Five months on, Benghazi killers back to work and business as usual

[kentonio]

If you are going to do this as a matter of foriegn policy though you shouldn't through the people who help you to the wolves. I also do not see Bush as "failing" to deal with Bin Laden, but rather Obama's work as a continuation of what Bush did to find him.

What continuation? Do we have any evidence of this?

I actually agree with you about not throwing human intelligence assets under the bus, but it's something thats been done thousands of times in the past, and as I said compared to the complete failure of the last administration it comes under the heading of 'meh'.

[PLATO]

What continuation? Do we have any evidence of this?

Only Obama's own words.

From his speech announcing Bin Laden's death:

Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort.

[kentonio]

Only Obama's own words.

From his speech announcing Bin Laden's death:

They closed the CIA unit looking for him in late 2005.
In late 2006 Bush said the hunt for Bin Laden was “not a top priority use of American resources.”.
Also in late 2006 CIA sources say the trail has gone "Stone cold".
Mid 2008 Bush tries again so he can leave with a nice legacy boost, but fails.
Obama comes into office, ratchets up the pressure and succeeds.

To be fair, there are perfectly reasonable discussions to be had about whether that one individual really mattered a damn in the grand scheme of things, but when people talk about Obama not taking action on terrorists, and suggesting he should act like Bush did, the above is bound to be mentioned.

[PLATO]

To be fair, there are perfectly reasonable discussions to be had about whether that one individual really mattered a damn in the grand scheme of things, but when people talk about Obama not taking action on terrorists, and suggesting he should act like Bush did, the above is bound to be mentioned.

True, but I have not said that Obama is not taking action on terrorist in certain theaters. It does seem clear that he is not doing so in Libya. I think that is politically expedient. Overall, I do think Obama has a pretty good record in fighting terrorism. So why the fall off with Libya is the question. Even more reason for Congress to ask the tough questions.

[kentonio]

It was Zevico bringing it up not you, but then again he has a hardon for genocidal policy towards Islamists.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine who is now involved in anti terrorism efforts. A contact of his is actively invovled in getting man on the street interviews in Pakistan and other hot bed areas. Interestingly enough the man on the street has very little knowledge of OBL and didn't give a flying flip about him one way or the other. What makes them terrorists more often than not, is purely need. A man is dirt poor has contacts that will pay him a weeks worth of wages to feed his family if he plants an IED. No real ideological component involved for the lowest level operatives.

That being said, ideology comes into play when avenging loss of loved one. Also it is interesting how the spectre of death from above has become commonplace in the culture. Apparently word of mouth tradition and poetry is still a very big part of the culture, within a short period of time (2 years ish) the culture and oral poetry is now replete with numerous instances of death by drone and the expectation that it can and will happen to anyone at any time. Apparently omnipresent anti-western sentiment is likley to be the norm regardless of the intentions to limit collateral damages (or perhaps it is simply indicative of the scale of the operations).

[kentonio]

Understandable. The growing reliance on drone strikes is pretty worrying.

[Elok]

It's not the drones per se that worry me, but the administration's willingness to accept/ignore/spin "collateral damage"--assuming they even possess a meaningful capacity to measure such things before, during or after a hit--and unwillingness to accept strong oversight of the process. It seems to me that they could snuff a couple of dozen perfectly innocent people (provided they were overseas and of a brown persuasion) and not have the public hear about it until years later, if at all. Of course, this may also be true of their traditional, non-drone operations, for all I know...

[PLATO]

It's not the drones per se that worry me, but the administration's willingness to accept/ignore/spin "collateral damage"--assuming they even possess a meaningful capacity to measure such things before, during or after a hit--and unwillingness to accept strong oversight of the process. It seems to me that they could snuff a couple of dozen perfectly innocent people (provided they were overseas and of a brown persuasion) and not have the public hear about it until years later, if at all. Of course, this may also be true of their traditional, non-drone operations, for all I know...

Drone warfare is such a difficult proposition. How can you order a strike that will kill 10 innocent people just to get one terrorist? How can you let a terrorist go that may kill hundereds of innocent people just to save 10 innocent people?

Difficult questions that I am glad that I don't have to answer.

[Zevico]

Just remind me which president it was who got Bin Laden, a decade after Bush 'committed' himself to bringing him to justice? It's almost like your vision of how America should deal with its foreign policy is outdated and ridiculous, isn't it?

Bush executed a policy on Bin Laden and Obama continued that policy.
What I am asking is whether the Administration intends to execute any policy as regards the Benghazi killers. He has said that he intends to bring them to justice. However there is no indication that he has taken any steps to do so in five months. It is fair to ask why.

[PLATO]

What I am asking is whether the Administration intends to execute any policy as regards the Benghazi killers. He has said that he intends to bring them to justice. However there is no indication that he has taken any steps to do so in five months. It is fair to ask why.

QFT

[Elok]

Drone warfare is such a difficult proposition. How can you order a strike that will kill 10 innocent people just to get one terrorist? How can you let a terrorist go that may kill hundreds of innocent people just to save 10 innocent people?

Difficult questions that I am glad that I don't have to answer.

Killing ten people now to maybe save some theoretical people later is dubious morality that most people reject instinctively, even if you accept the proposition that the dregs of the terrorist world now remaining pose a clear, imminent threat to anyone in particular. Anything less than a clear, imminent threat cannot possibly justify the deaths of innocents, if anything can. And the fact is that we can't ascertain who's being killed right now; we're taking the administration's word for it that these are Bad People, and not just falafel vendors who bear an unfortunate resemblance to Bad People, or were falsely reported as Bad People, or just possibly offended some Bad People involved in unsavory dealings with other Bad People somewhere inside the administration. Normally I'd reject that last as paranoid, but I simply don't trust anyone who's gone out of his way to make sure other people can't see what he's doing. Probably it's just some cranky old spooks tired of being criticized by the press, but even if it starts that way I don't trust it to stay that way once the curtains are pulled shut.

[DaShi]

The U.S. has been denied direct access to the only publicly known suspect in custody in connection with the Benghazi terror attack, Fox News has learned, with U.S. interrogators still unable to sit in the same room as the Egypt-held prisoner to ask questions.
Abu Ahmed, also known as Mohammed Jamal, is suspected of establishing Islamist training camps in Eastern Libya where militants who took part in the Sept. 11 Benghazi terrorist attack were able to train.
Ahmed is not suspected of directly taking part in the attack which left four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. But this is at least the second time U.S. interrogators have been denied access to a suspect held by a foreign government.
In January, Tunisian authorities released Ali Ani al-Harzi, who is suspected of taking part in the attack, citing a lack of evidence.
FBI agents finally got access to al-Harzi after the personal intervention of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Thomas Joscelyn, with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said some of the militants Ahmed helped train "directly took part" in the Benghazi attack.
"As early as 2011, he was setting up training camps inside eastern Libya as early as 2011 ... and they were drawing in recruits from around North Africa and Egypt -- if you bring them in, train them in terms of how to operate mortars and various types of heavy artillery, and it's that type of artillery that was used in the attack in Benghazi."
Joscelyn, who was the first to report the access problem, said he's been told U.S. officials have asked the Egyptians for access to the suspect but were denied by the Egyptian authorities.
"The Egyptians like to control the interrogations and interviews of these suspects for their own reasons and of course the Americans should want access for our purposes as well," he said.
Neither the CIA nor FBI provided comment on the record about this latest case.
Separately, sources familiar with the case told Fox News that Egyptian authorities have been providing to U.S. authorities information from their own investigation of Ahmed.
The implication is that the lack of direct access does not mean a total lack of information. In recent confirmation hearings, the president's nominee for CIA director was pressed about the Tunisian case and the problems the FBI faced.
When Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked about access to al-Harzi, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said: "We work with our partners across the board and when they are able to detain individuals, according to their laws, we work to see if we can have the ability to ask them questions, sometimes indirectly and sometimes directly."
The concern about access to suspects is one of many lingering worries lawmakers have about the terror attack of last year.
Tensions came to a head earlier this year, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clashed with Republicans over the issue of whether the administration tried to downplay the level of planning that went into the attack by initially casting it as spontaneous.
Lawmakers, though, continue to press for more details about the warnings the administration received about security in the months leading up to the attack and what President Obama did the night of Sept. 11.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2LxOlVUow

Which right-wing conspiracy report are we supposed to believe?

[Zevico]

So let's review.

One guy who ran the militia training camps gets nabbed by the Egyptians.

The Egyptians have declined access to the Americans. (Great allies.)

The rest of the militia is still safe and sound in Libya, as are the organisers of this attack, so far as we know.

Steps taken to secure retribution and deter further attacks known to date: American officials have asked to interrogate a prisoner. The Egyptians refused.

(Possibly, the Americans or some other party placed this prisoner on a watch list.)

The Americans promptly responded by threatening to cut aid to Egypt. Oh, I'm sorry: I just wish they did that. They did nothing so far.

[DaShi]

Yup, exactly. You are totally insane.