The myth is that target marketing is a straightforward science, but the reality is this: the most valuable target marketing starts with “fragments of disjointed and often contradictory information” and connects the dots from there. The quote is not from the pages of a marketing textbook, but from Shane Harris’ review of the documentary Manhunt, the inside story of how Bin Laden was tracked down and killed. …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Forbes Latest
Usama bin Laden’s name should not be banned from the terrorism trial of an Egyptian Islamic preacher despite claims by defense lawyers that it would be prejudicial toward their client, the government has told a federal judge.
Federal prosecutors said in court papers filed Friday in U.S. District Court that references to the deceased founder of al-Qaida will not be prejudicial or inflammatory and are important to explaining the case against Mustafa Kamel Mustafa to the jury.
They noted that Mustafa is charged with conspiring to provide or providing material support to al-Qaida and said the fact that bin Laden was the leader of the group at the time “is plainly relevant.”
Mustafa was extradited to the U.S. from Great Britain in October to face charges that he conspired with Seattle men to set up a terrorist training camp at a ranch in Bly, Ore.
The government plans to prove the camp, which never opened, was to be used for training in military tactics, weapons, assassinations, hand-to-hand combat and explosives.
Mustafa also is charged with helping to abduct two American tourists and 14 other people in Yemen in 1998. He has pleaded not guilty. The trial is scheduled for March.
In papers filed earlier this month, defense lawyers asked the trial judge to exclude bin Laden’s name, saying it would be “irrelevant and inflammatory” to Mustafa.
“Bin Laden‘s leadership of al-Qaida is irrelevant to the charges, and its inclusion in the indictment is highly prejudicial to Mr. Mustafa,” the lawyers said. “The danger of unfair prejudice is overwhelming in this case, because of the toxic impact the mere mention of Usama bin Laden would likely have on a jury.”
But prosecutors offered multiple reasons why the mention of bin Laden was important. They noted that one of two men Mustafa is accused of sending from London to the United States to help establish the Oregon training camp had sent a letter to bin Laden saying in part: “We love you here” and “I ask God to help you here, and support you to fulfill His desire.”
The government said the letter would support its argument that the efforts to create the training camp were carried out in support of al-Qaida.
“Even though the letter does not make mention of al-Qaida by name, because bin Laden was the leader of al-Qaida, such expressions of loyalty to bin Laden are indistinguishable from expressions of loyalty to al-Qaida,” it said.
The request by the defense is not the first time lawyers in a terrorism case have sought to exclude the mention of bin Laden or other terrorism references. Generally, judges have sided with the government.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
By Matt Fowler
Even though, since it’s release and subsequent Best Picture loss at the Oscars to Argo, many have retro-criticzed Zero Dark Thirty for skimping on characters and being less-than-accurate in its quasi-realistic approach to telling the story of the global hunt for Osama Bin Laden, it can’t be denied that the movie isn’t a genuinely thrilling, and sometimes uncomfortably unflinching, experience. The question is however: Is this movie you’d want to revisit over and over?
From a craftsmanship standpoint, Zero Dark Thirty is as good as they come. Bigelow’s become famous over the years for her tense, immersive action sequences and the film does a magnificent job of taking us through a brutal 10-year investigation. Aside from Jessica Chastain‘s wonderfully subdued performance as Maya, the film has come to be known for its final 10-minutes – which features the SEAL Team 6 nighttime raid on the compound in Abbottabad and the killing of Bin Laden. These aspects still hold up and the raid, especially, benefits from Blu-ray, despite parts of it which only feature darkness and moving shapes.
From: http://feeds.ign.com/~r/ign/movies-reviews/~3/Pcz2fpeIhFM/zero-dark-thirty-blu-ray-review
By Sib Kaifee
Lawyers for Dr. Shakil Afridi, jailed in Pakistan after helping the U.S. find Usama bin Laden, are hoping for a breakthrough after recently meeting with a tribal court judge handling the case.
Sources privy to the meeting said the judge, who is also the Frontier Crimes Regulation Commissioner, told Afridi’s lawyers “we will try our best to hear and conclude the case on the same day,” at an April 25 hearing. The sources said Afridi’s family took the judge’s comments as a sign the court may finally be ready to move forward, after issuing more than 10 postponements in the appeal case.
“We hope the court will dispose the case, setting Afridi free. But there is 50-50 chance the judge may not,” said one source. “Usually once the judge hears the final statements from both the defendant and prosecutor and is able to pass judgment, the orders are given immediately or the next day.”
