Editor’s Note – The following article was drafted by Denise Simon and cross-posted on her private blog at the FoundersCode.com. This version is am extended version of her earlier work. We want to know what all the lawyers were telling Clinton and crew that night. Remember, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama were lawyers…
By Denise Simon
Every government agency has more lawyers than common sense! They are called upon to drum up legal advise to either not do something, or to do it, and in the case of a military response to the attacks in Benghazi, a boat load of lawyers were called upon. Let’s go deeper.
Authorization for the Use of Military Force
For some perspective, directly after the 9-11 attacks on the United States, President Bush acquired a bi-cameral (joint) resolution to use military force in response to attack the Taliban, al Qaeda, and all associated affiliates wherever they were located at any time and long into the future. This was called the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Terrorists. This is a standing authorization that has never expired.
Then came Libya, and the NATO nations who sought and gained a United Nations Resolution (United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973) for a ‘no-fly’ zone in Libya which eventually led to the capture of Qaddafi. Additionally, this resolution included striking all of Qaddafi’s military weapons, and any other cache of military grade arms including residual yellow-cake inventories.
The Libya operation did perform rather well, striking what weapons were known at the time in Qaddafi’s arsenal. Upon the expiration of the UN Resolution on October 31, it was determined that much of the weaponry was not destroyed or seized, including the most deadly of all, man-pads, of which there were an estimated 12-15,000.
However, since all the weapons were not found or destroyed under the sanctioned attacks, (See Libya/War Powers Hearing, also see Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy) the State Department under Hillary Clinton began an operation to capture the man-pads because of the known threat of jihadists and al Qaeda factions working in Libya. Their goal was to steal these weapons and send them to their allies in Algeria, Tunisia, and Mali.
Hillary Clinton assigned $50 million to this operation authorized by the Senate and hence the Benghazi man-pad operation was underway. Working in close collaboration with the CIA, an annex was established in Benghazi earlier for this type of purpose and also elsewhere because al Qaeda had several footprints in Northern Africa.
Responding to the Attack on 9/11
General Dempsey had said he and Leon Panetta did not have authorization to respond to the Benghazi attacks. But is that true? Enter the lawyers, so a concrete plan can be put into place so all the words match, messages comply, and we have plausible deniability, or ways to push back because they did not want to go in.
The AUMF for going after al Qaeda was still in place and is a standing and enduring authorization which continues to be included in all annual NDAA approvals by the full Congress. Additionally, the AUMF is a military mandate, both in a proactive measure and in a defensive posture when it comes to al Qaeda and/or any affiliates like Ansar al Sharia as well as many other others under the black flag.
We cannot overlook the fact that Barack Obama continues to give the Air Force and the CIA authorization for drone strikes wherever they may be located from Afghanistan to Pakistan, to Yemen, and beyond, but why not in Libya on that day.
Barack Obama said that drone strikes are used only as a last ditch offensive measure when all other options were not viable. This meant instead of putting boots on the ground to capture and detain they would use drones. After all, we cannot put anyone in prison detention, least of which, Guantanamo.
So we have drone strike de jour as the preferred course of action. But every drone strike requires legal approval, meaning a lawyer sits beside someone like the drone operator to process the Barack Obama kill list.
This brings us to Hillary Clinton and her radio silence.
There was no approval to dispatch a military response to the Benghazi attacks, even though all knew the facts, and no one knew how long the attacks would continue. We clearly know between the first and second attack in Benghazi that Hillary Clinton drafted a communique stating the situation in Benghazi was a demonstration regarding a YouTube video that we now know was so infamously incorrect, but why?
An email was issued by the State Department at 5:55 pm, on September 11, while the attacks were underway naming Ansar al Sharia as having taken credit for the attacks. This email also asked that the Libyan President and Libyan Prime Minister to please pursue Ansar al Sharia, but no action to help Americans still in danger.
A few hours later, Beth Jones, the Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East Affairs, working directly for Hillary Clinton wrote an email to the Libyan Minister, time-stamped September 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm that the attack was perpetrated by Ansar al Sharia. This email was also copied to Victoria Nuland, Jake Sullivan, William Burns, and Wendy Sherman.
Back to the lawyers. It appears that Hillary Clinton conferred with lawyers and inter-agency personnel to call the attacks a demonstration to avoid an AUMF authorized military response. By calling it a demonstration, a military response would NOT be authorized, thus bolstering their stance on al Qaeda. This is a huge distinction and a major sticking point when in fact, they knew it was an attack, and who the murderers were at the very moment the attacks commenced.
The decision was made by the interagency personnel which included the DoJ, the NSC, White House advisors, the Pentagon, and the DoD to take a pass on responding. They assumed that Benghazi was already a lost cause, despite having so many other people left in jeopardy because they were in live/real time chats, reading and watching critics and video feeds via the drone, and observing the live video of the compound’s security cameras.
By this time, only two were dead, they simply did not know how long the attacks and looting would progress. The alternate decision was made instead to protect the Tripoli embassy because it is where all the sensitive documents are and a robust State Department footprint were located.
In summary, the word demonstration vs. attack is the difference between authorizing a military response to save all of the other Americans and Libyan personnel hired by State working on behalf of the United States. They left these people to their own devices and then we saw Glen Dougherty and Ty Woods die on the roof of the annex hours later.
How very cavalier – a legal distinction for politic purposes over the safety of our people in peril!
Now we can see why they went in the ‘blame the video’ route. It is the cover the Barack Obama regime and Hillary Clinton had embraced to keep a small, hidden, and obscure presence in Libya, while the remainder of the Qaddafi weapons became a huge factor in Mali. This also would mean Obama had avoided an election issue over his historic stance that al Qaeda was decimated and Osama bin Laden was dead.
The lawyers parsed the authority and go orders and gave deadly advise.