Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Exclusive: Dozens of CIA operatives on the ground during Benghazi attack
CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.
Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.
Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
CNN has learned the CIA is involved in what one source calls an unprecedented attempt to keep the spy agency's Benghazi secrets from ever leaking out.
Read: Analysis: CIA role in Benghazi underreported
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency's missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency's workings.
The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, "You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well." [whembly: WTF!]
Another says, "You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
"Agency employees typically are polygraphed every three to four years. Never more than that," said former CIA operative and CNN analyst Robert Baer.
In other words, the rate of the kind of polygraphs alleged by sources is rare.
"If somebody is being polygraphed every month, or every two months it's called an issue polygraph, and that means that the polygraph division suspects something, or they're looking for something, or they're on a fishing expedition. But it's absolutely not routine at all to be polygraphed monthly, or bi-monthly," said Baer.
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted in a statement that the agency has been open with Congress.
"The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on U.S. facilities in Benghazi," the statement said.
"CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want," the statement continued. "The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident."
Among the many secrets still yet to be told about the Benghazi mission, is just how many Americans were there the night of the attack.
A source now tells CNN that number was 35, with as many as seven wounded, some seriously.
While it is still not known how many of them were CIA, a source tells CNN that 21 Americans were working in the building known as the annex, believed to be run by the agency.
The lack of information and pressure to silence CIA operatives is disturbing to U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose district includes CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
"I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it's an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way," said the Republican.
"We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn't any national security issue involved with regards to that," he said.
Wolf has repeatedly gone to the House floor, asking for a select committee to be set-up, a Watergate-style probe involving several intelligence committee investigators assigned to get to the bottom of the failures that took place in Benghazi, and find out just what the State Department and CIA were doing there.
More than 150 fellow Republican members of Congress have signed his request, and just this week eight Republicans sent a letter to the new head of the FBI, James Comey, asking that he brief Congress within 30 days.
Read: White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi e-mails
In the aftermath of the attack, Wolf said he was contacted by people closely tied with CIA operatives and contractors who wanted to talk.
Then suddenly, there was silence.
"Initially they were not afraid to come forward. They wanted the opportunity, and they wanted to be subpoenaed, because if you're subpoenaed, it sort of protects you, you're forced to come before Congress. Now that's all changed," said Wolf.
Lawmakers also want to about know the weapons in Libya, and what happened to them.
Speculation on Capitol Hill has included the possibility the U.S. agencies operating in Benghazi were secretly helping to move surface-to-air missiles out of Libya, through Turkey, and into the hands of Syrian rebels.
It is clear that two U.S. agencies were operating in Benghazi, one was the State Department, and the other was the CIA.
The State Department told CNN in an e-mail that it was only helping the new Libyan government destroy weapons deemed "damaged, aged or too unsafe retain," and that it was not involved in any transfer of weapons to other countries.
But the State Department also clearly told CNN, they "can't speak for any other agencies."
The CIA would not comment on whether it was involved in the transfer of any weapons.
All I got to say is that for such a "phony scandal", there's an awfully lot of effort to tamp this down.
I think there's an awful lot of "insider this and that" in a continued effort to spin something, anything interesting out of that tragic event.
Shockingly, the State Department was fairly hush hush on international affairs, and the CIA (a notably warm, fuzzy and transparent organization) was uncharacteristically silent on the matter as well.
*yaaaaawn*
Oh, a republican wants to stir up more grak over this. SURPRISE SURPRISE.
Forar wrote: I think there's an awful lot of "insider this and that" in a continued effort to spin something, anything interesting out of that tragic event.
Shockingly, the State Department was fairly hush hush on international affairs, and the CIA (a notably warm, fuzzy and transparent organization) was uncharacteristically silent on the matter as well.
*yaaaaawn*
Oh, a republican wants to stir up more grak over this. SURPRISE SURPRISE.
We've seen the US gov sell weapons to cartels and then lose track of them, the IRS specifically targeting particular groups, the NSA listening in on literally everything you do that involves data moving over the air or wire, rampant expansion of DHS powers (not to mention the rapid purchase of so much ammunition that it's actually becoming hard to come by), and President Change and Transparency demanding the crackdown on whistleblowers and signing into act a bill that allows the indefinite imprisonment of US citizens, among various other scaryscary things.
Can you really be that blasé at this point?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/02 00:37:25
I would like to know what went wrong. Could we have prevented a US Ambassador and some Navy Seals getting killed. We have Republicans wanting to know time lines and all aspect of convo that went down that night. We have Democrats saying its a done deal and its political hammering. Where do you as a US individual see it. Falls down to two columns of choice. Is it acceptable for Americans to be killed and do a cursory investigation or go all out and found out what happen and learn from it
Like the Pat Tillman friendly fire incident due to Blue Force Tracker not working.
Like the investigation starting into the Chinook shoot down that nailed a bit of Seal Team 6 (who smoked OBL) and whole slew of trigger pullers.
Since majority of us have no personnel stake into it. Why would we deny others who do?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Polygraphs aren't useless, but they aren't infallible either.
You can fool the machines, either by being skilled at it or simply being freaked out by the machine itself enough to taints your answers.
Its simply a tool that can give useful information, albeit one that is only moderately reliable.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
The CIA was operating in the area, and wants its operations kept secret. I have no fething clue how that's even news.
Jihadin wrote: I would like to know what went wrong. Could we have prevented a US Ambassador and some Navy Seals getting killed. We have Republicans wanting to know time lines and all aspect of convo that went down that night. We have Democrats saying its a done deal and its political hammering. Where do you as a US individual see it. Falls down to two columns of choice. Is it acceptable for Americans to be killed and do a cursory investigation or go all out and found out what happen and learn from it
The issue isn't with the investigation being cursory or thorough. The issue is with innuendo surrounding the investigation being used to as a political hammer, and for no other reason. The article in the OP is a classic example - trying to make it sound as if a CIA effort to keep their operations secret is anything other than what the CIA does as a matter of routine.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
daedalus wrote: We've seen the US gov sell weapons to cartels and then lose track of them, the IRS specifically targeting particular groups, the NSA listening in on literally everything you do that involves data moving over the air or wire, rampant expansion of DHS powers (not to mention the rapid purchase of so much ammunition that it's actually becoming hard to come by), and President Change and Transparency demanding the crackdown on whistleblowers and signing into act a bill that allows the indefinite imprisonment of US citizens, among various other scaryscary things.
Can you really be that blasé at this point?
6 years of GOP "Chicken Little'ing" does indeed make it hard to find any frak's to give, yes.
The points you listed, even the ones with some bite to them, have been screamed about at length along with dozens (if not hundreds) of non-issues.
Examples: the DHS hasn't "purchased so much ammunition that it's becoming hard to come by". People spreading that rumour have caused gun owners to stockpile immense amounts of ammo, causing the shortage. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The "bill signed that allows the indefinite imprisonment of blah blah blah" was language added to the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), was specifically pointed out as something he opposed, but would have been political suicide to veto. The GOP adds about not supporting the troops and being weak on defense would've written themselves. Like, literally spontaneously become sentient beings and told the usual writers to take a 6 month lunch break.
I can go on, but I feel my point has been made. As a Canadian, I watch US politics with rapt curiosity, and while the current administration isn't perfect, I'm definitely glad we have an Obama administration and not a Romney admin or a McCain/Palin admin. *shudder*
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/08/02 02:26:27
sebster wrote: The CIA was operating in the area, and wants its operations kept secret. I have no fething clue how that's even news.
Did you even read the fething CNN article?
Officials were warning the survivors that "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
Jeezus Seb... that's fething scary man.
Is there context for that quote? And is the source a reliable one or just someone who had an interesting thing to say
How on the holy Terra would that quote be okay in some context?
"If you drive down the wrong side of the road, "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."".
We really don't know what context it was said in, if it was in relation to Benghazi, if the 'insider' is the janitor, or anything about it beyond that one quote. How in the 'holy terra' is it ok to jump down an agency which is vital to your nation's security with no context or reinforcing evidence?
He could have been saying "you can't leak it, because "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well" financially when you lose your job" He could have been saying "you can't leak it, because "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well" because it will be on your permanent record and forever attached to your name that you did this against orders"
There are a lot of ways that it doesn't read as "we are going to kill you and your family"
Come back with evidence about who the source is and the context, and everyone from sebster to dogma (sorry you were the two guys who usually argue against whembly who first jumped to mind) will go "well monkey messings, that is horrific and needs to be stopped". But come to them and dakka with an out of context unexplained and unreinforced quote, and you get scepticism
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/08/02 02:52:23
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
We have ways to make you talk and confess to everything....even stuff you have no idea you even did
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
You don't see how there is any way that quote could have been taken out of context, made up, or be unrelated to benghazi? And then to back it up you post a video from fox which provides no specific facts, just saying that they did all this, and because they say it then its good enough?
whembly wrote: That's a very specific accusation. He's a former prosecutor, so I hope he has some hard evidence supporting that.
But the thing is you don't know if he does. Yet you aren't willing to pause in this rush to say there is a massive conspiracy going on, you just bull right ahead? Doesn't that seem like the wrong way to do things? Wouldn't it be better to wait until you have the facts before going off?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/02 02:59:11
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
Forar wrote: Examples: the DHS hasn't "purchased so much ammunition that it's becoming hard to come by". People spreading that rumour have caused gun owners to stockpile immense amounts of ammo, causing the shortage. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The "bill signed that allows the indefinite imprisonment of blah blah blah" was language added to the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act), was specifically pointed out as something he opposed, but would have been political suicide to veto. The GOP adds about not supporting the troops and being weak on defense would've written themselves. Like, literally spontaneously become sentient beings and told the usual writers to take a 6 month lunch break.
Oh, well that makes it okay then. After all, no sense in actually standing up for what you believe in if it means political suicide. Then again, if you're only going to do things that won't cause you to commit political suicide, why be there to begin with? We may as well HAVE a GOP president then.
I can go on, but I feel my point has been made. As a Canadian, I watch US politics with rapt curiosity, and while the current administration isn't perfect, I'm definitely glad we have an Obama administration and not a Romney admin or a McCain/Palin admin. *shudder*
whembly wrote: That's a very specific accusation. He's a former prosecutor, so I hope he has some hard evidence supporting that.
But the thing is you don't know if he does. Yet you aren't willing to pause in this rush to say there is a massive conspiracy going on, you just bull right ahead? Doesn't that seem like the wrong way to do things? Wouldn't it be better to wait until you have the facts before going off?
motyak... what's today date? Got it? Good...
When did the Benghazi incident occur? Got it? Good...
Should it take that long to determine what the feth happened?
whembly wrote: How on the holy Terra would that quote be okay in some context?
If an undercover agents identity becomes public knowledge it can be problematic for all involved. If the CIA was running an operation in the area (and this is fairly likely even without the Benghazi incident) they aren't going to give out details of any sort, as it exposes people to danger unnecessarily. Even knowing for a fact there was an operation going on in that area at that time is probably not a good idea.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
whembly wrote: How on the holy Terra would that quote be okay in some context?
If an undercover agents identity becomes public knowledge it can be problematic for all involved. If the CIA was running an operation in the area (and this is fairly likely even without the Benghazi incident) they aren't going to give out details of any sort, as it exposes people to danger unnecessarily. Even knowing for a fact there was an operation going on in that area at that time is probably not a good idea.
Yeah... you're making sense there.
It's been reported that the CIA were attempting to arm the anti-Assad crew in attempt to overthrow Assad. But, if that's true, that's not really damaging to the Obama administration in itself and all this effort to intimidate the survivors doesn't quite add up to those facts. Something else may be going on... either that, or the Obama doesn't want to throw HRC under the bus, due to her being the next president.
Oh, well that makes it okay then. After all, no sense in actually standing up for what you believe in if it means political suicide. Then again, if you're only going to do things that won't cause you to commit political suicide, why be there to begin with? We may as well HAVE a GOP president then.
Sorry to say, the US barely has a functioning Democracy anymore. Seems those Checks And Balances fall apart when one entire party gives up on governance at all.
And it wouldn't be "political suicide", the NDAA is a fairly vital piece of legislation that's passed every year. A 'poison pill' was slipped into it, and the admin had the choice to sign with notes, or deal with the cluster____ that would've entailed by marking a red X on it with "See me after class" written on the cover page.
I don't feel like your point has been made.
I'm glad you're happy though.
The fact you actually believe the DHS bullet thing means I'm reasonably certain we weren't going to see eye to eye to begin with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/02 03:13:21
whembly wrote: Did you even read the fething CNN article?
Officials were warning the survivors that "You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
Jeezus Seb... that's fething scary man.
No. that's not what it says. It isn't a warning from an official to a survivor, it's a comment from a survivor, without any context, that says speaking out about events related to Benghazi (we assume but who actually knows) will jeopardise yourself and your family.
And, well, that's just true, and it's always going to be true. The most pleasant, gentle company in the world is still going to have repercussions for breaking officials line of communication and speaking to outside sources. In the CIA, well fething duh it's going to be tough on the person and their family.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/02 03:17:21
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: How on the holy Terra would that quote be okay in some context?
If an undercover agents identity becomes public knowledge it can be problematic for all involved. If the CIA was running an operation in the area (and this is fairly likely even without the Benghazi incident) they aren't going to give out details of any sort, as it exposes people to danger unnecessarily. Even knowing for a fact there was an operation going on in that area at that time is probably not a good idea.
Yeah... you're making sense there.
It's been reported that the CIA were attempting to arm the anti-Assad crew in attempt to overthrow Assad. But, if that's true, that's not really damaging to the Obama administration in itself and all this effort to intimidate the survivors doesn't quite add up to those facts. Something else may be going on... either that, or the Obama doesn't want to throw HRC under the bus, due to her being the next president.
If he's "making sense", then why is this "not adding up to the facts"?
You do not talk about active operations. Period.
It puts assets in the field at risk, and while their families are likely not going to be targets--those assets being outed and potentially no longer viable for undercover work does affect those families.
whembly wrote: How on the holy Terra would that quote be okay in some context?
"I think a lot of people are unwilling to come out and clarify some of the erroneous claims made about the events in Benghazi by the media both sides of politics because doing so would require tremendous sacrifice, not just professional but personal as well. In such a highly politicised environment, you don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/02 03:13:24
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: How on the holy Terra would that quote be okay in some context?
"I think a lot of people are unwilling to come out and clarify some of the erroneous claims made about the events in Benghazi by the media both sides of politics because doing so would require tremendous sacrifice, not just professional but personal as well. In such a highly politicised environment, you don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
Okay... so, it's the Republican's fault then to push this eh?
You do know there's a committee where they can subpoena classified information...right?
They're simply not getting the answers they've requested (and they don't have to publicise it).
You do not talk about active operations. Period.
It puts assets in the field at risk, and while their families are likely not going to be targets--those assets being outed and potentially no longer viable for undercover work does affect those families.
You think they're still there?
o.O
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/08/02 03:16:32
Look... this isn't from a no-name blogger, Van Jones or *gasps* FoxNews. This is CNN.
How do you square with comments like these:
"You have no idea the amount of pressure being brought to bear on anyone with knowledge of this operation."
"You don't jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well."
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd asserted that "CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,"
Oh, well that makes it okay then. After all, no sense in actually standing up for what you believe in if it means political suicide. Then again, if you're only going to do things that won't cause you to commit political suicide, why be there to begin with? We may as well HAVE a GOP president then.
Sorry to say, the US barely has a functioning Democracy anymore. Seems those Checks And Balances fall apart when one entire party gives up on governance at all.
And it wouldn't be "political suicide", the NDAA is a fairly vital piece of legislation that's passed every year. A 'poison pill' was slipped into it, and the admin had the choice to sign with notes, or deal with the cluster____ that would've entailed by marking a red X on it with "See me after class" written on the cover page.
"Political suicide" was your term, not mine. I would be very interested to see how that cluster would have wound up though. It would have easily been one of the first things I'd found myself genuinely respecting Obama for, and I REALLY do want some reasons to respect the man. I'm not actively trying to demonize him. I've been called a Republican by numerous people, and a Democrat by people on this very forum. I claim no party ties. I just call them like I see them.
I certainly agree with your observation on the state of US democracy though. I feel like it's far closer to an oligarchy nowadays. Maybe it always was. Maybe it's just more overt now. Maybe it's always been and I don't know better. Hard to say.
I don't feel like your point has been made.
I'm glad you're happy though.
The fact you actually believe the DHS bullet thing means I'm reasonably certain we weren't going to see eye to eye to begin with.
Well, probably not. That's humans for you though, and we'd probably be just a little boring if we all did.
There needs to be a Congressional hearing. Who knows what else they're doing that should be exposed.
He Who Controls The Dice Controls The Universe