The tribal court judge did not respond to several attempts by Fox News to confirm the new developments in the case. A prosecutor who sources said was handling the case declined comment, denying his involvement.
Meanwhile, Dr. Afridi’s brother, Jamil Afridi, expressed frustration he was denied access to the court during the latest proceedings. “The security guard didn’t let me in,” he told FoxNews.com in an interview. “Where is the justice in this that I can’t go in [for my brother’s] hearing and the lawyers can. I don’t think they are taking this matter seriously.”
Jamil Afridi said his lawyers had filed a petition several months ago requesting permission to meet Dr. Afridi, but the court registrar hasn’t forwarded the petition, citing a backlog of cases. Security has been tightened around the Judicial Complex in Peshawar after two suicide bombers attacked and killed at least 5 people and injured 35 on March 18.
Afridi’s family has called for more domestic and international assistance to help release the doctor, but have been frustrated by what they say is a lack of adequate support and have grown increasingly concerned about the doctor’s condition. Some family members believe the United States in particular could have done more both before and after Afridi’s arrest to secure his freedom. The family and his legal counsel are barred from meeting him by prison officials.
“What is his crime? Making the world a safer place, especially America?” said one source. “The family is fighting for his freedom against all odds, and no one is coming forward to aid them.”
View petition urging justice for Dr. Afridi
A U.S. official told Fox News last week that “the U.S. did everything it could to help Dr. Afridi following the raid.There were a number of options available to Afridi and his family to leave the country.” That claim has been disputed by others who say a complication in the U.S. exfiltration plan for Afridi made it impossible for the doctor and his family to safely leave Pakistan before he was arrested.
Afridi’s wife, meanwhile, is believed to be in hiding with the …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News
Brett D. Shadle always had wanted to be a member of the Navy’s most elite special forces unit. A year after enlisting, he made it happen and went on to become a highly decorated member of the Navy’s famed SEAL Team 6.
U.S. military officials confirmed Saturday that Shadle, a 31-year-old special warfare operator chief, died Thursday when he and another SEAL collided in midair during a parachute training exercise over the rugged desert of southern Arizona.
Shadle was taken to University of Arizona Medical Center in Tucson, where he was pronounced dead. The other SEAL — an unidentified E-6 petty officer first class — remained in stable condition Saturday at the Tucson hospital.
Military officials said the accident was under investigation. Shadle and a fellow SEAL were practicing “routine military free-fall training” when the accident occurred Thursday afternoon, said U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman Kenneth McGraw. The SEALs collided in midair and landed in separate areas.
Family members said Shadle, of Elizabethville, Pa., was stationed in Virginia. He was married and had a 2-year-old son and 4-year-old daughter.
His uncle, Donald Shadle, 67, of Elizabethville, expressed disbelief, saying his nephew had been on many overseas missions only to come back and get killed during a training exercise.
“He was always a good kid, and he always wanted to be a Navy SEAL and that’s what he did,” Donald Shadle said.
Shadle enlisted in the Navy in July 2000. The following year, he completed his SEAL training and was assigned to his first unit in early 2002.
Navy officials said Shadle had earned multiple Bronze Star medals with Valor and several service ribbons. While details about his deployments were secret, officials confirmed he had served in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The Navy’s SEAL Team 6 gained international attention when it was revealed that members of the top secret unit had carried out a raid in Pakistan in 2011 in which Osama bin Laden was killed. Bin Laden became the most wanted man in the world after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that killed almost 3,000 people.
Team 6 was hit hard later that year when 22 SEALs from the special unit were killed when the helicopter they …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the charismatic al-Qaida spokesman, fundraiser and son-in-law to Osama bin Laden, is likely to have a vast trove of knowledge about the terror network’s central command but not much useful information about current threats or plots, intelligence officials and other experts say.
Abu Ghaith pleaded not guilty Friday to conspiring to kill Americans in propaganda videos that warned of further assaults against the United States as devastating as the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 people.
Believed to be more of a strategic player in bin Laden’s inner circle than an operational plotter, Abu Ghaith would be the highest-ranking al-Qaida figure to stand trial on U.S. soil since 9/11. Intelligence officials say he may be able to shed new light on al-Qaida’s inner workings — concerning al-Qaida’s murky dealings in Iran over the past decade, for example — but probably will have few details about specific or imminent ongoing threats.
He gave U.S. officials a 22-page statement after his Feb. 28 arrest in Jordan, according to prosecutors. They would not describe the statement.
Bearded and balding, Abu Ghaith said little during the 15-minute hearing in U.S. District Court in New York — in lower Manhattan just blocks from Ground Zero — and displayed none of the finger-wagging or strident orations that marked his propaganda in the days and months after 9/11.
Through an interpreter, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan asked whether he understood his rights. Abu Ghaith nodded and said, “Yes.” Asked whether he had money to hire an attorney, he shook his head and said no. He nodded and said yes when asked whether he had signed an affidavit describing his financial situation.
Kaplan promised to set a trial date when the case returns to court on April 8. Bail was not requested, and none was set. Abu Ghaith‘s lawyer declined comment after the hearing.
The fact that the defendant is being tried in federal district court is controversial in itself. Republicans are criticizing the Obama administration for bringing Abu Ghaith to New York instead of sending him to the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
President Barack Obama has promised to close Guantanamo, where terror detainees generally have fewer legal rights and due process than they would have in a U.S. federal court. But …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
The first court appearance for Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law and onetime propagandist unfolded at a Manhattan courthouse Friday without the fuss over security that the Obama administration encountered three years ago over its plan to hold a civilian trial for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
There were no signs of unusual police activity around the court complex as lawyers for defendant Sulaiman Abu Ghaith entered a “not guilty” plea on his behalf. Public officials who had warned in 2009 that Mohammed’s very presence in New York would put civilians at risk said they didn’t have the same fears this time around.
“Times have changed,” said Michael Balboni, a top domestic security adviser to two New York governors.
Bin Laden is dead. Al-Qaida’s ability to launch a strike in the U.S. is greatly diminished. Other terror trials have proven the city can handle security with minimal cost and disruption. And in any case, Abu Ghaith was known as a “functionary” in the al-Qaida network, rather than a leader, and as such was far less likely to inspire reaction from bin Laden’s followers, said Balboni, New York‘s former deputy secretary of public safety.
“The NYPD is more than capable of locking down Foley Square and making sure they can protect anything going on there,” he said, referring to the part of the city where the trial is taking place.
New York City had a solid track record for handling major terrorism trials until the effort to bring Mohammed to justice collapsed amid opposition to his presence on U.S. soil. The thrust of that debate was over whether al-Qaida figures were more properly tried in a military court, but security challenges also loomed as a factor.
At the time, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said he planned to spend $200 million a year on extra security for the trial, which Obama ultimately moved to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly drew up a plan that would have created a “frozen zone” in vital business districts, involving thousands of extra officers and checkpoints for inspecting vehicles.
Since then, prosecutions of less infamous terror figures have quietly resumed in New York.
Three Queens men were prosecuted for plotting to bomb New York City’s subway system. An Egyptian preacher extradited from Great Britain is awaiting trial on charges that he conspired to set up a terrorist training camp and helped abduct American tourists …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
A senior congressman says U.S. officials have captured Usama bin Laden’s spokesman in Jordan.
The United Nations has finally removed Osama bin Laden from the list of al-Qaida members subject to U.N. sanctions, nearly two years after he was killed by U.S. commandos in Pakistan.
The U.N. Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against the terrorist group approved the deletion on Feb. 21, according to their website.
The al-Qaida leader was accused of masterminding the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, and on a crashed plane in Pennsylvania, that killed nearly 3,000 people.
“Bin Laden‘s removal from the list is a purely technical matter, and was conducted under the provisions related to deceased persons,” Kurtis Cooper, deputy spokesman for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, said Tuesday. “This action in no way signals a change in the international or U.S. position on al-Qaida or Osama bin Laden’s role in the tragic events of 9/11 and other terrorist acts and support.”
The sanctions committee said the asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo no longer apply to bin Laden.
But it said member states requesting to unfreeze his assets must provide assurances to the committee that the funds will not be transferred to any other individual or group on the U.N. sanctions list.
The list currently includes 233 individuals and 63 organizations, foundations and companies.
Cooper said that the United States successfully pressed the Security Council to include a provision in a resolution last December updating the listing and delisting procedures for sanctions against al-Qaida that will prevent the unfreezing of funds that belonged to bin Laden if the United States or any other council member objects.
The Security Council first imposed sanctions against the Taliban in November 1999 for refusing to send bin Laden to the United States or a third country for trial on terrorism charges in connection with the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998.
The sanctions were later extended to al-Qaida and in July 2005, they were extended again to cover affiliates and splinter groups of al-Qaida and the Taliban.
In June 2011, the Security Council voted unanimously to treat al-Qaida and the Taliban separately when it comes to U.N. sanctions, a move aimed …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News
By Kris Zane
In Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President, the White House is described as a playpen with children running amuck, with little if any adult supervision. Larry Summers, part of Obama’s former economic “dream team,” is reported to have said “We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge.”
In preparation for the propaganda film Zero Dark Thirty, the intelligence community hemorrhaged classified information about the Osama Bin Laden raid to mega-director Kathryn Bigelow, expecting a hagiographic ode to Obama. But Obama and Hollywood blacklisted the movie for portraying torture as the key to getting Osama Bin Laden. Additionally, Obama was merely given a “cameo,” in which after almost thirty minutes of non-stop torture, including waterboarding, Obama appears on a TV screen in one of his idiotic softball interviews, castigating the use of torture in the previous administration and vociferously stating that he had stamped out the practice in his own administration. Obama is made to look like a fool, and his administration is portrayed as a bunch of paper pushers who could care less about avenging the deaths of thousands of Americans for the events on 9/11.
But both Larry Summers and Kathyrn Bigelow got it wrong. There is an adult in charge. There is someone in the Obama administration who is not merely a paper pusher.
Oddly, that person did not get to where she is by being elected by the American people. And oddly, she didn’t want to take out Bin Laden.
We are speaking here of Valerie Jarrett, former Chicago slum lord, born in Iran, and (as expected) was coddling Muslim extremists. She and she alone is the reason it took the Obama administration months to take out Bin Laden after his location was made known.
In the weeks and months leading up to the killing of Osama Bin Laden, military and administration officials continually told the Obama administration that the window of opportunity was disappearing with each passing day. There were two reasons for this: Obama’s “no one in charge” manner of governing—that is, his indecisiveness–and the real power in the White House (Valerie Jarrett, chief advisor to Obama, continually subjugating and overruling kill plans made by military and administration officials.
According to a May 2011 email of intelligence giant Stratfor hacked by WikiLeaks, an internal White House source states there was a literal coup d’état within the White House—albeit temporary—overruling both Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett’s resistance to take out Bin Laden.
In the email, Obama is described as an “absentee President” in the decision-making process to kill Bin Laden. Every time officials would present a kill plan to Obama, Valerie Jarrett would stoke Obama’s doubts and the operation would be cancelled. In one case, officials presented a plan to drop a bomb on the compound, only to have Jarrett throw a monkey wrench into the plan.
According to the hacked email:
Initially, as he had done before, the president …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Western Journalism
Newsy
…read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at AOL
The former Navy SEAL who says he shot Usama bin Laden reportedly knew he was leaving the service well short of a retirement and without benefits, according to the commander of Naval Special Warfare.
The “man who killed” bin Laden — featured in the March issue of Esquire — made headlines earlier this week when the former SEAL asserted was “screwed” and abandoned by the military after losing his military health insurance benefits upon leaving the service in September.
But Rear Adm. Sean Pybus told Navy Times the SEAL knew what he was giving up in leaving the service with 16 years of service, shy of the 20-year retirement mark.
“Concerning recent writing and reporting on ‘The Shooter’ and his alleged situation, this former SEAL made a deliberate and informed decision to leave the NAVY several years short of Retirement status,” Pybus said. “Months ahead of his separation, he was counseled on status and benefits, and provided with options to continue his career until Retirement eligible. Claims to the contrary in these matters are false.”
Navy officials are nonetheless “prepared to help this former service member address health or transition issues, as we would with other former members,” Pybus said.
Lt. Cmdr. David McKinney, a spokesman for Naval Special Warfare Command, declined to confirm if the subject of the Esquire article was indeed the SEAL who killed bin Laden in May 2011.
Pybus said he was disappointed with individuals who use their SEAL background for “self-serving purposes,” especially through purported falsehoods.
“Most of our former or retired NSW members find a suitable second career without compromising the ideals of their active service — honor, courage and commitment,” he said. “Most of our veterans with physical or mental health issues get some degree of health care, and we are actively pursuing even better options in this realm. I think we’re doing the things that you would expect from a dedicated, disciplined and trusted force.”
Since the “shooter” is never identified in Phil Bronstein‘s 15,000-word piece, some have questioned the article’s accuracy. But Bronstein has said he properly vetted the SEAL.
“Enough people connected to the SEALs and the bin Laden mission have confirmed for me that the Shooter was the ‘number two’ behind the raid’s point man going up the stairs to bin Laden’s third-floor residence,” the article reads.
The SEAL, according to Esquire, had 12 long-term deployments and 30-plus kills. He told Bronstein he has lost some vision and was planning to buy private insurance for $486 a month but will have to pay out of pocket for some chiropractic care.
“My health care for me and my family stopped at midnight Friday night,” he said in the story, referring to his end of service. “I asked if there was some transition from my Tricare to Blue Cross Blue Shield. They said no. You’re out of the service, your coverage is over. Thanks for your sixteen years.”
Stars and Stripes refuted the SEAL‘s claim in a Feb. 11 report. All combat veterans, including the SEAL, are eligible for five years of free …read more
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox US News
The Navy SEAL who says he put three bullets in the head of Usama bin Laden is out of work, separated from his wife and suffering from debilitating injuries, according to a new report.
The hero frogman says he feels abandoned by the government as he waits for disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs and ponders taking a job on a beer delivery truck, according to an exclusive story for Esquire by the Center for Investigative Reporting.
The report does not name the former SEAL, who gives a detailed account of the dramatic May 2011 takedown of the Al Qaeda mastermind. After dropping into the Abbottabad, Pakistan, compound, he raced up a staircase and he saw bin Laden inside a darkened room.
The terrorist pushed his youngest wife, Amal, in front of him, and the SEAL, wearing night-vision goggles, raised his gun and pumped three bullets into bin Laden’s forehead at close range.
“He looked confused. And way taller than I was expecting,” the SEAL recalled.
But six months after leaving the military, because “I wanted to see my children graduate and get married,” he is physically and psychologically wrecked. He left the military a few years short of retirementeligibility and now has no job and is not qualified for a pension. He is awaiting a VA disability ruling for neck, back and eye injuries.
Of “Zero Dark Thirty,” the Oscar-nominated film about the raid, the SEAL says director Kathryn Bigelow “Hollywooded it up some,” but most of his criticisms were minor.
Pakistani officials say they’re planning to build an amusement park at a cost of nearly $30 million in the town where Usama bin Laden was killed by US forces, but claim it has nothing to do with the former Al Qaeda leader.
The Abbottabad development, which will begin construction around March, will take eight years to complete using allocated funds, Sky News reports.
“It will have a heritage park, wildlife zoo, food street, adventure and paragliding clubs, waterfalls and jogging tracks,” said Syed Aqil Shah, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provincial minister for tourism and sports.
Abbottabad is located in the foothills of the Himalayas and is a popular weekend destination for wealthier Pakistani families, according to Sky News.
Shah said the amusement park is being built to cater to that crowd and not as a way to polish the town’s image after Bin Laden was killed there in May 2011.
Source: FULL ARTICLE at Fox World News
By Dale Cox
What difference does it make?
Well, Madam Secretary – a big one.
When Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State, sat before the Senate Foreign Relation Committee hearing on the Benghazi attacks, her conviction on the matter was certainly not in question. The questions came hard and fast and her answers escalated in kind with frustration. Eerily similar to famous exchange at the climax of the movie A Few Good Men when the “You can’t handle the truth” line was delivered, when questioned repeatedly regarding the misinformation that was delivered to the public via both Susan Rice, ambassador to the UN and the White House, she finally delivered the soon-to-be-infamous line “What difference, at this point, does it make!”
I have no argument with the premise that emotionally charged and pointed questions with the goal of her to admit failure are pointless, but the difference that it makes is this: if during the execution and aftermath, the event was so blatantly blamed on inconclusive and arguably concocted evidence (i.e., a “protest turned violent over a YouTube video, instead of a coordinated terrorist attack) to the point the President actually took that defense to the UN himself —what is it that they were hiding? She’s right, Benghazi was a mess. She admitted and took responsibility for the security and adopted all twenty-nine measures recommended by the investigation, but the clover and clean up—that is the problem.
How is it that the same administration that had a play-by-play seat in the world’s most sophisticated war room during the Bin Laden raid couldn’t review simple surveillance camera feeds and figure out what happened weeks later? The White House made this Benghazi-gate, not the Republicans, by the way they handled it. The American people simply do not like being lied to—it is a matter of trust—and it’s a big one. This is notably not the first time Hillary Clinton has had to cover for a man in the White House who is not being truthful, and understandably, she’s getting a little tired of it. So are we, Madam Secretary—so are we.
