Member
Who Provides Security For Diplomats
We all think that it is the CIA or something of that sort but according to Saxby(SP) from Ga it is the host country that supplies security. Now after further review I have found this. So what gives, do we not know who is responsible for the security of our people ? It seems even Senators and Congressmen don't know this answer.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/114169.pdf
Member
I think the common sense answer is both, but ultimately we are responsible the security of our diplomats.Originally Posted by afan
Usually, host countries do provide some sort of security around foreign embassies and consulates, might be more to keep their own citizens away from diplomats.
We usually have Marines in our embassies to provide some protection
We usually close down embassies and evacuate personnel if local situation is unstable
Can't remember but I recall an article blaming Republicans on Libya attack as they cut the State Department funding or reduced it.
Regardles, it's the President's responsbility to protect our diplomats. How he does it is upto him.
Member
I thought private security firms like Blackwater/Xe provide security
Member
We've been over this subject on the Benghazi thread. The CIF were noticeably absent.
Site Moderator
The buck stops with the president.
My children are my legacy.
Member
Did Republicans blame Reagan when 300 marines were killed by Hezbollah?
Member
Obama blamed himself. Maybe your issue belongs on the steps of the Whitehouse.
Site Moderator
I am talking about current events. I know you cannot stand it when something is said about Obama that is not glowing. But this Benghazi issue stinks.
My children are my legacy.
Member
Obama is a classy guy. Unlike the Republicans who are breaking the unwritten rule of not publicly criticizing the POTUS on foreign policy...
Member
Classy? Lol.
"A classy guy" would have had this whole thing sewn up before the election, but not Obama. All I heard was the sound of his feet dragging until the debate where he finally accepted responsibility; something "a classy guy" would have done all along.
Member
The Benghazi 'issue' is now nothing more than an embarassing partisan witch hunt buy hypocritical GOP Senators and Congressmen upset by recent election results (and before the election, they were tyring to damage Obama's candidacy with the issue).
Shouilsd there be hearings/investigations? Of course.
Given the probably super sensitive nature of the operations, they should be conducted in some form of secrecy, and ion a civil manner. In the past, when incidents of this nature occurred, the American people (and their elected Representatives) rallied around those that perished, as well as the POTUS, and worked to fix what went wrong. This current batch of Republicans is not interested in what's best for the country, only on trying to embarass the President. They should be ashamed. But they aren't.
Spare us the santimonious BS. You've long since abandoned any pretext of being reasonable.
Member
The CIA does not provide security, not part of their portfolio. The host country is responsible for security. Which is not to say there wasn't a major screw-up of some sort in Benghazi.
Unlike some, I don't pretend to know the root cause of this. Can't be good though, can it?
Suspended
Of course, a rule followed the Dems in their commenting on Bush re Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
Such hypocrisy, such partisan brainwashing, it would be laughable if not so sad.
Suspended
Marine Corps Embassy Security Group
The primary mission of the Marine Security Guard (MSG) is to provide internal security at designated U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities in order to prevent the compromise of classified material vital to the national security of the United States.
Member
Who's blaming the CIA for security?
Member
Read the first line of the OP, okay? It's ready, aim, fire; not, fire, ready, aim.Who's blaming the CIA for security?
Member
Yeah, if you've been to any embassy, you see the locals patrolling outside and see our folks inside.
Member
Read the topic of the thread, okay? I don't have to agree with the OP, but can certainly put in my 2 cents worth whether you like it or not.
Keep the insults up, nice job.
Member
To paraphrase the Reverend Wright, the chickens are coming home to roost.
The host country is responsible for the security of embassies and consulates, but that’s assuming that you are dealing with a civilized nation capable of fulfilling those responsibilities and deserving of embassies and consulates in the first place. In a country where nobody is literally “in charge”, the situation becomes very iffy at best.
Probably we should not have had an ambassador in Libya, considering the situation on the ground there was not sufficiently stable, despite the Obama administration and the MSM most insincere efforts to present the country as “normalized” and a triumph of the administration’s foreign policy. Is it amazing how the administration’s media lap doges couldn’t manage to fathom that the ambassador’s murder was the result of an organized terrorist plot, evidently perpetrated with some degree of cooperation by the local authorities (providing you can figure out exactly who these local authorities were at any given moment), but were Johnny-on-the-Spot at finding footage of “peaceful” Muslims protesting the assault just in time to back up the administration’s tall tale of it all being because of some obscure film footage that popped up on YouTube or whatever.
Why?
Maybe because it wouldn’t have looked good in an election year to hint that we may have unseated a manageable dictator and handed the country over to the Jihadi just so the administration’s Euro pals could continue to have cheap access to sweet Libyan crude. I suspect that’s why no direct attempt was made to rescue our ambassador – it would have looked bad to send in the Marines on the eve of an election to rescue our diplomats from what we were all told was a normalized country – and the subsequent cover up that now reeks to high heaven. That will also be the reason for the earlier removal of the internal security detail and the DOS's refusal to reinstate it in time to possibly prevent this tragedy.
Apparently, in the slipstream of hardball politics, Chicago-style, self-interest exceeds the value of human life.
Member
In Libya, the administration relied on an arrangement with the National Transitional Council......the group that opposed Gadhafi and served as interim government after his removal..... to provide security at the Embassy. Ironically, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, a well known Al-Qaeda member, was appointed to head up security by the National Transitional Council.
At the Consulate, we contracted with the "February 17 Martyrs Brigade" to provide security.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/worl...tdK/story.html
What is the significance of February 17th in the Brigade's name"? It commemorates the day thousands of radical Islamic Benghazians attacked the Italian Consulate in response to an Italian minister defending free speech in the West.
So know you know and I must ask "How is all that hope and change working out for you"?
Posting Permissions
 |
| Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278 |
Reply With Quote