My three readers might remember that a few weeks ago, Seth Hettena wrote an article about my refusal of an unlawful order over on his Substack, "The After-Action Report." When he contacted me with his list of questions, I declined to cooperate because I didn't trust him or most in his chosen profession. I got lucky and his article ended up being fair reporting. But my instincts about him turned out to be exactly correct.
A few weeks later he published a different article entitled, "Weekend Read: JSOC Once Taught the Rules. Now It Breaks Them." The article featured a scathing critique of the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) through the lens of a guy who was part of JSOC, a guy named Brandon Bryant. The problem? Brandon Bryant has never been a part of JSOC. Further, Brandon Bryant is a severely mentally ill mythomaniac with a well documented history of repeatedly lying in his many media professions about his short time in the military, and his even shorter time in the drone program. I have spent considerable time over the years documenting the lies told by Bryant and he is, without question, a mythomaniac with a far far greater than average propensity for lying.
When I pointed out that Bryant was never a member of JSOC, Hettena did a stealth edit of the first line of his article and changed his line to say "supported JSOC." His article originally stated:
He also similarly changed a section of his article which originally stated:
Seth didn't reply to my comment to point out he had changed his article based on it, as he has done on other articles to other commenters, but twelve hours after he had made the edit he finally published his "moderator note" shown at the top of this blog post. He published that note only after I had already pointed out his silent edit. For at least twelve hours, my comments he used to slightly improve his article were no issue and not deleted, and even got a like from somebody in his audience. But even after his stealth edit, he left multiple other false comments in the article where Bryant wove his untruthful narrative that he was a part of JSOC and had "JSOC instructors." So I commented again and pointed out these sections. One would think such corrections would be valuable given Seth's article title doesn't even make sense. JSOC once taught the rules? To who? Definitely not to Brandon Bryant.
But Seth apparently didn't find those comments valuable. Rather, Seth deleted all my comments and blocked me from his Substack. He characterized my comments as a "personal attack." I took screenshots of the comments which I'll share here and would encourage my three readers to take a look at the changes he did not make to his article, where the thrust of his writing remains a smear against JSOC through utilizing the fantasies of a well documented fraud who pretends he was part of that organization.
The first comment, shown below, is the one that prompted Seth to stealth edit his article. It has since been deleted but the unhinged replies to it from Brandon Bryant have been left up:
It should be noted that not only is calling somebody "a dishonorable man and a loser" not a personal attack in the mind of Seth Hettena (who moderates objectively and not to remove accurate criticisms that better inform his readers, wink, wink), but also that the 3rd Special Operations Squadron has never been a part of JSOC and a person is not simply "read in to" that organization, while in a wholly different organization no less. That's simply not how it works.
An investigative reporter who claims he is a "veteran national security reporter covering intelligence and special operations," one would think, would be aware of the organization chart available on Wikipedia that shows AFSOC (which the 3rd SOS falls under) is separate from JSOC. None of this is classified information and anybody familiar with the SOF community should recognize this fact.
This second comment above was also deleted by Seth as a "personal attack." Perhaps pointing out his failure to investigate was what he was referring to although his moderator note claims he is just looking out for his audience and his source rather than trying to protect his own thin skin. Seems a valid criticism to me and his stealth edit of his article seems to suggest he agrees with me.
The comment above was also deleted despite no personal attack being made, unless Seth thinks suggesting he could have reported better is somehow an attack and he wasn't being truthful in his moderator note, being more interested in silencing criticism of his reporting than catering to the soft sensibilities of his audience and the source of his reporting.
Hi Mr. Rynearson,
I'm a journalist who covers military and intelligence issues for Rolling Stone and my Substack newsletter, The After-Action Report.
I'm reporting a story for my Substack regarding the current debate in Washington, triggered by Democrats who say US forces should not follow unlawful orders. I saw on your blog that you consider the strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific to be unlawful orders.
Given that you actually faced such a decision, I thought it would be helpful to get a fuller perspective on this debate.
- What grounds make the boat strikes unlawful, in your view? Do they once again violate the Fifth Amendment? And does the absence of congressionally authorized war powers also weigh against these being lawful orders?
- What were the consequences of your refusal to follow orders? It appears from your blog and YouTube channel that the Air Force tried to discharge you but ultimately allowed you to retire with benefits and a security clearance. Is there a reason the Air Force did not make an example of you?
- Do you see a straight line from the Awlaki strike to the current strikes on suspected traffickers?
- As you know, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion blessing the Awlaki drone operation as lawful. Were you aware of Barron's legal opinion at the time you made your decision, and if so, why did it not persuade you to take part in the operation?
- Media reporting indicates that there is another Justice Department opinion regarding the boat strikes, which goes further, arguing that the troops involved cannot be prosecuted. Do you think troops should rely on such an opinion? Would such an assurance have affected your decision not to follow the order in the Awlaki operation?
- You wrote on your blog that the Obama administration's use of American military assets to target American citizens for assassination outside war zones without due process was "an act of treason." Does that same logic apply to the Trump administration's boat strikes that target non-citizens? Are they treasonous as well?
- From an operational standpoint, what key safeguards should be in place before authorizing a strike (whether against a citizen or non-citizen)?
- Are there lessons from your refusal of the 2011 order that you believe policymakers today are ignoring or misapplying?
- Hope to speak with you soon, or feel free to respond by email.
Sincerely,
Seth Hettena
Mobile/Signal: [redacted]Alternate email: [redacted]Thanks for reaching out, Seth.First, you've made an assumption about the identity of the American citizen I was tasked with assassinating. I have never named that individual and there were multiple American citizens targeted and killed unlawfully under the Obama administration. The identity of the now deceased individual is not classified, but I believe it detracts from the conversation to name him. All that matters is that he was an American citizen, outside a war zone who presented no imminent threat.Second, I've written about the order on my blog and there supplied official documents about my resignation. I've also posted quite a lot about the recent strikes under my name on Facebook recently and publicly.Finally, if you know Glenn Greenwald and you can have him email me and vouch for your objectivity, I'll answer your questions. Otherwise I have to defer you to my public contributions. Good luck with your story, it's important. I hope you do it right.- RHey there,
Thanks for getting back to me. I only know Glenn Greenwald from his work, so I guess I'll stick with the public statements.I take your point about you not naming the American citizen you were tasked with assassinating, and I'll make that clear in the story.Is there a photo of you from your AF days that I can use with your permission?
SethI appreciate the obvious effort you've put into this with your detailed questions. And I am sorry to say I don't trust journalists and their agendas which are too frequently not concerned with being as truthful as they can be. If I gave you an image with my permission and you chose to do the story including me in it, it would show my image and some label about me giving permission for it to be used, giving the impression to the reader that I sanctioned whatever it is that you chose to write. But I don't know what you're going to write.I imagine this won't be agreeable to you, but if you provide me the article before you publish it, and I think it's fair, I'll provide a photo and permission to use it.If you're one of the rare journalists, my apologies in advance for making it harder for you to do vitally needed work.- RickOK, I guess I'll figure something else out.All the best,SethThis is you, right, and not some other Richard Rynearson?Seth, apologies for not being able to assist you with your article. I wish you the best and hope that what you produce is honest. Good luck.Here's what I published: https://theiceman.substack.com/p/trump-says- urging-troops-to-refuse?r= 9q8t0 Have a good daySethSeith, it's a well done article. And thank you. If you still want a picture for it, you can use any of these if you wish. I don't have many good pics in uniform.Nice work.- RickHey thanks. I'd still welcome a conversation with you. This issue isn't going away anytime soon.Case in point:SethSince you edited your article to clarify, just a small thing, I think the caption under my photo should be "Center For Individual Rights."Ok will fix. Thanks.Fixed.Right on. Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment