JW Files Two New Lawsuits against Obama Administration over Benghazi Secrecy

JW Files Two New Lawsuits against Obama Administration over Benghazi Secrecy
Six months have passed since the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, and we are no closer to the truth about what happened. And there is only one reason – Obama secrecy.
You’ve watched the Obama administration trot out witnesses before congressional committees investigating the attacks. You’ve watched Obama officials make the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows. But all we have in the end is more lies and more stonewalling and more broken promises to “get to the bottom of it.”
And then there’s the effort by the Obama administration to shield the documentary evidence from the American people. This is where Judicial Watch is focusing its attention. We recently filed two lawsuits against the Obama State Department to try to gain access to records that could shed light on what happened that day, who responded, and how.
First, we sued the State Department seeking “all videos and photographs” depicting the Benghazi, Libya, Consulate between September 10 and September 13, 2012, the period leading up to, during, and immediately following the deadly attack.
Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its December 19, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request: “Any and all videos and photographs depicting U.S. Consulate facilities in Benghazi, Libya (including the Special Mission Compound and the Annex) between September 10, 2012, and September 13, 2012, that were provided to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for Benghazi and/or to any individual member of the ARB.”
The State Department acknowledged receiving the Judicial Watch FOIA request on January 4, 2013, and was required by law to respond by February 4, 2013. So far, nothing but crickets.
Now, the Obama administration can’t claim it came up empty in trying to locate the records. We know they exist because they are referenced by the ARB, which was convened by then Secretary of State Clinton last December, in its final report.
In fact, according to ARB Chairman Ambassador Tom Pickering, the Board “reviewed thousands of documents and watched hours of video” during the course of its investigation. The Obama administration also reportedly shared Benghazi video with certain members of Congress. The State Department, however, has refused to comply with our FOIA seeking access to these materials on behalf of the American people.
It’s an easy guess as to why the Obama administration is refusing to turn these records over. Any video or photos will tell us more about Benghazi – in contrast to the lies and spin coming out of Obama administration officials.
Now, in our second FOIA lawsuit against the Obama State Department, we’re seeking access to records concerning a contract totaling nearly $400,000 that was awarded to a foreign firm for “Security Guards and Patrol Services” at the Benghazi Consulate prior to the Benghazi attacks. This contract was signed on February 17, 2012 and May 3, 2012 and, at the time, identified only as “Award ID SAQMMA12COO92”. Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit on February 25, 2013.
Specifically, here’s what we’re after pursuant to our November 7, 2012, FOIA request:

Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the $387,413.68 contract awarded by the Department of State to an unidentified foreign awardee for “Security Guards and Patrol Services.” According to the record of this expenditure on USASpending.gov, the contract was signed on February 17, 2012 and May 3, 2012 and is identified by Award ID SAQMMA12COO92.

The State Department acknowledged receiving the November 7, 2012, Judicial Watch FOIA request on November 12, 2012, and was required by law to respond by December 20, 2012, at the latest. Yet again, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, State failed to produce any records responsive to the request, indicate when any responsive records will be produced, or demonstrate that responsive records are exempt from production.
Why are we suspicious of this contract?
According to Breitbart.com, when first questioned about foreign Benghazi security guards on Friday, September 14, 2012, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland emphatically denied that State had hired any private firm to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the claim was made yesterday that a company that is a spinoff of Blackwater, in fact, proposed or contracted the United States Government for this particular kind of eventuality, and it was caught up in some sort of bureaucratic –

MS. NULAND: Completely untrue with regard to Libya. I checked that this morning. At no time did we plan to hire a private security company for Libya.

QUESTION: Toria (stet), I just want to make sure I understood that, because I didn’t understand your first question. You said – your first answer. You said that at no time did you have contracts with private security companies in Libya?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

However, on September 17, 2012, WIRED magazine broke the story that Nuland had provided false information in her September 14 press conference, saying: “Contrary to Friday’s claim by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that ‘at no time did we contract with a private security firm in Libya,’ the department inked a contract for ‘security guards and patrol services’ on May 3, 2012, for $387,413.68. An extension option brought the tab for protecting the consulate to $783,000. The contract lists only ‘foreign security awardees’ as its recipient.”
In her daily press briefing on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 Nuland admitted that she had made an “error” concerning the State Department’s hiring of foreign security firms in Benghazi. “There was a group called Blue Mountain Group, which is a private security company with permits to operate in Libya,” Nuland said. “They were hired to provide local Libyan guards who operated inside the gate doing things like operating the security access equipment, screening cars, that kind of thing.”
According to Breitbart.com, Blue Mountain was chosen for the Benghazi security operation because it was willing to sign the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya prohibiting guards from carrying weapons with live ammunition.
The American people deserve to know the full story of what occurred at the Benghazi Consulate. The Obama State Department continues to keep secret records that could shed light on the events surrounding the terrorist attack. And we are trying to bust through the Obama administration’s stone wall.
The two new FOIA lawsuits bring our total Benghazi-gate count to three. You may recall we filed a separate FOIA lawsuit seeking access to the controversial internal “speaking points” used by the Obama administration in the days following the attacks when administration officials advanced the false narrative that the attacks were inspired by a rudimentary Internet video perceived as anti-Muslim. There could be more.
Meanwhile, some Republicans in Congress continue to try to seek access to people who might actually tell the truth about what happened on the ground that day – the survivors. Unfortunately, the Obama administration continues to keep them sequestered.
Frankly, I don’t trust the Republicans to be dogged about this issue.  You may recall that Obama’s nomination of John Brennan to run the CIA was going to be used by Republicans like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) to get the truth out about Benghazi. Didn’t happen. Brennan was confirmed yesterday and the only impediment was an extraordinary filibuster by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), who was pushing concerns about drone policy. Incredibly, Graham and McCain voted to confirm Brennan!
I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. Truth fears no inquiry. The Obama administration truly fears the release of information about Benghazi. That’s the reason for the doctored speaking points, the FOIA denials and the outright lies. They are hoping we will stop caring and just go away. That’s not going to happen.
JW Victory: Court Rules Obama DHS Violated FOIA with Stealth Amnesty Secrecy 
Judicial Watch recently earned a major victory against the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in its efforts to uncover records detailing the Obama administration’s “stealth amnesty” initiative. And with DHS releasing thousands of illegal alien criminals onto the streets, it could not have come at a better time.
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia recently ruled that the Obama DHS had failed to comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in a Judicial Watch lawsuit seeking records related to the agency’s policy of suspending some illegal alien deportations. The opinion was issued by The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly.
Our FOIA lawsuit concerns a DHS policy, implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which led to the reduction of the deportation docket in Houston, Texas, by dismissing pending enforcement proceedings against illegal immigrants who DHS claimed did not have serious criminal records.  (Now we know this was a lie. Judicial Watch uncovered records showing that multiple deportation cases were dismissed against illegal immigrants who had committed serious felonies. But more on that in a moment.)
In the old days – and by the “old days” I mean 2010 – this was called “stealth amnesty.” But there’s nothing “stealth” about the Obama administration’s amnesty campaign now. According to The Associated Press, since mid-February, the Obama administration has openly and proudly released more than 2,000 illegal immigrants facing deportation from jail. Reports indicate that it plans to release 3,000 more this month.
Regarding our lawsuit and the court victory, we filed our original FOIA request with DHS on August 30, 2010, and a subsequent lawsuit on March 23, 2011, after the DHS refused to release the requested records. On January 27, 2012, the U.S. District Court denied a DHS motion to dismiss in part, chastising the agency for its inadequate explanations and giving it one “final” opportunity to establish the applicability of certain privileges in withholding the information from Judicial Watch.
In the February 28, 2013, decision, the District Court ruled that with respect to a substantial number of documents at issue, DHS had continued to improperly withhold information under the “attorney-client” and attorney “work-product” privileges:

• Regarding DHS attempts to withhold information under an attorney-client privilege, the court ruled in favor of Judicial Watch, declaring, “[E]ach of these documents appears to concern nothing more than the implementation of an agency policy, the withholding of which runs counter to the [DC] Circuit’s [earlier] admonition that a government attorney’s ‘advice on political, strategic, or policy issues [is] not … shielded from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege.’” (The court drew a similar conclusion regarding the DHS effort to withhold information in order to protect attorney “work-product.”)

The records at issue concern internal DHS controversy over how the Houston ICE officials were interpreting the Obama administration’s narrowed immigration enforcement priorities.
Documents previously uncovered by JW show that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about the scope of its immigration enforcement policy change, which gave wide latitude to local immigration officials to dismiss illegal alien deportation cases – including the dismissal of charges against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes. So don’t believe the Obama administration’s lie that public safety is not at issue here. I believe people will die as a result of this new policy. (I cited my reasons for pessimism in last week’s update.)
But this ruling is good news at a time when the country really needed it.
It proves the Obama administration is willing to go to any extent – including gaming the courts – to continue stonewalling the full story of its lawless release of illegal aliens. Now, with the prison floodgates being thrown open to illegal aliens under the phony pretense of abiding by sequester cuts, it is more important that details of this threat to the public safety be revealed. We’re pleased the Court would not allow DHS to continue its contempt for FOIA law. We look forward to getting those records.
JW Announces Major Sponsorship of CPAC: The Ronald Reagan Dinner
It’s that time of year again, when thousands of conservatives will flock to Washington, DC for the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
As you may know, JW was a major player at last year’s conference. And now, with all of the critical investigations and lawsuits we’re spearheading, the release of our New York Times best-selling book, The Corruption Chronicles, and our new hard-hitting documentary The District of Corruption we have much to talk about this year. And we are looking forward to it.
Our leadership includes sponsorship of the conference’s main event, the Ronald Reagan Dinner on Friday evening, which will feature a presentation by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and remarks by yours truly.  Other major Judicial Watch CPAC activities include the Washington, DC, premier of “District of Corruption” and an educational panel focused upon today’s “Hot Topics.” Here are the specific details of Judicial Watch’s CPAC 2013 activities:

• Thursday, March 14, 12 noon – 2 pm, National Harbor 5: the Washington, DC, premier of the Judicial Watch documentary “District of Corruption.” A brief panel discussion featuring the film’s director, Stephen K. Bannon; Peter Schweizer, William J. Casey Fellow of the Hoover Institution; Matthew Boyle and Kerry Picket, Investigative Reporters for Breitbart.com; and Katie Pavlich, News Editor at TownHall.com will commence directly after the screening.

• Thursday, February 14, 3:45 pm, Potomac Ballroom:  Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton will address the CPAC gathering.

• Thursday, February 14, 4:30 – 5 pm, CPAC 2013 Bookstore: Tom Fitton will be signing copies of his New York Times best-seller “The Corruption Chronicles.”

• Friday, March 15, 10:30 am – 12 noon, National Harbor 2:  a “Hot Issues” panel discussion regarding election integrity; immigration and the rule of law; Washington, DC, corruption; and the perils to the Constitution from an imperial presidency. Moderated by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, speakers for this event include J. Christian Adams, Founder, Election Law Center; Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies; Joel Pollak, Editor in Chief for Breitbart.com; and Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow in Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.

• Friday, March 15, 7:30 pm, Potomac Ballroom:  Judicial Watch sponsors the premiere event at CPAC:  the Ronald Reagan Dinner.  Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush is the scheduled keynoter for this special evening.

We are proud to stand with thousands of other conservatives at CPAC seeking to expose and stop government corruption. JW is the largest and most active government watchdog in the nation and through our major sponsorship of CPAC, we look forward to educating American grassroots about the bipartisan corruption enveloping our nation’s capital.  Judicial Watch’s message of reform and accountability has added resonance in this age of increasing government corruption and lawlessness.
CPAC takes place March 14-16, 2013, at Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, 201 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, MD. I hope you will stop by and say hello. As always, we’ll have an educational booth in the exhibit hall.
Until next week.

JW Sues Office of the Director of National Intelligence for Docs Describing Attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi

February 20, 2013 | No Comments

Email

Print Text Size

16

Judicial Watch Seeks the “Speaking Points” Intelligence Memo Referencing Link to Terrorism that was Allegedly Scrubbed by Obama Administration Officials

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence seeking access to records detailing the September 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks a controversial “speaking points” memo indicating that intelligence officials believed from the outset that terrorists were behind the attack despite public statements to the contrary issued by Obama administration officials, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  The lawsuit was filed on February 14, 2013 (Judicial Watch v. Office of the Dir. of National Intelligence (No. 13-0198)).
Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its October 19, 2012, FOIA request:

Any and all memoranda, assessments, analyses, and/or talking points regarding the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and/or the killing of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence between September 11, 2012 and September 20, 2012. This request includes, but is not limited to, the “speaking points” memorandum referred to by Senator Dianne Feinstein during a televised interview on October 17, 2012, (see http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/10/17/ feinstein-intelligence-flaw-lax-security-to-blame-for-libyan-terror-attack/).

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged receiving JW’s request on October 19, 2012, and was required by law to respond by November 26, 2012.  As of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the agency has failed to produce any records responsive to the request, indicate when any responsive records will be produced, or demonstrated that responsive records are exempt from production.
Regarding the “speaking points” memorandum requested by Judicial Watch, according to the CBS Affiliate in San Francisco: “When asked by CBS 5 if there was an intelligence flaw, the senior California senator [Feinstein] who hails from San Francisco replied: ‘I think what happened was the director of intelligence…put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment. I think that was possibly a mistake.’”
Former CIA Director General David Petraeus reportedly testified before Congress that the initial speaking points produced by the CIA “stated there were indications the attack was linked to al Qaeda,” and suggested the terrorism reference was removed sometime during an interagency review process.
In the days and weeks following the Benghazi attacks, the Obama administration blamed the incident on a rudimentary Internet video deemed offensive to Muslims. This false claim was repeated by both Ambassador Rice and Secretary Clinton in multiple public statements and press interviews. For example, at a September 14, 2012, event honoring the four victims of the Benghazi attack, Secretary Clinton made the following statement: “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen the rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful video that we had nothing to do with.”
Later, when asked about the alleged discrepancy between the intelligence community’s assessment and the Obama administration’s public statements during congressional testimony, former Secretary of State Clinton shouted, “What difference does it make?” “I personally was not focused on talking points,” she stated.
“With all of the Benghazi lies coming out of the Obama administration, the only way to get at the truth is to release these records immediately,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “From the beginning, the Obama White House has been more concerned with self-protection than to disclosing the truth about Benghazi. The Obama administration’s lawless Benghazi cover-up is a disgrace and an insult to the victims of the attacks and their families.  The Obama Benghazi scandal makes Iran-Contra seem like patty-cake by comparison.”
In December, Judicial Watch released its special report, “The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis and Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent.” The report closely examined the Obama administration’s actions before, during, and after the assault, as well as the State Department’s commitment to protect overseas diplomats.
In addition to Judicial Watch’s Benghazi investigation, Congress also seeks answers from the Obama administration. Republicans in the Senate have indicated they plan to put a hold on the nomination of John O. Brennan, former Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, who is President Obama’s pick to serve as Director of the CIA, until the Obama White House releases more details on the Benghazi attacks, including the speaking points memos.

###

Read more about benghazi, Director of National Intelligence, Hillary Clinton, susan rice

Email

Print Text Size

JW Files Three New Lawsuits Against Obama Administration for Concealing Benghazi

More than six months have passed since the 9/11/2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, which killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, and we are no closer to the truth about what happened.  And this is for one reason and one reason only – Obama secrecy.
The American people have watched the Obama administration trot out witnesses before congressional committees investigating the attacks.  Americans have watched Obama officials make the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows.  In the end is more lies and more stonewalling and more broken promises to “get to the bottom of it.”

If you would like to receive weekly emails updating you about all of our efforts to fight corruption, please sign up here.

* Email
* State:

Judicial Watch Weekly Update

There seems to be a systematic effort by the Obama administration to shield key documentary evidence from the American people.  This is where Judicial Watch is focusing its attention.  JW has filed multiple Freedom of Information Act requests and recently filed three lawsuits against the Obama State Department to try to gain access to records that could shed light on what happened that day, who responded, and how.
Benghazi Lawsuit No. 1: JW Seeks U.S. Consulate Videos at Time of Attack
Judicial Watch sued the State Department seeking “all videos and photographs” depicting the Benghazi, Libya Consulate between September 10 and September 13, 2012, the period leading up to, during, and immediately following the deadly attack.
Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its December 19, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request:

“Any and all videos and photographs depicting U.S. Consulate facilities in Benghazi, Libya (including the Special Mission Compound and the Annex) between September 10, 2012, and September 13, 2012, that were provided to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for Benghazi and/or to any individual member of the ARB.”

The State Department acknowledged receiving the Judicial Watch FOIA request on January 4, 2013, and was required by law to respond by February 4, 2013.  So far, no documents have been produced.
The Obama administration cannot claim it came up empty in trying to locate the records.  The records exist for certain because they are referenced by the ARB, which was convened by then – Secretary of State Clinton last December, in its final report.
In fact, according to ARB Chairman Ambassador Tom Pickering, the Board “reviewed thousands of documents and watched hours of video” during the course of its investigation.  The Obama administration also reportedly shared Benghazi video with certain members of Congress. The State Department, however, has refused to comply with JW’s FOIA seeking access to these materials on behalf of the American people.
“It’s an easy guess as to why the Obama administration is refusing to turn these records over. Any video or photos will tell us more about Benghazi – in contrast to the lies and spin coming out of Obama administration officials,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
Benghazi Lawsuit Number 2:  JW Seeks Details Regarding Contract with Foreign Security Company
In another FOIA lawsuit against the Obama State Department, Judicial Watch seeks access to records concerning a contract totaling nearly $400,000 that was awarded to a foreign firm for “Security Guards and Patrol Services” at the Benghazi Consulate prior to the Benghazi attacks. This contract was signed on February 17, 2012, and May 3, 2012, and at the time was identified only as “Award ID SAQMMA12COO92.”  Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit on February 25, 2013.
Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following pursuant to a November 7, 2012, FOIA request:

Any and all records regarding, concerning, or related to the $387,413.68 contract awarded by the Department of State to an unidentified foreign awardee for “Security Guards and Patrol Services.”  According to the record of this expenditure on USASpending.gov, the contract was signed on February 17, 2012, and May 3, 2012, and is identified by Award ID SAQMMA12COO92.

