.
The documentary can be viewed at Channel 4.
A man, who just two years ago was the poster boy for the far-Left media’s attacks against the U.S. government’s no-fly list for “unfairly” targeting Muslims, finds himself and several family members sitting in a Turkish prison – arrested earlier this month near the Turkey-Syria border as members of an ISIS cell.
It’s a long way from 2013 when Saadiq Long’s cause was being championed by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, Glenn Greenwald, and Mother Jones, and was being represented by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) terror front.
His story got considerable media attention when his CAIR media representatives here pushed the story that Long wanted to return to his native Oklahoma from his current home in Qatar to visit his ailing mother but couldn’t because he was on the TSA’s no-fly list. They said his case represented institutional “Islamophobia.”
Long’s cause got international attention when Glenn Greenwald published an article at The Guardian saying that Long was “effectively exiled from his own country.” Kevin Drum of Mother Jones branded it the “Kafkaesque World of the No-Fly List.” CAIR has 22 article entries related to Long’s case on its website.
After several months of wrangling between his CAIR attorneys and the Department of Homeland Security, Long was temporarily removed from the no-fly list and allowed to return to Oklahoma.
Once home, however, he was still subject to FBI surveillance according to claims he made during a press conference with his CAIR handlers.
After an incident with local police and the FBI, Long was apparently placed back on the no-fly list, preventing his return to Qatar.
That prompted even more outrage from the far-Left media and garnered him an appearance with his CAIR handler on Chris Hayes’ MSNBC show:
1:27 PM – 15 Feb 2013
US Air Force veteran, finally allowed to fly into US, is now banned from flying back home | Glenn…
Glenn Greenwald: Secret, unaccountable no-fly lists are one of many weapons the US government uses to extra-judicially punish American Muslims
U.S. and Turkish officials confirmed Long’s arrest to PJ Media, saying that he was arrested along with eight others operating along the Turkish-Syrian border. So far, no U.S. media outlet has reported on his arrest.
I have emailed Long’s CAIR handler, Adam Soltani, asking for comment. An email to his attorney Gadeir Abbas was returned as undeliverable.
Putin Warns Turkey There Will Be ‘Serious Consequences’ For ‘Stabbing Russia In The Back’ By Shooting Down One Of Its Jets… As Video Emerges Of Rebels Chanting ‘Allahu Akbar’ Over The Body Of Dead Pilot – Daily Mail
Turkey’s military have today shot down a Russian war plane near its border with Syria after the jet violated Turkish air space.
The Russian Sukhoi Su-24 jet was shot down by Turkish F-16 fighter planes after ignoring nearly a dozen warnings, Turkish army officials said.
President Vladimir Putin called Turkey’s decision to shoot down the plane a ‘stab in the back by the terrorists’ accomplices’, as his Defence Ministry still claims the jet was in Syrian airspace
Footage reportedly filmed by rebels in Syria’s Turkomen Mountains, an area which has been the cause of recent tensions between Turkey and Russia, shows local fighters cheer as they discover the body of one of the Russian pilots.
The video, posted on Twitter by a man believed to be a Syrian-Turkmen rebel soldier, shows at least a dozen men surrounding the corpse of the pilot, dressed in Russian military fatigues, and some are heard shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ – ‘God is great’.
Local rebels said the pilot, who can be seen covered in bruises and burns in the video, was already deceased when he landed, and that none of the Russian pilots had been killed by Syrian fighters.
The area is mainly populated by Turkmens – Syrians citizens, but ethnic Turks – and is the target of a current Syrian government offensive, where President Bashar al-Assad’s ground troops are supported by Russian airstrikes.
The Turkish army said the pilots of the Russian jet had been warned ‘ten times in the space of five minutes’ before the plane was shot down.
Both pilots ejected themselves from the jet and could be seen parachuting down to the ground, where one has been reported dead and the other captured by Syrian Turkmen rebels.
The Turkomen Mountains is controlled by several insurgent groups, who are not allied with ISIS, including al-Qaida’s branch in Syria, the Nusra Front, and the 2nd Coastal Division that consists of local Turkmen fighters.
Just hours before the Russian jet was shot down, Ankara called for a U.N Security Council meeting to discuss attacks on Turkmen areas in Syria, which have forced some 1,700 civilians to flee their homes in the last three days, according to Turkish officials.
It followed a summoning of Moscow’s ambassador on Friday, when Ankara demanded an immediate end to the Russian military operation near the Syrian border saying the Russian actions did not ‘constitute a fight against terrorism’ but the bombing of civilians.
Ambassador Andrey Karlov was warned during the meeting that the Russian operations could lead to serious consequences, the ministry said.
Turkish officials said the Russian plane was first warned that it was within ten miles of the Turkish border, and the aircraft then crossed over Turkish territory, adding that a second plane had also approached the border and been warned.
‘The data we have is very clear. There were two planes approaching our border, we warned them as they were getting too close,’ a senior Turkish official said.
‘We warned them to avoid entering Turkish airspace before they did, and we warned them many times. Our findings show clearly that Turkish airspace was violated multiple times. And they violated it knowingly,’ the official said.
NATO allies will hold an ‘extraordinary’ meeting later today at Ankara’s request to discuss Tuesday morning’s incident, an alliance official said.
‘At the request of Turkey, the North Atlantic Council will hold an extraordinary meeting at 4pm. The aim of this extraordinary NAC is for Turkey to inform Allies about the downing of a Russian airplane,’ the official said.
The North Atlantic Council consists of ambassadors from the 28 NATO member states.
A Turkish military statement, issued before it was confirmed that the jet was Russian, said the plane entered Turkish airspace over the town of Yayladagi, in Hatay province.
‘On Nov. 24, 2015 at around 09.20am, a plane whose nationality is not known violated the Turkish airspace despite several warnings (ten times within five minutes) in the area of Yayladagi, Hatary.
‘Two F-16 planes on aerial patrol duty in the area intervened against the plane in question in accordance with the rules of engagement at 09.24am.’
The Turkish Army later released a radar analysis image which they say tracks the movement of the Russian Sukhoi Su-24 jet, showing where it entered Turkish air space, and where it went down.
‘This isn’t an action against any specific country. Our F-16s took the necessary steps to defend Turkey’s sovereign territory,’ a Turkish official told news agencies on condition of anonymity.
Russia’s Defence Ministry said in a statement that they are looking into the circumstances of the crash of the Russian jet.
‘The Ministry of Defence would like to stress that the plane was over the Syrian territory throughout the flight.’
The statement also claimed that the Sukhoi-24 had been shot down from the ground at the altitude of 6,000 metres (3.73m).
Vladimir Putin’s spokesman called the downing of the Su-24 warplane a ‘very serious incident’ but declined to comment further until more facts emerged.
‘It is just impossible to say something without having full information,’ said Dmitry Peskov.
Russia’s government-run TV Zvezda claimed the warplane had been in Syrian airspace the entire time, which allegedly could be proven by ‘control systems’, a ministry spokesman said.
‘It’s the kind of thing we’re been warning about,’ said Ian Kearns, director of the European Leadership Network think-tank in London.
‘And it’s a direct military engagement between a NATO country and Russia, so I think it’s a serious incident in anybody’s book.’
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu has spoken with the chief of military staff and the foreign minister about the developments on the Syrian border, the prime minister’s office said in a statement, without mentioning the downed jet.
He has ordered the foreign ministry to consult with NATO, the United Nations and related countries on the latest developments, his office said.
Last month, Turkish jets shot down an unidentified drone that had also violated Turkey’s airspace.
Turkey and Russia have long been at loggerheads over the Syrian conflict, with Ankara seeking Assad’s overthrow while Moscow does everything to keep him in power.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is due to visit Turkey on Wednesday to discuss Syria, in a trip arranged before this incident.Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan is meanwhile expected to visit Russia for talks with Putin in late December.
Russia’s participation in the Syrian peace process talks in Vienna, the co-operation on the UN Security Council resolution and meetings between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Nato leaders provided signs of a renewed diplomatic engagement between Moscow and the West in recent weeks.
French President Francois Hollande will meet Mr Putin on Thursday and Russia has offered co-operation in the fight against IS following the atrocities in Paris and the downing of a Russian passenger jet in Egypt.
This morning, leftist propaganda rags and conservative news blogs alike pounced on a story about Donald Trump’s ‘Plan For A Muslim Database‘ in America. I won’t even bother going into the specifics of the issue here, since several right-wing talk radio hosts have already completely dismantled the story. In essence, it was a load of shit, and anyone who believed the Jurassic media’s “reporting” on the matter, without bothering to independently confirm that it was actually true before jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon, is a waste of fucking space.
Look, I get that there are a lot of people out there who don’t like Donald Trump. The guy isn’t at the top of my candidates’ list either, but that doesn’t excuse anyone from spreading provably false rumors about the man. Hell, it’s not like there aren’t plenty of legitimate reasons to disapprove of The Donald. I’ve named several of them myself in previous articles, yet I’ve also attempted to impress upon my readers that as bad as Trump may be in certain respects, he’s the next Ronald Reagan when compared to ANY Democrat candidate you could name, and if given the choice between siding with him or throwing in with the likes of ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times or The Washington Post, the contest is over before it begins. I’ll stand by Trump every single day and twice on Sundays.
Need I remind you that this same sort of phony, left-wing journalism reared its ugly head just two weeks ago? At that time it was Ben Carson who was targeted with accusations that he lied about being offered a scholarship to West Point during his ROTC days, and many in the so-called conservative press regurgitated the words of the Democrat-controlled MSM without hesitation. Of course, it didn’t take long for people who don’t have their heads crammed firmly up their own asses to destroy the credibility of the leftist pricks who’d made the story up out of whole cloth.
Before long they’ll be going after some other top-tier GOP candidate like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, and certain right-leaning news outlets with political axes to grind will copy and paste these leftists’ headlines onto their websites, thus affording the swine a legitimacy they’ve never earned while effectively undermining the entire Republican primary field in the process. Apparently, several of my fellow conservative bloggers have forgotten the age-old adage: when you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Suffice it to say that for every leftist-inspired, journalistic hit-job you embrace, you take one step closer to becoming one of the very neo-socialist media whores you claim to hate. Take it from someone who has made similar mistakes in the past and has lived to regret them, that road ends in shame. Yes, I too have re-posted articles on this very blog that turned out to be totally unfounded, for the simple reason that I WANTED TO BELIEVE THEY WERE TRUE. Granted, those few stories originated from hacks on the right side of the blogosphere, but that fact doesn’t make my actions any more righteous or admirable. I bought into the bullshit because I thought it served my political interests, but I was dead wrong!
Spreading false information in the name of an agenda is beneath me, just as it is beneath anyone out there who calls himself a conservative. It’s the truth we should be concerned with above all else, because if we can’t at least hold the high ground in that respect, how exactly are we any better than Hillary Clinton?
By Edward L. Daley
As I argued in Faithless Execution, the principal constitutional duty of the chief executive is to execute the laws faithfully. President Obama, by contrast, sees his principal task as imposing his post-American “progressive” preferences, regardless of what the laws mandate.
In his latest harangue against Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) and other Americans opposed to his insistence on continuing to import thousands of Muslim refugees from Syria and other parts of the jihad-ravaged Middle East, Obama declaimed:
When I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who’s fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted… that’s shameful… That’s not American. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.
Really? Under federal law, the executive branch is expressly required to take religion into account in determining who is granted asylum. Under the provision governing asylum (section 1158 of Title 8, U.S. Code), an alien applying for admission
must establish that… religion [among other things]… was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.
Moreover, to qualify for asylum in the United States, the applicant must be a “refugee” as defined by federal law. That definition (set forth in Section 1101(a)(42)(A) of Title , U.S. Code) also requires the executive branch to take account of the alien’s religion:
The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality… and who is unable or unwilling to return to… that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of… religion [among other things]… [.]
The law requires a “religious test.” And the reason for that is obvious. Asylum law is not a reflection of the incumbent president’s personal (and rather eccentric) sense of compassion. Asylum is a discretionary national act of compassion that is directed, by law not whim, to address persecution.
There is no right to emigrate to the United States. And the fact that one comes from a country or territory ravaged by war does not, by itself, make one an asylum candidate. War, regrettably, is a staple of the human condition. Civil wars are generally about power. That often makes them violent and, for many, tragic; but it does not necessarily make them wars in which one side is persecuting the other side.
In the case of this war, the Islamic State is undeniably persecuting Christians. It is doing so, moreover, as a matter of doctrine. Even those Christians the Islamic State does not kill, it otherwise persecutes as called for by its construction of sharia (observe, for example, the ongoing rape jihad and sexual slavery).’
To the contrary, the Islamic State seeks to rule Muslims, not kill or persecute them. Obama prefers not to dwell on the distinction between the jihadist treatment of Muslims, on the one hand, and of Christians, Jews and other religions, on the other hand, because he – like much of Washington – inhabits a world in which jihadists are not Islamic and, therefore, have no common ground with other Muslims… notwithstanding that jihadists emerge whenever and wherever a population of sharia-adherent Muslims reaches critical mass. But this is sheer fantasy. While there is no question that ISIS will kill and persecute Muslims whom it regards as apostates for refusing to adhere to its construction of Islam, it is abject idiocy to suggest that Muslims are facing the same ubiquity and intensity of persecution as Christians.
And it is downright dishonest to claim that taking such religious distinctions into account is “not American,” let alone “shameful.” How can something American law requires be “not American”? And how can a national expression of compassion expressly aimed at alleviating persecution be “shameful”?
There are Muslim terrorists all over the world committing atrocities towards those they hate, whether it be Jews, Christians, other religious minorities, or even other Muslims with whom they disagree. And they are doing it in the name of the Allah and the Prophet Muhammad, using the Qu’ran to justify their evil acts.
We’re not just talking about ISIS. Nor Al-Qaeda. Just look in Israel where Muslims are coming out of the woodwork to stab Jews to death.
But somehow these terrorists who call themselves Muslims, who profess belief in Allah and the Prophet Muhammad and who say they are adherents to Islam, are actually NOT Muslims according to Hillary Clinton.
Since when is Hillary Clinton a foremost expert on Islam? Because her good friend is Huma Abedin and believes all Muslims are like her?
The ISIS caliph, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, has a DOCTORATE in Islamic studies. Yet Hillary claims he’s not a Muslim? He’s not Islamic?
Just another reason this lying criminal and Muslim propagandist should never win the presidency.
A highly trusted federal agent working under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has confirmed to Breitbart Texas that a group composed of 5 Pakistani men and 1 man from Afghanistan was captured by U.S. Border Patrol agents after having illegally crossed the porous U.S.-Mexico border in the Tucson Sector of Arizona.
The six men were traveling in a group and were captured roughly 16 miles into the state of Arizona, specifically, near the small picturesque town of Patagonia, Arizona.
The apprehension of the group occurred late on Monday night, November 16, 2015.
Border Patrol agents were unable to do extensive interviews with the six Middle Eastern men because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) took over the matter. The aliens were immediately transferred to Tucson where the FBI took custody.
On Wednesday evening, Breitbart Texas disclosed a report by other federal agents claiming that 8 Syrian illegal aliens were captured while attempting to enter the United States in the Laredo Sector. The Department of Homeland Security has now confirmed our exclusive report.
Earlier on Wednesday afternoon, Breitbart Texas reported that 5 Syrians were arrested in Honduras cutting their travel plans to the U.S. short. Those 5 Syrians entered Honduras by air and were headed towards the Guatemalan border. All five of the Syrians were said to be young males and were all carrying stolen Greek passports.
While the release of information relating to these type of high-profile illegal aliens is usually closely guarded by CBP officials, Breitbart Texas was able to confirm an earlier arrest of a Syrian woman who attempted to enter the U.S. illegally. She was charged with using a passport belonging to someone else. The woman, Walaa Alrehawi was initially charged with misusing a U.S. passport in Hidalgo, Texas. For an unknown reason, the Department of Justice dismissed the charges “with prejudice” (charges cannot be re-filed) against the woman and her brother-in-law Mohammad Ziad Alzalam who she was traveling with. The only explanation given was the dismissal was “in the interest of justice.”
Breitbart Texas has traveled extensively in the Tucson Sector of Arizona and reported extensively from the region.
Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. The federal agents spoke with Breitbart Texas on the condition of anonymity, however, a local president of the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) confirmed that Laredo Border Patrol agents have been officially contacting the organization with concerns over reports from other federal agents about Syrians illegally entering the country in the Laredo Sector. The reports have caused a stir among the sector’s Border Patrol agents.
The sources claimed that eight Syrians were apprehended on Monday, November 16, 2015. According to the sources, the Syrians were in two separate “family units” and were apprehended at the Juarez Lincoln Bridge in Laredo, Texas, also known officially as Port of Entry 1.
