HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Petraeus Bombshell's Bomb...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:03 PM

Petraeus Bombshell's Bombshell: Benghazi Attack May Have Been Secret Prison Break (VIDEO)

Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 09:25 AM PST
Petraeus Bombshell's Bombshell: Benghazi Attack May Have Been Secret Prison Break (VIDEO)
by CIndyCasella

While viewers are plugged into "Generals Gone Wild," the Washington Post soberly asks an important question, Why did Paula Broadwell think the CIA had taken prisoners in Benghazi?

Paula Broadwell, speaking at her alma mater, the University of Denver, October 26, 2012:



Now, I don’t know if a lot of you heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So that’s still being vetted.

The challenging thing for General Petraeus is that in his new position, he’s not allowed to communicate with the press. So he’s known all of this — they had correspondence with the CIA station chief in, in Libya. Within 24 hours they kind of knew what was happening.


Petraeus mistress may have revealed classified information at Denver speech on real reason for Libya attack

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.

The CIA, though, categorically denied these allegations, saying: “The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”


McCain is asking for an investigation into the Benghazi attack to score political points against Obama, which outrages many here rightfully so, but for the sake of truth and justice, there should be an investigation into whether the CIA ignored Executive Order 13491 by running a secret prison in the Benghazi annex.

Questions:

1. Were there any Libya Militia prisoners held in the Benghazi CIA annex at the time of the attack?

2. Who were the CIA contractors performing the interrogations and what were their nationalities?

3. Were any of the attackers ever held at the CIA annex in Benghazi?

4. Where did they transfer prisoners from the CIA annex in Benghazi?

5. How many prisoners did the facility hold?

If there was a CIA secret prison in the Benghazi Consulate Annex contravening Executive Order 13491, why aren't they investigating and prosecuting this serious crime which may have motivated an attack that killed our ambassador and three other American officials with the same vigor they went after John Kiriakou, a conscientious and brave CIA agent, who is now serving time for blowing the whistle on CIA torture?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/12/why-did-paula-broadwell-think-the-cia-had-taken-prisoners-in-benghazi/

18 replies, 1837 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 18 replies Author Time Post
Reply Petraeus Bombshell's Bombshell: Benghazi Attack May Have Been Secret Prison Break (VIDEO) (Original post)
FourScore Nov 2012 OP
aletier_v Nov 2012 #1
ProSense Nov 2012 #2
cthulu2016 Nov 2012 #3
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #4
aletier_v Nov 2012 #5
cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #6
ProSense Nov 2012 #7
aletier_v Nov 2012 #8
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #10
aletier_v Nov 2012 #13
morningfog Nov 2012 #9
ProSense Nov 2012 #11
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #15
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #12
aletier_v Nov 2012 #14
TorchTheWitch Nov 2012 #17
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #16
Whisp Nov 2012 #18

Response to FourScore (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:05 PM

1. This is pretty much what Broadwell said in that disappeared UofD video

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:12 PM

2. Right, let Paula Broadwell and

the Republican hacks involved in the Petraeus affair drive the debate. Why not just push Fox Noise's version? It has already been revealed that the idiot at the FBI was a conspiracy theorist who thought there was a cover up.

People never friggin learn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:24 PM

3. Oh FFS... she was repeating what she heard on FOX.

Even by the standards of fake stories this is sad.

(The linked piece is 5 days old, BTW. It would not be written today because once sane people who do not watch FOX realized that Fox made that claim on TV that day, there is no need to explain how a wingnut came to believe a false story she heard on Fox.)

And this conspiracy requires us to believe that FOX, and only Fox, is right, and that the administration is lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:31 PM

4. That being so

please provide link to Fox stating that prior to her saying so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #4)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:33 PM

5. They occurred on the same day

I think there's reason to doubt which one caused the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:39 PM

6. So you think she might have been studiously watching Faux hoping to catch tidbits before going

onstage to give a pre-written speech, that she heard Faux say there were prisoners kept at the consulate or annex in Benghazi, and decided to drop this bombshell on her audience.

Otay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:42 PM

7. Conspiracy theories are making

Americans stupid.

The RW is consumed with them, which is why they're having such a hard time dealing with the election outcome. I mean, children distraught and suicide, firings and threats.

Lunacy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:43 PM

8. Watch the video. It sounds like an ad hoc comment.

But like I said, but apparently you did not grasp, it's possible that Fox fed her, or that she fed Fox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #5)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:47 PM

10. A time stamped link would confirm

which event occurred first.

Personally I would doubt she re-reported Fox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #10)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:19 PM

13. The time stamped link is somewhere here in DU when this video first came up

Feel free to doubt it or believe what you want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:45 PM

9. Did the Aministration deny the prison's existence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:48 PM

11. CIA Denies Petraeus’ Mistress Claim It Took Prisoners in Benghazi

CIA Denies Petraeus’ Mistress Claim It Took Prisoners in Benghazi

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency is denying a claim by former CIA chief David Petraeus' mistress and biographer that the agency detained militants in Libya before the September attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

CIA spokesman Preston Golson said “any suggestion that the agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.”

