Connect with us

International

U.S. Secret Service report finds multiple failures before first Trump assassination attempt

Published

5 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

A report from the U.S. Secret Service said multiple communication and operational failures happened on the day a lone gunman shot at former President Donald Trump in Pennsylvania in July.

A summary of the agency’s investigation pointed to a cascade of errors that preceded the attempt on Trump’s life while he spoke at a rally on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania. One of the gunman’s shots struck Trump’s ear.

“It is important that we hold ourselves to account for the failures of July 13 and that we take the lessons learned to make sure that we do not have another mission failure like this again,” Acting Director Ronald Rowe said.

Rowe said the agency needs “a shift in paradigm in how we conduct our operations.” That will include more people, equipment and technology.

The internal report, which is separate from other congressional investigations, first pointed at communication failures. For example, the report noted that some local police didn’t know there were two separate communications centers on site and mistakenly thought the Secret Service was directly receiving their radio transmissions.

Another communication problem was that the local tactical team, operating on the second floor of the AGR building where the shooter attacked from the roof, had yet to contact Secret Service personnel before the rally.

“Multiple law enforcement entities involved in securing the rally questioned the efficacy of that local sniper team’s positioning in the AGR building, yet there was no follow-up discussion about modifying their position,” according to the report.

Thomas Matthew Crooks, 20, of Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, shot at Trump from a nearby rooftop. U.S. Secret Service agents returned fire and killed Crooks. A firefighter attending the rally was killed and two others were injured.

The report noted concerns about the July 13 rally’s venue at the Butler Farm Show site. An advance team recognized those concerns, but measures to address those problems weren’t taken.

“There was a lack of detailed knowledge by Secret Service personnel regarding the state or local law enforcement presence that would be present in and around the AGR complex,” according to the report. “There was also a lack of knowledge regarding the specific footprint of resources that would buttress the secure area of the venue and separate it from the AGR complex, which was outside of the site’s secure perimeter.”

The internal report said communication problems were the cause of the failures. It said, “different radio frequencies used at the Butler Farm Show venue were not conducive for quickly sharing real-time information.”

“The failure of personnel to broadcast via radio the description of the assailant, or vital information received from local law enforcement regarding a suspicious individual on the roof of the AGR complex, to all federal personnel at the Butler site inhibited the collective awareness of all Secret Service personnel,” the report said.

Better communication could have made a difference.

“If this information was passed over Secret Service radio frequencies it would have allowed [Trump’s] protective detail to determine whether to move their protectee while the search for the suspicious suspect was in progress,” according to the report. “Vital information was transmitted via mobile/cellular devices in staggered or fragmented fashion instead of being relayed via the Secret Service radio network.”

An advance drone team reported technical problems that could have spotted Crooks before the rally.

“It is possible that if this element of the advance had functioned properly, the shooter may have been detected as he flew his drone near the Butler Farm Show venue earlier in the day,” according to the report.

The agency will finalize the report in the coming weeks.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

Move over Soviet Russia: UK Police Make 10,000 Arrests Over “Offensive” Online Speech

Published on

logo

By

In a nation where 90 percent of crimes go unsolved, the real emergency seems to be someone being offensive online.

Let’s get something straight. If you’re reading this from inside the United Kingdom and you’ve ever committed the heinous act of sarcasm on the internet, better close the curtains. The police might be on their way. Armed, possibly. With body cams. And a warrant to seize your copy of The Complete Fawlty Towers, just in case.
Last year, British police arrested nearly 10,000 people for saying things online that someone, somewhere, decided were “offensive.”
According to data pried out of police forces by the Daily Mail, that’s around 26 people a day. And yes, some of those probably were saying awful things. But many were not. Many were simply annoying. And in the UK now, being annoying online is grounds for a knock at the door.
The arrests were made under laws like the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, pieces of legislation drafted before TikTok existed, and when “going viral” still referred to the flu.
These laws were originally written to stop actual threats. Not to stop someone from tweeting something sarcastic about climate protesters.
But times have changed. Cumbria Constabulary, apparently keen to earn their badge in “Feelings Policing,” clocked in 217 arrests last year. That’s 42.5 arrests per 100,000 residents.
Meanwhile, Staffordshire managed only 21. What were they doing instead, catching burglars? How outdated.
Gwent Police weren’t far behind, either. The Welsh force made 204 arrests.
Toby Young of the Free Speech Union called the number “alarmingly high.” His assessment may be generous.
What’s truly Olympic-level absurd is the sheer inconsistency. If you’re a bit spicy with your language in Cumbria, you might be arrested before the kettle boils. In Staffordshire, you’d likely get nothing but a raised eyebrow and a politely worded leaflet.
David Spencer from Policy Exchange nailed it when he said, “The variance in approach by police forces suggests that how much freedom of speech we are allowed depends on where we live.”
A troubling sentence, because once you need a zipcode to know what jokes are legal, the country starts to resemble something more out of Kafka.
Polling suggests only 7 percent of people think online “hate speech” should be a police priority. Seven percent! Yet Britain’s police are allocating significant resources to patrol the pixelated badlands of X and Facebook while 90 percent of actual crimes went unsolved last year.
So, to recap: Your house gets burgled? Fill out a form and cross your fingers. Criticize the government’s foreign policy on Facebook? Patrol car, cuffs, and possible prison time.
It doesn’t help that the laws in question use terms like “grossly offensive” and “insulting” without defining them. As Lord Frost pointed out in the House of Lords: “’Grossly offensive’, ‘abusive’, ‘insulting’ and ‘false’ – says who?” Exactly. It’s like trying to enforce a speed limit based on whether the officer feels you were driving too smugly.
Here’s the cherry on the dystopian sundae: According to Free Speech Union’s Toby Young, Russia arrested 3,253 people last year for online speech. Britain arrested four times that. That’s embarrassing and the sort of international statistic that ought to appear in Amnesty International reports.
Continue Reading

Energy

Expanding Canadian energy production could help lower global emissions

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Annika Segelhorst and Elmira Aliakbari

Canada’s most timely opportunity to lower overall global emissions is through expanded exports to regions that rely on higher-emitting fuel sources.

The COP30 climate conference in Brazil is winding down, after more than a week of discussions about environmental policy and climate change. Domestic oil and natural gas production is frequently seen as a fundamental obstacle to Canada’s climate goals. Yet the data shows that Canadian energy production is already among the world’s cleanest, generating lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per barrel-of-oil-equivalent produced, among major producing countries. Expanding the role of Canadian oil and gas in global markets can replace higher GHG-emitting alternatives around the world, driving down global GHG emissions.

Prime Minister Carney’s first budget highlights Canada’s “emissions advantage” in a chart on page 105 that compares the amount of GHG emissions released from producing oil and natural gas across 20 major producing countries. Compared to many other top-producing countries, Canada releases fewer GHG emissions per barrel of oil and gas produced when considering all phases of production (extraction, processing, transport, venting and flaring).

For oil production, Canada has an advantage over most major producers such as Venezuela, Libya, Iran, Algeria, Nigeria, China, Russia and Qatar. Canada’s emissions per barrel of oil produced are below the global average, making Canada among the lower emitting producers worldwide.

Similarly, Canada’s natural gas production has an emissions per barrel equivalent that is lower than the global average and is below major producers such as Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Argentina, Malaysia, Australia, Algeria, Iran, Russia, India and the United States. The chart below reveals countrywide average GHG emissions per barrel of oil or natural gas produced in 2022.

chart

Source: International Energy Agency (2023), The Oil and Gas Industry in Net Zero Transitions 2023, IEA, Paris, p. 69 

Canada’s emissions advantage stems from years of technological innovations that require less energy to produce each barrel of oil along with improvements in detecting leaks. From 1990 to 2023, Canada’s total production of crude oil rose by 199 per cent, while emissions per barrel of oil produced declined by 8 per cent, according to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC). In the oilsands, since 1990 emissions per barrel have fallen by nearly 40 per cent while emissions from natural gas production and processing have decreased by 23 per cent.

Canada has already implemented many of the most practical and straightforward methods for reducing carbon emissions during oil and gas production, like mitigation of methane emissions. These low-hanging fruits, the easiest and most cost-effective ways to reduce emissions, have already been implemented. The remaining strategies to reduce GHG emissions for Canadian oil and gas production will be increasingly expensive and will take longer to implement. One such approach is carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), a technology which traps and stores carbon dioxide to prevent it from reaching the atmosphere. Major infrastructure projects like this offer potential but will be difficult, costly and resource intensive to implement.

Rather than focusing on increasingly expensive emission reductions at home, Canada’s most timely opportunity to lower overall global emissions is through expanded exports to regions that rely on higher-emitting fuel sources. Under a scenario of expanded Canadian production, countries that presently rely on oil and gas from higher-emitting producers can instead source energy from Canada, resulting in a net reduction in global emissions. Conversely, if Canada were to stagnate or even retreat from the world market for oil and gas, higher-emitting producers would increase exports to accommodate the gap, leading to higher overall emissions.

As Canada’s climate and energy policy continues to evolve, our attention should focus on global impact rather than solely on domestic emissions reductions. The highest environmental impact will come from enabling global consumption to shift towards lower-emitting Canadian sources.

Annika Segelhorst

Junior Economist

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X