Benghazi attack
Le't's try some radical thinking, or a reality check, now that the NYT editorial is seconding my suggestions that the answers to the fiasco in Benghazi lie not with Mr Prez, who is not even in control. but with CIA and FBI (who was strangely involved here too) Directors.Let's assume for argument's sake that the compound in Benghazi was NOT an "Embassy", NOT a "Consulate", NOT a "Diplomatic Mission", but a CIA outpost. Furthermore, let's assume for argument's sake that such CIA outpost was engaged part-time as a hub for logistic support of the rebels in Syria, and full time as a small "black hole" prison.
RESULTING LEGAL QUESTIONS:
1. Was/was not such CIA outpost a legitimate target in warfare?
2. In such covert war operations by the US in various other nations, what is the legal foundation in commonsense, for calling such an attack an "act of terror", rather than "act of war", albeit the US has not declared such war, yet is conducting it.
Tidbits:
1. Obviously, the fact that the attackers managed to time the operation and trap the US Ambassador in the Benghazi CIA outpost was the epitome of their success, since it required excellent field intelligence, and the freedom to plan and operate at their choice of time.
2. The US has previously practiced the retroactive claims of diplomatic status for covert operations personnel, when caught in serious violations of local law.
3. Why did they let them go? Under such assumptions, whoever runs the show, decided for military-political reasons, to accept a defeat in that battle, rather than escalate it and cause further exposure of the CIA outpost and its operations, which would be a foreign policy and propaganda fiasco. That calculation did not work out exactly... except that they let them go...
4. Why do all of them lie? Concerns about further exposure of the true nature of the CIA outpost in Benghazi is the true reason that they all lie non stop about it. There is not a scintilla of truth in any of the stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment