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.

"Benghazi Suspect Said He Was Moved To Take Revenge For American-Made Video"

Benghazi attack suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala, who was captured by U.S. forces on Sunday, told people the move against the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya was intended as revenge for an American-made online video that was seen as an attack to Islam, according to the New York Times.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5505181


Right, time to get out the popcorn, this could be fun.

 Maddermax wrote:
"Benghazi Suspect Said He Was Moved To Take Revenge For American-Made Video"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5505181


Right, time to get out the popcorn, this could be fun.

Hooboy... even though he flatly denied that in his first NYT interview.

"It's got nothing to do with the video. The administration is just lying to try to save their own asses."

This could indeed be popcorn-worthy, if it turns out to be true.

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
"Benghazi Suspect Said He Was Moved To Take Revenge For American-Made Video"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5505181


Right, time to get out the popcorn, this could be fun.

Hooboy... even though he flatly denied that in his first NYT interview.

Don't let facts get in your way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/world/africa/suspect-in-benghazi-attack-scoffs-at-us.html?pagewanted=all

Although Mr. Abu Khattala said he was not a member of Al Qaeda, he declared he would be proud to be associated with Al Qaeda’s puritanical zeal for Islamic law.

Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals, added his own spin. Contradicting the accounts of many witnesses and the most recent account of the Obama administration, he contended that the attack had grown out of a peaceful protest against a video made in the United States that mocked the Prophet Muhammad and Islam.

He pointedly declined to condemn the idea that the demolition of a diplomatic mission was an appropriate response to such a video. “From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad,” he said.

Uh huh...

The big deal here is how the NYT is pushing this unsourced report, citing "private conversations," in which Abu Khattala is said to have launched the Benghazi attack to take "revenge" against the "Innocence of Muslims" video.

The timing is all ironic now isn't it.

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh...

The big deal here is how the NYT is pushing this unsourced report, citing "private conversations," in which Abu Khattala is said to have launched the Benghazi attack to take "revenge" against the "Innocence of Muslims" video.

The timing is all ironic now isn't it.

He never denied it, despite your accusation that he did.

Everything you talk about being "ironic timing" is from an interview he gave two years ago. An interview that I linked to..

If you have a link to an interview he gave to the NYT that backs up your claim that he denied it please be my guest and link to it. But so far you are seeing shadows where there is nothing but daylight.

 d-usa wrote:
[

Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals,

Khattala rocks a Fez! That's the most intersting thing I have read about Benghazi in a long time.

 Easy E wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
[

Mr. Abu Khattala, 41, wearing a red fez and sandals,

Khattala rocks a Fez! That's the most intersting thing I have read about Benghazi in a long time.

Fez...

Faz...

Fraz...

Frazzled's behind it all! It's the wiener legions!

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh...

The big deal here is how the NYT is pushing this unsourced report, citing "private conversations," in which Abu Khattala is said to have launched the Benghazi attack to take "revenge" against the "Innocence of Muslims" video.

The timing is all ironic now isn't it.

He never denied it, despite your accusation that he did.

Everything you talk about being "ironic timing" is from an interview he gave two years ago. An interview that I linked to..

If you have a link to an interview he gave to the NYT that backs up your claim that he denied it please be my guest and link to it. But so far you are seeing shadows where there is nothing but daylight.

We'll see eh?

So, the one guy who will substantiate the WH's claim that the YouTube video inflamed a “peaceful protest”, contrary to our own intelligence reports, is the only one caught, after two fething years, when he’s walking around broad daylight mocking the charges, while speaking to whomever will speak to him (Rueters, CNN, etc)? And it just so happens to be during a time when Obama’s foreign policy is collapsing and the administration is mired in scandals.

I dunno... maybe I'm just a jaded cynic.

But, if I'm right.... woah momma.

Want to address your post that is 100% wrong instead of redirecting and deflecting?

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
"Benghazi Suspect Said He Was Moved To Take Revenge For American-Made Video"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5505181


Right, time to get out the popcorn, this could be fun.

Hooboy... even though he flatly denied that in his first NYT interview.

 d-usa wrote:
Want to address your post that is 100% wrong instead of redirecting and deflecting?

 whembly wrote:

 Maddermax wrote:
"Benghazi Suspect Said He Was Moved To Take Revenge For American-Made Video"

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5505181


Right, time to get out the popcorn, this could be fun.

Hooboy... even though he flatly denied that in his first NYT interview.

Sure...

I got him mixed up with the Libyan President denying it.

So, back up a minute....

Why arrest him now? Why not right afterwards?

 whembly wrote:


Why arrest him now? Why not right afterwards?

Allegedly it was to allow the FBI time to build a case against him they thought would stand up in Fed court. Arrest him too early, when the intent is a trial, and you risk losing the trial.

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Why arrest him now? Why not right afterwards?

Allegedly it was to allow the FBI time to build a case against him they thought would stand up in Fed court. Arrest him too early, when the intent is a trial, and you risk losing the trial.

Oh! o.O

That's odd... but, okay.

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Why arrest him now? Why not right afterwards?

Allegedly it was to allow the FBI time to build a case against him they thought would stand up in Fed court. Arrest him too early, when the intent is a trial, and you risk losing the trial.

Oh! o.O

That's odd... but, okay.

How is that odd? You can't (or, well, shouldn't) go around just grabbing foreign nationals without any sort of proof that they've done something (and even then in an ideal world that still wouldn't happen).

To be fair, if someone attacked one of your embassies and capped your ambassador I suspect your countrymen would want some type of justice, even if the perps were foreign nationals in a country with almost no central gov't control.

I'm surprised we bothered with a snatch and grab and didn't just delivery a Hellfire Sandwich to him Freaky Fast via Drone.

 Easy E wrote:
I'm surprised we bothered with a snatch and grab and didn't just delivery a Hellfire Sandwich to him Freaky Fast via Drone.

Early on it it was decided that since this scum bag was not an actual member of AQ the Authorization for the Use Of Military Force did not apply.

I wonder if he was not read his Miranda Rights and they interrogated him without the presence of his lawyer..

Edit

Zathras "Oh. Not the One, no."

They have a time period where they can question/interrogate on national security/imminent threat matters without allowing Miranda rights. They would not be able to question him about the charges they are going to prosecute though.

To ask those questions they will grant Miranda rights so what is gathered can be used in the trial.

 CptJake wrote:
They have a time period where they can question/interrogate on national security/imminent threat matters without allowing Miranda rights. They would not be able to question him about the charges they are going to prosecute though.

To ask those questions they will grant Miranda rights so what is gathered can be used in the trial.

Sit at a desk and not answer questions and drink coffee till the Rights are read. Excellent! So is the defense witnesses "protected"?.

What if the condemning info given to the FBI were false statements in a coordinated attempt to remove him from position to provide promotions up for members within the organizations?

Edit
Word usage

For what it is worth, I've never understood the desire to mix intelligence gathering and gathering evidence/statements for trial use.

The standards, both from an allowed collection mechanism and from a 'suitable for use' perspective are way too different in most cases.

The chances of Fraking the one for the US Court is to much. Right now I think I heard he is given a history lesson about his organization.

 Jihadin wrote:
The chances of Fraking the one for the US Court is to much. Right now I think I heard he is given a history lesson about his organization.

Way above my pay grade. I'm just glad they finally grabbed is nasty self.

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh...

The big deal here is how the NYT is pushing this unsourced report, citing "private conversations," in which Abu Khattala is said to have launched the Benghazi attack to take "revenge" against the "Innocence of Muslims" video.

The timing is all ironic now isn't it.

The only ironic thing is that you made this post within less than 24 hours of taking the word of an anonymous, alleged former IRS subcontractor from the PJ media blog in the IRS thread as ex cathedra.

 Jihadin wrote:
The chances of Fraking the one for the US Court is to much

Can you name a single major terrorism figure who was ever acquitted in the United States?

As I understand it, the conviction on terrorism-related charges in NY is very near 100%. I can't speak to DC though.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh...

The big deal here is how the NYT is pushing this unsourced report, citing "private conversations," in which Abu Khattala is said to have launched the Benghazi attack to take "revenge" against the "Innocence of Muslims" video.

The timing is all ironic now isn't it.

The only ironic thing is that you made this post within less than 24 hours of taking the word of an anonymous, alleged IRS agent in the IRS thread as ex cathedra.

Lot of "PEWPEWPEWPEWPEW" on posters today.
Duck and roll people. Duck and roll.
Oh. Drink water to

It's a fair criticism. Either anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt, or they should not.

Ouze. Stop messing with my entertainment.

Don't you dare throw Latin at me either.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh...

The big deal here is how the NYT is pushing this unsourced report, citing "private conversations," in which Abu Khattala is said to have launched the Benghazi attack to take "revenge" against the "Innocence of Muslims" video.

The timing is all ironic now isn't it.

The only ironic thing is that you made this post within less than 24 hours of taking the word of an anonymous, alleged IRS agent in the IRS thread as ex cathedra.

O.o

So you wanna equate the word of a potential terrorist to an IT dude who may be familiar with the IRS... niiiiice.

 Jihadin wrote:
The chances of Fraking the one for the US Court is to much

Can you name a single major terrorism figure who was ever acquitted in the United States?

As I understand it, the conviction on terrorism-related charges in NY is very near 100%. I can't speak to DC though.

Actually acquitted? Nah... but Bill Ayers need some reckoning.

But, I digress... you're right, anytime you're being prosecuted by Federal officials... the cards are stacked against you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
It's a fair criticism. Either anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt, or they should not.

Regardless of the subject matter at hand... journalists really need to verify the reporting outcomes with multiple sources.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Uh huh...

The big deal here is how the NYT is pushing this unsourced report, citing "private conversations," in which Abu Khattala is said to have launched the Benghazi attack to take "revenge" against the "Innocence of Muslims" video.

The timing is all ironic now isn't it.

The only ironic thing is that you made this post within less than 24 hours of taking the word of an anonymous, alleged IRS agent in the IRS thread as ex cathedra.

O.o

So you wanna equate the word of a potential terrorist to an IT dude who may be familiar with the IRS... niiiiice.

 Jihadin wrote:
The chances of Fraking the one for the US Court is to much

Can you name a single major terrorism figure who was ever acquitted in the United States?

As I understand it, the conviction on terrorism-related charges in NY is very near 100%. I can't speak to DC though.

Actually acquitted? Nah... but Bill Ayers need some reckoning.

But, I digress... you're right, anytime you're being prosecuted by Federal officials... the cards are stacked against you.

US Government is going to take a beating with the media if there is a chance they screwed this up. Question though. Guilty or not guilty not being the issue. Where do we stick him? GITMO? General Population in Federal Prison System?

Chances of a "snatch" to trade for him and others?

Since he's being tried federally, presumably upon conviction he would be sent to ADX Florence.

 Jihadin wrote:
Chances of a "snatch" to trade for him and others?

IMO, nonexistant.

The people that were traded were people we held in Guantanamo Bay without charge. Under our values, they are innocent (but, not POW's, because reasons). At some point we needed to release these men anyway, so the thinking is may as well trade them while we can get something of value for them, rather than nothing at all, later.

I have a hard time imaging any President trading away a (presuming convicted) federal terror charge felon for anything, least of all someone with as much notoriety as a Benghazi figure.