The State Department acknowledged receiving the November 7, 2012, Judicial Watch FOIA request on November 12, 2012, and was required by law to respond by December 20, 2012, at the latest.  Yet again, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, JW has not received a meaningful response.
And what is suspicious about this contract?
According to Breitbart.com, when first questioned about foreign Benghazi security guards on Friday, September 14, 2012, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland emphatically denied that State had hired any private firm to provide security at the American mission in Benghazi:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) the claim was made yesterday that a company that is a spinoff of Blackwater, in fact, proposed or contracted the United States Government for this particular kind of eventuality, and it was caught up in some sort of bureaucratic –

MS. NULAND: Completely untrue with regard to Libya.  I checked that this morning.  At no time did we plan to hire a private security company for Libya.

QUESTION: Toria [stet], I just want to make sure I understood that, because I didn’t understand your first question.  You said – your first answer.  You said that at no time did you have contracts with private security companies in Libya?

MS. NULAND: Correct.

However, on September 17, 2012, WIRED magazine broke the story that Nuland had provided false information in her September 14 press conference, saying:  “Contrary to Friday’s claim by State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland that ‘at no time did we contract with a private security firm in Libya,’ the department inked a contract for ‘security guards and patrol services’ on May 3, 2012, for $387,413.68.  An extension option brought the tab for protecting the consulate to $783,000.  The contract lists only ‘foreign security awardees’ as its recipient.”
In her daily press briefing on Tuesday, September 18, 2012, Nuland admitted that she had made an “error” concerning the State Department’s hiring of foreign security firms in Benghazi. “There was a group called Blue Mountain Group, which is a private security company with permits to operate in Libya,” Nuland said.  “They were hired to provide local Libyan guards who operated inside the gate doing things like operating the security access equipment, screening cars, that kind of thing.”
According to Breitbart.com, Blue Mountain was chosen for the Benghazi security operation because it was willing to sign the State Department Rules of Engagement for Libya prohibiting guards from carrying weapons with live ammunition.
Benghazi Lawsuit Number 3:  JW Seeks “Doctored” Talking Points Memo
Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit on February 14, 2013, against the Obama Administration’s Office of the Director of National Intelligence seeking access to a controversial “speaking points” memo that seems to suggest that intelligence officials believed from the outset that al Qaeda was behind the attack despite public statements to the contrary issued by Obama administration officials, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Specifically, JW seeks:

Any and all memoranda, assessments, analyses, and/or talking points regarding the September 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya and/or the killing of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens produced by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence between September 11, 2012, and September 20, 2012.  This request includes, but is not limited to, the “speaking points” memorandum referred to by Senator Dianne Feinstein during a televised interview on October 17, 2012….

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence acknowledged receiving JW’s request on October 19, 2012, and was required by law to respond by November 26, 2012.  However, as of the date of Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, the agency failed to produce any records responsive to the request, indicate when any responsive records will be produced, or demonstrated that responsive records are exempt from production.
Regarding the “speaking points” memorandum requested by Judicial Watch, according to the CBS television affiliate in San Francisco, Senator Feinstein said:  “When asked by CBS 5 if there was an intelligence flaw, the senior California senator [Feinstein] who hails from San Francisco replied: ‘I think what happened was the director of intelligence…put out some speaking points on the initial intelligence assessment.  I think that was possibly a mistake.’”
Former CIA Director General David Petraeus reportedly testified before Congress that the initial speaking points produced by the CIA “stated there were indications the attack was linked to al Qaeda,” and suggested the terrorism reference was removed sometime during an interagency review process.
In the days and weeks following the Benghazi attacks, the Obama administration blamed the incident on a rudimentary Internet video deemed offensive to Muslims.  This false claim was repeated by both Ambassador Rice and Secretary Clinton in multiple public statements and press interviews.
For example, at a September 14, 2012, event honoring the four victims of the Benghazi attack, then-Secretary of State Clinton made the following statement:  “We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men.  We’ve seen the rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful video that we had nothing to do with.”
Did Hillary Clinton know this was a lie when she said it?  She certainly was in no mood to talk about it during her testimony before Congress.  When asked about the alleged discrepancy between the intelligence community’s assessment and the Obama administration’s public statements during congressional testimony, Ms. Clinton shouted, “What difference does it make?…I personally was not focused on talking points.”
“With all of the Benghazi lies coming out of the Obama administration, the only way to get at the truth is to release these records immediately,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.  “The Obama administration’s lawless Benghazi cover-up is a disgrace and an insult to the victims of the attacks and their families.  The Obama Benghazi scandal makes Iran-Contra seem like patty-cake by comparison.”

Report: U.S. Ambassador was raped before he was murdered

Report: U.S. Ambassador was raped before he was murdered

Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/report-u-s-ambassador-was-raped-before-he-was-murdered?cid=db_articles&goback=.gde_705457_member_163250690



The Arabic language website known as Lebanon News (Tayar.org) has just reported the horrific claim that the heavily armed mob responsible for the murder of U.S. Ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens, 52, actually raped him before he was killed.

The Google Translation of the report follows:

-"The U.S. ambassador to Libya was raped sexually before killing by gunmen who stormed the embassy building in Benghazi last night to protest against the film is offensive to the Prophet Muhammad"

-"The sources told AFP said that 'Ambassador was killed and representation of his body in a manner similar to what happened with Gaddafi, such as murder.'"

Ambassador Stevens was killed on Tuesday along with three other embassy staff as a group of terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate office in Benghazi, where Stevens was hold up.

The mob fired countless gunshots and rocket propelled grenades at the U.S. compound, eventually setting the consulate ablaze.

Also on Tuesday, a violent mob scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, replacing the U.S. flag with that of al Queda's.

Over his career, Stevens served two diplomatic tours in Libya, and was confirmed as ambassador to that country by the Senate in May.

Until Tuesday, only five U.S. ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty, according to the U.S. State Department

Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=95a_1347575475#iZkrTf2CI4FJp8b3.99

Trayvon Martin Protestors Violently Attack A Grandmother Trying To Take 7-Year-Old To Hospital

• Like this article? →

Kristin Tate

July 17, 2013 2:02pm PST

The pro-Trayvon Martin protests sweeping the nation have become violent riots in some cities like Houston, Los Angeles, and Oakland.
On Monday night, rioters in Houston put the life of a 7-year-0ld in danger. The young girl was having an extreme allergic reaction, and was being driven to the hospital by her mother and grandmother. However, a group of violent protestors blocked the their vehicle, keeping it stalled for a substantial chunk of time. All the while, the 7-year-old was suffering in the back seat.
The grandmother, who only identified herself as Georgia, said, “I looked up and I see all the protesters, they’re everywhere… So, we got into the traffic and they’re stopping us and not letting us go.”
Georgia’s daughter (the 7-year-old’s mother) was driving the car at the time of the incident. She tried to drive around the protestors by driving through grass, but the rioters continued to target the car and block them from moving at all.

