Skip to comments.Fox News source: Yes, the CIA was holding prisoners at the Benghazi annex
Posted on 11/12/2012 4:48:06 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Just a single source, but this does jibe with what Broadwell said in her Denver speech.
In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIAs Global Response Staff had handed over three Libyan militia members to the Libyan authorities who came to rescue the 30 Americans in the early hours of Sept. 12.
A well-placed Washington source confirms to Fox News that there were Libyan militiamen being held at the CIA annex in Benghazi and that their presence was being looked at as a possible motive for the staged attack on the consulate and annex that night.
According to multiple intelligence sources who have served in Benghazi, there were more than just Libyan militia members who were held and interrogated by CIA contractors at the CIA annex in the days prior to the attack. Other prisoners from additional countries in Africa and the Middle East were brought to this location.
The Libya annex was the largest CIA station in North Africa, and two weeks prior to the attack, the CIA was preparing to shut it down. Most prisoners, according to British and American intelligence sources, had been moved two weeks earlier.
Two separate questions here. One: Is the CIA still operating secret prisons and, if so, how are they questioning their prisoners? Enhanced interrogation is the only part of the Bush counterterror playbook that O hasn’t adopted, or so we’ve assumed. We’ll see. Two: Did Ansar al-Sharia and its partners in jihad find out about the prisoners and attack the annex on 9/11 to try to free them? I’m thinking … probably not, for the reasons Ed gave this morning. If they thought there were prisoners at the annex, why’d they attack the consulate first and give up the advantage of surprise? The attack on the consulate wasn’t a diversion, either: According to the CIA’s timeline, the first attack at the annex didn’t happen until 11:56 p.m., more than two hours after the consulate attack had begun and after the CIA security team had already returned from the consulate to the annex. That makes it sound like the jihadis tailed the CIA’s people back to the annex; if they were planning an ambush to free prisoners, they should have had people pre-positioned there to move in as soon as they saw the CIA security team leave for the consulate earlier in the evening. And again, per Ed, if you were going to hold prisoners somewhere in the Middle East, why on earth would you choose a city as unstable as Benghazi?
Besides, the timeline of the Petraeus/Broadwell affair is hard to square with the idea of her being privy to secret info about Benghazi. Quote:
The affair between Gen. Petraeus and Broadwell, both of whom are married, began several months after his retirement from the army in August 2011 and ended four months ago, retired U.S. Army Col. Steve Boylan, who is a former Petraeus spokesperson, told ABC News…
Petraeus is said to have been the one to have broken off the extramarital affair.
If — if — all of that is accurate, then it sounds like Petraeus dumped Broadwell sometime in July and, given what we now know about those threatening e-mails that she sent to another woman, she probably didn’t take the news all that well. In which case, why would he still be sharing secrets with her two months later, after the Benghazi attack? Was Broadwell really revealing classified info in her Denver speech or was she just misremembering a report from earlier that day on Fox News? She did, reportedly, have classified documents on her computer, but both she and Petraeus claimed they didn’t come from him. And in fact, because of her background in the military, Broadwell allegedly had “a top secret/SCI clearance and then some.” She might have had access to info about Benghazi, and classified documents about whatever, from her contacts in the national security bureaucracy, entirely independent of Petraeus.
But maybe that timeline isn’t accurate. Petraeus’s allies might be keen to claim that the affair didn’t start until after he’d left the military because adultery is an infraction of the UCMJ. If the affair began while he was still in uniform, it’s not only a moral failing but potentially a legal issue.
Now, help me answer three questions. First, why did the FBI pursue its investigation of the cyber-harassment of Jill Kelley all the way back to Petraeus? My understanding from reading a bunch of stories this morning is that Kelley reported the harassment, the FBI quickly launched an investigation (no one’s sure why it was such a priority for them but maybe it has to do with Kelley’s JSOC connection), and they traced the harassing e-mails back to Broadwell. But they didn’t stop there; evidently they started digging around to see who was e-mailing Broadwell too, and they traced that back to a pseudonymous Gmail account operated by Petraeus. Er … why did they do that? Once they knew who the cyber-harasser was, why was it necessary to keep digging and piece out the entire love triangle? They’d found their suspect.
