SUA Sends Assistance to Chris Wallace, Shepherd Smith and CNN


The U.S. Navy Drone surveying the ocean. Looking for the NextWave. Wu Hu!

Hey Wray let’s make it easy fore U. CTO EE. It’s so much more than the Tsin Tsin Road.

SMILE! Find Judge Advocate. Find Affirmed.


“Everybody’s gone surf in’…Surf in’ USA…”

CNN: Two Fox News hosts question Trump’s comments about Iran: ‘This just doesn’t add up’.

ANSWER IS: Shure it does.

And the $240 million dollar bill which includes all the upgrades needs to go to…WHO knows…

“Poor Shep and Chris. They walked right into it. Such a thing. GO figure. &.”
– The Shark and Sparky the Clown

Trump Hits FOX News at PA Rally: “Something Very Strange Is Going On”

– Donald Trump, President of The United States of America

Mueller, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Wray…This is your Fools Brought In fore a reason…still Not Sure Dunno.

It is truly amazing when a significant piece of intel given to DHS, the FBI, and the Intel community, and after nothing was done, it winds up on a jihadi website and in perfect english. How could it be…WHO knows…Now back to that airplane hanger at Ft. Hood. U.O.

What is the DOJ, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Intel Community, the Department of State, and Congress hiding?

SUA has proprietary intel concerning the greatest crimes ever committed against the American people.

 

By Jackie WattlesCNN Business

New York (CNN)Fox News hosts Chris Wallace and Shep Smith challenged President Donald Trump’s comments about when and why he decided to call off a strike against Iran.

Trump said Friday that the military was “cocked and loaded” to fire on Iran in retaliation for shooting down a US drone earlier this week. But he reversed course “10 minutes before the strike” when he learned 150 people could die in the attack, the president said in a series of tweets.
Smith said Fox News’ reporting found that Trump would have been given a casualty estimate at a briefing hours before that.
“Something’s wrong there,” Smith said about the president’s comments.
Smith then questioned Trump’s decision to “tweet out the whole thought process of American foreign policy and intervention.”
“That’s an observation,” he added. “Not a critique.”
Trump has a cozy relationship with Fox News. He’s hired a number of former employees from the network to posts within his administration.
The president also reportedly corresponds directly with Fox News hosts like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, conservative firebrands who currently host evening programs that routinely praise the president.
Smith, who hosts daytime news coverage, and Wallace, the anchor of Fox News Sunday, have stood apart from Fox’s opinion-oriented colleagues. Smith and Wallace have previously questioned or criticized actions by Trump or his administration.

 

Article

How The U.S. Could Respond After Iran Shoots Down A $240 Million U.S. Drone

By Mark Cancian

Tensions continue to escalate in the Persian Gulf as the Iranians down one U.S. drone, shoot at another and, likely, sponsor attacks on tankers and a Saudi airport. Let’s take a look at the most recent incidents and what they might mean for the future. Will there be a war?

What happened? Early Thursday the Iranians used a surface to air missile to shoot down a U.S. drone just outside the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranians posted a video that purported to show the shootdown, and the United States acknowledged that it had lost a Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drone (BAMS-D). The Iranians claimed it was in their territorial airspace while the United States claimed it was in international airspace. Under international law, it’s a critical question, and, eventually, there will be an answer. The United States will likely salvage the wreckage, as it has with recent aircraft crashes, and the location will show where the drone actually was. However, that will take many weeks and likely be of historical interest, rather than helpful in resolving the current crisis.

What is this BAMS-D drone? This is a Navy prototype version of the Air Force RQ-4 Global Hawk. The Navy’s fully developed version is called the MQ-4C Triton and is just entering production. These are very large unmanned aircraft. The wingspan is 132 feet, comparable to a civilian airliner. (For comparison, a Boeing 757 has a wingspan of 124 feet.) The drone is designed for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), the Pentagon term meaning that it has sensors to find things on the earth surface. The Navy’s version focuses on the sea, whereas the Air Force version focuses on land. Here’s how DOD describes the Navy version: “The MQ-4C will provide the Navy with a persistent maritime ISR capability. Mission systems include inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar, Electro-optical/Infra-red Full Motion Video, maritime moving target detection, Electronic Support Measures, Automatic Identification System, a basic communications relay capability, and Link-16.” Because of their size, BAMS-D and Triton are land based.

BAMS-D is not stealthy, is unarmed, flies relatively slowly, and has essentially no defensive systems. Its only defense is to fly high, at 60,000 feet. Because of its vulnerability, it is not designed to operate in a contested area. Its great advantage is that it can fly for over 32 hours continuously, far longer than any human crew could endure.

So, what was it doing there? Although the Pentagon has not stated what the mission was, one presumes that it was watching for more tanker attacks. Four ships were attacked in May and two more last week. If the U.S. could catch whoever was doing the attacks, presumedly Iran, then it might be able to thwart future attacks and have the evidence needed to convince domestic and international audiences of Iran’s culpability.

Does this thing really cost $240 million? Yes…and no. Because DOD weapons are custom-built, they don’t have price tags like equipment does in the civilian world. Systems have many possible costs depending on what is included and what the number is used for. Thus, different commentators have cited different costs for this aircraft, for example, $120 million or $180 million.

Since BAMS-D is a version of the Air Force RQ-4, we can use the RQ-4’s official acquisition report, called the Selected Acquisition Report, to calculate a cost for BAMS-D. This report shows an average procurement cost over the whole program of $122 million in FY 2015 dollars or about $130 million in FY 2019 dollars. That excludes the research and development costs, which are mostly sunk at the beginning of the program. If those were included, the cost per aircraft would increase to about $240 million (FY 2019 dollars). To make things even more complicated, there is something called the “flyaway cost,” which is the cost of a system coming out of the factory without some of the support elements in the “procurement” cost. The “flyaway cost” of a new MQ-4C replacement for the lost BAMS-D is a bargain, at $102 million (FY 2019 dollars).

No matter which cost you pick, however, this was an expensive system. It is a very large aircraft with many sophisticated sensors on it.

What were these other attacks? Apparently, Iranians also shot at another drone last week, an MQ-9 Reaper (replacement for the legendary MQ-1 Predator), but missed. That it missed is likely because Reapers are much smaller than the MQ-4C and thus harder to hit. They are also much less expensive, costing about $30 million. The Reaper drone, like the MQ-4C that was shot down, was likely looking for perpetrators of the tanker attacks and was probably the source of the video about Iranians removing mines from the attacked tankers.

Also last week a group of Iranian back Yemeni rebels attacked a Saudi airport with cruise missiles, one of a series of such attacks. The bottom line is that these drone and tanker attacks are not isolated incidents but part of the campaign by Iran to put pressure on its major enemies, the United States and Saudi Arabia, and, indirectly, on the Europeans, Japanese and others to get relief from U.S. sanctions.

What’s going to happen next? The Iranians are signaling that they will not accept the U.S. imposed sanctions passively. They are striking back as they always have: asymmetrically and in the “gray zone.” Asymmetrically means they are not meeting U.S. strength head-on and the gray zone means they are maneuvering in the space between war and peace. Likely, the Iranians will continue to initiate “incidents.” By maintaining some deniability and not injuring human beings, the Iranians have been very clever in keeping these incidents below the level where the United States would respond with force.

At some point, the Iranians may cross these lines either by injuring an American or by being caught red-handed in conducting an attack. Then, the United States would almost certainly respond with force. This happened in the 1980s when the United States caught the Iranians laying sea mines in the Persian Gulf and retaliated by sinking half of the Iranian Navy.

The U.S. has the capability in theater now to conduct a retaliatory strike, likely against the air defense battery that shot down the drone. According to the New York Times, an attack on Iranian radar and missile batteries was prepared for Thursday, but the operation was cancelled. Strikes could also be directed against Iranian naval capabilities that might have carried out the tanker attacks. The U.S. does not have enough assets in theater to conduct an extended air-naval campaign, even with the additional thousand troops being sent. It certainly does not have the capability to conduct any ground campaign against Iran.

More likely, however, is something non-kinetic. The president is reluctant to get into a shooting war, having campaigned against such involvements. Instead, the United States might take some covert action like the cyber-attack that was allegedly recently conducted against Russia. It might start escorting ships and aircraft through the Straits of Hormuz. The NATO allies and Japan might be willing to support such an action.

Unfortunately, the situation is not stable. Most likely, there will be additional incidents within a week with each carrying the risk of escalation. Last August, I wrote a piece looking at indicators of a possible conflict (Is The US Going To War With Iran? Five Indicators To Watch For). Three have occurred (“increased naval activity,” “Iranian complaints about reconnaissance flights,” and “increased security at regional U.S. bases”).

Article

China hacked US Army transport orgs TWENTY TIMES in ONE YEAR

FBI et al knew of nine hacks – but didn’t tell TRANSCOM

Article

 

U.S. Attacks Iran With Cyber Not Missiles — A Game Changer, Not A Backtrack

Article

From 2014 and earlier…OOOPS…It is re levant.

China targets own operating system to take on likes of Microsoft, Google


Article

“I think we missed the BAMS-D thing and finding Omar…”

 

Now back to MAR-A-LAG-O. All along the watchtower. It’s not the Hawaiian but it will do.

 

“Yes Virginia”, that is a drone over our house at Christmas!

Editor’s Note – “Yes Virginia”, that is a drone over our house at Christmas! From the “you have got to be kidding” category – yes, another government intrusion proven to be true – drones over you, inside the USA!

FBI Chief: Surveillance Drones Used in U.S.

By Devlin Barrett – WSJ Washington Wire

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Robert Mueller testifies during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee June 13, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington.Mueller

The head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation acknowledged Wednesday that his agency uses drones to conduct surveillance in the United States, but said it does so rarely.

Asked about drones at a Senate hearing, FBI director Robert Mueller said the agency uses them “in a very, very minimal way, very seldom.”

Federal agencies have been using drones for years to monitor the northern and southern borders of the U.S., and those drones have occasionally been deployed to help domestic law-enforcement agencies like the FBI.

The use of such drones is politically charged and civil-rights advocates say there are no clear privacy rules governing their use.

FBI hostage negotiators used surveillance drones during a standoff earlier this year with an Alabama man who had taken a boy hostage inside a makeshift underground bunker.

Asked by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) about what privacy protections are used in deploying drones and storing the images they collect, Mr. Mueller said their use was narrowly focused on specific incidents.

“It’s very seldom used and generally used in a particular incident when you need the capability,’’ said Mr. Mueller, who said he wasn’t sure what becomes of the images recorded by such drones. “It is very narrowly focused on particularized cases and particularized needs.’’

He added: “There are a number of issues related to drones that are going to have to be debated.” One area that needs to be explored, he said, was how long-established guidelines on helicopter surveillance should be adopted or altered to cover unmanned drone surveillance. “It’s worthy of debate and perhaps legislation down the road,’’ said Mr. Mueller.

Mr. Mueller spent Wednesday morning testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee for what is likely to be his last time as FBI director. His term expires in September, and President Barack Obama is expected to nominate former Bush administration official James Comey to succeed him.

The 'Cover-Up', how high does it really go on Fast and Furious?

By Scott W. Winchell, Editor – Just when we thought the Fast and Furious debacle was so reprehensible that numerous Congressmen, from both parties, joined a growing cacophony of calls from the blogo-sphere and media pundits for the resignation of US Attorney General Eric Holder it takes an even bigger twist.

SUA and many others have pointed out that the political ideology of current administration officials set the stage for such a debacle but its not just about Holder’s lies anymore, it goes further, into a blatant cover-up that may reach all the way up to the White House.

FBI Director Mueller, AZ Gov. Brewer and AG Holder

It now appears that the death of Border Patrol Officer Brian Terry was clearly avoidable, if only the FBI and DEA had practiced proper ‘deconfliction’, or more precisely, talked to each other, local authorities, and Border Patrol to avoid conflicts between cases, especially involving informants. Not informing Border Patrol of ongoing, extremely dangerous operations in an infamous area called “Smuggler’s Paradise” in Pima County Arizona’s Peck Canyon was unconscionable.

One must also wonder if Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik now famous for his outspokenness after the Gabby Giffords incident, knew anything was happening either. After all, it was happening in his jurisdiction and it was in an area Border Patrol frequently performed patrols as part of its duties.

Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano

The timing is also very curious here because Giffords and 19 others were shot on January 8, 2011, just a few weeks after Brian Terry was killed on December 14, 2010 and President Obama immediately sent FBI Director Mueller to the area to personally handle the situation. Why? The unprecedented move was curious at the time, but since a Congresswoman was a victim, it seemed to be a deft move, if not a political move, or was it?

Questions now arise that since both incidents happened within Pima County, within mere weeks of each other, the White House may have been worried the two may be related. Or possibly that with all that new publicity, the DoJ and the White House did not want prying eyes seeing anything related to the Terry death.

Additionally, questions rise that DoJ operations intentionally withheld information from DHS to cover for their own ineptitude prior to the incident where Terry was killed. Not informing Border Patrol of a building incident directly caused Brian Terry and his team to walk into a heavily armed ‘rip crew’ operation.

