One day after President Obama delivered a harsh rebuke of those who would insult Islam while offering a tepid- if nonexistent- defense of free speech, The Daily Beast published an in-depth article detailing how within a day of the September 11th, 2012 attacks on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed the Ambassador and three diplomatic and security staff, US intelligence officials knew that Al Qaeda affiliated operatives in Eastern Libya were behind the attacks.
The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”The Daily Beast article was published days after an unnamed Libyan source claimed that there was no protest in front of the US Consulate just prior to the bloody assault.
Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”
A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.”
It’s unclear whether any of these suspected attackers have been targeted or arrested, and intelligence experts caution that these are still early days in a complex investigation.
An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week's attack -- challenging the Obama administration's claims that the assault grew out of a "spontaneous" protest against an anti-Islam film.A spokesman for Libya's nascent post-Ghdaffi government said local eyewitnesses claimed that the attack came in two waves- RPG and machine gun fire directed at the consulate followed by mortar fire directed at one of the safehouses. The eyewitness accounts directly contradict statements from the Obama Administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that the consulate was torched as a result of a spontaneous protest or heavily-armed Al Qaeda operatives blending in among a massive demonstration in front of the US consulate.
"There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous," the source said, adding the attack "was planned and had nothing to do with the movie."
The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG's and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.
The account that the attack started suddenly backs up claims by a purported Libyan security guard who told McClatchy Newspapers late last week that the area was quiet before the attack.
"There wasn't a single ant outside," the unnamed guard, who was being treated in a hospital, said in the interview.
US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice had made the Sunday morning talk-show circuit repeating the White House claim that there was a spontaneous demonstration- directly contradicting a number of reports to the contrary.
Despite sending FBI agents and forensic teams to Libya to examine the crime scene and interview local witnesses, the FBI agents still hadn't reached the city of Benghazi more than 2 weeks after the consulate attacks took place- meaning that the scene of the assault has been compromised and even if forensic teams were arrived today, there would be little evidence of value remaining. In fact, a stringer for CNN reportedly discovered Ambassador Stevens' diary in a charred hallway in the Benghazi consulate- CNN subsequently came under harsh criticism for not mentioning their find earlier and using the journal as a source without notifying the ambassador's family or the State Department, although they eventually returned the diary to the Stevens family after transcribing information they thought was pertinent.
Since June of this year, there had been at least four previous attacks targeting foreign diplomats or NGOs in Benghzai, including an IED targetting the US Consulate and an RPG fired at a British diplomatic convoy. Ambassador Stevens reportedly expressed a growing concern in his journal about the deteriorating security situation in the eastern part of Libya.
Another indicator that the attack in Libya required a considerable amount of advanced planning was the fact that CIA documents regarding post-Ghdaffi contacts in Libya and detailed dossiers on Islamist militias were missing from the consulate after the attack. As one analyst put it "We got our eyes poked out".
The missing intelligence along with the timing of the attack and use of heavy weapons- as well as reports from local eyewitnesses that there were no massive protests leading up to the attack- would give even the most casual observer every indication that the murder of Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were the result of a calculated, well planned raid- not a random gaggle of Muslims irate over a YouTube clip who just happened to have heavy weapons on them when they decided to lash out at the USA.
ELSEWHERE- The Obama Administration's insistence that a YouTube trailer somehow provoked the violence that led to Ambassador Steven's has spread to Brazil, apparently. Not only that, it reportedly has the weight of a Brazilian court ruling behind it.
Sao Paulo-based judge Gilson Delgado Miranda gave the site 10 days to remove video clips from "Innocence of Muslims," which has angered many Muslims around the world by its depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and his followers as thugs. After the 10-day window, Google will face fines of $5,000 a day for every day the clips remain accessible in Brazil, according to the statement on the court's website.In a separate ruling, a top official for Google Brazil was ordered detained and fined due to a breach of Brazilian electoral law. The arrest of Fabio Jose Silva Coehlo by federal police in Brazil was initially reported as stemming from the Innocence of Muslims short film.
The company did not respond to requests Wednesday for comment about the case.
The "Innocence of Muslims" ruling resulted from a lawsuit by a group representing Brazil's Muslim community, the National Union of Islamic Entities, which claimed the film violates the country's constitutional guarantee of religious freedom for all faiths.
In a statement on the group's website, Mohamad al Bukai, the head of religious matters for the Sao Paulo-based organization, hailed the ruling.
"Freedom of expression must not be confused with giving disproportionate and irresponsible offence, which can provoke serious consequences for society," al Bukai said.
Attempts by courts and officials in several countries to remove the clips have revived the debate over freedom of expression.
The judge in the Brazilian case acknowledged that banning content from sites like YouTube is a thorny issue, according to excerpts of the ruling cited in the National Union of Islamic Entities' statement.
"This type of jurisprudence cannot be confused with censorship," Miranda is quoted as writing. In the excerpts, the judge defines censorship as "the undue restriction of the civic consciousness."
YouTube routinely blocks video in specific countries if it violates laws there. It also removes video deemed to infringe copyrights, show pornography, contain hate speech or violate other guidelines. However, none of those restrictions had been applied in Brazil to the "Innocence of Muslims."
Google is now selectively blocking the video clips in countries that include Libya and Egypt. Google has said it made the decision to block the video in such places due to "the sensitive situations" there.
Galperin of the Electronic Frontier Foundation questioned whether a ban was really necessary in Brazil, which has seen no protests or rioting that have swept the Muslim world in recent weeks.
"The notion that there's a need to take it down to prevent violence is ludicrous," she said.
Miranda's ruling came on the same day that Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff addressed the United Nations and urged an end to prejudice against Muslims.
Earlier this month, the White House had requested Google remove the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment