Posted on 11/12/2012 11:44:56 AM PST by Olog-hai
The CIA is denying an assertion made by David Petraeus' biographer and girlfriend that the agency held militants in Libya before the Sept. 11 attack. …
President Barack Obama issued an executive order in January 2009 stripping the CIA of its authority to take prisoners. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Why should we believe or trust them? They have ALL avoided and been liars since Sept 12 2012.
Where they allowed to take hookers?
There was a FReeper a couple of weeks ago that obtained video footage from the ME that showed a couple of guys with zipties on their hands being loaded into a car at the consolate. I hope we can find that.
Well
I belive everything that the CIA and CBS say.
To most reporters (which is to say idiots) ALL rifles are AK-47’s and EVERY pistol is a GLOCK. While our guys did temporarily take some prisoners that day, I doubt there was a prison, per se. I would also wager that keeping detainees there for short times was an on-going thing.
And who can deny that video?
This is sort of a word game —what is really a PRISON? In my mind I see long lines of uniformed inmates clasping meal trays, or pumping iron in an exercise yard.
Did they have THAT? No. But did we sometimes keep SOME prisoners there for short times? I have no doubt about that.
Mainly that idiotic reporter was probably referring to the four who were taken prisoner after the FIRST attack, which was on the “consulate”. But there were FOUR HOURS of rest from the fighting before the second attack, which East against the Annex. So perhaps another objective of that second attack was to free their four comrades? That is possible, but I think unlikely.
Glad to have that issue cleared up.
We know we (the US) had some prisoners. The question is did we have them before the raid or after the raid? It would look pretty bad for the Obama administration to have prisoners in Libya. If we captured people during the raid, why would we turn them over to anyone? Was this a raid to grab the Ambassador and trade him for some prisoners in Benghazi? Whoops.
How would it look if the Obama administration had prisoners in Libya after the Democrats screamed about Bush doing this and Obama signs a law saying we won’t do it? And then some thugs kidnap our Ambassador to trade him for these Libyan prisoners. We agree, and give them the prisoners and they give us a dead Ambassador. Ouch. That doesn’t look good for the Obama administration either.
Thanks for the link! Sorry so late. Cleaning my kids’ rooms and taking breaks reading on my BBerry.
She never said they were holding anyone before the attacks. This whole angle smells of MSM deception and smokescreen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.