Did the sacked diplomatic mission in Libya
fail to meet basic security standards set by the State Department and US law? Well, it’s not like the American consulate in Benghazi had any special security needs from its location in eastern Libya, where terrorist networks have mingled into militias, and
where US intelligence had a vital need. Oh, wait ….
The U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya, was operating under a lower security standard than a typical consulate when it was attacked this month, according to State Department officials.
The mission was a rented villa and considered a temporary facility by the agency, which allowed a waiver that permitted fewer guards and security measures than a standard embassy or consulate, according to the officials.
There was talk about constructing a permanent facility, which would require a building that met U.S. security and legal standards, the officials said.
Allowing a waiver would have been a decision made with input from Washington, Libyan officials and the ambassador, according to diplomatic security experts.
“Someone made the decision that the mission in Benghazi was so critical that they waived the standard security requirements, which presents unique challenges to the diplomatic security service as you can imagine,” said Fred Burton, vice president for Intelligence at STRATFOR, an intelligence analysis group.
The next question
should be who approved the waiver. After all, as noted above, this is perhaps one of themost challenging spots for an American diplomatic mission. The collapse of the central government allowed the radical Islamist terror networks that had operated for years under cover to come out into the open. They didn’t have any gratitude for American intervention against Moammar Qaddafi, which is why the CIA needed to have a diplomatic installation in order to keep tabs on those suddenly-emboldened terrorists. That should have prompted better-than-minimal security at the very least, not less-than-minimal security for an American consulate.
Oh, and that protest-spun-out-of-control story? Forget it:
The American, who spoke to CNN on Monday on the condition his name not be used, said he had been speaking with Stevens less than three hours before the deadly attack.
He said there was no indication during the conversation that anything was wrong, saying Stevens sounded upbeat and calm and he was very enthusiastic about the next day’s meeting with the American.
About 20 minutes after that conversation, the American spoke with a U.S. security officer to discuss logistics about the upcoming meeting. That call also revealed no signs of any pending trouble, he said.
The American had a second call with the security officer a little more than an hour later, around 9:30 p.m. local time, and the situation had dramatically changed. The security officer told the American “we’ve got a real problem here” and hung up.
The timing matches what CNN’s Arwa Damon, who has been reporting from Benghazi, said about the September 11 attack. Damon reported a group of armed individuals showed up outside the consulate around 9:30 and a firefight broke out within 30 minutes.
CNN has done more reporting on this incident than most other media outlets, much to the chagrin of the State Department. State attacked CNN for their use of a journal left in the rubble that belonged to Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, claiming that CNN promised the family that it wouldn’t be used at all, a claim CNN disputes.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