Terry had no way to defend himself facing much heavier ordnance, assault rifles that came from Fast and Furious operatives. In fact, one weapon is now missing, and the case has been sealed.

Janet Napolitano told Congress she never talked to DoJ about the killing of Brian Terry, but we now know that a debacle like this had to filter up to the top, especially since it happened so close to the Giffords incident. Her staff had to know what took place between agencies and with all the new publicity, it must have been discussed by everyone in DHS. It is simply unbelievable that she would not have confronted DoJ about such insanity unless she was directed to keep silent by the White House.

If Holder does resign, along with others, are they going to be liable for abetting a crime after the fact? What if Issa and others prove culpability and confront Holder when he testifies again on December 7th and demand his resignation right there in the hearing room? We can only hope.

FBI Criminal Informant Complicit in Brian Terry’s Death (PJM Exclusive)

From multiple sources come shocking charges of deadly ineptitude and an FBI coverup in Fast and Furious.

PJ Media

By Bob Owens

In the growing Fast and Furious scandal, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death in Peck Canyon, Arizona was previously described as a chance meeting that led to a firefight: an illegal alien “rip crew” working for the Sinaloa cartel was hoping to find other illegal aliens and to rob them at gunpoint. Instead, they stumbled across a Border Patrol unit and murdered Agent Terry.

Last week, the Washington Times offered a new version of the encounter: they reported that the rip crew was not hunting illegals, but Border Patrol teams — with the intention of engaging them in combat.

Sources now tell PJ Media that neither version of events is accurate: the rip crew was not waiting for a chance encounter with other illegals, nor did the members intend to engage American law enforcement agents.

The rip crew was in Peck Canyon that evening with the intention of stealing money and drugs from a specific shipment of which they had prior knowledge.

Sources claim the Department of Justice has been trying for almost a year to hide the key information — how the rip crew knew the shipment was coming through that night.

Criminal informants (CIs) are a common tool of law enforcement agencies. When agencies apprehend criminals, agencies often reduce or drop charges in exchange for information leading to the arrests of higher-ranking criminals. Earlier this year, reports claimed that Operation Fast and Furious weapons smuggled over the border were actually chosen by an FBI informant, and paid for with money provided by the federal government.

The rip crew knew to be in Peck Canyon that December evening because a CI working for the FBI found out about a smuggling run — from the FBI.

It is not clear if the information was provided intentionally, but a possible motivation for the FBI to provide the information is known to exist: the CI had previously lost a shipment of drugs, and wanted to regain the trust of the cartel with an offering of drugs or money. The other possibility is that the FBI mistakenly allowed the CI to discover the information.

The CI used this information to organize an ambush of the drug convoy. A source tells PJM that the FBI knew from wiretaps that the CI was using their information to set up an ambush.

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) — through its own CIs and communications intercepts — was also aware of the planned assault.

Neither the DEA nor FBI warned Border Patrol about the expected criminal activity.

The federal government will still not reveal if one of the two WASR-10 AK-pattern semi-automatic rifles located near the scene — provided to the Sinaloa cartel via Operation Fast and Furious — was the weapon that put a bullet through Brian Terry’s heart. The existence of a third recovered gun, an SKS carbine, has been disputed by the FBI despite the fact it had been talked about openly in the beginning of the investigation among federal agents.

Multiple sources tell PJM that this third weapon “disappeared” because it was the weapon carried by the FBI CI who ran the rip crew. When it was recovered near the scene of the murder and subsequently traced by the ATF, it traced back to the FBI CI via the gun shop in Texas where it was purchased.

Deconfliction is a major element of high-risk undercover law enforcement work. Undercover agents and informants often cross jurisdictional paths, and deconfliction is the process whereby agencies warn off other agencies so that their assets don’t end up in conflict, putting investigations and lives at risk.

In this case, the FBI and DEA failed to deconflict. Neither agency bothered to warn Border Patrol to keep their BORTAC teams out of Peck Canyon that evening. As a direct result of this FBI and DEA failure — combined with Homeland Security forcing BORTAC units to carry less-lethal beanbag rounds in some of their primary weapons — Brian Terry’s under-armed four-man unit walked into an ambush against a heavily armed rip crew, at least five of whom were carrying rifles.

Brian Terry’s murder was entirely preventable. The incompetence of the DEA and FBI let his Border Patrol unit walk into an ambush. After the ambush, it appears the FBI tampered with evidence to cover up that one of their informants was involved with the murder of a federal agent.

The government has recently sealed the case against the only suspect the FBI chose to keep behind bars.