Sensitive documents left behind at American mission in Libya

It's not a surprise that there were documents left behind after the recent attack at the American mission, what is intriguing is that some of those documents have been published, and some of them raise some questions..

The one that has me scratchin my noggin is the quick reaction force letter, where it appears that those hired to be part of the force were required to secure their own weapon and ammunition, along with the pay which was 35LYD or less than 30 bucks a day..

I certainly hope that these folks weren't the first line of defense for the mission.. Was this just a supplement to normal security? I don't know..

There's more documents to peruse, which some may find interesting, and an option to DL the pdf as well..

Here's the article..

www.washingtonpost.com

More than three weeks after attacks in this city killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans, sensitive documents remained only loosely secured in the remains of the U.S. mission here on Wednesday, offering visitors easy access to delicate details about American operations in Libya.

Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday.

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Cheap labour in tough times!

I think there is more to come from this story.

Surely when America has people in countries like this they would supply them with adequate protection?! Its not like downtown Paris or London is it?

reply to post by souljacker


It sure adds credence to the news mentioning how the folks there were very concerned with security in Libya..

yes?

It was reported nearly a week ago that security was hired for the embassy. There was no American security there by design. It was proposed that sending Marines to guard the embassy would look bad for the administrations policy. Libya was supposed to be an ally. The policy of apology is unraveling.

reply to post by JacKatMtn

Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday.

I dunno it doesn't really sound like that sensitive info or big of a deal really. Weapons collection efforts, contracting people to help secure the mission and his trip info? Well, the guy is dead. What's wrong with hiring Libyans and getting weapons out of the hands of the locals? Doesn't seem to me to be that bad of an idea.

No?

reply to post by JacKatMtn

I certainly hope that these folks weren't the first line of defense for the mission.. Was this just a supplement to normal security? I don't know..

The US State Dept did not allow Marine Security Forces to be stationed at the Embassy in Tripoli or the Consulate in Benghazi. The security in Libya was provided by contractors.

I don’t know how the State Dept could have been so lax on security. What’s even more shocking to me is that nobody has been made to answer for this debacle. Instead they have been allowed to hide behind a bogus story about a movie.

This is shameful, and those responsible need to be dealt with!!

reply to post by JacKatMtn


It's all very sad. I'm probably more concerned about all the sensitive documents taken from file cabinets,and on computers, before the reporters found the dregs on the floor.

I think the U.S. policy on security for our foreign embassies, is deplorable. Hiring security from within a hostile country, is just plain reckless, and irresponsible....All security should be on our government, to protect our employees and appointees in government positions.

Des

reply to post by SLAYER69


Putting the lives of US Diplomats and mission in the hands of folks who have to provide their own weapons and ammo, for less than 30 bucks a day = acceptable security?

A four hour shift at McD's would earn in the neighborhood of 35.. without putting their life on the line.

I have to be missing something here, been a busy day so forgive me if I seem clueless

Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Putting the lives of US Diplomats and mission in the hands of folks who have to provide their own weapons and ammo, for less than 30 bucks a day = acceptable security?

A four hour shift at McD's would earn in the neighborhood of 35.. without putting their life on the line.

I have to be missing something here, been a busy day so forgive me if I seem clueless

I'd call it exposing some stupidity but not sensitive.

reply to post by SLAYER69


agreed on that.. it just provides evidence of incompetence at the State Dept.. IMO..

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by JacKatMtn

 

Documents detailing weapons collection efforts, emergency evacuation protocols, the full internal itinerary of Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens’s trip and the personnel records of Libyans who were contracted to secure the mission were among the items scattered across the floors of the looted compound when a Washington Post reporter and a translator visited Wednesday.

I dunno it doesn't really sound like that sensitive info or big of a deal really. Weapons collection efforts, contracting people to help secure the mission and his trip info? Well, the guy is dead. What's wrong with hiring Libyans and getting weapons out of the hands of the locals? Doesn't seem to me to be that bad of an idea.

No?

Slayer, I generally agree with you. But, in this one instance..not. Hiring only through contract labor in hostile countries is, imoho...a bad idea. How are the people hired vetted as to their feeling towards the U.S. staff they've been hired to protect. The possibility of infiltration by those with political agendas is something that should have been addressed. It has come to our knowledge, that some of those same guards were part of the attacking forces.

It should have been only our own American forces holding the job of protecting our Embassy.

Des

reply to post by Destinyone


Well it could be how I'm interpreting the term "Sensitive Documents". For me, that means something a bit more important and sensitive than was reported.

After reading some of the replies though I can see now what people are getting at.

Just finished reading an interesting book about private guards employed in the middle east, by Phil Campion. who was employed as a private guard in the Middle East and Afghanistan,

Born Fearless. From SAS to Mercenary. Pub 2001 by Quercus Non-Fiction ISBN 978-0-85738-378-5

and yes, finding equipment can be up to each individual!

I was reading this earlier today:

The U.S. military's newspaper, Stars & Stripes, recently reported that the Pentagon is buying Chevy Volts in a 1,500 electric-vehicle purchase, as part of the Defense Department's "green initiatives," which seek to reduce the country's dependence on foreign energy sources

nlpc.org.../2012/10/02/embassies-facing-security-cuts-waste-money-che vy-volts

Security cuts,budget cuts could have led to the events in Libya is what I am leaning towards. This administration has the wrong priorities.

Wonder how many other embassies are like that one in Austria.

As it relates to Benghazi consulate security, sequestration will gut $129 million from embassy security, maintenance and construction budgets. The State Department should be devoting its sure-to-dwindle resources to security guards and/or equipment in order to prevent a repeat of the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and the others in Libya.

The above should shed some light on this:

The one that has me scratchin my noggin is the quick reaction force letter, where it appears that those hired to be part of the force were required to secure their own weapon and ammunition, along with the pay which was 35LYD or less than 30 bucks a day..

Wanted to park this in depth article on the Benghazi security situation here since it relates to the papers found at the compound after the assassination.

Benghazi back story: Why private security wasn't around

...Only the American Embassies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are exempted from awarding security contracts to the lowest bidder. Dangerous posts are allowed to consider “best value” contracting instead, according to a State Department inspector general’s report in February.
The large private security firms that have protected American diplomats in Iraq and Afghanistan sought State Department contracts in Libya, and at least one made a personal pitch to the ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed in the militants’ attack in Benghazi on Sept. 11, according to a senior official at one firm.

But given the Libyan edict banning the contractors, the Obama administration was eager to reduce the American footprint there. After initially soliciting bids from major security companies for work in Libya, State Department officials never followed through.
“We went in to make a pitch, and nothing happened,” said the security firm official. He said the State Department could have found a way around the Libyans’ objections if it had wanted to...

Much more at the link..

reply to post by JacKatMtn


This stuff will end up on Wikileaks or something like that. The US is crumbling fast....!