Get instant updates.
Follow us today!

(Read more: Obama’s DOJ Wants To End “Stand Your Ground” Laws Because Of Zimmerman Case)

“One of them was hitting the windshield and I was just screaming, ‘We’ve got to get to the hospital,’ and they were screaming and chanting. All I could think of was, I got to get my granddaughter to the hospital,” Georgia said.
When Georgia rolled down her window to ask the rioters to move out of the way, they physically assaulted her.
Georgia’s daughter said, “She said, ‘We’re trying to get my granddaughter to the hospital,’ and a guy just started hitting her.”

A video shot by a local news affiliate shows the crowd blocking the car and a man assaulting Georgia.

“It wasn’t peaceful. It was terrifying,” Georgia said.

Good grief. These protests aren’t even about Trayvon Martin anymore. They have turned into violent riots for people who just want an excuse to be angry.

And the worst part? The so-called “mainstream” media refuses to report on the violence, since it doesn’t align with their liberal agenda.

(H/T: The Blaze)

NFL Player: Zimmerman Jurors Should Go Home and **** Themselves

NFL Player: Zimmerman Jurors Should Go Home and **** Themselves

  EVERY ONE BOY COTT THIS TEAM DONT GO TO THE GAMES DONT BY ANY THING FROM THIS TEAM

your a racist you and obama al and jeses go to hell we now boy cott your team

07/15/13

From The Blaze:

Atlanta Falcons receiver Roddy White responded to George Zimmerman’s acquittal Saturday night by tweeting that all the jurors should “go home tonight and kill themselves” for allowing a “grown man get away with killing a kid.”

He had tweeted right before, “F–king Zimmerman got away with murder today wow what kind of world do we live in.”

Gunman opens fire inside Norwood church

By Melody Pettit mpettit@kspr.com

4:40 p.m. CDT, July 21, 2013

(NORWOOD, Mo)—

KSPR is working on a developing story out of Wright County. Officials say a gunman walked into a church and opened fire.
It happened during services at the First Baptist Church in Norwood.

---

Great summer deals at half off or more! Golf, boat rentals, and Branson fun! Click Here

---

Witnesses say more than 50 people were inside when the man fired a shot into the floor.
Several churchgoers tackled him and held him down until police arrived. While the gunman was being subdued, another shot fired off into the ceiling.
Police say the man could have mental-health issues.

Copyright © 2013, KSPR-TV

Get school closings, weather and breaking news alerts on your cell phone >>

Senate and C.I.A. Spar Over Secret Report on Interrogation Program

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE

Published: July 19, 2013

WASHINGTON — The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says she is planning a push to declassify hundreds of pages of a secret committee report that accuses the Central Intelligence Agency of misleading Congress and the White House about the agency’s detention and interrogation program, which is now defunct. 

Enlarge This Image

Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Senator Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Intelligence Committee, talked to reporters after a briefing last month.

 The 6,000-page report, which took years to complete and cost more than $40 million, is the only detailed account to date of a program that set off a national debate about torture. The report has been the subject of a fierce partisan fight and a vigorous effort by the C.I.A. to challenge its conclusions, and last month, the agency’s director, John O. Brennan, delivered a lengthy rebuttal to the report to committee leaders.

 But the committee’s chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said in a statement this week that the report was on “firm ground” and that she planned to ask the White House and C.I.A. to declassify its 300-page executive summary after “making any factual changes to our report that are warranted after the C.I.A.’s response.”

 The committee’s top Republican, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, said he believed the report was deeply flawed and agreed with the intelligence agency’s critique. But he said he believed that a summary of the report could be made public, as long as it was accompanied by a summary of the agency’s response and a dissenting statement from committee Republicans.

The clash over the report is, at its core, a fight over who writes the history of what is perhaps the most bitterly disputed part of the American government’s response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. More than four years have passed since the C.I.A. closed its secret prisons, and nearly a decade since agency interrogators subjected Qaeda detainees to the most brutal interrogation methods, including the near-drowning technique known as waterboarding.

 For defenders of the interrogation program, the Senate criticism represents second-guessing of actions taken at a desperate time to stop terrorist attacks. For critics, the report is a first step toward coming to terms with a shameful departure from American values that included the official embrace of torture.

According to several people who have read it, the Senate report is particularly damning in its portrait of a C.I.A. so intent on justifying extreme interrogation techniques that it blatantly misled President George W. Bush, the White House, the Justice Department and the Congressional intelligence committees about the efficacy of its methods.

 Several senators have also said the report concludes that the use of waterboarding, wall-slamming, shackling in painful positions, forced nudity and sleep deprivation produced little information of value. It concludes that the use of those techniques did not disrupt any terrorist plots and made no significant contribution to finding Osama bin Laden, the Qaeda founder, who was killed in a SEAL team raid in 2011.

The C.I.A. response challenges a number of these conclusions, in part by questioning the accuracy of facts cited in the report.

A C.I.A. spokesman, Dean Boyd, said the agency’s response “detailed significant errors in the study,” though he added that the agency “agrees with a number of the study’s findings.”

In a separate statement, Mr. Brennan made clear his continuing opposition to coercive interrogation methods, which were used by the agency when he held high-level positions. “I remain firm in my belief that enhanced interrogation techniques are not an appropriate method to obtain intelligence and that their use impairs our ability to play a leadership role in the world,” he said.

Mr. Chambliss said the report’s shortcomings stemmed from its being based exclusively on documents. “The folks doing the report got 100 percent of their information from documents and didn’t interview a single person,” he said, adding that while there were “some abuses,” the program was more effective than the report concludes.

 The committee completed its report late last year and submitted it to the C.I.A., where it sat for months. The agency’s response to the report was due in February, but it was not delivered to the committee until the end of June. 

Senate and C.I.A. Spar Over Secret Report on Interrogation Program

(Page 2 of 2)

 Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia, suggested that the committee would not automatically accept the agency’s corrections to the report. “My colleagues and I will apply the same level of scrutiny to the C.I.A.’s response that we used during our own exhaustive review of the program,” he said.

Some Democratic lawmakers and human rights advocates are frustrated that the White House has remained largely absent from the debate, though a May 10 photograph on the White House Flickr feed shows Mr. Brennan speaking with President Obama while holding a copy of the C.I.A. response to the Senate report.

In a statement on Friday, Caitlin Hayden, a White House spokeswoman, urged the committee and the C.I.A. “to continue working together to address issues associated with the report — including factual questions.”

She said that at some point, “some version of the findings of the report should be made public.”

Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, said that squarely facing the mistakes of the interrogation program was “essential for the C.I.A.’s long-term institutional integrity, for the legitimacy of ongoing sensitive programs, and for this White House, which so far has rejected requests to discuss the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report with members or committee staff.”

Though the committee’s investigation began as a bipartisan effort, Republicans dropped out in August 2009 after Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced that the Justice Department was reviewing the interrogation program. In part because they expected many C.I.A. officers to refuse to discuss the program during the Justice Department review, committee Democrats decided to base their investigation solely on documents, ultimately reviewing some six million pages.

 The costs of the investigation ballooned over four years. The C.I.A. insisted that committee staff members be allowed to pore over thousands of classified agency cables only at a secure facility in Northern Virginia — and only after a team of outside contractors had examined the cables first. Government officials said that between paying for the facility and for the contractors, the C.I.A. had spent more than $40 million on the study.

Mrs. Feinstein angrily complained about what she called a pattern of unnamed officials speaking to reporters to discredit the Senate report.

“I am appalled by the persistent media leaks by anonymous officials regarding the C.I.A.’s response to the committee’s study,” she said, adding that the leaks began three months before the agency delivered its formal response.

“Leaks defending the C.I.A. interrogation program regardless of underlying facts or costs have been a persistent problem for many years,” she said. “This behavior was, and remains, unacceptable.”

 

Illegal Aliens Urged to Enter the Labor Force Without Work Authorization

Last Updated: July 12, 2013

Synopsis

Judicial Watch yesterday obtained, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, documents showing that, as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Hilda Solis drew a press gaggle when she visited illegal aliens in Maryland last spring and urged them to assert their “federal rights.”  Judicial Watch’s investigation was prompted a year ago by an article in Washington Hispanic newspaper on June 1, 2012, which quoted Solis as saying: “[Barack Obama] knows very well that it is very important to preserve the rights of the Hispanic community and of other communities, in any area where they are working.  The federal laws are very clear and protect all workers equally, whether or not they have papers.”  What follows are some highlights from the records released yesterday in response to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit of March 13, 2013:

• A similar sentiment was expressed in the agency’s internal newsletter of May 31, 2012 covering the event:  “This administration . . .  will not be satisfied until everyone that wants to work finds a job,” Solis said.  “And that’s what our partnership with CASA de Maryland offers.”  This edition of the DOL newsletter was routed to White House publicists Amy Brundage and Shannon Gilson by Labor Spokesman Carl Fillichio, who recently offended DOL staffers by emailing them a game called “Lent Madness,” which involved eliminating Episcopal saints in a Fantasy-Football style tournament.

• CASA, which stands for the Central American Solidarity Association, is a nonprofit founded in 1985 whose mission is to ensure that “all people – especially women, low-income people, and workers – can participate and fully benefit [in and from American society], regardless of their immigration status,” according to a May 29, 2012 memo to the Secretary preparing her for the visit.  Another May 29, 2012 memo developed in preparation for the Secretary’s visit characterizes CASA as being “located in a shopping center” and “the site of the largest corner for day laborers.”

• Also included in the agency’s release is a July 14, 2011 Washington Post profile of CASA’s director Gustavo Torres.  According to the article, “nearly half of CASA’s $6 million budget comes from local, state, and federal appropriations.”  The article goes on to state that “CASA uses a significant portion of that money to help illegal immigrants.”  DOL awarded the organization $187,000 in 2012 according to a May 31, 2012 email also included in the production, indicating that the agency was well aware of the way taxpayer funds were being spent.

Judicial Watch’s ongoing investigation into this issue has revealed that Solis’s prospective successor, former Deputy Attorney General Thomas Perez, served as Board President for CASA.  Since Obama took office, CASA has secured $588,390 in grants from DOL and $1,182,390 from all federal agencies combined, according to official figures at usaspending.gov.
UPDATE July 9, 2013:

The records obtained on July 9, 2013  by compulsion of the court show that CASA, which bills itself the “go-to” organization for illegal alien advocacy in that state, boasts an annual operating budget in excess of $5,000,000.  Notwithstanding CASA’s apparent strength and size, DOL continues to conceal funding sources for the organization, arguing that disclosing how much taxpayer funding it receives each year could cause the day laborer training center “competitive harm.”

Also notable in the agency’s supplemental production is the fact that both U.S. Senators for Maryland Mikulski and Van Hollen appear to have lobbied DOL through a process called “lettermarking,” for CASA to win Susan Harwood Training Grant from DOL’s Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA).  Interestingly, though awarded $181,390 by OSHA, CASA offered none of the “intensive” safety training it promised in applying for the grant, concentrating its efforts instead on exceeding even its own goals in the delivery of labor rights training.

Background: Letter marking is the new earmarking, evades the recent ban.

