Was Kidnapping Amb. Stevens the Objective in Benghazi?

By Bob Michael

Can we really believe the kidnapping story, and other deflections floating around, regarding the plan of the Benghazi attack of 11 September 2012? Is it a “difference” that doesn’t really matter “at this point”, as Hillary Clinton rhetorically asserts? I’ll digress just a moment.

After a question from Republican Senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin, stupidly (and losing her un-presidential cool.. I shudder to think it a double stupid planned statement): “

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

Clinton continued…

“It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.”

Answer to the lawyer Hillary Clinton, who must have slept through criminal law in law school, or never went to law school, and obviously never practiced criminal law. If she did, she had the judge and jury wired going in. If she really doesn’t understand then only God can save this country. But I think, for many reasons she knew.

Ambassador Stevens: Was it about kidnapping?

Ambassador Stevens: Was it about kidnapping?

A spontaneous, angry, uncontrolled crowd just venting and lashing out would be a defense for members of the Obama administration being criminally culpable of aiding and abetting, and thus principals in the murders of our Americans on 11 September 2012 in Benghazi, Libya. The scenario was absolutely a necessary cover-up.

For the murders to be the result of a planned and well-executed tactical event, a well-executed tactical event witnesses corroborate, opens up not only the on-scenes murderers, but also the Ansar al-Sharia, Muslim Brotherhood, and the Egyptian President Mursi, and U.S. Obama administration participants, for murder charges as well.

Yes, Hillary, if you didn’t know before, you do now. Perhaps that is why her job duty was provided: “…so we can prevent it from ever happening again…” statement wanted to close the book on Benghazi and move forward. But Benghazi is still current.

The question of kidnapping being the objective of the attack in Benghazi just raises more questions than it answers. The kidnapping scenario comes from the attacker side themselves. I would ask, what would be gained? Whether it was about Murder or kidnapping apparently isn’t a concern to the world.

Would it be more likely for the Blind Sheik to be released in an exchange of Ambassador Stevens for the Sheikh? Or would political pleas from Mursi to Obama be more successful? Some might say Obama might gain more support for release of a now relatively “who cares”, even forgotten, Blind Sheikh, for our Ambassador. But the results of the attack seem to belie the scenario of kidnapping.

Some say proof of the kidnapping objective is that the attackers went directly to the Ambassador’s Benghazi abode. Whether to kidnap or murder, one would need to go to where the Ambassador most likely was, and very likely positively known to be, regardless of which alternative was correct.

A problem, however, is torching the main consulate building with toxic diesel fuel accelerant, which is deadly to trapped, breathing, living bodies. The fire did not open entry to the secure area Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, and the security officer ensconced themselves. We know Sean Smith died there from the toxic diesel fumes. We don’t know that Ambassador Stevens didn’t die there also.

Some say the Ambassador was rescued alive and we have a member of the murderers’ side saying that a fatal injection was administered to the Ambassador after he was brought from the building. If the Ambassador was the object of a kidnapping, one could wonder why, after he was kidnapped alive, would he be killed with a fatal injection after a successful operation.
And then there is the attack on the Annex. Perhaps it was a backup in the event that the U.S. consulate compound personnel made it out of the compound and to the Annex. I doubt it for several reasons, but if that was the case, then there is absolutely no question that the Benghazi attacks were a planned military operation leaving little to chance. Why then didn’t it work? It did.

The Ambassador was out of friendly hands and whether to be kidnapped or killed, he died from diesel accelerated fire or fatal injection. Whether the objective was killing or kidnapping, it remains that the Ambassador and three others were murdered in Benghazi on 11 September 2012 and that the United States and Egypt were criminal principals in the murder of Americans.

And what, that we know now, can we rely upon? Certainly, we should not rely on the honesty and sincerity of the attackers and their backers pulling our string with the kidnapping and injection scenarios.

What we can rely upon is the Libyan Security agency report wherein suspects identified certain Egyptians, including Egyptian President Mursi, as being involved in pre-attack planning and directing, making them principals and murderers. Some would like to dismiss the statements as just Libyan torture statements without any evidence to back up their claims. This document stands until there is proof that the accusations are untruths.

The video we have where the exclamation from an attacker is that some attackers were sent by Mursi (the Egyptian president) is a strong piece of evidence commonly known as res gestae, or spontaneous exclamation. It is generally accepted that to be admissible, the statements must relate, explain, or characterize an event or transaction. They must be natural statements growing out of the event. Additionally, the statements must be spontaneous, evoked by the event itself, and not the result of premeditation. Finally, the original speaker must have participated in the transaction or witnessed the event in question. All of these requirements have been met in the video. The statements in this video are an exception to the hearsay rule of evidence in a criminal case, and admissible as competent evidence.

Finally, we have timeline reports of the involvement of the U.S. Department of State and the Department of Defense, and all are damning of the involved persons clearly showing little concern or effort to effectively intervene in the murders. They also show that there were ample resources to have done so. Finally, for help to have arrived, but only to transport the personnel (including seriously wounded), is worse than shameful. It is despicable and I mean worse than deserving contempt.

Kidnapping or not, lethal injection or not, four murders were committed, the Obama administration is eye-deep involved in those murders, still trying to find cover, and destroy evidence.

Bob Michael is a retired Los Angeles Police Captain. Prior to retirement he commanded a detective division of approximately 100 detectives, including 15 homicide detectives who investigated 100 homicides a year. He has authored several political and law enforcement books, testified as an expert witness in high profile cases, and was a member of state mandated training boards.