Border Patrol agent and NBPC Local 2455 President Hector Garza told Breitbart Texas, “Border Patrol agents who we represent have been contacting our organization to voice concerns about reports from other agents that Syrians crossed the U.S. border from Mexico in the Laredo Sector. Our agents have heard about Syrians being apprehended in the area from other federal agents.” Agent Garza added, “At this time, I cannot confirm or deny that Syrians have crossed, for security reasons.”
Agent Garza further stated that in matters as sensitive as Syrians crossing the border from Mexico, it would be highly unlikely that federal agencies would publicize it or inform a broad group of law enforcement. He did say that Local 2455 is taking the reports seriously and that they “will be issuing an officer safety bulletin advising Border Patrol agents to exercise extra precautions as they patrol the border.”
Breitbart Texas can confirm that a Syrian did attempt to enter the U.S. illegally through Texas in late September. The Syrian was caught using a passport that belonged to someone else and U.S. authorities decided against prosecuting anyone involved due to “circumstances.”
Honduran authorities have detained five Syrian nationals who were trying to reach the United States using stolen Greek passports, but there are no signs of any links to last week’s attacks in Paris, police said.
The Syrian men were held late on Tuesday in the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, on arrival from Costa Rica, and had been planning to head to the border with neighboring Guatemala. The passports had been doctored to replace the photographs with those of the Syrians, police said.
“We received information from (fellow) police services that these five Syrians left Greece and passed through Turkey, Brazil, Argentina and San Jose in Costa Rica before finally reaching Tegucigalpa,” said Anibal Baca, spokesman for Honduras’ police. “They are normal Syrians.”
U.S. Republican lawmakers defied President Barack Obama on Wednesday and set out plans following last week’s deadly Paris attacks to tighten screening of Syrian refugees.
Obama has pledged to take in 10,000 Syrians next year from the war-torn country. But his plan faces stiff resistance from Republicans, concerned some of the refugees could be associated with Islamic State.
Reports that at least one of the Paris attackers was believed to have slipped into Europe among migrants registered in Greece prompted several Western countries to begin to question their willingness to take in refugees.
Just when she thought she had skated by on Benghazi and her email infractions, it now appears that Hillary Clinton’s woes on these issues may be far from over.
There is a largely unknown security scandal emerging, which centers not on the doomed U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, but on the American Embassy in Tripoli about 400 miles away.
This scandal, combined with classified information on Clinton’s private server and sensitive material looted from the dangerously unprotected Benghazi compound, may spell trouble in Hillary Clinton-land, especially in regard to the presidential candidate’s national security credentials.
The larger stack of evidence, presented here by Breitbart Jerusalem, shows the astonishing scope of the Clinton State Department’s apparent failure to protect highly sensitive – at times classified – national security secrets.
In at least one case, sensitive information was likely obtained by our terrorist enemies in Libya, as a federal indictment charges.
In another case, classified communications equipment and hard drives housed at a dangerously insecure U.S. embassy reopened by Clinton were protected, embarrassingly, by a female office manager and other staffers – not by U.S. marines.
Forget Benghazi… take a look at Tripoli embassy security
The U.S. diplomatic facility in Tripoli was first upgraded to embassy status in 2006. Due to security concerns, Clinton temporarily shut it down during the 2011 revolution that toppled Moammar Gadhafi’s regime. In September 2011, after Gadhafi fell, the embassy was reopened.
The story begins in 2012, immediately after the embassy received notice of the first assault on the Benghazi mission.
Largely ignored in the firestorm surrounding the Benghazi attacks is the fact that – like the Benghazi mission – the U.S. embassy in Tripoli did not meet the State Department’s minimum security standards for a diplomatic outpost established without a security waiver from the Secretary of State.
These security standards were established by the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or SECCA, which was passed in the aftermath of two embassy bombings in Africa in 1998.
Rep. Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), a Benghazi investigator who was the fifth highest ranking member of the House GOP leadership, declared on the House floor on January 15, 2014:
It was known in the State Department and at the highest levels that neither facility in Libya – the one in Tripoli or the one in Benghazi – met the minimum physical security standards set after our embassy was attacked in Kenya in 1998. Who made the decision to put so many American diplomats in those facilities that did not meet that standard?
Eric Allan Nordstrom, a former regional secretary officer in Tripoli who is now the supervisory special agent with the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, confirmed that the Tripoli embassy did not meet the minimum standards.
At an October 10, 2012 congressional hearing on Benghazi, Nordstrom said:
Neither the buildings in Benghazi nor the buildings in Tripoli met those standards, nor was there a plan for the next phase of construction, what was called the interim embassy, would they meet the standards either. That interim embassy was scheduled to be on the ground for approximately 10 years. That was a major cause of concern, and that was the main physical security issue that we continued to raise.
Contrary to a misleading claim propagated by Clinton herself, there was no Marine Security Guard (MSG) contingent protecting the Tripoli embassy during the 2012 attacks. They were only deployed in the aftermath of the fatal Benghazi assault.
In her 2014 memoir, Hard Choices, Clinton claims there were marines guarding the Tripoli embassy:
So while there were Marines stationed at our embassy in Tripoli, where nearly all of our diplomats worked and which had the capability to process classified material, because there was no classified processing at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, there were no Marines posted there.
But the former head of Africa Command, General Carter Ham, testified before Congress on June 26, 2013 that “There was no Marine security detachment in Tripoli.”
Breitbart Jerusalem has confirmed with the press office of the U.S. Marines that no marine contingent was deployed in Tripoli on September 11, 2012.
These details are relevant because the primary duty of the MSG is to protect classified information and equipment vital to U.S. national security.
So who was safeguarding the classified information processed by U.S. officials in Tripoli under Clinton’s watch? In one case, it seems, one guard was a female office manager.
‘She was smashing hard drives with an ax’
In May 2013, Gregory N. Hicks – the No. 2 at the Tripoli embassy the night of the attacks – testified before Congress that about three hours after the first attack on the Benghazi mission, his staff in Tripoli was alerted to Twitter feeds asserting the terror group Ansar al-Sharia was behind the attack. Other tweets warned of a pending attack on the embassy in Tripoli.
Hicks described a scene in which the office staff began to destroy classified materials for fear of an attack.
“We had always thought that we were… under threat, that we now have to take care of ourselves, and we began planning to evacuate our facility,” he testified.
“When I say our facility, I mean the State Department residential compound in Tripoli, and to consolidate all of our personnel… at the annex in Tripoli.”
Hicks said he “immediately telephoned Washington that news afterward and began accelerating our effort to withdraw from the Villas compound and move to the annex.”
He recalled how his team “responded with amazing discipline and courage in Tripoli in organizing withdrawal.”
Continued Hicks: “I have vivid memories of that. I think the most telling, though, was of our communications staff dismantling our communications equipment to take with us to the annex and destroying the classified communications capability.”
“Our office manager, Amber Pickens, was everywhere that night just throwing herself into some task that had to be done. First she was taking a log of what we were doing,” he said.
“Then she was loading magazines, carrying ammunition to the – carrying our ammunition supply to… our vehicles, and then she was smashing hard drives with an ax.”
The vivid scene, however, was not mentioned once during Clinton’s Benghazi testimony last month or during her testimony on the subject in 2013. This despite Clinton being directly asked about the response by the Tripoli embassy during last month’s testimony.
The dramatic incident in Tripoli was also not referenced in the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board probe of the Benghazi attack.
Terror kingpin obtains sensitive documents… why not classified?
Major questions linger about why Hillary Clinton’s State Department did not classify the reportedly sensitive documents and material that ran through the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi. The material was clearly not adequately protected, as the assault on the mission summarily exposed.
During Clinton’s Benghazi testimony to lawmakers last month, Clinton claimed that unlike the Tripoli compound, Benghazi did not house classified material. She conceded that some unclassified material was left behind after the attacks.
It is instructive to focus on what materials were housed in Benghazi, especially in light of a November 2012 report by Fox News quoting sources in Washington and on the ground in Libya, including a witness, confirming computers were stolen during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.
Also, two days after the compound was looted, the London Independent reported documents inside the U.S. mission were said to “list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups.”
And the Washington Post three weeks later reported documents inside the U.S. mission contained “delicate information about American operations in Libya.”
The Post revealed that one of its own journalists visited the vacated facility weeks after the attack and personally found scattered across the floors “documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission.”
