Thread: America ‘Was Warned Of Embassy Attack But Did Nothing’

The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.
The US administration is now facing a crisis in Libya. Sensitive documents have gone missing from the consulate in Benghazi and the supposedly secret location of the “safe house” in the city, where the staff had retreated, came under sustained mortar attack. Other such refuges across the country are no longer deemed “safe”.
Some of the missing papers from the consulate are said to list names of Libyans who are working with Americans, putting them potentially at risk from extremist groups, while some of the other documents are said to relate to oil contracts.
According to senior diplomatic sources, the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted, but no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and “lockdown”, under which movement is severely restricted.
Continue Reading on www.independent.co.uk ...

Read more: America ‘Was Warned Of Embassy Attack But Did Nothing’ | Conservative Byte

Report: Hillary Ignored Warnings

---

by Ben Shapiro 13 Sep 2012 832 post a comment
Today, the Independent is reporting shocking details about the attack on the Libyan consulate that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The details are so explosive that they will result in a Congressional investigation. In fact, they’re so explosive that they should result in the resignation of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The only question now: What did Hillary Clinton know, and when did she know it?
Yesterday, we reported that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was responsible under the law for the “security policies and programs that provide for the protection of all US government personnel … on official duty abroad.” Clinton herself seemed bewildered by the attacks on the Libyan consulate, asking, “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”
But according to the Independent, she had no reason to be puzzled. Quoting senior diplomatic sources, the paper reports, “the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted.” Nonetheless, “no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.”
It gets worse. According to security sources, the State Department had greenlit a “health check” at the consulate I preparation for 9/11. Nonetheless, the attackers broke the perimeter within 15 minutes of the Libyan mob forming. Local guards did nothing. One witness reported, “The security people just all ran away and the people in charge were the young men with guns and bombs.” According to sources, the Ambassador died from smoke inhalation after he was trapped in a building set on fire and besieged by rioters.
The Libyan government, for all its supposed regret, seems less than troubled by the whole incident. Wissam Buhmeid, who commands the Tripoli government-sanctioned Shield Brigade, which operates as police in Benghazi, stated, “There were definitely people from the security forces who let the attack happen because they were themselves offended by the film; they would absolutely put their loyalty to the Prophet over the consulate. The deaths are all nothing compared to insulting the Prophet.”
Why wasn’t there better protection at the consulate? Because that’s the way Secretary of State Clinton wanted it; the State Department posted no Marines to the consulate. It was staffed instead by those Libyan “security” forces. The consulate also had “no bulletproof glass, reinforced doors or other features common to embassies.”
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, “I am asking my colleagues on the committee to immediately investigate what role al-Qa’ida or its affiliates may have played in the attack and to take appropriate action.”
The story isn’t over in Libya. Violence continues. And classified documents have been stolen from the consulate, reportedly including the names of Libyans working with the Americans. Safe houses across Libya are now unsafe.
Secretary of State Clinton is responsible for the security of our staff, consulates, and embassies abroad. If the Independent’s report is correct, she has violated the most basic standard of duty. Both she and her boss, President Obama, must be held responsible.
Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...Libyan-embassy

REPORTS: No Live Ammo For Marines At Embassy

September 13, 2012
in Foreign Policy, Government, World News


BY: Adam Kredo
September 13, 2012 1:20 pm
U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.
Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”
U.S. officials have yet to confirm or comment on the reports. Time magazine’s Battleland blog reported Thursday “Senior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi, so answers may be slow in coming.”
If true, the reports indicate that Patterson shirked her obligation to protect U.S. interests, Nightwatch states.
“She did not defend U.S. sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office,” the report states. “She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.”
REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines [continued]

