Hamid Karzai to Lara Logan: I have letters from Gen. Allen who says that the security in Afghanistan is a lot better and the people are waiting for improved governance.
Lara Logan: Do you agree with him?
Karzai: I - No, I don't agree with that.
Lara Logan: You tell him that?
Karzai: Yes.
Lara Logan: What does he say?
Karzai: The security has improved but not - not completely.
Lara Logan to Gen. John Allen: He doesn't agree with [your view that security in Afghanistan has greatly improved]. He says that's wrong. And he's told you he's not satisfied with the answers he's getting from you. What do you say to that?
Allen: Well-- (LAUGH) I think we have a difference of opinion on that. The security situation isn't perfect around the country. I mean, there are lots of areas that remain 'insecure' probably is the word. But an awful lot of the population of this country is living in an area where there is vastly improved security from where it was just a few years ago.
[LOGAN VOICEOVER] They did agree on a few things. Right now there's no peace process at all with the Taliban and Pakistan is the problem. Enemy fighters from the Afghan battlefield have enjoyed freedom and sanctuary on Pakistani soil since the beginning of the war.
Lara Logan to Gen. Allen: Ultimately, it's not going to matter what you do if you do not address the critical element of the safe havens that the enemy has inside Pakistan, across the border, in many ways, out of your reach.
Allen: Well, we're doing a great deal right now. The relationship that we have between ISAF forces and the Pakistani military has improved dramatically --
Lara Logan: But it doesn't stop Pakistanis helping our enemies kill U.S. soldiers.
Allen: Well, that's not going to stop immediately. We've got to work at that. It's not a solution that can be had ultimately by a military solution. These are policy issues, these are government to government issues. I'm not going to be able to wage war in Pakistan. But this is hard. There's a very complex relationship with Pakistan. And we'll work very hard and very closely with the Pakistani military to achieve common objectives. But to some extent the Pakistani military has been successful in cooperating with us in the last several months with regard to complimentary operations on both sides of the border but much more needs to be done.
Lara Logan: Your deadliest enemies on the Afghan battlefield have complete freedom of movement inside Pakistan with the blessing of the Pakistanis. And every commander that's sat in your shoes has had to try and build a relationship and go through the same motions time and time again and the effect on the battlefield remains exactly the same. American soldiers continue to die because of the support Pakistan gives to America's enemies.
Allen: You've just stated the truth.
Lara Logan: [The situation] has got to make you mad.
Allen: Yes, it does. Yes, it does. And within the context of my authorities, we're going to do everything we can to hunt down and kill every one of those Haqqani operatives that we can inside this country. And those other elements that come out of those safe havens that ultimately threaten my troops, threaten the Afghan troops and the Afghan society, the Afghan civilians, and ultimately the Afghan government.
[LOGAN VOICEOVER] Karzai blames the U.S. for not confronting Pakistan years ago.
Lara Logan to Karzai: Why has the U.S. failed to address the issue with Pakistan do you think?
Karzai: Perhaps politics.
Lara Logan: What has been the cost of that?
Karzai: Heavy for us. Disastrous for us.
Lara Logan: Would Afghanistan look completely different today if the issue of sanctuary and safe haven in Pakistan had been dealt with years ago?
Karzai: Absolutely. Completely different. Much more peaceful. Much more progressed. Much more stable. And a society that would have been thriving on its own.
Lara Logan: Does that make you angry?
Karzai: Absolutely. Very much. And we have shown it.
Lara Logan: Was there much yelling and screaming behind closed doors?
Karzai: Plenty of that.
Lara Logan: Listening to you I get the feeling that there's a lot of anger towards the United States. There's been bad blood. What went wrong? Why do you feel this way?
Karzai: I don't feel angry. I'm -- Afghanistan feels let down.
[LOGAN VOICEOVER] Karzai has repeatedly expressed his gratitude for the sacrifices the U.S. has made in his country, but in recent years he's been outspoken and critical of his American partners.
Lara Logan: When Americans hear you criticize the U.S. they think of all the taxpayer money that they have sent to Afghanistan and the American lives that have been lost here. And some question what kind of partner you have been.
Karzai: So-- our criticism is not directed at the American people. Our criticism is directed at policies and behavior of those who are representing the United States people - and is in a manner of asking for change and improvement.
Sunday, October 7
Lara Logan to Gen. John Allen: "American soldiers continue to die because of the support Pakistan gives to America's enemies." Allen to Logan: "You've just stated the truth."
CBS correspondent Lara Logan has earned respect as a war reporter in the only way anyone can earn such respect -- through sheer slog work over years in very dangerous situations. So today her views are as much an important part of her interviews as those of the persons she questions. Her latest report from Afghanistan, The Longest War, broadcast during last Sunday's 60 Minutes, features her discussion with a Taliban commander about al Qaeda in Afghanistan and 'insider' killings of NATO troops, and with ISAF/US commander Gen. John Allen and Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai. The entire report is worth viewing (also available in transcript form) but here I focus on her exchanges about Pakistan:
Saturday, October 6
Hillary Clinton decides Americans should keep paying Pakistan's regime for its ongoing support of terrorism against Americans. Isn't this treason? (Updated 2:01 AM EDT)
UPDATE 2:01 AM EDT
I've added a definition of treason, and at the end of the post is one reader's attempt to explain why Hillary Clinton made such a decision. Even if the reader is correct it still wouldn't answer my question about whether the decision is treasonous by the legal definition of term. The window is still open here for more attempts at answers.....
*********************
“[Pakistan's] army is going to think that no matter how angry the Americans are at them, they are utterly indispensable and they can violate in any way, shape or form U.S. law and the United States will massage its law to accommodate them. That’s how they are going to read this.”-- C. Christine Fair, Assistant Professor, Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
*********************
Definition of treason under the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2381: "[W]hoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." -- From Wikipedia article on treason, United States section)
*********************
Will someone explain to me why Hillary Clinton's decision isn't considered treason, or at least grounds for President Obama to demand her resignation? I'm making a serious request, with no sarcasm intended. I need this explained to me, in particular because the excuse she gives for her decision isn't supported by any objective criterion.
October 5, 2012:
"Pundita, I think this article throws light on Clinton's decision:"
I've added a definition of treason, and at the end of the post is one reader's attempt to explain why Hillary Clinton made such a decision. Even if the reader is correct it still wouldn't answer my question about whether the decision is treasonous by the legal definition of term. The window is still open here for more attempts at answers.....
*********************
“[Pakistan's] army is going to think that no matter how angry the Americans are at them, they are utterly indispensable and they can violate in any way, shape or form U.S. law and the United States will massage its law to accommodate them. That’s how they are going to read this.”-- C. Christine Fair, Assistant Professor, Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service
*********************
Definition of treason under the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 2381: "[W]hoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." -- From Wikipedia article on treason, United States section)
*********************
Will someone explain to me why Hillary Clinton's decision isn't considered treason, or at least grounds for President Obama to demand her resignation? I'm making a serious request, with no sarcasm intended. I need this explained to me, in particular because the excuse she gives for her decision isn't supported by any objective criterion.
October 5, 2012:
Pakistan freed of anti-terrorism obligations; U.S. billions flow insteadUPDATE 2:01 AM EDT
By Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has refused for the first time to declare that Pakistan is making progress toward ending alleged military support for Islamic militant groups or preventing al Qaida, the Afghan Taliban or other extremists from staging attacks in Afghanistan.
Even so, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has quietly informed Congress that she’s waived the legal restrictions that would have blocked some $2 billion in U.S. economic and military aid to Pakistan. Disbursing the funds, she said in an official notice, is “important to the national security interests of the United States.”
Clinton’s decision illustrates how far the administration apparently has determined that it must go, after a near-breakdown in relations, to ensure Pakistan’s cooperation in the uphill U.S. effort to prevent Afghanistan collapsing into all-out civil war when American-led international combat forces complete a withdraw by the end of 2014.
Some experts, however, warned that the move might backfire. The waivers could encourage a belief among Pakistani commanders that their cooperation is so crucial that Washington will continue overlooking the Pakistani military’s refusal to end what U.S. officials charge is its support for Afghan insurgent groups or to shutter militant sanctuaries, they said.
“The army is going to think that no matter how angry the Americans are at them, they are utterly indispensable and they can violate in any way, shape or form U.S. law and the United States will massage its law to accommodate them,” said assistant professor Christine Fair, an expert at Georgetown University. “That’s how they are going to read this.”
Pir Zubair Shah, an expert with the Council on Foreign Relations, said Clinton’s decision might be intended as a warning to Pakistan that aid could be withheld next year if it doesn’t end the suspected collusion between its military and its chief spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, and extremist groups.
“It can be a signal that . . . next time we won’t apply a waiver and will block the aid,” he said.
The State Department declined to respond to a request for comment.
Islamabad vehemently denies charges by top U.S. officials that the army-run ISI is aiding the Afghan Taliban and allied groups, such as the Haqqani network, as part of a strategy aimed at preventing rival India from gaining influence in Afghanistan after international troops withdraw.
In her September 13 notices, Clinton informed Congress that she was waiving provisions of the 2009 Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act and the State Department’s 2012 budget requiring that she certify that Islamabad has met certain conditions before some $2 billion in economic, military and counter-terrorism assistance can be disbursed.
Pakistan was required to have made progress in “ceasing support, including by any elements within the Pakistani military or its intelligence agency, to extremist groups,” especially those that have attacked U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan.
Islamabad also was required to have made progress toward stopping al Qaida, the Afghan Taliban, the Haqqani network and allied Pakistani extremists “from operating in the territory of Pakistan” and staging attacks in neighboring countries. It also must move toward shutting down “terrorist” bases in the tribal areas and other parts of its country.
Clinton didn’t disclose which specific prerequisites Pakistan failed to meet. Those details were classified.
It’s the first time that the Obama administration has waived the requirements, something the Bush administration did six times for democracy-related sanctions.
Until now, Clinton had certified Pakistani compliance even though U.S. commanders in Afghanistan and other U.S. officials had for years charged the Pakistani army and the ISI with supporting the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network.
In September 2011, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explicitly accused the ISI of aiding Haqqani network attacks on U.S. targets in Afghanistan, including a strike against the U.S. Embassy.
Four days before she notified Congress she was waiving the conditions, Clinton decided – under pressure from Congress – to add the Haqqani network to the U.S. list of terrorist organizations. The Pakistani military, which for years has rejected U.S. demands that it move against the Haqqanis’ stronghold of North Waziristan, thinks that the group should participate in any settlement to the Afghan war.
Clinton’s decision to waive the conditions comes as the United States and Pakistan strive to rebuild a relationship battered by a series of events that began when a CIA contractor shot dead two alleged thieves in Lahore in January 2011. Ties also have worsened over intensified CIA drone strikes, which Pakistan charges are violating its sovereignty and killing civilians.
[...]
