-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Obama: "Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism"
10:43 AM, Sep 25, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2012...p--300x300.jpg
In a speech at the United Nations this morning, President Obama says the attacks on America across the Muslim world over the last two weeks are also an "assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded."
"The attacks on our civilians in Benghazi were attacks on America," Obama stated, according to a prepared transcript of his remarks. "We are grateful for the assistance we received from the Libyan government and the Libyan people. And there should be no doubt that we will be relentless in tracking down the killers and bringing them to justice. I also appreciate that in recent days, the leaders of other countries in the region – including Egypt, Tunisia, and Yemen – have taken steps to secure our diplomatic facilities, and called for calm. So have religious authorities around the globe."
Then, President Obama broadened his argument, saying the United Nations was also under attack.
"But the attacks of the last two weeks are not simply an assault on America," said Obama. "They are also an assault on the very ideals upon which the United Nations was founded – the notion that people can resolve their differences peacefully; that diplomacy can take the place of war; and that in an interdependent world, all of us have a stake in working towards greater opportunity and security for our citizens."
Obama also made a broader case against extremism, saying, "Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism."
Related Stories
More by Daniel Halper
A politics based only on anger –one based on dividing the world between us and them – not only sets back international cooperation, it ultimately undermines those who tolerate it. All of us have an interest in standing up to these forces. Let us remember that Muslims have suffered the most at the hands of extremism. On the same day our civilians were killed in Benghazi, a Turkish police officer was murdered in Istanbul only days before his wedding; more than ten Yemenis were killed in a car bomb in Sana’a; and several Afghan children were mourned by their parents just days after they were killed by a suicide bomber in Kabul.And president Obama made the case that the world come together. "Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support," said Obama.
-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Which extremists were those who caused all that Muslim suffering again?
I'm sorry, I just don't remember those groups....
-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Libya president: Anti-Islam film trailer had nothing to do with attack on US Consulate
Published September 26, 2012
FoxNews.com
The anti-Islam film trailer that the White House has repeatedly blamed for sparking unrest in the Middle East had nothing to do with the attack that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens, that nation's president said in a television interview.
Libyan President Mohamed Magarief said the deadly Sept. 11 attack in Benghazi, which also resulted in the deaths of three other Americans, was more likely pegged to the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
"Reaction should have been, if it was genuine, should have been six months earlier. So it was postponed until the 11th of September," Magarief told NBC’s Ann Curry in the exclusive interview. "They chose this date, 11th of September to carry a certain message."
The trailer for the anti-Islam film "had nothing to do with this attack."
- Libyan President Mohamed Magarief
President Obama and White House staffers have sent mixed signals about what triggered the siege on the unprotected U.S. consulate in the troubled Libyan city, with Obama continuing to blame the film trailer even as evidence mounts to the contrary.
Magarief noted that there were no protesters at the consulate prior to the attack, and that the incident was more of a clearly coordinated assault than a demonstration run amok. He noted the attackers used rocket-propelled grenades on the consulate and then fired mortars at a safe house where Stevens had fled.
In addition to Stevens, information management officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs and security personnel Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty were killed.
"It's a pre-planned act of terrorism," Magarief said, concluding that the trailer for a purported film called “Innocence of Muslims” had "nothing to do with this attack." The trailer had been on the Internet since July, but no full-length film has emerged.
Magarief conceded that Libyans took part in the attack, but said "these Libyans do not represent the Libyan people or Libyan population in any sense of the word."
Magarief, who called Stevens a “humble and very unique individual,” said the nation is in debt to the U.S. for helping to oust ruthless dictator Muammar Qaddafi.
"We consider the United States as a friend, not only a friend, a strong friend, who stood with us in our moment of need," he said.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09...#ixzz27aAscUQ4
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Not sure how this got closed... wasn't SUPPOSED to be... but it suddenly was. I must have clicked someplace wrong on the screen this morning.
Ok. it's back opened.
-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Bret Bair is reporting on the news this morning that the attack that killed the Ambassador was "labeled a terrorist attack" with 24 hours of the attack BY THE WHITE HOUSE. But they continued to DENY it for several days afterward.
Proof is proof.
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
September 26th, 2012
09:32 PM ET
Sources: 15 days after Benghazi attack, FBI still not on the scene
More than two weeks after four Americans - including the U.S. ambassador to Libya - were killed in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, FBI agents have not yet been granted access to investigate in the eastern Libyan city, and the crime scene has not been secured, sources said.
"They've gotten as far as Tripoli now, but they've never gotten to Benghazi," CNN National Security Analyst Fran Townsend said Wednesday, citing senior law enforcement officials.
Last Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that an FBI team had reached Libya earlier in the week.
"In fairness to the secretary, it may be that she wanted to be coy about where they were in Libya for security concerns. That's understandable. But the fact is, it's not clear they've been in Libya for very long," Townsend said on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360°."
"They had difficulty, and we understand there was some bureaucratic infighting between the FBI and Justice Department on the one hand, and the State Department on the other, and so it took them longer than they would have liked to get into country. They've now gotten there. But they still are unable to get permission to go to Benghazi."
FBI agents have made a request through the U.S. State Department for the crime scene to be secured, Townsend said, but that has not happened.
"The senior law enforcement official I spoke to said, 'If we get there now, it's not clear that it will be of any use to us,'" Townsend said.
The FBI team has conducted interviews of State Department and U.S. government personnel who were in Libya at the time of the attack, Townsend said, but the FBI's request to directly question individuals who Libyan authorities have in custody was denied.
U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens was one of four Americans slain in the September 11 assault, when the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi came under attack amid a large protest about a U.S.-made film that mocked the Muslim Prophet Mohammed.
Speaking to reporters last Thursday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the assault was a "terrorist attack."
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Al Qaeda in Libya—a Growing Threat
August report from a Pentagon counterterrorism project and Library of Congress warned about terrorists in Libya.