While Marines are typically relied on to defend U.S. territory abroad, such as embassies, these reports indicate that the Obama administration was relying on Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security, a move observers are questioning as violence in Cairo continues to rage.
Marc Toner, the State Department’s deputy spokesperson, did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon. White House National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor also did not respond to a request for comment.
The U.S. ambassador to any nation ultimately decides whether Marines are authorized to carry ammunition, according to a GOP national security adviser knowledgeable about American embassy protocols.
“In the end, the ambassador of any country has the final call on what to do in a country,” the source said. “The buck stops with you. You make every decision.”
Security procedures are subjective and subject to change depending on locale, the source said.
Each ambassador, in consultation with their Regional Security Officer (RSO), sets the policy regarding the rules of engagement, according to the adviser. The RSO is responsible for coordinating all security measures and reports directly to the ambassador in any given nation.
“A decision or order to set rules of engagement that you can’t carry live ammunition and can’t engage violent crowds climbing over your walls and tearing down your flag stems from direct orders from the Chief of Mission and possibly whoever the Chief of Mission reports to,” the source explained.
Given that the siege of the Cairo embassy unfolded over many hours, the source wondered if new orders pertaining to the rules of engagement were ever issued.
Ambassador Patterson was in Washington D.C. during the attacks, according to reports.
“I cannot believe that over an eight hour period that nobody … in that chain of command did not ask those questions of their superiors,” the source said. “These protestors did not just appear and within 20 minutes climb the wall.”
Several sources familiar with foreign embassies in international hotspots who contacted the Free Beacon said that the U.S. government often adheres to a policy of not permitting security officers and other personnel to carry loaded weapons.
Others indicated that in some instances, embassy personnel were prohibited from carrying weapons on embassy grounds altogether.
The Free Beacon will continue to update this report as events warrant.


http://freebeacon.com/reports-marine...ted-live-ammo/

FEDs Hunt Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Rather than People Who Killed US Ambassador

posted on September 14, 2012 by Gary DeMar


The filmmaker of the anti-Islam film lives in the United States. If this is true, then why is our government tracking down any filmmaker for any reason? Let’s rehearse the First Amendment for our government officials: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In addition to protecting “the free exercise of religion,” even if it’s one religion criticizing another religion, the First Amendment also prohibits our national government from interfering with speech and the press.

Every day in America people attack worldviews they don’t agree with. Some do it with factual statements and reasoned argumentation, and others try to make their case with satire and ridicule. The First Amendment was put into place to protect people from tyrants who would use their power to prohibit speech that was critical of the way the governed.

King James I of England detested the Geneva Bible, first published in 1560, because he believed it questioned the divine right of kings. He did a novel thing. He commissioned a group of scholars to produce a new translation. We know it today as the Authorized Version or more popularly known as the King James Version of the Bible.

Sometimes the best way to deal with a critic is to ignore him. If this anti-Muslim film is so bad, the Muslims should have ignored it or produced an answer to it. Like fascists and tyrants of the past, they use terror to force compliance.

Just because you’re able to shut someone up doesn’t mean that you’ve convinced that person that your position is correct.

There is nothing criminal in producing a film critical of Islam. The real criminals are the ones who killed four United States citizens on United States soil. Our embassies are an extension of the United States. If people attack an embassy, they attack the United States.


Not only has our government attacked the filmmaker but the media, who are protected by the First Amendment have also gotten into the act. For example,
“ABC journalist Christiane Amanpour on Wednesday compared the rioting and murder that followed Middle Eastern anger over an anti-Islamic movie to yelling ‘fire in a crowded theater.’ Regarding filmmaker Sam Bacile and the killing of U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens in Libya, Amanpour derided, ‘So, now, one has to, really, try to figure out the extremists in this country and the extremists out there who are using this and whipping up hatred.’”


Crying “fire” in a crowded theater is not about inciting people to violence and rioting. No one’s going to shoot up the place if someone shouts “fire.” It’s the trampling that might take place as people race for the exits. The analogy is false.
Neal Boortz writes, “Perhaps Christiane Amanpour should spend more time worrying about a religion that condones this type of violence, then one American exercising his right to free speech.”


It’s possible that there’s more to this story than meets the eye.


I’ve posted the article “Was the Anti-Muslim Film Actually Produced by Muslims and Blamed on Christians?” on the Political Outcast site.

Read more: FEDs Hunt Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Rather than People Who Killed US Ambassador

Read more: FEDs Hunt Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Rather than People Who Killed US Ambassador

Freedom of Religion is One Way Street for Muslims

posted on September 14, 2012 by Dave Jolly





The Pilgrims on board the Mayflower made the perilous trip after 12 years of religious persecution in Europe. More than anything, they wanted to go somewhere where they were allowed to worship as they thought proper and not how the government and monarchy dictated. Religious freedom was also an important factor when the thirteen colonies rebelled against the British crown and declared their independence. They included it in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so as to guarantee that everyone in America would have the right to worship according to their faith.

Even though America was established as a Christian nation based largely on Christian principles, the Founding Fathers also recognized that there were non-Christians among them who should also be entitled to that same right. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintos and others all share the same guarantee of the freedom of religion here in America. As much as I would like to see America return to its Christian roots, I realize that will never happen because of the First Amendment.

Under the First Amendment, we are also guaranteed the right of free speech. These two aspects of the First Amendment have been used for years to defend the right of those who wish to criticize, ridicule and even blaspheme God, Jesus Christ and the Bible. As much as these things, such as the movie The Last Temptation of Christ, offend us and cause us to speak out against such antithetical garbage, there is nothing we can legally do to stop it.

But Muslims are not as tolerant and unresponsive as America’s Christians are and they will not tolerate anything or anyone that criticizes or mocks Islam. Case in point is the Pennsylvania judge who acquitted a Muslim of physically attacking another person because of his Halloween costume. Even though the attack was witnessed by a police officer and was caught on video, the judge let the attacker go and lectured the victim as if he were the criminal. Oh yeah, the judge was a Muslim.

It’s okay for Muslims to condemn, ridicule, mock and trash anything Christian, Jewish or non-Muslim in general. However, they cannot and will not tolerate the same treatment towards their own religion. Religious tolerance is a very narrow one way street for Muslims and that intolerance of theirs is generally dealt out with violence. And then they have the audacity to call anyone who questions their faith an Islamaphobe.

Now, Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi is vowing to sue the filmmakers in America for producing a film that insults their prophet Mohammad. He has already instructed the Egyptian embassy in Washington D.C. to start legal actions against the filmmakers. In fact, he didn’t just instruct them to file a lawsuit against the filmmakers, he ordered them to use all legal measures possible to bring action against the filmmakers.

The film, Innocence of Muslims, was made to show the treatment of Coptic Christians by Muslims in Egypt. The filmmaker identifies himself as Sam Bacile, but some believe that to be an alias of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.

Regardless who made the film, legal precedence has been established in the U.S. that such religious directed films are protected under the First Amendment. There was no prosecution or law suits won against films that mocked Jesus, so why should there be any against a film that only depicts how the Muslims are treating Christians? If a Christian cross can be displayed in a glass of urine for art’s sake without any legal recourse, then why should there be any legal recourse in this case.

President Obama was forced into condemning the violence in Egypt and Libya that occurred because of the film. He also condemned the murders of American diplomats, but only after Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan both spoke out about the attacks and condemned the attackers. I am curious to see if anything comes of the Egyptian legal actions against the filmmakers. If it does happen, it will clearly demonstrate just how Muslim friendly and anti-Christian America has become and how the First Amendment only applies to Muslims and no one else.

Read more: Freedom of Religion is One Way Street for Muslims

The Indépendent:

Revealed: Inside Story Of US Envoy’s Assassination





The killings of the US ambassador to Libya and three of his staff were likely to have been the result of a serious and continuing security breach, The Independent can reveal.
American officials believe the attack was planned, but Chris Stevens had been back in the country only a short while and the details of his visit to Benghazi, where he and his staff died, were meant to be confidential.
Click to continue:





2012-09-14 03:23:14
Source: Exclusive: America ‘was warned of embassy attack but did nothing’ | Vlad Tepes


America Was Warned Of Embassy Attack But Did Nothing - Exclusive | EU

Related: Islamist Protests Spread to 20 Countries, US Embassies Targeted