Benghazi ‘Suspect’ Captured

Matthew Vadum is an award-winning investigative reporter and the author of the book, "Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts Are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers."


kattA man the Obama administration claims orchestrated the deadly attack on the American diplomatic complex in Benghazi, Libya, on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities is now in U.S. custody.

This means that — abracadabra! — a suspect is in U.S. custody even before anyone knew there was a suspect. After all, it was supposed to be a video that no one saw that mocked the Islamic prophet Mohammed that sparked spontaneous riots complete with attackers armed with military-grade weapons.

After the administration orchestrated a massive campaign of deception, spoon-feeding lies to its lapdog allies in the media, suddenly Ahmed Abu Khatallah, a senior leader of the Ansar al-Shari’a terrorist militia in Benghazi, is in American hands. Khatallah, who was not in hiding in Libya and who made himself available to visiting journalists, was  charged by U.S. authorities last year with murder in connection with the assault, according to newly unsealed court documents.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, said he “anticipated” that the raid seizing Khatallah would happen but suggested that the importance of the capture is overblown.

“The administration would like to say, all right, we apprehended someone, isn’t that great, to deflect the attention away from the real Benghazi problem—that is, the president and, through [Ambassador Susan] Rice and the rest of them, knew full well that it was all a terrorist attack, and they tried to cover it up and got caught in a lie.”

“The big deal here,” said Inhofe, “is we have a president who lied to the American people.”

Whether Khatallah had anything to do with the attack on the diplomatic facility has yet to be shown. Khattalah told the New York Times in October 2012 that he was not part of the violence at the U.S. facility.

President Obama, who apparently went to sleep after being informed of the ongoing attack on Sept. 11, 2012, said yesterday he authorized a military operation to seize Khatallah.

“My duty as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. There are a lot of dangers out there and a lot of challenges,” he said. “Our diplomats serve with incredible courage and valor in some very difficult situations. They need to know that this country has their back, and will always go after anybody who goes after us.”

Of course Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did nothing at the time to save the Americans who perished at the hands of al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists.

During the military-style assault on the U.S. facility in Benghazi on Sept. 11, four American officials died, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens. It was subsequently reported that Stevens may have been overseeing some kind of Obama-authorized gun-running operation in Libya. On the day of the attack, a few hours before he was reportedly raped and murdered by adherents of the so-called religion of peace, Stevens wrote in an email that a local Libyan commander in Benghazi “expressed growing frustration with police and security forces (who were too weak to keep the country secure) … ”

At the time of the attack, the Obama White House made a conscious, calculated decision to let American officials perish overseas, fully expecting the incurious pro-Obama media to ignore what really happened. During the attack, U.S. forces were in place in nearby Sicily, an hour or so away by air, but the order to fly to Benghazi in an attempt to rescue the besieged staff at the complex never came. That order was never issued by President Obama, because he knew it would reveal his policy of appeasement towards Islamic totalitarians to be in shambles as the Middle East and North Africa fell into the hands of America’s enemies.

In the midst of a heated reelection campaign, Obama had claimed al-Qaeda was decimated and on the verge of annihilation. When it turned out the terrorist organization was doing just fine, he decided to scapegoat a YouTube video instead of admitting that al-Qaeda was roaring back, stronger than ever, under his watch.

For two weeks after the attack the Obama administration said over and over and over again that the incident in Benghazi was inspired by a low-quality anti-Islam video on YouTube. The American resident who made the video that virtually no one watched was jailed on the thinnest of legal pretexts after Clinton vowed to grieving relatives over the flag-draped remains of the four dead men to get the video maker she claimed caused the attacks. White House adviser Susan Rice went on TV to back up the administration’s lie that the assault was related to a video. Eventually the administration acknowledged it was a terrorist attack.

The Obama administration is going to prosecute Khatallah in the civilian court system.

“Khatallah currently faces criminal charges on three counts, and we retain the option of adding additional charges in the coming days,” Attorney General Eric Holder said. “Even as we begin the process of putting Khatallah on trial and seeking his conviction before a jury, our investigation will remain ongoing as we work to identify and arrest any co-conspirators.”

Not sending Khatallah to Guantanamo and processing him through the military commission system is a huge mistake.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) said arraigning Khattalah in Washington is a “really stupid policy.” It would be better to detain and interrogate him, Johnson said.

“Not through torture, not through abusive techniques,” he said. “You hold people there, you question them relentlessly, you gain their trust over time and they start giving up information … That’s how we actually get the information. So you’re not going to get the intelligence we need by questioning someone for 12 hours, 24 hours, 36 hours, and then arraigning them and giving them Miranda rights. They’ll shut up.”

Treating Khattalah as an ordinary criminal endangers the lives of Americans because it encourages other unlawful combatants to engage in illegal warfare. Under international humanitarian law, also known as the law of war, unlawful combatants, that is, those who fight without uniforms or military insignia or who otherwise violate battlefield norms, are not considered to be soldiers entitled to certain due process protections.

The reason such deception by belligerents has long been considered immoral and illegal is because it imperils the civilian population by making it difficult to distinguish civilians from enemy soldiers. The law of war thus attempts to shield civilians and to restrict warfare to legitimate military targets. The Bush administration maintained that when terrorists expose civilians to harm by operating outside the law of war, their conduct is so dangerous and morally reprehensible that they should not be elevated to prisoner of war (or “lawful combatant”) status when captured. President Bush also argued that America’s terrorist enemies should not be able to waste U.S. resources by weighing down the civilian legal system in endless litigation. Wars are supposed to be waged on battlefields, not in U.S. courtrooms.

But Obama and his lawless band of radicals threw all that away, opening the U.S. civilian justice system to the enemies of humanity and thereby giving terrorists a green light to hit American targets secure in the knowledge that Mirandization, a pro bono lawyer supplied by the ACLU, and a warm holding cell with the amenities of civilized life await them if captured.

Regardless of how the Khattalah case is disposed of by the courts, the Obama administration has once again sent an unmistakable signal that terrorist war criminals have little to fear from the United States government.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • http://phuxuyena.net/

    The law of war thus attempts to shield civilians and to restrict warfare to legitimate military targets.

    m88

  • JVictor

    The arrest of this “suspect” is just the latest shell game being played by this atrocious administration. The heat being applied to Obama and his co-conspirators must be extremely intense for them to be shifting into overdrive in an effort to distract the American people from the real issue at hand: treason in the Oval Office. The Bergdahl for five super-terrorists wasn’t enough of a diversion. Now, one of the ones responsible for the murderous attack in Benghazi has been arrested. When the administration sees that this one won’t keep people from peering more closely at their treasonous actions, what will happen next? Making some sort of deal with Iran to fight against the insurgency of ISIS? Oh wait, that one didn’t work either. It’s lunacy.

    The madness emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue must be stopped. These mid-term elections are critical to ensure that enough Constitutionally-minded people are elected to the House and Senate to hold the Obama administration accountable for the atrocities it has committed against the American people.

  • DontMessWithAmerica

    From a comical point of view, Obama impresses those of us old enough to remember 1940 movies of the Andy Hardy movies with Mickey Rooney in which Andy would say at the drop of a hat, “Let’s put on a show,” and then he would organize a musical of sorts.

    America’s Dramaturge-in-Chief could probably have made an honest living on Broadway or in Hollywood, fabricating an endless series of scenes of fiction, entertain audiences and hurt no one.

    His compulsion to LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING and his ability to find equally dishonest individuals to go along with his fabrications has been enormously damaging to America in general and particularly so to those he would favor – (blacks).

    He takes the crown away from the literary king of liars, Baron von Munchausen. If ever there existed a head of state in any country of the world who deserved to spend the rest of his life behind bars, he is the man.

    • nomoretraitors

      Lying is acceptable in the left’s (a)moral universe since they are creating Heaven on Earth. So any tactic — lying, cheating, stealing, even murder — is permissible on their way to their “social justice” utopia

      • Americana

        I’d be careful w/pointing out lying as a matter of policy of a party. Matthew Vadum lied brazenly about 4 things in this article alone.

        • truebearing

          Prove it.

          • Americana

            Oh, yes, deny, dispute and, if all else fails, denigrate.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            How about a list?

          • Americana

            Read the article and let’s see if we arrive at the same number of things in dispute.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            That’s my intention. After you follow up by listing your accusations.

          • Americana

            It’s actually more beneficial in terms of proving who’s more impartial and less partisan if you write your list before I do.

          • Americana

            Ah, no list from anyone?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            It’s only owed from you.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I’m sure you feel that way but I need something more persuasive. For one thing I’m not out to prove my impartiality to you, especially if you’re the one to judge.

            But it’s also up to you because you’ve already stated an accusation that I don’t support as stated. You have to complete your assertion.

            Is the article “impartial?” Of course not. There is no pretension that it is. I’m looking for you to list four “…lies.”

          • hiernonymous

            “Is the article “impartial?” Of course not. There is no pretension that it is”

            But here’s an interesting question for you – do you think it is honest? That is, if we accept that the author has certain biases, and will try to make a particular case, it’s still necessary that the information presented be truthful. Do you think he meets that standard?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But here’s an interesting question for you – do you think it is honest?”

            I think that it is. But I also think that the language used might lead to people disagreeing and misunderstanding it. It’s targeted rhetoric.

            I’m open to hearing arguments about how others can view it as ultimately dishonest. I’m also looking for arguments that he’s actually lying.

            And I don’t mean that as a rhetorical trap. I’m open to hearing responses and maintaining my objectivity.

            “That is, if we accept that the author has certain biases, and will try to make a particular case, it’s still necessary that the information presented be truthful. Do you think he meets that standard?”

            I think the language is ambiguous at times and people could possibly be mislead. I think the choice was made to rally those who are already informed.

          • Americana

            Targeted rhetoric still has to be factual or, rather, ought to be factual. Besides, if you’ve got the right mindset for using the facts to your advantage, targeted rhetoric that is entirely truthful is just as powerful as falsified ‘facts.’

            Once falsehoods are seen as endemic, what is anyone to trust? You then have people serving as their own fact checkers and they may or may not end up in agreement w/your presentation of the issue if they delve into it well beyond the scope of what a single writer has done.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Targeted rhetoric still has to be factual or, rather, ought to be factual.”

            Of course.

            “Once falsehoods are seen as endemic, what is anyone to trust? You then have people serving as their own fact checkers and they may or may not end up in agreement w/your presentation of the issue if they delve into it well beyond the scope of what a single writer has done.”

