Report: CIA's Benghazi Annex a Detention, Interrogation Site

Breitbart ^ | November 12, 2012 | John Sexton

[NCjim]

Unnamed sources tell Fox News that the CIA Annex in Benghazi held three Libyan militia members for days and that retrieving these detainees may have been a motive for the September 11th attack on the nearby US consulate.

The new reporting builds on details previously published by Fox's Jennifer Griffin and information apparently leaked by ex-intelligence officer Paula Broadwell last month. Speaking on Fox News Monday, Griffin indicated new sources suggest the CIA annex may have been a detention site for local militia forces and even for some prisoners from other parts of Africa.

[randita]

Systematically, those who know the truth are being discredited and destroyed. It’s looking like the equivalent of the Saturday Night Massacre, but Chicago style.

[TexasCajun]

Obama’s refusal to send these terrorist to Gitmo for interrogation cost 4 American lives.

[hondact200]

first i was a spontaneous reaction to a video.
second it was a retaliation by Al quaeda
third it was cover up for an affair.
fourth now the affair, cover up, retaliation to get prisoners and whatever else they think of will come out in another story.

All this is poppycock because there is more to this as he layers will be peeled back. Typical Chicago style politics in play. bottom line Obama is guilty as sin. Prepare for Joe Biden to be the next president. Possibly could become Boehner, becuase Biden is incomptent.

[JennysCool]

Gee ... I wonder if waterboarding was practiced there.

If so, no problem. These are Democrats.

[onyx]

In late October, former CIA Director David Petraeus traveled to Libya to conduct his own review of the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

While in Tripoli, he personally questioned the CIA station chief and other CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on Sept. 11 when the attack occurred.

[mojito]

CIA “vehemently” denied this yesterday.

However, it appears to be true. A number of things can be garnered from this.

First, the CIA can't be trusted in any Benghazi statements.

Broadwell not only claimed that there were detainees at the annex, but that the CIA guys there called for Delta Force during the attack. The CIA has denied the request was made. The CIA is lying.

Second, Zero supposedly wasn't in the business of running secret CIA detention sites. Apparently, he was and is.

Thirdly, Broadwell wasn't supposed to have classified intelligence, but the detainee info was most certainly classified. That means the General is guilty of security breaches while Director, and he's in big trouble.

[what's up]

That means the General is guilty of security breaches while Director

Broadwell has many contacts in the military/intel world.

No reason to think it was the General who gave her the info. Their affair had been over for months.

[Hotlanta Mike]

Benghazi = Gitmo East

[Skepolitic]

CIA “vehemently” denied this yesterday.

However, it appears to be true.

The way things are going lately, it the CIA denies it, it probably IS true.

Same goes for the President, the Secretary of State, and the UN Ambassador ... in fact, just about everybody in DC.

They remind me of the definition of a pathological liar: somebody who lies even when the truth would do.

[World'sGoneInsane]

Why do they say she leaked it?! Maybe she was just watching FOX News, when the story broke. They said Libyan militia were being held there along with something like thirty people.

Maybe Fox was her source. She said, "I don't know if you heard this.......it is still be vetted."

[M.T. Helmets]

Bingo TexasCajun. I believe you have hit upon the reason that the administration came up with that phony video excuse-to cover up the true motive for the murders.

[TexasCajun]

Could Obama have been water-boarding terrorist in Benghazi?

[jonrick46]

Paula Broadwell can be seen on You Tube talking about the detention situation in Benghazi as the motive for the attack.

[petitfour]

Oh, so the attack had NOTHING to do with all those weapons gone missing from the overthrow of Gaddafi? It was just about a few men who had been detained for a few days. So why did our intel folks detain these nice men? Oh. To ask them about weapons?

Well, we know that the former SEALs were in Libya working to recover weapons. Where are the weapons now? Why was the US ambassador in Benghazi with greatly reduced security?

[M.T. Helmets]

There was something going on in Benghazi that the administration believed was devastating enough to try to coverup. Here are a few of the options? And how the administration might view them.

Water-boarding? ADMIN: “We can ride this out. Just blame it on _______________. (Insert name-hint- initials are GWB)

Gun running? ADMIN: “We got away with it in Mexico, we can get away with it in Libya”

Murder of four Americans because terrorists were jailed in the American consulate in Libya instead of being held in GITMO? ADMIN: “.....crickets.....”

[blueunicorn6]

I think the thugs conducted a “Snatch” raid on the mission in Benghazi to get the Ambassador. They wanted to trade the Ambassador for those prisoners at the CIA Annex.
The only thing we know for sure about the Ambassador is that he finished a meeting at 8:30pm. We see some photos of him being carried around by some young men. He was dead by the time the Americans got him back.
I think the thugs grabbed the Ambassador and then traded him for those prisoners. I think Obama traded for a dead man.

[blueunicorn6]

If the thugs have the Ambassador, what do they tell the CIA folks at the CIA Annex?

“If you try to rescue the Ambassador, we will kill him.”

I hate to give this administration an excuse, but it makes sense. They may have held back for fear of getting the Ambassador killed. Still not a good reason for not sending in the cavalry, though.