HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » CIA denies it detained mi...

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:12 PM

CIA denies it detained militants in Benghazi.

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — 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.

During a talk last month at the University of Denver, author Paula Broadwell said the CIA had detained people at a secret facility in Benghazi, and the attack on the U.S. Consulate there was an effort to free those prisoners.

President Barack Obama issued an executive order in January 2009 stripping the CIA of its authority to take prisoners. The move means the CIA can no longer operate secret jails across the globe as it had done under the administration of President George W. Bush.

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

-30-

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2012/11/12/cia_denies_it_detained_militants_in_benghazi/

16 replies, 2538 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 16 replies Author Time Post
Reply CIA denies it detained militants in Benghazi. (Original post)
DonViejo Nov 2012 OP
DURHAM D Nov 2012 #1
riderinthestorm Nov 2012 #2
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #3
geek tragedy Nov 2012 #4
maxsolomon Nov 2012 #5
Dubster Nov 2012 #6
chowder66 Nov 2012 #7
BetsysGhost Nov 2012 #8
chowder66 Nov 2012 #9
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #10
chowder66 Nov 2012 #11
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #12
Coyotl Nov 2012 #13
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #14
chowder66 Nov 2012 #15
AntiFascist Nov 2012 #16

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:15 PM

1. This is a hard one.

They both lie. Maybe Paula was testing a chapter for her next book or her next leak (read that false story) "on background" to Fox News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:19 PM

2. LOL! Okay, like THAT'S believable....

You have a very large, covert CIA operation in the midst of a revolution. And they aren't "detaining" anyone for questioning? Ever?

Do they think we're stupid???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:23 PM

3. They would

wouldn't they.

Her comment may well have had some foundation - odd thing to spirit up out of thin air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:24 PM

4. What to believe when two known liars disagree? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:34 PM

5. "Girlfriend"?

Whatever happened to "Mistress" or "Paramour"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:42 PM

6. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 04:27 PM

7. The report by FOX news where the assertion was made has been discredited

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/11/02/1128831/new-details-discredit-fox-news-benghazi/?mobile=nc

Why are people crediting the Libyan prisoners portion of this now? Same reporter known for getting Libya stories wrong.

She also reported early on in Libya that the government was using reporters as human shields. She admitted she made an error and a dangerous error it was.

If there is any kernal of truth to "libyans being held" - wouldn't it be possible that those people were not rebels but instead were actually the people who were trying to help the U.S. that ISSA outed?

It's a Fox news report....that most of this shit is based on, c'mon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chowder66 (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 12, 2012, 10:01 PM

8. actually it was the State Dept.

If there is any kernal of truth to "libyans being held" - wouldn't it be possible that those people were not rebels but instead were actually the people who were trying to help the U.S. that ISSA outed?

Dept of State exposed the CIA site and Jason Chaffetz, the (R)epublican Congressman from Utah OBJECTED on 2 occasions concerned that Classified Info was being shared in an Open Hearing.

Watch the hearing at the link.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/LibyaCo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BetsysGhost (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:44 PM

9. I think we may be talking about 2 different things

Issa, House Oversight Committee released documents that should have been treated as sensative but dumped them anyway.
It mentioned Libyans who were working with the U.S. That was what I was referring to... not the CIA site in particular. I could have taken more care in my post however. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chowder66 (Reply #7)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:01 PM

10. I don't think Broadwell was referencing a Fox report...


she claimed that this was still considered classified information, but was in the process of being vetted. (Maybe it failed the vetting process?) Also, if you paid attention to the speech, the context was weird. She seemed to be complaining that such information was not kept under wraps better. Yet, here she is now in possession of more classified documents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:35 PM

11. I apologize for the source but....

Below is what Paula Broadwell said at Denver University:

“…Um, so the most recent news that came out of Fox News report by Jennifer Griffin. I got it on a distribution list I’m on, and has some pretty insightful stuff in it, if you want to look for it.”

http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/2012/11/12/paula-broadwell-gives-fncs-jennifer-griffin-a-shout-out-she-also-describes-jennifers-report-as-insightful/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogs%2FGretawire+(Internal+-+Gretawire+-+Blog)

Much longer article that goes into it here;

"But what’s weird is that Jennifer uses Paula Broadwell’s speech as a separate confirmation of CIA activities rather than noting that Paula referred to her work. Griffin needs to clean that bit of echo-chamber misinformation up, ASAP. Paula said in the speech that she is on a distribution list and that’s where Griffin’s report popped up."

http://zennie62blog.com/2012/11/14/paula-broadwells-benghazi-details-fox-news-jennifer-griffin-39644/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chowder66 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:04 PM

12. Here is the actual video segment of the speech I'm referring to...


and I don't hear any mention of Fox News. Is that quote from elsewhere in the speech, or is Greta just making shit up?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/12/paula-broadwell-benghazi-attack-petraeus/1699207/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:10 PM

13. So she is the disinformation person in all this?

If CIA were violating its own rules, she would not be in on that information. She is using her pulpit to create problems for Petraeus or she is just clueless about the CIA rules and blowing hot air she is hearing inside the Fox bubble. Is her news feed the TPM of the day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chowder66 (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:12 PM

14. Ok, I just listened to the entire question and answer session involving Benghazi...


which can be found here, about 36 minutes into the video:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/petraeus-mistress-speech-yanked-from-youtube/

she does reference Jennifer Griffin's report but not until the end of the question. She does not specifically cite Griffin as the source of her information, in fact, how would she know that it was still being vetted? It's more likely that Broadwell was close to the source for Fox News and Broadwell knew that Fox would be reporting it. Since Broadwell is in possession of so much classified info to begin with, perhaps Griffin was correct in citing Broadwell as confirmation of the information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AntiFascist (Reply #14)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:23 PM

15. So yes, she does cite Griffin's report and no she does not cite that the report is her source

directly; however, she finds the report information "insightful".....and she goes on to say "Now I don't know if you all have heard this...".

Why start off like that if you are the one divulging secret information...unless she is referring to an already posted report from that same morning by Jennifer Griffin via Fox. Hence the suggested supposition that people may have already read/heard said report.

I wasn't there. I can't crawl into the minds of these people nor do I really want to. Jennifer Griffin is known to get things wrong and it would not surprise me that she is pursuing and creating much of the story. Is it possible she has some good information? Sure. Is it possible she doesn't? Sure.

vetting = investigation which does not equate with something nefarious just because of the word choice. We all know that this is being investigated as it should be to figure out how to minimize this type of attack in the future.

My issue is Fox. And the reporter. Fox is not known for its facts or its reporting but with that said a broken clock is right twice a day. So I shall wait and see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chowder66 (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:39 PM

16. Vetting, with respect to the CIA...


might also mean "can we allow this information to be released to the public?" DU posters are claiming that Griffin is citing Broadwell as the source and vice versa, which would mean that there is no real source. I don't buy this. I think there is a real "source" of the information, and the FBI investigation only reinforces the suspicion that Broadwell's knowledge of classified info is not to be taken lightly. We'll see if anything turns up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread