Benghazi terrorist attack planned by Gitmo alum
Fox News is reporting that members of the Obama Administration is finally admitting that the attack on the consulate in Benghazi last week was actually a terrorist attack rather than a spontaneous reaction to some stupid video on YouTube. Fox also reports that a Guantanamo graduate who was released in 2007 to Libya on the condition that he would still be confined had a major part in the execution of the assault;
Sufyan Ben Qumu is thought to have been involved and even may have led the attack, Fox News’ intelligence sources said. Qumu, a Libyan, was released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2007 and transferred into Libyan custody on the condition he be kept in jail. He was released by the Qaddafi regime as part of its reconciliation effort with Islamists in 2008.
His Guantanamo files also show he has ties to the financiers behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The declassified files also point to ties with the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a known Al Qaeda affiliate.
So that makes sense. Our own sense of fair play comes back and bites our ass. Of course, the ACLU will tell you that we made Sufyan Ben Qumu a terrorist by putting him in Guantanamo. Regardless of how he became a terrorist, he’s still a terrorist.
The UK’s Daily Mail says the White House still maintains that the assault was not planned and was a spontaneous reaction to some YouTube video;
The White House maintains that there was no evidence the attack was preplanned by a terrorist group — rather, they say, it appears to have been a spontaneous mob of Islamic extremists.
‘We are looking at indications that individuals involved in the attack may have had connections to Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda’s affiliates, in particular Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,’ Mr Olsen told the Senate.
Category: Terror War
It boggles my mind how seriously out of touch with reality and the world outside our borders Washington has become.
@1 Agreed. This was a foreseeable outcome. Gitmo should have never been built. It would have been better in the long run to deal with the problem directly instead of warehousing people indefinately. They may have been terrorists when we put them in. They definately would be if/when we let them out.
Gee thats a shocker.
@2 — I have often tried to ascertain how we justify holding people indefinitely without a formal declaration of war against any nation.
I have no problem with executing them, I am just uncomfortable with the passage of laws that allows the government to hold anyone foreign or domestic for an unspecified period of time without any judicial oversight.
Caught on the battlefield dressed as a civilian means you are an illegal combatant, interrogation, military tribunal, and execution should be the outcome and then long periods of incarceration are not an issue. This piece of sh1t should have had the benefit of a firing squad and a quick burial in a shallow sand grave.
VOV: so, what’s the alternative to indefinite detention for those we believe to be committed terrorists? As this example shows, “catch and release” doesn’t work all that well. And frankly, I’ve got more heartburn with summary executions – if for no other reason than it’s rather hard to extract useable intel from a corpse.
As I recall, we did the same in both Korea and Vietnam with captured enemy – well, for those we didn’t turn over to South Korea and Vietnam. So it’s also not without precedent during undeclared wars.
Indefinite detention under humane conditions (and yes, insipid – conditions at Gitmo qualify as humane conditions) may be harsh. But IMO that’s substantially preferable to “shoot ’em all and let Allah sort them out”.
I guess the unicorn farts, rainbows and “co-exist” meme of the left is working out just fine.
Right. The White Houise is investigating. Trouble is, the White House and State Dept concluded within hours of the attacks that the so-called mob was (understandably) reacting to a video that no one has ever seen and sent their patsies (Marty the Big, Rice the Who, and others) to get the word out that no, this was not Arab Spring gone awry, this was the result of an insensitive, anti-Muslim lout. Obama is still absent on this one. His silence is quite disturbing. He can’t meet with the PM of Israel but can meet with David Letterman. I don’t think I can take much more of THE ONE.
@4, I totally agree with you
Obama has been AWOL on everything, other than partying with Jaye-Z, Beyonce and hanging with Litterman.
The White House continues to double down on stupid, they’re still repeating the “spontaneous demo” mantra this a.m.
Hondo: point taken…intel from dead men is difficult…but after 5 or 6 years of interrogation how much intel is left?
Catch and release is a really bad plan, but the image of America to many across the world is not that of a totalitarian regime with “black” sites where foreigners disappear indefinitely. If summary execution after trial is a problem for illegal combatants perhaps a sentence of life imprisonment after trial should be considered these sentences could be carried out in Gitmo or a special prison similar Spandau after WW2, it speaks to the legal concept that we consider them not warriors at all but criminals. It allows us to frame the rhetoric surrounding their actions in our terms instead of theirs. In my mind instead of holding the “jihadist warriors” indefinitely a trial for committing the international crime of performing combat actions against a uniformed military while dressed as a civilian puts us in a position to define these people as simply criminals operating illegally as defined by standing international law regarding combatants in a conflict.
Imprisonment or execution after a trial should make it clear that The United States as a nation of laws intends to exercise our rights under the law as the detaining nation to prosecute crimes against our nation and our uniformed forces.
At least that is where my thinking started on this Hondo.
But Baghdad Bob (aka Jay the Carnie) said it was the video that drove the protest, and we should bow before the Islamic Extremist and beg their forgiveness…. did you not see the grand display of them having the alleged mastermind of that kindergarten grade video brought in for his “parole violation”? We should all feel so blessed to be in a country where our political leaders are insuring we appease our enemies so that they will not do bad things to us anymore.
Kumbayahhhh…..
There is that pesky little thing called the Geneva Convention. If we don’t like the rules, then we shouldn’t play the game. Or do something to formally change the rules.
It has been established by all sorts of folks for decades now that we do not want to play to win, recognize an enemy and call it what it is, or even play by the established rules. So why are we frittering away our treasure?
Curiously, it seems that the U.S. Ambassador to the UN is speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State on this, who seems to be is distancing herself from the White House posture that the attacks from the other day were “spontaneous” and not planned. Seems to me that perhaps Hillary is not taking one for the team on this one as is reeks to her as a bona-fide terrorist attack and now how Jay Carney is spinning it. Since the economy is so bad, is this the White House’s way of strap hanging onto it’s foreign policy “successes”? (i.e. “We” got Osama bin Laden; we’ve apologized for other stuff, the attacks were spontaneous, etc.)?
@9 and 11: How in the Wide, Wide, World of Sports does this guy have any support at all, other than from his speedos? And while I’m at it, what’s all this about people finding him personally appealing. He lies through his teeth, disappears when he turns sideways, and looks more than a little like Alfred E. Newman. What’s to like? And if anyone is offended, tough. And if anyone wants to remind me that the POS is the president and to be respectful, I say this: I know he’s the president. That’s the problem. As for respecting him, I just might when he AND HIS WIFE show America and the Office of the President some respect.
VOV: the Nuremburg and Tokyo Trials (which resulted in sentences for war crimes during World War II) occurred after the completion of World War II, not prior to the end of hostilities. Last time I checked, hostilities with al Qaeda and similar organizations were still ongoing – and have been since at least the al Qaeda declaration of war on the US in 1996 if not before.
And you never know how long someone being held captive will keep secrets. Many spies detained during the Cold War reportedly didn’t divulge all they knew during captivity. Would they have cracked if held longer? Who knows?
— break —
OWB: not sure if you’re implying that Gitmo detention violates the Geneva Convention. However, if you are I’ll have to disagree. Persons detained at Gitmo are not POWs under the 3rd Geneva Convention, nor are they entitled to treatment as such. Rather, they are detained “protected persons” under the 4th Geneva Convention. Under that Convention, they are required to receive adequate food, shelter, medical care, an opportunity to pray as they desire, and physical protection. That’s it. See
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument
In particular, see Articles 3 and 5 of the linked document.
