rickyp wrote:fate

He is an enemy combatant, not a criminal.

An enemy combatant? Of what army?

Isn't he a terrorist? And haven't terrorists been very successfully prosecuted in the US ? Like the Blind Sheikh?

And then there's this revelation from him.

The New York Times reported today that, Ahmed Abu Khattala, a suspected attacker of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, “told other Libyans” that the attack was instigated by the infamous anti-Islam video, Innocence of Muslims, originally posted on YouTube. If true, this would confirm the administration’s early suspicions that the attack occurred in response to the video — a suspicion that was initially detailed in a CIA memo.
What he did in the period just before the attack has remained unclear. But Mr. Abu Khattala told other Libyans in private conversations during the night of the attack that he was moved to attack the diplomatic mission to take revenge for an insult to Islam in an American-made online video.
An earlier demonstration venting anger over the video outside the American Embassy in Cairo had culminated in a breach of its walls, and it dominated Arab news coverage. Mr. Abu Khattala told both fellow Islamist fighters and others that the attack in Benghazi was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

http://thedailybanter.com/2014/06/bengh ... ube-video/

So, Susan Rice was right after all?

The terrorists who attacked the U.S. consulate and CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 used cell phones, seized from State Department personnel during the attacks, and U.S. spy agencies overheard them contacting more senior terrorist leaders to report on the success of the operation, multiple sources confirmed to Fox News.

The disclosure is important because it adds to the body of evidence establishing that senior U.S. officials in the Obama administration knew early on that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and not a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video that had gone awry, as the administration claimed for several weeks after the attacks.

Eric Stahl, who recently retired as a major in the U.S. Air Force, served as commander and pilot of the C-17 aircraft that was used to transport the corpses of the four casualties from the Benghazi attacks – then-U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods – as well as the assault’s survivors from Tripoli to the safety of an American military base in Ramstein, Germany.

In an exclusive interview on Fox News’ “Special Report,” Stahl said members of a CIA-trained Global Response Staff who raced to the scene of the attacks were “confused” by the administration’s repeated implication of the video as a trigger for the attacks, because “they knew during the attack…who was doing the attacking.” Asked how, Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers' higher ups.”

A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

So Baier asked Clinton whether she stood behind her congressional testimony in January 2013, when she said that she didn’t know of any reports that contradicted the video narrative, which then-U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice laid out on the Sunday talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012.

Clinton wasn’t budging: “I do [stand by it], Bret. … This was the fog of war. You know, my own assessment careened from ‘The video had something to do with it’ to ‘The video had nothing to do with it.’”

Digging further on this time frame, Baier noted that a State Department official on Sept. 12, 2012, had told a Libyan official that Ansar al-Sharia, a group of Islamic extremists, had carried out the attacks. Baier asked, “So I guess the question is why is the State Department telling the Libyans … it was Ansar al-Sharia and yet telling the American people at the same time it was this video?”

Clinton responded with one of the less convincing answers of her media fortnight. She said that “you have to take both ideas at the same time,” that “there was a lot of information flowing around,” that “we were trying to sort things out … information kept changing.”

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Some think it is a "stunt" because of the amazing timing. It's not like we didn't know where the guy was--he had been interviewed by CNN, Fox, and the NYT.

Obama has been under fire pretty much continually since the attack. So any grabbing of the guy would have been a 'stunt' according to those who can't see anything the President does as anything but bad.

Doctor Fate wrote:He is an enemy combatant, not a criminal. He should be treated accordingly. Miranda does not apply to acts of war.

So he should be treated according to the Geneva Convention as a Prisoner of War?

Do you know anything about anything? The Blind Sheikh was prosecuted under Holder's idol, Janet Reno. This was before the "War on Terror" when every act of terror was just a "crime." That worked really well

rickyp wrote:fate, how does what you are quoting contradict the claim that he, Khattala, was motivated by the videos?

all it says is that they (according to Stahl's hearsay) thought they knew who was involved. not why he decided to attack...

fate

Do you know anything about anything? The Blind Sheikh was prosecuted under Holder's idol, Janet Reno. This was before the "War on Terror" when every act of terror was just a "crime." That worked really well

Was he or was he not successfully prosecuted?

The tribunals at Gitmo have achieved nothing.

(And most original detainees have been released. Mostly under Bush.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, because he is an UNLAWFUL enemy combatant. He represents no country and wears no uniform. Miranda does not apply. Geneva does not apply. He should have gone straight to Gitmo.

Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:No, because he is an UNLAWFUL enemy combatant. He represents no country and wears no uniform. Miranda does not apply. Geneva does not apply. He should have gone straight to Gitmo.

Geneva does cover how the status of a combatant is determined. So which tribunal has decided the 'fact' you assert?

You do know that under Geneva, an unlawful combatant can either be handled as a POW, or under the laws of the detaining nation?

Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that the status of a detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he must be treated as a prisoner of war.[2] After a "competent tribunal" has determined that an individual detainee is an unlawful combatant, the "detaining power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of a prisoner of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial"

Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Lawful enemy combatants can receive Prisoner of War status in accordance with The Geneva Conventions. Unlawful enemy combatants cannot because terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda are non-state actor terrorist groups, according to The Council on Foreign Relations.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/w ... z35b3cMNzM

1. An American officer's word is "hearsay," but an NYT reporter's interpretation of what Libyan's told him of what Khattala said? Oh, that's gold!

