Who shot bin Laden? Former U.S. Navy SEALS make rival claims

November 7, 2014

U.S. NavyWashington, Nov 7: Members of the U.S. Navy Seal commando team that killed Osama bin Laden at his Pakistan hideout in May, 2011 are making conflicting claims as to who actually shot the al Qaeda leader.

The Washington Post published a story on Thursday quoting Rob O'Neill, a former SEAL, as claiming to have fired the fatal shot that hit bin Laden in the forehead after O'Neill stormed into a room in bin Laden's house in Abbottabad.

The claim by O'Neill, who travels the country giving motivational speeches, was countered by a source close to another SEAL team member.

The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the team member told him the fatal shot was fired by one of two other men who entered the room before O'Neill.

The Post said O'Neill acknowledged shots were fired at bin Laden by at least two other Seal team members, including Matt Bissonnette, a former Seal who wrote a 2012 book about the raid entitled "No Easy Day."

The book did not identify the person who shot bin Laden.

NBC News quoted Bissonnette on Thursday as saying: "Two different people telling two different stories for two different reasons ... Whatever he (O'Neill) says, he says. I don't want to touch that."

Last year, after Esquire Magazine published an interview with an anonymous SEAL member, now widely reported to have been O'Neill, who claimed to have shot bin Laden, other media outlets questioned the account.

An article entitled "Who really killed bin Laden," by Peter Bergen, a CNN analyst and al Qaeda expert, quoted a then-serving SEAL team member saying the story as presented by Esquire was "complete B.S."

A representative of a speaker's organization which says it represents O'Neill said he was unavailable to comment. O'Neill's page on the website of the organization describes his career as a SEAL, but makes no mention of a role in killing bin Laden.

Bissonnette's lawyer, Robert Luskin, acknowledged Thursday that Bissonnette for some time had been under criminal investigation by both the Naval Criminal Investigation Service and the Justice Department for possible violations of a U.S. espionage law because he did not seek official clearance before publishing his book. Bissonnette denies wrongdoing.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
June 6,2020

Islamabad, Jun 6: Pakistan has reported a record 97 COVID-19 deaths in a single day, taking the total number of fatalities to 1,935, while the number of confirmed cases in the country approached 94,000 after over 4,700 infections were detected, the health ministry said on Saturday.

Punjab registered 35,308 COVID-19 cases, Sindh 34,889, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa 12,459, Balochistan 5,776 Islamabad 4,323, Gilgit-Baltistan 897 and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir 331 cases, the Ministry of National Health Services said.

The total number of COVID-19 cases reached 93,983 after 4,734 new infections were detected across the country, it said.

With a record 97 fatalities in one day, the death toll in the country has reached 1,935, while 32,581 people have recovered from the disease.

The ministry said that the total number of active COVID-19 cases in Pakistan are 59,467, out of which 1,265 patients are in critical condition.

More than 100 labs in the country have so far conducted 660,508 tests, including 22,185 in the last 24 hours.

There are 747 hospitals across the country with COVID-19 treatment facilities where 5,060 patients are being treated. Others have been asked to self-isolate at home.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 12,2020

London, Feb 12: Fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya returned to the courtroom here on Wednesday, the second day of hearing at the UK High Court, where the former billionaire has appealed against the extradition decision of Westminster Magistrates Court in December 2018.

On being asked about his expectations from the lengthy appeals process against the extradition order as today is the last day for Mallya to present his defence, the embattled former Kingfisher Airlines boss replied, "I have no clue. You see. I'll also see it. Let's not get into a speculative game."

When asked on what would happen if Mallya loses the case and has to return to India, the liquor baron responded: "We do have arguments."

The UK High Court, on Tuesday, had also heard Mallya's appeal against the Westminster Magistrates' Court order extraditing him to India to face alleged fraud and money laundering charges amounting to Rs 9,000 crore.

Mallya was present in the court along with his counsel Clare Montgomery during the hearing. Officials from Enforcement Directorate (ED) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) along with counsel Mark Summers representing the Indian government were also present.

When the judge asked if there was a timeline in the case, Clare said," This is a very dense case," involving multiple individuals and organisations and that not everything had been taken into account by the magistrate Emma Arbuthnot in her ruling against Mallya.

Montgomery contended that the magistrate's ruling had been riddled with "multiple errors". She also brought into question the admissibility of documents submitted by the Indian government - including witness statements and emails that proved crucial in the ruling by judge Arbuthnot, who found "clear evidence of misapplication of loan funds" and that there was a prima facie case of fraud against Mallya.

As she had done throughout the trial, Montgomery continued to assert that Mallya had not acted in a fraudulent manner or run a pyramid and that the collapse of Kingfisher Airlines was, in fact, the failure of a business in difficult economic circumstances.

She also reiterated concerns about the conduct of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in bringing charges against Mallya, claiming that the tycoon had been made a scapegoat.

Montgomery also stated that the Indian government had presented the loan taken out by Kingfisher Airlines, not as a simple business loan but was part of a larger and elaborate attempt at defrauding the banks by Mallya and Kingfisher Airlines management.

This, Montgomery contended, was but one example of a wider misinterpretation of the case by judge Arbuthnot.

The High Court justices reprimanded Montgomery for concentrating on the evidence - in essence rehashing the case presented at the lower court - rather than the apparent "mistakes" made by judge Arbuthnot in her ruling.

Mallya remains on bail of £650,000 as he has done throughout this legal process.

The Crown Prosecution Service which is representing the Government of India will present its case for the extradition of Mallya on Wednesday.

The 63-year-old businessman fled India in March 2016 and has been living in the UK since then.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 1,2020

Washington, Mar 1: The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed a fine of over $200 million for all major US mobile carriers for selling the location data of customers to some agencies.

The Federal Communications Commission today proposed fines against the nation's four largest wireless carriers for apparently selling access to their customers' location information without taking reasonable measures to protect against unauthorised access to that information. As a result, T-Mobile faces a proposed fine of more than $91 million, AT&T faces a proposed fine of more than $57 million, Verizon faces a proposed fine of more than $48 million, and Sprint faces a proposed fine of more than $12 million, the FCC said in a statement on Friday.

The Enforcement Bureau of FCC opened this investigation after reports surfaced that a Missouri Sheriff, Cory Hutcheson, used a "location-finding service" operated by Securus, a provider of communications services to correctional facilities, to access the location information of the wireless carriers' customers without their consent between 2014 and 2017.

"American consumers take their wireless phones with them wherever they go. And information about a wireless customer's location is highly personal and sensitive. The FCC has long had clear rules on the books requiring all phone companies to protect their customers' personal information. And since 2007, these companies have been on notice that they must take reasonable precautions to safeguard this data and that the FCC will take strong enforcement action if they don't. Today, we do just that," said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai.

"This FCC will not tolerate phone companies putting Americans' privacy at risk."

The FCC also admonished these carriers for apparently disclosing their customers' location information, without their authorisation, to a third party

The four major US carriers mentioned sold access to their customers' location information to "aggregators," who then resold access to such information to third-party location-based service providers (like Securus).

Although their exact practices varied, each carrier relied heavily on contract-based assurances that the location-based services providers (acting on the carriers' behalf) would obtain consent from the wireless carrier's customer before accessing that customer's location information.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.