Texas Psychological Career Center: Psychology jobs, New Orleans ...

OCHSNER HEALTH SYSTEM in New Orleans is seeking a licensed Clinical Psychologist.? Candidates should have a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from an APA approved university and be licensed or eligible for licensure in Louisiana.? The ideal candidate will have strong assessment skills and be able to work with clients of various ages.?

?

Ochsner Health System is a physician-led, non-profit, academic, multi-specialty healthcare delivery system dedicated to patient care, research, and education.? Our mission is to Serve, Heal, Lead, Educate and Innovate.? The system includes 8 hospitals and more than 38 health centers throughout Southeast Louisiana.? Ochsner employs over 850 physicians representing all major medical specialties and subspecialties.? We conduct over 300 ongoing clinical research trials annually.? Please visit our website at www.ochsner.org.

?

New Orleans is a cosmopolitan, historic city with unique architecture, multiple medical schools and academic centers, professional sports teams, world-class dining, sporting, and cultural interests, and world-renowned live entertainment and music.

?

Please email CVs to:? profrecruiting@ochsner.org or call (800) 488-2240.? Ref. #? ACPNO1.? EOE.

Source: http://careers.texaspsyc.org/jobs/5056469/clinical-psychologist

Jenni Rivera chase Adam Lanza Facebook Golden Globes the hobbit mick jagger Rob Parker

The Music Club, 2012

158713364 Chris Brown and Rihanna attend the NBA game between the New York Knicks and the Los Angeles Lakers on Dec. 25, 2012, in Los Angeles

Photo by Victor Decolongon/Getty Images.

This exchange has been ridiculously stimulating and challenging. Thanks for the suggestions (downloading those Cassie mixtapes right now, Lindsay) and the shout-outs to music I wrongly overlooked on my lists?Will, Theo Bleckmann?s version of? ?Army Dreamers? is my fave Kate Bush cover evah. We did a darn good job covering pop?s bases in the midst of Yule logging and/or getting Chinese and a movie on this chopped and Scrooged holiday.

However. There is one subject we?ve mostly left untouched, maybe because it?s such an uncomfortable one. Jason opened the door for us to discuss Rihanna?s strange year of triumphs and provocations, pointing to her influence on the nature of stardom itself, which grows in direct proportion to her obnoxiousness. I was really hoping one of you would enter this treacherous area, but I?m up last, so here I go.

I call Rihanna obnoxious even though I?m her conflicted (and lately fading) fan, because I think it?s important to acknowledge that this massively successful 24-year-old is an active player in a narrative that drives culture-arbiters like us crazy. How could she? we ask ourselves on repeat as she consorts with her prototypical Wrong Man, indulges in excess that?s highly inappropriate for this age of austerity, and cranks out hit after mind-numbing hit. (I?m particularly peeved by the one that I associated with a sweet ad for Comfort Inn until she seized and strangled it.)

Just like the rise of the Real Housewives and Honey Boo-Boo, Rihanna?s saga implicates all of us, because we?re the ones following her on Twitter, downloading her duets with that thug (her word, not mine), and returning to the 2009 police report of her beating at his hands, all while sternly saying our interest is strictly cautionary. In response, Rihanna play-acts rebellion in ways that wreck observers? expectations. She?s a victim? It?s nobody?s business. (Billie Holiday sang that once, too.) She?s a survivor? She declares herself ready to die. She?s finally free? ?Boy, I just wanna be in your possession,? she sings, cuddling Chris Brown courtside.

Those last examples all come from this year?s Unapologetic, an album that vexed even the critics who liked it. Its mix of what seems disturbingly personal and what works as purely commercial supports Rihanna?s projects of taking hold of her own story and refusing to make it palatable. As I?m reading her motives right now, they align with those of many famous women who?ve come to experience public life as a violation. Choosing a companion others condemn is a time-honored way of poking holes in a confining persona. The most relevant comparison to Rihanna is Whitney Houston, whose love for a dangerous bad boy contributed to her eventual destruction. But you can go all the way back to Fanny Brice, who married the low-level gangster Nicky Arnstein in 1918, a choice that put a dent in her flourishing vaudeville career.

Brice?s disastrous marriage also gave her a signature song: ?My Man,? which is so close in spirit to some of Rihanna?s recent ballads that I?m hoping for a David Guetta remix. Pop audiences have always fed off the pathos of stars. Want inspiration? Listen to this speech by Lana Wachowski?or the latest Pink album, The Truth About Love, which deals with many of the same issues that fascinate Rihanna but has more humor and wisdom, not to mention serious belting.

If Rihanna?s music fails to inspire or instruct, it does continue to do something unexpected. Her voice comforts. I?m always surprised at how many writers use words like ?blank? or ?distanced? to describe Rihanna?s voice. I think its limitations?a constricted range, no falsetto, no real sense of phrasing?make it all the more believable, communicating uncertainty and an acute awareness of pain. No amount of Auto-Tune removes her blue tinge, and strangely, it becomes a salve. The first 10 times I heard ?Diamonds,? her latest (Sia-penned) club banger, I hated its chirpy, overenunciated hook. By the 20th time, though, I started to notice the way Rihanna sings the chorus?s final word, ?sky?: She descends into it with all her weight, like she?s tired but determined to protect herself and her beloved. That heaviness, communicated through unflashy moments of pure feeling, injects calm and tenderness into the swirl and clatter of Rihanna?s music.

I think this submerged, soothing quality factors into Rihanna?s stunning popularity. Who didn?t need a bit of succor in such a difficult year? The children?s choirs that popped up everywhere after the Sandy Hook tragedy struck me as maudlin; yet the mere tone of young voices harmonizing did calm the nerves and help the tears flow a little more gently. I want to leave you with this notion of comfort, an often overlooked but crucial offering of pop music. And the great imperfect voice that conveyed it better than anyone?s in 2012 belonged to Leonard Cohen.

At least one high-profile ersatz choir?the cast of The Voice?turned to Cohen?s much-abused modern hymn, ?Hallelujah,? in the wake of Sandy Hook. There?s no need to go to that old saw. In February, the 78-year-old guru-rabbi-king of the ladies? men released Old Ideas, a song collection that communicates everything necessary about loss: how much it hurts, how the mind tries to make up for it, how it owns every mortal in the end. And, crucially, Cohen dwells deeply within the reality that loss defines being alive. His baritone a snowy croak lit up from within, Cohen cries with the pain of a shattered heart. But as always, he welcomes the brokenness:

If your heart is torn
I don?t wonder why
If the night is long
Here?s my lullaby

Source: http://feeds.slate.com/click.phdo?i=3f1e3c4ff3d687ec855ee0488457df1f

arkansas football blackhawks howard johnson levon helm firelight world peace elbow kevin love

Workers with iPods: the downside ? Business Management Daily ...

It is estimated that approximately one-third of employees listen to music at work using an iPod, MP3 player, or other portable music device. Employees claim that listening to music improves their job satisfaction and productivity, so it may be beneficial to allow workers to use their iPods, etc., in the office.

However, you should be aware of the potential negative effects that iPods and other portable music devices could have on communication, performance and safety.

  • Communication can break down among co-workers because of the difficulty in getting an employee?s attention while he or she is listening to music through earbuds. This sends the message, ?Unless you have something really important to tell me, don?t bother me.?
  • If an employee plays an iPod or other portable music device through computer speakers, co-workers near that employee can find it disruptive, hampering their concentration.
  • Safety is a concern because employees wearing earbuds may miss alarms, warning signals, or shouts by co-workers informing them of potential harm.

Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!

Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...

We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.

The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.

" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/33983/workers-with-ipods-the-downside "

Source: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/33983/workers-with-ipods-the-downside

ny jets the situation tim tebow jets katy perry part of me video photoshop cs6 beta cate blanchett nfl news

How To Set Up All Your Kickass New Gear

Someone out there must think you're pretty special if you got such great gadgety goodness for Christmas. Now all you have to do get it up and running. Don't worry: we've got you covered.

More »

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/E1BY2NcFs-4/how-to-set-up-all-your-kickass-new-gear

bonnie raitt internal revenue service intc andrew shaw tupac tim lincecum hologram

Local Family Spends Holiday Volunteering - Back to Home

The holidays aren't joyous for everyone. Especially when you don't have a roof over your head or food in your stomach.

The holidays are a time most people spend with loved ones. But one family is spending it helping those in need.

Dick Pariset and his family celebrated Christmas with a few extra people this year. But they weren't at home. They were at Matt Talbot Kitchen & Outreach, preparing and serving a holiday meal to those who normally wouldn't have one.

"It makes you feel pretty good. These folks have a really nice meal, an abundance of food. I'm a farmer, so what would be better than helping people eat a nice meal," Pariset said.

Dick, his wife Jerry, and their daughter, son-in-law and grandson from Colorado spent Tuesday scooping steaming potatoes and ham for someone other than themselves. They say they feel lucky to have gotten the opportunity.

"Generally on Christmas day, they have a bunch of people who that's just their day to volunteer. They said 'man that would be wonderful, because we could be with our family for a change,'" Pariset said.

Volunteering runs in the family. Jerry Pariset helps out at Matt Talbot every week and 13-year-old Dominic isn't new to the organization either. It's the second time he's joined his grandparents there.

"It's something you can do for somebody else. Christmas is the perfect time to do that," Pariset said.

The Matt Talbot Kitchen made enough food to serve about 150 people. Surprisingly, they say the holidays aren't their busiest season.

Matt Talbot staff say they had so many volunteers they had to turn some away. They just hope the volunteering spirit lasts all year.

Source: http://www.1011now.com/home/headlines/Family-Spends-Holiday-Volunteering-184761871.html

collateral dick cheney heart umf elite eight stephon marbury the lion king suzanne collins

Clearwire agrees to $2.2 billion sweetened bid from Sprint

(Reuters) - Clearwire Corp agreed to sell the rest of the company to Sprint Nextel Corp for a slightly sweeter $2.2 billion offer, days after minority shareholders criticized the previous bid as too low.

The deal is one of the few options Clearwire has to survive in the long term, as it needs to raise more financing to upgrade its network and to keep the business afloat.

Sprint, the number three U.S. wireless carrier and already the majority owner of Clearwire, raised its offer by 7 cents per share to $2.97 per share.

Clearwire's shares slid 8.3 percent in premarket trade on Monday to $3.09. They had jumped nearly a quarter to close at $3.37 on Friday, on hopes of a higher offer.

Comcast Corp, Intel Corp and Bright House Networks LLC, three minority shareholders that among them hold about 13 percent of Clearwire's voting shares, had agreed to vote for the deal, Sprint and Clearwire said in a joint statement.

The deal has the unanimous backing of the Clearwire board but it was not immediately clear if Sprint could win the backing of enough of Clearwire's minority shareholders to complete the purchase.

Some shareholders have said Sprint should offer as much as $5 per share. Holders of at least 24.8 percent of Clearwire's outstanding stock, other than Sprint, need to approve the deal.

Sprint wants Clearwire's substantial spectrum to better arm itself against larger rivals Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc.

Reuters reported earlier that Japan's Softbank Corp, which recently agreed to buy 70 percent of Sprint, would not consent to a bid of more than $2.97 per share.

(Editing by Rodney Joyce and Sriraj Kalluvila)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/sprint-sweetens-bid-clearwire-2-2-billion-121947546--finance.html

green bean casserole recipe Kmart Black Friday PlanetSide 2 Alexis DeJoria danica patrick sweet potato casserole christina aguilera

Advertisement:

We were unable to forward you to the advertisement you clicked on.

The likely cause for this is that your browser, feed reader, or email application is configured to not accept cookies, or your reader may launch an external browser to view links without sharing cookies.

  • If you're using Internet Explorer, make sure your privacy setting is at medium or below.
    • Select 'Internet Options' from the 'Tools' menu in your browser window
    • Click the Privacy tab
    • Adjust your privacy setting if necessary
      ?
  • If you're using a reader that embeds Internet Explorer (examples: Microsoft Outlook, Outlook Express, Feed Demon), you'll also need to select Internet Explorer as your default web browser.
    • Open Internet Explorer
    • Select 'Internet Options' from the 'Tools' menu in your browser window
    • Click the 'Programs' tab and check the box for Internet Explorer to check if it is the default browser and save your change
    • Close your browser, re-open it, and when prompted, select Internet Explorer as your default
    • You can then click on an ad in your newsletter and visit the site you wish to view

Source: http://ads.pheedo.com/click.phdo?s=ab06f57ef0974db231bea40107e149c1&p=4

golden globe winners 2012 ricky gervais golden globes epidermolysis bullosa miss wisconsin law abiding citizen golden globes 2012 miss america

Israel, Palestinians escalate settlement showdown

JERUSALEM (AP) ? Palestinians and Israelis hardened their positions Wednesday over a contentious new settlement push around Jerusalem, with Israel going full throttle on plans to develop the area and the Palestinians trying to block it through an appeal to the U.N. Security Council.

The settlement push ? Israel's retaliation for the Palestinians' success in winning U.N. recognition of a de facto state ? has touched off an escalating international showdown. Palestinians claim the construction would deal a death blow to Mideast peace hopes. Even Israel's staunchest allies have been outraged by the move, feeding speculation they might squeeze Israel more than usual to back down on its construction plans.

The U.N. move came last week, with the General Assembly recognizing a Palestinian state in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza Strip ? territories captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war. Israel, which rejects a return to its 1967 lines, says borders with a future Palestine should be resolved through negotiations.

Although the Israelis say construction could be years away, the settlement plans have sent a message that within these U.N.-recognized borders, Israel remains in firm control. The plans include 3,000 new settler homes in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, and intentions to press ahead with two other projects that would drive a wedge between east Jerusalem, the Palestinians' desired capital, and its West Bank hinterland.

International condemnation was harsher than usual, with some of Israel's closest European allies, including Italy and the European Union on Wednesday, calling in Israeli ambassadors for rebukes or issuing especially stern criticism. The issue was expected to be high on Germany's agenda during a visit to Berlin by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ahead of his arrival, Israel showed no signs of bending, holding a preliminary planning meeting for a new development in a section of the West Bank outside Jerusalem. The project, known under its Israeli administrative term "E1," is the most contentious of the new settlement projects because of its strategic location.

The Palestinians said they would leverage their newfound U.N. status to seek a Security Council resolution to halt the Jerusalem-area plans.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said he was determined to block the settlement building near Jerusalem with all legal and diplomatic means.

"The settlement plans that Israel announced, especially E-1, are a red line," Abbas told reporters. "This must not happen."

The Palestinian representative to the United Nations has contacted U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon and the head of the Security Council to sound out the possibilities for a council resolution against settlements, he said.

Passing a U.N. resolution will be no easy task, since the U.S., as a permanent member of the council, could veto any resolution.

Two years ago, it vetoed a similar attempt to condemn settlements, and officials in Washington said a veto would be likely this time as well unless the resolution condemned unilateral actions on both sides.

The U.S., while harshly critical of Israeli settlement construction, believes a one-sided resolution would undermine negotiations. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because a formal resolution has not yet been proposed at the U.N.

Although the U.S. has traditionally protected Israel from U.N. criticism, American officials have condemned Israel's decision to revive E-1 and would not relish being perceived as giving it tacit backing.

But President Barack Obama could also be reluctant to be perceived as punishing Israel, which is America's closest ally in the Mideast and enjoys strong Congressional backing. Obama's Mideast policies and frosty relations with Netanyahu became an issue in his re-election campaign.

The U.S. could avoid an uncomfortable choice by pressuring Israel to back down so things don't come to a Security Council showdown, said Palestinian official Saeb Erekat.

"If the U.S. can stop the Israelis without the Security Council, they should do it," he said. "They (the Americans) cannot stop us and use the veto against people trying to save the peace process."

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the Palestinians should resume talks with Israel instead of turning to the U.N. "Here is where it's at, not in New York," Palmor said. "If they have something to say, let them say it to us, directly."

Israel has moved more than 500,000 Jews into settlements in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, complicating any future partition of the land into two states. The Palestinians oppose all settlement construction, saying it prejudices the outcome of peace talks, which stalled four years ago over settlements.

The Palestinians are particularly concerned about plans to build thousands of apartments in E-1 and a separate area called Givat Hamatos, on Jerusalem's eastern and southern edges.

Critics say the settlements would cut off traditionally Arab east Jerusalem from the West Bank and destroy hopes of establishing a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel, with Jerusalem as a shared capital.

Israel had frozen plans to develop E-1 as an expansion of Maaleh Adumim, its second-largest West Bank settlement, under intense pressure from successive U.S. administrations ? but not before erecting a hulking police station and carving roads and terraces into the rocky terrain just east of Jerusalem.