2. Who were they calling? (from the link) "Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers' higher ups.” So . . . wait. Khattala wasn't (allegedly) hooked up with anyone else. He was a bit player, a hoodlum, a nobody--but, he and the others called their chain of command

3. CIA officers on the scene knew it had nothing to do with the video.

4. The article lists another source: "A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

rickyp wrote:Fate

1. An American officer's word is "hearsay," but an NYT reporter's interpretation of what Libyan's told him of what Khattala said? Oh, that's gold!

They are both hear say. The difference is that now that Kattala in irons they can directly question him and confirm his motivations... Perhaps he'll even testify to them in a court of law.
If he testifies that he decided to launch the attack will that suffice?

(I suppose then the conspiracy theorists will have their say....)

2. Who were they calling? (from the link) "Stahl told anchor Bret Baier: “Right after they left the consulate in Benghazi and went to the [CIA] safehouse, they were getting reports that cell phones, consulate cell phones, were being used to make calls to the attackers' higher ups.” So . . . wait. Khattala wasn't (allegedly) hooked up with anyone else. He was a bit player, a hoodlum, a nobody--but, he and the others called their chain of command

?
And how does this explain what his motivation was? If the higher ups that the attackers on the ground were calling were Khatala or Khatala's lieutenants? Which is likely.

3. CIA officers on the scene knew it had nothing to do with the video.

Really? Even when Kattala says it was his motivation? Where's your evidence?
(These would be the same CIA officers who didn't predict the attack was coming and take specific action to protect the Embassy and Embassy staff by the way. So, are they really a competent source. Or are they just fictional additions to the hearsay story?)

4. The article lists another source: "A separate U.S. official, one with intimate details of the bloody events of that night, confirmed the major’s assertion. The second source, who requested anonymity to discuss classified data, told Fox News he had personally read the intelligence reports at the time that contained references to calls by terrorists – using State Department cell phones captured at the consulate during the battle – to their terrorist leaders. The second source also confirmed that the security teams on the ground received this intelligence in real time.

"

And what does this say about Katala's motivation? It simply says that attackers used embassey cell phones to call their "higher ups" without identifying who these higher ups were...

You aren't very good at critical thinking are you Fate?

So, again, who do you believe--them or Khattala through Libyan witnesses and interpreters (unless you have evidence the NYT reporters speak Arabic).

It was a well-planned attack with some command and control

rickyp wrote:fate

So, again, who do you believe--them or Khattala through Libyan witnesses and interpreters (unless you have evidence the NYT reporters speak Arabic).

About what motivated the attack?
If I had witnesses say, "I asked him why he did it, and he said he decided to attack becasue of he video.."
That testimony would have some credence... Certainly more than the conjecture offered to date.

It was a well-planned attack with some command and control

because this doesn't preclude the motivation for the attack being the video..

"There's no question, as we've seen in the past with things like 'The Satanic Verses,' with the cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause of what we've seen," Rice said.

“What happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, prompted by the video,” Rice said.

A local militia or militias, used to quickly responding to commanders could easily have mounted the small scale operation with a few hours planning. This wasn't a major military action.
They met virtually no resistance when they attacked the embassy.
And a handful of CIA security personnel held off the attackers for some time, and then only a small force came to successfully evacuate everyone, with only 2 casualties.
lets not exaggerate the scale as if it required sophisticated command and control... (That they used embassy staff cell phones for communication should provide a clue to their over all preparation.)

Abu Khatallah says he was directing traffic in Benghazi when fighters attacked the U.S. mission with mortars and rockets that night.

The building burned. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and IT expert Sean Smith died of smoke inhalation. More than 30 Americans were evacuated.

Early the next morning, attackers assaulted a second U.S. facility, killing two former U.S. Navy SEALs working there as security contractors: Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.

Abu Khatallah was at the U.S. mission during the first attack. But he chalks that up to happenstance.

"I didn't know where the place was," he said. "When I heard, we went to examine the situation. When we withdrew and there was shooting with medium guns, and there were RPG's in the air and people panicked, we tried to control traffic."

So, if Khattala was, for the sake of argument, motivated by the video . . . the attack was motivated by the video? Is that what you're saying?

rickyp wrote:fate

So, if Khattala was, for the sake of argument, motivated by the video . . . the attack was motivated by the video? Is that what you're saying?

He was the militia commander and ordered the attack.

danivon wrote:Jury? I thought you were against such liberal notions as criminal trials for the guy...

The unsealed June 26 indictment, coinciding with Khatallah’s U.S. District Court appearance in Washington, states that the grand jury does not know when the conspiracy began. It says Khatallah “did knowingly and intentionally conspire and agree with other conspirators, known and unknown to provide material support and resources to terrorists, that is personnel including himself and others.”

The indictment says Khatallah intended the material support and resources “to be used in preparation for and in carrying out” the attacks that killed the ambassador, his aide and two ex-Navy SEALs protecting a CIA base that came under precision mortar attack.

Khatallah is scheduled to appear in court Wednesday for a full detention hearing.

To retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a member of the ad hoc group Citizens Commission on Benghazi, the information reflects what the White House knew all along.

“The administration knew it was a conspiracy from the start due to all-source intelligence and the warning from al Qaeda to avenge the death of al-Libi in June 2012,” Gen. McInerney said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z36KLvMWeO
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter