State Dept Hired Al-Qaeda To Defend
Diplomatic Mission In Benghazi
May 4, 2013 by Dean Garrison
Treason is a crime which is unforgivable. Americans died in Benghazi and we have received
nothing but lies from this administration. Why would the Obama administration put money into
the hands of those who proudly displayed the Al Qaeda flag on their Facebook page?
The Libyan militia group that the State Department hired to defend its embattled diplomatic
mission in Benghazi had clear AL-Qaida sympathies, and had prominently displayed the ALQaida flag on a Facebook page for some months before the deadly attack.
This is the original cover photo of the Facebook Page maintained by the “February 17th
Martyrs Brigade” which flies an Al Qaeda Flag.
That organization, the February 17th Martyrs Brigade, was paid by the U.S. government to
provide security at the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya. But there is no indication the
Martyrs Brigade fulfilled its commitment to defend the mission on Sept. 11, when it came under
attack.
The assault claimed the lives of four Americans: Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens,
information officer Sean Smith, and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Stevens was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.
This story surfaced back in October with The Daily Beast, which details the political fallout tied
to the hiring of the Martyrs Brigade in a cable sent by Ambassador Stevens:
Just two days before the 9/11 anniversary attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, two leaders
of the Libyan militias responsible for keeping order in the city threatened to withdraw their men.
The brinksmanship is detailed in a cable approved by Ambassador Chris Stevens and sent on the
day he died in the attack, the worst assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission since the 1979 hostage
crisis in Iran. The dispatch, which was marked “sensitive” but not “classified,” contained a
number of other updates on the chaotic situation on the ground in post-Gaddafi Libya.
The cable, reviewed by The Daily Beast, recounts how the two militia leaders, Wissam bin
Ahmed and Muhammad al-Gharabi, accused the United States of supporting Mahmoud Jibril, the
head of the Libyan transitional government, to be the country’s first elected prime minister.
Jibril’s centrist National Forces Alliance won the popular vote in Libyan elections in July, but he
lost the prime minister vote in the country’s Parliament on Sept. 12 by 94 to 92. Had he won, bin
Ahmed and al-Gharabi warned they “would not continue to guarantee security in Benghazi, a
critical function they asserted they were currently providing,” the cable reads. The man who beat
Jibril, Mustafa Abushagur, lost a vote of no-confidence Sunday, throwing Libyan politics back
into further uncertainty.
The threat from the militias underscores the dangers of relying on local Libyan forces for
security in the run-up to the 9/11 military-style assault. The U.S. consulate in Benghazi
employed a militia called the “February 17 Martyrs Brigade” for security of the four-building
compound. In addition, there were five Americans serving as diplomatic security and a group of
former special operations forces that acted as a quick reaction force on the day of the 9/11 attack.
Members of the militias led by bin-Ahmed and al-Gharabi overlapped with the February 17
militia, the cable says.
The same article from The Daily Beast notes:
Jason Chaffetz, the Republican lawmaker who has led the House Oversight and Government
Reform committee’s investigation into the 9/11 attack, says the State Department actually
decreased U.S. diplomatic security personnel in the months leading up to the attack.
The Wikipedia listing on The February 17th Martyrs Brigade is as follows:
The Martyrs of 17 February Brigade are considered to be the biggest and best armed militia in
eastern Libya. The brigade is financed by the Libyan defence ministry. The brigade consists of at
least 12 battalions and possesses a large collection of light and heavy weapons in addition to
training facilities. Its membership is estimated at between 1,500 and 3,500. The group has carried
out various security and law and order tasks in eastern Libya and Kufra in the south. Some of its
members are also believed to be fighting the Assad regime in Syria. [1]
The February 17th Martyrs Brigade also flies the al-Qaeda flag on their Facebook page, and have
been al-Qaeda sympathizers for a very long time. [2]
There is also evidence that The February 17th Martyrs Brigade disbanded after the Benghazi
attacks:
A few hours after the attack, Martyrs of February 17, together with Bou Salim Martyrs brigade,
allegedly agreed to disband,[18] however about 150-200 militiamen moved from Benghazi
to Jebel Akhdar area.[19]
Of course they disbanded. Their work was done. Do you smell an Al Qaeda set up?
This whole set up stinks of treason. Not only were we putting money into the hands of Al Qaeda,
we were quite possibly arming Syrian rebels in the process. More and more it is starting to look
like the U.S. was inviting these attacks on Benghazi and Americans deserve to know the truth.
Why would any American leader hire an organization with the word “Martyrs” in its name? I
know my thinking is somewhat simplistic but I think it is a fair question. It makes zero sense.
Zero. I understand the significance of the February 17th date. This is the date of the Libyan
liberation.
Feb 17th, 2013, Martyr Square, Tripoli, Libya.
Link to see it in YouTube, copy and paste link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FkXHQVbZbp0
But the term “Martyr” strongly implies those who died or are willing to die for Allah. Is this the
kind of security force we want defending our embassies, missions and consulates? Of course
they are tied to Al Qaeda. How could anyone not see this possibility? Any organization who flies
an Al Qaeda flag on their Facebook page is more than tied to Al Qaeda. In my mind, if you fly
the flag then you are Al Qaeda.
The Obama Administration has a lot of explaining to do. If the American people knew that this
organization was being paid to defend our foreign interests there would be hell to pay in America.