12:00 AM, Sep 20, 2012 • By THOMAS JOSCELYN
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/...s/rss-icon.gif
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts
FOX News reported Wednesday night that a former Guantanamo detainee named Sufyan ben Qumu has been tied to the September 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya that killed four Americans. While the details of Qumu’s alleged involvement remain to be confirmed, it isn’t surprising that his name has surfaced in intelligence circles.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/.../Qhumu_Ben.jpg
THE WEEKLY STANDARD has obtained an unclassified report published in August that fingers Qumu as a key al Qaeda operative in Libya. The report (“Al Qaeda in Libya: A Profile”) was prepared by the research division of the Library of Congress (LOC) under an agreement with the Defense Department’s Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office.
The report details al Qaeda’s plans for Libya, including the growth of a clandestine terrorist network that has attempted to hide its presence. The U.S military has concluded that al Qaeda is in the final phase of a three-step process for developing a full-blown al Qaeda affiliate.
The contents of the report are sure to raise additional questions about the Obama administration's claim that al Qaeda is near defeat, and what administration officials knew about the growing threat from al Qaeda in Libya prior to the attack on the consulate.
One of the al Qaeda-affiliated parties inside Libya is called Ansar al Sharia – a brand used by al Qaeda chapters elsewhere, including inside Yemen. According to the report, Qumu leads an Ansar al Sharia brigade, which “has increasingly embodied al Qaeda’s presence in Libya, as indicated by its active social-media propaganda, extremist discourse, and hatred of the West, especially the United States.”
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
6:14 pm ET September 19, 2012
http://c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com/w...er-100x100.jpg
http://c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com/w...da-500x281.jpgOn tonight’s Special Report, Bret Baier reported on an exclusive breaking news alert: intelligence sources are convinced the Mideast attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was directly tied to Al Qaeda.
Catherine Herridge reported that they believe that Sufyan Ben Qumu (whose name has also been transliterated as Sofiane Ibrahim Gammu) was likely involved in the attack, and even may have led the attack on the consulate.
Qumu – a Libyan – was released from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay in 2007 and transferred to Libyan custody under the condition that he would be kept in jail. He wasn’t.
According to his Gitmo files, he was also tied to 9/11 financiers, and his alias is “found on a list of probable Al Qaeda personnel receiving monthly stipends and family support.”
CLICK HERE FOR THE ACTUAL DOCUMENT: Gitmo Transfer Papers for Al Qaeda Employee Who May Have Led Libya Attack
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Obama lied about what happened in Benghazi. Not just once, but over nine days until the truth exposed him.
"So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened."
September 23, 2012
Now we know the truth. Obama lied for nine days about the Benghazi terrorist attacks that killed an American ambassador and three other Americans. The lies were not just isolated pieces of information but rather the entire message about what happened was a blatant lie.
Stephen F. Hayes, writing in The Weekly Standard breaks it down for us:For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.
These claims were wrong. Every one of them. But the White House pushed them hard.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16. A "hateful video" triggered a "spontaneous protest . . . outside of our consulate in Benghazi" that "spun from there into something much, much more violent," she said on Face the Nation. "We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned."
On This Week, Rice said the consulate was well secured. "The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place," she said, adding: "We had substantial presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function, and indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them."
White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration's own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection. "I think that you're conveniently conflating two things," Carney snapped, "which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador's security detail, and there were not, in fact, "many other colleagues" working security with them.
The nature of the attack itself, a four-hour battle that took place in two waves, indicated some level of planning. "The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous," Libyan president Mohammad el-Megarif told National Public Radio. When a reporter asked Senator Carl Levin, one of the most partisan Democrats in the upper chamber, if the attack was planned, Levin said it was. "I think there's evidence of that. There's been evidence of that," he responded, adding: "The attack looked like it was planned and premeditated, sure." Levin made his comments after a briefing from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, agreed. "This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don't come in and attack, guns blazing. I think that there is a growing consensus it was preplanned." And according to CNN, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy "has said that the attack appeared to be planned because it was so extensive and because of the 'proliferation' of small and medium weapons at the scene." Not only was the attack planned, it appears there was no protest at all. Citing eyewitnesses, CBS News reported late last week: "There was never an anti-American protest outside the consulate."
So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.
This isn't just a problem. It's a scandal.
If this were the first time top Obama officials had tried to sell a bogus narrative after an attack, perhaps they would deserve the benefit of the doubt. It's not.
Click here to read the rest of the story.
Click here to read another perspective, and this from the Elite Media. (CBS-DC News)
Click here to read a British press version.
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Permanent Spin
Oct 1, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 03 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/...s/rss-icon.gif
Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts
For nine days, the Obama administration made a case that virtually everyone understood was untrue: that the killing of our ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi, Libya, was a random, spontaneous act of individuals upset about an online video—an unpredictable attack on a well-protected compound that had nothing do to with the eleventh anniversary of 9/11.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sites/...s_.newscom.jpgU.S. ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice
NEWSCOM
These claims were wrong. Every one of them. But the White House pushed them hard.
Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, appeared on five Sunday talk shows on September 16. A “hateful video” triggered a “spontaneous protest . . . outside of our consulate in Benghazi” that “spun from there into something much, much more violent,” she said on Face the Nation. “We do not have information at present that leads us to conclude that this was premeditated or preplanned.”
On This Week, Rice said the consulate was well secured. “The security personnel that the State Department thought were required were in place,” she said, adding: “We had substantial presence with our personnel and the consulate in Benghazi. Tragically two of the four Americans who were killed were there providing security. That was their function, and indeed there were many other colleagues who were doing the same with them.”
White House press secretary Jay Carney not only denied that the attacks had anything to do with the anniversary of 9/11 but scolded reporters who, citing the administration’s own pre-9/11 boasts about its security preparations for the anniversary, made the connection. “I think that you’re conveniently conflating two things,” Carney snapped, “which is the anniversary of 9/11 and the incidents that took place, which are under investigation.”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Intelligence officials understood immediately that the attacks took place on 9/11 for a reason. The ambassador, in a country that faces a growing al Qaeda threat, had virtually no security. The two contractors killed in the attacks were not part of the ambassador’s security detail, and there were not, in fact, “many other colleagues” working security with them.
The nature of the attack itself, a four-hour battle that took place in two waves, indicated some level of planning. “The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan president Mohammad el-Megarif told National Public Radio. When a reporter asked Senator Carl Levin, one of the most partisan Democrats in the upper chamber, if the attack was planned, Levin said it was. “I think there’s evidence of that. There’s been evidence of that,” he responded, adding: “The attack looked like it was planned and premeditated, sure.” Levin made his comments after a briefing from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, agreed. “This was not just a mob that got out of hand. Mobs don’t come in and attack, guns blazing. I think that there is a growing consensus it was preplanned.” And according to CNN, Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy “has said that the attack appeared to be planned because it was so extensive and because of the ‘proliferation’ of small and medium weapons at the scene.” Not only was the attack planned, it appears there was no protest at all. Citing eyewitnesses, CBS News reported late last week: “There was never an anti-American protest outside the consulate.”
So we are left with this: Four Americans were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11, and for more than a week the Obama administration misled the country about what happened.
This isn’t just a problem. It’s a scandal.
If this were the first time top Obama officials had tried to sell a bogus narrative after an attack, perhaps they would deserve the benefit of the doubt. It’s not.
On December 28, 2009, three days after Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab attempted to detonate explosives in his underwear aboard an airliner over Detroit, President Obama told the country that the incident was the work of “an isolated extremist.” It wasn’t. Abdulmutallab was trained, directed, and financed by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a fact he shared with investigators early in his interrogation.
The same thing happened less than six months later, after Faisal Shahzad attempted to blow up his Nissan Pathfinder in Times Square. Two days following the botched attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano took to the Sunday shows to dismiss reports of a conspiracy and insisted that the attempted bombing was just a “one-off” by a single attacker. It wasn’t. A week later, after much of the information had leaked, Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that the United States had “evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it, we know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.”
In each instance, top administration officials quickly downplayed or dismissed the seriousness of the events, only to acknowledge, after the shock had worn off and the media had turned to other news, that their initial stories were incorrect. Whether it was because the attempted attacks were unsuccessful or because the media simply lost interest, the administration largely escaped serious criticism for making claims that turned out to be wrong.
They’ve had mixed success this time. On the one hand, as the final elements of the administration’s story began to unravel in the middle of last week, the New York Times did not find those facts fit to print. On Thursday morning, the same day White House spokesman Jay Carney would finally admit that the Benghazi assault was “a terrorist attack,” the Times did not publish a story about Libya. It wasn’t as though it took serious digging to find the contradictions. One day earlier, Fox News had reported that intelligence officials were investigating the possibility that a former Guantánamo detainee had been involved in the attack. A story by Reuters raised questions about administration descriptions of the protests, noting “new information” that “suggests that the protests at the outset were so small and unthreatening as to attract little notice.” The story reported: “While many questions remain, the latest accounts differ from the initial information provided by the Obama administration, which had suggested that protests in front of the consulate over an anti-Islamic film had played a major role in precipitating the subsequent violent attack.” And CBS, as noted, reported that same day that there simply were no protests.
And what about the film? The Obama administration has sought to explain nearly everything that has happened over the past two weeks as a response to the video. President Obama denounced it during his remarks at the memorial for the four Americans killed in Libya. So did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. White House spokesman Jay Carney has mentioned it almost daily. At the end of last week, the United States spent $70,000 to buy ads in Pakistan to distance the U.S. government from its message.
That’s ironic. In its effort to deflect blame for the unrest, the administration has given more attention to this obscure film than it ever would have gotten if they’d simply ignored it. It’s true that radical Islamists used the film to help populate the 9/11 protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo. But they also told fellow radicals to join in a protest of the continued detention of Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheikh who was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And some of the others who gathered were “Ultras”—soccer hooligans looking for trouble.
The American embassy in Cairo first drew attention to the film in its statement. And the administration—after initially distancing itself from that statement—has made it the centerpiece of its public relations campaign ever since, as protests spread to more than 20 countries. The result: Every Muslim with access to media is now aware of a bizarre video that had a few thousand views on YouTube on September 10.
That’s exactly what the radicals wanted, according to a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the reporting on Egypt. The focus on the film was an “information operation” by jihadists designed to generate rage against America. If he’s right, it worked.
Barack Obama came to office promising to repair relations with the Islamic world. What he couldn’t accomplish by the mere fact of his presidency, through his name and his familiarity with Islam, he would achieve through “smart diplomacy.”
Instead, over the last four years, and particularly the last two weeks, the defining characteristics of his foreign policy have been mendacity, incompetence, and, yes, stupidity.
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Paulson: Why Did The White House Take So Long To Admit Libya Attack Was Terrorism?
September 21, 2012 12:09 PM
Share this 1.1K
View Comments
http://cbswashington.files.wordpress...0123.jpg?w=300 Damage inside the burnt US consulate building in Benghazi (Photo credit: GIANLUIGI GUERCIA/AFP/GettyImages)
After the deadly attack on the United States Embassy in Libya, it was apparent to many that the attack was premeditated and designed to kill Americans – not to protest an amateur-made movie that mocked Islam and disrespected Mohammad. The militant 9-11 attackers totally achieved their goal by leaving the United States Embassy in shambles with charred and blood-stained walls as well as a trail of death.
Yet the current administration in the United States government insisted otherwise. President Barack Obama, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney led the way by denouncing those who dared state the obvious version of what had happened in Benghazi, Libya – that it was about terrorism and not about the anti-Mohammad film.
Finally, a week later, the obvious has been addressed by Jay Carney at the White House and Mathew Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who both now admit that the deadly acts against United States Ambassador to Libya Christopher Steven and three other Americans were indeed an act of terrorism, obviously committed on 9-11.
With Americans watching the nearing of the date September 11, 2012 on the calendar for weeks – if not months – and dreading the stark reality that something disastrous may happen to innocent Americans again, the president and his political cronies refused to believe what happened.
Yet Americans are supposed to have faith in them, their judgment, trust their words and actions – and sit idly by as they denounce anyone who dares to try to challenge their words. Additionally, with extreme words, they denounce anyone who tries to challenge them for their power and positions. Unfortunately, in the past week, we have seen far too many Americans bow down to the blatant misspeaks or, perhaps, lies spoken by those in positions we have been able to dutifully trust in the past.
Read more conservative politics at The Right Politics
With this administration, we have seen far too many people trust in everything the political leaders say and do in Washington – without logical and discerned question. This is just plain foolish on the part of the blind followers.
More than what these national leaders and politicians are doing to Americans, consider what they are they telling the rest of the world – the rest of the world who figured out the nation was 9/11-attacked again as soon as it happened. Our leaders told the world that we are a nation led by either ignorance via doubt or by liars. Neither, of course, is an admirable trait to display when one claims to be “the” world leader. Beyond causing America to be embarrassed throughout the world, last week’s denial of what happened on 9/11/2012 makes us look incredibly weak.
Even the thought of blaming the anti-Islamic, Mohammad-disgracing movie for the most recent 9/11 attack on innocent Americans was ignorant – and carrying the thought out through words from the nation’s capital via our top leaders was incredibly inappropriate, totally embarrassing, extremely America-weakening, and – most of all – an ignorant stunt to try to pass on to America and the world.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney finally telling reporters a week after the incident, “It is, I think, self-evident that what happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack,” is too little – far too late.
The goal now is for the United States and Libya to join political forces to bring the attackers to justice. This, of course, needs to be done swiftly and honorably in the name of the four fallen Americans.
Then, there needs to be a full investigation as to why those present in the attacked-United States Embassies weren’t forewarned of the attacks as evidence that there was prior knowledge of the attacks grows.
About Scott Paulson
Scott Paulson writes political commentary for Examiner.com and teaches English at a community college in the Chicago area. The views and opinions expressed in this post are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CBS Local.
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Obama officials' spin on Benghazi attack mirrors Bin Laden raid untruths
In a familiar pattern, White House claims about what motivated the killing of the US ambassador in Libya are now contradicted
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...cc2a3-460.jpeg Damage inside the burnt US consulate building in Benghazi. Libya said it has made arrests and opened a probe into the attack. Photograph: Gianluigi Guercia/AFP/Getty Images
Almost immediately after President Obama announced the killing of Osama bin Laden, top government officials, including then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and top terrorism adviser John Brennan, made numerous false statements about what took place. That included the claim that Bin Laden was killed after he engaged in a "firefight", that he used his wife as a human shield to protect himself, and that he was living in luxury in a $1m mansion.
None of those claims, central to the story the White House told the world, turned out to be true. Bin Laden was unarmed and nobody in the house where Bin Laden was found ever fired a single shot (a courier in an adjacent guest house was the only one to shoot, at the very beginning of the operation). Bin Laden never used his wife or anyone else as a shield. And the house was dilapidated, showed little sign of luxury, and was worth one-quarter of what it was claimed. Numerous other claims made by the administration about the raid remain unanswered because of its steadfast insistence on secrecy and non-disclosure (except when it concerns Hollywood filmmakers).
Would it have mattered had the White House been truthful about the Bin Laden raid from the start? It would have undoubtedly made no difference for many people, who simply craved Osama bin Laden's death without regard to how it was done. But it certainly would have made a difference for at least some people around the world in terms of how they perceived of these actions and whether they approved – which is presumably why the White House was so eager to insist on these falsehoods and to ensure that the world's perception was shaped by them. (Please spare me the "fog of war" excuse: when the so-called "fog of war" causes the US government to make inaccurate claims that undermine its interests, rather than bolster them – as always happens – then that excuse will be plausible.)
There's obviously an enormous difference between killing someone in a firefight and shooting him in cold blood while he's unarmed. The morning after the Bin Laden killing was announced, I wrote that although I'd have preferred he be captured and tried, "if he in fact used force to resist capture, then the US military was entitled to use force against him, the way American police routinely do against suspects who use violence to resist capture." At least one legal scholar has changed his mind about the legality of the killing, in the wake of evidence that Bin Laden was killed while lying on the ground, unarmed and severely wounded.
But no matter. The White House's initial statements about what happened, false though they turned out to be, forever shaped perceptions of that event. Many people are unwilling to change their minds even in the wake of new evidence, while many others hear only of the initial claims made when news coverage is at its peak and never become aware of subsequent corrections. Combine that with the generalized "Look Forward, Not Backward" mentality popularized by President Obama – as embodied by John Kerry's "shut up and move on" decree to those asking questions about what really happened in the Bin Laden raid – and those initial White House falsehoods did the trick.
We now see exactly the same pattern emerging with the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya and the killing of the US ambassador. For a full week now, administration officials have categorically insisted that the prime, if not only, cause of the attack was spontaneous anger over the anti-Muhammad film, The Innocence of Muslims.
Last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney insisted that "these protests, were in reaction to a video that had spread to the region." On Friday, he claimed:
"'This is a fairly volatile situation, and it is in response not to US policy, not to, obviously, the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video – a film – that we have judged to be reprehensive and disgusting. That in no way justifies any violent reaction to it. But this is not a case of protests directed at the
United States, writ large, or at US policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive and – to Muslims.'"
On Sunday, UN ambassador Susan Rice, when asked about the impetus for the attack, said that "this began as, it was a spontaneous – not a premeditated – response to what had transpired in Cairo," and added: "In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated." In other interviews, she insisted that the Benghazi violence was a "spontaneous" reaction to the film.
Predictably, and by design, most media accounts from the day after the Benghazi attack repeated the White House line as though it were fact, just as they did for the Bin Laden killing. Said NPR on 12 September: "The US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad." The Daily Beast reported that the ambassador "died in a rocket attack on the embassy amid violent protests over a US-produced film deemed insulting to Islam." To date, numerous people believe – as though there were no dispute about it – that Muslims attacked the consulate and killed the US ambassador "because they were angry about a film".
As it turns out, this claim is almost certainly false. And now, a week later, even the US government is acknowledging that, as McClatchy reports this morning [my emphasis]:
"The
Obama administration acknowledged for the first time Wednesday that last week's assault on the US consulate compound in Benghazi that left the US ambassador to Libya and three other Americans dead was a 'terrorist attack' apparently launched by local Islamic militants and foreigners linked to al-Qaida's leadership or regional allies.
"'I would say they were killed in the course of a terrorist attack,' said Matthew Olsen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
"It was the first time that a senior administration official had said the attack was
not the result of a demonstration over an anti-Islam video that has been cited as the spark for protests in dozens of countries over the past week .'The picture that is emerging is one where a number of different individuals were involved,' Olsen said." [My emphasis]
Worse, it isn't as though there had been no evidence of more accurate information before Wednesday. To the contrary, most evidence from the start strongly suggested that the White House's claims – that this attack was motivated by anger over a film – were false. From McClatchy:
"The head of Libya's interim government, key US lawmakers and experts contend that the attack appeared long-planned, complex and well-coordinated, matching descriptions given to McClatchy last week by the consulate's landlord and a wounded security guard, who denied there was a protest at the time and said the attackers carried the banner of Ansar al-Shariah, an Islamist militia."
Indeed, Libya's president has spent the week publicly announcing that there is "no doubt" the attack was planned well in advance and had nothing to do with the video.
CBS News reported Thursday morning that there was no anti-video protest at all at the consulate. Witnesses insist, said CBS, "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack." That, noted the network, "is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident." The report concluded: "What's clear is that the public won't get a detailed account of what happened until after the election."
The Obama White House's interest in spreading this falsehood is multi-fold and obvious:
For one, the claim that this attack was just about anger over an anti-Muhammad video completely absolves the US government of any responsibility or even role in provoking the anti-American rage driving it. After all, if the violence that erupted in that region is driven only by anger over some independent film about Muhammad, then no rational person would blame the US government for it, and there could be no suggestion that its actions in the region – things like this, and this, and this, and this – had any role to play.
The White House capitalized on the strong desire to believe this falsehood: it's deeply satisfying to point over there at those Muslims and scorn their primitive religious violence, while ignoring the massive amounts of violence to which one's own country continuously subjects them. It's much more fun and self-affirming to scoff: "can you believe those Muslims are so primitive that they killed our ambassador over a film?" than it is to acknowledge: "our country and its allies have continually bombed, killed, invaded, and occupied their countries and supported their tyrants."
It is always more enjoyable to scorn the acts of the Other Side than it is to acknowledge the bad acts of one's own. That's the self-loving mindset that enables the New York Times to write an entire editorial today purporting to analyze Muslim rage without once mentioning the numerous acts of American violence aimed at them (much of which the Times editorial page supports). Falsely claiming that the Benghazi attacks were about this film perfectly flattered those jingoistic prejudices.
Then, there are the implications for the intervention in Libya, which Obama's defenders relentlessly tout as one of his great victories. But the fact that the Benghazi attack was likely premeditated and carried out by anti-American factions vindicates many of the criticisms of that intervention. Critics of the war in Libya warned that the US was siding with (and arming and empowering) violent extremists, including al-Qaida elements, that would eventually cause the US to claim it had to return to Libya to fight against them – just as its funding and arming of Saddam in Iraq and the mujahideen in Afghanistan subsequently justified new wars against those one-time allies.
War critics also argued that the intervention would bring massive instability and suffering to the people of Libya; today, the Washington Post reports that – just as the "president of Afghanistan" is really the mayor of Kabul and the "Iraqi government" long exercised sovereignty only in Baghdad's Green Zone – the central Libyan government exercises little authority outside of Tripoli. And intervention critics also warned that dropping bombs in a country and killing civilians, no matter how noble the intent supposedly is, would produce blowback in the form of those who would then want to attack the US.
When the White House succeeded in falsely blaming the consulate attacks on anger over this video, all of those facts were obscured. The truth, now that it is emerging, underscores how unstable, lawless and dangerous Libya has become – far from the grand success story war proponents like to tell. As McClatchy noted in Thursday's report:
"Libya remains plagued by armed groups nearly a year after the US-backed ouster of the late dictator
Muammar Gaddafi. Yet the facility was primarily defended by local guards who may have been complicit …
"Since the fall of Gaddafi last year, Libya's security has been dependent on a group of armed militias, including Ansar al-Shariah, that represent a wide variety of political strains and interests and remain heavily armed with weapons looted from Gaddafi storehouses. Interior Ministry forces and the Supreme Security Committee have been accused of complicity in recent attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on mosques and shrines affiliated with the moderate Sufi strain of Islam."
Then, there are the garden-variety political harms to the White House from the truth about these attacks. If the killing of the ambassador were premeditated and unrelated to the film, then it vests credibility in the criticism that the consulate should have been much better-protected, particularly on 9/11. And in general, the last thing a president running for re-election wants is an appearance that he is unable to protect America's diplomats from a terrorist group his supporters love to claim that he has heroically vanquished.
The falsehood told by the White House – this was just a spontaneous attack prompted by this video that we could not have anticipated and had nothing to do with – fixed all of those problems. Critical attention was thus directed to Muslims (what kind of people kill an ambassador over a film?) and away from the White House and its policies.
The independent journalist IF Stone famously noted that the number one rule of good journalism, even of good citizenship, is to remember that "all governments lie." Yet, no matter how many times we see this axiom proven true, over and over, there is still a tendency, a desire, to believe that the US government's claims are truthful and reliable.
The Obama administration's claims about the Benghazi attack are but the latest in a long line of falsehoods it has spouted on crucial issues, all in order to serve its interests and advance its agenda. Perhaps it is time to subject those claims to intense skepticism and to demand evidence before believing they are true.
Other matters
A former British army captain involved in co-ordinating drone attacks, James Jeffrey, has an outstanding op-ed in the Guardian explaining why drones are so odious and dangerous. I recommend it highly.
Relating to the free speech debate that has emerged over the last week, I have a question for those who insist that advocating or inciting violence is not and should not be included within the protections of free speech: should this statement have led to an arrest? Relatedly: many people believe it was illegal for Obama to fight a war in Libya after Congress voted against the war's authorization, and many (including Obama) believe it would be illegal for the president to bomb Iran without congressional approval. Should advocacy of those acts of illegal violence be illegal and lead to arrest?
The schedule of speaking events I'll be doing in late September and October has been slightly changed. All events are open to the public and event information is here.
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Perry blasts, blames Obama for Benghazi, Cairo attacks and Ambassador Chris Stevens death
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/...mmentsIcon.png
|
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/...rEmailIcon.png
E-mail
|
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/...rPrintIcon.png
Print
http://blog.chron.com/texaspolitics/...or-Victory.jpgTexas Gov. Rick Perry speaks at his victory party in Buda, Texas, Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010. (AP Photo/LM Otero)
Texas Gov. Rick Perry released a statement Wednesday afternoon blasting President Barack Obama for the attacks on the American mission in Benghazi and the American embassy in Cairo and went a step further than Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, blaming the president for the deaths of the four Americans who were killed in the attack in Benghazi.
Here’s the statement in its entirety:
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today released the following statement regarding the Benghazi attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans:
“Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans are now dead in the chaos of a destabilized Middle East. President Obama said he “rejects” these brutal acts, and condemns them in “the strongest terms” – yet still acknowledges our attackers’ supposed justification. This kind of language broadcasts an impotent foreign policy that fostered this crisis in the first place.
“Muammar Qadaffi was an evil oppressor who murdered innocent Americans. But in the naïve belief that America could “lead from behind” in the operation to remove him, this President allowed Libyan rockets and artillery to be scattered to the terrorist winds and had no plan to secure the country. Now we have these brazen attacks on our mission in Benghazi, and the violent death of our ambassador.
“Combined with President Obama’s shameful lack of leadership in Egypt that culminated in the burning of our flag in our own embassy in Cairo yesterday, it is no wonder our enemies in the region are emboldened and our allies are afraid.
“All Americans join together in mourning the tragic loss of our Foreign Service personnel in Benghazi yesterday, and extending our deepest sympathies to their families. We must now act decisively to secure our surviving people in the region, prevent further senseless bloodshed and defend American interests abroad.”
Perry’s statement goes much further than the Romney campaign has gone on the matter — in a statement last night and at a press conference this morning, Romney and his campaign have slammed the White House for “sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks.”
Romney’s remarks were based around a statement put out by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo hours before protesters overran one of the walls protecting it. The statement was put out in response to an anti-Islamic video supposedly posted by an American that had begun to gain traction and generate anger on the ‘Arab Street.’ And hours after protesters at the embassy in Cairo overwhelmed some of its defenses, an armed group launched a coordinated attack against the American mission in Benghazi, Libya.
The attack against the U.S. mission in Libya killed four American diplomats, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
(The Washington Post has a comprehensive timeline of what happened, when)
Romney has been coming under fire for politicizing the issue from fellow Republicans today:
- Mark Salter, who was a foreign policy adviser to 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain, wrote:
[H]is policies are not responsible for the attacks on our embassy in Cairo and our consulate in Benghazi or the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The rush to condemn him in the wake of these attacks by Republicans from Mitt Romney to Sarah Palin, and scores of other conservative critics for policies they claim helped precipitate these attacks is as tortured in its reasoning as it is unseemly in its timing.
- Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan said: “I don’t feel that Mr. Romney has been doing himself any favors in the past few hours.”
- BuzzFeed’s Ben Smith wrote that Republican foreign policy experts were telling him that:
“They were just trying to score a cheap news cycle hit based on the embassy statement and now it’s just completely blown up,” said a very senior Republican foreign policy hand, who called the statement an “utter disaster” and a “Lehman moment” — a parallel to the moment when John McCain, amid the 2008 financial crisis, failed to come across as a steady leader.
He and other members of both parties cited the Romney campaign’s recent dismissals of foreign policy’s relevance. One adviser dismissed the subject to
BuzzFeed as a “shiny object,” while another
told Politico that the subject was the “president’s turf,” drawing a
rebuke from
Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.
“I guess we see now that it is because they’re incompetent at talking effectively about foreign policy,” said the Republican. “This is just unbelievable — when they decide to play on it they completely bungle it.”
However, former Perry foreign policy adviser Victoria Coates told the Houston Chronicle’s Joe Holley that she backed Romney’s critique saying that she believed the circumstances of his attack were overwhelming his argument.
“It’s deeply unfortunate when the circumstance of the statement becomes the story,” said Coates, who is now an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and who suggested that Romney should simply have “gone earlier rather than save it for midnight” to avoid appearing to play politics on September 11. “It’s unfortunate that it’s playing out this way, and hopefully they can get back on message, because their point is sound,” she said.
Categories: Gov. Rick Perry
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
World wonders while Obama dithers
'What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.' - United States ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, September 16
THERE was no spontaneous "fray" in Benghazi that "spun out of control", ending in the deaths of the US ambassador to Libya and several embassy staff. The only thing spinning out of control in the days after the organised attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on September 12 was the administration of President Barack Obama, frantically portraying the terrible events in the Middle East as anything but what they were.
Within a week, the Obama narrative had been exposed as just that, a narrative, and the White House grudgingly had to abandon it.
It was sorry to do so. It was fond of its spin. The mainstream media reported the Obama administration's shift as if it had gotten a few things wrong in the heat of a crisis, and then new information came to light.
That isn't the case. The administration wanted to misrepresent what had happened. The administration wanted to sell the story that a wacky anti-Islam video made in the US caused the violence in Cairo and Benghazi and dozens of other cities.
That story line absolved the Obama administration of any responsibility for what had happened. It also went a long way towards absolving bad actors in the Muslim world.
There have been indications over the past four years that, in its heart of hearts, the Obama administration blames the US first for many of the ills of the world. On this occasion, the administration stopped hinting and came clean. It explicitly, even eagerly, blamed America.
Meanwhile, in the real world, things are falling apart.
We are paying the price of US weakness. Enemies of the US everywhere are emboldened. The Iranian regime dashes for nuclear weapons, sponsors terror, aids President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and seeks to facilitate the killing of US troops where it can.
Anti-American factions in countries from Pakistan to Iraq to Egypt step forward with renewed confidence. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are back on offensive now that Obama has precipitously undone the surge and seems to be heading for the exits.
Russia scoffs at us, China ignores us and throws its weight around. As all the world wonders, Obama does nothing. Actually, he does some things: He cuts the US defence budget. He undercuts Israel. And he takes credit for the fact that, as he said at the Democratic convention of Afghanistan, "in 2014, our longest war will be over".
Obama doesn't even pretend to claim that war will end victoriously or even successfully. It was Obama who less than three years ago ordered tens of thousands more troops into that country. Those troops fought bravely and died nobly - but Obama can't bother to feign much interest in the outcome of the cause for which they fought.
Obama likes to say "the tide of war is receding". But war isn't a tide, and in any case it's not receding. We're retreating, and our influence is receding - and this makes war, and chaos, and terror, more likely, not less. It is the tide of US power that's been receding under Obama.
In his remarks on September 11, Obama paid tribute to members of the 9/11 generation who have worn the uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. But about the goals they sacrificed for? Nothing.
Here's what their Commander-in-Chief had to say on September 11: "Today, the war in Iraq is over. In Afghanistan, we're training Afghan security forces and forging a partnership with the Afghan people. And by the end of 2014, the longest war in our history will be over."
The training and partnering now appear to be little more than bloody fig leaves. One war is over, and the other will be over - that's Obama's message.
Obama used to pretend that the end of the wars would be accompanied by all kinds of positive developments in the Muslim world. No longer. Now we're just heading for the exits, lobbing drones as we go.
The members of the 9/11 generation who fought for our country in Iraq and Afghanistan know the US President has blundered. But theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die, says Obama.
And his opponent for president of the US? His not to make reply, he has apparently concluded. Mitt Romney's virtual silence on foreign policy is the opposite of politically astute.
He most likely can't win the presidency without engaging in, and prevailing in, a serious and sustained national security debate over the next six weeks. It's irresponsible to duck that debate. When will he begin to ignore his timid advisers, overrule his calculating functionaries and make the case against Obama - and for the US? All the world wonders.
-
Re: Are Tunisia and Egypt Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
URGENT: U.S. intelligence officials knew within 24 hours of the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that it was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.
The account conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.
Two senior U.S. officials said the Obama administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day in order to unlock and mobilize certain resources to respond, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.
In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack. Four Americans including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were killed in the assault.
The account that officials initially classified the attack as terrorism is sure to raise serious questions among lawmakers who have challenged the narrative the administration put out in the week following the strike. A few Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to suggest the administration withheld key facts about the assault for political reasons.
"I think we should have answers right away. ... I think they're reluctant to tell us what this event really was probably because it's an election year. But the American people deserve to know answers about what happened at our embassy in Libya," Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., told Fox News.
Curiously, Obama referred to "acts of terror" in his first public remarks about the attack. But from there, administration officials went on to blame the anti-Islam film. Rice was the most explicit in that explanation, insisting on a slew of Sunday shows that the attack was not pre-planned and was tied to the film.
Obama still has not publicly and specifically described the Benghazi attack as terrorism.
But top administration officials have gradually walked back Rice's version of events.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly suggested Wednesday to foreign leaders visiting the United Nations summit in New York that the Al Qaeda affiliate in North Africa was involved.
"Now with a larger safe haven and increased freedom to maneuver, terrorists are seeking to extend their reach and their networks in multiple directions," Clinton told the group, according to The New York Times. "And they are working with other violent extremists to undermine the democratic transitions under way in North Africa, as we tragically saw in Benghazi."
She was referring to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
Clinton earlier this week called the attack terrorism, two weeks after the fact. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney also said that Obama now believes it is terrorism as well.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz27gJqdu00
-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Muslim cyber attacks on US financial institutions over anti-mulsim film from 9/11/2012
http://media.cleveland.com/business_...8612-large.jpg
Plain Dealer file PNC has been preparing for a cyber attack expected today.As expected, PNC Bank's web site has been hit today by a cyber attack that is causing issues for some consumers.
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- PNC is the latest large U.S. bank targeted for a cyber attack, apparently by a group that says it is lashing out in retaliation for the anti-Muslim video that has led to protests and violence this month.
The attack bombards a bank's web site with so much traffic that customers find it takes a long time to log into their account, or they may not be able to log in at all.
"Some customers do continue to report intermittent issues logging on to online banking on the first try," PNC spokesman Fred Solomon said about 10 a.m. today. "We ask that they try again while we work to ensure full access."
Customers can also call customer service or go to a branch or ATM if they have business to do today.
Today's incident follows similar attacks this week on Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank and KeyCorp. (See Wednesday's story.) Last week, Chase, Bank of America and Citi were targeted. All are among the 20 largest U.S. banks. The group that claims responsibility said PNC would be next. The attacks generally last a day or two.
The banks say the web site slowdowns are disruptive but stress that no customer information has been compromised.
-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
If there was an attack on US Bank, I didn't notice it and I try to log in to my account a couple times a day (and have had to thanks to Sirius Radio screwing up my billing with a small account change - damn thieves trying to take out a full year subscription on a newly added radio when I already pay monthly on my first one, then billing me for my monthly payment with the new radio before they refunded my money, and then not refunding the full amount because of an "activation fee". Finally got it refunded fully after enough complaining and having been a loyal customer for the last 5 years. I know, cool story. Real on topic. :D).
-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Thanks for the update Ryan, in your line of work you might be hearing more about this if it was serious.
-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
I'll keep my ear to the ground for sure. We didn't even get a company email on it, and I'm pretty sure we would have, so I can't imagine it's that big of a deal.
-
Re: Is Tunisia, Egypt, Morocco and Libya Facing Real Unrest or a Manufactured Crisis?
Producer of anti-Islam film arrested, ordered held without bail
From Stan Wilson, CNN
updated 10:48 AM EDT, Fri September 28, 2012
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/ass...-story-top.jpg
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is led out of his Cerritos, California, home by Los Angeles County sheriff's officers on September 15.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- "He engaged in a likely pattern of deception," a judge says of man linked to anti-Islam film
- His attorney argues for $10,000 bail, warning his client's safety is at risk
- A prosecutor says he repeatedly violated his probation and "cannot be trusted"
- Nakoula Basseley Nakoula believed to be behind "Innocence of Muslims" film
Los Angeles (CNN) -- Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the man allegedly behind the inflammatory film "Innocence of Muslims," was ordered held without bail Thursday after being arrested in California and accused of violating his probation.
"He engaged in a likely pattern of deception both to his probation officers and the court," Judge Suzanne Segal said in issuing her ruling.
The preliminary bail hearing began with Segal asking the defendant -- dressed in gray slacks and a white and yellow striped T-shirt, with handcuffs and chain around his waist -- what his true name was.
"Mark Basseley Yousseff," he replied.
The judge then asked again, what is your name?
"Mark Basseley," he said this time, again without spelling the name out. He has used at least 17 false names, according to court documents, but is mostly referred to as Nakoula.
An attorney for the man then argued for $10,000 bail.
Attorney Steve Seiden said his client had always maintained contact, in person and by telephone, with probation officers who have been monitoring him since his 2010 bank fraud conviction. But the main reason Nakoula shouldn't be jailed, his lawyer argued, was for safety reasons, saying the anti-Islam film would make him a target of fellow inmates.
"It is a danger for him to remain in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles because there are a large number of Muslims in there," Seiden said. "We are extremely concerned about his safety."
Making no mention of aliases, the lawyer added that Nakoula had made no attempt to flee Southern California and never would.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Dugdale told the judge that the man -- whom he referred to as Nakoula or Bassil -- had engaged in a "pattern of deception" and "a person who cannot be trusted."
Dugdale pointed to a probation report citing eight allegations in which Nakoula had allegedly violated his probation. One of those was a requirement not to use aliases without permission from his probation officer, something the prosecutor said Nakoula did on at least three instances: during his fraud case, when he tried to get a passport in 2011 and during the making of the film. Dugdale said Nakoula had deceived the cast of the film as well as his probation officers.
The prosecutor also noted that Nakoula was able to afford to make payments during the making of the film, saying it further raised concerns about the possibility of him fleeing the area while the legal case against him proceeds.
"He poses a flight risk and poses a danger to others," Dugdale said, alluding to the probation report's recommendation that Nakoula be sentenced to 24 months in prison.
The prosecutor added that he had received assurances from the Metropolitan Detention Center that Nakoula would be placed in protective custody if he was ordered jailed, meaning he would not have contact with other inmates.
The judge, who ordered a future identity hearing to determine the defendant's actual name, cited the many instances in which he misrepresented his name. She also noted his "unstable" residence and work history, referring to the film project, as also among the reasons for denying him bail.
When asked if he understood the nature of the hearing, Nakoula answered, "Yes."
The judge then waived his right to a preliminary hearing and left open a future date for a revocation hearing. Immediately following Thursday's hearing, Nakoula was escorted away by the U.S. Marshals Service in a three-car caravan and driven two blocks to the Metropolitan Detention Center.
'Innocence of Muslims' actress sues filmmaker, YouTube
Earlier this month, Nakoula met with a probation officer in the wake of a federal review of his five-year supervised probation in the 2010 case.
Nakoula was cooperative at that voluntary interview, authorities said. He was bundled up in a coat, hat and white scarf when he was escorted from his house for that interview. He wasn't under arrest at that time.
Having served one year in federal prison at Lompoc, California, officials couldn't determine this month whether Nakoula paid any of the court-ordered restitution of $794,700, according to probation department officials and court records.
While on probation, Nakoula was prohibited from using aliases as well as accessing computers or any device that can access the Internet without approval from his probation officer.
Iran blocks YouTube, Google over Mohammed video
He came to the world's attention after his movie, a trailer of which had been posted to YouTube, was highlighted this month by media in Egypt. Violent protests subsequently erupted in Egypt, Yemen, Tunisia, Morocco, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories, with some of them targeting U.S. diplomatic missions.
On Friday, a Chechen court ruled the film to be extremist and banned it in the Russian republic, according to information minister Murat Tagiyev.
The film has potential to inflame sectarian hatred and may cause "destabilization of the political situation in the region, most of whose population is Muslim," he said.
As the protests raged, Nakoula remained out of public view and ensconced with his family in their home in Cerritos, California, southeast of downtown Los Angeles.
Actor: Anti-Islam filmmaker 'was playing us along'
When news of his movie first broke, the filmmaker identified himself as Sam Bacile and told The Wall Street Journal he was a 52-year-old Israeli-American real estate developer from California. He said Jewish donors had financed his film.
But Israel's Foreign Ministry said there was no record of a Sam Bacile with Israeli citizenship.
A production staff member who worked on the film in its initial stages told CNN that a different name was filed on the paperwork for the Screen Actors Guild: Abenob Nakoula Bassely. A public records search showed an Abanob B. Nakoula residing at the same address as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula.
Another staffer who worked on the film said he knew the producer as Sam Bassil. That's how he signed a personal check to pay staff.