In January 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama stripped the CIA of its power to take prisoners. The decision meant the CIA could no longer operate secret jails around the world.

In a talk last month at the University of Denver, Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell said the Benghazi attack was an attempt to free militia members held at a CIA annex in the city. Four Americans were killed in the attack, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

- more -

http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/11/13/cia-denies-petraeus-mistress-claim-it-took-prisoners-in-benghazi-2/


ENDING TORTURE = Three Torches
  • Ordered an end to the use of torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, withdrew
    flawed legal analysis used to justify torture and applied the Army Field Manual on interrogations
    government wide.
  • Abolished the CIA secret prisons.
  • Says that “waterboarding is torture” and “contrary to America’s traditions… contrary to our ideals.”
  • No reports of extraordinary rendition to torture or other cruelty under his administration.
  • Failed to hold those responsible for past torture and other cruelty accountable; has blocked
    alleged victims of torture from having their day in court.
http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:11 PM

15. they likely didn't know

And it's likely that if this is true then it explains why the CIA was giving the WH conflicting stories concerning the cause of the attack - it was illegal for them to hold prisoners there and it was Obama that made it illegal. These stories look to me as a possible cover-up.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:15 PM

12. Why would she do that?

She had better access to Petreaus than anyone, so why would she repeat something publicly supposedly said on Fox particularly when were it true her general she worshiped and was sleeping with would go to jail since holding prisoners there was illegal, and lying about it to the WH even worse... after all, the whole claim by the WH all the way along was that they were only repeating the conflicting stories the CIA was giving them concerning the reason for the attacks. And if this WAS the reason for the attacks, the CIA was lying and trying to cover up that they were illegally holding prisoners there and that their doing so was the cause of the attack.

When did Fox say this, and why would they of all media be so anxious to take down the Repub golden boy general when doing so took the Repub blame OFF Obama and putting it squarely on Petreaus who the media worshiped? Who was Fox's source for this info if not this public statement by Broadwell?




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #12)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:28 PM

14. This is old stuff.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/12/petraeus-mistress-may-have-revealed-classified-information-at-denver-speech/

In the original Oct. 26 Fox News report, sources at the annex said that the CIA’s 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.

Broadwell quoted the Fox News report when she said: “The facts that came out today were that the ground forces there at the CIA annex, which is different from the consulate, were requesting reinforcements."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aletier_v (Reply #14)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:55 PM

17. I'm not talking about what Fox said

I'm talking about what Broadwell said publicly in her speech. Starts 40 seconds in on the video in the OP...

"I don't know if a lot of you have heard this, but the CIA annex had actually, um, had taken a couple of Libyan militia members prisoner, and they think that the attack on the consulate was an effort to try to get these prisoners back. So, that's still being vetted."

In other words, she is saying that the CIA was illegally taking Libyans as prisoners and the reason for the attack was the Libyan militia's attempt to rescue those prisoners.

The CIA vehemently denied this was true, and of course they would because it's been illegal by executive order since 2009.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/12/cia-denies-claim-from-petraeus-girlfriend-that-benghazi-annex-held-libyan-prisoners/

But why would she say this at all??? Why in the world would she just pull something like that out of her butt? Obviously, if she had known it was illegal for the CIA to be doing this she would have kept her yap shut about it rather than blithely blabbing it publicly especially since it meant the end of her lover whom she worshiped and he could go to jail for it not just lose his job. This woman was the closest person to the CIA director, Petreaus, and was sleeping with him. She had access to him that no one else had and thus could have had information from him that no one else save the CIA agents there could likely get. Personally, I believe that what she so blithely publicly announced was likely true and the CIA is once again doing illegal shit and all the bumbling around with their various stories about what really happened were in an effort to try to cover this info up and hide it from the WH making the resignation of Petreaus for adultery part of his cover-up.

This is not about what Petreaus was doing with his weenie.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:50 PM

16. Haven't we learned that Fox News should be taken seriously, even if being far from "balanced"?


after all, Karl Rove himself is one of their primary pundits.

Multiple independent sources are coming forward with information that this consulate was a CIA front for a possibly nefarious, covert CIA operation, where Ambassador Stevens was the "go to man". The fact that Fox News may have access to more information than Feinstein, and possibly the White House itself, should be incredibly disturbing. Neocons were driving this operation and they also have the access to drive conspiracy theories, targeting high level Democrats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FourScore (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:11 PM

18. The CIA could have been working without the WH being aware

 

Petraues is known to be a renegade sort that didn't much like Obama and the rulebook.

Maybe he was asked to resign when it was discovered that prisoners were being held, that instead of causing big splashy blood spurt sounds all over that would take months to get over.

I don't trust that man, he's a sleaze with an ego - that combination = who the fuck is Obama to order ME around? Remember he is the one who had his little right wing think tank on the scene giving orders.

anyway, I didn't realize that FOX said the same thing as Broadwell did in this vid - that certainly makes one look at her speech a lot differently but there is still large possibilities things are not what they appear to be when it's CIA in the picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread