Navy disarms SEALs while on base despite ISIL threat

Washington Examiner:
One of only two Navy SEAL training bases was the recipient of a phone threat ostensibly from the ISISglobal Islamic Jihad terrorist network. As reported by the right-of-center Breitbart.com news portal on Sept. 28, 2014, a rather terse call was received at the San Diego SEAL training base late last week, but Navy officials were quick to discount the call as simply a "non-credible" prank.

However, be it a prank or otherwise, the news report brings to light that the highly trained and equally lethal Navy special operators are expressly forbidden by the same Navy they serve from carrying personally owned firearms while aboard any given naval installation, even if the sailor in question should have a civilian Concealed Carry Permit/License (CCP/CCL).

The Fox News affiliate in San Diego KSWB reported of a threatening call to the Naval Amphibious Base Coronado with the short and rather cryptic message of only "ISIS is on the ground." With a Navy official speaking to KSWB on the grounds of anonymity, the official did verify that the call went straight to the three-phase, 24-week BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEALS) training facility located on the base.

While SEAL (SEa, Air, Land) operatives are more-than-slightly proficient at dispatching enemy personnel with everything from edged weapons to AT-4 Anti-Tank rockets and everything in between, if terrorists were to assault Coronado or any other military installation around the globe, by virtue of a specific Navy order the same men would be armed only with bare hands and/or improvised weapons of opportunity, such as a sharp stick or a rock. Per the Department of the Navy's OPNAVINST 5530.14E CH-1 dated 19 April 2010 makes clear servicemen are strictly verboten from having any type of "weapon which launches a projectile" to include BB guns and/or pellet guns while aboard base.
...
This is a rule that aids the enemy in his mass murder objectives.  It was one reason why the Fort Hood shooter was able to kill so many before law enforcement could get to him.  I think it goes back to the Clinton era, but it is clearly a mistake in todays conflict with an enemy that does not play by the rules.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more