‘Hillary killed my son’ (Sean Smith's Mother Responds to NYT Article on Benghazi)

World ^ | Dec. 31, 2013 | J.C. Derrick

[xzins]

WASHINGTON—The mother of a victim in the 2012 Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack blasted former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview with WORLD, saying a recent article in The New York Times is only trying to protect Clinton’s 2016 presidential aspirations.

“They’re just covering up for Hillary,” Pat Smith, mother of slain foreign-service officer Sean Smith, told me by phone. “Hillary killed my son. … As far as I can tell from all my sources, she was responsible—directly.”

Lawmakers, media outlets, and analysts have all criticized a front-page story in Saturday’s edition of The New York Times, in which reporter David Kirkpatrick, after “months of investigation,” concluded neither al-Qaeda nor other international terrorist groups were involved in the 9/11 anniversary attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Kirkpatrick, whose story is part of his forthcoming book, also wrote that “contrary to claims by some members of Congress, [the attack] was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”

Smith told me that conclusion doesn’t jive with reports from her sources, many of whom have reached out to give her information since she testified before Congress in September. She said she’s “very upset” about the Times article, which doesn’t mention Clinton and offers no explanation for why security was porous or why reinforcements were told not to go help during the all-night attack.

“All the [U.S. Navy] SEALs and everybody I’ve talked to recently, they say they would never, ever, ever leave someone to be sacrificed. And that’s what happened—they were sacrificed,” she said.

The Times story contradicted the sworn testimony of Gregory Hicks, then the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya, who in May told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that the YouTube video was a non-event for Libyans. Hicks—who spoke by phone with Stevens during the attack, the last known conversation the ambassador had—said he talked with Clinton at 2 a.m. local time, and the video was never discussed as even a possible reason for the attack. Hicks said he was stunned when he heard the administration blaming the film: “My jaw dropped. And I was embarrassed.”

According to Victoria Toensing, Hicks’ legal counsel, Kirkpatrick made no attempt to talk to Hicks for his article or the book. “It’s obvious he didn’t want to talk to my client,” she told me. “It’s inexplicable to me why he did not call.”

Kirkpatrick built his story mostly on sources, including numerous anonymous ones, from Benghazi, which Toensing said was like going to Japan during World War II to ask if they attacked at Pearl Harbor. “The story is based on proving a negative,” she said. “I was shocked that The New York Times published something so unsophisticated.”

The story says al-Qaeda had been unable to establish a foothold in Libya, a claim that runs counter to the U.S. government’s findings a month before the attack. An August 2012 Library of Congress report said al-Qaeda “has established a core network in Libya,” though it “remains clandestine and refrains from using the al-Qaeda name.” It said Ansar al-Sharia, the group that immediately claimed responsibility for the attack, “has increasingly embodied al-Qaeda’s presence in Libya.”

Kirkpatrick acknowledged Ansar al-Sharia’s role in the attack but found “no evidence” to suggest a “direct role” for al-Qaeda. Kirkpatrick contended only local extremists, led by an “eccentric” militia leader named Ahmed Abu Khattala, carried out the assault.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a member of that committee, both told Fox News the Times story was misleading. Rogers said the FBI is targeting people with “strong al-Qaeda ties” in connection with the attack, and Schiff said, “The intelligence indicates al-Qaeda was involved.”

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the Times story largely tracks with what the State Department believes happened in Benghazi, though the investigation is still ongoing. When asked if she agreed that al-Qaeda played no role, she chose her words carefully, saying no “core al-Qaeda” members directed or planned the attack, but “extremists were involved. … These were clearly terrorists.”

Clare Lopez, a former CIA officer who is part of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi, said it would be very easy to identify what kind of attack took place if the administration would release the surveillance.

“They’ve got a lot of camera footage, and they’re not releasing it,” she told me. “They knew who broke through, when they broke through, and what weapons they were carrying.”

[xzins]

other than by a failure to act.

That's the misunderstanding. It was not a "failure to act".

We know it made it to the situation room. Therefore, it was an intentional decision not to act.

This cannot be written off as a "Omigosh...we didn't know anything was going down...so we failed to act."

[Eleutheria5]

An intentional failure to act is still a failure to act. If you see a man drowning, and you refuse to go rescue him, or even to send a subordinate to go rescue him, you are not guilty of murder.

[xzins]

At minimum, she is guilty of letting an ambassador and three servicemen get butchered without lifting a finger to cover up her transfer of shoulder-fired Surface to Air missiles to terrorists in Syria, and that might be what she’s lying to cover up. But it does not follow from that that she was complicit in their murder, other than by a failure to act.

If you're the lifeguard, then you are guilty of negligence. The only question then is if it rises to the level of criminal negligence.

Reference the above quote from your 2nd (3rd?) most recent exchange with me, it doesn't make sense that you don't see it as an intentional, knowing failure to act even though totally capable of initiating action...is that accurate?

[Eleutheria5]

That’s the law. A lifeguard can get sued, fired, and blacklisted for letting someone drown. But they don’t go down for murder unless they pretend they’re coming to the rescue to ward off other would-be rescuers, and then let the person they’re supposedly rescuing drown.

With government, it’s even worse. A policeman or paramedic is not obligated to save anyone. Someone can bleed to death within feet of a paramedic carrying all the gear he needs, and he isn’t even civilly liable. A policeman can watch someone get robbed, gang raped and murdered and just stand there swinging his club. He’ll be drummed out of the police department and never work as a cop again, but nobody can even sue him, or the city, unless he starts out coming to the rescue, thereby creating a ministerial relationship with the victim, and then just stops and turns around, or at least does a negligent job of rescuing the victim.

After the Crown Heights pogrom, I was part of the team preparing the Notice of Claim to start action against the city, and this was the question raised each time. It’s the case of Dunham vs. Village of Canisteo, settled law in New York State for over a century, and widely accepted in other jurisdictions throughout the nation.

In the case of the SOS, they would not be criminally liable for knowingly letting federal agents be butchered. Not unless they told them, “don’t try to escape through that secret tunnel. Help is on the way” and then abandoned them, because then they would be telling them to refrain from saving themselves in exchange for a ministerial promise of rescue.

[SevenofNine]

Do you realize that scene from 1925 Fritz Lang classic movie Metropolis they just restored it recently

[Talisker]

You talk about law?

You - who think the Secretary of State could “accidentally” sell SAMs to terrorists?

You - who thinks the State Government Code applies to the Secretary of State under conditions of attacks against a US Ambassador which LEGALLY comprise Acts of War?

The Secretary of State had the OBLIGATION to act to save the lives of those people, who included the Ambassador to the United States.

The Secretary of State had the MEANS and OPPORTUNITY to act through intelligence and combat assets, and repeatedly REFUSED.

That refusal IS the “act” of murder.

And as that refusal enabled, empowered and knowingly, deliberately succeeded in the murder of American forces and the American Ambassador, it is an act of TREASON - an act of aiding and abetting WAR against the United States of America.

Law?

You know NOTHING about the law.

Or you’re LYING.

Which is it?

[Libertarian444]

“We DON’T CARE”

-The MSM

[Eleutheria5]

I don’t think the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State. I extrapolate from my knowledge of the New York State penal code to federal law, as I already told you.

State penal codes and the federal penal code are usually very similar, and while Dunham vs. Village of Canisteo is New York law, it is widely respected, as are many of the old New York cases, and is based on old principles of British Common Law, which have had a huge influence on American jurisprudence, and especially something as well settled as this..

She sold it to terrorists. Maybe she didn’t know they were terrorists, and in that sense it was an accident. Maybe she’s just plain stupid. Maybe it was part of an evil scheme. Note the question mark by “accidentally” in my actual words.

“The Secretary of State had the OBLIGATION to act to save the lives of those people, who included the Ambassador to the United States.”

Is this obligation statutory? So then cite the statute and its language. Is it based on case law? Cite for me the case. Is it based on your own feelings and is therefore a mere assertion? Put Rogain on it and then it won’t be bald.

Try venting spleen at me if you want. I’m not impressed. Law is law. Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except on the high seas with a ship in distress. Other ships have an obligation to come to its aid unless they’re imperiling themselves.

[Eleutheria5]

BTW, Stevens was not the Libyan ambassador to the United States. He was the American ambassador to Libya. America has many ambassadors in many dangerous places. It does not have one ambassador. I realize you’re upset and typing very fast, but that doesn’t make it true.

[Eleutheria5]

“And as that refusal enabled, empowered and knowingly, deliberately succeeded in the murder of American forces and the American Ambassador, it is an act of TREASON - an act of aiding and abetting WAR against the United States of America.”

It might well have been treason. Wouldn’t know. There’s no parallel to treason in the NY Penal code, CPLR, or constitution, so it’s outside my field. But it wasn’t murder and you aren’t being logical here. In Reagan’s time, the Soviets shot a US serviceman by the Berlin wall and let him bleed out, refusing to allow anyone to cross over the wall to aid him. Was Reagan’s SOS a murderer, too? Was Reagan? Were they guilty of treason for not going to war?

“Law?

You know NOTHING about the law.”

I don’t know everything about the law. I never said that I did. But I know a good deal more than you, which isn’t saying much.

“Or you’re LYING.

Which is it?”

OK. Time for your meds. ‘bye.

[Talisker]

I don’t think the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State. I extrapolate from my knowledge of the New York State penal code to federal law, as I already told you.

In other words, you are applying the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State.

And to do so, you are then applying your extrapolated federal statutory law involving corporate governance indemnification to a sworn-in Secretary of State in time of war, during a combat incident, involving the Ambassador of the United States whose person represents this country.

And then you are ignoring her oath of office, the fact that massive military assets were at her disposal, military intelligence was availible to her, that the incident lasted over eight hours, and that she was involved in repeatedly ordering off intelligence and military assets who were repeatedly insisting that they be allowed to stage a rescue.

You write: Is this obligation statutory? So then cite the statute and its language. Is it based on case law? Cite for me the case. Is it based on your own feelings and is therefore a mere assertion? Put Rogain on it and then it won’t be bald.

Here's the statute:
18 U.S. CODE § 2381 - TREASON
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Do you have anything other than stupid lawyer tricks? The preponderence of evidence and responsibility was to act to protect the Ambassador and his party in time of war. It is YOUR assertion that there was no obligation towards a sworn cabinet member of the Office of the President in direct charge of the incident. YOU provide exculpatory statutes and their language which forgive treason. Bald? You have NOTHING but arrogance and bullsh!t. You really DID work for lawyers, didn't you?

[Talisker]

Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except on the high seas with a ship in distress. Other ships have an obligation to come to its aid unless they’re imperiling themselves.

IIRC, the law of the high seas is Admiralty law, which is concurrent in jurisidctional application on land as statutory law, which regulated by administrative law at the sate and federal levels.

So the translation of this little "addendum" of yours is that "Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except under US law."

Thanks for playing. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Eleutheria5]

“IIRC, the law of the high seas is Admiralty law, which is concurrent in jurisidctional application on land as statutory law, which regulated by administrative law at the sate and federal levels.

So the translation of this little “addendum” of yours is that “Failing to act is not murder in any jurisdiction that I know of, with or without knowledge of the danger, except under US law.”

So you’re saying that Stevens and Smith were murdered on the high seas by their ship foundering (terrorists were scuttling the hold?), and Hillary was right nearby on a freighter in calm seas and let her go down?

Admiralty law does not apply to Libya and terrorists running amok in Libya and killing US personnel. Neither does it apply to dry land all together, even within the United States, or even on American embassy grounds.

If you let a ship sink on the high seas, and then dock your ship in Gloucester and head into town for a drink, you can be arrested for letting a ship sink on the high seas, and they can do the same thing to you in Portland or New York City. They do not have to arrest you on the high seas for the Admiralty Law to have jurisdiction, or in the state adjacent to the stretch of wet in which you did it. That’s all that bit of garbled legalese you site means.

[Talisker]

What I wrote was, “IIRC, the law of the high seas is Admiralty law, which is concurrent in jurisidctional application on land as statutory law, which regulated by administrative law at the State and federal levels.

Reading comprehension is your friend. Law is often made up of subtleties and defined jurisdictional relationships. Read up on it.

You ask: So you’re saying that Stevens and Smith were murdered on the high seas by their ship foundering (terrorists were scuttling the hold?), and Hillary was right nearby on a freighter in calm seas and let her go down?

And I reply, through constructive jurisdictional application, YES.

And not only that - you know it's true. But you also know that the linkages of constructive authority and obligation are so bizarre to those untrained in law, they will think it's a farce. And, of course, they're right, when it is applied to non-government employees. But it IS applicable to government employees, and it DOES derive its constructive application from Admiralty law contractual authorities and obligations, as applied to specific jurisdictions, as indicated by statutory and administrative operations.

But then there's the other thing - the basic fraud of you saying that failure to act can never be held as murder. Never is a big, big word, and NEVER applies absolutely. I could go on and talk about criminal negligence, criminal failure to act under sworn obligation, etc., and then you'd go on about the limits of specificities, etc. But the very argument is nonsense, because the obligation Hillary had to save those people was inescapable and obvious. And what you are doing, in trying to spin away that obviousness and common sense and LAWFUL OBLIGATION, is, IMO, sedition through fraudulent misrepresentation.

[Eleutheria5]

“I don’t think the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State. I extrapolate from my knowledge of the New York State penal code to federal law, as I already told you.”

In other words, you are applying the New York State penal code applies to the Secretary of State. Just taking an educated guess as to what the USCS says about the elements of homicide and its several levels. You are extrapolating from your lack of knowledge and visceral rejection of what you don’t want to hear that the US Code says what you want to hear. I have about 20 years’ experience in law, and from that I can be allowed an educated guess, which I honestly inform you ahead of time is just a guess. There is nothing strange about the NY Penal Code. Look in any penal code, including the federal, and you’ll see a lot of very similar language.

“...to a sworn-in Secretary of State in time of war”

The US was not at war with Libya, and the acts were not performed by the Libyan government.

“, during a combat incident, involving the Ambassador of the United States”

There is no such post. He was the United States ambassador to Libya.

” whose person represents this country.”

Yes, he did represent the United States. And it was Hillary’s call to let him die and fail to take precautions ahead of time, a national disgrace. Disgusting. But not murder, anymore than Reagan, Bush Sr. or Eisenhower committed murder in their international incidents.

“And then you are ignoring her oath of office, the fact that massive military assets were at her disposal, military intelligence was availible to her, that the incident lasted over eight hours, and that she was involved in repeatedly ordering off intelligence and military assets who were repeatedly insisting that they be allowed to stage a rescue.”

I don’t ignore those things. She did. But even so, it’s not murder.

“18 U.S. CODE § 2381 - TREASON
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

“Levies war against them” OK. Hillary didn’t pick up a gun and start shooting. “Adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Only to the extent that she didn’t stop them, which as I’ve said is not a legal obligation to the best of my knowledge, and nowhere in the Constitution is “failing to stop the enemies of the United States from waging war against them” enumerated as an act of treason. If it was, Dwight Eisenhower would have been guilty of treason for failing to retaliate for the downing of a US air jet, and George HW Bush for failing to declare war on N. Korea for shooting down a US jet.

“Do you have anything other than stupid lawyer tricks?”

Just because you don’t understand what I’m saying does not make them a “stupid lawyer trick”. I carry no brief for lawyers;-) I’m glad I’m out of that field. But the law is the law is the law, and Dunham vs. Village of Canisteo and its progeny and its predecessor case law control.

” The preponderence of evidence and responsibility was to act to protect the Ambassador and his party in time of war.”

You’re frothing at the mouth and talking gibberish.

Read Dunham and get back to me.

[Eleutheria5]

“Reading comprehension is your friend. Law is often made up of subtleties and defined jurisdictional relationships. Read up on it.”

Jurisdiction in this case means procedural, as I’ve explained. Maritime laws of conduct on the high seas do not apply to dry land. If a man falls out your window and hurts himself in New York State, he can sue you in New York court under the procedure outlined in the CPLR for negligence. He can’t sue you under the Jones Act. If a man falls overboard and a crewman tosses him a frayed rope that fails to save him, his widow can sue you under the Jones Act, but not under NY Products Liability case law, because it didn’t happen in NY State.

I know all about the subtleties of law and how it defines jurisdictional relationships. I had twenty years of that, and a couple of years of schooling. And all twenty-two years of it are giving you a great big horse laugh right now.

To wit:

And I reply, through constructive jurisdictional application, YES.

And not only that - you know it’s true.

HAAA!

Read Aesop’s Fables, the Donkey and the Lion’s Pelt, and stop flaunting your ignorance. Goodnight.

[Talisker]

Read Aesop’s Fables, the Donkey and the Lion’s Pelt, and stop flaunting your ignorance. Goodnight.

Read up on incorporation, corporate shells and positive law, irrespective of wet or dry applications.

Twenty-two years? That's it? You must not be trusted.

Maybe it's your horse laugh. It always indicates a bounder.

Goodbye.

[Talisker]

Yes, he did represent the United States. And it was Hillary’s call to let him die and fail to take precautions ahead of time, a national disgrace. Disgusting. But not murder, anymore than Reagan, Bush Sr. or Eisenhower committed murder in their international incidents.

“And then you are ignoring her oath of office, the fact that massive military assets were at her disposal, military intelligence was availible to her, that the incident lasted over eight hours, and that she was involved in repeatedly ordering off intelligence and military assets who were repeatedly insisting that they be allowed to stage a rescue.”

I don’t ignore those things. She did. But even so, it’s not murder.

Yeah, it is murder. And it's also treason. And it's indefensible.

And your vague and unsupported demonization of "Reagan, Bush Sr. or Eisenhower" identifies you as a liberal. Reagan, Bush Sr. or Eisenhower NEVER did what Hillary did in Benghazi. The open, deliberate murder of an American Ambassador by his own government is unprecedented.

I won't bother with the rest of your disconnected legalisms - by refusing to acknowledge the forest for the trees, you're just adding petulancy and irrelevency to being dead wrong - like all liberals.

[Eleutheria5]

Nothing vague about it. I refer to specific instances in which American citizens and servicemen were left on their own to face assaults on foreign soil, and in some cases died as a result. Look in the history books and stop making an ass of yourself. I have the greatest admiration for Eisenhower and Reagan, and in some respects even liked Bush Sr., though mostly not.

[Eleutheria5]

The more you talk, the less sense you make.