Maybe he was but declined to use it. He knew he was greatly loved and respected.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
|
Maybe he was but declined to use it. He knew he was greatly loved and respected.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hmmmm!
With or without adequate security, he went anyway knowing he had NONE. Knowing the whole region was hyped up over this film deal. Knowing this particular spot was a target, knowing he was a target.
I don't think this guy knew anything, he had an agenda, a job, and there weren't any other considerations
No one was hyped up about the video . Please don't tell me you are still clinging to that falacy .Quote:
Knowing the whole region was hyped up over this film deal.
No oddly Libya wasn't hyped up over the video
No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film - CNN.com
US consulate 'easy target' for extremists - Features - Al Jazeera English
Quote:
Fawzi Abd al-'Aali, the interior ministry's representative for eastern Libya, told Al Jazeera that the American diplomats should have heeded the advice of Libyan officials and evacuated the building as soon as the protest began.
Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and 10 Libyans were killed on Tuesday, after what began as a protest against a film mocking the Prophet Muhammed evolved into an armed attack.
"We expected something might happen, and we thought they would evacuate the American consulate sooner, while they still had a good chance," he said.
During the first two hours of the protest, he said, the crowd was small enough that they would probably have been able to escape. Al-'Aali said that Stevens had gravely miscalculated, and had believed the protest would soon die down.
The attack happened on Sept 11 ;not the 18thQuote:
No let-up in protests over anti-Islam film - CNN.com
And yet the Ambassador was there on the anniversary of 9-11 ;with a light security contingent of locals ,to meet with a Turkish representative . Instead of focusing on Stevens lack of prudence; you should be asking yourself what was so compelling about that meeting that would make the Ambassador choose to ignore the security threat ,that he had identified to the State Dept. and risked travelling to Benghazi .Quote:
It appears that US officials paid little heed to the implications of this security vacuum for their own staff. The diplomatic mission in Benghazi had light security, even though the building was hit by an improvised explosive device on June 6.
The International Red Cross was attacked in Benghazi in May, and there was an attempted attack on the British ambassador's motorcade.
There has been a spate of assassinations in Benghazi in recent months, which have killed more than a dozen top security officials who had defected from Gaddafi's regime during the revolution.
There were 30 Americans saved by the actions of former Seals who ignored direct orders to run to the rescue. Who are the 30 ? Where are they ? Why haven't we learned their names ? Why haven't they been interviewed ?
But continue believing that lie that even the White House has abandoned .
At least al Jazzera gets it right when they call the complex a 'mission ' and not a consulate .
It had nothing to do with the film, I can't believe you'd still mention that as an excuse it's been so thoroughly debunked. And to use Al Jazeera to back you up? Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
That was the excuse to hype up the especially male populace which became cover for terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Nope ;you still don't get it... it was a coordinated attack . Video of the whole thing was viewed by the Congressional Intelligence committee and no one Democrat or Republican came out and said there was a protest that preceded the attack .That was open source info on Sept 13
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/1...zi-attack.html
Ignorant males were duped into believing it was about the film. This was the cover story.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The attack itself, the guard said, was immediate and bold, initiated by a group of [125] men who approached the compound and lobbed grenades over the wall. Just behind them were scores of men, shooting wildly and yelling “God is great.”
Meanwhile, fallout continued Thursday from anger over an online video that Muslims said denigrated their religion.
-from your link
That narrative works for the Cairo Embassy . Not for the Benghazi mission. The Cairo Embassy could've been a diversion to the Benghazi attack that's true. But there was no protest preceding the Benghazi attack . That's indisputable.
I didn't say there was. But to the watching world, the protest was deliberately made to look like it was about the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes which brings up another interesting question. The video was out for months . Who fed the Egyptians the info on the existence of the video so they could coordinate "spontaneous" demonstrations on 9-11-12 ?
Hello again,
Personally, I think there's poetic JUSTICE when a country that LOVES spying on its own people, loses its OWN top spy because of it.
Republicans LOVE shooting themselves in the foot. I wonder if they had anything to do with THIS invasion of our privacy?? Oh, that's right, they DID.
excon
What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
Yeah, I know you righty's have trouble remembering beyond 4 years. But, there WAS a time in this country when the Fourth Amendment MEANT something... Then we got George W. Bush, a REPUBLICAN, who DECIMATED it. Our spy agencies were set loose upon US.
Now, jump ahead a few years... The FBI was spying on the top CIA guy, and BUSTED him. Now, maybe YOU can't make the connection, but I can. Look. You can't make the connection between the crash Bush caused and the unemployment Obama is suffering, so I DOUBT whether you'll be able to make THIS connection..
excon
He's talking about the FBI reading Petraeus gmails. Ummm G mail is not private . It is owned by the government .
Hello again, tom:
Well, there you go... The guvment is JUSTIFIED for violating Petraeus. I know you LOVE spying on your own people. I don't understand it, but I know you LIKE it.
Uhhhh, doesn't the clear Constitutional violation bother you?? I thought you guys LOVED the Constitution.. No, huh?
excon
He is not entitled to privacy if it means using his government Gmail account any more than I am entitled to it using my company account.
Or was it his private g-mail (Google mail) account?
Seems I recall that what started this was a complaint against Paula Broadwell for "cyber-harassment" via email. You find it odd that emails were read? Bwa ha ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
It was via Broadwell's account, she was the one being investigated for cyber harassment via email. If you don't want something to become public, don't send it in an email.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
You are right... I just did some more research and it was accounts with Goggle G mail .
OMG! I was right about something! My eyes are now sparkly and my pearly whites show when I grin from ear to ear.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes it was Google Gmail, but if someone who files a complaint allows access to their email it's going to lead to other people's email, period. Like I said, if you don't want something public, don't send it in an email.
Why would they allow access to private email?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Follow me here, no one said "they." Paula Broadwell harassed Jill Kelley via email and Jill Kelley complained. To validate her complaint Kelley would have given the FBI access to some of her email. The rest is just following the tracks.
You have no way to control what happens with your email and all of it's routing information once you click send. Petraeus should have known that.
And to top it off Petraeus and Broadstone shared the same account (both under pseudonyms);and thought that if they left messages in the draft folder for the other one to read without sending that it would be more difficult to trace(a method called “dead drop,” ). Problem is the FBI knows about that trick since jihadists like the 2004 Madrid Train Bombers routinely use it and there is software to beat it.
It is also worth noting that Petraeus resigned . He was not fired ,and is under no charges that I know of. Like Speech said. The FBI was investigating a threat that Broadwell made against Kelly . As far as I can tell ,there were no 4th Amendment violations ;although there probably should be an updated version of the Electronic and Communications and Privacy Act,which has has some tinkering updates over the years ;but pretty much remains the same since 1986.
Actually it's about to get worse in the US concerning your privacy:Quote:
Why would they allow access to private email?
Senate Bill Rewrite Lets Feds Read Your E-mail Without Warrants - Slashdot
I said "why would they allow access." "They" is Petraus and Company. Why they were so stupid is beyond me.
Written by that Dem champion of rights Sen Leahey .
"They" didn't have to allow access since Kelley allowed access to hers. What are you missing about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
Except that's not what they did:Quote:
You have no way to control what happens with your email and all of it's routing information once you click send. Petraeus should have known that.
Petraeus used Canadian navy spy's email trick - Technology & Science - CBC News
I read a summary that compared the email searches to a physical search of a home with a warrant let's say they were looking for evidence of theft, and "in plain sight" in that home they saw illegal drugs, the opinion stated that they could also prosecute the drug charge from that search.
But--the article went on to say- that didn't allow them to go next door and search another person's property, the point being that is what the writer compared what is being done with email searches.
I have a theory (this theory was not part of the article I described above) that emails have replaced a lot of conversations that used to take place on telephones. They couldn't tape phone calls in the old days without a warrant, but with emails it is comparable to there having been a policy that they could tape all phone calls but not listen to them unless someone was suspected of a crime and then they could listen to all the tapes they had made, and use them against the parties to the call.
I don't know if any of this makes any sense because I haven't expressed it very well I realize, but maybe I can find the article and post it.
This is the article I referred to, and a quote from the article below:
FBI investigation of Broadwell reveals bureau’s comprehensive access to electronic communications - The Washington Post
"Law enforcement officers conducting a legal search have always been able to pursue evidence of other crimes sitting in “plain view.” Investigators with a warrant to search a house for drugs can seize evidence of another crime, such as bombmaking. But the warrant does not allow them to barge into the house next door."
Tom already covered that here.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
The FBI is going to investigate the person doing the harassing which would be Broadwell and her email messages, the method of harassment. You of all people should know that following her email tracks could lead to other things and smearcase is right, if it's in front of them in the process of another investigation they're going to look deeper.
Dems have a penchant for giving us exactly the opposite, a bill that's supposed to give us more privacy gives us less, kind of like the "Affordable Care" act makes health care more expensive. But I digress...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You are not complaining about polispeak, are you? I didn''t hear you complaining when Romney outlined his ambitious program
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:54 AM. |