While goats and sheep grazed on an empty hill there, plans for building 3,000 homes in the strategic corridor were presented for the first time Wednesday to the military committee that oversees planning in the West Bank. Military spokesman Guy Inbar said the meeting was a preliminary step and that construction could be years away.

A separate committee is to meet in mid-December to discuss advanced plans to build 2,600 apartments in Givat Hamatos, another mountainous stretch of land where a few dozen Jewish and Palestinian families live in rundown trailers with only the barest of services. It would be the first new Israeli settlement in east Jerusalem since 1997, also under Netanyahu.

Israel annexed east Jerusalem after capturing it 45 years ago, and claims the area as part of its capital. While the annexation is not internationally recognized, Netanyahu has said he will never agree to divide the holy city.

Skeptics have questioned whether Netanyahu actually intends to develop E-1, or is playing to hard-liners ahead of Israel's Jan. 22 election.

Attorney Daniel Seidemann, an expert on Jerusalem construction, called the Givat Hamatos project a "game-changer." Flanked by two other settlements in the southern part of east Jerusalem, it would create a string of settlements between the West Bank and Palestinian areas of east Jerusalem.

If E-1 "is a fatal heart attack" to peacemaking, then homes on Givat Hamatos would be "the silent killer, high blood pressure. They kill you just as dead," Seidemann said Wednesday.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/israel-palestinians-escalate-settlement-showdown-190406976.html

wiz khalifa Michael Clarke Duncan Nazanin Boniadi Deval Patrick Dedication 4 labor day college football scores

Amy Winehouse's home sells for $3.2 million

15 hrs.

LONDON?-- The London home where British singer Amy Winehouse died has sold for 1.98 million pounds ($3.2 million) at auction, after it failed to attract serious buyers on the real estate market.

The semi-detached Camden Square house where the musician died last year at age 27 had remained empty since it was put up for sale in May for 2.7 million pounds, but continued to draw flocks of fans paying tribute to the "Back to Black" singer.

Winehouse's family decided early in November to put the house to auction after "the estate agency route didn't work," property auctioneer Chris McHugh told Reuters on Tuesday.

Media reports suggested the family had been overwhelmed with viewing requests from fans, but not real prospective buyers.

"We had probably 50 to 100 viewings and we showed people around at all times of the day and night," McHugh said.

The 2,500-square-foot,?four-story property features three bedrooms, a large dressing room, two bathrooms and a sound-proofed music room and gym.

At an auction held on Monday in Piccadilly, bids started at 1.7 million pounds, reached the 1.8 million guide price and stopped just short of the 2 million-mark beyond which a 7 percent stamp duty applies on UK home sales.

McHugh said a middle-aged couple had secured the house at a price he believed was "about right" given property values in the area and the fact there were only five serious bidders that day.

The auction catalogue had made no reference to the former owner of the property, whose fans turned a nearby square into a candle-lit shrine in the days following Winehouse's death.

Winehouse, famous for her distinctive voice, beehive hairstyle and long battle with addiction to alcohol and drugs, was found dead in the house on July 23, 2011.

An inquest into her death found she had more than five times the legal driving limit of alcohol in her blood when she died.

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/amy-winehouses-london-home-sells-3-2-million-1C7421218

golden globe winners the express zappos hacked jane fonda jon huntsman bit coin huntsman

AP IMPACT: An insider attack: Trust cost 2 lives

WASHINGTON (AP) ? It was a sneak attack, but not by the enemy they feared.

U.S. Army Capts. Joshua Lawrence and Drew Russell were inside a small command post on an Afghan army base, wrapping up a long day of coordinating the safe arrival of nearly 100 Afghan religious and tribal leaders for a peace conference at a nearby palace.

Darkness had fallen.

Some of their fellow soldiers had retired for the evening. Two stood guard.

All seemed well.

But as several soldiers sprawled on nearby cots, playing cards, the calm collapsed catastrophically at 9:27 p.m.

An exploding grenade shattered the stillness, followed in seconds by bursts of gunfire. Before any of the Americans could raise a hand to defend themselves, Lawrence was dead from a bullet to the head, and Russell was dying, shot three times in the back.

They were not killed by the Taliban, as the U.S.-led military coalition indicated the day after the Oct. 8, 2011, assault. Lawrence, 29, of Nashville, Tenn., and Russell, 25, of Scotts, Mich., were killed in what U.S. investigators later called a "calculated and coordinated" attack by Afghan soldiers entrusted to work alongside their U.S. partners.

This is the first published account of the attack and is based on internal Army records and interviews in the U.S. and Afghanistan.

For Russell's family, the anguish is still fresh. His father, Jim, said the loss was even harder to accept after learning from the Army's investigation report early this year that it was a supposed ally, not the Taliban, who killed his son.

"It wasn't like a battle, you know. He pretty much got ambushed," he said, pausing at length to settle his emotions. "That makes it difficult."

On that moonlit Saturday evening, Russell was the designated "battle captain," or duty officer, in the command center. Lawrence worked beside him as a plans officer. Both were members of the 4th Infantry Division's 2nd "Warhorse" Brigade. They deployed to Afghanistan in June 2011. Lawrence had married just one week before leaving; the honeymoon was to wait until he returned home.

The Associated Press learned details of the attack from formerly secret Army investigation records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The Army removed substantial portions of the documents to protect what it called properly classified information as well as the identities of most people involved. The AP established some identities on its own.

The investigation ? a standard process in a war zone ? found that security at the U.S.-Afghan command post was so relaxed that guards were not told to check anyone entering. Potential Afghan thievery, not treachery, was judged the chief threat. Thus the killers had unfettered access and moved about without arousing suspicion.

Only 10 designated Afghan security personnel were supposed to be in the compound, but U.S. guards were given no access roster. Unknown numbers "freely entered and exited the compound unchecked," an Army investigator found.

The Americans had been told to treat the Afghans as if they were mingling in Iron Horse Park, a recreation area on their home base, Fort Carson, Colo., according to a staff sergeant who was present but whose name is blacked out on his sworn statement to investigators.

The Americans had convinced themselves, 10 years into a war whose successful outcome depended on empowering local security forces, that they could trust their Afghan colleagues. That was a deadly miscalculation in this instance and dozens more in the months that followed as growing numbers of Afghan troops turned their guns on their coalition partners.

As the attacks mounted this year, U.S. officials in Kabul and Washington insisted these were "isolated incidents." They routinely withheld details and, until pressed by the AP, did not publicly disclose attacks in which coalition troops were wounded but not killed.

At least 63 coalition troops ? mostly Americans ? have been killed, by the AP's count, and more than 85 wounded in at least 46 insider attacks so far this year. That's an average of nearly one attack a week. In 2011, 21 insider attacks killed 35.

The attack that killed Lawrence and Russell in the southern city of Kandahar was the 17th of 2011. Breaking it down in detail shows how easily it can be done.

The two officers and five other U.S. soldiers were inside a soft-skinned, tan-colored tent that served as a temporary "tactical command post" on an Afghan army base known as Old Corps Headquarters. Their task was to coordinate a security plan for the three-day peace conference at nearby Mandigak Palace. Their body armor was stacked in one corner, their weapons in another.

Their partners that day included liaison officers from Afghan security services, including the national intelligence agency and the army. The four liaisons excused themselves for the night and left the compound shortly before the attack. They had been working inside the tent and would have been in the line of fire had they stayed.

The Army investigator called this circumstance "worth noting," but he established no proof of complicity by the Afghan security officers.

An Afghan investigation concluded that only one soldier, a sergeant identified as Enayut (Afghans often use just one name) fired on the Americans, according to a summary of the probe, while the U.S. Army concluded there were two shooters.

Several U.S. soldiers recalled noticing two, possibly three, Afghans enter the compound about 9 p.m. They stood out because they were armed with one rocket-propelled grenade and at least one M16 rifle. At least one was wearing an Afghan army uniform, the report said. No one questioned them, since there was no screening requirement in place.

"They just walked in like they owned the place," a U.S. sentry at the compound's barricaded entrance told investigators afterward. Like others, his name was blacked out of the report.

In the moments that followed, hints of trouble were obscured by the appearance of normalcy.

At 9:02 p.m., just a few minutes after taking up his guard position at the front entrance of the command post tent, Spc. Paul A. LeVan was told he was being repositioned to a guard tower overlooking the compound. He was not replaced at the tent. There was no explanation as to why.

LeVan's sergeant led him to the empty guard tower, where, as a standard precaution, they discussed the locations of friendly forces in LeVan's line of fire. He was armed with an M249 light machine gun.

Soon, two of the Afghans who had entered the compound at 9 p.m. joined them in the tower. One was in military garb and, rather curiously, armed with a grenade launcher and one grenade. The other was unarmed and spoke English. LeVan's sergeant then left the tower and, upon entering the command tent, mentioned the grenade launcher to those inside, including an enlisted soldier who recalled later that the weapon seemed "out of the ordinary."

"But since (Afghan soldiers) were allowed to carry RPGs (rocket-propelled grenades), we did not give it much thought," the enlisted soldier, whose name was blacked out of the report, told investigators.

Another unidentified soldier said in the report that he, too, noticed the RPG and thought it "seemed reckless" to permit it inside the compound.

In his final report, the Army investigator found it curious that neither LeVan nor his sergeant challenged or questioned the two Afghans about "why a tower guard would have an RPG and no rifle."

LeVan, 21 at the time and a member of the 209th Military Police Company, said he assumed the Afghans were a properly assigned guard and his interpreter, although he noticed that the armed Afghan was avoiding eye contact and closely tracking movements inside the compound. LeVan shook hands with both men, but the veneer of friendliness soon vanished.

"I had a gut feeling that something was out of place," he told the AP in a telephone interview. He was the only American to witness the attack from start to finish.

Suddenly and without explanation the Afghans descended from the tower.

"I got nervous, so I kept a very close eye on the two men," LeVan told an Army investigator two days later.

LeVan said he watched through his night vision goggles as the Afghan armed his grenade launcher and took aim at several Army medics playing cards on cots they had set up at the rear of their armored ambulance. A medic recalled spotting the gunman pointing the RPG at them from point blank range. "I stood up and shouted, 'Hey! What the f--- are you doing?'" she told investigators.

His rocket missed the soldiers and slammed into a nearby concrete barrier. Shrapnel wounded the medic in her stomach and back. A piece of shrapnel also penetrated the nearby command tent, wounding the U.S. sergeant who had just left LeVan in the guard tower.

By several accounts, bullets began flying about five seconds after the grenade exploded.

"The timing was perfect," LeVan recalled. He watched from the tower as another gunman ? not the one who launched the rocket, and not the English-speaking Afghan, either ? advanced swiftly on the command tent, firing bursts from an M16 semi-automatic rifle.

Inside the tent, which was ringed with sandbags but filled with dust from the grenade blast, Lawrence and Russell hit the ground and began low-crawling side-by-side toward their body armor.

Neither would get back to his feet. The M16 shooter fired a total of 14 bullets into the tent, the last few from the front entrance. None of the Americans inside saw their attacker well enough to identify him.

"I saw someone standing in the entrance to the tent shooting at all of us," said the sergeant who had been hit in the leg by shrapnel. "I put my head down. I believe I heard five or six rounds fired, and then the shooting stopped."

Maj. Keith Walters, who was in the tent and suffered a severe leg wound from the M16 fire, said that by the time the gunman vanished it was too late.

"As the firing stopped, I remember yelling out to hold fire as I knew we had friendly U.S. and Afghan forces somewhere in the compound and that by then they would probably be approaching the tent. We did not return a single shot," Walters wrote in an email to investigators three weeks later from his hospital bed in Washington, where he underwent surgery.

The Army denied an AP request to interview Walters, saying the matter was too sensitive; later it said Walters had decided on his own not to be interviewed.

Lawrence apparently died instantly of his head wound. Russell was declared dead a short time later at a nearby helicopter landing zone as colleagues prepared to evacuate him and three seriously wounded soldiers to medical facilities at Kandahar Air Field.

Four other soldiers were wounded less severely.

The killers escaped ? apparently with inside help. They remain at large.

Gen. Jallaad Rahimi, who was the chief military prosecutor in Kandahar at the time, told the AP in a recent interview that the father and brother of Sgt. Enayut, plus three of his fellow soldiers, are in detention. The three soldiers are not accused of shooting anyone but are charged with neglecting their duties or assisting Enayut, Rahimi said. For example, the rocket-propelled grenade fired by Enayut was assigned to a member of his unit who told investigators that Enayut had taken it from him that evening when he was not looking, Rahimi said.

Rahimi said two of the detained soldiers are accused of helping Enayut escape the compound.

Enayut's father and brother were arrested after authorities found evidence at their home that Enayut had been in contact with insurgents, Rahimi said. The brother and the father knew about this contact, Rahimi said, but didn't tell authorities and may have covered up for Enayut. The U.S. investigation found no links to insurgents.

Enayut, 23 at the time of the shooting, joined the Afghan army in 2006. An expert in disarming bombs, he had a history of going AWOL and receiving no punishment for it. U.S. investigators found that he had slipped away for an unauthorized visit to Pakistan just weeks before the attack.

Investigators were unable to pin down identifying information about the other shooter, although it appeared he also was a soldier and was probably a member of Enayut's unit, the 4th Battalion, 1st Brigade, 205th Corps. LeVan said both wore Afghan army uniforms in the attack.

In a two-sentence statement the next day, the U.S.-led military command in Kabul said two service members had been killed in an "insurgent attack." A day later, in identifying Lawrence and Russell as the casualties, the Pentagon reported that "enemy forces" killed them.

The Army's investigation records show that U.S. officials in Afghanistan were told immediately after the assault that it was perpetrated by one or more Afghan soldiers ? not insurgents.

"Yes, we know the shooter," the Afghan army liaison officer told Lt. Col. John Cook, the commander of Lawrence's and Russell's unit, after being summoned back to the compound just moments after the killings. The Afghan officer named Enayut without hesitation.

Asked why its Oct. 9 report was never corrected, the international military command in Kabul said it knew that at least one of the shooters was wearing an Afghan army uniform, "but as that information was unconfirmed, a correction to the original (press) release was not appropriate."

In April the AP was alerted to the attack's true circumstances by an American soldier who knew the real story. The U.S. military in Kabul acknowledged to the AP in May that it had added the incident to its 2011 list of insider attacks. But it refused to provide any details of what happened.

The story of the killing of Lawrence and Russell raises hard questions about the insider attack problem, starting with this: How can it happen to arguably the world's best-trained, best-equipped army? The answer, in this case, is that the Americans designed their security with external threats in mind ? known Taliban tactics like suicide car bombings, for example ? rather than threats from their Afghan allies.

Was that reasonable?

Yes, says Maj. Gen. James L. Huggins, who ordered the internal Army investigation in his capacity as the senior U.S. commander in southern Afghanistan at the time. In rejecting the investigation's central finding ? that U.S. officers had failed to take necessary security precautions ? Huggins wrote that the security arrangements were "appropriate responses" to available intelligence.

"Only (in) hindsight do we now understand the insider threat present at the time of the attack," he wrote on Dec. 17, 2011.

In making that judgment, Huggins overruled the colonel who conducted the investigation. The colonel, whose name was removed from the copy of the report provided to the AP, wrote in his account that the U.S. chain of command in Kandahar "failed to use the appropriate security and force protection measures to secure the compound and safeguard their soldiers."

The colonel faulted the Kandahar commanders for "unchecked reliance" on the Afghans to "police their own ranks." He recommended action be taken against those leaders, but Huggins rejected the advice, saying he believed they had taken reasonable precautions, given that there was "no known insider threat at the time."

Of the 16 insider attacks that preceded this one in 2011, none had occurred in Kandahar province, but two took place in adjacent provinces within Huggins' area of responsibility, according to U.S. records.

Huggins, who now works for the director of the Army staff at the Pentagon and has been selected for promotion to lieutenant general, declined through a spokesman to be interviewed for this story. In a brief encounter last week, Huggins told the AP he could not remember enough about the case to discuss it.

The U.S. military never established a clear motive for the attack in Kandahar. In its aftermath numerous Afghans told U.S. officers they felt shamed by the killings and were sorry for any mistrust it created. But that sentiment apparently was not universal.

LeVan told investigators that the day after the attack he and other soldiers encountered an Afghan soldier who "gave us a vibe that he wished we were killed."

___

Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez in Kabul contributed to this report.

___

Robert Burns can be followed on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/robertburnsAP

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/ap-impact-insider-attack-trust-cost-2-lives-073706461.html

oolong tea survivor one world lil kim progeria what will my baby look like gary carter died cmas