Stevens’ itinerary at times also reportedly passed through Clinton’s private email server, including his exact whereabouts and movements while he was stationed in the Libya danger zone.
The 2012 Fox News report also divulged that after the U.S. mission was looted, some of the Libyans employed there received death threats via text message. It is unclear whether the threats were prompted by the stolen documents and computers.
Some of the sensitive information was obtained by the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group, which was implicated in the Benghazi attacks.
Breitbart Jerusalem reviewed the 21-page, 18-count federal indictment against Ahmed Abu Khatallah, the Benghazi-based leader of Ansar al-Sharia.
The extensive indictment charges that Khatallah stole “documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information” from the Benghazi mission. The charge sheet further accuses Khatallah of conspiring to “plunder property from the Mission and Annex, including documents, maps and computers containing sensitive information.”
In other words, according to the federal indictment, Khatallah was partially motivated to storm the Bengahzi compound in order to obtain sensitive documents – materials that were ripe for the plundering in the unsecured Benghazi mission.
Echoing her e-mail controversy, during her Benghazi testimony last month Clinton was confronted about her seemingly ambiguous definition of sensitive and classified materials stored at the Benghazi mission.
One particular exchange on the matter may be telling:
CLINTON: We know it through our own investigation about what documents were at Benghazi, and there were no classified materials, to the best of our information.
POMPEO: Yes, ma’am. Do you know if there was sensitive information?
CLINTON: I suppose it depends on what one thinks of as sensitive information. There was information there and some of it was burnt, either wholly or partially. Some of it was looted. And some of it was recovered eventually.
POMPEO: Madam Secretary, do you know where that material that was looted went? Do you know into whose hands it fell? And do you know the nature and contents of that material? You seem very confident it wasn’t classified. I don’t share your confidence. But nonetheless, do you know where that material went?
CLINTON: I think that it – it is very difficult to know where it ended up. But I want to just reiterate the point that I made. This was not a facility that had the capacity to handle classified material. And there was, to the best of our information, Congressman, no classified material at the Benghazi facility.
POMPEO: Ma’am, the fact that it wasn’t capable of handling classified material doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any classified material there. Is that correct?
CLINTON: Well, the procedure is not to have classified material at such a facility. And again, to the best of our knowledge, there was not any there.
POMPEO: Yes, ma’am. You’re not supposed to have classified e- mail on your private server either.
CLINTON: And I did not, Congressman.
This morning 100 French police officers raided two apartment blocks in the Parisian suburb of Saint-Denis, just days after the Paris terror attacks resulted in at least 129 deaths.
After a dramatic seven hour gunfight in a residential building, two terror suspects have been killed and seven others wounded and captured. One man, yet to be identified, was shot dead by police.
A woman, thought possibly to be the cousin of Abdelhamid Abaaoud – the assumed ringleader of the Paris attacks – blew herself up with a suicide vest.
Five police officers received minor wounds and one police dog was killed. The operation is over and the area is secured.
The identities of those killed and captured have not been released – and French authorities are comparing the DNA of those killed and captured to intelligence databases. It has been reported that the target of the raid was Abaaoud.
It was initially thought that Abaaoud conducted the attack from Syria. However, French security sources have told the media that recent phone surveillance and testimony helped authorities determine that he is, in fact, in Paris. The same phone surveillance and testimony also led French authorities to believe that another major attack in Paris was imminent.
The location of the raid is no surprise. Saint-Denis is a relatively poor suburb of Paris. Saint-Denis is also home to a sizable immigrant population and an estimated 20 percent of the population is of North African descent. It is worth pointing out that Abaaoud is a Belgium of Moroccan descent so he would have felt quite comfortable holding up in the area.
Saint-Denis was one of several hotspots during the infamous 2005 French riots which saw hundreds of cars and several government buildings burned by local immigrant groups. The location of the police raid is not far from the national stadium Stade de France – one of the main targets in last weekend’s terrorists attacks.
This raid comes on the same day that two Air France planes, originating from the U.S. and travelling to Paris, had to make emergency landings due to bomb threats. Thankfully, these were false alarms and no bombs were found, but the incidents, along with the raid, shows why France and her allies need to remain vigilant.
French President Francois Hollande announced that the police raid in Saint-Denis is proof that “we are at war” with ISIS. The question is: what is France going to do about it?