By Douglas J. Hagmann
I am writing as the father of four adult children. Although I have lost many loved ones during the half-century-plus of my life, including a close family member to a brutal murder, I know the pain of loss.
But I don’t know the pain of losing a son or daughter, and I thank God that He has so far spared me such anguish and grief. A quote by Dwight Eisenhower perhaps says is best: “There’s no tragedy in life like the death of a child. Things never get back to the way they were.”
While the death of a son or daughter would itself be devastating, having their death mired in a web of unanswered questions, deceit, and even outright lies by people we were taught to trust would be intolerable, especially when no one is being held accountable for such a tragic loss. I have just described the agonizing world in which Charles Strange and his family now live.
Charles Strange is the father of fallen Seal Team 6 hero Michael J. Strange, who was one of 30 Americans who lost their lives under mysterious circumstances in the dark of night in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. It was a mere 93 days after Seal Team 6 was “outed” by Vice President Joseph Biden and then Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for being responsible for the reported killing of Osama bin Laden. After being identified to the world by our own government, Michael Strange and his fellow comrades were killed as they rode in a 1960’s era Chinook helicopter – directly into an ambush.
The circumstances surrounding nearly every aspect of Seal Team 6 following the May, 2011 reported killing of Osama bin Laden are shrouded in mystery, contradictions, and outright deception. It was in June of 2011, a month after the raid by Seal Team 6 and two months before his death that Michael Strange visited his family. As a father, I have gone over the account of Michael’s visit as detailed by Charles Strange many times in my own mind, putting myself in his position and mulling the telltale signs that something was wrong. Something was very wrong, for instead of the jovial son he had known, Michael’s June 2011 birthday visit was more of a somber occasion. Instead of joking about parties and pleasantries, Michael Strange wanted his dad to know that his “affairs” were in order.
Guided by the military oath of silence, Michael could not tell his dad what he knew, or even what he felt. After speaking with other family members of Seal Team 6, Charles Strange learned that other team members telegraphed their similar concerns to their loved ones. The more Charles Strange investigated, inquired and sought answers like any loving father would, the more he knew himself that something was indeed wrong.
Charles Strange recalls the ramp ceremony at Dover Air Force Base for his son, where an Islamic Imam presided over Muslim prayers of the American dead. In the traumatic fog that enveloped him, he did not fully realize at that time that this Imam was damning his son and the souls of others in the name of Islam. Although some still contend that this was not the case at all and a translation error prompted this urban legend that will not die, the evidence I’ve uncovered tells a much different story. It is an account that is inconsistent with the “acceptable” version of events, and one of many disturbing events that surround the dead of Seal Team 6.
Furthermore, the investigative report supplied to Charles Strange that contained details about the incident and his son’s death has prompted more questions than answers, as was the in-person briefing held in December of 2011 by military brass. As if to add insult to injury, or death, in this case, Mr. Strange received a binder of documents that were supposed to answer the questions of a grieving family. The problem, however, is that upon returning home and opening the binder, Mr. Strange found that the binder contents to be completely unreadable. The typed words were merely ghostly impressions on each of the multiple pages, allegedly due to an unresolved printing problem. When he confronted the U.S. military about this, they apologized, adding that the original copy was “destroyed” and no legible replacements were possible.
There was, however, a disc in the package that contained a wealth of information from which Charles Strange and his wife used as a starting point in their quest for the truth. The information contained on that disc again raised more questions than answers, and it became evident that the truth was being withheld from the families of the fallen, as well as the American people. The families of the fallen heroes were being mocked in the tragedy, as every American continues to be today.
Since the death of his son, the indefatigable Charles Strange has been on a crusade to learn the truth about exactly what happened on the night of August 6, 2011… about what happened to his son and the 29 others aboard the helicopter, including Bart, a canine in service for our country. They made the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf, and the very least we can do for them is to ferret out the complete truth about the circumstances surrounding their untimely deaths.