Second, why is Jill Kelley suddenly hiring some very expensive attorneys? Not only hasn’t she been accused of anything — not even an affair with Petraeus — but Petraeus and Broadwell aren’t being charged with any crimes either. Second look at what Broadwell’s father told the Daily News this morning?
Third, I have a post up in the Greenroom noting that Petraeus and Broadwell seemed conspicuously “together” as early as 2010, with even Mrs. Petraeus likely becoming aware of it before last Friday. John Brennan, Obama’s White House counterterror czar, allegedly learned of the affair in summer 2011 — before Petraeus was named the new CIA chief. That being so, how were Obama and James Clapper supposedly kept in the dark until last week? The One should be spitting mad that he wasn’t kept fully informed about potential liabilities of one of the most sensitive hires he’ll make as president. In theory, Petraeus could have been blackmailed or hacked or otherwise compromised, with catastrophic consequences for national security and O’s presidential legacy — and yet the FBI kept things hush-hush, even from their boss, until just a few days ago. Why? Here’s Scarborough and Peter King wondering. Key bit at 4:00.
Aha. And what info was the Ambassador trying to get out of them?
Rendition, baby.... Obama-style!
Where our weapons were.
Prisoners but no extra security. None too bright of whomever chose to downgrade their security.
Since it was common knowledge of the affair, my guess is the FBI put this case together quickly. It probably didn’t garner much attention from other than middle management wienies. The biggies were to busy in election stuff. Holder was busy setting up Philly for the NBP. Then came an oh $hit moment. After the wild card whistle blower blabbed to Cantor the SHTF and became a political football.
People claim the government lies... isn’t that unpossible?
Why would the militia attack the mission first, if their brothers in arms
Were being held at the annex? They only attacked the annex when
The seals came back from the mission. I don’t believe it. It’s just another
Excuse by Obama.
So then Broadwell was correct in what she said. Maybe part of this was an attempt to shut her up???
If that is the case, I don't buy the proffered motive. Methinks this is "getting out" because gun running from Benghazi was starting to gain visibility.
Broadwell hiring Gloria Allred in 3.....2......1
Water boarding. 0bama. Water boarding. 0bama. Water boarding. 0bama.
I agree on all except #3. Guys dont care. :)
I get the feeling that over the next few weeks the intelligence community is going to be leaking like a porcupine’s water bed.
Romney had the perfect platform to break the Media silence on Benghazi during the third, “foreign policy”, debate. Yet, he let it go. He could have suppressed the Obama vote and moved people to his side of the aisle.
Apparently the bit about the detention center at The Farm are true, but I can’t buy the notion that the motives for the Consulate attack included the desire to free all detainees held there.
Spys are declared, or NOT declared, and the not declared guys neeeeever go to US government buildings because it would compromise their security —US govt buildings abroad are under heavy surveillance.
Obama’s cowardice you can count on, sure, but there are actually some really good tactical reasons for guys in charge at The Farm to have told the two SEALS to NOT rescue anyone at the Consulate, “If you guys get into kim chee up to your ears and have to scoot, then you’d bring all the attackers back here to The Farm, and then the US will get hit here, too, and not just back at the Consulate....those guys are history, so don’t go...”
I think The Farm got hit simply cuz the attackers followed the SEAL rescuers back to The Farm. Then, realizing that they’d come across a target of higher military value, they took 2 hours to scare up more attackers and weapons, and then they opened that attack also.
I think the Consulate attack was planned very well in advance and was executed mostly by amateurs, whereas the attack on The Farm had less planning but involved more serious weaponsAnd attackers.
The handing over of the 3 detainees —I wonder if that occured at the Consulate or The Farm...? And in either case, WHY..?
They hit the mission first because they wanted to grab the Ambassador to trade for prisoners. And no, it wasn’t Obama’s plan. The thugs did it. Where was the Ambassador after 8:30pm? We are told a lot of things. We see photos showing young men carrying him and we don’t know if he was dead or alive. I’ll be generous and say that he’s in the coffin that was buried, but what else do we know? Photos of him at the hospital? I think the thugs ran a “Snatch” raid to get the Ambassador. We traded two or three people for him. We got a dead Ambassador in exchange. So, we have Obama keeping prisoners in a foreign country after the Democrats screamed about Bush doing it AND Obama signs a law saying we won’t do it. They get caught without enough security at Benghazi. They lose some prisoners. They lose classified information. They lose four dead including a US Ambassador. They don’t send military rescue because they’re afraid a failure will ruin Obama’s chance for re-election(thereby writing off 40 Americans over a political decision). They trade for a dead Ambassador. The US gets run out of Benghazi with our tail tucked between our legs. And all this isn’t even the worst of it.
Glenn Beck predicted 2 or 3 weeks ago that Petraeus would be set up, discredited and booted out by Obama. This started the minute he was sent to Afghanistan to get him OUT OF THE WAY of our resident Marxists.
Let me get this straight... Our consolate was bombed in June, they asked for additional security, and instead they removed more security... so our consolate was pretty much defenseless... they beg and scream for security reinforcements, none comes....
And all the time they were holding prisoners???????
ARE YOU KIDDING ME???
It was bad enough they didn’t have security for an ambassador... but no security for prisoners???
Am I hearing this right?
How does this help Obama???
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I recall seeing jail bars in video of the Embassy and we’re told this was a ‘safe room’. I remember thinking to myself ‘Self, why would a safe room have jail bars on it that the enemy could fire a weapon through?’ Wouldn’t a safe room be a solid steel door or a trap door to an underground hiding place? I DO remember seeing prison bars and I believe it might have been FoxNews special with Bret Baier. I’ve got it DVR’d.. Will have to check. THIS WOULD BE A HOLDING CELL OR JAIL, NOT A ‘SAFE ROOM’ AS WE WERE MISLEAD TO BELIEVE.
Obama will say he’s not responsible, because he didn’tknow. Thepress will believe him. The story will die.
Was following your train of logic until you mentioned “(writing off 40 Americans)”. To what and who are you referring to there?
The whole last two months I’ve thought it odd that Petraeus was completely silent and underground, other than the Sept 14th fiasco.
I believe no prisoners were hurt during the transfer of arms..
So, maybe these three prisoners were watching an Alec Baldwin movie and it caused an attack.
Bump for later read
The day this happened, Glenn was saying it looked like a CIA operation. I remember the nutjobs at Gawker and HuffPo saying he was an idiot, and swore the agents were “civilians”. Now, who’s the idiot?
The Americans in Benghazi at the mission and the CIA Annex.
It may be that U.S. personnel on the scene captured three attackers and turned them over to the friendlies when they showed up. Then the account got muddled and sinister as it went through the grapevine.
Is the CIA still operating secret prisons and, if so, how are they questioning their prisoners?Administration Transparency Ping.
>>> I believe no prisoners were hurt during the transfer of arms..
lol... thats not what I meant. I’m sure the prisoners if there were any were liberated.
Whether your prison is covert or exposed, the mission of it’s security is two-fold... keep prisoners from escaping, and keep outsiders from liberating them.
To me, whether it was right or wrong to hold prisoners at the consolate, I find it totally stupid to do so without adequate security to prevent what was bound to happen.
Is Obama this stupid??? I don’t believe ANYONE can be this stupid... therefore I can only assume he WANTED it to happen.
He could have suppressed the Obama vote and moved people to his side of the aisle....How? This is about sex, not treason. Nobody cares, except the humpin’.
And yet people believe the government is organized enough to make 9/11/01 an inside job.
There is video.
They were scheduled to rotate out, but Clinton could have extended their duty. She had plenty of discretionary funds to easily pay for them.
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.