            I never trust any one source for anything.

          • Americana

            This is how I operate. I read an article and I see if I know all the facts are correct as stated by the writer. If the facts are NOT as stated by the writer then I figure out WHY the writer has miscast the facts to support their case.

            In another thread, Caroline Glick claimed that the FBI and DHS had never acted on the report from Russian intelligence that they suspected Tamerlan Tsarnaev of being a jihadi terrorist. The reality is that the FBI had interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev along w/some other members of his family and they assessed that he didn’t pose a terrorist danger to the U.S. Now, was that just a mistake or an oversight on Glick’s part? Hard to say. Normally though, when such an egregious factual error is pointed out to a writer, they are forced to rewrite the story to take the mistake into account w/a footnote about the correction appended to the story. The writer or the publication, in this case Front Page Mag, also issues a retraction w/their understanding of how the mistake came about. It’s a matter of holding the individual writers and the publication itself to account.

            Now this is an advocacy journalsm site and, as such, it’s not held to the same ethical and performance standards of journalism in other publications. But advocacy journalism works best, to me, when it’s IMPECCABLY CORRECT and HONEST in its factual presentation w/the majority of its advocacy being presented as an enhanced understanding of the facts. But the advocacy publication chooses what its ethical rules are and that’s why FPM writers are still able to claim that Pres. Obama is not an American citizen and was ineligible to run for the office of POTUS. Whereas in other media that do operate under the ethical standards for the profession, that’s no longer voiced because it’s been proven to be a falsehood.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “In another thread, Caroline Glick claimed that the FBI and DHS had never acted on the report from Russian intelligence that they suspected Tamerlan Tsarnaev of being a jihadi terrorist. The reality is that the FBI had interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev along w/some other members of his family and they assessed that he didn’t pose a terrorist danger to the U.S. Now, was that just a mistake or an oversight on Glick’s part?”

            It’s not clear. Perhaps by “act” she was referring to actions that would have been called for under the circumstances. It might be ignorance, it might be imperfect communication. “Failed to act” is some times rhetorical for “failed to act as expected” not “failed to respond in any way.

            So language can be ambiguous and you can criticize that without calling people liars. Did they intend to communicate that zero actions were taken, the communications were bounced because the office was closed?

            Is there a bias? Yes. But as I said elsewhere, the main focus is about rallying the informed and communicating updates. In a perfect world we could always convey information with perfect precision and find the language that makes it interesting to get others motivated as we would like.

            Why don’t you rewrite her article conveying the information your way and then we’ll test your writing with the same standards. That seems fair to me.

          • Americana

            The language Caroline Glick used is not ambiguous in the sense that you’ve suggested, which is wording that I would understand as ambiguity. In your usage example that might be intentional ambiguity or not. INTENTIONAL ambiguity when you know that the ambiguity is not legitimate is just as bad as a factual mistake in terms of conveying the situation honestly. I consider this wording is deserving of correction and a retraction. Now, how did this happen? I don’t know how the FPM folks backstop their writers with fact checkers. I believe they don’t based on what I’ve read. But this is a serious journalism error that is ordinarily (hopefully) caught and dealt w/on the editing level prior to publication.

            Why would it be important to get the circumstances right of the whole Tsarnaev snafu in an article? So that the public and everyone in the organizations involved KNOW what the errors were that permitted Tsarnaev to slip through the cracks and they’d fix the systemic errors. Certainly, to me, the saddest part of the Tsarnaev affair is that the Russians warned us TWICE that he was suspected of having received jihadist training. But we still have problems w/the Muslim names having multiple optional spellings in English. My suggestion would be that we use a facial recognition system coupled w/our passport examination or visual examination of the passport holder. Voila, hopefully the mistakes are eliminated, or at least are fewer.

            This is the wording she used:
            ____________________________________________________

            (GLICK) To this end, Obama has prohibited federal employees from conducting any discussion or investigation of Islamist doctrine, terrorism, strategy and methods and the threat all pose to the US.

            These prohibitions were directly responsible for the FBI’s failure to QUESTION or ARREST the Tsarnaev brothers in 2012 despite the fact that Russian intelligence tipped it off to the fact that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were jihadists.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “These prohibitions were directly responsible for the FBI’s failure to QUESTION or ARREST the Tsarnaev brothers in 2012 despite the fact that Russian intelligence tipped it off to the fact that the 2013 Boston Marathon bombers were jihadists.”

            If those are her exact words when they did in fact question them, I’d ask her to respond.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Now this is an advocacy journalsm site and, as such, it’s not held to the same ethical and performance standards of journalism in other publications. But advocacy journalism works best, to me, when it’s IMPECCABLY CORRECT and HONEST in its factual presentation w/the majority of its advocacy being presented as an enhanced understanding of the facts.”

            I agree in principal. They’re all dealing with short attention spans and a variety of authors, points of views and standards for where to draw various lines of compromise.

            The questions are how effective are they in meeting their objectives and can we say ultimately that any of them are mendacious?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “But the advocacy publication chooses what its ethical rules are and that’s why FPM writers are still able to claim that Pres. Obama is not an American citizen and was ineligible to run for the office of POTUS.”

            There is an argument to be made. It’s moot because the precedent is set and now we’ve more or less agreed what the important elements are to determine that a citizen is “natural born.”

            http://people.mags.net/tonchen/birthers.htm#ref04

            “Whereas in other media that do operate under the ethical standards for the profession, that’s no longer voiced because it’s been proven to be a falsehood.”

            I’m not sure what you’re reading but you might be missing the point. Even according to some definitions, the actual BC provided does not clearly prove POTUS was “natural born.”

            The public generally doesn’t want to hear it. That doesn’t mean there is no basis for making any given claim. It’s still controversial and people that discuss it rationally (or otherwise) have been demonized.

            Personally I think it’s moot for now. If that was the only issue I’d say drop it. But most often when I hear it, it’s just an incidental mention that attempts to put together a comprehensive list of problems.

          • Americana

            It has NOTHING to do w/precedent being set and that he managed to somehow squeak by as some sort of weird fluke. He was eligible to run for any sort of public office he wished to and he ran for Congress and he then was tapped to run for President of the United States. As someone who’s a dual national myself, it reminds me of John F. Kennedy running and people tried to make out that as a Roman Catholic, they didn’t know whether or not he’d feel he was subservient to the Pope for political decisions. Kennedy certainly didn’t make decisions based on what the Pope would countenance.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “It has NOTHING to do w/precedent being set…

            Of course precedent matters. A lot. In fact it’s everything with regard to his ability to serve his first term and doesn’t look like it will stop him from finishing his second.

            “…and that he managed to somehow squeak by as some sort of weird fluke.”

            That’s not how I characterized it. I’m simply pointing out that it’s controversial. It’s not only “nut cases” that notice the controversy. In this case it shows why the question is important. Our vetting process is probably inadequate, which to me is the larger looming concern rather than what precisely it means to be a “natural born” citizen.

          • Americana

            Once again, this post proves that the issue remains open and falsified for particular purposes. He’s eligible, I’m eligible. Pretending that isn’t so and that this remains an open-ended question is pernicious propaganda.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “He’s eligible, I’m eligible.”

            Did I not clearly explain the controversy to you?

            “Pretending that isn’t so and that this remains an open-ended question is pernicious propaganda.”

            I’m not pretending about anything. The point that you and other apologists often forget that these issues are raised in a timeline and or with a series of issues that you then isolate the issue as if all opposition to this president is due to the controversy over the definition of natural born and he’s an otherwise run of the mill candidate.

            Oh yeah, he’s “black” and therefore dissent is based on racism. That’s the foundation of all apologies for this guy.

            The issue of natural born should have been resolved before he ran or while he was running. The way that was handled was very poor and was the first example of how manipulative his campaign would be and how sycophantic big media would be.

            I personally agree that it’s an issue that has been resolved but it’s still a great example of the very poor ways that the left behaves. There are many worse examples too.

          • Americana

            I’m not talking about the questioning of his citizenship in relation to ANY OTHER objections to his policies. The two are separate. But there are media that busily conflate the two.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            But you do sometimes conflate history and theory.

            I’ve already weighed in. You’ll have to give me an actual example before I can comment more precisely.

            A lot of the objections are legitimate and you can’t say that raising his ancestry as a potential conflict is ipso facto illegitimate. I agree that it can possibly become unhinged. I’m not going to say that it’s not never legitimate to discuss this aspect of the controversy.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “As someone who’s a dual national myself, it reminds me of John F. Kennedy running and people tried to make out that as a Roman Catholic, they didn’t know whether or not he’d feel he was subservient to the Pope for political decisions. Kennedy certainly didn’t make decisions based on what the Pope would countenance.”

            I think that those are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed rationally. First, because of history and second because people need to have confidence in their leaders. It’s just as much if not more about how the candidate handles these ambiguities as it is about some rational argument that he should be disqualified on legal grounds.

            Kennedy handled it beautifully and here we are. There is no natural right to win the votes of anyone. This is something each candidate must earn.

          • truebearing

            Why are you reading your troll instructions to us?

      • JackSpratt

        The opologists for Soviet communism denied for years that the purges were going on in the Soviet Union. When the evidence became too overwhelming to deny any longer, they began to hold that the purges were unfortunate, but necessary to install communism

        • tagalog

          I just recently read that it was Walter Duranty who first wrote “you can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      I remember those Andy Hardy movies (though only when I watched them on 1950′s television, for the first time). Having been in the theater, I realize how difficult it is to put on any production.

      But Mr. Obama doesn’t have to produce anything, except … as you say … be the Dramaturge-in-Chief (which is basically what an Executive Producer does: use other people’s money to make HIS dream come true). While he golfs and takes vacations, the assistant producers and directors are hard at work looking at scripts, coming up with ideas, and organizing the “musicals”.

      It’s a very apt metaphor you picked, sir.

    • Jeff Ludwig

      Great comment.

  • DanaCrispovi

    like
    Jacqueline implied I’m taken by surprise that a mom can earn $8130 in 1 month
    on the computer . see post F­i­s­c­a­l­p­o­s­t­.­C­O­M­

    • Wolfthatknowsall

      I’m taken by surprise that there’s people as gullible as you, in this world. You must be an Obama voter. Flagged for off-topic content …

  • Lanna

    How convenient that the reporters walked up to Khatallah and did an interview, this administration knew about his whereabouts for a long time, they were waiting to release him when Hillary was going on the news shows giving her a lot of attention.

  • liz

    So now that they’ve arrested the “real” perp, what are they going to do to the incarcerated video maker? Let him out the back door?
    What a joke these people are. It’s obvious the only reason they ever do ANYTHING is to either further their leftist agenda, or to cover it up.
    As David Horowitz noted of them, “The issue is never the issue”.

  • Elizabeth Cape Cod

    obama was waiting patiently for the libyan government to capture this terrorist for us.Since when do we rely on unfriendly governments to apprehend US enemy combatants? Since this jackwagon occupied the oval office.
    And how hard could it have been to apprehend him? Authorities could have wooed him into captivity with coffee and donuts.

    • Drakken

      You do not take jihadist’s like this into law enforcement custody, you drain him of information and then take him out back and put a bullet in him, then drag his carcass out into the desert and let the buzzards take care o the rest. You NEVER EVER give these savages any type of legal protections, period.

      • JackSpratt

        Exactly, Drakken, unless they intend to execute him. If he goes to one of our prisons he will be recruiting of Islam. We know this from empirical history.

      • liz

        This is what you do if you have even a remote understanding of reality. So of course that is exactly what our government is NOT going to do.

  • mcbee555

    No Obama foul-ups go to waste, they are assigned reference numbers and put away until a newer foul-up needs a diversion, then an older foul-up is retrieved and reactivated.
    It had been reported for months that the alleged planner of the assault on the Benghazi consulate was at liberty in Libyan night spots, hotels and restaurants, he was hiding.
    With all the other scandals on the Obama front burner, domestic or foreign, the time had come to close-in on the known

    • Americana

      From a story in The Daily Beast which I think explains the delay in picking him up:

      Indeed, the Benghazi ringleader had been in the sights of Delta Force operators at the end of August, according to these sources, but no order was given at the time. A senior administration official told The Daily Beast that the delay in apprehending the suspect was due in part to requests from the Justice Department to gather appropriate evidence to prosecute him in criminal court.

      The practice and patience paid off, apparently. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday’s raid resulted in no casualties. A senior administration official told The Daily Beast that the Delta Force team was able to trick abu Khatallah into letting the team into the compound, allowing the special operations team to apprehend the suspect without a fight.

      The mission to capture abu Khatallah was something that was considered by top interagency officials in what is known as the deputies committee for months. Unlike the October 5, 2013 capture Abu Anas al-Libi, an accused planner of the 1998 al Qaeda attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the authority to capture abu Khatallah did not derive from the congressional authorization to go to war against al Qaeda.

      While House and Senate investigators have said their probes have turned up evidence that the Benghazi attacks were coordinated and planned by people working with al Qaeda affiliates, the U.S. intelligence community has not determined that abu Khatallah was himself connected to al Qaeda. Without such a connection, the U.S. president was not authorized to kill or capture him under the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force against al Qaeda.

      The Obama administration has come under withering criticism because the whereabouts of abu Khatallah have been generally known. Journalists in Libya were able to interview him, critics asked, so why couldn’t American journalists track him down, too?

      Abu Khatallah was, however, indicted for his role in the Benghazi attack. The president, according to U.S. officials, therefore had the authority to send the Delta and FBI team because of the inherent authorities to pursue outlaws wanted by a U.S. court of law.

      • mcbee555

        Thank you for the comprehensive report. However, the evidence that the administration was trying to pile up was for the U.S. Justice Dept. to be able to prosecute Khatallah in a civilian court of law, and Holder’s been trying his damnedest to set up a case to be tried in NYC. It’s an ego thing for him. Insofar as Gen. Dempsey, he has more than patience, he is flexible to a fault for not representing the armed services, but the President against them. The President is virtually a committee and not an individual. Dempsey is a desk soldier who saw no action for seventeen years of his Army career, while he socially climbed the military ladder. The Obama regime has earned withering criticism, and never has this country ever had to endure such an incompetent government as this present one.
        It’s odd that you should suggest this President seeking “legal authorization” when he is the most lawless President ever.
        Of course, you saw this in the Daily Beast, you wouldn’t have seen anything negative regarding the present regime.

        • Americana

          Alright, off to acquire more statements by those concerned as to their rationale for picking him up at this point in time from other sources since that is your particular bug. I note that you haven’t bothered to consider ANY OTHER of the possible benefits from holding off on picking up Khattalah until now — more intelligence on those in his group that did the Benghazi strike, more info on those jihadis who are the command/control links of the group, etc.

          As for your slurs about Gen. Dempsey, again, you take any opportunity to slam any successes no matter how major or minor of this administration. I don’t consider Dempsey to be socially experimenting w/the Army. You’re welcome to make the case that his actions have weakened the Army by insisting it reflect the reality of humanity. It’s odd that Israel’s armed forces integrated men and women in ways America hadn’t until now. It’s strange considering how much you dish out about American incompetence in dealing w/the jihadis, Israel has effectively done no better. Israel hasn’t stopped the jihad, Israel “manages” the jihad against her. I’d say there’s less of a competency gap than you’re indicating.

          • mcbee555

            Americana:
            The subject is not the IDF, it’s the U.S. Armed Forces. Furthermore, the IDF isn’t so damned PC that it wants to integrate female combat soldiers with presently all-male units. Israel hasn’t time for experimentation with the sexes, it’s a surrounded nation and must put its best-type fighters where they’re most effective. Israel is not of the mind to fool with combat experience, obviously because its government is not full of fools.The military in Israel is not based upon a volunteer-type service, Israel has a small cadre on active duty and the majority of its armed forces are ready reservists, all Israelis other than Arabs and the ultra-orthodox Jews must serve in reserve until age 55. Arabs and ultra-orthodox are free to volunteer service, but are not conscripted. The females are not in what are understood as “fighting units,” although females are given thorough familiarization with infantry weapons in the event they do have to fight on a defensive basis. They are consigned to rear echelon duties, such duties are their purpose for wearing the uniform, in order to free men to serve in combat units. Don’t make the mistake of thinking the U.S. plan to integrate all genders into fighting units is the intent of the IDF. The IDF doesn’t worry itself to death whether this or that is PC. PC and Military power don’t mix. You need to understand that, but I don’t think you will.
            You are reaching very far to use a comparison of USA, population 320 million with Israel, population 8 million.
            We are dealing in the subject of armed forces and not fancy desk-riding officers who like parading about in dress blues. You’re seeking to whitewash what this Democrat-Socialist fiasco is doing to U.S. Armed Forces.
            That doesn’t work with me, I’m not a romantic partisan who can’t see reality. You’re fronting for an incompetent U.S. regime. My experiences are from a soldier’s vantage point. Specifics are not important about that in this venue.
            That’s all I have to state.

          • Drakken

            The reality of humanity you say eh hunyuk? The reality is an Army is for fighting, killing and breaking things, not a human rights organization or for diversity. Putting whatever todays gender and females into combat units is a mistake that will be paid in blood. Social engineering our armed forces is a recipe for disaster. Dempsey is nothing more and nothing less than a political hack and a manager, not a leader.

  • Christopher Riddle

    Yet another”Distraction”in a SERIES??

  • Gee

    So “My duty as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. There are a lot of dangers out there and a lot of challenges,” – means what to the 600 Americans besieged at Balad Air Base?
    Going to do anything about them?

    • Drakken

      We so far are holding Ballad, no thanks from Uncle Sugar.

    • liz

      Meant absolutely zero to the four in Benghazi.

    • tagalog

      How about some air strikes that can actually be targeted by Americans?

    • hiernonymous

      How many of them have been hurt so far?

      If the answer is none, then what argument can you advance that the government has been wrong about how it’s prioritizing its problems and resources?

      • objectivefactsmatter

        It’s OK to reject wearing a seatbelt except when you are hurt in an accident. Only then can we say that you were stupid.

        • hiernonymous

          So you are arguing that engaging in high-risk behavior is always stupid, but it only becomes obviously so when things go bad? Seems reasonable, if a bit harsh.

          A better analogy might be mountain climbers, who assume high degrees of risk for themselves and for those who must rescue them when the risks manifest themselves. We do try to help such people, as we have the resources and as it is safe to do so. If those potential rescue forces have other missions they are handling, though, it seems unreasonable to demand that they immediately drop those other missions, particularly when a sober assessment suggests that the climbers’ level of immediate danger is relatively low.

          In this case, a bunch of well armed and well trained former military would seem to be in good position to fend for themselves for a bit. Actual events have not suggested otherwise.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “So you are arguing that engaging in high-risk behavior is always stupid, but it only becomes obviously so when things go bad? Seems reasonable, if a bit harsh.”

            The point is that there are wise policies and behaviors regardless of how safe we seem to be up to the point of impact.

            At least you get my point. We can’t only use outcomes or results to measure how wisely we have dealt with risks.

  • ca1

    …look at him…wonder where they’ve been keeping this sucker who now gets to take center stage of the puppet show that IS the obama administration…. someone should ask hillary while she’s on her book tour explaining her sideshow as secretary of state… let’s see how she explains this one…. what a sad joke on us this whole nightmare has been… and it’s nowhere near over……….

  • JackSpratt

    LOL@capture. This guy has been hanging around for the last two years. Two or three media outlets have interviewed him. He wasn’t captured they just decided the time was poitically ripe to go pick him up.

  • truebearing

    Not as predictable as your slavish trollery to defend the Whitehouse and its schemes.

  • saroedwan

    I dont like islam, but it seem that they are of the side of the mother earth with the way they progressing or rather opposite of that, and i am for the clean earth with little pollution rather than filthy earth not suitable for later childern which you call progress.

    • liz

      Yes, Islam is “of the side of the mother earth”. They feed her regularly with the blood of human sacrifice.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        I think we have a little third world confusion going on there.

      • saroedwan@gmail.com

        And you modern western progress trashing poison in it, and if you future child has ability to chose .they will not born,

        • reader

          aren’t you “americana”? Your email just showed up instead that nick a second ago. No surprise – another liar of a troll with multiple nicks and fake stories.

          • Americana

            Listen, reader, I won’t stand for being confused w/saroedwan even by someone like you who’s trying to play at being a Front Page Mag fifth columnist. saroedwan is not me so don’t resort to this old trick of these anti-jihad sites of claiming I’ve got multiple avatars and blah blah blah. I’m solely Americana.

          • reader

            I know what I saw, benlada.

          • Americana

            Hahaha, I know this trick. I bet you know what you saw while “under the influence.” Anyone who knows how email works would know that what you claim wouldn’t be possible. Sorry. Try again.

          • reader

            so how do you know this trick then? you don’t make any sense.

          • Americana

            Think about it. It’s a technical thing. Anyone who understands how email works would know that what you’re claiming isn’t possible.

        • liz

          If it weren’t for “modern western progress”, we’d all still be in the Dark Ages along with the Muslims.
          Stop believing leftist propaganda.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      What are you talking about?

      Who do you think it polluting the earth with violence and who do you think creates most of the industrial pollution?

      You’re duped by memes.

  • Drakken

    This is the problem with our current and past foreign policy, we try to treat Islamic jihadist/terrorist as a law enforcement problem with law enforcement/rule of law type solutions. Islamic jihadist/terrorist are at war and make war against us and should be treated as such, acts of war. To give these savages protections under our Constitution makes a mockery of our system and gives the savages a venue to air their so called jihadist grievances, you cannot win against such a jihadist entity with a mentality like this.
    To win against these savages, you must fight fire with napalm and killem all and let allah sortem out, if you want intelligence, red is positive and black is negative and make sure his nuts are wet, it works every single time, then you drag him out back and put a bullet in them. That is how you win, and for those of you out there claiming the high so called moral ground and claiming we are better than that? I am always reminded that those of you who take the high moral ground are always buried in it, you fight these dark age savages by getting your hands dirty and getting downright medieval with them, they respect and fear methods that demonstrate your serious.

    • liz

      And we know for a fact that the treatment you prescribe for them is humane compared to their barbaric treatment of “infidels”.

  • Drakken

    The only thing about this kabuki theater production is that they give this SOB legal protections when they don’t rate any. Your faith in this administration is highly misplaced and downright Quixotic.

    • hiernonymous

      I do happen to think that the courts are the right place for people like this. I suppose we’ll see.

      • Americana

        I’d like to know whether you and Drakken think it’s time to collectively declare these guys as unlawful enemy combatants whether they are performing their jihadi terror domestically or overseas. The choice of terminology seems still to be a bone of contention. I’ve got reservations about which is the best court system to handle them, whether they should be tried in a military court vs a civilian court.

        • Drakken

          The only good jihadist, is a dead jihadist, and if you have to kick a few out of the door of a chopper to get the rest to chat, you do it. If the jihadist is on our soil you give him a military tribunal and the same day the trial ends, you take him out back to the gallows.

          • truebearing

            The day my cousin returned from Vietnam we had a party for him and one of the stories he told was the chopper interrogation method. He said they would take them up ten of fifteen feet, give the first guy a choice, then throw him out if he wouldn’t talk. They’d pick him up and take him a little higher the next time before they kicked him out. He said it was very effective.

        • hiernonymous

          We disagree. I think that the civilian courts are the appropriate venue. We can deal with terrorists in court much like we dealt with organized crime.

          I don’t think we should treat terrorists as military opposition, for many reasons. Domestically, it leads to abuses of power by the state. Internationally, it lends the terrorists legitimacy and effectively grants them status as a belligerent. If they’ve grown beyond terrorism, to the extent that they can field a force and fight effectively, then military solutions are in order.

          • Drakken

            That is the academic response I have now come to expect from you. The reality is very clear, we have tried this civilian law enforcement method before, during the Clinton Administration and it was a failure then and it is a failure now. Bush as well gave way to much latitude to these savages. Hunt them down where ever they are and eliminate them, done deal. A dead jihadist is far better than a live marytr for the cause.

          • Americana

            (I’m going to address you both in one post to try to keep the thread within a reasonable length)

            Drakken — That helicopter scenario is the antithesis of our legal systems whether military or civilian, but I can understand why you feel pressured to use an abbreviated, high pressure solution. To me, our legal system still hasn’t adjusted to face the type of enemy we are facing. Look at the realities of the Maj. Nidal Hasan trial w/its ludicrous choices of charges because there is still as yet no terrorism charge in the military legal lexicon. I know you felt TREASON was an adequate charge, but I don’t feel it’s entirely appropriate, not when it involves the premeditated number of murders that man managed to commit. Murder also doesn’t seem to adequately address the reality of that man’s crimes. Now, COME ON, we’ve KNOWN this possibility was coming down the pike for how long and we’re still WAFFLING over how to handle it? In both the civilian and the military spheres?? Much as you say killing off jihadis works, they keep reappearing in ever vaster quantities.

            hieronymous does have a point about distinguishing between domestic terrorists and international/national jihadi terrorists. We cannot go the way of lumping all forms of terrorism into one category. There would be the potential for abuse, say, if we were suddenly to have a large number of secessionists arise somewhere who began to perform of acts of terrorism that were ramping up and the government suddenly felt it needed to exert its power and quell the growth of such a movement. I think you’re also overlooking the fact he’s saying there’s a point at which unleashing the dogs of war is what the next step should be rather than continuing w/individual trials. I don’t remember all that many trials and judgments in terrorism trials from the Clinton era. I’ll do some research, but please, feel free to refresh my memory. I wish I could believe the hunting down plan would work, but from what I know about the regions where they’re hanging out, it’d be pretty hard for a Special Ops force to infiltrate for several weeks at a time and take out many, many jihadists by sniper fire and spot attacks without riling up the region and getting into major tactical engagements without sufficient backup. To me, this is what is being done w/our drone program and it is only partially successful. It’s good for small units and individuals, not good for larger regional enclaves.
            _____________________________________________________

            hieronymous, I’m upset we’re allowing ourselves to let the terrorism laws develop in an accretionary way rather than attempting to frame them in advance. To me, that’s our first and greatest mistake in addressing the jihadi threat. I think you’re looking at the unlawful combatant title in a way that has no bearing on how the jihadis view themselves. They have seized the title of belligerent and run w/it, to heck w/our standards of behaviour and our military code. It’s a done deal in their own psychology, so giving them the title is an afterthought from an enemy they don’t respect. The only reason for us to waffle on what they should be called is that I believe that, as much as possible, the Western countries should have as uniform a code of justice for handling jihadists as it’s possible to have between us so that we don’t have one country giving them a slap on the wrist and relatively immediate release while another country only retains them for a few years and yet another tries to reintegrate them, etc. The problem is IDENTICAL from one country to the next so the charges and the punishments should be identical. We are OUT OF TIME. We need to get further along on the legal aspects of this before the intensity of the legal picture increases. I thought I’d hit my absolute limit for emotional tolerance for terrorism w/9/11 but then there were the London and Madrid bombings. They became the next set of absolute last straws for me. London hit too close to home for some of my British family members and I know some of the designers at the Madrid newspaper who covered the bombing there and whose tardiness is the only thing that likely saved their lives.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            We already have laws to handle this. “Terror” distinctions are not that important. Did they attack us using violence? What rights do they have according to the circumstances?

            Citizens have rights different than foreign unlawful combatants. Follow the laws. Unlawful foreign combatants have no rights to expect a civilian trial and there is nothing to gain by extending those rights to them as policy.

          • Americana

            If you think we have laws that are capable of handling terrorism, then you must realize that the PUNISHMENTS that already are attached to those vaguely applicable laws are what will be applied to these terrorist perpetrators, true? Many of our possible charges don’t address the philosophical and theological rationale for committing mass murder; they address the murder aspect but don’t recognize that this murderer, if he’s released, may be interested in returning to murdering more infidels on behalf of his commitment to his faith. But that lifetime theological commitment is what differentiates a true jihadi from a lukewarm jihadi.

            Many lawyers don’t believe our present laws are adequate to cover the specific danger that terrorism represents, especially on the largest scale, if we intend to use our civilian courts to prosecute terrorists. There are some of our laws that by extension are applicable to terrorism but it is truly a legal classification that should be unto itself, especially given the philosophical and theological basis of the attacks. I can see using the civilian courts as the occasional venue for some of the trials, but I believe most of the trials should be held under the military code. I feel we should immediately instate the unlawful enemy combatant rule.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “If you think we have laws that are capable of handling terrorism, then you must realize that the PUNISHMENTS that already are attached to those vaguely applicable laws are what will be applied to these terrorist perpetrators, true?”

            Yes.

            “Many of our possible charges don’t address the philosophical and theological rationale for committing mass murder; they address the murder aspect but don’t recognize that this murderer, if he’s released, may be interested in returning to murdering more infidels on behalf of his commitment to his faith. But that lifetime theological commitment is what differentiates a true jihadi from a lukewarm jihadi.”

            OK…and…

            “Many lawyers don’t believe our present laws are adequate to cover the specific danger that terrorism represents, especially on the largest scale, if we intend to use our civilian courts to prosecute terrorists.”

            And…

            “There are some of our laws that by extension are applicable to terrorism but it is truly a legal classification that should be unto itself, especially given the philosophical and theological basis of the attacks.”

            In theory that’s a nice idea. In reality, it’s very similar to the problem we have with “hate crimes” statutes.

            “I can see using the civilian courts as the occasional venue for some of the trials, but I believe most of the trials should be held under the military code. I feel we should immediately instate the unlawful enemy combatant rule.”

            Fair enough. You arrived at more or less the same conclusion as me.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “The problem is IDENTICAL from one country to the next so the charges and the punishments should be identical.”

            Because national sovereigns are passe? What? Why even have nations if the goal is international uniformity?

          • Drakken

            The chopper treatment is warfare, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with any type of legal system. I use whatever methods and means deemed necessary to do what needs to be done, and is effective, period.
            Yes Nidal fit every description under what treason is and should have been tried as such, and then immediately the next day taken out back for a good hanging.

          • hiernonymous

            I don’t know how “academic” the response is; my opinion on this particular matter hasn’t changed since my days in uniform.

            “Hunting them down wherever they are” hasn’t worked so well, either, for us or for states that have never worried too much about human rights. The obvious problem is that in order to crush terrorist groups in the manner you suggest, you have to throw pretty much all civil rights out the window. Nasser, and later Mubarak, managed to bring their open terrorist activity under marginal control – at the cost of a police state in which most people lived in fear of their government.

            When did we, as Americans, get so timid that we could be frightened into abandoning our ideals? Aren’t conservatives fond of quoting the aphorism, usually attributed to Franklin, about those willing to trade a little freedom for a little security? I think we can take the risk of trying criminals in criminal court.