As a father of a young man robbed of a promising future, Charles Strange wants answers. As a father of a young man who gave his life in the service of his country, he deserves answers, not only for himself and his family, but for Michael. As citizens of the United States, we must stand firmly beside Charles Strange and demand answers as well, and we must not quit until we get to the bottom of this very troubling incident, regardless of the walls put up in front of us.
It should be unsettling for every patriotic American, every parent, and everyone with a family member now serving our country to learn that seeking the truth has its consequences. As he reported to a Philadelphia television station, Charles Strange is demanding accountability despite the apparent blowback that such actions cause. It appears that someone in our own government wants to deter Mr. Strange from learning the truth, or least find out what he knows.
“Somebody has to be held accountable for my son’s death. Thirty brave Americans, the biggest loss in the Afghan war. And that’s when I started asking questions, that’s when my phone got tapped.” Charles Strange has heard tapping noises while on the telephone, and has been getting “odd texts” shortly after his son’s death. He contacted his telephone service provider who told him that “somebody [is] listening in from the United States, and someone from Afghanistan.”
There is so much more to this story. There are lies upon lies coming from the very top of this “regime” that it becomes insulting not only to the family of Michael Strange and the 29 other brave Americans, but to every American who cares about the fate of our nation. There must be accountability, regardless of where and how far up the chain of command it leads. Anything less would be an unforgivable affront to Michael Strange, his family, all the families of Seal Team 6, and every man or woman of our armed forces.
We must not stop searching for the truth, and assist Charles Strange and his family by demanding answers and not stopping until the truth is uncovered. I believe that Michael would have wanted it that way.
I am proud to state that Charles Strange is one of my heroes – as a father, and as a once proud American. I believe that his unbridled tenacity will result in exposing the lies that exist within the tangled tale of Seal Team 6. I, for one, am proud to be in his company, and will stand beside him and assist his efforts to bring those responsible for this dark moment in American history to the justice they deserve.
Charles Strange will be a very special guest on The Hagmann & Hagmann Report tonight, August 28, 2013 beginning at 8:00 p.m. ET to tell more about his experiences since the death of his son. Click here to listen live.
Related: Voices of Fallen Heroes—The Michael Strange Foundation
By Douglas J. Hagmann
There is much focus on the events following the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, as there should be. Four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, are dead. Real Americans, real men do not leave other Americans to die mercilessly in the throes of battle, at their time of greatest need. That’s not who we are, individually as people or collectively as a nation. Yet the inquiries of late boil down to one simple but very revealing question that no one in a position of authority has answered: Is this what we’ve become?
This is a question that transcends politics, political parties, and agendas. It is much bigger than all of that and all of us and speaks to the very heart of who we are as a people, a nation, and a brotherhood and sisterhood of soldiers who have entrusted their lives to the men and women leading the greatest nation on earth. It is the very essence of who we are and everything for which we stand. It is about honor, and a man or a nation who has lost honor can lose nothing more.*
At the heart of the issue are four Americans whose names and faces we must never forget: Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. They were sons and fathers, friends and family, and fellow soldiers doing what other Americans were not, could not, or would not. They are the face of America’s integrity and honor, exhibits of courage, and members of a special group who have died in the name of our nation.
Have we abandoned not only our dead, but our nation’s honor? With regard to the events in Benghazi, there is one straightforward and expeditious way to put inquiring minds to rest and to assure every American serving their country that they will not be left behind in their time of greatest need. Through a simple stroke of a pen, one man can put an end to the growing undercurrent of speculation and fear of abandonment: Barack Hussein Obama.
The accounts of the September 11, 2012, meeting in the Oval Office are well documented and undisputed in open-source reports. Barack Hussein Obama, Joe Biden, and Leon Panetta were meeting in the Oval Office at the very moment in time when the frantic pleas for help were made by our men who were engaged in a battle for their lives. In Benghazi, it was their final battle, but I beseech every American that it must not be ours.
Barack Hussein Obama has publicly assured every American that he ordered assistance to be dispatched to save our people. Let there be no equivocation, no wordplay, and no doubt, as the stakes are too high, the grief too real, and the consequences too dire to our country for anything but complete and honest disclosure. Barack Obama has told us that he issued an order, in real-time, to save the lives of our men as the doors of hell opened before them.
That is his statement recorded in history. Three men know the truth. Four men are dead. A nation’s honor hangs in the balance.
Accordingly, it is a very simple matter to produce the “execute order,” or the written documentation of that one very narrow but very specific verbal command. Lest one opines that such disclosure would compromise our national security, I remind everyone of the massive disclosures that were so freely and willingly offered in the wake of the bin Laden operation.
Just as the bin Laden operation is over, so is the Benghazi attack. A nation given the inside view of a celebrated successful operation now demands accountability in another. It must be done not only for the honor of the dead but for the sake of our nation.
As an American, I say this to Barack Hussein Obama: Show us that you have the honor and integrity that you claim. “Own” this situation as you did the bin Laden operation. Put America first. Produce the order. Today.
*A Paraphrase of the first-century Syrian writer Publilius Syrus.
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Most people know that we’ve been lied to about the attacks in Benghazi, but few realize the extent of those lies or the hidden secrets they cover. After all, the lie is different at every level. Thanks to a well placed source with extensive knowledge about the attack, the disturbing truth is slowly beginning to emerge and is lining up with information contained in my previous articles published here weeks ago (Here, Here and Here). The truth reveals the most serious situation in the world today as it involves the interests and destinies of us all.
According to the U.S. government, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed during a spontaneous protest at the consulate office in Benghazi by a frenzied crowd of Muslims outraged over an obscure internet video. Recently released “sensitive but not classified e-mails” from Stevens to the U.S. Department of State painted a picture of poor security for U.S. personnel and the embassy, which was obviously true but had little to do with the events of September 11, 2012. The failure to dispatch an extraction team or otherwise rescue the men during a firefight that lasted upwards of nine grueling and tortuous hours was not the result of any intelligence failure, but caused by our unwillingness to widen the conflict and expose the nature and scale of our true mission in Benghazi.
Based on information provided by my source and corroborated elsewhere, the official account by administration officials is a mosaic of lies that were necessary to cover the unpalatable truth of covert actions taking place in Libya, Syria, Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The primary objective of our covert actions was to secretly arm anti-Assad “rebels” in Syria by funneling arms from Libya to Syria via Turkey, with other destinations that included Jordan and Lebanon. Regarding the threat to Stevens and the other murdered Americans, the truth will reformat the persistent question posed to government officials, from UN Ambassador Susan Rice to White House Spokesman Jay Carney and others from “how could you not have known” to “how could you have done these things?”
First, it is important to understand that Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Dougherty and Tyrone Woods were not killed at a consulate office in Benghazi—as there is not such office there. They died at one of the largest CIA operations centers in the Middle East, which was located in Benghazi and served as the logistics headquarters for arms and weapons being shipped out of the post-Qaddafi Libya.
Although the U.S. government insisted that Stevens was involved in securing and destroying the numerous caches of arms and weapons once under the control of Qaddafi, the operation was more complex than that. The visual accounts of weapons being destroyed were indeed real, but those weapons were not operational. The working weapons were actually separated and transported to holding facilities for their eventual use in Syria. Russia was fully aware of this operation and warned the U.S. not to engage in the destabilization of Syria, as doing so would endanger their national security interests. Deposing Assad, as despotic as he might be, and replacing him with a Muslim Brotherhood-led regime would likely lead to unrestrained Islamic chaos across the region.
According to my source, Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 to meet with his Turkish counterpart, who reportedly warned Stevens that the operation was compromised. They met in person so that Stevens could be shown overhead satellite images, taken by the Russians, of nefarious activities taking place in Turkey. But just what were these nefarious activities?
It is reasonable to suspect that these activities were more dire than just your average “gun running” operation. Since the overthrow of Qaddafi, it is estimated that upwards of 40 million tons of weapons and arms were shipped out of Libya to Syria. But it was also known inside intelligence circles that Qaddafi possessed chemical weapons in addition to numerous surface-to-air missiles. Could it be that Russia obtained unmistakable surveillance footage of the anti-Assad “rebels” being shown how to load chemical payloads onto missiles inside Turkey near the border of Syria? Weapons, of course, that were shipped from Libya by the CIA in conjunction with various Muslim Brotherhood rebel groups. If so, such weapons could be used as a “false flag” type of operation—one that would be implemented to “set-up” Assad by making it appear that he was using these weapons on forces dedicated to his overthrow.
The blowback by the international community would be swift and punishing, and the entirety of the civilized world would be demanding his overthrow. NATO would then be used to expedite his ouster, and Russia’s moral position within the international community would be weakened. Was the meeting held to show Stevens that the operation was compromised and that they had to stop?
While the administration asserts that the attack in Benghazi was conducted by a group of rebels acting alone, the facts seem to indicate otherwise. The level of coordination was such that we did not deploy military assets, located just an hour or two away by air, to rescue Stevens and the others at the CIA operations center in their time of need. If, as the administration contends, that the attack was perpetuated by a group of frenzied rebels, our military could have easily handled them in short order. So why was there no rescue operation?
Perhaps the statements made yesterday by Leon Panetta, U.S. Secretary of Defense provides some insight if one analyzes the essence of those statements. Among other things, Panetta said that “…the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on…” Well, it has been confirmed we did know what was taking place on the ground in Benghazi, so exactly what did Panetta mean by this statement?
Against the backdrop of the official story, it makes little sense. If, however, one considers the alternative, that the attack was coordinated and was a nation/state sponsored attack, then it becomes clearer. Panetta and the highest levels of this administration likely knew exactly what we were doing, and knew that the operation was compromised. They knew, or had reason to believe, that the attack was being conducted at a nation/state level in response to our covert operation in Libya and arming the anti-Assad Syrian opposition.
Although Russia figures prominently here, Iran now comes into focus as Russia is not likely to directly engage U.S. forces. They must, however, protect their interests. Much like we were using anti-Assad forces to advance our objectives in Syria, Russia was using Iranian-backed forces to protect theirs. It appears that the attacks were conducted or facilitated by Iranian assets—perhaps as many as three teams of assets in Benghazi.
As the White House and other agencies monitored intelligence in real-time, they faced a dilemma. They knew that the nation/state sponsored attack teams were lying in wait for U.S. rescue forces to arrive, which is the reason the fight did not conclusively end sooner. They did not know exactly where all of the attack teams were, but knew they were present based on signal communication intercepts. Could they risk such exposure by deploying a rescue team to Benghazi, only to end up with another Black Hawk down type scenario? In addition to that scenario, the entire operation now becomes exposed for what it is. Take another look at Panetta’s statement in that context. Does it now make more sense? Bad PR in an election year, no?
As daylight approached with no response from the U.S. and no aid to the Americans under fire, the attack teams had to disperse into the cover of the remaining darkness, but not before their mission was accomplished. And sadly, it was.
From the day of attack in Benghazi, Iran has been engaged in a full spectrum attack on the U.S. and NATO across the board involving embassies, bombing and even cyber attacks. All of this is the fallout from the arms and weapons smuggling operation, which was far greater than understood by the Western media.
Russia has now moved their contingent of S-400 missiles into much of Syria in anticipation of NATO establishing an “air cap” over Syria. A ten-mile “buffer zone” along Syria’s border has been created for Syrian refugees, but it also acts as a catalyst for the encroachment into Syrian territory. It sets the stage for further advancement and erosion of Syrian land, incrementally, of course.
It is also of critical importance to note that last weekend, Russia completed large-scale exercises of their Strategic Nuclear Forces under the watchful command of President Vladimir Putin. These were the first such nuclear exercises conducted since the fall of the Soviet Union.
To those with discernment, it is obvious that we are at the precipice of World War III. Putin himself stated as much, noting that WW III will not start in Iran but Syria, his own “red line in the sand.”
By Douglas J. Hagmann
Additional research and investigation into the controversial National Defense Authorization Act found something very interesting that is not apparently being reported by the U.S. media. Readers will recall the controversy that surrounded the liberty-threatening NDAA legislation passed with bipartisan support in the House and Senate and signed into law by Barack Hussein Obama last New Year’s Eve.
That law essentially gave the government the right to arrest and detain, without due process, American citizens on significantly vague and broad charges ostensibly related to terrorism. The legislation opened a “Pandora’s box” of unpleasant possibilities that undermine our Constitutional rights and threaten our liberties, unlike any other time in our national history.
Supporters of the NDAA, along with the media, were quick to point to a “signing statement” penned by Obama expressing his concern over the liberty restricting rights of the law, as if that somehow made the language of the new law suddenly conform to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Obviously, it did no such thing, but people were apparently comforted by this eight-page cross-my-heart promise that Obama and his redesigned national security apparatus would never use it for “bad.” Obama said he was uncomfortable with the particular language of section 1021 (and related portions) that called for arrests and indefinite detentions of U.S. citizens under the broad brush of terrorism.
Despite what you’ve been told, it is obvious that Obama and his cohorts are not uncomfortable with those provisions, and are quietly fighting to make sure the controversial provisions remain.
It appears that the fight against tyranny and oppression creates some interesting alliances on both sides. On January 13, 2012, a group of plaintiffs that include socialist and anarchist Noam Chomsky, political activist Daniel Ellsberg, the U.S. Day of Rage, and others filed a suit in the United States District Court in and for the Southern District of New York, challenging the Constitutionality of the controversial sections of the NDAA. They asked the court for “preliminary and permanent injunctive relief with respect to one section, (indeed one page) of that voluminous legislation: Section 1021” (of the NDAA). The case was heard by Manhattan federal court Judge Katherine Forrest.
The defendants of this case were named Barack Obama (individually and as a representative of the United States), Leon Panetta, John McCain, John Boehner, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and Eric Cantor.
Despite any sentiments that might be evoked by the identity, social and political views of the plaintiffs, even the most conservative among us would be hard-pressed to argue with the merits of their lawsuit. The NDAA shreds the Constitution, and these plaintiffs took legal action to stop it. Those are simply the unbiased facts of the matter, all of which are of little interest to the Obama-pandering corporate media. But wait, it gets better.
After an expedited discovery process, an evidentiary hearing was held on March 30, 2012. The federal judge in this matter and all of the plaintiffs showed up in person at that hearing except one, who provided testimony by sworn declaration pursuant to previous authority granted by the court. No one from the government offered any testimony, provided any documentation, or made the slightest noise at the hearing.
I’ll spare any further writings about the legal minutia of the process except to say that the government attempted to argue, in post-hearing memoranda, that section 1021 of the NDAA is an extension of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
On May 16, 2012, federal court Judge Katherine Forrest granted the plaintiff’s motion for relief in a 68-page ruling, meaning a win for the plaintiffs and a legal setback for the U.S. government. She writes that “preliminarily enjoining an act of Congress must be done with caution” and refreshingly adds that “it is the responsibility of our judicial system to protect the public from acts of Congress which infringe upon constitutional rights.”
Recall that Obama stated his opposition to Section 1021 of the NDAA in his signing statement or the very portion of the legislation that was at issue in this legal suit. Why, then, has Obama, through his legal department, filed an appeal with this federal court to overturn the ruling?
It would seem that by enjoining Section 1021 of the NDAA, U.S. citizens’ rights to due process would be protected, which again addresses the exact issue to which Obama dedicated eight-(8) pages of a “signing statement.” Based on the government’s actions, it would appear that Obama and his appointees have no reservations about section 1021 of the NDAA, and that the signing statement is, as former President Richard Nixon might have said, “inoperative.”
Equally disconcerting is that the U.S. media appears to be unwilling to report on this “inoperative” statement or the apparent bi-polar actions of this “administration.” The American people deserve better from our leaders as well as our media. Shame on both.
