Rahmanullah Lakanwal, an Afghan man suspected of shooting two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, was in the U.S. after entering the country in 2021 under a program called Operation Allies Welcome. His motives are still unknown.
This photo provided by U.S. Attorney’s Office on Thursday shows Rahmanullah Lakanwal.
National Guard deployments
National Guard shooting suspect served in CIA counterterrorism unit, group says
Here's a look at why the program was set up and how Afghans who entered the U.S. were vetted.
The origins of Operation Allies Welcome
When Kabul fell to the Taliban in August 2021 there were chaotic scenes as thousands of Afghans rushed to the airport desperate to escape. The world watched in horror as some among them were crushed to death in the crowds trying to flee.
The U.S. exit from Afghanistan happened during former President Joe Biden's term, but it was set in motion by the first Trump administration, which signed a deal with the Taliban in 2020 to withdraw after two decades in the country. PER NPR
'
''SET IN MOTION BY THE FIRST TRUMP ADM.''.....IN OTHER WORDS...TRUMP IS COMPLICITY ALSO....SO,FROM MY POV OUR KING GRANTED THIS GUY ENTRY(LOOK IT UP).....DO NOT KEEP CALLING OUT THE D'S...BECAUSE THE FOG OF WAR IS A CLOUD OVER BOTH PARTIES AND TRUMP IS NOT INNOCENT ...HE IS PART OF A VERY LARGE AND OBSCENE TRAVESTY.
[quote="FredHayek" post=416014]You think you are making Trump the bad guy, but it just exposes the Biden Regime as weak and ineffective.
Trump has been undoing Biden orders every month, yet the Bidens were unable to rewrite the Trump/Taliban plan?
Maybe because the defacto POTUS had no experience in negotiating international agreements.[/quote]
WHAT IT EXPOSES IS THIS ,ON GOING GOV.ACTIONS HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR THE VETERANS THAT HAVE PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE,SO U AND I CAN HAVE "A GOOD LIFE"....
DO THE RESEARCH THAT UNIT WAS HAVING MENTAL ISSUES (AS WAS THE ASSAULT)...AND ALL VETS R NOT ADEQUATELY GETTING THE CARE THEY NEED.....I AM ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN OF THAT BECAUSE MY SIL WORKS AS A PHYS N.P. AT THE VETERANS ADM. ....THE FACTS R ABYSMAL AND SHAMEFUL.
They never stated anything about not following the orders that are lawful. This is the oath I took 5 times,
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The key to this is the part "according to the regulations and the UCJM. In the UCMJ it does talk about unlawful orders, and it is training for the military on this. Now we the situation of hedseth and the Admiral being investigated something just that, an unlawful order. If proven, then I am sure the Admiral will be thrown under the bus. Trump sending troops into cities is not lawful either under the Posse Comitatus Act. But yet he does it anyways even after a judge told them it was not lawful. They were given 21 days to either remove them or appeal. That 21 days is almost up.
The biggest problem that I see, its not republicans or democrats, its both. Neither side wanting to serve "We the people" they only want to serve their party. Come midterms, believe the democrats will take the house back but not the senate and there we will be right back into "nothing getting done".
Left wing, Right Wing, doesn't matter, both needed for the bird to fly.
navycpo7 wrote: They never stated anything about not following the orders that are lawful. This is the oath I took 5 times,
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The key to this is the part "according to the regulations and the UCJM. In the UCMJ it does talk about unlawful orders, and it is training for the military on this. Now we the situation of hedseth and the Admiral being investigated something just that, an unlawful order. If proven, then I am sure the Admiral will be thrown under the bus. Trump sending troops into cities is not lawful either under the Posse Comitatus Act. But yet he does it anyways even after a judge told them it was not lawful. They were given 21 days to either remove them or appeal. That 21 days is almost up.
The biggest problem that I see, its not republicans or democrats, its both. Neither side wanting to serve "We the people" they only want to serve their party. Come midterms, believe the democrats will take the house back but not the senate and there we will be right back into "nothing getting done".
Left wing, Right Wing, doesn't matter, both needed for the bird to fly.
International law experts told TIME that, if the report is true, Hegseth, Bradley, and others involved may face criminal liability for the killing of survivors. “There is no actual armed conflict here, so this is murder,” Rebecca Ingber, a law professor at Cardozo Law School, said. Laura Dickinson, a law professor at George Washington University, said that “the intentional killing of a protected person—someone who is a civilian or a person who is ‘hors de combat’ because they have laid down their arms or are shipwrecked at sea—is a war crime.”
WELL NOW,THE WORD MURDER IS SURFACING IN THIS FIASCO....YES, THE ADMIRAL IS GOING UNDER THE BUS......AND THE WHOLE UGLY TRUTH IS THIS....ORDERS, UNLAWFUL?
The very fact that you put a question mark after it answers the question for those who were given the order HA. Orders are presumed lawful unless they are, as mentioned numerous times now, "manifestly unlawful". That you put a question mark at the end establishes that the orders are not "manifestly unlawful" and must be followed.
No actual armed conflict? When drug smugglers are firing upon our border agents I think we can establish that an armed conflict exists. Is the vessel directly engaged in that armed conflict? Well, I guess that depends upon whether or not you consider a supply convoy on a battlefield a legitimate target or not. Those vessels are supplying resources that support the armed conflict, therefore they are part of the battlefield whether or not they are, themselves, actively engaged in armed conflict at the moment they are attacked.
And the "expert" cited by Times, Laura Dickenson, leaves out something very important. The Geneva Conventions, which is where she is getting her references from, do not apply to mercenaries and non-state armed groups, e.g., terrorists, which is the current designation of the cartels, Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Geneva Conventions don't apply to terrorists.
SOUNDS LIKE MURDER TO ME, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM THE WRECKAGE AND GIVEN DUE PROCESS OF LAW....INSTEAD,THEY WERE BLOWN APART [PHYSICALLY) AND LEFT FOR FISH FOOD.....LAWFUL,REALLY????
Bright side? The Pentagon says they haven't been able to find new drug boats to target.
Maybe those $500 cash payouts to the boat pilots, mechanics, and navigators isn't worth losing their lives.
Hopefully as a result, overdose deaths in America decline. Yesterday I was down near Casa Bonita and I saw two Fentanyl addicts on a bench in their usual huddled over posture. I hope they get the help they need and can get off these dangerous drugs.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
homeagain wrote: INTERPRETATION ....A VERY INTROSPECTIVE TASK.
SOUNDS LIKE MURDER TO ME, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PULLED FROM THE WRECKAGE AND GIVEN DUE PROCESS OF LAW....INSTEAD,THEY WERE BLOWN APART [PHYSICALLY) AND LEFT FOR FISH FOOD.....LAWFUL,REALLY????
Yes, really. Similar to the British continuing to fire upon the Bismark long after the ship posed no threat. Continuing until the battleship sank, and only then attempting to "rescue" any survivors. Out of a crew of over 2,000 sailors, less than 120 survived. Murder you say? These are designated terrorists, unlike the German sailors who perished that day, the Geneva Conventions do not protect them. When you cast your lot with those who operate outside of civilized society, you can't expect the civilized rules to save you.
Do you truly not "understand the difference" between a sailor and a terrorist?
