- #1
morrobay
Gold Member
- 1,025
- 1,260
Four placed on leave.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/20/world/africa/libya-state-department-employees/Four State Department employees placed on leave after last year's deadly terror attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, won't be fired, a decision that irritated key congressional Republicans insisting on accountability for security and other shortcomings.
A senior State Department official said the employees would be assigned to different jobs, and an agency spokeswoman followed up by saying that an independent review of the matter found problems and raised questions but did not conclude any breach of duty.
Please post sources for this, not questioning you, but we need sources that verify that the facts are accurate.Dotini said:In a recent CNN special on Benghazi hosted by Erin Burnett, most if not all that was imparted by the OP was affirmed. It was also affirmed that all 30+ CIA operatives (at their compound 1 mile from the diplomatic facility, and which was also besieged for many hours after the initial attack at the first site) were being held incommunicado and subject to monthly polygraph tests to assure they spoke neither to news media nor to congressmen. Very clearly a heavy lid of secrecy is being clamped down on the entire affair.
Evo said:Please post sources for this, not questioning you, but we need sources that verify that the facts are accurate.
Dotini said:I have been unable to find the complete one hour TV broadcast, "The Truth About Benghazi". However, I have been able to come up with the following CNN broadcast segments:
Here is a link to part 1 of Erin's CNN broadcast.
Another fragment
CNN on the CIA intimidation, silencing and polygraphy of its Benghazi operatives. This really is a must see.
Included are allegations the purpose of the State Dept/CIA Benghazi mission was to transfer weapons, including ground to air missiles, from Libya thru Turkey to Syrian rebels.
edward said:So it took you all this time to figure out that the State Department was running cover for a covert CIA weapons operation? Is the need to place the blame on an individual politician more important than endangering CIA operations in the Middle East?
It is time to end the political witch hunt.
nsaspook said:I agree but next time have an exit plan for when it hits the fan and hire a new guy to make cover stories.
If it bleeds, it leads.edward said:We would not have had to exit had the press and politicians not blew open the covert CIA operation just to get a scoop, or gain political notoriety.
edward said:We would not have had to exit had the press and politicians not blew open the covert CIA operation just to get a scoop, or gain political notoriety.
We never were good at exit plans. I had an older cousin who was sent to Cambodia just before hostilities in Vietnam heated up. He was undercover as a civil engineer on an irrigation project.
We never heard from him again. It was many years before his wife was told what country his body might be in.
morrobay said:None of my OP is opinion or speculation. Having a science background , it is facts alone that I
am interested in. All my statements are based on TV news , mostly Fox . Interviews with retired
generals and special forces operators. As well as interviews with senators and congressman who
are trying to investigate what happened, or did not happen in the case of any rescue attempt.
By the way it is secondary to me what was really going on here covertly. My outrage is that :
1.Requests for security by staff were denied, leaving them vulnerable.
2.While there could have been a rescue attempt my U.S. military who were in Italy (correction) , and N.Africa someone gave a stand down order. Again everything in my OP is on the record from U.S. military personnel , State Dept, and senators and congressman
nsaspook said:If it bleeds, it leads.
Once Ambassador Stevens was killed the press coverage was a given. He wasn't shot but died from smoke inhalation by being trapped in a burning building almost alone and was not found by our people but by locals who tried to save him. My primary nit with the whole thing was the lack of US security to high value targets given the location and the people they were dealing with. The CIA operation attracted some very bad characters to the area and we failed to react to that threat due to the need to keep IMO a very low profile that made somebody override common sense measures.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...-attack-that-killed-bay-area-native-arrested/
lisab said:Good points. But none of us can speak with authority about what would have been reasonable wrt security at that location. We simply don't know the facts. I'm betting CIA tends not to be careless about security, and there is *plenty* that we don't know that influenced their decisions. Relying on media reports on this issue is pointless, to me. It's like trying to learn GR from crackpots.
morrobay said:www.wnd.com/2013/07/general-cant-explain-why-forces-not-deployed-to-benghazi/
This is one of many sources on subject, from google search. I would have replied earlier but
its 0900 here and only spend time on internet in morning.
Again, that the ambassador and staff could have been rescued by the U.S. military , but were
abandoned is an outrage. Also that the State Dept., that wanted a low profile for political reasons,
left the compound vulnerable to attack.
American security company, Blackwater, that left at least 17 Iraqis dead in Baghdad’s Nisour Square.
The ghosts of that shooting clearly hung over Benghazi. Earlier this year, the new Libyan government had expressly barred Blackwater-style armed contractors from flooding into the country. “The Libyans were not keen to have boots on the ground,” one senior State Department official said.
That forced the State Department to rely largely on its own diplomatic security arm, which officials have said lacks the resources to provide adequate protection in war zones.
Don’t Blame the Marines: Here’s Who is Supposed to Protect U.S. Diplomats
Although our presence in Benghazi has shrunk considerably since the opening of the Embassy in Tripoli, I would like to maintain a small State-run presence in Benghazi through the end of calendar year 2012, to include the critical summer elections period. Headed by an FS-02 or GS-145 officer, this office would work in close coordination with Tripoli on political and economic reporting, public diplomacy and commercial work in the eastern part of Libya and serve as "host" for the activities of USAID, PM, and any other U.S government TDY personnel in Benghazi. Because this would be a smaller operation, Benghazi would continue to be supported by one IRM TDYer for communications and management issues and one NEA TDY reporting officer in addition to the TDY head of operations. NEA also would support the continuation of an LES PSA position to provide translation, policy, and administrative support. With the full complement of five Special Agents, our permanent presence would include eight U.S direct hire employees, two slots for TDY PM and USAID officers, and one LES program assistant.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command, called Stevens and asked if the embassy needed a special security team, the officials said. Stevens told Ham it did not, the government officials said.
During a meeting several weeks later, Ham again asked Stevens if he wanted additional military security and again Stevens said no, the officials told McClatchy.
"He didn't say why. He just turned it down," one official said, speaking anonymously.
Evo said:NSA, from your link, the Benghazi office requested MINIMAL personnel, not more.
Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels
within two bureaus of the State Department (the “Department”) resulted in a
Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly
inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.
The Board determined that DS staffing levels in Benghazi after Embassy
Tripoli re-opened were inadequate, decreasing significantly after then-Special
Envoy Stevens’ departure in November 2011. Although a full complement of five
DS agents for Benghazi was initially projected, and later requested multiple times Special Mission Benghazi achieved a level of five DS agents (not counting DoD-
provided TDY Site Security Team personnel sent by Embassy Tripoli) for only 23
days between January 1-September 9, 2012.
As it became clear that DS would not provide a steady complement of five
TDY DS agents to Benghazi, expectations on the ground were lowered by the
daunting task of gaining approvals and the reality of an ever-shifting DS personneplatform. From discussions with former Benghazi-based staff, Board members concluded that the persistence of DS leadership in Washington in refusing to provide a steady platform of four to five DS agents created a resignation on the part of post about asking for more. The TDY DS agents resorted to doing the best they could with the limited resources provided.
The responsibility for the Benghazi attack lies with a militant group called Ansar al-Sharia, which is affiliated with al-Qaeda. However, there were also security failures and miscommunications among government officials that contributed to the attack.
There is evidence that the US government had received intelligence about potential threats to the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, but it is unclear if this information was acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner.
There is no evidence to support the claim of a cover-up by the US government. However, there were conflicting reports and statements made in the aftermath of the attack, which led to some confusion and speculation.
There were security concerns and warnings leading up to the attack, and there were also security failures during the attack itself. While it is impossible to say definitively, it is possible that better security measures and responses could have prevented or minimized the severity of the attack.
Since the Benghazi attack, the US government has implemented new security protocols and processes for diplomatic missions in high-risk areas. These include increased personnel and resources, improved communication and coordination, and enhanced training for security personnel.