"Pundita, I think this article throws light on Clinton's decision:"
Pakistan, US business tycoons to meet in London
by Mehtab Haider
Thursday, October 04, 2012
From Print Edition
ISLAMABAD: Approximately 100 top-level business tycoons of Pakistan and the US will meet in London on October 4 and 5, 2012 during a joint conference organised by both the countries’ governments for providing an opportunity to explore investment opportunities after the signing of the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).
The business tycoons of both the sides will explore opportunities in areas of textile, energy and information technology amongst others.
Pakistan’s official delegation, led by Chairman of Board of Investment Saleem Mandviwalla and Secretary Commerce Munir Qureshi, will attend this two-day conference, while US Trade Representatives (USTR) and Deputy Special Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Daniel Feldman will participate in it.
Mandviwalla said that the objective of this conference was to arrange financial assistance for Pakistani companies in areas of mutual interests.
“The BIT is expected to be signed by both the countries by the end of 2012, and its draft is currently under review by both the sides,” US Counselor for Economic Affairs Robert Ewing said while briefing a selected group of reporters here on Wednesday, just ahead of the scheduled conference.
The BIT, he said, would set grounds for granting market access under Generalisd System of Preference (GSP) Plus. There are certain criteria and requirements which Pakistan will have to follow for qualifying for the GSP plus, he added.
The US GSP program provides duty free entry to the US market for goods imported from designated beneficiary developing countries. According to data of US embassy, approximately 3,511 different products from Pakistan are eligible to enter the United States duty free under the GSP program.
The US businesses imported $18.5 billion worth of products under the GSP program in 2011, including $131 million from Pakistan.
Friday, October 5
Rewind Elvis and the FBI have left the building (UPDATED 11:30 PM EDT)
UPDATE
Shashank Bengali, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, has filed a report datelined October 6 from Benghazi that scrapes together more data about the FBI's investigation in Benghazi . Given how much this story has already been picked over by other reporters (see the rest of this post), Bengali's effort is impressive -- so impressive I'm dedicating a Pundita post to it. But for this update I'll just present the link to the report, which is headlined U.S. investigators leave Libya consulate in Benghazi.
*********************
The truth, and the tragedy, is that the attack on the Benghazi consulate has been heavily politicized by every player with skin in the game, and that is a lot of players. But reporters have to inform the public about what officials tell them about the incident, which adds to the confusion.
So what started as a routine fog-of-war situation, as news organizations scrambled to get their best reporters to Benghazi to investigate what happened, is now a kind of hall of mirrors made up of official statements that constantly shifts and changes. This makes it hard for reporters to get the story straight on even a relatively simple situation connected with the Benghazi Incident. That's what happened yesterday when an official source let news organizations know that the FBI had gotten to the Benghazi consulate.
The earliest report from the Associated Press, which I think was the first news organization to break the news, got the FBI team's arrival date wrong. It said that the FBI had arrived in Benghazi on Wednesday and left the next day -- Thursday, October 4. By late in the afternoon, AP had corrected the report:
A Wall Street Journal report more-or-less backed up the CBS report: "The [FBI] agents collected evidence for about 12 hours with protection from U.S. military personnel and perimeter security from Libyan personnel, then left the city because of security concerns, officials said."
The New York Times was more cautious about assigning a time frame:
A Washington Post reporter decided to stop playing Washington's game and instead worked his sources in Libya's government. (And/or scared up a sympathetic employee at the State Department who patched him through to a Libyan source.) Here's what the source told the reporter, Michael Birnbaum. (If the name rings a bell, he's the reporter who found several official documents at the Benghazi consulate, which, depending on what source you listen to, were classified or sensitive or not that important -- for that last read Hillary Clinton's remarks to the WSJ):
Shashank Bengali, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, has filed a report datelined October 6 from Benghazi that scrapes together more data about the FBI's investigation in Benghazi . Given how much this story has already been picked over by other reporters (see the rest of this post), Bengali's effort is impressive -- so impressive I'm dedicating a Pundita post to it. But for this update I'll just present the link to the report, which is headlined U.S. investigators leave Libya consulate in Benghazi.
*********************
The truth, and the tragedy, is that the attack on the Benghazi consulate has been heavily politicized by every player with skin in the game, and that is a lot of players. But reporters have to inform the public about what officials tell them about the incident, which adds to the confusion.
So what started as a routine fog-of-war situation, as news organizations scrambled to get their best reporters to Benghazi to investigate what happened, is now a kind of hall of mirrors made up of official statements that constantly shifts and changes. This makes it hard for reporters to get the story straight on even a relatively simple situation connected with the Benghazi Incident. That's what happened yesterday when an official source let news organizations know that the FBI had gotten to the Benghazi consulate.
The earliest report from the Associated Press, which I think was the first news organization to break the news, got the FBI team's arrival date wrong. It said that the FBI had arrived in Benghazi on Wednesday and left the next day -- Thursday, October 4. By late in the afternoon, AP had corrected the report:
Agents arrived in Benghazi before dawn on Thursday and departed after sunset, after weeks of waiting for access to the crime scene to investigate the Sept. 11 attack.Then the question was how long the FBI had spent examining the consulate. The CBS report I quoted yesterday noted that "FBI investigators spent a day examining the destroyed complex in the port city of Benghazi."
The agents and several dozen U.S. special operations forces were there for about 12 hours, said a senior Defense Department official who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing investigation. The FBI agents went to “all the relevant locations” in the city, FBI spokeswoman Kathy Wright said. The FBI would not say what, if anything, they found.
A Wall Street Journal report more-or-less backed up the CBS report: "The [FBI] agents collected evidence for about 12 hours with protection from U.S. military personnel and perimeter security from Libyan personnel, then left the city because of security concerns, officials said."
The New York Times was more cautious about assigning a time frame:
The officials did not say how many F.B.I. agents were involved or precisely how long they were on the ground. The Pentagon press secretary, George Little, would only say at a briefing that the agents and their military escorts were in Benghazi “for a number of hours” before returning to Tripoli.It went on like that, as every major news organization worked its sources in Official Washington in the effort to get the story straight.
The agents were specialists in evidence collection, according to law enforcement officials, and were there to sift through the wreckage and to determine in better detail how the attack unfolded. It is unclear how much can still be gleaned from the site, which a senior American law enforcement official has described as so badly “degraded” that linking evidence to the attackers will be difficult at best.
A Washington Post reporter decided to stop playing Washington's game and instead worked his sources in Libya's government. (And/or scared up a sympathetic employee at the State Department who patched him through to a Libyan source.) Here's what the source told the reporter, Michael Birnbaum. (If the name rings a bell, he's the reporter who found several official documents at the Benghazi consulate, which, depending on what source you listen to, were classified or sensitive or not that important -- for that last read Hillary Clinton's remarks to the WSJ):
For the first time since the onslaught, an FBI team accompanied by a “small footprint" of U.S. military personnel visited Benghazi, Pentagon spokesman George Little said. A spokesman for the Libyan Interior Ministry in eastern Libya, Ezzdeen Alfizany, said that the Americans spent less than five hours in the city, including about an hour at the ransacked U.S. mission, and visited a tatty bazaar called the “two dinar” market, apparently in search of items looted from the compound.Does rooting around a tatty bazaar constitute 'visiting all the relevant locations in the city' and 'sifting through the consulate wreckage to determine in better detail how the attack unfolded?' Well, as long as the agents also did detailed forensic groundwork. Such as striving to answer questions that Arwa Damon's observations raise. To return to the Times report:
It is unclear if the F.B.I. investigators plan to return to the site, but Mr. Little hinted that they might. He offered few details about the military escort operation, adding, “We may need to replicate it in the future, and I wouldn’t want to tip off the wrong people.”Now see spending little time interviewing residents would pose a problem, if one wants to attempt to resolve a seeming contradiction brought out by Arwa's observations, which I'll deal with in the next post.
It appears that the F.B.I. spent little or no time interviewing residents in Benghazi. Typically they would spend weeks, rather than hours, at a crime scene as important to national security as this site.
"October Surprise comes in like a long-expected assassin"
Here is John Batchelor's summary of his discussions last night with his sources on MENA. See his website for the link to podcasts of the discussions.
Surprised?
by John Batchelor
The John Batchelor Show
October 5, 2012
Spoke with Malcolm Hoenlein with regard to the war drums across MENA (Middle East North Africa), and we specially focused on the slow-motion fail of the Jordan governance, the rogue state of Sinai, and the exchange of artillery fire along the Turkey-Syria border.
My information is that the decision is made to launch an aggressive artillery barrage from Turkey that will clear a corridor up to 10 km deep that is said to provide humanitarian relief for refugees from the gateway city of Aleppo to the Turkish border. The decision is agreed upon by Ankara, Cairo, Riyadh and Doha.
Mohammed Morsi leads other Arab chiefs in declaring that Bashar al-Assad has no place in future negotiations and must go. My information is that Assad can and will fight to the end.
The fresh risk is that Tehran will turn Hizballah onto rocket Israel in the event of Turkish aggression. Why? Because then the Turkey aggression can be presented as a Zionist plot. I am not manufacturing. This is a credible explanation in MENA to any violent confrontation.
Surprised?
Turkey has fired retaliatory strikes into Syria for a second day after a mortar from Syria killed five Turkish civilians. Locals said the shooting around the border town of Acakale was last heard at 5am.
What of the US and POTUS? The enemies can read a desk calendar, same as you. With five weeks to the US election, with POTUS Obama perceived as an ally of the so-called Syria opposition -- a creature of Turkish Intelligence with US weapons and Gulf cash -- then the next weeks are ripe for action that cannot easily be constrained by Big Power intervention or rebuke.
PM Erdogan of Turkey says that he does not seek war. The action will be presented as incremental humanitarian rescue of civilians at the mercy of piratical Syrians.
This scenario includes the report that Jihadists have been imported from MENA (Libya, for example) to cut throats in Aleppo of any who will not participate in the revolt from the Allawite and Hizballah and Iranian cutthroats who work for the Assad regime.
War warning in stages: and yes, the conflict resembles the Responsibility to Protect gambit of 2011 Libya, and now serves as a global distraction. AKA October Surprise comes in like a long-expected assassin. Surprised? Unknown.
Surprised?
by John Batchelor
The John Batchelor Show
October 5, 2012
Spoke with Malcolm Hoenlein with regard to the war drums across MENA (Middle East North Africa), and we specially focused on the slow-motion fail of the Jordan governance, the rogue state of Sinai, and the exchange of artillery fire along the Turkey-Syria border.
My information is that the decision is made to launch an aggressive artillery barrage from Turkey that will clear a corridor up to 10 km deep that is said to provide humanitarian relief for refugees from the gateway city of Aleppo to the Turkish border. The decision is agreed upon by Ankara, Cairo, Riyadh and Doha.
Mohammed Morsi leads other Arab chiefs in declaring that Bashar al-Assad has no place in future negotiations and must go. My information is that Assad can and will fight to the end.
The fresh risk is that Tehran will turn Hizballah onto rocket Israel in the event of Turkish aggression. Why? Because then the Turkey aggression can be presented as a Zionist plot. I am not manufacturing. This is a credible explanation in MENA to any violent confrontation.
Surprised?
Turkey has fired retaliatory strikes into Syria for a second day after a mortar from Syria killed five Turkish civilians. Locals said the shooting around the border town of Acakale was last heard at 5am.
What of the US and POTUS? The enemies can read a desk calendar, same as you. With five weeks to the US election, with POTUS Obama perceived as an ally of the so-called Syria opposition -- a creature of Turkish Intelligence with US weapons and Gulf cash -- then the next weeks are ripe for action that cannot easily be constrained by Big Power intervention or rebuke.
PM Erdogan of Turkey says that he does not seek war. The action will be presented as incremental humanitarian rescue of civilians at the mercy of piratical Syrians.
This scenario includes the report that Jihadists have been imported from MENA (Libya, for example) to cut throats in Aleppo of any who will not participate in the revolt from the Allawite and Hizballah and Iranian cutthroats who work for the Assad regime.
War warning in stages: and yes, the conflict resembles the Responsibility to Protect gambit of 2011 Libya, and now serves as a global distraction. AKA October Surprise comes in like a long-expected assassin. Surprised? Unknown.
Thursday, October 4
"The Night the Audacity of Hype Collapsed"
Riehl World View's Dan Riehl goes straight to the worst problem for Team Obama since last night's presidential campaign debate, which contender Mitt Romney won by a landslide:
It's not the concrete aspects, or the “W” and “L” of last night’s debate that now poses the greatest challenge for Obama. Debates can be and are routinely won or lost by candidates during political campaigns with that outcome playing no significant role at all in the ultimate results of a campaign ending election. It’s the decidedly un-audacious and almost hopeless performance of a floundering and occasionally flailing Barack Obama and how that impacts his image going forward that now poses a risk for Obama, as well as an opening for Romney as his challenger.Here's the rest of Dan's analysis, headlined The Night the Audacity of Hype Collapsed, which is a riff on the title of Barack Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.
Elvis and the FBI have left the building
October 4, 2012, 11:36 AM EDT, CBS News:
That's why. All explanations to the contrary from U.S. officials are lies.
FBI team examines site of deadly Libya attackNow why couldn't the U.S. Department of State have allowed the FBI to examine the site weeks ago? Because weeks ago a bipartisan congressional panel demanding answers about the attack from the U.S. Department of State hadn't been convened. Because weeks ago the Washington Post hadn't sent a reporter to the site to collect official documents. Because weeks ago CNN hadn't revealed important evidence their ace reporter Arwa Damon had noted at the site on September 13.
More than three weeks after a deadly assault on a U.S. Consulate in Libya killed four Americans, FBI investigators spent a day examining the destroyed complex in the port city of Benghazi, CBS News reports.
CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports a team of forensic specialists were escorted by a small U.S. military contingent that provided security, according to a U.S. official. The investigators spent several hours at the consulate and annex sites, the official estimated.
CBS News senior correspondent John Miller reports the team collected whatever evidence they could from the site to the extent possible, given the amount of damage the area sustained in the attack, according to a U.S. official.
The official wouldn't tell Orr what was recovered from the scenes, describing the work as a general effort to collect and document potential evidence.
That's why. All explanations to the contrary from U.S. officials are lies.
The Magic Words and named State Dept. official confirms 13 threats against Benghazi consulate and repeated denials of requests for better protection
Like a slowly widening pool of blood, information about the circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi consulate has been seeping out almost daily in news reports. The information greatly contradicts explanations that Obama administration officials gave the Congress, news media and public about the attack.
What is key about the following report, which repeats allegations reported on October 2 by the New York Times, is that the name of one State official who briefed a House panel about the security situation in Libya has now been made public, and another official set to give testimony has also been named.
So now it's time to review the October 2 New York Times report (published in print on October 3), and keep on the lookout for Magic Words -- those words an official utters in an attempt to quash a line of questioning by members of Congress or the press or both, and which produce the magical effect of escalating a situation into a showdown:
"The last Western flag flying in Benghazi"
Moving along:
What is key about the following report, which repeats allegations reported on October 2 by the New York Times, is that the name of one State official who briefed a House panel about the security situation in Libya has now been made public, and another official set to give testimony has also been named.
House panel: State Dept. confirmed Libya threatsThe Magic Words
By Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News Investigative Correspondent
CBS News
October 4, 2012, 2:28 AM ET
(WASHINGTON) A House committee says a State Department officer told panel members there were 13 threats made against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya during the six months before the Sept. 11 attack on the facility.
The assault left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.
The panel adds that the officer told it the U.S. mission had made repeated requests for increased security.
A spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is holding a hearing on the controversy next week, says its source is Regional Security Officer Eric Nordstrom, who was stationed in Libya from September 2011 to June 2012.
According to the panel, Nordstrom has already given a private briefing to members and will be called to testify at the session next Wednesday.
The committee has also requested testimony from a second State Department official, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs Charlene Lamb, who is involved in reviewing security requests. [...]
So now it's time to review the October 2 New York Times report (published in print on October 3), and keep on the lookout for Magic Words -- those words an official utters in an attempt to quash a line of questioning by members of Congress or the press or both, and which produce the magical effect of escalating a situation into a showdown:
[...] In a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, committee leaders listed more than a dozen episodes, several of them violent, in the past six months that they said formed the basis for repeated requests by the diplomatic mission in Libya for more security resources.Ding ding ding ding! Magic Words found! Not yet ready to answer specific questions.
Representatives Darrell Issa of California, the committee’s chairman, and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, chairman of the subcommittee on foreign operations, said in the letter that officials, whose names they did not reveal, had told them of the requests. They asked for details and a briefing before a hearing that they have scheduled for Oct. 10.
The State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, said the administration would cooperate fully with the committee, but it was not yet ready to answer its specific questions or comment on its assertions. [...]
"The last Western flag flying in Benghazi"
Moving along:
“Based on information provided to the committee by individuals with direct knowledge of events in Libya, the attack that claimed the ambassador’s life was the latest in a long line of attacks on Western diplomats and officials in Libya in the months leading up to Sept. 11, 2012,” the letter said.
“Multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that, prior to the Sept. 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” it said.
“The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”
In June, the letter asserted, Mr. Stevens was threatened in a posting on a Facebook page supporting the old government in Libya.
Other episodes it cited included harassment, beatings, unsuccessful bombing attempts, gunfights and attacks with rocket-propelled grenades, directed not only at Americans but also at other international representatives and the new Libyan authorities.
“Put together, these events indicated a clear pattern of security threats that could only be reasonably interpreted to justify increased security for U.S. personnel and facilities in Benghazi,” the letter said.
[...]
Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, raising parallel concerns about security in Benghazi, have also asked Mrs. Clinton for the relevant cables.
One episode cited by the House committee was the firing in May of rocket-propelled grenades at a Red Cross office less than a mile from the United States diplomatic office in Benghazi, an early-morning attack that caused no casualties.
A Facebook posting that claimed responsibility said, “We announce that Libya is an Islamic state,” adding, “Now we are preparing a message for the Americans for disturbing the skies over Derna,” a port city.
In early June, a two-vehicle convoy carrying the British ambassador came under rocket-propelled-grenade attack, which the letter called, “an important escalation.”
In late June, the Red Cross was attacked again, and the organization pulled out, leaving the American compound with “the last Western flag flying in Benghazi, making it an ideal target for militants,” the letter said.
Wednesday, October 3
Washington Post reporter finds several sensitive official U.S. documents scattered at Benghazi consulate
I've already posted the following as an update to the earlier post on CNN reporter Arwa Damon's revelations about her findings at the Benghazi consulate, so this is for readers who read the Damon post prior to the 4:15 PM update.
It might be coincidental in the case of the WaPo findings but it just so happens that the CNN report came out on the eve of the U.S presidential debate, and the WaPo one was published just a few hours before the debate is scheduled to start. This guarantees the revelations will receive little attention from the news media -- and the public:
It might be coincidental in the case of the WaPo findings but it just so happens that the CNN report came out on the eve of the U.S presidential debate, and the WaPo one was published just a few hours before the debate is scheduled to start. This guarantees the revelations will receive little attention from the news media -- and the public:
Sensitive documents left behind at American mission in LibyaLot's more to the report, including photos of some documents.
By Michael Birnbaum, Wednesday, October 3, 3:19 PM EDT
The Washington Post
BENGHAZI, Libya — More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the remains of the U.S. mission here on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate details about American operations in Libya.
Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday.[...]
Arwa Damon's staggering account of what she saw inside burned Benghazi consulate (UPDATED 4:15 PM EDT)
UPDATE
Another stunning revelation:
By Michael Birnbaum
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - 3:19 PM
The Washington Post
More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the remains of the U.S. mission here on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate details about American operations in Libya.
Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday [October 3].
[...]Much more in the report, including photos of some documents.
***************************************
I am rarely at a loss for words but I really don't know what to say here about the evidence that Arwa turned up, except that if not for tonight's upcoming presidential debate, her revelations last night probably would be headline news today in every major press outlet in the USA.
For those who don't know who Arwa Damon is, she is one of the world's best war reporters; she is a Senior International Correspondent for CNN; she's also a fluent Arabic speaker.
She and her camera crew got into the Benghazi consulate three days after it was attacked and obtained photographic evidence that should have been brought out earlier than last night during her 'debriefing' with Anderson Cooper. I think that was her first interview since returning to the USA.
She's also the reporter who found the diary that Ambassador Christopher Stevens kept, and which caused so much controversy because he wrote in it of his concern that he'd been targeted by al Qaeda.
Okay; here is the link to the CNN video of Arwa's interview. Below is the transcript, which has an introduction not included in the video, and which goes longer than the video; that last includes Fran Townsend's comments about the interview and an additional important observation by Arwa, which I've highlighted in red.
Very disturbing reading. So are some of the images in the video, which Anderson warns the viewer about.
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Aired October 2, 2012 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, a story you will not see anywhere else. For the first time, CNN's Arwa Damon talks about what she experienced when she first set foot inside the American compound in Benghazi. What the terrible scene was like after the deadly assault that killed four Americans. Evidence she saw that might have been useful to investigators. That is, had investigators ever had a chance to stand where she stood. Indications perhaps that might help locate the culprits.
"Keeping Them Honest," though, nearly everyone and anyone has now been able to gain access to the crime scene, except, that is, for FBI agents, and now for them, it's no longer worth taking the risk to going to Benghazi. But there is at least some indication tonight that enough is known about who did this to begin planning some kind of response.
A senior American official telling us that the Pentagon and intelligence community have begun preparing so-called target packages, detailed information that can be used to capture or kill some of the terrorists who did this.
Now at the same time, though, the administration continues to come under withering fire, especially, though, not exclusively from Republican lawmakers, over the killings and whether they might have been prevented some way.
Members of the House Oversight Committee today sent a letter to the State Department asking for answers in person from Secretary Clinton, leveling serious allegations including these, the attack, quote, "was clearly never as administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest."
And more damningly this, quote, "Multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that prior to the September 11th attacks, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi."
The letter goes on to detail a series of attacks and incidents in Libya that formed the basis for those calls for more security resources, resources that the letter alleges were denied by officials in Washington.
We're going to have more on that angle shortly. First, though, Arwa Damon joins me. She's back from Libya, she joins me here in New York. It's very good to see you safe and sound. Walk me back. You were at the site three days after the attack. You have some still photographs that have never been seen before. Describe what we see.
ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the first in these photographs is basically the exterior of the main building at the compound itself. This is the building where the ambassador resided, and the right-hand portion of the building is where the so-called safe room was supposed to be. As you can see, the burning all occurred inside the building itself.
COOPER: It looks -- it doesn't look very touched on the outside.
DAMON: No. Very much a lot of the damage on this building inside, happening inside. The fire burning. There's one part of the building where there's an entrance way into this so-called safe room, that is pretty much just a heavy metal door. That door was shut when we arrived. That's the interior of the building. That was the ambassador's bedroom. That chair right there next to that chair is where we actually found the ambassador's journal.
The doorway leading into this part of the building was shut, as I was saying, this metal door blocking that off. You can see it right there. So there was pretty much no way to get out, because all of the windows at the point where we were there had metal on the exterior of them, except for the one window where the ambassador's body was carried out. That is how we crawled in.
And eyewitnesses who were there said that they had to physically remove the bars from that building, you see it right there. They had to remove the bars from that window to then get the ambassador's body out.
COOPER: How were you able to get access to the site? Was there any security there?
DAMON: No. There pretty much wasn't. We drove up to the main gate. At the time that we were there, the head of the General National Congress was conducting a tour. We walked in, interviewed him, and then spent over an hour on site filming, walking around, looking at things. We were there, the owner of the compound was there along with some of his relatives. There were some security guards, the gardener and then there were a bunch of Libyans rifling through everything and people were telling us that they had full-on access to it.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: The Libyans rifling through things?
DAMON: Rifling through things, picking up bits and pieces. They had actually laid a wreath earlier on the outside of one of these things. But there's --
COOPER: So other information, there had been classified information, whatever, could have picked up by Libyans and taken away.
DAMON: What we're told is that a lot was in fact taken away. People said that there was a safe that was there that was taken away. But what we also saw while we're there is things that, you know, one would have assumed would have been of interest to investigators had they gone.
The toilet in this safe room suite, as we call it, has a very strange -- what seems to be a very strange blood stain on the side of it. You can see it in the -- in the images right there. We don't know what that is. We don't know what happened but it raises a lot of questions as to what could have taken place.
There's another part in this same area where it looks like a handprint is on the wall that has slid down. Again, a lot of unanswered questions.
COOPER: There's a story that a fire was set, that diesel fuel was poured around the exterior of the room or part of the compound. What -- did you see any signs of that?
DAMON: What's clear is that the exterior of the compound, the exterior of the various buildings, were not set on fire. The burning that took place that we saw all happened on the inside.
COOPER: Really? That's interesting. So what does that tell you? I mean do -- can you -- do you see any signs of RPGs, of, you know, holes in roofs or --
DAMON: There is one hole in the main building that looks like it could have been caused by a rocket-propelled grenade. There is the main doorway into the main building was splintered. It looked as if it had possibly been forced open. There was holes from the walls that looked like they could have been shrapnel, but on the exterior of the buildings, there were not a lot of signs of very heavy, intense damage that would have been caused by rocket-propelled grenades by mortar rounds but we did still see even three days on a number of shell casings on the ground.
And again, other bits and pieces that had been very rifled through, a lot of things had been taken, but there were bits and pieces that could have provided clues.
COOPER: And overall the security situation in Benghazi, and in that area, the FBI, you know, has not gone in. There was concern that they would not be able to -- that they would not be able to set up a perimeter, a safe perimeter that they could actually do an investigation, that mortars could be fired in. What is the security situation like right now?
DAMON: It's very much open space. There still is not heavy security, at least there wasn't when we left there around a week ago. There aren't checkpoints leading up to it, for example. It's very open.
Now could they hypothetically -- and the Libyan government has said that they're willing to provide investigators with security using whatever assets they have, whether it's members of the Libyan army, members of the various militias who they deemed to be even more trustworthy.
COOPER: Could a friendly militia group there seal off a large enough area?
DAMON: Well, the February 17th Militia which is the largest one in Benghazi and arguably the most powerful one is the one that eventually did come to the aid of those who were in the consulate while the attack was taking place. They have offered security and it was members of this militia, in fact, who say that they were the ones who warned the Americans three days before the attack took place that there was a heightened threat against them.
COOPER: I want to bring in Fran Townsend.
Fran -- Fran and Arwa both have been breaking news on this story really from the beginning. As you know, Fran was homeland security advisor during the George W. Bush administration, as we often point out. She currently serves on the CIA's External Advisory Committee and she recently traveled to Libya with her employer, MacAndrews & Forbes. And she had actually met with Ambassador Stevens.
What do you make of the pictures you see of what Arwa's talking about?
FRAN TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: You know, as I listen to Arwa, it just reinforces what we said last week and we've said from the beginning. Investigators have to go there, even if you didn't have all the physical evidence there that Arwa has just described to our viewers. You would want to know from the witness interviews, Anderson, you'd want to know measurements, you'd want to be able to take people through it to really understand what the dynamic was.
But then you see things like handprints and blood samples. I mean one of the things -- the first thing you would do, I'll give you an example, and that is you would take the blood sample off the toilet and the bidet and see whether or not it matched first to the ambassador's. Did he fall. I mean there's all sorts of things you'd want to know.
You know, the pictures we've seen publicly of his body doesn't look like he did, but you don't know. And all those sorts of bits of information, it is true, it would be a less valuable crime scene now because people have rifled through it, but there's always some value and what they're telling us now is that they think the risk is too great in terms of the security, but I have never understood. If the February 17th brigade was there, they were friendly, they were willing, and we trusted them, certainly, before the attack, why we wouldn't have taken them along with U.S. military assets and set up the perimeter that the FBI needed.
COOPER: I mean, even -- I mean, a lot of, you know, people will tweet in and say well, if you were able to get to it, how come some American investigators wouldn't be able to? I guess it's a question of how much time American investigators would want to spend to actually do a full, thorough forensic investigation. TOWNSEND: That's part of it, Anderson, but the other piece to this is, right, they represent -- when the American investigators go in, they represent the United States. There's a certain international respect for journalists. It's not that -- it's plenty dangerous for Arwa to be there but they represent --
COOPER: It would be a heightened target, obviously.
TOWNSEND: A U.S. target. That's exactly right.
COOPER: And I guess part of it, too, is if mortar fire was involved in the initial attack or RPG fire, if they were to come under fire, the investigators, they would want to be able to return fire to take out mortar positions, anti-battery positions, and to do that, you would need a significant, you know, capability to return fire.
TOWNSEND: That's exactly right. And everybody we've spoken to suggests that, look, if we had to go in, we didn't want to bring in that big a footprint and it would have been difficult for the Libyan government, although cooperative, to agree to that at such a fragile time in the establishment of this.
COOPER: You've got some new information on the U.S. preparing target packages. What have you --
TOWNSEND: You know, Anderson, it's funny, when I read this, I would have been surprised if they weren't doing that. Remember, after the East African embassy bombings, the Clinton administrations launched T-LAMS into training camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. This is sort of part of the usual process, right? You look at the intelligence and the military will prepare and say what targets do we have, what is our basis for making them a target, that is, capture, kill, target with drones, and what is our likelihood of success.
They'll -- also, there's a secondary process of who would we like to have more on, if we had that information, we could prepare better target packages, and they'll levy requirements on the intelligence agencies to go out and get that information for them. And so it's sort of an ongoing (INAUDIBLE) process between the intelligence community and the military community as they prepare in case the president asks for options.
In the meantime, on parallel tracks, you've got Congress, you've got the State Department investigation.
COOPER: Yes.
TOWNSEND: And you've got the FBI.
COOPER: Arwa, just -- I mean, you've spent a lot of time in war zones. Is there something about this that surprised you, about what you saw, about gaining access to this site?
DAMON: It was that it was really such a soft target. You would not expect any establishment, never mind a consulate, to have had such a lack of security to it, especially in a place where there had been attacks against the West. The location itself had been targeted and the U.S. was monitoring not too far away, around a three-hour drive away in the town of Berna, and around it, the activity of known extremist groups who, in some cases, are being led with individuals who are directly affiliated, if not members of al Qaeda in and of itself. I mean it was such a soft target.
COOPER: Right.
TOWNSEND: Arwa and I were talking earlier, and the thing that strikes me about that, Anderson, is every counterterrorism specialist will tell you one of the hallmarks of al Qaeda is they return to failed targets. So the USS Cole that was the success, it had been the Sullivan the year before.
COOPER: Right.
TOWNSEND: The World Trade Center in '93, and then back in 2001. The notion that there were at least two attempts at this consulate and nobody made this a really hard target is really a dereliction of duty. And I think that's some of the outrage you're hearing. There's plenty of partisanship going on in Washington, but there's a certain sense of outrage and I think that's part of why Congressman Issa has whistleblowers. Career people are sort of outraged how could we have let this happen.
COOPER: Well, it continues. Arwa, appreciate all your reporting as always. And I'm glad to have you here.
Fran Townsend, thanks.
[Show continues with other topics]
Another stunning revelation:
Sensitive documents left behind at American mission in Libya
By Michael Birnbaum
Wednesday, October 3, 2012 - 3:19 PM
The Washington Post
More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the remains of the U.S. mission here on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate details about American operations in Libya.
Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday [October 3].
[...]Much more in the report, including photos of some documents.
***************************************
I am rarely at a loss for words but I really don't know what to say here about the evidence that Arwa turned up, except that if not for tonight's upcoming presidential debate, her revelations last night probably would be headline news today in every major press outlet in the USA.
For those who don't know who Arwa Damon is, she is one of the world's best war reporters; she is a Senior International Correspondent for CNN; she's also a fluent Arabic speaker.
She and her camera crew got into the Benghazi consulate three days after it was attacked and obtained photographic evidence that should have been brought out earlier than last night during her 'debriefing' with Anderson Cooper. I think that was her first interview since returning to the USA.
She's also the reporter who found the diary that Ambassador Christopher Stevens kept, and which caused so much controversy because he wrote in it of his concern that he'd been targeted by al Qaeda.
Okay; here is the link to the CNN video of Arwa's interview. Below is the transcript, which has an introduction not included in the video, and which goes longer than the video; that last includes Fran Townsend's comments about the interview and an additional important observation by Arwa, which I've highlighted in red.
Very disturbing reading. So are some of the images in the video, which Anderson warns the viewer about.
ANDERSON COOPER 360 DEGREES
Aired October 2, 2012 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, a story you will not see anywhere else. For the first time, CNN's Arwa Damon talks about what she experienced when she first set foot inside the American compound in Benghazi. What the terrible scene was like after the deadly assault that killed four Americans. Evidence she saw that might have been useful to investigators. That is, had investigators ever had a chance to stand where she stood. Indications perhaps that might help locate the culprits.
"Keeping Them Honest," though, nearly everyone and anyone has now been able to gain access to the crime scene, except, that is, for FBI agents, and now for them, it's no longer worth taking the risk to going to Benghazi. But there is at least some indication tonight that enough is known about who did this to begin planning some kind of response.
A senior American official telling us that the Pentagon and intelligence community have begun preparing so-called target packages, detailed information that can be used to capture or kill some of the terrorists who did this.
Now at the same time, though, the administration continues to come under withering fire, especially, though, not exclusively from Republican lawmakers, over the killings and whether they might have been prevented some way.
Members of the House Oversight Committee today sent a letter to the State Department asking for answers in person from Secretary Clinton, leveling serious allegations including these, the attack, quote, "was clearly never as administration officials once insisted, the result of a popular protest."
And more damningly this, quote, "Multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the committee that prior to the September 11th attacks, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi."
The letter goes on to detail a series of attacks and incidents in Libya that formed the basis for those calls for more security resources, resources that the letter alleges were denied by officials in Washington.
We're going to have more on that angle shortly. First, though, Arwa Damon joins me. She's back from Libya, she joins me here in New York. It's very good to see you safe and sound. Walk me back. You were at the site three days after the attack. You have some still photographs that have never been seen before. Describe what we see.
ARWA DAMON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, the first in these photographs is basically the exterior of the main building at the compound itself. This is the building where the ambassador resided, and the right-hand portion of the building is where the so-called safe room was supposed to be. As you can see, the burning all occurred inside the building itself.
COOPER: It looks -- it doesn't look very touched on the outside.
DAMON: No. Very much a lot of the damage on this building inside, happening inside. The fire burning. There's one part of the building where there's an entrance way into this so-called safe room, that is pretty much just a heavy metal door. That door was shut when we arrived. That's the interior of the building. That was the ambassador's bedroom. That chair right there next to that chair is where we actually found the ambassador's journal.
The doorway leading into this part of the building was shut, as I was saying, this metal door blocking that off. You can see it right there. So there was pretty much no way to get out, because all of the windows at the point where we were there had metal on the exterior of them, except for the one window where the ambassador's body was carried out. That is how we crawled in.
And eyewitnesses who were there said that they had to physically remove the bars from that building, you see it right there. They had to remove the bars from that window to then get the ambassador's body out.
COOPER: How were you able to get access to the site? Was there any security there?
DAMON: No. There pretty much wasn't. We drove up to the main gate. At the time that we were there, the head of the General National Congress was conducting a tour. We walked in, interviewed him, and then spent over an hour on site filming, walking around, looking at things. We were there, the owner of the compound was there along with some of his relatives. There were some security guards, the gardener and then there were a bunch of Libyans rifling through everything and people were telling us that they had full-on access to it.
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: The Libyans rifling through things?
DAMON: Rifling through things, picking up bits and pieces. They had actually laid a wreath earlier on the outside of one of these things. But there's --
COOPER: So other information, there had been classified information, whatever, could have picked up by Libyans and taken away.
DAMON: What we're told is that a lot was in fact taken away. People said that there was a safe that was there that was taken away. But what we also saw while we're there is things that, you know, one would have assumed would have been of interest to investigators had they gone.
The toilet in this safe room suite, as we call it, has a very strange -- what seems to be a very strange blood stain on the side of it. You can see it in the -- in the images right there. We don't know what that is. We don't know what happened but it raises a lot of questions as to what could have taken place.
There's another part in this same area where it looks like a handprint is on the wall that has slid down. Again, a lot of unanswered questions.
COOPER: There's a story that a fire was set, that diesel fuel was poured around the exterior of the room or part of the compound. What -- did you see any signs of that?
DAMON: What's clear is that the exterior of the compound, the exterior of the various buildings, were not set on fire. The burning that took place that we saw all happened on the inside.
COOPER: Really? That's interesting. So what does that tell you? I mean do -- can you -- do you see any signs of RPGs, of, you know, holes in roofs or --
DAMON: There is one hole in the main building that looks like it could have been caused by a rocket-propelled grenade. There is the main doorway into the main building was splintered. It looked as if it had possibly been forced open. There was holes from the walls that looked like they could have been shrapnel, but on the exterior of the buildings, there were not a lot of signs of very heavy, intense damage that would have been caused by rocket-propelled grenades by mortar rounds but we did still see even three days on a number of shell casings on the ground.
And again, other bits and pieces that had been very rifled through, a lot of things had been taken, but there were bits and pieces that could have provided clues.
COOPER: And overall the security situation in Benghazi, and in that area, the FBI, you know, has not gone in. There was concern that they would not be able to -- that they would not be able to set up a perimeter, a safe perimeter that they could actually do an investigation, that mortars could be fired in. What is the security situation like right now?
DAMON: It's very much open space. There still is not heavy security, at least there wasn't when we left there around a week ago. There aren't checkpoints leading up to it, for example. It's very open.
Now could they hypothetically -- and the Libyan government has said that they're willing to provide investigators with security using whatever assets they have, whether it's members of the Libyan army, members of the various militias who they deemed to be even more trustworthy.
COOPER: Could a friendly militia group there seal off a large enough area?
DAMON: Well, the February 17th Militia which is the largest one in Benghazi and arguably the most powerful one is the one that eventually did come to the aid of those who were in the consulate while the attack was taking place. They have offered security and it was members of this militia, in fact, who say that they were the ones who warned the Americans three days before the attack took place that there was a heightened threat against them.
COOPER: I want to bring in Fran Townsend.
Fran -- Fran and Arwa both have been breaking news on this story really from the beginning. As you know, Fran was homeland security advisor during the George W. Bush administration, as we often point out. She currently serves on the CIA's External Advisory Committee and she recently traveled to Libya with her employer, MacAndrews & Forbes. And she had actually met with Ambassador Stevens.
What do you make of the pictures you see of what Arwa's talking about?
FRAN TOWNSEND, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTOR: You know, as I listen to Arwa, it just reinforces what we said last week and we've said from the beginning. Investigators have to go there, even if you didn't have all the physical evidence there that Arwa has just described to our viewers. You would want to know from the witness interviews, Anderson, you'd want to know measurements, you'd want to be able to take people through it to really understand what the dynamic was.
But then you see things like handprints and blood samples. I mean one of the things -- the first thing you would do, I'll give you an example, and that is you would take the blood sample off the toilet and the bidet and see whether or not it matched first to the ambassador's. Did he fall. I mean there's all sorts of things you'd want to know.
You know, the pictures we've seen publicly of his body doesn't look like he did, but you don't know. And all those sorts of bits of information, it is true, it would be a less valuable crime scene now because people have rifled through it, but there's always some value and what they're telling us now is that they think the risk is too great in terms of the security, but I have never understood. If the February 17th brigade was there, they were friendly, they were willing, and we trusted them, certainly, before the attack, why we wouldn't have taken them along with U.S. military assets and set up the perimeter that the FBI needed.
COOPER: I mean, even -- I mean, a lot of, you know, people will tweet in and say well, if you were able to get to it, how come some American investigators wouldn't be able to? I guess it's a question of how much time American investigators would want to spend to actually do a full, thorough forensic investigation. TOWNSEND: That's part of it, Anderson, but the other piece to this is, right, they represent -- when the American investigators go in, they represent the United States. There's a certain international respect for journalists. It's not that -- it's plenty dangerous for Arwa to be there but they represent --
COOPER: It would be a heightened target, obviously.
TOWNSEND: A U.S. target. That's exactly right.
COOPER: And I guess part of it, too, is if mortar fire was involved in the initial attack or RPG fire, if they were to come under fire, the investigators, they would want to be able to return fire to take out mortar positions, anti-battery positions, and to do that, you would need a significant, you know, capability to return fire.
TOWNSEND: That's exactly right. And everybody we've spoken to suggests that, look, if we had to go in, we didn't want to bring in that big a footprint and it would have been difficult for the Libyan government, although cooperative, to agree to that at such a fragile time in the establishment of this.
COOPER: You've got some new information on the U.S. preparing target packages. What have you --
TOWNSEND: You know, Anderson, it's funny, when I read this, I would have been surprised if they weren't doing that. Remember, after the East African embassy bombings, the Clinton administrations launched T-LAMS into training camps in Afghanistan and Sudan. This is sort of part of the usual process, right? You look at the intelligence and the military will prepare and say what targets do we have, what is our basis for making them a target, that is, capture, kill, target with drones, and what is our likelihood of success.
They'll -- also, there's a secondary process of who would we like to have more on, if we had that information, we could prepare better target packages, and they'll levy requirements on the intelligence agencies to go out and get that information for them. And so it's sort of an ongoing (INAUDIBLE) process between the intelligence community and the military community as they prepare in case the president asks for options.
In the meantime, on parallel tracks, you've got Congress, you've got the State Department investigation.
COOPER: Yes.
TOWNSEND: And you've got the FBI.
COOPER: Arwa, just -- I mean, you've spent a lot of time in war zones. Is there something about this that surprised you, about what you saw, about gaining access to this site?
DAMON: It was that it was really such a soft target. You would not expect any establishment, never mind a consulate, to have had such a lack of security to it, especially in a place where there had been attacks against the West. The location itself had been targeted and the U.S. was monitoring not too far away, around a three-hour drive away in the town of Berna, and around it, the activity of known extremist groups who, in some cases, are being led with individuals who are directly affiliated, if not members of al Qaeda in and of itself. I mean it was such a soft target.
COOPER: Right.
TOWNSEND: Arwa and I were talking earlier, and the thing that strikes me about that, Anderson, is every counterterrorism specialist will tell you one of the hallmarks of al Qaeda is they return to failed targets. So the USS Cole that was the success, it had been the Sullivan the year before.
COOPER: Right.
TOWNSEND: The World Trade Center in '93, and then back in 2001. The notion that there were at least two attempts at this consulate and nobody made this a really hard target is really a dereliction of duty. And I think that's some of the outrage you're hearing. There's plenty of partisanship going on in Washington, but there's a certain sense of outrage and I think that's part of why Congressman Issa has whistleblowers. Career people are sort of outraged how could we have let this happen.
COOPER: Well, it continues. Arwa, appreciate all your reporting as always. And I'm glad to have you here.
Fran Townsend, thanks.
[Show continues with other topics]
Bipartisan Senate report denounces Department of Homeland Security intelligence program as costly debacle
This October 3 report from Fox News, which the Associated Press contributed to, is quite long for Fox and covers several bases, so here I'm just going to feature the opening paragraphs with the warning that you shouldn't assume they provide an adequate overview of this dynamite story. Note, too, when you read the entire report, that Congress is as much to blame for the problem as the DHS. (The report also presents the DHS side of the story):
A scathing bipartisan Senate report assailed the Department of Homeland Security for overseeing a network of supposed intelligence-sharing centers that, according to the study, did little to track or disrupt terrorist threats.
"The fusion centers often produced irrelevant, useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting whatsoever," the report said.
The so-called fusion centers were created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. More than 70 state and local centers backed by federal funds were created since 2003, with as much as $1.4 billion in federal taxpayer support committed to the project between 2003 and 2011.
The report, though, portrays an effort that ballooned far beyond anyone's ability to control.
What began as an attempt to put local, state and federal officials in the same room analyzing the same intelligence has instead cost huge amounts of money for data-mining software, flat screen televisions and, in Arizona, two fully equipped Chevrolet Tahoes that are used for commuting, investigators found.
"The ... investigation could identify no reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot," the report said. It said nearly a third of the 610 reports reviewed were "never published for use within DHS" and elsewhere in the intelligence community.
When the program did address terrorism, it sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties.
[...]
Senate report slams DHS intelligence program as costly debacle
A scathing bipartisan Senate report assailed the Department of Homeland Security for overseeing a network of supposed intelligence-sharing centers that, according to the study, did little to track or disrupt terrorist threats.
"The fusion centers often produced irrelevant, useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting whatsoever," the report said.
The so-called fusion centers were created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. More than 70 state and local centers backed by federal funds were created since 2003, with as much as $1.4 billion in federal taxpayer support committed to the project between 2003 and 2011.
The report, though, portrays an effort that ballooned far beyond anyone's ability to control.
What began as an attempt to put local, state and federal officials in the same room analyzing the same intelligence has instead cost huge amounts of money for data-mining software, flat screen televisions and, in Arizona, two fully equipped Chevrolet Tahoes that are used for commuting, investigators found.
"The ... investigation could identify no reporting which uncovered a terrorist threat, nor could it identify a contribution such fusion center reporting made to disrupt an active terrorist plot," the report said. It said nearly a third of the 610 reports reviewed were "never published for use within DHS" and elsewhere in the intelligence community.
When the program did address terrorism, it sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties.
[...]
Canada's Supreme Court upholds Section 13: A bad omen for Canadian and American democracy.
In Justice Mosley’s mind, a crappy telephone answering machine is similar in reach and scope to the entire internet. And as such there is no issue with applying the censorship powers of Section 13 to the entire media -- broadcast media, podcasts, interactive content, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc.
Okay; it's now up to Canada's Parliament to strike down Section 13. If the Parliament fails then within five years, tops, the USA will have a version of Section 13. Harmonization. Americans must harmonize their speech with the dictates of an average of the world's governments so as not to offend the global consumer, which is far more important to American transnational corporations than the First Amendment. To enforce that dictate, though, will require some version of a police state, as most of the world's governments now have.
Don't expect the U.S. military to stand on the side of the general populace in this. Any military command that looked the other way for years while the civilian government aided and abetted Pakistan's regime in the murder of American troops won't lift a finger to defend American democracy.
I know Americans who're already talking about leaving the United States, although where they think they can run to, I don't know. The global economic crisis turned many democracies, including the American one, into Potemkin democracies, which promote the illusion that the voting process can alter the way the unelected govern.
For readers who don't know anything about Section 13, you can read my January 2008 essay, Canada's version of the Minority Report: pre-crime and presumption of guilt in Section 13 cases...
Section 13 is so strange that I had to go to the pages of science fiction to explain it. Few Canadians understood it prior to 2008 because it was rarely applied and up until 2007 only applied to unpopular 'speech offenders' such as alleged bigots.
As to Marc Lemire's legal battle against Section 13 -- here's the email he sent out this morning to all those on his mailing list. There are many links in the text; go to the following link at his website for those.
BREAKING: Federal Court Rules in Lemire case. Some good news and some bad news
Wacky ruling by Federal Court sends the Marc Lemire case back to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a declaration on Section 13 but invalidates the Penalty Provisions
(TORONTO Oct 3, 2012) The Federal Court of Canada has issued it’s ruling in the Marc Lemire case, which challenges the infamous censorship provision Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Federal Court has struck down the penalty provisions of Section 13, but held that the doctrine of Severance was applicable and that Section 13 remains constitutional.
In yet another head scratching move by the Federal Court, Justice Richard G. Mosley has found that the notorious censorship provision – Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is constitutional, but that the penalty provisions are unconstitutional. The Federal Court issued their ruling while at the same time; the Senate of Canada is passing Second Reading on Bill C-304 an Act which will strip the censorship powers from the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. How out of touch with the will of Canadians can the Federal Court be?
This is both a major victory for freedom and a setback. The Federal Court has found that the penalty provisions of Section 13 are unconstitutional. The Federal Court “declared that ss 54 (1) (c) and 54 (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are of no force or effect pursuant to s 52 (1) of The Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11,1982;”. This strikes down the law which assessed huge fines against victims of Canadian Human Rights Commission censorship. Fines of up to $10,000 were imposed at will against anyone caught up in the “human rights” juggernaut.
From the very outset of this thought-control trial (starting in 2003/2004 !!!); Marc Lemire – though his courageous counsel Barbara Kulaszka – advocated for the penalty provision to be struck down. The CHRC and their fellow travelers fought tooth and nail against this. Finally in 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal agreed with Lemire, but lacked the power to actually invalidate the law. Today, The Federal Court has struck down the penalty provision and wiped this blight from Canadian Law books. This effectively removes the hammer which the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission have used to silence and suppress political dissidents from speaking truth-to-power on the Internet.
The bad news is that the Federal Court has upheld Section 13. The court found that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal should have applied the doctrine of Severance, and “read out” the Penalty provisions and held the underlying provision as constitutionally valid. This is the most shocking part of the decision.
Ignoring the very decisive and detailed ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Justice Mosley found that Section 13 was just fine. Contrary the mountain of evidence which was submitted during the Lemire Tribunal hearing; Justice Mosley found that there was little difference with Section 13, when it only applied to telephone answering machines to what it applies to now – the entire Internet. In Mosley’s mind, a crappy telephone answering machine is similar in reach and scope to the entire internet. And as such there is no issue with applying the censorship powers of Section 13 to the entire media, broadcast media, podcasts, interactive content, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc etc etc. After all they are just like an answering machine?!?!?
It really makes you wonder what is wrong with our courts and those clowns that elevate themselves to god-like status to rule over us little sheep. How the heck could the court rule that a telephone answering machine is no different than Facebook, Twitter or YouTube?
Unlike our proud ancestors who had to fight for freedom in the trenches of Normandy and in the highlands of Scotland, nowadays we have to fight for freedom in stale court rooms surrounded by out of touch “Justices” and their cadre of useful idiots just waiting to praise anything they do.
Every single major news outlet in Canada has denounced the censorship provisions of Section 13 – from coast to coast. From the leftists at the Toronto Star, to the National Post, Toronto Sun, Vancouver Province, Globe and Mail, Macleans Magazine, Calgary Herald, Ottawa Citizen, London Free Press, Catholic Insight, Catholic Register, B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune, Halifax Chronicle Herald, Sask Leader-Post, Winnipeg Free Press, and even the CBC.
The Parliament of Canada has voted to repeal Section 13 by a majority of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The Senate of Canada has already voted twice to repeal Section 13 and is it now on the way to third and final reading … yet this Justice Richard Mosley – in utter sheer arrogance and in clear contrast to a majority of Canadians – gives Section 13 its last gasp of air.
It was pretty clear during the court hearing in 2011, that Justice Mosley was harbouring a great deal of animosity towards the side representing freedom and justice. He treated my lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka – like complete trash. Constantly cutting her off and limiting our time to submissions down to almost nothing. The exchange between Mosley and Kulaszka was even quoted in the National Post the next day.
Like a lost soul, Justice Mosley just kept asking why the Attorney General of Canada was not appearing before him to make submissions. Of course the mere fact that the Attorney General was not going to appear in Federal Court to uphold this censorship law spoke volumes to everyone present. It is really quite a statement when the Attorney General of Canada refused to appear in the court to uphold their law. And it was even more evident when days later the Attorney General of Canada – Rob Nicholson – rose in the House of Commons and voted on Bill C-304 an Act to repeal Section 13. Can the message be any clearer, Justice Mosley?
The question now is what to do. Do I accept the ruling of Justice Mosley or do I appeal and continue to fight to rid Canada of this horrible censorship legislation? The choice is as much mine as it is yours. I cannot continue to fight for freedom without your support. There are a series of other cases in the “Human Rights” grist mill, which are awaiting a final decision in my case. If I chose not to appeal, all those cases would then be activated and the censorship victims would be dragged before these kangaroo courts (Arthur Topham, Alexan Kulbashian, etc)
Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of this disgusting though control legislation? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical censors. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit when we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.
I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. No organizations are assisting with the bill at all.
Donate online here
You can contact me here:
Marc Lemire
762 Upper James St
Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario
L9C 3A2
Email: marc@lemire.com
Web: http://www.freedomsite.org
http://www.StopSection13.com
Twitter: @marc_lemire
Okay; it's now up to Canada's Parliament to strike down Section 13. If the Parliament fails then within five years, tops, the USA will have a version of Section 13. Harmonization. Americans must harmonize their speech with the dictates of an average of the world's governments so as not to offend the global consumer, which is far more important to American transnational corporations than the First Amendment. To enforce that dictate, though, will require some version of a police state, as most of the world's governments now have.
Don't expect the U.S. military to stand on the side of the general populace in this. Any military command that looked the other way for years while the civilian government aided and abetted Pakistan's regime in the murder of American troops won't lift a finger to defend American democracy.
I know Americans who're already talking about leaving the United States, although where they think they can run to, I don't know. The global economic crisis turned many democracies, including the American one, into Potemkin democracies, which promote the illusion that the voting process can alter the way the unelected govern.
For readers who don't know anything about Section 13, you can read my January 2008 essay, Canada's version of the Minority Report: pre-crime and presumption of guilt in Section 13 cases...
Section 13 is so strange that I had to go to the pages of science fiction to explain it. Few Canadians understood it prior to 2008 because it was rarely applied and up until 2007 only applied to unpopular 'speech offenders' such as alleged bigots.
As to Marc Lemire's legal battle against Section 13 -- here's the email he sent out this morning to all those on his mailing list. There are many links in the text; go to the following link at his website for those.
BREAKING: Federal Court Rules in Lemire case. Some good news and some bad news
Wacky ruling by Federal Court sends the Marc Lemire case back to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for a declaration on Section 13 but invalidates the Penalty Provisions
(TORONTO Oct 3, 2012) The Federal Court of Canada has issued it’s ruling in the Marc Lemire case, which challenges the infamous censorship provision Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Federal Court has struck down the penalty provisions of Section 13, but held that the doctrine of Severance was applicable and that Section 13 remains constitutional.
In yet another head scratching move by the Federal Court, Justice Richard G. Mosley has found that the notorious censorship provision – Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is constitutional, but that the penalty provisions are unconstitutional. The Federal Court issued their ruling while at the same time; the Senate of Canada is passing Second Reading on Bill C-304 an Act which will strip the censorship powers from the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. How out of touch with the will of Canadians can the Federal Court be?
