Gen. Lovell's testimony on Benghazi

May 20, 2014 16:05:35 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I believe you err, fundamentally, in describing what happened in Libya as mere "criminal acts." These terrorists were not run-of-the-mill criminals, but illegal combatants in a "war" against the US, the West, and civilization in general.

And why would assistance not have been sent, in the form of the US military, since no one knew, at the time, just how long this siege would last; and therefore, no one knew  if it would arrive "in time"?  

If we want to address it as a matter of "War" then who is the aggressor?

As to the definition of "illegal combatants" that is detemined by "The Laws and Customs of War" that you've previously stated you don't support (i.e. they are international laws and customs). We could state that the terrorists were not in uniform and openly carrying arms as required by the "Laws and Customs of War" but then were the CIA agents at Benghazi in uniform and openly carrying arms? During times of war spies, like our CIA agents, are considered to be illegal combatants. This is not condoning the acts of terrorism at Benghazi but merely noting that when we start tossing around defintions established by international laws and customs we're as likely to be violating them as "the other guy" in most cases.

Even under International Law and the Customs of War those that attacked the US compound are "criminals" and are treated as such. They still need to be located, arrested, and prosecuted while being afforded the protections and provisions of due process of the law under the Geneva Conventions of War. The problem is that by treating them as "illegal combatants" the actual criminal complaint is probably "less" than what it would be if they are treated as common criminals. Under international law and the customs of war the "attack" on the compound would probably be legal but the fact that the attackers were not in uniform and not openly carrying arms would be illegal. 

My opinion would be that we should probably address them as common criminal "terrorists" as opposed to "illegal combatants" engaged in war. Extreme violence is expected during war but not allowed under criminal law.

Some people think that the US military could have snapped it's fingers in responding but, having been in the military, I know it would have taken probably a day or two to organize an operation from Italy (the closest US military base). The military decided to not act immediately and to wait for a little more information before launching the massive effort required for a response. Within a couple hours of the initial attack on the US compound the Americans that could be located had been rescued and were safe. The situation had basically stablized and there was no reason for the US military to initiate the massive effort to send fighters from Italy to Libya.

I believe that waiting for additional information before doing anything was the correct response to the situation and, as it turned out, it was the correct response.

So what are the issues that need to be addressed? Are the House Republicans really going to question a decision by the US military that we know was the correct decision in retrospect? Are they going to address the erroneous "talking points" that existed for all of about a week and we all know about? What the hell are they going to investigate that we don't already know about?   

May 21, 2014 19:55:46 GMT pjohns1873 said:

One would certainly hope that the House Select Committee will expose the Obama administration's fervid efforts to hide the truth, as regarding Benghazi.

I do not believe the US needs to rely upon International Law to declare the terrorists in Benghazi (or anywhere else) illegal combatants.   Although my reasoning would be essentially the same--i.e. they did not wear identifying uniforms--I believe this standard should be declared (and enforced) by the US, entirely irrespective of any pontifications by some transational body.  

Unless we take your ipse dixit that it would have required "a day or two" (twenty-four to forty-eight hours) for any rescue mission to have arrived--and I am aware of no one else who has asserted that it would have required quite so long of a time--there would have been no way to have known that the situation would have been "basically stabilized" by the time help arrived.

And even if you would prefer to treat it as a mere criminal matter--and I certainly would not--the fact remains that President Obama's boast, shortly after the incident, that we would bring the perpetrators to justice, continues to ring hollow.  And it is now more than 20 months later. 

There is really nothing more to expose about the "Talking Points" deception. We know it happened and we know how and why it happened. No one was "harmed" because of the deception and it was stupid but that's about all there is to it.

*******************************

Terrorism is prosecuted under Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 113B. It is dependent upon International Laws and Treaties related to crimes committed outside of US jurisdiction.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113B

"Illegal" or "Unlawful" combatant refers to violations of Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 118 › § 2441 and it is dependent upon International Law and Treaties for any enforcement outside of US jurisdiction.

www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2441  

There was a "Rescue Mission" and it was effectively carried out by the correct agency - the Libyan Security Forces that were only a kilometer away from the US compound. The Libyan Security Forces were responsible and were effective in their response. There was no reason to initially send anyone else to Benghazi until it could be determined if there was a need. Within about an hour we knew there was no actual need for any American security forces to be sent to Benghazi and, as I've noted, our biggest mistake was actually sending a team from Tripoli because two of them ended up dying needlessly once they arrived in Benghazi.

There is, of course, a significant difference between sending a security team from Tripoli (which was done) and moblizing the US Air Force to respond from Italy that would have taken a day just to plan. Arial tankers that would have been required for an Air Force strike don't just magically appear in the sky and there wasn't an "identifiable target" for an Air Force strike in Benghazi.

We should finally note that the US military did not state that it "wouldn't" respond but instead wanted to wait to see what developed to determine if a military strike was warranted. As it turned out within about an hour or so it was determined that there was no reason for sending a squadron from Italy because the Libyan Security Forces had completed the rescue mission.

Bottom line, Benghazi has become a boring subject for the vast majority of Americans. We know all that we really need to know and it's time for Republicans in the House to address the problems for America that they've been ignoring for the last two years.

May 22, 2014 23:58:41 GMT pjohns1873 said:

It was not merely "stupid"; in fact, it was not stupid at all, but rather cagy (in a Machiavellian sort of way), as it played right into the 2012 narrative--during the presidential campaign--that General Motors is alive, Osama bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda (supposedly) is on the run.

And how can you assert that the Libyan security forces had "completed the rescue mission" in Benghazi when four American citizens were not "rescue[d]" at all, but murdered?

Apparently, from news just coming out but of little interest, the State Dept and the White House actually did believe initially that the attacks at Benghazi were related to the anti-Islamic video on You Tube. It wouldn't be the first time that the White House has ever been wrong (e.g. WMD's in Iraq).

news.yahoo.com/white-house-contacted-youtube-during-benghazi-attack-darrell-175322823--abc-news-politics.html

The problem for the House Republicans is that they're trying to make out that the claims that the attack were connected in any way with the video were politically motived to influence the presidential campaign but that is obviously not the case if the State Dept believed the attacks were related to the video.

Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Scott Strickland secured Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith in a safe room when the attack began. Later, after the building was set on fire and the room was filling with smoke, Strickland directed Stevens and Smith to follow him and leave the smoke filled room. For whatever reason Stevens and Smith did not follow and both eventually died of smoke inhallation and not terrorist bullets. Strickland was saved and safely evacutated but Stevens and Smith were not located because they didn't exit the burning building as directed. Had Stevens and Smith followed Strickland's directions they would have been rescued with the other Americans. This had nothing to do with the Libyan security forces response. 

Later a team found Smith and while he was still alive he soon died from the smoke inhallation. Stevens could not be found in the burning building by the Americans that found Smith but was later found by Libyan civilians that took him to the hospital where he also died from the smoke inhallation.

Smith and Stevens were not "murdered" by the terrorists but instead died from the fire at the compound because they didn't follow Strickland's directions.

The other two casualities were a part of a US security team sent from Tripoli that died unnecessarily because they weren't actually needed in Benghazi at all.

Of additional note there was a US commando team sent the the American air base in Italy but not deployed to Benghazi because the situation in Benghazi had stabilized making deployment unnecessary. Republicans keep trying to claim that there wasn't a US military response but in fact there was and mobilization was going on in case it was needed. It just ended up not being needed because the Libyan security forces were able to handle the situation as they were supposed to.