Hondo, those trials were conducted against legal combatants or legitimate POWs after hostilities ceased, and were for war crimes committed by uniformed members of the military or political parties of the Axis powers. During WW2 illegal combatants (saboteurs, spies, partisans, combatants not wearing the uniform of any participant nation) were executed by firing squad during the course of hostilities by all powers engaged in the war. The Geneva convention in 1949 addressed these second type of detainees as outside the parameters of a legal combatant without actually calling them illegal combatants. The convention allowed for the detaining nation to try these illegals combatants as criminals under the laws of the detaining nation. The emphasis is on a proper trial with access to review and counsel. The 1942 Quirin case covers some of this ground as well. Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on 13 November 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: “Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism”[35] which allowed “individuals … to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals”, where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa’ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely. Trying them is my point, and you can try them now and imprison or execute them as appropriate. If our policy is holding them indefinitely yields the best results, perhaps that is so. I would argue that holding criminals indefinitely without resolution is problematic, and that international law as well the Geneva Convention provide the means for resolving the cases. If further intel is what we seek separation of the detainees and placement in long term isolation in maximum security is a motivator to divulge different information than previously garnered I can sign on board with that philosophy.… Read more »
VOV: actually, not all spies/saboteurs/etc . . . . captured by the US were summarily executed. In particular, those captured in the US were not. Operation Pastorius ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius ) provides one such example. Here, the US captured a group of German saboteurs who came to CONUS early in the war. They were not summarily executed; they were tried by military tribunal in CONUS as unlawful combatants. Six were sentenced to death by that tribunal and later executed; the two who defected served lengthy prison terms. A smaller group (2) were captured later in the war in Operation Elster; here, both were initially sentenced to death, but both sentences were later commuted. There was no compelling reason to try these individuals during the war. It would have been lawful for the US to have held these individuals in indefinite detention (e.g., “for the duration”) as unlawful combatants and tried them after the war had ended. For whatever reason, the FDR administration decided to try them during the war. My guess is that they did so for political reasons – e.g., to boost civilian morale and trust in the government’s ability to keep the US homeland safe. Please also note that the statue you cite includes the phrase “when tried”. However, it does not to my knowledge prescribe when – or even if – such trials are required to take place. The bottom line is that unlawful combatants, like POWs, may be detained “for the duration” under the Geneva Convention – specifically, the 4th Geneva Convention. However, they are not POWs under the 3rd Geneva Convention, and are not entitled to the same treatment as is prescribed for POWs. All that they are required to receive is humane treatment. Conditions at Gitmo qualify as humane treatment as defined by the 4th Geneva Convention. Under US law, unlawful combatants may be tried by military tribunal. However, the law does not to my knowledge prescribe any specific timetable for such trial. If conditions warrant, trial may therefore be deferred until after the end of hostilities – as were War Crimes Trials after World… Read more »
So, the attack and assassination of our diplomat was what…spontaneously preplanned?
And WTF is preplanned anyway? Stupid, nonsensical word, like pre-boarding.
Hondo, I am not quite certain I said all spies…but your point is taken. And I am aware the Bush order states “when tried”, I included it due to the part that Bush was in agreement with international law in that they could be tried as criminals because they are not POWs in any sense of the word. I don’t understand the benefit of keeping them in a sort of limbo status, perhaps it’s the intel you speak of. If that is the case then so be it. I have no quarrel with keeping them at Gitmo, don’t think I am at all worried about how we treat them while we detain them. If anything you will find I am inclined to believe Gitmo is more than fair and more than they deserve with our concern for their f#cking prayer mats and access to Korans. Trying them during the course of the hostilities takes away the combatant component illegal or otherwise and declares that we consider them common murdering criminals who we intend to incarcerate or execute for their crimes. If incarceration will yield future intelligence that execution will obviously eliminate I will understand your point about not executing them. We are not currently doing any of that, and there is no real need to start apparently but releasing them is clearly wrong as they get to fight back against their captors and it gives the remaining detainees some hope of eventual release. Prosecution followed by life imprisonment separated from their fellow criminals seems a better outcome to me. History has many cases of long imprisonment followed by release that leads to the prisoner attaining a status that prisoner would not have had they been tried and executed or tried and held in prison as a criminal on a life sentence. That’s my point, don’t keep any sense of hope alive that these people will attain the status of a Ghandi or Mandela in their fight for freedom. If they are released they will use that a method to show our weakness and the righteousness of their cause and we… Read more »
Hondo, anytime you make it to the Northeast a beer or four and a nice long conversation would be on me…I appreciate the opportunity to be a long winded pain in the 4ss from time to time…and appreciate you keeping me on point.
Hondo, are you finding “catch and release” in any internationally recognized standard of waging war? How about sending our uniformed guys in unarmed to be used for target practice by anyone who cares to use them as targets??
Play to win, or don’t play. Watching as we send flag draped coffins of warriors capable of fighting but who were not allowed to do so home to grieving families once during one’s lifetime is more than any of us should have to endure. This is the second time for me, and more for those who remember Korea.
Pardon me if I have had about as much of this nonsense as I can stomach. This is NOT why I served. Death by a thousand cuts is not in my values. Pretending that it is is beyond my understanding of honor.
No, I am not about to join the idiots of Code Pink! They and the other punks of their ilk are in large part responsible for the degeneration of our country. But, it happened because a bunch of us were not paying attention.
The wake up call should have been during the Munich Olympics. I blame everyone who ignored the threat since then for where we are today. Well, that and everyone who failed to keep up with the Alinsky plan. Can anyone spell “The Communist Manifesto?”
IF it can now be salvaged, it will not be pretty. Yes, it is frustrating to have lived through all this. Some of us simply cannot do what we once could, in spite of our will to do so. Still, we will not go down easy. And we will remember what was and what could have been for at least a few more generations.
/sermon
And Hondo? On my worst day I still have a very clear understanding of what a POW is. Today would be one of those days I cannot quote chapter and verse, but I know where to look. And tomorrow I will likely remember each and every paragraph and punctuation mark. 😉
OWB – obviously I misinterpreted your remarks in comment 12 above. It seemed to me you were saying that indefinite detention of unlawful combatants at Gitmo violated the Geneva Convention. I was saying that it does not. No offense intended.
I’m also not in any way advocating a “catch and release” policy for unlawful combatants (AKA terrorists) – which IMO would be abjectly stupid. My preference for unlawful combatants would be (1) indefinite detention (e.g., “for the duration”) under humane conditions; or (2) trial by military tribunal, followed by either execution or life imprisonment if found guilty. I’d prefer the former because you never know when someone might break/turn; they could still provide intel of value, even years later. But I could live with the latter.
I’m pretty sure now that we’re in violent agreement on both points. (smile)
Sounds like the 3 of us are talking in a similar train of thought, just on different routes perhaps….
OWB great point about Munich, the Israelis knew it pre and we should have all known it post….
What it looks like from the outside looking in is that the three of you are all in agreement, you are just wording it different.
@24 sounds like beers all around then…
Twist: think your right, amigo. With apologies to Strother Martin, it looks like “what we (had) here . . . (was) failure to communicate.”
Beer? Where’s mine??? All I see here is some homemade ice cream with some homemade pineapple topping.
Here ya go, OWB – on me:
Danke mucho, Hondo.
Sie sind willkommen, junge Dame. (smile)
Gentlemen, thanks for the education!:)
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE88J18R20120921?irpc=932
Just after 9:35pm local time, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens was overcome by smoke and died, trapped alone inside the burning villa after all the other Americans withdrew. Another diplomat, Sean Smith, and two U.S. security men were also killed that night.
At the time this incident occurred was very late at night. Far past business hours, when the Consulate should have been closed and not occupied, especially if it was a non-fortified facility.
* The biggest problem was they were living at the Consulate, which is a solid violation of USG security standards.
USG employees can not work and live in the same location, unless it is new construction, that meets new fortification construction standards like the Embassy’s in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. That construction must also be completed and managed by a vetted American Construction Company.
It’s a simple rule which obviously wasn’t being followed. One can not receive a waiver for this requirement either.
It’s in stone, no living and working in the same location, unless it is a fortified facility, which this location obviously was not.
Sad this could have been avoided, if people were following the rules.
What should have happened; the victims would have been living at a separate location, in a hotel or in houses away from the Consulate and this building would have burned to the ground and no one would have been injured or died.
@32.
The rule is that one must wear one’s seat belt when driving. An unbelted driver is sitting at a red light. Another vehicle, driven by a drunk, plows into him from the rear. The first driver is catapulted into the windshield and dies at the scene. It is later determined that he likely would not have been killed had he been wearing his seat belt. Thus, it’s his own fault that he died. Does that sound right to you?
[…] evidence. Well, except for the fact that a Gitmo alum and al Qaeda member planned the attack, it was the White House that admitted that, by the […]