Afghan troops raping child sex slaves on bases, US Soldiers told to ignore

Afghan troops raping child sex slaves on bases, US Soldiers told to ignore

09242015
0509 am

Kabul, Afghanistan- Little boys and even some young girls are being raped and abused on US bases by Afghan Soldiers as US soldiers are told to ignore their cries.

Reportedly, this behavior with child sex slaves has been accepted on our military bases for years. Only recently have our troops, risking adverse reaction been vocal. The horror and the cover up is obviously more than they can stand.

According to a NY Times article, “In his last phone call home, Lance Cpl. Gregory Buckley Jr. told his father what was troubling him: From his bunk in southern Afghanistan, he could hear Afghan police officers sexually abusing boys they had brought to the base.”

“At night we can hear them screaming, but we’re not allowed to do anything about it,” the Marine’s father, Gregory Buckley Sr., recalled his son telling him before he was shot to death at the base in 2012 (by a sex slave, possibly at the command of an Afghan Commander.) 

He urged his son to tell his superiors. “My son said that his officers told him to look the other way because it’s their culture.” (It’s Sharia Law)

Many other US Soldiers are being ousted from the military and several commanders relieved of their duty for taking a stance against these horrific acts, while many remain silent to preserve their careers.

They are called “Tea Boys” that are called on to do domestic work and be sex slaves to Afghan troops. 

The little boys are trained at a very young age to dress like girls and dance among the troops before being devoured like a sheep to a lion all in the name of some sort of sick reverence to a god and his messenger.

The NY Times reports “Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.”

“The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.”

 It has long been established that sex with children is acceptable while homosexuality is not in middle eastern culture. The moral difference shows the degree of decay our world has descended.

Tying little boys to your bed post to await you to come from the battlefield is a level of sick that few will ever have to endure or understand.

One US soldier states he walked into a room and found several men lying asleep with several child sex slaves between them stating he knows it goes on he just can’t say anything about it.

The Quran accompanied by the Surah has several passages that makes this “lifestyle” choice acceptable in the eyes of it’s tormentors. 

Quran 52:24

Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded.

Note also the following:

Surah 76:19

Allah promises fresh youths to Muslim men. And round about them shall go youths never altering in age; when you see them you will think them to be scattered pearls.

These children having to endure this type of torture is uncalled for and a culture like this should never be accepted. We can not simply accept this part of Sharia Law to be our norm.

Our US Soldiers and it’s Commander in Chief should never levy this type behavior as common place because of another’s political ideology. 

It should never be acceptable to watch this blatant, grossly horrific behavior to be ignored. Neither should our soldiers have to face this moral dilemma and abuse of human rights.  

Looking the other way simply because we have chosen to ally with these Afghan troops is an injustice to the human race inside this culture. 

Sadly this type behavior is being repeated frequently and the perpetrators are left untouched because of a politically religious sect that says this is their norm and accepted as law in their ideology.

God bless our troops and shall they endure yet another atrocity under the command of Barrack Hussein Obama. 

God bless these children who suffer at the hands of these evil people in the midst of its protectors.

Sources of info: Please read and support these sources regularly.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/soldier-punished-for-interfering-in-child-assault-by-afghan/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/23/marines-taught-to-look-the-other-way-when-afghans-rape-children.html

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEF CALLS FOR TRAYVON INVESTIGATION

UN HUMAN RIGHTS CHIEF CALLS FOR TRAYVON INVESTIGATION

If you think for a minute that our nations sovereignty is not at stake, you are dead wrong!

We are being targeted by the UN and I feel the bigger plan being pushed by Agenda 21 in cooperation with our elected officials is that we are very close to looking to the UN as our international authority! Able to make decisions from Geneva to New York on our behalf, via the United Nations!

Talked about this day for a long time, hoped I would never see it, happening faster than I thought! Hang on it’s about to get bumpy!

Read this article below found on Brietbart.com

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/04/09/UN-Calls-Trayvon?utm_source=e_breitbart_com&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breitbart+News+Round+Up%2C+April+10%2C+2012&utm_campaign=Breitbart+News+Round+Up%2C+April+10%2C+2012&utm_term=More

by WILLIAM BIGELOW

UN Human Rights chief Navi Pillay has called for an “immediate investigation” into the death of Trayvon Martin.  
Leaving aside the matter of the despicable record of the UN on human rights, what kind of record does Pillay herself have on human rights, and does she have any moral leg to stand on when interfering in the domestic affaris of the United States?  According to Freedom House, between September 2008, when she became the Human Rights Chief, and June 2010, Pillay made no comment whatsoever on the victims in 34 countries rated “Not Free.”  Some of the countries not criticized were: Algeria, Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Cuba, North Korea, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Vietnam.
When Iranian demonstrators were abused violently by the Iranian government’s forces following the June 2009 presidential elections, Pillay refrained for three months from commenting even though video existed of demonstrators being killed; she only mentioned the matter as part of her traditional opening speech at the UN Human  Rights Council session in September 2009. She did not give any statement dealing directly with the matter.  And when she did speak, it was only in an  “unprecedented effort to engage” with the Muslim world. While she did raise some human rights concerns, she praised Iran’s progress instead of naming violence that had been recorded or current violations.
The pattern of do-nothingness continued. In July 2010, two renowned human rights lawyers, Haytham al-Maleh and Muhanad al-Hasani were jailed for criticizing the Syrian authorities on human rights grounds. In March 2010, the Syrian military detained Kurdish leader Abdel Hafez Abdel and journalists, bloggers and writers for exposing Syria’s corruption. But Pillay did not respond at all. In addition, Pillay was a staunch defender of the falsified Goldstone Report which ripped Israel and also questioned whether the United States had the legal right to kill Osama Bin Laden.
In 2011, the United States, Canada, Israel, the Czech Republic, Italy and the Netherlands announced a boycott of Durban III, the UN meeting to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the first Durban conference, where Israel was targeted for vilification. Pillay tried to block further countries boycotting the event, and claimed that the boycotts were a “political distraction.”
Of the Trayvon Martin case, Pillay said, “I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned.”
Perhaps Martin’s family deserves reparations. But it’s none of her damn business either way — at least based on her record.

U.N. To World: You Have No Human Right to Self-Defense

U.N. To World: You Have No Human Right to Self-Defense

You are dead wrong to think the United Nations does not want to eventually control everything you do! It starts with our guns, then our food, then our economy, then our schools, then our environment! It is in the progress now and our locally elected officials are giving it all away!

The very skilled UN using HUD, the EPA and the DOT to implement the UNs Agenda 21 local comprehensive plan! Your mayors have signed on with ICLEI out of Chattanooga to push a Regional Comprehensive plan to our County! They are giving it away and not thinking twice about it!

Prepare your life now! It is fixing to change drastically because of the careless decisions they are making with our futures! We can’t ignore their actions! We must act and act quickly before it is too late! The most effective and quickest way to stop them is to vote them out and replace them with honest, loyal citizens can save this county, otherwise just turn in your guns now before your front door is smashed in and all them taken away! We are very close to this day folks! It just on the horizon, mark my words!

Thwarted by the demise of its global gun ban treaty, the United Nations declares the human right of self-defense null and void

by Dave Kopel

America’s 1st Freedom, pp. 26-29, 62-63.

Self-defense is a privilege that governments may choose to grant or withdraw. You have no human right to self-defense. If a government does not impose repressive restrictions on gun ownership—more severe than even the laws in New York City or Washington, D.C.—then that government is guilty of violating international human rights.

So says the United Nations in its latest assault on the Second Amendment.

This July, the National Rifle Association and other pro-freedom groups won a tremendous victory at the U.N. Small Arms Review Conference when they helped block the creation of a global gun control treaty. Winning a very important battle, though, is not the same as winning a war. Since then, the global gun prohibition movement has already opened up a major new front in the war on our rights.

This fall, the General Assembly of the United Nations will be considering a new Arms Trade Treaty. The treaty is backed by many governments, as well as by the world’s leading gun prohibition group, International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). Once the final language of the treaty is approved by the General Assembly, the treaty will be open for signature and ratification by all nations.

At the highest level of generality, the Arms Trade Treaty is based on a very good idea: prohibiting the sale of arms to countries that use them to violate human rights. It would be a good idea, for example, if all nations refused to sell arms to the dictatorships in Burma, Zimbabwe or Cuba, all of which have an atrocious record of human rights violations. (And all of which, like other modern nations that are extreme violators of human rights, have extreme laws against citizen gun ownership.)

However, any nation that has a conscience can already ban arms exports to such evil governments. Conversely, nations such as China, which currently supply arms to human rights abusers all over the world, have a long record of flouting the treaties they sign, so it would be foolish to expect that a new treaty would stop their arms exports to their favorite tyrannical allies.

The Arms Trade Treaty will, however, increase international pressure to cut off arms sales to Israel. Although Israel’s human rights record is far superior to any of its neighbors (and superior to the large majority of U.N. members), the United Nations condemns Israel much more than any other nation for supposed violations of human rights.

The Arms Trade Treaty can also be used to attempt to suppress the sale of civilian, police or military arms to the United States. The reason is that the U.N. is working to declare that all American gun laws, as well as the right to self-defense, are violations of human rights.

THE U.N. HAS appointed University of Minnesota Law Professor Barbara Frey as its “Special Rapporteur on the prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons.” A “Special Rapporteur” is a U.N.-designated expert and researcher on a subject.

Notably, the title the U.N. gave to Frey required her to look exclusively at how small arms are used to violate human rights—and to ignore how small arms are used to protect human rights, such as when used to resist genocide. But the one-sided nature of Frey’s research mission was consistent with her own views; Frey is a member of IANSA and participated in a 2005 strategy meeting in Brazil designed to support the gun prohibition referendum in that nation.

On July 27, Frey issued her final report, declaring that there is no human right to self-defense and that insufficient gun control is a violation of human rights. (The report, “Prevention of human rights violations committed with small arms and light weapons,” is available on IANSA’s website, http://www.iansa.org/un/documents/salw_hr_report_2006.pdf.)

On Aug. 21, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights endorsed the Frey report in total and recommended that the full Human Rights Council (HRC) do so.

It’s important to note that the U.N. Human Rights Council, despite its name, is composed of some of the worst human rights violators in the world, such as Cuba and Saudi Arabia. The U.N. rejected efforts by the United States to join the Human Rights Council, and instead allowed dictatorships such as China and Pakistan to join.

It is all but certain that the Human Rights Council will follow the lead of its sub-commission and adopt the Frey Report as an official statement of HRC policy on human rights. At that point, the global and American gun prohibition lobbies can then begin to attack American gun laws because they “violate human rights.”

According to Frey, governments have an affirmative human rights obligation to protect their subjects from violence. This obligation includes much more than simply making and enforcing laws against crime. According to Frey, the “due diligence” obligations means that:

“It is reasonable for international human rights bodies to require States to enforce a minimum licensing requirement designed to keep small arms and light weapons out of the hands of persons who are likely to misuse them. … The criteria for licensing may vary from State to State, but most licensing procedures consider the following: (a) minimum age of applicant; (b) past criminal record including any history of interfamilial violence; (c) proof of a legitimate purpose for obtaining a weapon; and (d) mental fitness. Other proposed criteria include knowledge of laws related to small arms, proof of training on the proper use of a firearm and proof of proper storage. Licences should be renewed regularly to prevent transfer to unauthorized persons.”

BY THE FREY/HRC standards, every American jurisdiction is a human rights violator because its gun laws are not severe enough. Even in New York City or Washington, D.C., the government does not require a gun license applicant to prove that he or she has “a legitimate purpose.” Once New York City or D.C. finally let you buy a shotgun, you can use it for any legitimate purpose—sporting clays, gunsmithing practice, collecting or even self-defense (assuming that you somehow can retrieve the locked gun in time to use it against a home invader).

At every gun store in the United States, buyers must pass a background check under the National Instant Check System (or a state equivalent). Most states do not require a separate license for handgun purchases and even fewer require a license for long gun purchases. Only a few states mandate that a person who simply wants to continue owning the guns he already has must renew a license from the government every few years. The absence of mandatory, periodic licensing for continued possession of one’s own guns is another human rights violation, according to Frey.

Similarly, the vast majority of American states allow children, under parental supervision, to use firearms; the family, not the government, decides when a particular child is ready to take his or her first shots with the family’s .22 pistol or rifle. Yet this, too, is a human rights violation, according to Frey and the HRC, since the government has not specified a minimum age for a gun license.

The Frey/HRC rules declare almost all American self-defense laws to be human rights violations. The Frey report declares: “When small arms and light weapons are used for self-defence, for instance, unless the action was necessary to save a life or lives and the use of force with small arms is proportionate to the threat of force, self-defence will not alleviate responsibility for violating another’s right to life.”

Moreover, “Because of the lethal nature of these weapons and the jus cogens (a mandatory norm of general international law from which no two or more nations may exempt themselves or release one another) human rights obligations imposed upon all States and individuals to respect the right to life, small arms and light weapons may be used defensively only in the most extreme circumstances, expressly, where the right to life is already threatened or unjustifiably impinged.”

Under international law, a jus cogens standard supersedes any contrary rule. Thus, Frey and the HRC are declaring that their restrictive view of self-defense trumps any contrary state, national or international law.

The laws of all American states allow the use of deadly force against certain violent felonies (include rape, torture and mayhem) when the person being attacked reasonably believes that no lesser force will suffice. Yet Frey and the HRC will allow the use of deadly force only against a life-threatening attack, and not against other violent felonies.

Thanks to NRA leadership, 14 states this year have adopted “Castle Doctrine” laws that state that a person may use a firearm (that is, deadly force) against a violent felon without having to calculate whether lesser force might suffice. The large majority of American jurisdictions state that a person who is attacked in his home need not retreat when attacked, and some jurisdictions also apply the no-retreat rule in public spaces. Yet all of these American protections of the right of self-defense are violations of human rights, according to the adopted report of the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur.

YOU MIGHT WONDER HOW the U.N.’s claim that gun control is a human right, and that suppression of self-defense is a human right, can be reconciled with the actual human right of self-defense. Such a reconciliation is impossible, so the U.N., speaking through its Special Rapporteur, has simply declared that THERE IS NO HUMAN RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.

The Frey report admits that most criminal justice systems acknowledge self-defense, but the report claims that self-defense is merely a government-granted exemption to criminal liability, and that this exemption must be very narrowly construed.

Frey and the U.N. assert that the traditional sources of international law do not support the existence of a right to self-defense. However, this premise is false.

The United Nations’ own Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes, in its preamble, a last-resort right of self-defense against tyranny: “Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”

To list all the sources of human rights law that recognize the right of self-defense would take many thousands of words, but the error of Frey’s assertion can easily be seen simply by looking to three of the great philosophers universally regarded as founders of international law.

Hugo Grotius (Dutch, On the Law of War and Peace): “When our lives are threatened with immediate danger, it is lawful to kill the aggressor, if the danger cannot otherwise be avoided … We must observe that this kind of defence derives its origin from the principle of self preservation, which nature has given to every living creature.”

Emerich de Vattel (Swiss, The Law of Nations): “Every nation, as well as every man, has, therefore, a right … to preserve herself from all injuries: and this right is a perfect one, since it is given to satisfy a natural and indispensable obligation … It is this right to preserve herself from all injury that is called the right to security.”

Francisco Suárez (Spanish, 26 volumes, including De Legibus ac Deo Legislatore): Self-defense is “the greatest of rights,” encompassing individual protection against criminals, as well as community self-defense against tyrants.

The only way that the United Nations can use international law to deny the right to self-defense is to ignore the fundamental sources of international law itself. Yet many American officials, including some Supreme Court justices, have taken to using international law in defining the scope of the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Professor Frey and the misnamed U.N. Human Rights Council are creating the tools that could, in the hands of judges or other government officials who are hostile to the Second Amendment, be used to decimate both our right to arms and our right to self-defense.

Dave Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute. His website is http://www.davekopel.org.

United Nations Envoy: U.S. Isn’t Protecting Occupy Protesters’ Rights

On the eve of Chattanooga Police reportedly going to be removing the occupiers from a park in downtown Chattanooga I find this article! The United Nations condemning the United States for not doing enough to protect the rights of these squatting protesters who have chosen to live downtown and expose residents and patrons to God only knows what the disease of the week is and break the law!

I have been to many protests, before many of them were out of high school! I have never attended an all night protest! Never have I left the land littered with my waste! Never have I broken the law and gone outside of the city ordinance I have been advised to follow! Never have I pushed this, why, because of a respect for the law! When my time was up, I packed my gear, cleaned my area and went home “within the law!” When and if I had chosen to protest outside of the law, my right to do so would end and I would be arrested!

Protesting within the law is their choice! To live downtown is another thing! These protesters definitely have the right to petition their government, to address any local option they choose, hold as many signs up as they want, but to pitch a tent and stay weeks on end is another thing! Living in downtown in squalor is against the law! The same law that every one else calls on if someone breaks into your house, molests a child or robs you in the street! The law is there for a reason! Not only to protect you, but to protect other law abiding citizens around you!0

Just as I can’t pull my camper up downtown and bring the kids with me and go see all the sights they cannot be residence either! City ordinances protect the people, like them or not they are there to protect the rest of the law abiding citizens.

What good are these laws if they are only going to allow them to flex freely depending on what day it is!

When it is time for Riverbend, the family and I occasionally rent a motel for a night and go to the event and return to our sometimes 200 dollar a night motel (which is not an everyday expense, believe me) but we consider this part of our summer vacation, instead of spending that money this year, I’m going to just pull my camper up somewhere near the aquarium and stay all week, for free! Possibility pull out the grill, slap on a few steaks, roast some marshmallows, shout out “down with big government”, “lower taxes” and have my own little occupy movement! Its the same thing right? Well, of course I want be defacating on police cars, smoking dope, raping others, spreading disease and I will take a bath! Just me and the famy on a peaceful, relaxing vacation in the big city!

If I am asked to leave will my rights be violated, what if they pull a taser out and threaten to tear gas me, will the United Nations say my rights were violated? I highly doubt it? But then again, by then with the help of our Mayors and elected officials, along with the DOT, HUD and the ever omnipresent EPA they may have by then have full control of our “Federal State”, whatever that is? A federal state? That may be our future?

The United Nations needs to stay out of the affairs of anything within the United States, the Federal government should say, stay away, the states should say to the federal government stay out and he citizens should speak up and say to all of y’all stay out of my business!

We have the most powerful nation in the world because we have capitalism, free trade, the right to petition our government via the Constitution, the Constitution! All these things make us great and free! When we start focusing on what part of the law or the Constitution we can ignore or what part of the law we can push aside then we start to loosen the fibers that keeps us strong!

The United Nations needs to go do what “they do well”, start wars, create a disaster, then petition the states and the world for more money to do their dirty work! Go away, United Nations, you have no right in a free society! Just go away!

U.N. Envoy: U.S. Isn’t Protecting Occupy Protesters’ Rights
Dan Froomkin | Dec 2, 2011 2:00 PM EST

WASHINGTON — The United Nations envoy for freedom of expression is drafting an official communication to the U.S. government demanding to know why federal officials are not protecting the rights of Occupy demonstrators whose protests are being disbanded — sometimes violently — by local authorities.
Frank La Rue, who serves as the U.N. “special rapporteur” for the protection of free expression, told HuffPost in an interview that the crackdowns against Occupy protesters appear to be violating their human and constitutional rights.
“I believe in city ordinances and I believe in maintaining urban order,” he said Thursday. “But on the other hand I also believe that the state — in this case the federal state — has an obligation to protect and promote human rights.”
“If I were going to pit a city ordinance against human rights, I would always take human rights,” he continued.
La Rue, a longtime Guatemalan human rights activist who has held his U.N. post for three years, said it’s clear to him that the protesters have a right to occupy public spaces “as long as that doesn’t severely affect the rights of others.”
In moments of crisis, governments often default to a forceful response instead of a dialogue, he said — but that’s a mistake.
“Citizens have the right to dissent with the authorities, and there’s no need to use public force to silence that dissension,” he said.
“One of the principles is proportionality,” La Rue said. “The use of police force is legitimate to maintain public order — but there has to be a danger of real harm, a clear and present danger. And second, there has to be a proportionality of the force employed to prevent a real danger.”
And history suggests that harsh tactics against social movements don’t work anyway, he said. In Occupy’s case, he said, “disbanding them by force won’t change that attitude of indignation.”
Occupy encampments across the country have been forcibly removed by police in full riot gear, and some protesters have been badly injured as a result of aggressive police tactics.
New York police staged a night raid on the original Occupy Wall Street encampment in mid-November, evicting sleeping demonstrators and confiscating vast amounts of property.
The Oakland Police Department fired tear gas, smoke grenades and bean-bag rounds at demonstrators there in late October, seriously injuring one Iraq War veteran at the Occupy site.
Earlier this week, Philadelphia and Los Angeles police stormed the encampments in their cities in the middle of the night, evicting and arresting hundreds of protesters.
Protesters at University of California, Davis were pepper sprayed by a campus police officer in November while participating in a sit-in, and in September an officer in New York pepper sprayed protesters who were legally standing on the sidewalk.
“We’re seeing widespread violations of fundamental First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, co-chair of a National Lawyers Guild committee, which has sent hundreds of volunteers to provide legal representation to Occupations across the nation.
“The demonstrations are treated as if they’re presumptively criminal,” she said. “Instead of looking at free speech activity as an honored and cherished right that should be supported and facilitated, the reaction of local authorities and police is very frequently to look at it as a crime scene.”
What they should do, Verheyden-Hilliard said, is make it their mission to allow the activity to continue.
Using the same lens placed on the Occupy movement to look at, say, the protest in Egypt, Verheyden-Hilliard said, observers would have focused on such issues as “Did the people in Tahrir Square have a permit?”
La Rue said the protesters are raising and addressing a fundamental issue. “There is legitimate reason to be indignant and angry about a crisis that was originated by greed and the personal interests of certain sectors,” he said. That’s especially the case when the bankers “still earn very hefty salaries and common folks are losing their homes.”
“In this case, the demonstrations are going to the center of the issue,” he said. “These demonstrations are exactly challenging the basis of the debate.”
Indeed, commentators such as Robert Scheer have argued that the Occupy movement’s citizen action has a particular justification, based on the government’s abject failure to hold banks accountable.
La Rue said he sees parallels between Occupy and the Arab Spring pro-democracy protests. In both cases, for instance, “you have high level of education for young people, but no opportunities.”
La Rue said he is in the process of writing what he called “an official communication” to the U.S. government “to ask what exactly is the position of the federal government in regards to understanding the human rights and constitutional rights vis-a-vis the use of local police and local authorities to disband peaceful demonstrations.”
Although the letter will not carry any legal authority, it reflects how the violent suppression of dissent threatens to damage the U.S.’s international reputation.
“I think it’s a dangerous spot in the sense of a precedent,” La Rue said, expressing concern that the United States risks losing its credibility as a model democracy, particularly if the excessive use of force against peaceful protests continues.
New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Donna Lieberman welcomed the international scrutiny.
“We live in a much smaller, connected world than we ever did before, and just as Americans watch what goes on in Tahrir Square and in Syria, the whole world is watching us, too — and that’s a good thing,” Lieberman said.
“We’re kind of confident that we’re living in the greatest democracy in the world, but when the international human rights world criticizes an American police officer for pepper spraying students who are sitting down, it rightly give us pause.”
* * * * *
Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for The Huffington Post. You can send him an email, bookmark his page, subscribe to his RSS feed, follow him on Twitter, friend him on Facebook, and/or become a fan and get email alerts when he writes.