Waterboard.
Anyone wanting on or off this ping list, please advise.
Benghazi Index
Posted on 12/04/2012 3:40:40 PM PST by haffast
(Reuters) - A Tunisian man suspected of being involved with the September 11 attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya has refused to be interviewed by FBI investigators, his lawyer said on Monday.
Ali Ani al-Harzi, jailed and under investigation in Tunisia over the attack having been deported from Turkey, said he would not see the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents alone, Anouar Aouled told Reuters.
Harzi was one of two Tunisians named in October by the Daily Beast website as having been detained in Turkey over the attacks in Benghazi in which Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other American officials were killed.
snip
A U.S. government source said last month Harzi was not being investigated as a leader or organizer of the Benghazi attacks but rather as a possible participant.
The Daily Beast reported that shortly after the attacks began, Harzi posted an update on an unspecified social media site about the fighting.
It said Harzi was on his way to Syria when he was detained in Turkey at the behest of U.S. authorities, and that he was affiliated with a militant group in North Africa.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
al-Harzi was transferred from Turkey to Tunisia where he was charged and being investigated for “membership of a terrorist organization in a time of peace in another country.”
Why isn’t the CIA investigating?
Oh, so now an act of war on our Embassy with the murder of four Americans from military action against us is a mere legal matter!
Lemme guess, Obama has sent this person an attorney financed by the American taxpayer, right? Maybe from the ACLU??
The CIA already knows the truth. Ask Patraeous, if you can find him. ;)
To bring to justice the real killers, those responsible for the brutal deaths for four Americans, simply answer this question.
**WHO in the hell gave the damn order to NOT rescue our men in Benghazi?**
This shell game should have been over a long time ago.
I’d also like to know the answer to this: What, specifically, was the NEED for them to be dead? Who benefited from their deaths? Whom would have suffered had they lived?
IF any of those dead Americans had been the son of a U.S. Senator, Congressman or even above, would we know TODAY more of the truth and would those responsible for these deaths be on their way through our justice system?
Fact One:
1) Only the POTUS can authorize a CBA (cross border authority) command for a rescue mission in a foreign nation.
Plus Fact Two:
2) No rescue mission was attempted.
Equals Fact Three:
3) 0bama turned his back on 41 State Dept. and CIA employees refusing to issue a CBA command and went to bed so he could go to Las Vegas the next day.
--------------------------------------------------------
Something to e-mail to every talking head, every Senator and every House rep.
Four words. The Chicago message was received - “You talk - you die.
Let’s say the Watergate burglars had simply REFUSED to talk about their break-in:
WHAT would the media and gov’t have done..?
IT’S OK, IF THE CULPRITS ARE OPERATIVES OF THE LEFT.
Theories:
1. Stevens/Sheik exchange gone bad
2. Rescue of 7 Iranian Red Crescent workers (spies) who were held by the CIA at “The Farm” by local operatives paid by Iran
Theories/ideas continued:
3. The CIA operation in Benghazi was involved with:
a - collaborating with Arab countries on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
b. Along with the British, trying to locate and secure any missing chemical WMDs, 15,000 missing MANPADS (5,000 have been found), and any other heavy weapons since the fall of Libya that could fall into the wrong hands.
c. Reports of gunrunning from Benghazi to Turkey to Syrian rebels, and even the Sinai Peninsula - Obama covertly arming Syrian rebels to overthrow Assad in Syria without drawing too much fire from Russia or the Muslim world.
So:
4. Russia had an interest to protect their biggest ally Syria by disrupting the flow of arms into Syrian rebel hands through covert means.
5. Syria had an interest to bust up the CIA operation covertly so as not draw the US, NATO, or Libya involvement into their civil war with the anti-Assad rebels.
6. Iran had an interest in protecting itself from a new US supported regime in Syria
7. Any number of radical Islamist groups/militias including Al Qaeda trying to arm themselves
8. Just pure anti-American hatred
9. Romney’s policy was practically the same as Obama so he didn’t hit him too hard during the debates about Benghazi or Syria. Actually, Romnney said he would openly arm the rebels, as long as the weapons didn’t fall into the wrong hands.
2 words....BLOW TORCH. The murderous muslim savage WILL talk.
YUP...! Fantastic post.
Would he prefer to talk to the Mossad?
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.