This is both a major victory for freedom and a setback. The Federal Court has found that the penalty provisions of Section 13 are unconstitutional. The Federal Court “declared that ss 54 (1) (c) and 54 (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are of no force or effect pursuant to s 52 (1) of The Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11,1982;”. This strikes down the law which assessed huge fines against victims of Canadian Human Rights Commission censorship. Fines of up to $10,000 were imposed at will against anyone caught up in the “human rights” juggernaut.
From the very outset of this thought-control trial (starting in 2003/2004 !!!); Marc Lemire – though his courageous counsel Barbara Kulaszka – advocated for the penalty provision to be struck down. The CHRC and their fellow travelers fought tooth and nail against this. Finally in 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal agreed with Lemire, but lacked the power to actually invalidate the law. Today, The Federal Court has struck down the penalty provision and wiped this blight from Canadian Law books. This effectively removes the hammer which the fanatics at the Canadian Human Rights Commission have used to silence and suppress political dissidents from speaking truth-to-power on the Internet.
The bad news is that the Federal Court has upheld Section 13. The court found that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal should have applied the doctrine of Severance, and “read out” the Penalty provisions and held the underlying provision as constitutionally valid. This is the most shocking part of the decision.
Ignoring the very decisive and detailed ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Justice Mosley found that Section 13 was just fine. Contrary the mountain of evidence which was submitted during the Lemire Tribunal hearing; Justice Mosley found that there was little difference with Section 13, when it only applied to telephone answering machines to what it applies to now – the entire Internet. In Mosley’s mind, a crappy telephone answering machine is similar in reach and scope to the entire internet. And as such there is no issue with applying the censorship powers of Section 13 to the entire media, broadcast media, podcasts, interactive content, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc etc etc. After all they are just like an answering machine?!?!?
It really makes you wonder what is wrong with our courts and those clowns that elevate themselves to god-like status to rule over us little sheep. How the heck could the court rule that a telephone answering machine is no different than Facebook, Twitter or YouTube?
Unlike our proud ancestors who had to fight for freedom in the trenches of Normandy and in the highlands of Scotland, nowadays we have to fight for freedom in stale court rooms surrounded by out of touch “Justices” and their cadre of useful idiots just waiting to praise anything they do.
Every single major news outlet in Canada has denounced the censorship provisions of Section 13 – from coast to coast. From the leftists at the Toronto Star, to the National Post, Toronto Sun, Vancouver Province, Globe and Mail, Macleans Magazine, Calgary Herald, Ottawa Citizen, London Free Press, Catholic Insight, Catholic Register, B'nai Brith Jewish Tribune, Halifax Chronicle Herald, Sask Leader-Post, Winnipeg Free Press, and even the CBC.
The Parliament of Canada has voted to repeal Section 13 by a majority of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The Senate of Canada has already voted twice to repeal Section 13 and is it now on the way to third and final reading … yet this Justice Richard Mosley – in utter sheer arrogance and in clear contrast to a majority of Canadians – gives Section 13 its last gasp of air.
It was pretty clear during the court hearing in 2011, that Justice Mosley was harbouring a great deal of animosity towards the side representing freedom and justice. He treated my lawyer – Barbara Kulaszka – like complete trash. Constantly cutting her off and limiting our time to submissions down to almost nothing. The exchange between Mosley and Kulaszka was even quoted in the National Post the next day.
Like a lost soul, Justice Mosley just kept asking why the Attorney General of Canada was not appearing before him to make submissions. Of course the mere fact that the Attorney General was not going to appear in Federal Court to uphold this censorship law spoke volumes to everyone present. It is really quite a statement when the Attorney General of Canada refused to appear in the court to uphold their law. And it was even more evident when days later the Attorney General of Canada – Rob Nicholson – rose in the House of Commons and voted on Bill C-304 an Act to repeal Section 13. Can the message be any clearer, Justice Mosley?
The question now is what to do. Do I accept the ruling of Justice Mosley or do I appeal and continue to fight to rid Canada of this horrible censorship legislation? The choice is as much mine as it is yours. I cannot continue to fight for freedom without your support. There are a series of other cases in the “Human Rights” grist mill, which are awaiting a final decision in my case. If I chose not to appeal, all those cases would then be activated and the censorship victims would be dragged before these kangaroo courts (Arthur Topham, Alexan Kulbashian, etc)
Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of this disgusting though control legislation? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the "Human Rights" Commission's racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical censors. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit when we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.
I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case. No organizations are assisting with the bill at all.
Donate online here
You can contact me here:
Marc Lemire
762 Upper James St
Suite 384
Hamilton, Ontario
L9C 3A2
Email: marc@lemire.com
Web: http://www.freedomsite.org
http://www.StopSection13.com
Twitter: @marc_lemire
Tuesday, October 2
Extreme Cheapskates: Is Big Government driving human nature crazy?
Well shoot, I'm just finding out about this show. Thanks to AOL for scooping up the story. I hope TLC does reruns because if so I will make the time to watch every episode. Reality shows like this are the place to see human nature in all its glory and to realize it's bored out of its tree with the modern era. The more comforts, conveniences and safety society builds into its systems, the unhappier human nature is.
But undaunted by the fruitcakes who want to turn Earth into heaven, human nature always finds a way to stave off terminal boredom. Have you ever seen Storage Wars and Extreme Couponing? Then people ask where all the hunters and trappers have gone.
But undaunted by the fruitcakes who want to turn Earth into heaven, human nature always finds a way to stave off terminal boredom. Have you ever seen Storage Wars and Extreme Couponing? Then people ask where all the hunters and trappers have gone.
New Yorker Saves By Skipping Laundry for 3 YearsClick on the link for a video of Kay doing her laundry in the shower.
by Mandi Woodruff
October 2, 2012
Business Insider
The latest season of TLC's Extreme Cheapskates premieres this month, and from the looks of the teasers they've posted online, the recession has born an entirely new breed of outrageous savers.
In the first clip we meet New York resident Kay. Not only does she freely admit to never using toilet paper, she reveals she hasn't done laundry the traditional way –– using a washer and dryer –– in years.
"Whenever I have dirty clothes, I try to wash them while I'm showering," she says. "I think the last time I did laundry was maybe three years ago."
Here's her alternative method: Lathering up her duds with detergent (a free sample, naturally) and soaking them while she washes herself. Afterward, they hang to dry in the shower.
Kay sees no need in indulging in paper products either. She replaced toilet paper with a squirt bottle filled with water.
I don't believe in spending money on something you're just gonna throw away such as toilet paper and paper towels," she says.
Monday, October 1
Not even dawn and already Pundita is having a bad week
Around 4:10 this morning I added a few more sentences to the second update to my Sunday post about a song sung by a Colombian band, Bomba Estéreo, the song being "El Alma Y El Cuerpo" -- The Soul and The Body (the above photo is a still from the 'official' video of the song). The second update was to answer a reader's criticism about statements I made in the post.
I had a peevish reaction to being called on to defend myself. ("It's just a song, folks. Let's not make a federal case out of it.") But on second thought it wasn't just a song in my view; if it had been, I wouldn't have written about it for this blog. I'd started the original post by asking whether the song was a revolutionary one -- whether it portended a radical new trend in thinking in Colombia/ Latin America. So I suppose I should have expected to have my statements about it put under a microscope.
But the squabble tended to underscore the point of the song, at least as the band's vocalist explained it to the BBC: there's a lot of criticism, a lot of debates and worries, a lot of outward looking.
Somehow, over a period of a decade, my life became consumed by the war, and to the point where now everything else is folded into the war -- even a song about the soul. That, too, is a point the vocalist made to the Beeb: Colombia had been at war for many years. A certain mindset takes hold under those conditions that makes it hard to look inward.
Well. I've been talking so much about the band that I should mention a little background about it:
Bomba Estereo began as a musical project put together by musician and visual artist Simon Mejia. Consisting of members of Bogota’s electronic music scene, Bomba Estereo blends Colombia’s traditional sounds of Cumbia and Champeta with rock, electronic music and hip hop. Originally, Bomba just made instrumental tracks, that is until the band recruited its feisty frontwoman Liliana Saumet.
The group has released three records, Vol. 1 in 2006, Estalla in 2008 and 2009’s Blow Up. [the fourth will be released this month].
Sunday, September 30
Colombian band Bomba Estéreo's "El Alma Y El Cuerpo" (Soul and Body)
UPDATE
I took heat from a reader about this post, first because I implied that the song was new. The reader sent a YouTube version of the group singing the song on a street in Bogota in March 2011, and which was uploaded to YouTube in Aug. 2011.
Second, the reader told me that my Spanish sucked if I got from the lyrics what the group's vocalist, Liliana Saumet, told the Beeb about the song. (See below.)
It's just a song, folks. Let's not make a federal case out of it. But this is a lesson to Pundita to stick to simple topics, like war.
As near as I can gather, and please don't quote me on this, I think the song has only been released a few weeks ago under a record label. And the 'official' video of the song is a new release. (See below.)
As to the lyrics, I'll grant that the ideas Saumet explained to the BBC are only implied in the song -- at least, if the English at Google Translation is somewhat accurate (See below.) So I will cop to that error. Yes, it's very clear from the translation that the song doesn't start by saying, 'You know, Colombians and Latin Americans in general worry a lot about things, about what other people are doing, but aren't looking inside for the answers.' But these observations are implied in the song's opening, "Know that I will mourn; I'm going to complain."
And the 'official' video (above), released more than a year after the group first brought it to the public, makes the themes that Saumet explained very explicit. The imagery -- introspection, purification, regeneration -- can be universally understood even without lyrics and carries forward Saumet's explanation of the song.
Unless the reader wants to tell me that the video is just about a sexy chick lounging in a hammock then taking a stroll on the beach and a swim in the ocean.
Here's the Google translation of the lyrics:
know that I will mournNow to return to my original post.
que me voy a quejar I'm going to complain
que me voy a reir I'm going to laugh
se que en la oscuridad is that in the dark
no se puede ver nada si tu no estas aqui(bis) can not see anything if you're not here (bis)
duro dos segundos el atardecer lasted two seconds the sunset
me quemo por dentro I burn inside
el alma y el cuerpo the soul and body
la sangre esta hirviendo(bis) blood is boiling (bis)
me quemo por dentro I burn inside
el alma y el cuerpo the soul and body
me quemo por dentro I burn inside
y yo...no puede estar mas asi and ... I can not be more so
y yo...no puedo estar mas asi ahhh and I ... I can not be more so ahhh
sin alma en el cuerpo no soul in the body
me quemo por dentro I burn inside
me quemo por dentro I burn inside
sin alma en el cuerpo no soul in the body
me quemo por dentro I burn inside
me quemo por dentro... I'm burning inside ...
ya se que no vendra I know they will not come
nadie te va a enseñar nobody will teach
lo que es estar asi what is to be so
que en esta soledad in this solitude
enfrenta la verdad Face the truth
es casi como huir(bis) is almost as escape (bis)
duro dos segundos el atardecer lasted two seconds the sunset
me quemo por dentro I burn inside
el alma y el cuerpo the soul and body
la sangre esta hirviendo blood is boiling
me quemo por dentro I burn inside
el alma y el cuerpo the soul and body
Fuente: musica.com Source: musica.com
Letra añadida por edanbece Lyrics added by edanbece
********************
Is this is a revolutionary song? I don't know; is it revolutionary for a Colombian to say that people in Colombia and Latin America worry a lot about things, about what other people are doing, but aren't looking inside for the answers? To say this in a country where politics is considered the alpha and omega?
