(Note :The tag along video player and/or randomly inserted ad blocks are not part of this article. They are aggravating and a hindrance to the continuity of the article. I apologize for the aggravation. I have no control over their placement in the body of this article.)
On November 13, 2001, President George W. Bush issued a new military order in the war against terrorism. The order called for the secretary of defense to detain non-citizens accused of international terrorism. The order specifically applies to members of the terrorist organization Al Qaeda. But it also includes all those who have engaged in, aided, or conspired to commit international terrorist acts against the United States or its citizens. Those who knowingly harbor such individuals are also subject to the order. Under the order, the secretary is charged with establishing military tribunals (also called military commissions) to conduct trials of non-citizens accused of terrorism either in the United States or in other parts of the world.
A military tribunal, or commission, is different from a regular civilian criminal court. In a tribunal, military officers act as both judge and jury. After a hearing, guilt is determined by a vote of the commissioners. Unlike a criminal jury, the decision does not have to be unanimous.
The order required the U.S. Secretary of defense to establish procedures for the commissions that would assure an accused a “full and fair trial.”
On March 21, 2002, the Department of Defense issued its proposed procedures for the commissions. Under the rules, a commission will consist of three to seven members appointed by the secretary of defense or by a committee established by the secretary. All commission members will be officers in the U.S. armed forces. A presiding officer will be chosen for each commission and must be a military lawyer. The presiding officer will have the authority to admit or exclude evidence. The officer may also conduct the trial in closed session if this is necessary to protect classified information or to assure the safety of defendants, witnesses, or commission members.
Under the procedures, a defendant would receive many, but not all, of the due process protections guaranteed to a defendant in a U.S. civilian criminal court. The tribunal procedures guarantee the following due process protections:
- An accused will be provided with defense counsel and can also have a lawyer of his or her own choosing, either a military or civilian attorney.
- The accursed will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
- An accused may refuse to testify during trial. The accused will have the right to obtain witnesses and documents necessary for the defense.
- A person accused may not be tried twice before a military commission for the same offense
- An accused will be allowed to negotiate and enter into a plea agreement.
Under the procedures, however, a person can be convicted in a commission trial by a two-thirds majority of the commissioners: Unanimous verdicts are not required. Evidence, including previous trial testimony and written statements, will be admissible if it tends to prove or disprove the case at hand. The exclusionary rule, which keeps illegally seized evidence out of a civilian criminal trial, does not apply. The procedures do not provide for appeals from a guilty verdict to civilian judges. They do, however, call for “reviews” of a verdict by a three-member panel selected by the secretary of defense. No verdict will be final until approved by the president or the secretary of defense .
Critics of President Bush’s order worry that defendants in military tribunals may not receive a fair trial. They think that using tribunals to try non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism might undermine American credibility overseas. President Bush and his administration defend their use. “We are an open society,” stated the president, “but we are at war. We must not let foreign terrorists use the forums of liberty to destroy freedom itself.”
Military Tribunals in American History
This is not the first time military tribunals have been used in American history. During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington ordered a military commission to try Major John Andre, a British officer accused of spying. The commission convicted him, and Andre was hanged.
The adoption of the U.S. Constitution in 1787 gave the president broad powers in times of war as commander in chief of the armed forces (Article II, Section 2). It also gave Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the law of nations (Article I, Section 8, Clause 10).
In the U.S.-Mexican War (1846-48), the U.S. government first used military commissions. In Mexico, commissions tried guerrilla fighters and other resisters who were not part of the Mexican army.
During the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed that all rebels arrested within the United States would be subject to martial law. Military commissions tried an estimated 4,000 people. One was Southern sympathizer Lambdin P. Milligan, an Indiana lawyer and politician. Milligan was involved in a failed conspiracy. He had planned to seize federal armories in the Midwest, arm Southern sympathizers, and lead a rebellion against federal troops. He was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to hang for inciting insurrection. Milligan filed a petition with the federal district court in Indiana claiming that he was being held illegally.
The war ended before Milligan’s sentence could be carried out, and his case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. In 1866 in Ex Parte Milligan, the court unanimously held that martial law should be confined to areas of actual warfare. The courts never closed in Indiana during the war, and the state was far removed from the battlefront. The court therefore concluded that Milligan should have been tried in a regular civilian criminal court, not by military tribunal. In sweeping language, the court declared: “The Constitution of the United States is the law for rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and under all circumstances.”
Another famous military tribunal took place near the end of the Civil War. After the assassination of President Lincoln, eight people were accused of participating in a conspiracy to kill the president. President Andrew Johnson appointed a military commission, the Hunter Commission, to try the accused. The commission found all eight guilty; four were hanged and four were sentenced to long prison terms. Historians and legal scholars have debated these results ever since. Some claim that several of the accused did not deserve the death penalty or long prison sentences.
World War II
Military tribunals were again used during the Second World War. In 1942, a U-boat landed eight German soldiers on Long Island, New York, under the cover of darkness. Dressed as civilians, their mission was to sabotage U.S. defense factories. The operation failed when two of the men defected and informed authorities. The FBI arrested the saboteurs and turned them over to the U.S. military for trial. Shortly after the arrest, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the use of military tribunals for trying those who entered the country to commit sabotage.
Within one month of capture, the eight Germans were tried by a military tribunal of army officers. The prosecution team consisted of 10 military lawyers. A single military lawyer, Colonel Kenneth Royall, represented the defendants. The tribunal found all eight guilty. Six were sentenced to death by electrocution, and the two defectors were sentenced to prison terms.
The defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that under the Milligan decision, they should have been tried in a U.S. civilian criminal court. Meeting in a special summer session, the court heard arguments and issued a unanimous opinion. Writing for the court in Ex Parte Quirin, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone denied the appeal. The court noted that Congress had authorized the use of military tribunals for offenses against the law of war. (The law of war is based on international treaties and, among other things, it forbids a country’s military personnel from operating in another country out of uniform.) The court went on to distinguish the Milligan case. It ruled that the saboteurs were belligerents (enemy soldiers at war), who because they had entered the country out of uniform to conduct sabotage, had violated the law of war. They therefore were not entitled to the status of prisoners of war. Nor were they entitled to the protections under the Milligan case, which only applied to non-belligerents not associated with the enemy. This was true even for one German saboteur who claimed U.S. citizenship. “Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent,” wrote the court, “does not relieve him from the consequences of a belligerency which is unlawful because it is a violation of the law of war.”
At the end of World War II, the U.S. armed forces also conducted military tribunals. They tried some 1,600 persons in Germany and nearly a thousand Japanese military personnel accused of committing war crimes. One of the Japanese, General Tomoyuki Yamashita, had commanded enemy forces in the Philippines. He was accused of permitting his troops to commit numerous atrocities against the civilian population and prisoners of war. Yamashita was tried in the Philippines and sentenced to death by a military commission appointed by Douglas MacArthur, commanding general of the western Pacific. His case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yamashita argued that because the war had ended and the Philippines was a U.S. territory, he should have been tried before a civilian criminal court.
In 1946 in In Re Yamasita, the court upheld the authority of the military commission. The court ruled that military tribunals do have the right to operate after hostilities have ended, because it is only then that most offenders, especially major ones, could be captured and tried. The court also, as in Quirin, upheld the use of military commissions in all matters relating to the law of war.
Is the Bush Military Order Constitutional?
Some legal experts have raised constitutional questions about the use of military commissions in response to September 11 and its aftermath. Supreme Court cases have upheld the use of tribunals during wartime. But it has been argued that since there has not been a formal declaration of war, only civilian criminal courts should try those accused of terrorism.
Historically, however, both Congress and the Supreme Court have recognized that a state of war might exist without a formal declaration. Even without a formal declaration, the United States conducted war against the South during the Civil War and the Indian Nations later in the 19th century. In both cases, military tribunals were used. In the 20th century, states of war have existed many times without a formal declaration: in Vietnam, Korea and during the Gulf crisis.
It has also been questioned whether individuals not acting for a nation can be accused of violating the law of war. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are not nations, but rather a loosely organized network of individuals from many nations. Can such groups or individuals be accused of violations of the law of war?
Geneva Conventions define the law of war. They include provisions to protect civilians against rebel groups engaged in a civil war or insurrection within a country. Al Qaeda is not a rebel group within a single country. But many experts believe that the law of war covers terrorists, and if they violate the law, they can be tried by tribunal.
Most experts seem to agree that it is constitutional to try by military tribunal non-citizens accused of terrorism. But there are other concerns about President Bush’s order. The American Bar Association assembled a task force of legal scholars to study the president’s order. The task force questioned the use of military commissions against non-citizens who are actually in the United States when captured. It cited court cases holding that aliens, even those not lawfully within the country, are entitled to due process protections contained in the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth amendments. It argued that such individuals should not be tried by tribunals. Other experts, however, argue that the Quirin decision does permit trial by tribunal of even U.S. citizens who enter the country to violate the law of war.
The task force further recommended that military tribunals should be used only under narrow circumstances where security issues are compelling. To assure a “full and fair trial,” it suggested incorporating the procedures currently required in the court martial of U.S. military personnel (as outlined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice). These include an open and public trial except for compelling reasons and most rights accorded a criminal defendant in a civilian court except for the exclusionary rule and unanimous jury verdicts. The task force also recommended that tribunal jurisdiction be subject to review by higher courts.
The procedures proposed by the secretary of defense include a number of these recommendations. But they do not include all of the requirements outlined by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Most notably, they do not give convicted defendants the right to appeal to federal civilian courts.
Are Military Commissions Good Public Policy?
Aside from the constitutional and legal questions raised about military tribunals, controversy has arisen over their use. Even before the proposed procedures were issued, criticism came from both the right and the left of the political spectrum.
The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, editorialized that, “The president and his men (and women) should think again” and abandon the plan for the tribunals. The Cato Daily Dispatch, a libertarian journal, cited a constitutional scholar who called tribunals, “law on the fly” for their and secrecy and lack of due process. The Washington National Office of the American Civil Liberties Union decried the tribunal plan as further evidence of “the government’s increasing willingness to circumvent the Bill of Rights.” Yet public opinion seems to support the president’s plan. In a Washington Post-ABC News Poll released two weeks after the military order, 59 percent of Americans supported the use of special military tribunals, against 37 percent who favored the use of the regular U.S. criminal court system for trying terrorists.
Supporters of military tribunals cite their necessity under the circumstances. They fear that trying terrorists in open U.S. courts could compromise intelligence gathering by forcing the government to disclose its sources. They also fear that regular criminal trials would be tempting targets for further terrorist actions putting the lives of judges, jurors, and witnesses at risk. They argue that traditional due process standards, such as unanimous jury verdicts, would make the conviction of terrorists difficult, if not impossible, because traditional evidence such as informer and eyewitness testimony is so rare in such cases. Finally, they worry that big terrorist trials could turn into media circuses, such as the O.J. Simpson case and others, which would erode the image of America and its anti-terrorist cause around the world.
Critics of the tribunals argue that their use could set a bad precedent and someday might be used against American citizens denying them the full range of due process protections. Others worry that the use of the tribunals would let the government set up an alternative justice system, largely hidden from public scrutiny that would erode American freedoms and democratic controls. They point out that regular courts, as in the trial of those accused of bombing the World Trade Center in 1996, can convict terrorists and can be conducted safely. Some also argue that military tribunals could send the wrong message to the rest of the world, showing that America is ready to abandon its longstanding commitment to civil liberties in the face of terrorist threats. Finally, some think that military tribunals could be counterproductive. They argue that trying terrorists in tribunals could discourage other countries’ willingness to turn over suspects for fear that they would not receive a fair trial.
Whether President Bush’s plan for military tribunals is ever employed and what its results will be remain to be seen. But one thing is certain. The proposal to use military tribunals marks a significant change in government policy concerning terrorism. Instead of treating foreign terrorists as criminals subject to our criminal laws and procedures, the U.S. government now views terrorists as foreign enemies subject to the law of war and trial by military tribunal. Only time will tell if the rest of America holds the same view.
For Discussion and Writing
- What is a military tribunal or commission? How does it differ from a regular U.S. criminal court?
- What are some examples of the use of military commissions in U.S. history? Do you think their use was justified? Why or why not?
- Do you think it is constitutional to try by military tribunal people who are illegally in the United States? Why or why not?
- Do you support President Bush’s military order on public policy grounds? Why or why not?
A C T I V I T Y
In this activity, students role play members of juries and commissions deciding a terrorism case. To find a defendant guilty, both commissions and juries must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Divide the class into groups of six or seven members.
- Assign half the groups as commissions and the other half as juries. (The commissions will be allowed to consider the one piece of Illegal Evidence, below, which is excluded from the criminal juries.)
- Each group should do the following:
a. Read and follow the Instructions, below.
b. Discuss the Facts of the Case, Evidence for the Prosecution, and Evidence for the Defense, also below.
c. Vote on whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If you are a jury, you must reach a unanimous verdict. If you are a commission, two-thirds of your members must agree. Keep voting and discussing until you reach a verdict.
- Have the juries and commissions report their verdicts and record them on the board.
- Debrief the activity using these questions:
a. What do you think are the pros and cons of requiring a unanimous verdict? A two-thirds verdict? Which do you think should be used in a military tribunal? Why?
b. Why do you think criminal courts ban the use of illegally seized evidence? Do you think such evidence should be allowed in military tribunals? Explain.
Facts of the Case
On March 18, Kareem King, 32, was detained by the U.S. military for suspected terrorist activities. He had been the focus of an FBI investigation for his activities in the United States where he briefly resided on a tourist visa the previous January and February. Mr. King is a Moroccan citizen, the son of Algerian father and a British mother, but lived in the United States in the 1990s while attending school as an engineering student. There he became involved with a fundamentalist Islamic group and later received paramilitary training in Somalia. He has been transported to the United States for trial.
Mr. King is accused of aiding and abetting a failed Al Qaeda plot to blow up American bridges in two cities.
Evidence for the Prosecution
- Using a search warrant, FBI agents searched Mr. King’s vacated hotel room in an American city and found structural and load-bearing diagrams of that city’s largest bridge (Bridge 1).
- Police officer Peter Smith testified that he observed a man he identified as King taking measurements at the bridge late one night on January 22. When he approached King, King ran off. He gave chase, but did not catch King.
- King was observed in the hotel coffee shop with a man suspected in the plot and listed by the FBI as a known Al Qaeda operative.
- Notes were discovered in a rental car returned by the Al Qaeda operative that referred to “the engineer Kareem” and stated that Valentine’s Day was targeted for the simultaneous bombings.
- King’s former girlfriend testified that he had visited her in January in a second American city (500 miles away) and advised her not to use that city’s largest bridge (Bridge 2) in the second week of February.
- A rental van filled with explosives was found abandoned on February 12 near Bridge 2. The man who rented the van was described as a “Middle Eastern man in his mid-30s.” Airline records show that King had traveled to this city on February 8.
Evidence for the Defense
- Testifying on his own behalf, King stated that he had been in the United States during the time period but was merely trying to continue his engineering studies and had visited three different important bridges. He claimed he got the diagrams from old engineering texts and off the Internet.
- King denies that he ever knew or met the alleged Al Qaeda operative and that the person seen with him in the hotel was a Spanish tourist he met who was also interested in engineering.
- King admits to running from the officer on the bridge. He testified that he was doing research for his engineering studies when he saw the officer and became scared. He said that he had suffered police brutality in Morocco. He said even though he wasn’t doing anything wrong, he instinctively ran when he saw the officer.
- On cross-examination, King’s former girlfriend admitted that she had been extremely angry with King for breaking off their relationship and had once vowed to “make him pay big time.”
- Professor Khalid, King’s former teacher, testified that Kareem told him of his plans to visit the United States to continue his engineering studies by examining American bridges.
A defendant may be found guilty of attempted bombing, even if the defendant personally was not going to take part in the actual bombing but did aid and abet the attempt. To prove a defendant guilty of aiding and abetting, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
The defendant knowingly and intentionally aided, counseled, commanded, induced or procured another person or persons to commit the attempted bombing.
It is not enough that the defendant merely associated with the person committing the crime, or unknowingly or unintentionally did things that were helpful to that person, or was present at the scene of the crime.
The evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the knowledge and intention of helping that person commit the attempted bombing.
Reasonable doubt. To find a defendant guilty, you must find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not mean that no possible doubt must exist, because doubt will always exist. But after hearing all the evidence, you must feel certain and fully convinced of the defendants guilt. There must be no reasonable doubt in the defendants guilt.
Illegal Evidence That May Be Used by Commissions Only
An illegal wiretap shows that the defendant talked with the Al Qaeda operative. The conversation was short and they spoke about setting a possible meeting in his hotel room or elsewhere in the city.
Sources: President Issues Military Order (Nov. 13, 2001) available at www.whitehouse.gov; “Rules for military tribunals unveiled (Mar. 20, 2001) available at www.msnbc.com; “Fact Sheet, Department of Defense Order on Military Commissions (Mar. 21, 2002) available at www.defenselink.mil; Edward Barrett, Constitutional Law (Mineola: The Foundation Press, 1973) 557-562.; Louis Fisher, “Bush Cant rely on the FDR Precedent, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 20, 2001; Reuters, “Legal Expert Attacks U.S. Plan for Military Courts,” (Nov.23, 2002) available at www.newsfindlaw.com; Richard Morin and Claudia Deane, “Most Americans Back U.S. Tactics,” (Nov. 11, 2002) The Washington Post on Line available at www.washingtonpost.com; Laura W. Murphy, Bush Order on Military Tribunals Is Further Evidence That Government Is Abandoning Democracy’s Checks and Balances, (Nov. 14, 2002) available at www.aclu.org.
Blue is the new orange as Guantánamo preps for new
prisoners, maybe ISIS fighters
June 20, 2018 05:00 AM
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, CUBA
Earlier this month, in a drill shrouded in secrecy, prison guards practiced for something that hasn’t actually happened at Guantánamo in a decade. They rehearsed receiving a new war-on-terror detainee.
Medical evaluation? Check. Notification of the International Red Cross? Check. Assignment to a cell? Check. Security and more security. Gone are the iconic orange uniforms that made Camp X-Ray infamous. The man who played the role of new captive wore white.
Navy Rear Adm. John Ring, the prison commander, says he hasn’t gotten any word that new prisoners are coming. But since President Donald Trump signed an order keeping the prison open, Ring’s staff is now preparing for what spokeswoman Navy Cmdr. Anne Leanos calls an “enduring mission.”
“I have not been told we’re getting new people. I have no order to receive new people. I’ve been asked some hypothetical questions about capacities and things like that, but we are not imminently expecting anybody,” Ring told reporters in early June.
Guantánamo today has 40 prisoners and a staff of 1,800 troops and civilians. With the maximum-security Camp 5 prison just reopened, after a cellblock was remade into a clinic and mental health ward, the detention center can now take in another 40 men.
One wrinkle is that any new detainees are likely to be members of the Islamic State, not al-Qaida. And while some people see ISIS as an offshoot of al-Qaida, the militant movements are not allies and have vastly different aims.
“Unless we got some al-Qaida from Afghanistan, which is possible, most of the conversation is about Syria, and most of those guys, I understand, are ISIS,” said Ring, who doesn’t decide who comes and goes from Guantánamo. “So it’s possible we could get folks from either place.”
Any new prisoner would be the first to arrive at Guantánamo since the CIA delivered an Afghan “high-value detainee” in March 2008. That was years before the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria declared its worldwide caliphate, invaded and controlled a huge swath of Iraq and Syria and released a series of brutal videotaped killings of captives in orange jumpsuits.
Al-Qaida has “a different ideology” than ISIS, says Leanos, the prison spokeswoman. Besides, after more than a decade in military detention, there’s also a “different mentality” among the captives — who are profiled as al-Qaida members or affiliates — and have come to understand Guantánamo prison’s incentive system says the admiral’s cultural adviser who is only identified with one name, Zaki. Captives who follow the guards’ commands get to live communally, pray and eat in groups, take art, language and gardening classes and read more books, for example.
“If suspected ISIS fighters are transferred to Guantánamo I would expect that a legal challenge to their detention would be filed within days if not hours of their arrival,” said Wells Dixon of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has been at the forefront of representing and finding attorneys for military detainees.
He and other opponents of Guantánamo detention argue the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, Congress’ permission for the president to wage war on al Qaida and the Taliban over the Sept. 11 attacks, does not apply to ISIS. “The one thing that’s guaranteed is it will create years more of litigation,” Dixon said.
Two possible new prisoners could be Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, The Washington Post reported, who are held by U.S.-allied Kurdish militia in Iraq as suspected members of “the Beatles,” a British cell blamed for the torture and killings of at least four Americans in Syria.
Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has said it is the U.S. preference to repatriate foreign fighters from allied nations. But in February, Britain stripped Kotey and Elsheikh of their citizenship, leaving the United States with three options: Let the Kurds keep them, bring them to the U.S. for federal trials, if a case could be made; or bring them to Guantánamo for possible trial by military commission, making them the first U.S. test case of the president’s authority to indefinitely hold ISIS suspects without charge.
Guantánamo is not a good idea, according to the parents of slain journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff and the two other Americans killed by ISIS, and neither is seeking a capital trial of Kotey and ElSheikh. Either move would make them “martyrs in the eyes of their fanatic, misled comrades in arms,” they argued in a New York Times opinion piece in February.
President Barack Obama’s administration, which saw Guantánamo prison as a recruiting symbol for al-Qaida, sought to shut it down by moving to U.S. lockups the last of the nearly 800 post-9/11 captives seized during the George W. Bush years. Congress thwarted that ambition by forbidding the transfer of Guantánamo prisoners to the United States.
But on Jan. 30, President Donald Trump revoked Obama’s closure order. So the prison leadership is now making plans for 25-35 more years of detention, said Army Col. Steve Gabavics, the guard force commander.
One thought is to hire civilian Department of Defense employees for key prison staff positions — the lawyer, spokesman, chief of staff — on minimum two-year contracts, rather than fill those roles with revolving, temporary troops. It would be more costly to taxpayers because such hires could bring families, who live in base housing and enroll their kids in the Navy base school system.
But they could provide continuity for the Army National Guard soldiers plucked from civilian lives to serve nine-month tours of duty here, without family. Congress has already given the Army $115 million to build an 868-bed barracks for the nine-month forces.
Now the admiral is proposing to more barracks for another 960 nine-month-stay prison guards.
The troop strength recently grew by 100 soldiers and could keep growing ”over the next year or so,” to a combined troop and civilian staff of 2,200, Ring said. About 5,500 people live now on Guantánamo, a 45-square-mile outpost that brings in its food by air and sea and makes its own energy, desalinates its own water. A growing prison mission could grow the population past 6,000.
Nobody at the prison will say exactly where new captives might go. But the leadership makes clear that they’ll be kept apart from the 40 here now, who were brought between January 2002 and March 2008 as suspected al-Qaida and Taliban members.
February 06, 2017 4:10 PM
On a recent visit, commanders took reporters through an empty cellblock at Camp 5, the steel and cement prison that keeps one man to a cell. When captives last stayed there they could spend 22 or more hours inside their cells, let out for a short walk in ankle and wrist shackles to a shower or an outdoor recreation pen.
The recent reopening of Camp 5 also let the military bring back on line some 70 maximum-security cells with a new and improved “splash guard” on each cell door to prevent a prisoner from hurling bodily fluids on a guard.
Inside, the guards had a the prison’s basic issue on display — toothbrush and paste, towel and flip-flops, two books — illustrating what a new arrival might receive. Also, in a first, the display had a navy blue prison uniform alongside white and beige versions, a new kind of color coding for the guard force that eliminated orange for those deemed the worst behaving or most dangerous.
“ISIS, you know, have used, executed people in orange jumpsuits,” said Zaki.
Plus, the admiral added, “there’s a lot of photographs floating around from the early days in Camp X-Ray that maybe don’t paint us in a perfect light. We strive mightily to be culturally sensitive.”
Mass Arrests? 514th Military Police Company Deployed to Guantanamo Bay; Does This Spell Military Tribunals for the Cabal in the Near Future?
(Shem El Jamal) The signs keep coming, and the case is growing progressively stronger that there are very big things taking place behind the scenes of the regular societal status quo. Yes, there is still the constant script of public division along the lines of political, legal, gender, social, racial, and every other perceived difference in society. However, beyond these predictable attempts of division, there appear to be ongoing efforts to bring the madness to an end and to bring the co-conspirators behind it to justice.
by Shem El Jamal, October 18th, 2018
Despite this notable and positive progress, the corporate media and those behind it stills seem intent upon playing their petty games of social division and distraction in any way possible and, according to reports, there is a distinct reason for this.
Most of the rhetoric handed to the public as news has shown to be little more than propagandistic distractions from the actual events unfolding in the background of normal Western society. One of the major situations developing is that of the Guantanamo Bay expansion project. This expansion has been ongoing for just over two years now—since near the beginning of President Trump’s inauguration. Given all goes according to plan, this project looks to be a key step toward the final defeat of the criminal elitist group we know as the Cabal.
The project is reported to be part of Operation Enduring Freedom—a post-9/11 operation which was originally designed to continue vigilance against terrorist activity under former President George W. Bush and was then followed by Obama. This endeavor was questionable, considering the highly suspicious way in which the September 11th attacks and the military response following the attacks unfolded. As many may know, the 9/11 attacks were allegedly used as an excuse to launch one of the largest and most pointless foreign wars in recent history.
The entire situation smelled foul in the perceptions of many Americans for nearly the entire period the war was fought. However, at present, many citizens are hopeful in the new leadership of the U.S. government and military. They expect a complete turnaround in the ways in which the U.S. does business with foreign nations from this point forward. Of course, a key step of this turnaround depends upon the ability of the current administration to successfully arrest and prosecute the criminal elitists that have manipulated the world through war and extortion for the past century, and this is precisely where the preparation of the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base may come into play.
We will dive further into these details after a word from the website, WNCT 9 and their report on the developing situation at Guantanamo Naval Base. According to the report, the expansion of Operation Enduring Freedom-GITMO requires an upgrade in security as well as a restaffing of military personnel.
* * * * *
Source: WNCT 9
Published: August 12, 2018
By: Nicole Neuman
GREENVILLE, N.C. (WNCT) – More than 160 North Carolina National Guard soldiers from the 514th Military Police Company in Winterville left for Guantanamo Bay Tuesday, where they will be deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom-GITMO.
The group of soldiers were escorted to Raleigh-Durham International Airport by the Patriot Guard Riders.
“We’re escorting these heroes to the airport where they’ll sendoff to defend our freedom, our constitution and our way of life,” said George Young a member of the Patriot Guard Riders.
Earlier this week, the soldiers deployed from the Pirate Club at Dowdy-Ficklen Stadium in Greenville on Sunday.
They’re being tasked with providing various external security operations while in Cuba.
“It’s standard military police function,” said Sgt. Benjamin Bullard. “It’s exactly what it sounds like. It’s providing security.”
It’s in support of the ongoing mission of the joint detention group at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station.
This group of soldiers is expected back next summer.
As most can imagine, the time can’t come soon enough for their loved ones.
“I’m very proud of him, but also very nervous,” said Marissa Hunt. Hunt’s husband is deploying.
This will be their first deployment as a couple.
Edward Williams said this is his son’s third time away from home.
“I’m hoping that where he’s going isn’t as hostile as the first two places he went.”
While they’re away, it’s comforting to family and friends to know their soldier is in good hands.
“I know they’re going to take care of me, and I’m going to take care of them,” said Spc. Ebony Williams.
Pitt County Commissioner Glenn Webb also attended Sunday’s ceremony. He presented a soldier in the unit with a Pitt County flag to fly at the base. It’s to serve as a reminder of home.
Read more at: WNCT.com
* * * * *
Doubts and Expectations
Many believe that the recent expansion efforts at the GITMO facility represent a direct effort to bring the global Cabal to justice, and this has brought a significant amount of hope back to the American public. However, considering the decades of seemingly pointless war the U.S. has waged up to this point, some citizens may still hold a pessimistic outlook on developments related to Operation Enduring Freedom.
Many citizens seem to be aware that the first and second Gulf Wars were not at all what they were claimed to be by the MSM. According to numerous whistleblowers, these wars were fueled be the schemes of nefarious, manipulative, and murderous corporate interests in the West. The Cabalists who controlled these corporations actually pooled their resources and produced one of the most successful campaigns of propaganda and war efforts the world has yet seen. Through war and mass murder, these elitists were able to create a highly lucrative business out of military interventionism in foreign nations—including but not limited to multiple nations in the Middle East.
This is why we saw an American military machine waging war for almost two decades in one foreign nation after another with no sign of ceasing. It was why we saw the bombing of several different countries by the U.S. with little or no provocation to warrant such attacks. To add, if it had not been for the CIA creation of Al-Qaeda and ISIS, there would not likely have been a reason to wage such wars.
It seemed very convenient for Western corporations that the terrorism of these groups lasted for so long. It was this continuous benefit to Western corporations which awakened thousands of Americans to the exploitative and, in many cases, psychopathic business practices of Western corporations. To put the matter simply, these wars were largely fabricated and instigated by the West for the sake of maintaining the profit margins in oil, opium, weapons, and other black market trading.
The enduring war continued non-stop through the presidency of George W. to Obama, and right up to the end of Obama’s second term. These war efforts were then inherited by President Trump who appears to be bringing the senseless war to an end. Yet these violent efforts have gained so much momentum that the task appears to be quite daunting.
|Q Anon makes their perspective known that they believe war is a scam |
used to steal taxpayer dollars. Considering POTUS’s apparent connections
to the Q drops, it does not appear that the President approves of warmongering
in the same way his predecessors reportedly did in years past.
It is for these reasons of apparent change in the intentions of leadership that many Americans have been very hopeful that the recent efforts of Enduring Freedom-GITMO have a different focus than pointless foreign conquest. In fact, these citizens are hopeful that these recent efforts are focused on eliminating the origin of the corruption, greed, and war mongering—that being the elitists at the head of the Western corporations which fueled the wars, to begin with.
Clear Signs of Expansion
The above article suggests that significant changes are taking place at Guantanamo, and considering the fact that the project requires just over $1 trillion in spending to be completed (and that there are clear signs of successful execution of these plans), we can see there is a good chance that this project is legitimate.
This operation is major, by any stretch of the imagination, and once we consider the details of how this money is to be spent, the situation looks even more telling as to the true purpose of these changes.
According to a recent report from Military.com, $1.3 trillion in funding has been dedicated the entire GIMTO expansion project. These funds will be directed toward new construction of barracks, family living quarters, expansion of the main detention centers, and much more.
The following article lists the various price tags attached to the different building and expansion efforts at Guantanamo. Additionally, there appear to be a number of implied advantages behind the numerous reports of upgrades to the facility.
The biggest ticket item for the U.S. Navy base in Cuba in the so-called Omnibus Spending law is $115 million for a new 848-troop barracks across the street from the McDonald’s and commissary to consolidate enlisted prison staff under one roof.
To put the cost of the new barracks in perspective, the Omnibus Spending Law this year is also funding dormitory-style housing for 216 sailors at a Navy training site in Pensacola for $18 million, or $83,000 per bed, compared to Guantanamo’s cost of $135,613 for comparable housing.
The new barracks had been championed by Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, during his years as a Marine general at U.S. Southern Command and rejected by President Barack Obama, who wanted the prison complex closed.
The U.S. military has already spent $9 million on design and other preparation on the barracks for enlisted soldiers on the staff of the 41-captive prison — about half of the current strength of 1,700 troops and civilians — so the sum included in the measure is for construction of the dormitory-style building itself. A contractor has yet to be signed.
Separately, the Pentagon has three other major building projects approved or underway in 2018:
— It has notified Congress that it found $14 million to expand the Top Secret trailer park portion of the war court complex at Camp Justice — called the Expeditionary Legal Complex — and accommodate more prefabricated office space and secure work stations.
Money for the $14 million war court expansion was drawn from earlier U.S. military construction projects that came in under budget.
It has the Pentagon’s Top Secret eavesdrop-proof war court chamber for former CIA captives, where the public hears proceedings on a 40-second delay. The expansion phase does not provide for a second courtroom sought by the chief judge, just secure office spaces. It is more expensive because this time the Pentagon is hiring outside contractors to pave, put in utilities hookups, build more security fences and add perimeter lights.
To put things in perspective, we have millions of dollars being allocated to various building projects at the Guantanamo Naval Base. These include barracks, dormitories, civilian living quarters, as well as secure office space. Perhaps the most interesting aspects of this upgrade are those of the expanded detention areas, the eavesdrop-proof war courtroom, and the expeditionary legal complex.
We cannot say for certain the exact purposes for which these expansion efforts will be used. However, we can make inferences about the possible motives behind them. If we take into account the fact that the U.S. does not appear to be interested in increasing its intake of international criminals by any significant number, we might eliminate that as a major reason behind these renovations.
We could consider the somewhat popular fear-based idea that American citizens are going to somehow be rounded up by Trump and thrown into Guantanamo or some other camp. However, when we consider all available evidence of the situation, none of these fearful conspiracy theories seem to make sense.
On the contrary, many would argue that the Trump administration has been far too lenient on those who blatantly attack and disrespect right-leaning public officials simply because the attackers disagree with their own perception of the officials’ policies. The standard of general respect has gone out the window, and this has left many Americans frustrated and sometimes fearful for their safety. However, there has been no sign of any intent by the President or anyone else to arbitrarily arrest everyone who participates in such disrespect.
It actually appears that this arbitrary arrest of citizens—which would demonstrate fascism—has been avoided altogether and that the sovereignty of American citizens has been respected despite the apparent need of some to spend a few nights in jail due to their criminal actions. Consequently, it does not at all seem that “the government” intends to snatch citizens out of their beds at night. Nor would it be feasible for any military operation to attempt to do such a thing.
Instead, it seems much more likely that the preparations at GIMTO are intended for those who have proven to be enemies of the people, enemies of the state, and conspirators of foreign and domestic terrorism.
The arrest of these Cabalists would be a very significant step in a positive direction for the country and the planet, as most of these elitists have been largely jail-proof despite their decades of criminal actions. Logic would lead us to consider the possibility that the crimes of these high criminals and not the general public are to be the focus of any mass arrest efforts.
Sealed Indictments by the Thousand
Following the trends of the last year, the number of sealed indictments drafted by the courts of multiple U.S. states has reached a record high. These numbers have been skyrocketing since the middle of last September and even beforehand. In past reports, the mainstream media has claimed that these indictments were at normal numbers and that nothing about the indictment situation was out of the ordinary. However, that claim turned out to be false.
Here is a recent report of the true number of indictments in the U.S. that are currently filed under the statues of sealed (image).
According to reports, there has not been a sealed indictment count this high in the U.S. in a very long time, if ever. James Brower—a now-suspended Twitter user—seemed to agree that in a big way, these recent indictments indicate an extremely unusual situation.
According to commentary beneath Brower’s last Twitter post, the man had a significant voice on behalf of the current President prior to his election. Considering the fact that Brower’s Twitter was axed just prior to the 2016 election for unspecified reasons, it was suspected that Twitter deliberately deleted his account in the hopes that it would help prevent Trump from being elected. This is somewhat of a side-note but still gives context to the situation.
Brower is one of many public figures who believe that the excessive number of indictments was an indicator of some impending national change, though at the time of the above tweet, most were still uncertain as to what to make of this growing mountain of legal cases. However, at present, many suspect that those behind the censorship on Twitter and other platforms are actually among the elitists who may be indicted once these cases are unsealed.
To gain a bit more insight into the situation, here is an excerpt from a previous DTM article which describes the reasoning behind why a court might choose to seal an indictment prior to serving it.
The entire reason why indictments are sealed is multi-faceted. If a court were to produce an indictment against a suspected offender, there would need to be certain precautions taken in order to ensure the indictment was successful.
We have heard that these indictments are sealed to prevent suspects from fleeing, destroying evidence, or sabotaging the case in some way. However, these files might also be sealed in order to avoid tipping off other possible conspirators of the crimes involved in these cases. To add, if federal law enforcement needed to gain further leads on potential suspects they might let word of the indictments circulate, wait for a time, and then see which suspects lose their nerve and make a run for it.
In this way, law enforcement might use some of these indictments as a scare tactic in order to flush out suspects that they may not have been aware of prior. The possibilities are numerous, it seems.
When this article was written (January 2018), the indictment count was at a mere 9,000. This number is still astronomically high compared to the average number of indictments in past years, according to research. This count was taken in January of this year and yet the number of these indictments has grown to over 50,000 in only a few months. If the national legal situation was out of the ordinary before, it is far more so at this point.
Executive Order on Human Rights Abuse
It has been interesting over time to hear all of the rumors regarding possible mass arrests of elitist criminals on a national scale. However, there was a certain time at which these rumors were the only points which researchers had to go on. It was only when we saw clear evidence of impending arrests of high criminals in seats of power that the long-expected change became evident.
One decisive moment which helped to confirm the former rumors occurred the day of December 21, 2017. This was the day when the White House published a very significant executive order and press release which explicitly spelled out distinct advancements within national and international justice. More specifically, this executive order appeared to have been designed to halt the high crimes of elitist manipulators in a way in which the country had not seen in a long while. Below is an excerpt from that order and press release.
I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, find that the prevalence and severity of human rights abuse and corruption that have their source, in whole or in substantial part, outside the United States, such as those committed or directed by persons listed in the Annex to this order, have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. Human rights abuse and corruption undermine the values that form an essential foundation of stable, secure, and functioning societies; have devastating impacts on individuals; weaken democratic institutions; degrade the rule of law; perpetuate violent conflicts; facilitate the activities of dangerous persons; and undermine economic markets. The United States seeks to impose tangible and significant consequences on those who commit serious human rights abuse or engage in corruption, as well as to protect the financial system of the United States from abuse by these same persons.
I therefore determine that serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.
I hereby determine and order:
Section 1. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
(i) the persons listed in the Annex to this order;
(ii) any foreign person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General:
(A) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have directly or indirectly engaged in, serious human rights abuse;
(B) to be a current or former government official, or a person acting for or on behalf of such an official, who is responsible for or complicit in, or has directly or indirectly engaged in:
(1) corruption, including the misappropriation of state assets, the expropriation of private assets for personal gain, corruption related to government contracts or the extraction of natural resources, or bribery; or
(2) the transfer or the facilitation of the transfer of the proceeds of corruption;
(C) to be or have been a leader or official of:
(1) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (ii)(A), (ii)(B)(1), or (ii)(B)(2) of this section relating to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or
(2) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order as a result of activities related to the leader’s or official’s tenure; or
(D) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities described in subsections (ii)(A), (ii)(B)(1), or (ii)(B)(2) of this section; and
(iii) any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General:
(A) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of:
(1) any activity described in subsections (ii)(A), (ii)(B)(1), or (ii)(B)(2) of this section that is conducted by a foreign person;
(2) any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(3) any entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (ii)(A), (ii)(B)(1), or (ii)(B)(2) of this section, where the activity is conducted by a foreign person;
(B) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(C) to have attempted to engage in any of the activities described in subsections (iii)(A) or (B) of this section.
In no vague terms, this executive order appears to be focused upon bringing international human rights abusers to justice. In fact, it appears that the order is directed toward specific elitists who have become notorious for international crimes. Take these words for instance: “Human rights abuse and corruption undermine the values that form an essential foundation of stable, secure, and functioning societies; have devastating impacts on individuals; weaken democratic institutions; degrade the rule of law; perpetuate violent conflicts; facilitate the activities of dangerous persons; and undermine economic markets.” Upon reading these details, it seems clear that the White House is referring to certain meddlers in the affairs of foreign governments—namely George Soros and the like.
The crimes discussed by this executive order could be interpreted in any number of ways. They could easily be referring to crimes such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, slavery, organ harvesting, and other foul businesses. If this order is intent upon bringing these crimes to an end, this is a very good thing. It should also be noted that those who are at the top of these criminal endeavors would most likely be very wealthy and care very little about how their business endeavors affected the general public (as George Soros has revealed in past testimony). Otherwise, they would not have much interest in causing the excessive problems in the world which the executive order suggests.
These details seem to clarify the very strong possibility that this executive order is far more than mere words, and that the efforts behind it will result in a number of high-level arrests of numerous public figures—many of which may surprise us. When we combine these details with the fact that Guantanamo Bay is being upgraded and expanded, this further strengthens the possibility of impending large-scale arrest efforts.
Q Anon and the Ship-Jumpers
In addition to these developments, the now famous source known as Q Anon has championed the narrative of upcoming mass arrests and legal actions against all bad actors within the United States government and corporate world. Q’s commentary on these subjects dates back to September of last year (2017) when this source first began posting on the somewhat obscure website, 4Chan.
The 4Chan posts migrated to 8Chan following what some believed to be a compromise of 4Chan which necessitated the move. After setting a place for themselves, those behind Q Anon proceeded to consistently post highly revealing information about classified material in a way that allowed the public to research and to learn for themselves the possibilities of the true situation within the U.S. and around the world (outside of the distorted reports of the MSM).
One of the most attractive aspects of the Q material has been the consistent way in which this source has been able to accurately predict future events in politics, religion, in military situations and more. It is as though those behind the Q drops have access to levels of intel far beyond that of the average American. This has led many to suspect that either the Q group is directly involved within U.S. intelligence, or they are simply an optimistic genius who makes accurate guesses about world events with impeccable accuracy.
There are numerous components to this situation—many of which are highly visible. These consist of the developments we have discussed thus far as well as a good amount of visible evidence from recent news reports. One of the subjects of these reports focuses on the issue of mass resignations, firings, and demotions of formerly powerful government figures. This rash of vacations from such significant seats of authority—combined with the fact that the MSM has remained all but completely silent about the striking pattern—suggests that these events are particularly unflattering for the financial powers behind corporate media.
Below is one of the 8Chan posts from Q that was posted on September 3 and was then referenced once again on the 19th.
Q Anon post from September 19 (first Sept. 3), 2018
FBI & DOJ CORRUPTION
FEDERAL BUREAU OF “INVESTIGATION”
James Comey, Director – FIRED
Andrew McCabe, Deputy Director – FIRED
Jim Rybicki, Chief of Staff and Senior Counselor – FIRED
James Baker, General Counsel – FIRED
Bill Priestap, Director of Counterintelligence (Strzok’s boss) – Cooperating witness [power removed]
Peter Strzok, Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence – FIRED
Lisa Page, Office of General Counsel – FIRED/FORCED
Mike Kortan, Assistant Director for Public Affairs – FIRED
Josh Campbell, Special Assistant to Comey – FIRED
Michael Steinbach –
John Glacalone –
Randy Coleman –
Trisha Anderson –
Kevin Clinesmith –
Tashina Gauhar –
Sally Moyer –
DEPARTMENT OF “JUSTICE”
David Laufman, Chief of the Justice Department’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section [NAT SEC – HRC email invest] – FIRED/FORCE
John Carlin, Assistant Attorney General – Head of DOJ’s National Security Division – FIRED/FORCED
Sally Yates, Deputy Attorney General & Acting Attorney General – FIRED
Mary McCord, Acting Assistant Attorney General – Acting Head of DOJ’s National Security Division – FIRED/FORCED
Bruce Ohr, Associate Deputy Attorney General – Demoted 2x – cooperating witness [power removed] – TERMINATION IMMINENT
Rachel Brand, Associate Attorney General – No. 3 official behind Deputy AG Rosenstein – FIRED/FORCED
Nothing to See Here.WHO ORDERED?
The exposure and ousting of these questionable government officials along with many others has been a very public and undeniable sign that the state of things may not sensibly be considered business as usual. According to reports, the above characters have been so incriminated by their own actions that if their crimes were fully brought forward for all to see, they’d have no ability to withstand the backlash.
There are reportedly thousands more of these questionable and even criminal actors presently sitting in influential seats of government and within corporate executive positions. The list of CEOs that have suddenly resigned from their high-paying positions number in the hundreds and those numbers are still rising. This mass jettisoning of corporate and official power has never been seen in such extremes, and in addition to everything else we have discussed, this appears to clearly show that there are most definitely legal changes coming in the near future against many if not all elitist criminals.
Crime and Justice
If we consider all of the ways in which the Cabal has devastated the planet and its people, we may realize that these arrests cannot come soon enough. These elitists have committed countless crimes against the citizens of the world by way of financial manipulation, child and human trafficking, drug trafficking, and mass psychological manipulation. They have also sabotaged municipal water supplies, toxified the food and drugs we depend upon and have created a status quo that has reduced the general public to lifelong indentured servitude to the elite.
Through political scheming, money laundering, and countless other acts of flagrant corruption, this Cabal has made it clear that they intend to control the U.S. and the planet by any means necessary. According to reports, this has included a plan to kill millions of people by way of mass war, engineered pandemics, and/or mass violence caused by artificially engineered social unrest.
Now that the truth is coming forward and the masses are waking up, it seems clear that this Cabal is scared beyond sanity. They are doing anything and everything they can in order to save their own image as well as their lives.
We may have noticed the clear desperation which many of these alleged criminals have shown in recent weeks and months. We have seen various CEOs of media and social media companies basically running their businesses into the ground in senseless ways. These businesses appear to be launching a systematic effort to censor alternative media and to silence the voices of anyone who exposes elitist criminals
The acts of desperation by elitists manipulators are clear. However, the people have still found ways to be heard and to break through the oppositions of censorship, intimidation, physical assault, smearing, and everything else the old guard establishment has thrown at them. All this has revealed that the majority of citizens are determined to stand for the freedom the United States was founded to protect. Due to the strength which these lovers of freedom have shown thus far, it appears that they will be successful.
All of these developments, combined with the fact of the GITMO expansion project, seem to indicate that very big changes are soon to ensue with regard to the arrest and prosecution of these high criminals in the near future. At this point, these prosecutions may be a mathematical certainty. The question only remains as to when the show will begin.
Not sure how to make sense of this? Want to learn how to discern like a pro? Read this essential guide to discernment, analysis of claims, and understanding the truth in a world of deception: 4 Key Steps of Discernment – Advanced Truth-Seeking Tools
Stillness in the Storm Editor’s note: Did you find a spelling error or grammar mistake? Send an email to corr[email protected], with the error and suggested correction, along with the headline and url. Do you think this article needs an update? Or do you just have some feedback? Send us an email at [email protected]. Thank you for reading.
December 29, 2018
305th Military Police Company Deploys to Guantanamo Bay
Troops Being Sent to Cuba
Dec 2, 2018
SCOTT McCLOSKEY Staff Writer
WHEELING — More than 100 members of the 305th Military Police Company of Wheeling were deployed to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Saturday, following an official ceremony at Triadelphia Middle School’s gymnasium.
The 400-day deployment is in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, according to Sgt. First Class Reginald Pickett, with the 305th. He said the troops will be performing various military police duties during this period. Several speakers, including Lt. Col. Jonathan Bennett, commander of the 400th Military Police Battalion, spoke to the troops and their families about the hardships involved with a long deployment.
“Thank you to every one of you guys and gals who are standing here today who answered the call — because that’s what you’ve done and you have distinguished yourselves in doing so in taking that responsibility,” Bennett said, before going on to thank the families for their sacrifice as well.
“You are the ones that are doing double duty. You are the ones that are left behind and are keeping things going for us while we’re gone doing our mission. So I really want to say ‘thank you’ to both the soldiers and the families for all that they do in making this possible,” he added.
“This is really hard … because we’re asking your soldiers … to leave your jobs, leave your family, leave your life, put everything on hold for a long period of time and make that sacrifice,” Bennett explained. “And you do it without exception, without pause and you deserve a great deal of credit for that,” he added.
Bennett concluded by saying how important it is for the extended military family to “reach out” and take care of each other during the deployment. “Keep those communication lines open to each other … and 305th you know this, you have to take care of each other. I know that, come the end of this thing, you guys are going to have really distinguished yourselves to the highest sense of honor that we know that you have.”
More than a hundred family members and friends joined in with the troops as they stood at attention while singing the “Army Song,” before seeing their loved ones off, who departed on two buses parked in front of Steenrod Elementary.
I may not agree with everything presented in this material , however I have probably found that there is sufficient valuable information to justify bringing it forward for you to sift through in order to expand your awareness and to trigger your desire to dig deeper to learn more about the subject matter presented.
I present this material for informational, research and educational purposes only. It is not my intent to maliciously attack nor offend anybody (unless you are a Luciferian Swamp Dweller), so please develop a thicker skin, realize it is not my intent to insult, forgive me, shed it like water off a duck’s back and move on, a better person. The material is presented for your edification, you filter as you see fit according to your perspective. May God’s blessings and wisdom be upon you.