Gadhafi’s Loose Weapons Could Number a ‘Thousand Times’ Saddam’s

• By Adam Rawnsley
• 08.25.11
• 5:00 PM

• 
  

Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi spent decades piling up a huge stash of weapons like a crazy old lady hoarding cats. Ironically, rebel forces looted his arms depots to turn Gadhafi’s missiles and guns on their old master. But the ease with which the rebels were able to arm themselves points to their next massive problem: securing those weapons before they fuel a lethal insurgency or flood the global arms bazaar.
It’s a concern familiar to those who watched Iraq’s insurgency evolve. Saddam Hussein, like Gadhafi, amassed a vast array of conventional weaponry for defense against enemies both foreign and domestic. In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion in 2003, looters made off with tons of explosives from unprotected military arsenals, making arms available to a brewing insurgency. With the end of Gadhafi’s rule seeming nigh, arms control and human rights experts are paying close attention to the security of the country’s weapons stockpiles, fearing they could end up in the hands of a pro-regime insurgency or other militants outside the country.
Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch, has spent time on the ground in Libya during the uprising. He tells Danger Room that “weapon proliferation out of Libya is potentially one of the largest we have ever documented — 2003 Iraq pales in comparison — and so the risks are equally much more significant.”
Many in the West worry about the remnants of Gadhafi’s chemical-weapons program and shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles. However, Bouckaert says it’s Libya’s vast arsenals of low-tech gear like artillery shells and Grad missiles that are most likely to be fashioned into insurgent weapons, such as improvised explosive devices. The Libyan military certainly has plenty of them. Only a few months into the war, thousands of 122-mm Grad rockets were found stashed in abandoned bunkers in eastern Libya. “If Gadhafi loyalists decide to mount an Iraqi-style insurgency, they have access to a thousand times the explosives that the insurgents in Iraq had,” says Bouckaert.
Libya’s mines are also useful as weapons in a possible post-Gadhafi insurgency. Precise estimates of just how many mines Gadhafi’s forces have accumulated over the years are hard to come by. For their part, rebels estimate that pro-Gadhafi forces have already laid tens of thousands of the device to halt rebel movement.
Human Rights Watch has documented a number of different types of mines in Gadhafi’s stash. Libyan military forces have scattered Type 84 Model A anti-tank mines near Misurata. A particularly nasty weapon, the Type 84 can be loaded into 122-mm rockets, which scatter them across a wide area. On the ground, its magnetic fuse detects vehicles overhead and when detonated, fires a shaped metal charge upward. Amnesty International has also found T-AB-1 (AP) mines used in the area. The anti-personnel mines are mostly made out of plastic — meaning they’ll be hard to find with metal detectors.
In April, the representatives of Libya’s rebel movement, the Transitional National Council, pledged not to use land mines and to destroy any that came into its possession. But enforcing that pledge in a post-Gadhafi Libya will require coherence and discipline across the coalition of rebels — something that has at times proven difficult for the fractious grouping.
Then there’s Gadhafi’s higher-end weapons — including some that keep U.S. homeland-security experts awake at night. Libya is home to plenty of man-portable air-defense systems, or ManPads, which terrorists tried to use in 2002 to shoot down an Israeli passenger plane. Some newer, higher-flying missiles like the SA-24/Igla-S have also been spotted in Libyan military hands. But as Danger Room pal Eli Lake reports, the bulk of Libya’s arsenal is comprised of older, first-generation systems like the SA-7. They may not be the most-frequently used system in the event of an insurgency, but they are particularly worrisome in the wrong hands.
Fortunately, possession of a ManPads missile, alone, isn’t necessarily enough to take down an airliner. ”While the basic operation of a ManPads is fairly simple, using them effectively is not.  It requires some training and knowledge of the system’s capabilities,” says Matt Schroeder, director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project at the Federation of American Scientists. That applies especially to older missiles like Libya’s SA-7s. Moreover, Schroeder adds, the missile systems have a shelf life, after which they begin to degrade. They could also malfunction if Libya’s military (or subsequent owners) haven’t stored or handled them properly.
Unfortunately, the scale of Libya’s man-portable missile arsenal could offer illicit users a number of opportunities to successfully hit an aircraft if no one secures the weapons. Africa Command chief Gen. Carter Ham (.pdf) told the Senate in April that Libya held “perhaps as many as 20,000″ ManPads missiles at the outset of the war.
Libya is still home to the remnants of its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs, though Gadhafi officially abandoned his efforts along those lines in 2003. Western officials are now worried about the security of a remaining 11 metric tons [12 U.S. tons] of mustard agent and 500 to 900 metric tons [550 to 990 U.S. tons] of uranium yellowcake still located in the country near Tripoli, according to the Associated Press’ Kimberly Dozier and Douglas Birch.
For the moment, though, talk of post-Gadhafi violence is slightly premature, insofar as Moammar is still around, and rebel control of Tripoli remains contested. Moreover, Bouckaert says that some of Gadhafi’s larger conventional-weapons stockpiles are still in control of regime forces in Sirt and Sabha.
Nonetheless, experts advise that common sense steps like a weapons-buyback program that exchanges cash for loose arms could help mitigate the proliferation threat. Even in the event a pro-Gadhafi insurgency doesn’t develop, Libya’s arsenals could still cause trouble by making their way to terrorists and insurgents in the region. Some reports already claim Libyan rockets have already been smuggled to terrorist groups in Egypt and Gaza.
Photo: Al Jazeera English/Flickr

Expert: Islam taking over, Europe soon to be unrecognizable

According to Dr. Mordechai Kedar, European softening, together with demographics, is leading to 'abysmal' change. Dr. Avika Libman: Riots start with preachers demanding Muslim state

Roi Mandel

Published:  05.28.13, 00:18 / Israel News

The murder of a soldier in London, the stabbing of a soldier in Paris and the violent outbreak in Sweden – Europe's alarm clock has been ringing once again over the past week. The negative birthrate compared to the increase in Muslims, the heavy unemployment and the social-religious isolation of European immigrants are all back on the agenda.
"Europe has lost its will to live as Europe," said Mideast expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar to Ynet. "It is gathered into museums, into history. If the leaders will not put an end to immigration, we will soon be hearing the death throes of the continent as we know it."

Related Stories:

• Sweden: Stockholm calmer, violence spreads
• French soldier stabbed in throat outside Paris
• London: 2 men decapitate soldier in broad daylight

Even if it is somewhat demagogic to attempt to bind the three events from the past few days in different European sites under "Islamic extremism," and even if the rage sparks in the weaker classes of immigrants, it is hard to ignore the basic facts. Behind these events are African immigrants from Islamic countries.
Dr. Zvika Libman studies the effects of the Muslim minority in Europe in light of the radical Islam on European countries. When he sees the reality, he said, there is no alternative interpretation for the events. "There is no doubt that the unemployment and the economic hardships lead to rioting, as happened in France. And yes, there is a disadvantage compared to the European bourgeois, but this is not solely bitterness due to the economic situation – because there is unemployment among youngsters who are not Muslim, like in Spain for example.



After the riots in Sweden (Photo: AFP)


Stabbing scene in Paris (Photo: AP)


Suspected killer in London (Photo: Reuters)

The Muslims have a fertile ground of mosques that awaken them, preach to them that they are deprived, that they don't belong, that they're not wanted and that the only solution is a country with an Arab majority. This is the starting point for these riots."

According to Dr. Libman, Sweden is an example of the situation in Europe. Penniless immigrants coming from weakened and colonized countries, get housing, education and solid foundations from European welfare countries, and still express their anger at the establishment.
 

צילום: רויטרס

Riots in Sweden (Video: Reuters)

"The foundations they received could not exist in other countries," he said, "the conditions are much better than before, and it is true there is a great gap from the weaker classes, there is bitterness and deprivation – but the economic gap also existed in the countries of origin, under rich tyrants who ruled them. In Sweden, where the stronger classes are citizens and not tyrants, theoretically they have a fair chance to reach that level if they're lucky, some even managed to integrate in local and national politics. There is no depression aimed at the Muslims, it's the opposite. And still we witness such violent outbreaks."

'European Softening'

Dr. Kedar claimed that this is a process known in advance, ending with the disintegration of Europe in its current state. "It is all a result of a European softening, which the Muslims see as a weakness, as if they received Europe in their hands for free. They do not voluntarily blend in, entire neighborhoods perpetuate the culture they brought with them, they are not aware of the language and economy and stay in their enclaves. Once a French man of Algerian descent told me that they didn't move from Algeria to France, they brought Algeria to France.

According to many, demographics, which is the topic for many studies, is the red light. It points to the path in which the continent is headed – the European birthrate is at a continuous standstill while Muslim immigrants are doubling their rates.

"If they wanted to integrate within the society, as European leaders had hoped, this wouldn't be an issue," said Keidar. "But since they want to keep their identities and change Europe, it is obviously a big issue. Every year more Muslims than non-Muslims are born in France. Japan has no Muslims because they don't allow them in. Racism? Maybe. Superiority? Maybe. They don't care. They want to sustain Japan and are looking down on everyone."

The dream of European leaders, said Libman, mainly Germany's Angela Merkel and Britain's David Cameron, is to see the second and third generations of immigrants as ordinary citizens, and shatter the deliberate segregation of the immigrant Muslim community. "There are thousands of mosques in every host country, especially in the core countries – Germany, France and Britain. The parents, even those assimilated into the European society, make sure to send their kids to traditional schooling.

The affinity to origin and religion exist all the time, more so to a global-Muslim entity and less so to the actual country of origin. They see the trends in their origin countries – Turkey, Egypt, they all discuss Islam as something global."
How long will Europe contain the situation? "Good question," said Libman. "After WWII Europe is extra careful about anything that has to do with human rights and right to freedom. On the other hand, it absorbs aliens that do not integrate within the community. Europe needs manpower because the birthrate is low, they need those immigrants that seek to change the religious identity of the continent. It is an interesting time."

• Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter

• Receive Ynetnews updates directly to your desktop

Investigative Bulletin

Home Current Litigation Case Archive

Print Text
Size

91

Judicial Watch Benghazi Investigation

Last Updated: April 08, 2013

Synopsis

Judicial Watch is the leading organization investigating the Benghazi attack of September 11, 2012 which killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. We have filed 12 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with various government agencies and have three on-going lawsuits. This is all in the effort to force the government to provide more documents and transparency on this overlooked tragedy. Judicial Watch is also seeking to acquire additional information from the survivors of the attack. If there are any Benghazi secrets to uncover or corruption to expose, you can count on Judicial Watch to lead the way.
Judicial Watch even produced a Special Report: The Benghazi Attack of September 11, 2012: Analysis and Further Questions from a Diplomatic Security Service Regional Security Officer and Special Agent closely examining the Obama administration’s actions before, during, and after the assault, as well as the State Department’s commitment to protect overseas diplomats. The new report contains in-depth analysis, conducted exclusively for Judicial Watch by former State Department Security Special Agent Raymond Fournier, examines the critical time period leading up to the Benghazi attack, when repeated requests for increased security were shunned by top State Department officials. It also examines the Obama administration’s official claim that “an obscure Internet video” triggered the attacks, as well as apparently false claims that four top State Department officials had resigned in response to the Department’s December 18 Accountability Review Board report on the attack. And it raises questions as to the internal problems within the Department that may continue to leave overseas diplomats without adequate security.
On February 14th, 2013 we sued the Director of National Intelligence seeking access to records detailing the attack. Specifically, Judicial Watch is seeking a controversial “speaking points” memo indicating that intelligence officials believed from the outset that terrorists were behind the attack despite public statements to the contrary issued by Obama administration officials, including UN Ambassador Susan Rice and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.  You can read the lawsuit here: Judicial Watch v. Office of the Dir. of National Intelligence (No. 13-0198)

On February 25th, 2013 we filed another FOIA lawsuit  against the U.S. Department of State seeking access to “all videos and photographs” depicting the Benghazi, Libya, Consulate between September 10 and September 13, 2012, the period leading up to, during, and immediately following the attack. You can read that lawsuit here: Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00242)). Specifically, Judicial Watch seeks the following records pursuant to its December 19, 2012, FOIA request: “Any and all videos and photographs depicting U.S. Consulate facilities in Benghazi, Libya (including the Special Mission Compound and the Annex) between September 10, 2012, and September 13, 2012 that were provided to the Accountability Review Board (ARB) for Benghazi and/or to any individual member of the ARB.”

We filed our third FOIA lawsuit  on March 5th, 2013 against the U.S. Department of State seeking access to records concerning a contract totaling nearly $400,000 that was awarded to a foreign firm for “Security Guards and Patrol Services” at the Benghazi Consulate prior to the deadly attack of September 11, 2012. The contract was signed on February 17 and May 3, and, at the time, identified only as “Award ID SAQMMA12COO92”. At first the State Department denied hiring security guards, then admitted having provided false information after this WIRED magazine expose. You can read the lawsuit here Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00243).

You can  see all filed FOIAs and Lawsuits below under “Official Legal Documents”

To read more about our lawsuits or FOIA requests, please click on the respective press release under “Press Room” below.

Official Legal Documents

Judicial Watch v. Office of the Dir. of National Intelligence
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00242)
Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-00243)

Freedom of Information Act Requests: 
1966 State req
1886 State 
ODNI Benghazi
1932 State Request
1932 State Request
1926 DOD req
1925 Centcom Req
1924 Africom Req
1919 Rice Benghazi Speech State
1918 Rice Benghazi Speech NSC
1917 Rice Benghazi Speech UN
1852 State

Press Room

• JW Sues Obama State Department for Benghazi Attack Videos and Photographs - March 05, 2013