The song is from the quartet's third album, "Elegancia Tropical." It's the first single to be released from the album, which is being debuted internationally in October.
Here is a version that seems to have been made for the BBC; the performance is interspersed with vocalist Liliana Saumet's explanation of the meaning of the song.
The official version has slightly different orchestration than the BBC one. (H/T The Latin Americanist.)
March 2011 version
Friday, September 28
Security fears hobble inquiry of attack on U.S. consulate in Benghazi: “It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now.”
See also September 27 CNN report, Sources: 15 days after Benghazi attack, FBI still investigating from afar. ("FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured ... but that has not happened.")
September 27, The New York Times:
September 27, The New York Times:
Security Fears Hobble Inquiry of Libya AttackLots more in the report -- lots. "David D. Kirkpatrick reported from Benghazi and Tripoli, Libya, and Eric Schmitt and Michael S. Schmidt from Washington. Adam Nossiter contributed reporting from Bissau, Guinea-Bissau, and Steven Lee Myers from New York."
By David D. Kirkpatrick, Eric Schmitt and Michael S. Schmidt
BENGHAZI, Libya — Sixteen days after the death of four Americans in an attack on a United States diplomatic mission here, fears about the near-total lack of security have kept F.B.I. agents from visiting the scene of the killings and forced them to try to piece together the complicated crime from Tripoli, more than 400 miles away.
Investigators are so worried about the tenuous security, people involved in the investigation say, that they have been unwilling to risk taking some potential Libyan witnesses into the American Embassy in Tripoli. Instead, the investigators have resorted to the awkward solution of questioning some witnesses in cars outside the embassy, which is operating under emergency staffing and was evacuated of even more diplomats on Thursday because of a heightened security alert.
“It’s a cavalcade of obstacles right now,” said a senior American law enforcement official who is receiving regular updates on the Benghazi investigation and who described the crime scene, which has been trampled on, looted and burned, [and] s badly “degraded” that even once F.B.I. agents do eventually gain access “it’ll be very difficult to see what evidence can be attributed to the bad guys.”
Piecing together exactly how Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died here would be difficult even under the best of conditions. But the volatile security situation in post-Qaddafi Libya has added to the challenge of determining whether it was purely a local group of extremists who initiated the fatal assault or whether the attackers had ties to international terrorist groups, as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Wednesday may be the case.
The Libyan government has advised the F.B.I. that it cannot assure the safety of the American investigators in Benghazi. So agents have been conducting interviews from afar, relying on local Libyan authorities to help identify and arrange meetings with witnesses to the attack and working closely with the Libyans to gauge the veracity of any of those accounts.
“There’s a chance we never make it in there,” said a senior law enforcement official.
[...]
Thursday, September 27
"Innocence of Muslims Filmmaker Nakoula Arrested in L.A."
Bloomberg, Sep 27, 2012 8:04 PM ET
'Innocence of Muslims’ Filmmaker Nakoula Arrested in L.A.
by Joel Rosenblatt
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, who made the trailer for the film “Innocence of Muslims” that sparked violent outbreaks in several Muslim countries, was arrested for violating the terms of his supervised release.
Nakoula was scheduled to appear at a hearing in federal court in Los Angles today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal, according to a court website. Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s office in Los Angeles, said Nakoula was arrested today in Los Angeles.
The 14-minute trailer shows a fictional attack by Muslims on a Christian family, followed by an account of the origins of Islam depicting Mohammed as a womanizer. Google Inc. (GOOG)’s YouTube blocked access to the clip in Egypt and Libya following attacks on the U.S. missions in those countries.
[...]
Jack Whitaker, a lawyer for Nakoula, declined to comment on today’s arrest.
Nakoula, 55, has a criminal history that includes bank fraud by using false identities and a drug conviction. He was questioned this month by U.S. authorities investigating whether he violated terms of his parole.
Under the terms of his release, Nakoula is prohibited from representing himself with anything other than his true legal name, and is barred from using the Internet without permission from his probation officer.
[...]
Nakoula was sentenced to one year in jail in 1997 for intent to manufacture methamphetamine, according to Jane Robison, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley. He was given another year for violating probation in 2002.
Nakoula pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud and was sentenced to 21 months in prison and ordered to pay $794,700 in restitution, according to the June 24, 2010, sentencing document by U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder in Los Angeles.
The case is USA v. Nakoula, 09-cr-00617, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
Benghazi consulate death trap
Who killed U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and why are still mysteries. But if he died of asphyxiation from smoke inhalation, then technically his death was due to his employer's negligence. That's because the villa in Benghazi that the U.S. Department of State rented for its staff was a death trap.
After an attack on the villa in June, fortification was increased. According to CNN, fortifications "included additional barriers and barbed wire, increased lighting, chain link fences, additional sand bags and closed circuit television. Every U.S. building on the compound was also fitted with a safe room with a steel door, although the officials recognize that the room was not fireproof."
There is no such thing as a safe room that's not fireproofed.
But not only was not one single room fireproofed, the place had no fire extinguishers and no smoke masks for the employees.
That last was reported by the Wall Street Journal.
As to whether the attackers knew the employees were completely unprepared to deal with an arson attack, they showed up with diesel fuel cannisters that they lobbed into the villa. Burning diesel fuel makes very thick black smoke.
Sources
CNN, September 24, 2012: U.S. post in Benghazi had less than standard security before attack
The Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2012: The Libya Debacle: The more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure.
After an attack on the villa in June, fortification was increased. According to CNN, fortifications "included additional barriers and barbed wire, increased lighting, chain link fences, additional sand bags and closed circuit television. Every U.S. building on the compound was also fitted with a safe room with a steel door, although the officials recognize that the room was not fireproof."
There is no such thing as a safe room that's not fireproofed.
But not only was not one single room fireproofed, the place had no fire extinguishers and no smoke masks for the employees.
That last was reported by the Wall Street Journal.
As to whether the attackers knew the employees were completely unprepared to deal with an arson attack, they showed up with diesel fuel cannisters that they lobbed into the villa. Burning diesel fuel makes very thick black smoke.
Sources
CNN, September 24, 2012: U.S. post in Benghazi had less than standard security before attack
The Wall Street Journal, September 27, 2012: The Libya Debacle: The more we learn, the more Benghazi looks like a gross security failure.
Breaking - State has removed its staff from Tripoli embassy (UPDATED 7:05 PM EDT)
Report on FNC (Fox News at 6:00 PM EDT. State announced the move was temporary. FNC has no information at this point on why all personnel were moved.
UPDATE 18:49 PM EDT from the Beeb:
UPDATE 18:49 PM EDT from the Beeb:
(BBC) The United States is temporarily removing further staff from its embassy in the Libyan capital, the state department has said.
It said staff were being withdrawn from Tripoli for security reasons.
[...]
A statement on the website of the US embassy in Tripoli warned that demonstrations were possible in both the capital and Benghazi on Friday.
"This is a temporary further drawdown of staff for security reasons," a state department official said in New York.
"We will review our posture again early next week with the goal of restoring staff as soon as conditions allow."
It was not revealed how many staff were being withdrawn from Tripoli.
[...]
Wednesday, September 26
Silent partner in making of anti-Islam hate video "Innocence of Muslims" is allegedly a Muslim and terrorist supporter?
The plot thickens. Yes, this is the video that started the ruckus. This is still a developing story, the bare bones of which I picked up at Blazing Catfur blog, which is also waiting on developments:
"Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian [Christian] Copt." [...]That's it, except for BC's hat tips and wait on developments. A little more light is shed by one of BC's readers, in the comment section:
Daniel9vs2 (11:21 AM today)And here I thought CNN's Anderson Cooper and others went after Shoebat only because of his report on what's her name -- Hillary Clinton's body woman. Don't rush me, the name'll come to me....Pundita hasn't had any sleep for two days or is it three....Huma. Huma Abedin. This was around the time what's her name.....Bachmann, Michele, and other Republicans sent all those letters to various U.S. agencies about the infiltration of Muslim terrorist-leaning people in the American government. Something like that. Yes it's all coming back, in bits and pieces.....
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is actually a partner of Walid Shoebat’s first cousin, Eiad Salameh, and may belong on the FBI’s most wanted list for millions of dollars in various types of fraud, which includes social security fraud, identity theft, and illegal trade in passports.Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the maker of the film, was a major partner in crime with Salameh and much of the ill-gotten gains were likely used to make the film.
Based on an Arabic media interview with Nakoula, the producer freely admitted that he is neither a Christian nor a Jew. [...]
But when was it that Hillary Clinton announced that the Saudis were still the world's biggest supporters of terrorism? Was that late last year or early this year? I actually linked to the report but darn my crummy record keeping......
I do remember the Saudi response was something to the effect that they couldn't control fundraising for terrorists that happened during the Hajj. I doubt Saudi King Abdullah was tickled with having his country labeled the world's #1 terror supporter, especially after President Obama threw Hosni Mubarak under the bus. Reportedly Abdullah was so angry at Obama about that observers feared he would have a stroke. This is no joke.
Wouldn't it be a riot if the date of September 11 actually had nothing to do with the launch of the anti-American riots -- the ones organized in advance of that date? Where is my Muslim high holy days calendar? I know the Hajj starts next month because I just featured a report in my last post about a new SARS-type virus that broke out in Saudi Arabia and which WHO and the Saudi government are worried will break out at the Hajj next month.
Awright, Pundita, you know what happens to people who connect too many dots. They go dotty. Anyhow, it would be interesting if Shoebat's Muslim first cousin was involved in the making of that anti-Muslim video.
Maybe somebody should clue that American pastor who bought into the video -- give me a minute..... Jones, Jones, Terry -- that if he wants to run with those kind of people he should learn that it's not possible to win at a genuine Three-Card Monte game. One card is doctored, so the game is not really a sleight-of-hand trick. That means the only people who can win at genuine Three-Card Monte are those who're working with the dealer to draw in the marks, or those marks who're drawn into winning until they're completely hooked and put up a significant amount of money.
Jones was an easy mark because of his earlier Koran-burning stunt, or threat to burn a Koran or Korans, or whatever. What year was that? Give me a moment....oh I can't remember. So little time, so many marks.
Well, I see it's 4:00 PM. Might as well stay up long enough to watch Survivor tonight. Then I'll crash. It is Wednesday, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)