Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

IED threat was known before war but troops not protected

Posted By: Marmann on 2008-12-09
In Reply to:

I'm so glad that Joe Biden is in the White House now, considering he was one of only two who spoke up about this.  Our troops deserve an administration that respects and cares about them and will do its best to protect them.







Report: IED threat known before war


By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY


WASHINGTON —— Military leaders knew the dangers posed by roadside bombs before the start of the Iraq war but did little to develop vehicles that were known to better protect forces from what proved to be the conflict's deadliest weapon, a report by the Pentagon inspector general says.


The Pentagon "was aware of the threat posed by mines and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) …… and of the availability of mine resistant vehicles years before insurgent actions began in Iraq in 2003," says the 72-page report, which was reviewed by USA TODAY.


The report is to be made public today.


Marine Corps leaders "stopped processing" an urgent request in February 2005 for Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles from combat commanders in Iraq's Anbar province after declaring that a more heavily armored version of existing Humvee vehicles was the "best available" option for protecting troops, the report says.


Marine officials "did not develop a course of action for the (request), attempt to obtain funding for it or present it to the Marine Corps Requirements Oversight Council for a decision on acquiring" MRAPs, the report says.


The military continued relying mainly on Humvees until May 2007, when then-incoming Defense secretary Robert Gates called procurement of the MRAPs his top priority. Since then, the Pentagon has spent more than $22 billion to buy more than 15,000 of the vehicles.


When field commanders first began requesting MRAPs, military officials saw the armored Humvees as a more immediate option to countering IEDs, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. "The threat has evolved and our force protection measures have evolved with it," he said.


The Marines requested the inspector general's investigation in February after an internal report accused the Corps of "gross mismanagement" of the urgent request for MRAPs. Hundreds of Marines died unnecessarily because of delays in fielding the vehicles, said the Jan. 22 study by Franz Gayl, a retired Marine officer and civilian science adviser.


Two U.S. senators —— Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, now the vice president-elect, and Republican Kit Bond of Missouri —— demanded an investigation after details of Gayl's study were published.


"The Pentagon was aware of the threat IEDs posed to our troops prior to our intervention in Iraq and still failed to take the steps to acquire the technology needed to reduce the risk," Bond said after reviewing the report. "Some bureaucrats at the Pentagon have much to explain."


USA TODAY detailed the Pentagon's failure to move quickly on MRAP development in a series of stories last year. Gates credited one of those stories with sparking his interest in the vehicles.


Marine commanders in Iraq's then-volatile Anbar province sought 1,169 MRAPs in the February 2005 urgent request. "There is an immediate need for an MRAP vehicle capability to increase survivability and mobility of Marines operating in a hazardous fire area," it said.


The inspector general's report says that Marine officials advised Marine Corps commandant Michael Hagee at the time that armored Humvees were the "best available, most survivable" vehicles to meet the request.


MRAPs are far more resistant to IEDs and landmines than armored Humvees because they're higher off the ground and rest on a V-shaped hull, which deflects blasts from the vehicle's underside.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2008-12-08-mrap_N.htm




Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

oops - meant why are we NOT being protected...
nm
I'd rather see a woman's rights protected
than an fetus' any day. So you think I should trust McCain/Palin - that's a joke!
Speaking of whales...Palin does not want them protected either!
Alaska's Gov. Sarah Palin has questioned scientific evidence that the beluga whale population in the waters near Anchorage is declining. In fact last summer she urged the federal government not to list the whale as endangered, citing concerns of what a listing might do to the Cook Inlet economy.

But today the U.S. Government replied with a decisive counter, declaring the beluga whales in Alaska's Cook Inlet an endangered species. The findings by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration trigger a rigorous regimen to protect the whales, dwindled to an estimated 375 from their 1995 high of 653.
You just made my point.....shouldn't they be protected
x
Threat?

GT explained what she meant in the post afterwards, which you conveniently ignored.  She said: Yes, as in prove you are a bigoted fool, FRYE your butt.


Any reasonably intelligent person can see she was challenging this poster to be civil and honest and to debate instead of attack, as she herself explained in her above post.  Obviously, the poster wasn't up for that challenge.


So much for the threat. SM

This is what *I* consider a serious threat...sm
Not discounting whatever went on this weekend, but I thought this was of interest.

By the NewsMax.com Staff
For the story behind the story...
Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:11 a.m. EST

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Complains of Right Wing Death Threats

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is complaining that she's getting death threats from detractors who belong to the irrational fringe of society - people she says who have been egged on by mainstream conservatives who have been critical of the High Court.

In quotes picked up by The Associated Press Wednesday, Ginsburg told the Constitutional Court of South Africa last month that somebody in an Internet chat room had issued a death threat against herself and her former colleague, Sandra Day O'Connor.

According to Ginsburg, the chat room perpetrator declared:

OK commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our republic and constitutional freedom ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.

In a follow-up speech earlier this month, the Clinton-appointed justice said the whole experience had been disquieting for her.

The AP cited Ann Coulter as an example of a conservative who may have inadvertently encouraged radicals to threaten members of the court by joking during a recent speech that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned.

Democrat: It goes on to say that Ginsberg did not speak up when a liberal commentator made a *wish him an early death* about Clarence Thomas, but was that Ginsberg's place to do so? And if so, did Clarence Thomas speak out for her?
Nothing like the threat of a
brisk IRS proctological exam to get a politician's mind right.
*Islamic Threat*
The *Islamic threat* grew over the past 50 years of our foreign policy.  This did not happen just because as Bush says, they are jealous of our freedom.  OMG, their ideology and ours are totally different and frankly, I dont think we will ever get a functioning democracy set up in the Middle East.  Instead of doing what Blair is doing now, setting up meetings with Islamic organizations to try to defuse the situation, we went head strong into Iraq..Oh, we are America, we are gonna kick butt, and what happened, we are now fighting a world wide terrorist war with it's breeding ground Iraq and to a minimum Afghanistan.  This was such an error in judgment and we will pay for it for decades to come.  Bush and his administration dont have to worry.  If we get attacked, they have bunkers, they have secret service that will be with them even after the term ends.  It is us, who ride the subways, rail roads, buses, shop at the malls..we are the ones..the poor slobs on the farms, who are fighting Bush's war and will die in terrorist attacks.  Thank you, Bush!
chavez threat
There have been many arrested over the past few years for just voicing threats that were meaningless, not like Robertson broadcasting all over the world about assassinating Chavez.  That most certainly is a crime.  You cannot threaten leaders of other countries, especially in a forum like Robertson has. 
Iran is CLEARLY a threat and that was what he
was conveying.  Making a statement about AVOIDING World War III is not irresponsible and I didn't hear him assume WWIII would evolve out of Iran specifically.  ANY country with nuclear weapons could spawn WWIII. 
American is clearly a threat to some
America is clearly a threat to many countries, especially seeing what we have been doing for the past four plus years and how we have fueled the hatred and terrorism around the world by chosing to invade and kill instead of holding diplomatic sessions..the thinking mans way of handling a disagreement/problem..no not cowboy Bush, he thinks nothing of sending over our loved ones to fight his illegal, immoral so wrong war, just as long as his daughters and the children of the lawmakers dont have to go.
She is a threat to Obama. and they will do
nm
Approaching threat.s are......
Israel and Aghanistan, not Iraq.
It all started in Afghanistan.
Was there a threat made?

I'm afraid that this is what is going to happen everywhere.  Anytime ANYTHING is said that sounds bad somebody is going to be reporting it to the FBI.  We are slowly going to lose freedom of speech at this rate. 


Obama threat already.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/10/obama.threat/?iref=mpstoryview
Perhaps. But to ignore the Islamic threat would mean sm
the end of life as we know it and we don't even want to imagine what the "new" life would be like.  Be careful what you wish for.
Sounds like a threat to me. And hey, I am being nice here. SM

How about trying to be nice in return. This sounds like a threat:


Can I call your arse to task when you step off your ******* truce*******..You bet I will..So, honey, keep posting good posts, debate posts and you will be **in**, jump off that and your arse is fried..



The answer is, there is no terrorist threat. sm

That sums it up. 


Thinly veiled threat
It was a thinly veiled threat.  Like someone stating..if you are interested in my punching you in the nose, keep up the baloney.  It was stated to make other countries shiver in their boots, however, what it does is make other countries race faster to make the nuclear bombs to protect themselves from the country they perceive as a terrorist country, the USA...you know the country that pre-emptively invaded a soverign nation which was no threat to them.
threat to national security
and YOU have undisputed proof of this?
No threat to national security?

We just posted where these facilities are and what is going on, but hey....don't worry....no national security risk.  OMG!  What a bunch of flipping morons!!!


P.S. I don't recall anyone posting a near death threat to the

remote to that.


Why is it you are the only ones who are "free" to display your anger on your board?


If you take a look at the posts on this board, the only time they get nasty is when a troll from your board comes here and begins spewing your hatred and rage.


Why are you so angry?  Your guy won. 


Whenever a liberal raises an issue concerning a Bush administration policy or decision, I seldom see an intelligent thoughtful response come from most of you.  Instead you attack the poster on a personal level when that poster never personally attacked YOU.  They complained about Bush.  Are you BUSH??


Time and time again, most of you come back with "all liberals" insults and rarely, if ever, address the question or issue that was raised.


If you can begin to understand that it isn't YOU PERSONALLY that we are referring to, maybe then we can begin to have an intelligent conversation on this board.


If you are a conservative, I respect your right to your opinions, and I'd like to learn more about them.  I can't do that if all you do is throw insults, which you are "free" to do on your board, but if we are angered or insulted by them, we are not likewise "free" to express that.


I had hoped that these new boards would eliminate the personal favorites that seemed to exist on the other board.  Looks like that isn't the case.


And as far as approaching the administrator about fairness, if I can't do that, then I truly don't belong in a forum like this one.  I belong in one that doesn't play favorites, where intelligent discourse can occur, where personal insults and attacks are prohibited for everyone, not just for some.


I just wonder how many people you've chased away from here, besides me.


I don't think this quote refers to ignoring a threat...
I think it speaks about creating and justifying a war, and in the Iraq war's case, a hasty and simple-minded war.  I don't know what Goering's thoughts were, but my own are that war should be a last resort and that seems like common sense.  This is in no sense to be construed as downplaying the threat of Islamic terrorism.  I would like to mention there that a big complaint about the Iraq war was that Bush ignored or didn't wish to consider the advice of folks who had a solid background in the Middle East.  The insurgency and threatening civil war were all predicted when we went to war but the advice was ignored.  Bush, it seems, reversed the usual order in which a country is forced to go to war:  He decided FIRST that he would go to war, then created justification, then ignored all the sage advice that Iraq was a potential powderkeg, and then he did what Goering prescribed to get the U.S. to rally around his cause (or at least some of the U.S.).  That's how it appears anyway.  I hope I am wrong about this but with the mounting well-documented evidence to the contrary I believe this will become the ultimate truth of the matter.
The post was inappropriate, but was a threat made??

Bye bye freedom of speech. 


FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements. 


dorky song threat realized
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPBxmrWqI-g&feature=related
Right! Beck is a threat to the left so as usual,
nm
Any ideas on how paying down too much debt could be a terrorist threat?nm
 
Yeah, there was no threat made. It was a sick thing
nm
Careful! Some neocon troll might twist your post into a threat!!!

Who honestly cares, as long as the terrorist threat was stopped. sm
Until all of you stop your Bush rabid hatred, the terrorist threat is not only lost on you, you look for something more sinister and it all has to point to Bush.  This is really disturbing.
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.

British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.

Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.

The evidence?

The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.

So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.

Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.

What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?

Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.

The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.

It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.

This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.

Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.

The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?

Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?

In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.

In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.

What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?

The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?

If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!

I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.

Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!

Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.




Fortunately, Lurker, many on the left realize the threat from radical Islam. sm
It isn't political, but it has been made that way.  That's why a lot of you have been lulled into being apologist for murdering Islamofascists. 
Thank God our troops

Okay...so you are okay with troops in ...
Afghanistan...just not in Iraq...?
Yes, has nothing to do with the troops.
And no, it does not make her a resident expert. Explain the differences of opinions amongst our own troops. Not all of them believe what they are doing is justified. Not every mother believes it either. It has nothing at all to do with being prideful of our sons and daughters. My point being is that their job is done. My brother is a gunny and is doing his job, but he no longer feels justified in doing it, and he is not alone. And I believe HIM. If the other poster is a resident expert because her son is in Iraq, then I guess that makes me a resident expert as well, no?

Yes, Liberal Thinker, and proud of it. I have not abandoned compassion. My agenda is to stop this needless war. My compassion is expanded to all not just a few. It started in my brain, and I am letting it spill out my mouth.

Yes. I criticize that with which I do not believe. That is our right is it not?

And last time I looked, this is a political forum, and a liberal forum at that.
It has nothing to do with our troops.
Why are you taken it so personally? You must realize that for every picture of sunshine your son sends you there is one that depicts suffering and starvation and death. I have family fighting it Iraq. It's doesn't change my stance that I feel that they are there unjustly. That's the real deal. Not quite sure how having family there makes you the resident expert. The point to my post was that we shouldn't be there anymore. Our troops have done what the Bush administration wanted done on the initial invasion. Now we are there fighting for an ideal that doesn't exist. So, in that perhaps you don't have a clue. If you son dies at the hands of an insurgent, those same insurgents who benefit from keeping unrest in the country and keeping it destabilized, a situation that our government and you refuse to recognize or better yet do anything about, I wonder if you will feel the same? Would his death be justified then? We are not fighting terrorists anymore in Iraq. They've moved on to other countries. What happens if there is another strike? Our troops are too thin and they are tired. Draft? Getting on your patriotic horse isn't help us end this war any sooner. There is no pride in this war anymore, if there ever was.

We have been paying Pakistan since 2001 to help fight terrorism. They haven't done much with our 10 billion dollars have they? If Al- Qaeda is to blame for Bhutto's death, then Pakistan should deal with it, and I don't believe we should be sending them anymore money. We shouldn't have been sending them money to begin with.

This is a widespread virus of Islamic extremism that we have concentrated mostly in Iraq while Al-Qaeda has gained strength in other countries while our military is being depleted. It is to their benefit this war continues because it destabilizes OUR country. Unless we have a full coalition from other countries to help fight this war, it cannot be won and we are wasting our time and our money on a pipe dream.

We do not have infinite resources to fight a civil unrest that will probably never be rectified. This war was handled poorly from the beginning and it is getting worse by the day.

I don't think YOU are paying attention to what is really go on in Iraq. Do you want your son there indefinitely? How about your son's son? This is a religious war for them, it will never end unless we end it.

That's what the troops are supposed to be doing
The key word is *securing.*  It's an extreme exaggeration to say that the U.S. was supporting Hezbollah by making sure a Suni and Shiite combined rally did not get out of hand, but it's par for the course of for the dramaticists known as the mainstream media.  Poor and misleading reporting is what they specialize in.
Say thanks to the troops...(see link)...sm
nm
Oh, so that is your message to our troops...
Go to work and do your job. Just live with the protesting and ignore it?
Somehow, I don't think our troops see things that way. sm
I don't think that is a good analogy. 
The troops speak

Replying to a post below, I thought this would be a good link in a separate message in case people skip over it below.


The US Military troops speak and here is what they say - 68% for McCain, 23% Obama.  Here is the link below.


http://activemilitaryformccain.blogspot.com/


So if you take that, plus Obama has a 5 point lead over McCain in today's polls, plus the 11% who are not decided it is a very close call.  November 4th is going to be an excited day for sure.


Yes, hurrah for the troops.....sm
I saw this the other day, and while I do not hold much stock in the mainstream polls that poll the dems 3 or 4:1, I was very heartened to see this story. Of course, I could only find it on Fox, and another military website.

Seems the mainstream media didn't want the rest of the American public to know about it, which is hardly surprising.


At any rate, since I believe the majority of those polled for this study are older military, who most likely are Republican, of course they support John McCain. They know that he is the most able leader for our country in times like these.


I'd also like to post this video again. Dear Mr. Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4fe9GlWS8
I agree with you about the troops.
I also believe that the REAL disgrace was for them to be sent into a war based on lies and the blind ambitions of the imperial wizard and his henchmen. I also do not believe that a policy based on "saving face" is worth sharing one more drop of blood over...on either side.
Please describe the actual physical threat that you allege was made on this internet chat board.

Thank you.


You just blew your pro troops facade. sm
but you are pretty easy to read. It isn't about the war or Cindy Sheehan or the price of gasoline.  It's about your virulent and soul destroying damnable hatred for George W. Bush that even goes so far as to extend to his family.  You, and those like you, put this country and our troops at risk every single day.  Why not do the right thing since you hate this war so very much.  BE A HUMAN SHIELD.  As if.
So much for caring about the troops. You are a joke. nm

I think you would be very surprised at how the troops see you, Lilly.

I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I never said I didn't support the troops!
You took what I said way out of context. I support the troops, I just want to know when it will be over. I want to know when our government will start to pay attention to OUR country instead of going around trying to fix everyone ELSE'S problems. I have a brother in the military...in Iraq. I never said I didn't support them. Unfortunately for them, they don't have a say in what they are having to do.
Implanted Chips in Our Troops? sm
Implanted Chips in Our Troops?

A Florida company wants to get under the skin of 1.4 million U.S. servicemen and women. VeriChip Corp, based in Delray Beach, Fla., and described by the D.C. Examiner as one of the most aggressive marketers of radio frequency identification chips, is hoping to convince the Pentagon to allow them to insert the chips, known as RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) chips under the skin of the right arms of U.S. servicemen and servicewomen to enable them to scan an arm and obtain that person’s identity and medical history. The chips would replace the legendary metal dog tags that have been worn by U.S. military personnel since 1906.

The device is usually implanted above the triceps area of an individual’s right arm, but can also by implanted in the hand if scanned at the proper frequency. The VeriChip responds with a unique 16-digit number, which can correlate the user to information stored on a database for identity verification, medical records access and other uses. The insertion procedure is performed under local anesthetic, and once inserted it is invisible to the naked eye.

The company, which the Examiner notes has powerful political connections, is in discussions” with the Pentagon, VeriChip spokeswoman Nicole Philbin told the Examiner. The potential for this technology doesn’t just stop at the civilian level,” Philbin said. Company officials have touted the chips as versatile, able to be used in a variety of situations such as helping track illegal immigrants or giving doctors immediate access to patient’s medical records.

On Monday the Department of State started to issue electronic passports (e-passports) equipped with RFID chips. According to reports the U.S. government has placed an order with a California company, Infineon Technologies North America, for smart chip-embedded passports.

The Associated Press said the new U.S. passports include an electronic chip that contains all the data contained in the paper version name, birth date, gender, for example and can be read by digital scanners at equipped airports. They cost 14 percent more than their predecessors but the State Department said they will speed up going through Customs and help enhance border security.

The company's hefty political clout is typified by having former secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, on its board of directors.

Thompson assured the Examiner that the chip is safe and that no one — not even military personnel, who are required by law to follow orders — will be forced to accept an implant against his or her will. He has also promised to have a chip implanted in himself but could not tell the Examiner when.

I’m extremely busy and I’m waiting until my hospitals and doctors are able to run some screens, he told the newspaper.

Not everybody agrees with Thompson, the Examiner reported, noting that the idea of implanting the chips in live bodies has some veterans’ groups and privacy advocates worried.

It needs further study,” Joe Davis, a retired Air Force major and a spokesman for the D.C. office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, told the Examiner.

And Liz McIntyre, co-author with Katherine Albrecht of Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID, said that VeriChip is a huge threat” to public privacy.

They’re circling like vultures for any opportunity to get into our flesh,” McIntyre told the Examiner. They’ll start with people who can’t say no, like the elderly, sex offenders, immigrants and the military. Then they’ll come knocking on our doors.”

In an e-mail to the Examiner, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., wrote: If that is what the Defense Department has in mind for our troops in Iraq, there are many questions that need answers. What checks and balances, safeguards and congressional oversight would there be?” Leahy asked. What less-invasive alternatives are there? What information would be entered on the chips, and could it endanger our soldiers or be intercepted by the enemy?”

The company, the Examiner wrote, is also unsure about the technology. According to company documents, radio frequencies in ambulances and helicopters could disrupt the chips’ transmissions. In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, VeriChip also said it was unsure whether the chip would dislodge and move through a person’s body. It could also cause infections and adverse tissue reactions,” the SEC filing states.

But Philbin downplayed the danger of the chips.

It’s the size of a grain of rice,” she said. It’s like getting a shot of penicillin.”

Newsmax.com