For some reason this story has been very much hidden behind all of the other hype and rhetoric.
So now, as the truth comes out, there is hell to pay in America.
We want answers and we want accountability. Impeachment will not be enough.
An offense of this magnitude cries of treason and demands prosecution. That’s a fact.
Here is a legal definition of treason:
I copied and pasted it for you also to read.
The 17th Amendment www.restorefederalism.org Why repeal the 17th Amendment? To limit the power of government. The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its
enemies.
The Treason Clause traces its roots back to an English statute enacted during the reign of Edward III
(1327–1377). This statute prohibited levying war against the king, adhering to his enemies, or
contemplating his death. Although this law defined treason to include disloyal and subversive thoughts, it
effectively circumscribed the crime as it existed under the Common Law. During the thirteenth century,
the crime of treason encompassed virtually every act contrary to the king's will and became a political tool
of the Crown. Building on the tradition begun by Edward III, the Founding Fathers carefully delineated the
crime of treason in Article III of the U.S. Constitution, narrowly defining its elements and setting forth
stringent evidentiary requirements.
Under Article III, Section 3, of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or
adheres to its enemies by giving them Aid and Comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the
Constitution. The term aid and comfort refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the
United States, such as furnishing enemies with arms, troops, transportation, shelter, or classified
information. If a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or
resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given.
The Treason Clause applies only to disloyal acts committed during times of war. Acts of dis-loyalty during
peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution. Nor do acts of Espionage committed on
behalf of an ally constitute treason. For example, JULIUS AND ETHEL ROSENBERG were convicted of
espionage, in 1951, for helping the Soviet Union steal atomic secrets from the United States during World
War II. The Rosenbergs were not tried for treason because the United States and the Soviet Union were
allies during World War II.
Under Article III a person can levy war against the United States without the use of arms, weapons, or
military equipment. Persons who play only a peripheral role in a conspiracy to levy war are still considered
traitors under the Constitution if an armed rebellion against the United States results. After the U.S. Civil
War, for example, all Confederate soldiers were vulnerable to charges of treason, regardless of their role
in the secession or insurrection of the Southern states. No treason charges were filed against these
soldiers, however, because President Andrew Johnson issued a universal Amnesty.
The crime of treason requires a traitorous intent. If a person unwittingly or unintentionally gives aid and
comfort to an enemy of the United States during wartime, treason has not occurred. Similarly, a person
who pursues a course of action that is intended to benefit the United States but mistakenly helps an
enemy is not guilty of treason. Inadvertent disloyalty is never punishable as treason, no matter how much
damage the United States suffers.
As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged with treason is presumed innocent
until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in
open court or by evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt act must be
witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason will not stand. By requiring this type of direct
evidence, the Constitution minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the
possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary.
Unexpressed seditious thoughts do not constitute treason, even if those thoughts contemplate a bloody
revolution or coup. Nor does the public expression of subversive opinions, including vehement criticism of
the government and its policies, constitute treason. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
guarantees the right of all Americans to advocate the violent overthrow of their government unless such
advocacy is directed toward inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to produce it (Brandenburg v.
Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 89 S. Ct. 1827, 23 L. Ed. 2d 430 [1969]). On the other hand, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that the distribution of leaflets protesting the draft during World War I was not constitutionally
protected speech (SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919]).
Because treason involves the betrayal of allegiance to the United States, a person need not be a U.S.
citizen to commit treason under the Constitution. Persons who owe temporary allegiance to the United
States can commit treason. Aliens who are domiciliaries of the United States, for example, can commit
traitorous acts during the period of their domicile. A subversive act does not need to occur on U.S. soil to
be punishable as treason. For example, Mildred Gillars, a U.S. citizen who became known as Axis Sally,
was convicted of treason for broadcasting demoralizing propaganda to Allied forces in Europe from a
Nazi radio station in Germany during World War II.
Treason is punishable by death. If a death sentence is not imposed, defendants face a minimum penalty
of five years in prison and a $10,000 fine (18 U.S.C.A. § 2381). A person who is convicted of treason may
not hold federal office at any time thereafter.
The English common law required defendants to forfeit all of their property, real and personal, upon
conviction for treason. In some cases, the British Crown confiscated the property of immediate family
members as well. The common law also precluded convicted traitors from bequeathing their property
through a will. Relatives were presumed to be tainted by the blood of the traitor and were not permitted to
inherit from him. Article III of the U.S. Constitution outlaws such "corruption of the blood" and limits the
penalty of Forfeiture to "the life of the person attainted." Under this provision relatives cannot be made to
forfeit their property or inheritance for crimes committed by traitorous family members.
Further readings
Carlton, Eric. 1998. Treason: Meanings and Motives. Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate.
Holzer, Henry Mark. 2002. "Why Not Call It Treason? From Korea to Afghanistan." Southern University
Law Review 29 (spring).
Kmiec, Douglas W. 2002. "Try Lindh for Treason." National Review (January 21).
Spectar, J.M. 2003. "To Ban or Not to Ban an American Taliban? Revocation of Citizenship and
Statelessness in a Statecentric System." California Western Law Review 39 (spring).
The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely
acting to aid its enemies.
So what do you think? Would sending money to those known to support our enemies qualify as
treason? Unfortunately that is an argument to be had by legal scholars and legislators, but I know
how the American people would answer that question.