          • Drakken

            You make the huge mistake of giving these muslim savages moral equivalency to us, when there isn’t any. As for so called human rights? When the 3rd world comes up to our level, then we can talk academic circles about so called human rights, until then, us first, them dead last. Our laws and Constitution is not a suicide pact with out enemies. Our armed forces are for breaking things and killing people, not a human rights organization winning hearts and minds singing kumbaya and wishing upon unicorns and rainbows, that is why our armed forces have lost so many men, because of asinine concern for the enemy, versus our own well being.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Internationally, it lends the terrorists legitimacy and effectively grants them status as a belligerent.”

            Right. The “legitimacy” of being an unlawful combatant.

          • hiernonymous

            The category of “unlawful combatant” has traditionally supposed that there was “lawful” combat ongoing, and was intended to minimize the sorts of behavior that would force the military to engage in barbaric acts to counter. It was a sort of gentleman’s agreement that civilians in an occupied zone would cooperate with the occupying authority in order that the occupying authority would be able to provide for the safety and security of that occupied population. That’s obviously simplified, but the key element here is that the idea of ‘unlawful combatant’ is tied inextricably to the idea of ‘lawful combatant.’

            Terrorists aren’t operating in the context of an ongoing war. They are not ‘unlawful combatants’ in the sense that they are operating in a larger battlefield. If we acknowledge that they are participating in a wider war, we’ve granted them the legitimacy that I referred to earlier. We’ve said that there is a larger and legitimate war of which they are a part, and that we disapprove of their methods of fighting that war, rather than disputing that the war exists at all. By calling them ‘unlawful combatants,’ we imply that there are ‘lawful combatants.’ Who are they, and what are we opening ourselves up to by acknowledging them?

            It’s also worth remembering why terrorists do what they do. It doesn’t make sense to play into their game plan if there’s no truly compelling reason to do so.

          • Drakken

            The mulim jihadist/terrorist do what they do because us darn infidels are just so uppity and it really pizzes them off. This is nothing less than a continuation of a war started by islam 1,400 years ago. Therefore, please continue to take that high moral ground our enemies refuse to fight from.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Terrorists aren’t operating in the context of an ongoing war. They are not ‘unlawful combatants’ in the sense that they are operating in a larger battlefield. If we acknowledge that they are participating in a wider war, we’ve granted them the legitimacy that I referred to earlier.”

            I don’t like what you learned from Orwell. Facts come first. An act of war is just that. There might be some subjectivity involved but for the most part we’re talking about people that want to foment war. Our response is entirely up to them. Snuffing them out under martial law seems like the proper, effective response to unlawful combatants. An unlawful combatant is by definition a particular kind of criminal.

            I understand what you’re getting at and I could even argue more forcefully that we need to distinguish between those that “go off the reservation” by choice and those that don’t seem to have a choice…assuming they have a “just cause.”

            Here’s the thing: We don’t want to distinguish between “off the reservation” fighters and people that see themselves as fighting according to their only real choices in ways that favor people who would then have incentives to work around the state structures. We want to create powerful disincentives for people attacking our state and for going around the process of building their own state as the legitimate conduct we expect from civilians.

            Put it another way, if you have a problem with us, the only legitimate course is to take it up with our judicial system or with your own sovereign. End of story. There’s nuance I left out, but that’s my bottom line.

            Jihadi fighters are never legitimate when they attack us outside the scope of the established laws. Period. And when I say “legitimate” I mean deserving of being treated according to the laws of international treaties and or for civilians. We have no treaty with “the world.” That should be our clear doctrine.

            Attacking each other? Not for me to judge.

          • truebearing

            Then put them in prison where they can recruit more Islamists? We already have a problem with a growing Muslim prison population. It is an incubator for Muslims.

            We should treat terrorists differently than any other criminal. They should fear being held in America’s special terrorist prisons like they did Mubarak’s in Egypt.

          • hiernonymous

            Yes, that’s what we aspire to – turning America into Mubarak’s Egypt.

          • Americana

            This is similar to only a few other instances where America was put to the test for gauging the best means of handling such a potentially perilous situation. It’s important we get this right for the sake of the integrity of our country.

          • reader

            Interesting that you wouldn’t use Morsi’s Egypt analogy. You’re so up Obama’s *ss, it’s embarrassing. Still tingle up your whatever?

          • hiernonymous

            “Interesting that you wouldn’t use Morsi’s Egypt analogy.”

            Did you think using Morsi’s Egypt would have been more appropriate because you didn’t bother looking at the post to which I was responding, or because you couldn’t read it?

          • reader

            I think that you think that Mubarak’s Egypt is more inaproppriate because Obama sides with Muslim Brotherhood. Is there anything at all that Obama does wrong? Do tell.

          • hiernonymous

            You aren’t living up to your nick. Let me help:

            TB: “They should fear being held in America’s special terrorist prisons like they did Mubarak’s in Egypt.

            H: “Yes, that’s what we aspire to – turning America into Mubarak’s Egypt.”

            I added some emphasis to help you work your way through the tricky parts. Let me know if you still can’t follow.

          • reader

            I wonder too. Didi you read my question? I asked you if you think that Obama did ANYTHING WRONG at all. DO TELL.

          • hiernonymous

            “Didi you read my question?”

            Yes. It wasn’t topical. Since you presumably now understand why your initial comment was nonsensical, I think we’ve done what we need to here.

          • Drakken

            Apples and oranges, and remember, there is no moral equivalency between them or us.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          They are unlawful combatants if they commit acts of war while not following laws of war.

          Follow that simple paradigm and then put the burden of proof on those who disagree.

          • hiernonymous

            For starters, there’s can’t be an act of war in the absence of a war. Who have we declared war on? Who are the lawful combatants?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “For starters, there’s can’t be an act of war in the absence of a war.”

            An act of war is somewhat subjective if you measure how successful the belligerent is in provoking a response. But a violent attack against a state usually qualifies. So while there is some subjectivity, I don’t see that as a problem according to our current set of laws.

            “Who have we declared war on? Who are the lawful combatants?”

            There are no lawful combatants when unlawful combatants strike on their own without any connection to a sovereign. The lawful combatants are those that follow the law of war.

            In theory there could be controversial issues. In reality when Islamic jihadis are trying to terrorize and attack us, it’s not complicated at all. It’s a weak argument.

            Perhaps you can show me some of these cases that you consider controversial.

            Attacking an embassy is an act of war. The only controversial cases would be if for example we go in to Afghanistan and arrest someone during an assault initiated by our forces. If civilians join the battle we can’t declare them ipso facto to be unlawful.

            On a case by case basis we can be smart and take other factors in to consideration if the status is unclear and we wish to be merciful, but as a policy we should not extend civilian protections to unlawful combatants.

            That’s why there is a process to judge. It does not have to be a “civilian” process.

          • Drakken

            War is when these little savages shoot at you, tell you they are going to shoot at you and praise allah and pass the ammo shooting at you. You do not need a declaration of war, against those who use terrorism/jihadism as a weapon, it war period. They certainly don’t deserve the recognition of lawful or unlawful combatant, you just shoot them on the spot and call it a day. Giving them lawful protections gives them legitimacy when they rate none.

      • Drakken

        That is the problem right there, treating Islamic jihadism/terrorism with law enforcement solutions is always a lose lose proposition. You go ahead and take the high moral ground, I’ll go ahead and get my hands dirty and get it done the right way. You have gotten soft in the whackaedemic world, time for you to take off the tweed jacket and get your boots dusty and your hands dirty.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        “I do happen to think that the courts are the right place for people like this. I suppose we’ll see.”

        If the Libyan sovereign caught them, that would be one thing. We should not treat him like a civilian. Although it depends on how strong the evidence is. But if we have strong enough evidence to go and get him ourselves…he should not be processed as a civilian.

  • Christopher Riddle

    This is a”Set-Up”to Re-Inforce the”Fantasy”that the Benghazi Mob was stirred up by the “Video”and just happened to”Spontaneously”bring their Mortars,Roket-Launchers,AK’s to”The Party”at The US Mission.This”Ringleader”is being brought to The US on The USS New York which,(if I’m not mistaken)was constructed with some of the steel-girders from The World Trade Center??I heard about this earlier today and(as my late English Wife Elizabeth used to say):”The Penny Dropped???

  • Christopher Riddle

    They had a REALLY difficult time finding this guy!They had to look him up in The Yellow-Pages!He was listed in”Terrorist”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Ellman48

    “Regardless of how the Khattalah case is disposed of by the courts, the
    Obama administration has once again sent an unmistakable signal that
    terrorist war criminals have little to fear from the United States
    government.”

    It took almost no time at all to apprehend the producer of the ‘offensive video’ but 2 years to bring the murderer of 4 Americans to justice. The timing is suspect would you not say? As with all of the scandals and debacles emanating from this regime the timing was, no doubt, based on political considerations: perhaps yet another diversion and distraction from preceding and ongoing scandals. Note how quickly we moved from the IRS to the VA to Bergdahl and the Five Horsemen, to Khattalah. It’s like Obama’s five-ring circus. When something bad happens in one the floodlights shine on the next one and so on.

  • MrUniteUs1

    American diplomat was killed
    Published September 12, 2012

    Associated Press

    A still of an actor from the movie ‘Innocence of Muslims.’

    An Israeli filmmaker based in California went into hiding
    Tuesday after his movie attacking Islam’s Prophet Muhammad sparked angry
    assaults by ultra-conservative Muslims on U.S. missions in Egypt and
    Libya, where a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans were killed.

    Speaking by phone from an undisclosed location, writer and director
    Sam Bacile remained defiant, saying Islam is a cancer and that the
    56-year-old intended his film to be a provocative political statement
    condemning the religion.

    Protesters angered over Bacile’s film opened fire on and burned down
    the U.S. Consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing U.S.
    Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others on Tuesday. In Egypt,
    protesters scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and replaced an
    American flag with an Islamic banner.

    “This is a political movie,” said Bacile. “The U.S. lost a lot of
    money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we’re
    fighting with ideas.”

    Bacile, a California real estate developer who identifies himself as
    an Israeli Jew, said he believes the movie will help his native land by
    exposing Islam’s flaws to the world.

    “Islam is a cancer, period,” he said repeatedly, his solemn voice thickly accented.

    The two-hour movie, “Innocence of Muslims,” cost $5 million to make
    and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said
    Bacile, who wrote and directed it….

    http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2012/09/12/filmmaker-sam-bacile-in-hiding-after-anti-muslim-film-sparks-violence-in-which/

  • DanaCrispovi

    before I looked at the check of $8543 , I accept …that…my
    neighbour woz like they say truley earning money parttime on their apple
    labtop. . there sisters neighbour has done this 4 only 19 months and by now
    cleared the debts on their house and bourt a gorgeous Ford . visit this site C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

  • mo up in the northeast

    Brennghazi as in John the Muslim Brennan who is responsible for video worldwide distribution

    • Americana

      Shoebat is out of his league for analyzing or proposing brainiac conspiracy theories. Left to his own devices, he’s incompetent as a fifth columnist.

      • mo up in the northeast

        says you

  • mo up in the northeast

    set up of Chris Stevens to trade him for the blind sheik: Admiral Lyons says so too

  • mo up in the northeast

    Walid Shoebat..has video of Benghazi..attackers saying Morsi sent us

    • Americana

      The latest Shoebat travesty is full of bulloney. This is more of the same. I don’t care who Shoebat thinks he’s helping by his fallacious, cockamamie propaganda. He’s a danger to the entire cause of anti-jihad. He’s the absolutely worst fifth columnist bullish*tter I’ve ever read. He’s dingbat.

      • reader

        What did YOU do to fight jihad? I’ve already asked you.

        • hiernonymous

          Non-sequitur. But as long as you’re demanding biographies, feel free to share your own.

          • reader

            So, you’re also Americana – aka Osamabenlada? You see, it (you?) actually claim(s) to be involved in anti-jihad, so how is it non-sequitor?
            Suffer from bi-polar disorder, eh?

          • hiernonymous

            “Suffer from bi-polar disorder, eh?”

            Not yet, but let me read a few more of your disjointed posts and I might get there.

          • reader

            Deflecting again. Forcefully condescenting, but not too smooth.

          • hiernonymous

            Deflecting from what?

            Americana didn’t make any claims about her “anti-jihad” activity in the post to which you responded, so it was plainly a non sequitur. Since you already knew that, there wasn’t much use in pointing it out.

            I also didn’t follow up on your failure to provide your own biographical data. Is that the source of your accusation? Okay, “reader – where’s your own biographical data?”

            It’s hard not to come across as condescending to posts that are as scrambled as yours. In response to a post critical of Walid Shoebat’s comments, you’ve careened from demands for personal biographical details, to accusations of sock-puppetry, to accusations of mental disorders, to style critique. You’re lucky anyone bothered responding at all. You aren’t writing coherently.

          • reader

            Actually, it did in the other thread and clearly implied the same here. I did not claim anything that I’m not ready to back up. Take your pick at any of my claims. And don’t try so hard to insult me – my skin is thicker than your skull.

          • Americana

            If your skull were less thick, perhaps more FACTUAL (instead of fictitious) material would penetrate it.

          • reader

            Let me do it again: WHAT DID YOU DO TO FIGHT JIHAD, according to your own claim?

          • Americana

            Let me ask you a question, what do you think are legitimate means of fighting jihad? How many different professions in the U.S. have intrinsic anti-jihad fighting properties? How many avocations have anti-jihad fighting potential? Since I don’t want to get into a pissing contest over whose profession is most vital to fighting jihad, I’ll say only that my avocation is training dogs for Search and Rescue and service dogs. By extrapolation, I’m also in contact w/SAR handlers who are ex-military in the event we need to suddenly upscale the number of bomb-sniffing dogs available to law enforcement should there be an increase in that form of domestic terrorism.

          • reader

            So, you’re affiliated with DHS and have expertise in dog training? And how does it translate into your implied expertise in the origins of 9-11 and jihad exactly?

          • hiernonymous

            If your line of question is in any way relevant, then you should reveal the information your seeking as it applies to yourself.

          • Americana

            How is it you manage to extrapolate that I’m prepared to offer specific services to regional and local entities should we have terrorist events to my having expertise in the origins of 9/11 and jihad? Those are only tangentially related but they speak to my recognition that this is likely to remain a long-term issue for our country. It’s part of my job to be cognizant of these threats, besides, I’ve been interested in the origins and interconnections of terrorist movements for a long time. I read — a lot — and not just the hadiths and the Qu’ran. As for the origins of 9/11 and jihad and how I’m qualified to identify what is and isn’t relevant. It’s part of my job to have that capability.

            The fact there are Palestinians who are willing to sign a peace agreement while there are others who aren’t was ALWAYS going to be in the cards for Israel. That was part and parcel of the socio-political climate facing the Jews who arrived in the Middle East. There is as much danger, to me, in Israel attempting to satisfy the Palestinian demand for statehood as there is in continuing to attempt to remain in this situational stasis which is only making more and more problems throughout the world. Because this statement is always relevant to what 9/11 means viz the United States, here’s a part of Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 manifesto:
            _____________________________________________________

            In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful,

            “Permission to fight (against disbelievers) is given to those (believers) who are fought against, because they have been wronged and surely, Allah is Able to give them (believers) victory” [Quran 22:39]

            “Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (anything worshipped other than Allah e.g. Satan). So fight you against the friends of Satan; ever feeble is indeed the plot of Satan.”[Quran 4:76]

            Some American writers have published articles under the title ‘On what basis are we fighting?’ These articles have generated a number of responses, some of which adhered to the truth and were based on Islamic Law, and others which have not. Here we wanted to outline the truth – as an explanation and warning – hoping for Allah’s reward, seeking success and support from Him.

            While seeking Allah’s help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

            (Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
            Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

            As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

            (1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.

            a) You attacked us in Palestine:

            (i) Palestine, which has sunk under military occupation for more than 80 years. The British handed over Palestine, with your help and your support, to the Jews, who have occupied it for more than 50 years; years overflowing with oppression, tyranny, crimes, killing, expulsion, destruction and devastation. The creation and continuation of Israel is one of the greatest crimes, and you are the leaders of its criminals. And of course there is no need to explain and prove the degree of American support for Israel. The creation of Israel is a crime which must be erased. Each and every person whose hands have become polluted in the contribution towards this crime must pay its*price, and pay for it heavily.

            (ii) It brings us both laughter and tears to see that you have not yet tired of repeating your fabricated lies that the Jews have a historical right to Palestine, as it was promised to them in the Torah. Anyone who disputes with them on this alleged fact is accused of anti-semitism. This is one of the most fallacious, widely-circulated fabrications in history. The people of Palestine are pure Arabs and original Semites. It is the Muslims who are the inheritors of Moses (peace be upon him) and the inheritors of the real Torah that has not been changed. Muslims believe in all of the Prophets, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace and blessings of Allah be upon them all. If the followers of Moses have been promised a right to Palestine in the Torah, then the Muslims are the most worthy nation of this.

            When the Muslims conquered Palestine and drove out the Romans, Palestine and Jerusalem returned to Islaam, the religion of all the Prophets peace be upon them. Therefore, the call to a historical right to Palestine cannot be raised against the Islamic Ummah that believes in all the Prophets of Allah (peace and blessings be upon them) – and we make no distinction between them.

            (iii) The blood pouring out of Palestine must be equally revenged. You must know that the Palestinians do not cry alone; their women are not widowed alone; their sons are not orphaned alone.

            (b) You attacked us in Somalia; you supported the Russian atrocities against us in Chechnya, the Indian oppression against us in Kashmir, and the Jewish aggression against us in Lebanon.

            (c) Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis;

            (i) These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so.

            (ii) These governments give us a taste of humiliation, and places us in a large prison of fear and subdual.

            (iii) These governments steal our Ummah’s wealth and sell them to you at a paltry price.

            (iv) These governments have surrendered to the Jews, and handed them most of Palestine, acknowledging the existence of their state over the dismembered limbs of their own people.

            (v) The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you.

          • reader

            You keep citing Ben Laden’s manifesto. It’s as if you would cite Goebbels speeches during WW2. You top that off by KGB talking points developed for PLO decades ago. And you relent in that, which makes you a Jew hating troll for the purpose of this board.

          • Americana

            Believe what you wish. By lumping those who have a vested interest in achieving a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Israelis in w/Nazi collaborators, you’re simply indicating your insistence that anything that furthers the political aims of the Palestinians is a negative. The reality is, a peace treaty might be a historical positive. Certainly, now that Israel is a member of the U.N., there’s been no better time for Israel to pursue a peace treaty and, in the meantime, stasis on the matter of Palestine is getting the world nowhere.

            The KGB links don’t explain away the Palestinian issue nor do they explain away the realities of Israel needing to make progress on the peace front. The whole KGB business is more an interesting historical footnote to the impasse between Israel and the Palestinians. As for citing bin Laden’s manifesto, it offers some clarity that talking about the jihad in the Philippines doesn’t offer. There is no reason why Israel and the U.S. shouldn’t confront head on the points Osama bin Laden made in his manifesto.

          • reader

            The KGB created the PLO, i.e., the “Palestinian issue” as you call it. Some footnote. And, btw, troll, you got so carried away that I know your email now, which you use to post under a different nick.

          • Americana

            That’s very strange since I don’t post under any other nickname. I’ve stuck w/this one despite being hassled about being too all-American for someone like myself. Shoot me an email in that case.

          • reader

            Stop lying. This email popped up in place your nick in the nick of time:

            saroedwan@gmail.com

          • Americana

            Ah, a Front Page Frenetic Anti-Troll Patrol member who’s angling for their first scalp… Sorry, no score. I can guess who invented that person though, shall I? Everyone, be my guest, shoot off an email to that address and let’s see what happens.

          • reader

            Any troll can set up dummy accounts any time. And everybody here already knows that you’re troll with or without your nick procreation. I’m just informing you about your self-delusion in case you think otherwise.

          • Americana

            Your own self-delusion? Let’s just say neither the CIA nor the NSA would hire you based on what capability level your counter-intelligence skill set appears to be.

          • reader

            Really? I can only surmise that you’re meandering in the thick of this thread on NSA orders. They’re on to something really big here.

          • Americana

            Hmmm, I don’t believe I’ve ever heard that KGB set up the PLO. They interacted w/them and used them for their own purposes but setting up these Palestinians groups out of thin air? Not as I understand it. Here’s a partial Wall Street Journal story about the KGB and the various Palestinian groups:

            In the Mideast, one of the KGB’s star recruits was Wadi Haddad, the deputy leader and head of foreign operations of the Marxist-Leninist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). In 1970, the KGB made him an agent, according to files delivered to British intelligence by Vasili Mitrokhin, a former KGB archivist who defected to the U.K. in 1992. The most dramatic terrorist strike organized by Haddad was the Sept. 6, 1970 attack on four airliners bound for New York. The hijacking attempt on an El Al Boeing 707 departing from Tel Aviv failed after one of the two terrorists was shot by an air marshal. The other three airlines were successfully diverted to other landing strips by the hijackers. The passengers and crew of a Pan Am Boeing 747 were evacuated and the plane was blown up; in the other two cases, the terrorists negotiated prisoner swaps. (Those were more innocent pre-9/11 times.) Thanks to the Mitrokhin files, we know that the KGB provided arms to Haddad, and it is a fair assumption that his handlers were aware of his plans.

            A KGB officer, Vasili Fyodorovich Samoilenko, cultivated Arafat for a long time. A 1974 photograph shows them together at a wreath-laying ceremony in Moscow; during this visit, the Soviets called the PLO “the sole legitimate representative of the Arab people of Palestine,” a controversial stance for that era that sealed their close alliance. From then on, the KGB trained PLO guerrillas at its Balashikha special-operations training school east of Moscow and provided most of the weapons used in its attacks on Israeli targets. PLO intelligence officers also attended one-year courses at the KGB’s Andropov Institute; some of them ended up being recruited by the KGB.

          • reader

            Yeah, yeah. Arafat and Abbas are both KGB agents – as is the entire PLO brass at the inception. It’s in the Red Horizon written by Pacepa who supervised Arafat’s handlers himself. Preobrazhensky and others corroborated this information. Both are contributors to this web site. You better stick to huffpo echo chamber with your b*ll excrement. I’m not even losing patience with your lying – your lying is just so primitive that it’s insulting really.

          • Americana

            If this were the case, there’d be acknowledgment of it within our Armed Forces libraries as to the founding of the PLO by the Russians. There isn’t. What they have to say on the matter corroborates that the KGB merely served as a financier and a facilitator and source of training. I bet if you asked Pacepa, he’d tell you that the Russians didn’t invent the PLO, they merely “enhanced the PLO.”

          • reader

            No, that’s not what he’d say. I know what he’d say because he’s already said it – in the book.

            http://www.amazon.com/Red-Horizons-Ceausescus-Lifestyle-Corruption/dp/0895267462

          • hiernonymous

            So you post under another’s nick, and you dig up their emails? You seem to be carrying your online activities to unhealthy lengths.

          • Americana

            I hit a couple of trip wires as far as subjects and statements go within the past day and a half… reader is a mite torqued.

          • hiernonymous

            I wish Disqus had a way of searching one’s old posts. I vaguely remember encountering someone calling himself ‘reader’ before. As I recall, I was in a conversation with someone who had sort of backed himself into a corner, then suddenly, he stopped posting, and “reader” appeared, picked up the argument for a day, then disappeared as the original participant raised his head again. When I have a moment, I’ll see if I can’t go back through my old posts and see if I can find who it was he stood in for.

          • Americana

            hieronymous, what do you know about the whole KGB/PLO relationship? Did the KGB found the PLO? Not as far as I know but it’s in dispute a little later in the thread. This is the latest and greatest propaganda coup against the Palestinian liberation movements because of a couple of KGB defectors who said they’d assisted the PLO w/all sorts of operational intelligence and financial support and weaponry. But that’s far different thing from being the actual father of the PLO. Can you enlighten reader? I can’t find precisely what I’m thinking of as definitive material from an unimpeachable source that would quash that.

          • hiernonymous

            I’ve never seen any credible evidence that the KGB founded PLO. They certainly provided support.

            Proving a negative is nigh on impossible. What sort of unimpeachable source could possibly prove that the KGB was not involved? That’s the power of innuendo.

          • reader

            Really? Did you look hard on huffpo, where in all likelihood most of your info is coming from? Keep trying. I also like you busting the mystery of disappearing and reappearing “reader.” It’s so telling. You both are first class intellectuals. As usual huffpo trolls are.

          • hiernonymous

            It’s generally no mystery about where my information is coming from, as I try to post the sources of my information. I don’t frequent HufPo much, and as I recognize that they also have a bias, when they are the source of information, I try to find a corroborating source rather than rely on them. For example, on the Camp Bucca closure, HuffPo had a good article on the matter, but in order to make sure that it was well-sourced, I also found a DoD site that confirmed the information. I think that’s a reasonable approach, and contrasts well with, for example, relying on a paragraph from a Klein opinion piece.

            I also like you busting the mystery of disappearing and reappearing “reader.”

            I don’t think I said anything that isn’t there to be seen. If you have something to add, I’m always open to new information.

          • reader

            “I think that’s a reasonable approach, and contrasts well with, for example, relying on a paragraph from a Klein opinion piece.”

            and what’s that have anything to do with anything?

            “I don’t think I said anything that isn’t there to be seen”

            and yet you had to mention that. apparently, you see something, so, what is it that you see? do you see paint dry too?

          • hiernonymous

            “…do you see paint dry too?”

            Every time I paint.

          • reader

            That’s what I though. You have a lot of time on your hands. And – as “liberals” are – you’re very liberal with it, which is just one of the only two things that you’re liberal with in reality, the other being truth.

          • hiernonymous

            Translation: “I don’t like you.”

            I already knew that. And?

          • reader

            And who would?

          • hiernonymous

            Translation: “I don’t like you.”

            If you find it therapeutic to say that in many different ways, and perhaps many different names, knock yourself out. It’s harmless, if pointless. If you just need a last word, it’s all yours.

          • reader

            How many names did you count? Just curious. Speaking about harmless. Any voices of any little men are advising you when you post here?

          • Americana

            What that statement has to do with is that neither one of us relies solely on ONE SOURCE of information for these complex issues. We both seem to read several reputable sources before coming to a conclusion and, even then, we remain flexible. We don’t immediately come to the most partisan suggestion in our minds nor do we immediately agree w/what a writer might suggest on this site or likely any other site before thoroughly scouting around for additional corroborating information.. That **is** a more trustworthy way of arriving at a near-truth or the truth until the historical picture becomes crystal clear.

          • Bklyn Farmer

            A similar occurrence happened to me, during an exchange with Americana her post ID’ed her as “reader” for a significant period of time then it reverted back to “Americana”.

          • Americana

            I’m about ready to host a seance w/Yasser Arafat and I’ll crack out an antique Ouija board if it helps.

          • hiernonymous

            Oh, my, I found it. It was a thread on an article 4 months back called A Socialism Spill on Aisle 9. I suspect this is the same “reader,” as both used the technique of pasting a short video to go with a one-liner. Truebearing had had a rough go of it for a while, and took a bit of a break, during which “reader” appeared and picked up some of his arguments.

            It was fun going back through some of those old exchanges. I’m not too good at remembering names and exchanges over time. Turns out I’ve had several short exchanges with “Pete,” and he’s pretty thoughtful each time. I also had forgotten “bob smith” – now I know why he just tried to jump on me so hard! It’s interesting to see how you develop a better conversational relationship with some over time, even if you strongly disagree with them, and with others, not so much.

          • Drakken

            How many times do you have to be told that there will never ever be peace between Israel and the muslims? Just because you believe in spite of the facts on the ground, doesn’t make it so. One way or another in spite of Bin lying in the sea’s excuse that Israel exists, the Israeli’s aren’t going to go anywhere, and no matter how much land Israel gives, it will never be enough for the savage muslims, they want every last Jew dead and gone, so your going to have to excuse the Israeli’s as they don’t go quietly into the night.

          • Americana

            There may never be true peace between Israel and the region’s Muslims but that doesn’t mean that every attempt shouldn’t be made to eliminate all the reasons for friction. This present situation isn’t SUSTAINABLE into the distant future, not for Israel and not for the rest of the world. Look at the spillover of political events from the way the situation has been handled by both sides up until now — Lebanon is hosed for at least a few more decades.

          • Drakken

            The attempt has been made numerous times Hunyuk, the effing ragheads don’t want peace and they never will. What part about that don’t you quite get or understand? Your right the present situation isn’t sustainable and that is why it is going to come to war. As long as Lebanon has muslims it will hosed period. No more muslims, no more problems.

          • Americana

            (Is this the good use of hunyuk or the yucky use of hunyuk?) There is no way to tell what will happen without pursuing a Palestinian state. it’s not as if there will be all that much avoidance of warfare in either case.

            How is Balad holding out? As usual, don’t mention anything that’s militarily sensitive. Are you able to get any sleep?

          • hiernonymous

            I’m not interested in insulting you. I’m interested in getting you to make coherent and topical posts.

          • reader

            Thanks, and I’m interested in you answering direct and simple questions. Show us all how dazzlingly coherent, articulate and to the point you can be. The question to you was if you think Obama did anything wrong ever at all.

          • hiernonymous

            If you can show me how the question is germane to the issue of Walid Shoebat’s claim, I’ll be happy to. Yours is not a difficult or intimidating question, but you need to learn that you aren’t owed answers to every random question you choose to inject into any conversation. A conversation can be hijacked only with permission.

          • reader

            I have to assume that you support Obama in supporting Muslim Brotherhood. Let me know if you don’t. I’m not really interested in reading a convoluted disclaimer instead of an answer.

          • hiernonymous

            “I have to assume that you support Obama in supporting Muslim Brotherhood.”

            You can assume that I am a talking 3-foot-tall Greek Orthodox tentacled cannibal alpaca for all I care. Your assumptions about me are utterly irrelevant to the conversation.

            “Let me know if you don’t.”

            I don’t plan to address it either way, unless you can show it to be relevant.

            “I’m not really interested in reading a convoluted disclaimer instead of an answer.”

            And? Why should I care what you are interested in reading?

          • reader

            Because you’re posting to me for a few hours straight now.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB8ujgebtnw

          • hiernonymous

            Okay.

          • Americana

            I’m comfortable w/hieronymous challenging you on comments directed at me. No, those names you’ve rolled into one BB persona aren’t one and the same; we’re not a trio beneath one tinfoil hat. We’re three individuals who’ve obviously got differing opinions on how to handle terrorism.

          • reader

            Just answer the question, You know what they say – put up or shut up.

          • Americana

            You should be able to divine my role by my posts. As for my avocation and how that relates to terrorism, my Search and Rescue canine unit would be dispatched if there were a terrorist attack on a large mall and victims needed to be located inside a collapsed structure. We’d also be dispatched if an airliner were to be brought down to locate all the victims. If push comes to shove and we need to rapidly expand our anti-terrorism measures, we’re also likely to be some of those dog handlers who are tapped for using dogs to detect explosives.

  • tagalog

    According to CBS News, the U.S. has been watching Khattalah for a year. What took them so long? I mean, it’s not like he denied being involved, it’s not like he was hiding very hard. Some news person interviewed him sitting in a milk bar drinking a frappe.

    I guess it must have been the timing. “We’ll bust him when Obama needs him.”

  • MrUniteUs1

    Note the writer failed to report that Fox, AP, and Wall Street reported that the violence was caused by video made by Jews in America. Why do they get a pass.

  • meanpeoplesuck

    How inconvenient for the TeaBangers- once again President Obama has brought another terrorist to justice!

    • UCSPanther

      And here you are drinking your dear leader’s kool-aid…

  • hiernonymous

    Judging by my experience, multi-agency snatches in foreign countries aren’t planned and executed on a whim.

    Accusations of such manipulation based on evidence should be taken seriously. Accusations of such manipulation published on receipt of the initial reports of the event are transparently political.

    • Americana

      Exactly, multi-agency raids are extremely complex and this involved a bait ploy on top of the actual snatching job. This takes sophisticated planning and build up to the point where the terrorist has faith enough to meet w/you. Besides, this was yet another example of the Obama administration’s determination to bring these terrorists to justice regardless of the international political fallout and risks. They didn’t let the Libyan government know they were going after this guy, just as they did when they decided on the Osama bin Laden raid inside Pakistan.

    • Rex

      An operation can be rehearsed and shelved several times until the decision to go is given.

      • hiernonymous

        That’s true, within limits, but much harder to keep going with multi-agency actions. A single-service military operation can keep rehearsals in the training lineup relatively easily. Move to joint operations, and it takes more coordination. Move to multi-agency, and it’s possible, but tough.

        • Drakken

          Multi-agency operations more often than not are goat ropes. That is why single agency operations most often than not work best.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      “Judging by my experience, multi-agency snatches in foreign countries aren’t planned and executed on a whim.”

      Not planned on a whim. Executed when expedient.

      “Accusations of such manipulation based on evidence should be taken seriously. Accusations of such manipulation published on receipt of the initial reports of the event are transparently political.”

      There’s a saying about happenstance, coincidence and enemy action. That’s all I’m saying. Theses kinds of actions always seem to happen just when he needs it most politically. That’s not conclusive evidence. It’s voicing a strong suspicion.

      I’m wondering what you think about the IRS claims of lost email. I’d like to respectfully request a direct answer because I might be able to help you understand the claim better than you do now.

      These people are highly manipulative. There are many examples where I already know they’re lying. The story about the lost emails is impossible. It would be like losing some atoms in a molecule while leaving the rest of the molecule intact. It’s not physically possible to happen as they portray it. Not even close.

      They’re not acting in good faith. They’re chronic liars. When they are not lying, it’s merely because we got lucky that they had some reason of their own to tell us the truth.

      • Americana

        Can I just say this is about the wildest thread tangent that’s ever been introduced here. The IRS and an al Qaeda terrorist captured, who’ve guessed they’d be paired up by someone in a thread?

        • objectivefactsmatter

          People that are paying attention.

      • hiernonymous

        I find any claims of lost emails remarkably suspicious. Given the number of locations at which any given email should be retrievable from, before you get into governmental requirements for archival copies, it beggars belief that the emails of any SES civilian or GO/FO military or higher could not readily be retrieved. (For that matter, erased and rewritten tapes might still be retrievable. )

        On casual reading, I understand that 7 hard drives failed in order to produce this disaster. If the IRS had used hard drives with a failure rate of 90% over the course of a year! that would still yield a less than 50% probability of all 7 failing in the meantime. Sure, I think the IRS situation bears investigation.

        Nothing about Abu Khattala’s capture is going to stop that from happening. The distraction will be needed if the outcome implicates or would otherwise damage the White House. I don’t see any reason, absent some evidence, to assume a link here.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-T-AIMD-97-76/pdf/GAOREPORTS-T-AIMD-97-76.pdf

          Excerpts:

          For Release on Delivery
          Expected at 10 a.m.
          Thursday, April 10, 1997

          IRS Computer Security
          Requirements
          The Department of the Treasury requires IRS to have C2-level safeguards to protect the confidentiality of taxpayer data. 3 C2-level safeguards ensure “need-to-know” protection and controlled access to data. Similarly, IRS’ Tax Information Security Guidelines require that all computer and communication systems that process, store, or transmit taxpayer data adequately protect these data, and the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of federal returns and return information.

          ——–

          And a primer on wikipedia

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_Computer_System_Evaluation_Criteria

          • hiernonymous

            You’re approaching this from a security perspective, which is interesting. I was looking at it simply from the normal structure of government email (I’m extrapolating from my experience with DA and DoD), and the statistical unlikelihood of the series of mechanical failures claimed by the IRS. Either way, it plainly needs to be investigated.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            What I’m saying is that the data security requirements were breached one way or another. Either they’re lying completely, or they have an even bigger scandal because the events described can’t happen on systems that meet our requirements. And the entire system would be built differently from the ground up for this to happen.

            Or she used her own personal accounts with the idea that some day she might have to hide those emails – and she figured she could get away with some bullshit excuse if needed. And now she has IRS leadership backing these lies.

            This is huge.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “On casual reading, I understand that 7 hard drives failed in order to produce this disaster. If the IRS had used hard drives with a failure rate of 90% over the course of a year! that would still yield a less than 50% probability of all 7 failing in the meantime. Sure, I think the IRS situation bears investigation.”

          That’s more bullshit. But we don’t even need to address that because her email was not located on a single disk but on an array of disks. Even if they had 90% failure rate per 12 months of use, it would still not cause risk to the data except perhaps at worst a few corrupted files. Any “major” loss would be spread across an entire datastore or there would be no loss at all.

          The data we’re talking about can’t be legally stored on a user (client” machine but most be hosted on a secure server and viewed from a machine. Have you ever lost your webmail due to a PC disk crash? Of course not. You can log on to your webmail from any web-enabled device and likewise any authorized client PC can access her email coupled with the correct passwords.

          Or they are lying and not telling you that she was illegally using personal email accounts for the illicit communications. In either case, they are lying to avoid accountability. Possibly there was a single disk crash (which I very much doubt) and she lost some data that was not supposed to be stored on her PC, not even supposed to exist in the first place.

          They are also hoping that people like me don’t get a chance to sit and explain to too many people how transparent their lies are. They need distractions.

          Clearly if an administration has a tendency towards supporting ongoing conspiracies to obstruct justice, they’re not above suspicion for wagging the dog. Holding off on arrests and other actions is trivial compared to a lot of the malfeasance that has already been discovered.

          • hiernonymous

            “That’s more bullshit. ”

            Did you not understand what I was saying? My point was that even if the IRS used comically bad drives, the odds that they would all fail naturally in the course of a year would be quite low. I am doing my level best to agree with you on this. I think you’re reading disagreement into my post because you were expecting to find it. Which, given our track record, isn’t too unreasonable.

            “The data we’re talking about can’t be legally stored on a user (client” machine but most be hosted on a secure server and viewed from a machine. Have you ever lost your webmail due to a PC disk crash?”

            Webmail’s not the best example, perhaps, because that’s not how the government normally works – or, at least, not how it worked – but you’re quite correct, the primary storage for the email isn’t on the client, but on the servers. And, presumably, the backups and archives.

            “Holding off on arrests and other actions is trivial compared to a lot of the malfeasance that has already been discovered.”

            Perhaps so. But there’s still no sound basis for assuming a conspiracy in the absence of any evidence. And though it’s hardly conclusive, as I noted in my previous, I don’t think that the arrest in question would gain much for the administration.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            “Did you not understand what I was saying? My point was that even if the IRS used comically bad drives, the odds that they would all fail naturally in the course of a year would be quite low. I am doing my level best to agree with you on this. I think you’re reading disagreement into my post because you were expecting to find it. Which, given our track record, isn’t too unreasonable.”

            No, what I’m saying is that even if what they claim is true about the disks, it’s still a blatant lie wrt it being relevant. Even if they had that failure rate, it’s simply not possible to lose data from those events. It’s bullshit even if what they say is true because they’re lying about the relevance even if the entire thing isn’t contrived.

            “Webmail’s not the best example, perhaps, because that’s not how the government normally works – or, at least, not how it worked – but you’re quite correct, the primary storage for the email isn’t on the client, but on the servers. And, presumably, the backups and archives.”

            It’s a perfect example to help you understand that the data does not reside on the client / user computer. There are other issues beyond but it illustrates perfectly the point that your client crashing will not effect your data “in the cloud.”

            “Perhaps so. But there’s still no sound basis for assuming a conspiracy in the absence of any evidence. And though it’s hardly conclusive, as I noted in my previous, I don’t think that the arrest in question would gain much for the administration.”

            Conspiracy is a word that gets abused a lot. The timing shows a pattern. I don’t even care if it’s a coincidence. It’s just that they have no credibility at all and if they have control over something that can help them politically, I think their own power comes long before the best interests of the nation and whatever they’re legally charged with looking after. It’s more a pattern of abuse than some “conspiracy.” They needed to do it anyway and waited for the right time. I might be spurred more by polling data. I’m just saying people are not insane to wonder about the connections. My point is that they have no credibility.

            And wrt those “lost” emails, that alone is a scandal. If they were conducting themselves in good faith, the kind of technical information that would be released would be entirely different.

          • hiernonymous

            “And wrt those “lost” emails, that alone is a scandal. If they were conducting themselves in good faith, the kind of technical information that would be released would be entirely different.”

            I agree. Hence I see no need to speculate about a link to the capture of Abu Khattalah.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          “Nothing about Abu Khattala’s capture is going to stop that from happening. The distraction will be needed if the outcome implicates or would otherwise damage the White House. I don’t see any reason, absent some evidence, to assume a link here.”

          I’m not suggesting a direct link. What I’m saying is that this administration cares purely about politics and the heat is rising. They need something else to talk about and somehow changing the momentum on his perceived foreign policy failures is probably something they care a lot about as opposed to arresting some jihadi that could have been stopped at any point probably in the last year or earlier. Why not save that for a rainy day? That’s what they do. It’s raining.

          There’s an indirect link. Theatrics come first. And they have no problem with obstructing justice and plain old lying to everyone to carry out their “greater good” agenda that according to their ideology “blesses” any little “white lies” they must tell.

  • SereneBowrageyel

    before I looked at the check of $8543 , I accept …that…my
    neighbour woz like they say truley earning money parttime on their apple
    labtop. . there sisters neighbour has done this 4 only 19 months and by now
    cleared the debts on their house and bourt a gorgeous Ford . visit this site C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­