Article

2014-01-17 Terror Networks

Senate Intelligence Committee report on Benghazi.

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-01-17 00:00|| || Front Page|| [8 views ] Top
File under: Ansar al-Sharia

#1 Overly redacted prior to declassification. Not sure why it needed to be classified at this point anyway. Perhaps the 'little people' have "no need to know" why their fellow citizens were needlessly slain.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-01-17 06:31|| 2014-01-17 06:31|| Front Page Top

#2 yep, spilled blood could spook the herd (you are just as expendable for the political elite who consider you no better than cannon fodder for their ambitions - here on the 100th anniversary of the butchery of the 'little people' in the fields of France).

Posted by Procopius2k 2014-01-17 08:32|| 2014-01-17 08:32|| Front Page Top

#3 Well, adjusting my tin foil hat.... the Klingons knew full well who they were dealing with [GITMO detainees, etc] and were fully aware they were sitting on a shi* sandwich. So out of an abundance of caution, they enhanced their security profile.

The State Department on the other hand, assumed Stevens had everything wired with the indigenous rabble, and having a 'top down' distrust of knuckle dragging military types, refused additional security and precautionary measures.

Could it be that simple ?

Posted by Besoeker 2014-01-17 08:59|| 2014-01-17 08:59|| Front Page Top

#4 There is a certain inevitability that creeps into stories about the Democrat candidate for 2016. The inevitable candidate is Hillary Clinton. The State Department seems to have been a tick mark in her candidacy. She completely failed in this her role as SOS. When the 3:00 am call came, she was absent (as was Obama). When in the voting booth and considering a candidate for President, ask the question: Do I want my brother, sister, husband, son or daughter serving under this Commander in Chief?" Can she be trusted to watch their backs?"

Posted by JohnQC 2014-01-17 09:02|| 2014-01-17 09:02|| Front Page Top

#5 Still outstanding, is the question of WHY no one has been arrested or in the Champ's words, "brought to justice."

Of course, the discovery that some, or any of these people [or former GITMO detainees] were actually on the Klingon payroll would be most embarrassing.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-01-17 09:33|| 2014-01-17 09:33|| Front Page Top

#6 Interesting Benghazi timeline.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-01-17 09:48|| 2014-01-17 09:48|| Front Page Top

#7 ...pointing fingers at "institutions" = no accountability in a personal sense...go figure...still more to be found here...

Posted by Uncle Phester 2014-01-17 10:26|| 2014-01-17 10:26|| Front Page Top

#8 Overly redacted prior to declassification

I disagree. Some of it appears to refers to specific names and locales. Other parts refer to operational capabilities.

...pointing fingers at "institutions" = no accountability in a personal sense...go figure...still more to be found here...

Perhaps. Please note who the Majority is on the Select Senate Intelligence Committee.

Some things to note:

The Committee notes that the IC, Suite, and DoD provided the Committee with hundreds of key documents throughout this review, although sometimes with a significant amount of resistance, especially from State...

...the U.S. Temporary Mission Facility hereinafter "the TMF," "the Mission facility," or "the Mission compound")... the uncertain future of the Mission facility, due to its one-year expiration in December 2012, contributed to a lack of continuity for security staff and constrained decision-makers in Washington regarding the allocation of security enhancements to that facility... the Mission facility had received additional surveillance cameras, but they remained uninstalled because the State Department had not yet sent out the technical team necessary to install them.... In contrast, the CIA, in response to the same deteriorating security situation and IC threat reporting, consistently upgraded its security posture over the same time period... Although officially under cover, the Annex was known by some in Benghazi as an American facility. the Committee received conflicting information on the extent of the awareness within DoD of the Benghazi Annex. According to U.S. AFRICOM, neither the command nor its Commander were aware of an annex... However, it is the Committee's understanding that other DoD personnel were aware of the Benghazi Annex.

The DoD's Site Security Team [SST], which was provided by the DoD at no expense to the Department of State, consisted of 16 special operations personnel detailed to the Chief of Mission in Libya, although its numbers fluctuated slightly due to rotations... SST personnel were based in and spent most of their time in Tripoli, but traveled to Benghazi two or three times... State Department headquarters made the decision not to request an extension of the SST's mission in August 2012... because State believed that many of the duties of the SST could be accomplished by local security forces, DS agents, or other State Department capabilities... DoD confirmed...that Ambassador Stevens declined two specific offers from General Carter Ham, then the head of AFRICOM, to sustain the SST in the weeks before the terrorist attacks...

... there were at least 20 security incidents involving the Temporary Mission Facility, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and third-country nationals and diplomats in the Benghazi area in the months leading up to the September 11, 20 12, attacks...

... A dearth of clear and definitive HUMINT or eyewitness reporting led IC analysts to rely on open press reports and limited SIGINT reporting that incorrectly attributed the origins of the Benghazi attacks to "protests," over first-hand accounts from U.S. officials on the ground... As a result of evidence from closed circuit videos and other reports, the IC changed its assessment about a protest in classified intelligence reports on September 24, 2012, to state there were no demonstrations or protests at the Temporary Mission Facility prior to the attacks. This slow change in the official assessment affected the public statements of government officials, who continued to state in press interviews that there were protests outside the Mission compound... The IC continues to assess that although they do not think the first attack came out of protests, the lethality and efficacy of the attack "did not require significant amounts of preplanning" ...the collective assessment of the IC remains that the attacks "were deliberate and organized, but that their lethality and efficacy did not necessarily indicate extensive planning...

... "there appeared to be very real confusion over who, ultimately, was responsible and empowered to make decisions based on both policy and security concerns" at the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, and the Mission facility in Benghazi.

Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar alSharia, 134 AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks... It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks or whether extremist group leaders directed their members to participate. Some intelligence suggests the attacks were likely put together in short order, following that day's violent protests in Cairo against an inflammatory video, suggesting that these and other terrorist groups could conduct similar attacks with little advance warning... The Libyan Government has not shown the political incentive or will within its own country to seek out, arrest, and prosecute individuals believed to be associated with the attacks.

The SSCI conducted two closed, on-the-record sessions and one unrecorded session regarding the Benghazi talking points with the General Counsel of the ODNI, Robert Litt... He provided a summary document he created showing the changes made to each draft, without email time stamps and sender/recipient information because the Administration, claiming privilege, would not provide the Committee the opportunity to look at the actual emails... This Committee faced significant resistance from the Administration in getting access to the emails and documentation... This resistance was apparently based, in part, on Executive branch concerns related to executive privilege and the deliberative process which appeared to evaporate when the emails were made public...

My observations:

1. This was the Senate Intelligence Committee; any investigation they would do would be related more specifically to intelligence. Hence we would not see any timelines related to the White House, or response centers at Langley or the Pentagon.

2. Again, note who the Majority on this Committee is. Though the Committee stressed that it was "bipartisan" there still is a "Minority statement" that brought out its concerns, particularly "important questions remain unanswered as a direct result of the Obama Administration's failure to provide the Committee with access to necessary documents and witnesses" and "one of the biggest failures is the Administration's complete refusal or inability to attain accountability-from the attackers themselves and from those U.S. Government officials who made poor management decisions relating to the Benghazi facilities" and "the Administration's ongoing failure to secure justice and accountability for those responsible for these attacks." However, that it is a minority report, it will unfortunately be relegated by the press and public as having been made on political grounds.

Summary: It is, by reality, a document tainted by political concerns. However, it is not a complete waste of time and effort.

Posted by Pappy 2014-01-17 11:42|| 2014-01-17 11:42|| Front Page Top

#9 I disagree. Some of it appears to refers to specific names and locales. Other parts refer to operational capabilities.

Valid points and assessment at #8. I have no problem with the redaction of people, sources & methods. The twin elephants in the kitchen remain the question of what exactly was going on with the AMBO, and whom in Washington was holding the yoke.

No, not a "waste of time", but the investigation should not end with this report.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-01-17 12:12|| 2014-01-17 12:12|| Front Page Top

#10 Agreed; most professionals would concur. One would hope that the other committees will provide that information.

Unofficially, the Fourth Estate would also be working on it. Unfortunately, as seen by the New York Times, that appears to have succumbed to very severe cases of partisanship and ideology.

Posted by Pappy 2014-01-17 12:14|| 2014-01-17 12:14|| Front Page Top

#11 Some other unanswered questions:

1. If the U.S. Temporary Mission Facility had a "one-year expiration in December 2012," were there plans to build a new facility? If it was temporary, why was there an addition of a new media center at the Temporary Mission Facility, the inauguration of same ostensibly being the reason Ambassador Stevens was there?

2. The SSCI report states that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were "security officers." However, initial reports stated that Woods was a CIA contractor assigned to the agency's weapons-purchase program in Libya and working in Benghazi. Doherty has been described in news reports as contractor working for the CIA's Global Response staff in Tripoli. Is the SSCI report inaccurate, or was the "security officer" designation a matter of convenience?

3. When the team from the Annex asked 17th February Brigade members to "provide cover" for them to advance to the gate of the Temporary Mission Facility with gun trucks. The Brigade members refused, "saying they preferred to negotiate with the attackers instead." Without any other details to go on, is there an implication that the attackers, or at least a portion of the attackers, were known to the 17th Brigade?

4. The Department of State security officers, per the report, "did not fire a single shot" during the attack on the Temporary Mission Facility. Indeed, they had to retrieve their weapons, and that only occurred in the middle of the attack. The Department of State Accountability Review Board stated: "While none of the five DS agents discharged their weapons, the Board concluded that this was a sound tactical decision, given the overwhelming degree to which they were outgunned and outnumbered..." While it may have been a sound tactical decision, it is somewhat at odds with initial statements that the invasion of the Mission was an outgrowth of a demonstration. Was there was not a contingency plan in place? Is there a DoS requirement for facilities to have a security plan to deal with incursions at their facilities? Should there have been exercises conducted, or at least an on-scene review made, to deal with the possibility?

It would be nice to have access to the sources listed in the appendix; I wonder if an FOIA request would be productive.

Posted by Pappy 2014-01-17 14:39|| 2014-01-17 14:39|| Front Page Top

#12 "While none of the five DS agents discharged their weapons, the Board concluded that this was a sound tactical decision, given the overwhelming degree to which they were outgunned and outnumbered...

Sounds to me like they may have been given orders not to return fire.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-01-17 16:03|| 2014-01-17 16:03|| Front Page Top

#13 Sounds to me like they may have been given orders not to return fire.

I have not heard or read anything to indicate they were ordered not to fire. I think it was more of case of being outnumbered by 10 to 1. The focus was on getting the AMBO to the Safe Haven and calling for help rather than a gunfight.

Posted by Bangkok Billy 2014-01-17 18:40|| 2014-01-17 18:40|| Front Page Top

#14 Thanks Billy. Still be nice to chat with some of those fellas.... while they were under oath. Seems strange that no one would have had the occasion to use their weapon, but of course I wasn't there.

"AMBO to Safe Haven and calling for help"....not much success in either case.

Posted by Besoeker 2014-01-17 23:22|| 2014-01-17 23:22|| Front Page Top

23:58 JosephMendiola
23:22 Besoeker
21:52 KBK
21:38 Bright Pebbles
21:36 JewShark
21:27 tu3031
21:24 Dopey Sinatra
21:22 tu3031
20:51 Bangkok Billy
20:50 Redneck Jim
20:30 Zenobia Floger6220
20:24 badanov
20:00 Redneck Jim
19:02 mossomo
18:45 GolfBravoUSMC
18:40 Bangkok Billy
18:35 Procopius2k
18:33 JosephMendiola
18:20 Omavising Ebbemp9815
18:19 Rex Mundi
18:19 Dopey Sinatra
18:01 Besoeker
17:55 Barbara
17:54 Besoeker