danivon wrote:Do grand juries typically go into such matters, or just the basis of whether a charge can be laid?

Motive can be important at trial, but surely at this stage it is kind of moot compared to whether there is evidence he was involved in the attack.

For example, did the grand jury mention al Libi or any other motivation? Or are you just goin on the self-appointed 'concerned citizen'.

But with the capture of Khatallah in June, the Justice Department is characterizing Benghazi not as the impromptu work of a mob but as a conspiracy hatched by terrorists who had infiltrated the port city in eastern Libya.

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.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... z36LKynvqi
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

In the document, federal prosecutors said Mr. Abu Khattala had plotted attacks against the United States and other Western interests in recent months. They argued that because he posed a continued threat to the United States he should remain in custody until trial. Mr. Abu Khattala is scheduled to appear before a magistrate judge here on Wednesday for a hearing on whether he should continue to be detained.

If he were to be released, the document said, Mr. Abu Khattala could “continue to communicate his plans for additional deadly attacks to other extremists and encourage them to carry out those plans.” The filing calls him “a commander in an extremist militia group who is fully committed to causing death and destruction to American personnel and property.”

The Justice Department said that Mr. Abu Khattala is motivated by extremist ideology, has “extensive contacts with senior-level members of extremist groups throughout Libya” and “could communicate and further conspire with many of those extremist individuals.”

Without any ties to the United States, Mr. Abu Khattala “has strong incentives to flee,” the government said.

Mr. Abu Khattala was moved to Washington on Saturday from a Navy ship where he had been held since he was captured by the commandos in a raid at a seaside villa. He was questioned aboard the ship and ultimately given a Miranda warning that he had the right to remain silent and be represented by a lawyer, officials said. Several hours after arriving in Washington, Mr. Abu Khattala was arraigned before a judge at a federal courthouse. He pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiring to provide material support and resources to terrorists that resulted in a death.

The filing reveals for the first time some of the evidence in the case that the government is building against Mr. Abu Khattala, saying it is supported by witnesses and physical evidence.

It said that in the days before the attack, he voiced “concern and opposition to the presence of an American facility in Benghazi,” the government said.

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's see: the suspect had been planning "attacks" for months (not a spontaneous response to anything).

He was an "extremist" with many connections (so, not someone out for an evening stroll). He also had objected to the US presence in Benghazi for days prior to the attack.

That's lots of info, yet no mention of the video. Seems like he was just a terrorist doing what terrorists do: commit acts of terror.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's see: the suspect had been planning "attacks" for months (not a spontaneous response to anything).

Yes, but that was 'recently', as in shortly before his arrest, not before the Benghazi attack.

He was an "extremist" with many connections (so, not someone out for an evening stroll). He also had objected to the US presence in Benghazi for days prior to the attack.

Even an extremist can use a particular topical event or subject as a reason to act.

That's lots of info, yet no mention of the video. Seems like he was just a terrorist doing what terrorists do: commit acts of terror.

Of course the grand jury "does not know when the conspiracy began". So if that is the case, how are you be able to reach any conclusions and decide that the lack of mention of something means it is in no way a factor?

I know you have already made your mind up, but seems to me that you are making others' minds up in the absence of any actual evidence of what they think.

Doctor Fate wrote:And, it seems to me you are positing an "instant conspiracy" or at least trying to hold out the (unreasonable) possibility. In law, as you know, there is the test of reasonableness. Even at this point, no "reasonable and prudent" person would conclude the video is part of this--the government did not even allege it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, it seems to me you are positing an "instant conspiracy" or at least trying to hold out the (unreasonable) possibility. In law, as you know, there is the test of reasonableness. Even at this point, no "reasonable and prudent" person would conclude the video is part of this--the government did not even allege it.

No, as you are but one person, I am not positing any 'conspiracy' - but I am positing that you are letting your own opinion and preconceptions colour your certitude.

It is not unreasonable to believe that there was some connection to the public and vocal protests about the video, given that they were happening in Egypt and in other Arab and Muslim countries. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the organisers of the attack were able to find ready recruits or supporters based on the at least serendipitous timing of an uproar over a film.

You seem to be suggesting I am arguing that the video had to be the main cause. I am not. I am simply suggesting that a lack of mention in a grand jury charge does not mean much at all. And it's not really as important as you seem to think anyway - whether the attack was motivated by the video fully, partly or not at all, it was coincidental with violent protests about the video in neighbouring countries, and so at the time it would not be "unreasonable" or "imprudent" to think there may be some link.

If the whole point is to use it as a stick to beat the Administration because someone mentioned such a link, before the full picture could have emerged, well, fair enough (it's not unexpected from your position), but it's pretty weak beer.

danivon wrote:The 'evidence' in this case being the lack of something being mentioned?

I will not lose much sleep over this inanity.

House Benghazi Report Finds Evidence Doesn't Back Rumors
The Republican-led House Select Committee on Intelligence on Friday released its report on the deadly 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and it found that the military and the Central Intelligence Agency responded appropriately during the attacks.
The investigation, which took nearly two years and thousands of hours of work, found the CIA had "ensured sufficient security" and "bravely assisted" on the night of attacks that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens. The panel also found no intelligence failure prior to the attacks.
The report did say that the initial narrative by the White House that the attack stemmed from a protest was not accurate, but it blamed that on contradictory intelligence assessments in the attack’s aftermath rather than an effort to obscure the truth. The committee said it found "no evidence that any officer present during the attacks was intimidated" to prevent them from addressing Congress or revealing what they witnessed.
Ahmed Abu Khatallah, 43, the alleged leader of the Ansar al-Sharia militia, was captured in a June raid and currently faces charges in the U.S. that could include the death penalty.

A leading Republican wants to expand the House investigation into the 2012 Benghazi terrorist attack by adding a Senate probe, as a new House Intelligence Committee report Friday concluded that the initial CIA assessment found no demonstrations prior to the assault and a primary purpose of the CIA operation in eastern Libya was to track the movement of weapons to Syria.
The report described the attack as "complex" with the attackers affiliated with Al Qaeda. It also said the initial CIA assessment concluded there were no demonstrations outside the State Department Consulate in Eastern Libya.
Referring to the House Select committee Chairman, and the Democratic ranking member, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, said the current House investigation should be expande

CAIRO — The Libyan militant group accused of leading the attack on the United States diplomatic mission in Benghazi two years ago had previously helped train a dozen fighters who went on to participate in a deadly attack on an Algerian gas plant, according to a United Nations Security Council document justifying new sanctions on the group, Ansar al-Shariah.

Later, in the year after the Benghazi attack, Ansar al-Shariah of Benghazi “also provided training and logistical support” to Al Qaeda’s North African affiliate, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, the document states, and the Qaeda group in turn helped Ansar al-Shariah orchestrate suicide bombings at the end of 2013 and the following summer.

Witnesses in Benghazi as well as United States officials say that Ansar al-Shariah fighters played a major role in the assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, killing Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

. . . Founded in February 2012, Ansar al-Shariah has controlled “terrorist training camps,” mainly for fighters who went on to join “Al Qaeda associated groups operating in Syria and Iraq and, to a lesser extent, in Mali.”

As Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence put it on Sunday when asked about the Times report: “The intelligence indicates that al Qaeda was involved, but there were also plenty of people and militias that were unaffiliated with al Qaeda involved.”

GOP Benghazi Investigation Decimates Tea Party Conspiracy Theories

In the immediate aftermath of the attack, intelligence about who carried it out and why was contradictory, the report found. That led Susan Rice, then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, to inaccurately assert that the attack had evolved from a protest, when in fact there had been no protest. But it was intelligence analysts, not political appointees, who made the wrong call, the committee found. The report did not conclude that Rice or any other government official acted in bad faith or intentionally misled the American people