Another Benghazi Bombshell

You didn't. Ronmat is just spinning more fantasy.

 

Really? You responded by calling for the impeachment of Pres. Bush and vilifying Condi Rice? I must have missed that.

 

Are you saying that Obama supporters should automatically be believed without proof? Interesting...

 

You didn't. I"m not calling for the impeachment of anyone. Why are you doubting what he claims he saw?

 

Are you saying the Army could provide security to our Embassy in Russia or China and there'd be no problem?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usmc/msgbn.htm

http://marinesmagazine.dodlive.mil/2010/03/23/marine-corps-embassy-security-group/

http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20130920/NEWS/309200005

I don't know if there is a specific international law. Perhaps it's part of the agreement for installing an embassy. Either way, it's the Marine Corps that's authorized to do it. Not the Air Force, not the Army and not the Navy.

 

So attacking on 9/11 was just a coincidence?

 

what difference does that make?

 

Does that actually document that Helms was active in the CIA while serving as Ambassador or does it just show that he served in both capacities at different times? I believe it is the latter.

 

I don't think anyone actually knows. But would the attack have occurred if Stevens had not been there, who will ever know. I just want to know why Stevens went on the 9/11 anniversary. An obviously high risk time to travel to a compound he apparently knew was not as secure as it could have been.

 

Those who planned or led the attack might know.

Agreed about questioning the high risk travel on 9/11 which is why I've previously asked why it was so compelling for him to be there. My guess is as a rep of the Sec. of State in the weapons transfer operation.

While I support such an operation, I can see why Liberals would want to run for political cover on it.

 

It would be naive to think they are not intertwined.

 

I think Ambassadors are aware of the CIA personnel in their embassies. Well, most. Maybe only the "professionals" and not the gimme political appointees. I doubt any actually work for the CIA, but there is little doubt in my mind that some are well briefed on CIA operations. Stephens might have been one of them.

 

We're not addressing a US Embassy but instead we're addressing a diplomatic outpost. The US can authorize any military force within the confines of an embassy but cannot authorize a military force outside of the embassy grounds. An embassy is considered to be the soveriegn territory of the nation that occupies the embassy but other diplomatic outposts are not considered to be the sovereign territory of the nation in residence at these outposts. In many cases these are just offices in a building or in other cases they are building themselves but they are not the sovereign territory of the government with it's diplomatic personnel assigned to the location.

 

So you are saying Marines weren't allowed to be in Benghazi?

 

The reason I pointed out I wasn't sure if they could be there or not is because I know, for sure they would have to be in uniform anywhere except the embassy, but that would be US soil. If not they could be arrested and deported or shot as spies. I don't think Marines would be allowed off embassy property while on duty. But again I just don't know.

 

A good question, but calling a Marine in uniform a spy would be stretching it even for Iran or North Korea.

A consulate is also considered diplomatic property. http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/embassy.htm

 

A Marine out of uniform on foreign soil could be.

 

True, could be but a Marine in uniform on the streets of some countries would be a target.

 

Which is exactly why I was questioning Marines being anywhere besides the embassy. I wasnt trying to argue about it, I just did not know.

 

It would be detrimental to moral, albeit sometimes necessary, to order someone to stay cooped up on a building for a year.

 

Since the administration has not acknowledged the operation, It is just speculation that arms were the reason for the visit. And you will have to explain why liberals would run for political cover since arming the Syrian rebels has been something conservatives have been advocating since the rebellion started.

 

Disagreed, although I think conservatives should support arming the rebels. What we've mostly seen are conservatives against anything Obama proposes. Haven't you seen all the slams the Obama administration has taken for arming "terrorists" on this forum? Heck, some even blame him for arming ISIS.

As for "running for cover", it wasn't the classified mission of moving arms from Libya to Syria that was the big concern but that four Americans, including an Ambassador, were killed in the process just weeks before a national election.

 

Not under international laws and customs although I don't know the specifics of the treaty agreement between Libya and the US related to security at Benghazi. I can only state that under the historical international laws and customs the US military could not be deployed to Benghazi as that would constitute an invasion of Libya by the United States and would be an act of war.

Let me provide an analogy. The US Secret Service just arrested a man for firing a weapon outside of the Ethiopian Embassy in Washington DC.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-arrested-after-shot-fired-outside-ethiopian-embassy-n214281

Would you have allowed the Ethiopian government to invade Washington DC with military forces based upon someone shooting at their embassy? They may have military personnel inside the embassy but that isn't the same as Ethiopia sending troops into Washington DC.

The security outside of the Ethiopian embassy was the responsibility of the US government just like the security at Benghazi, which was outside of the US embassy in Libya, was the responsibility of the Libyan government.

 

Correct as far as it goes. Marines can be stationed at Tripoli, Benghazi, both or none at all. It's the Secretary of State's decision and she chose "none at all". As the link below notes, there are a number of reasons why that would be.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/securing-embassies/

http://world.time.com/2012/09/13/did-the-u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-not-have-enough-security/

 

of course he won't answer that