State Dept reveals new details of Benghazi attack - The State [getdailynow.blogspot.com]
Devon Ke Dev... Mahadev - 6th January 2012Sensing Revati's silence, Sati enquires about her distressed state. Trying to hide her worries, Revati, finally admits the dejections that she has been facing in her married life. Prasuti overhears Revati and Sati's conversation and assures her that she would speak to Chandrama. Sati proposes an idea to meliorate Revati and Chandrama's relation during the Spring festival celebrations. Rohini, on the other hand, unaware of Revati's plight, impatiently awaits Chandrama to return from the Mahasabha. Daksh announces the reason behind calling the Mahasabha. Devraj Indra expresses his concern over Shukracharya meditating to incur the ultimate Sanjivani Shakti from Lord Shiva. As Rishi Kashyap defends Lord Shiva's stand, Daksh's announcement of calling Lord Shiva as a special guest in the Mahasabha surprises everyone.
WASHINGTON â€" All was quiet outside the U.S. Consulate as evening fell on Benghazi and President Barack Obama's envoy to Libya was retiring after a day of diplomatic meetings.
There was no indication of the harrowing events that night would bring: assailants storming the compound and setting its buildings aflame, American security agents taking fire across more than a mile of the city, the ambassador and three employees killed and others forced into a daring car escape against traffic.
Senior State Department officials on Tuesday revealed for the first time certain details of last month's tragedy in the former Libyan rebel stronghold, such as the efforts of a quick reaction force that rushed onto the scene and led the evacuation in a fierce gun battle that continued into the streets. The briefing was provided a day before department officials were to testify to a House committee about the most serious attack on a U.S. diplomatic installation since al-Qaida bombed the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania 14 years ago.
The account answers some questions and leaves others unanswered. Chief among them is why for several days the Obama administration said the assault stemmed from a protest against an American-made Internet video ridiculing Islam, and whether the consulate had adequate security.
The officials, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said Ambassador Chris Stevens arrived in Benghazi and held meetings on and off the consulate grounds on Sept. 10. He spent the night, and then out of prudence spent the whole of the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks meeting people inside the compound, an enclosed area about 300 yards long by 100 yards wide, with a 9-foot outer wall topped by barbed wire and augmented by barriers, steel drop bars and other security upgrades.
When Stevens finished his final meeting of the day, he escorted a Turkish diplomat outside the main entrance of the building. The situation was calm, the officials said, and there were no protests. Five U.S. agents and four local militiamen were providing security.
A little more than an hour later, around 9:40 p.m., everything changed.
The compound's agents were alerted by loud noises, gunfire and explosions near the front gate. A barracks near the entrance for the local militiamen was burned down. In the control center, agents watched on cameras as a large group of armed men flowed into the compound. They immediately sounded the alarm and made telephone calls to the embassy in Tripoli, officials in Washington, the Libyan authorities and the U.S. quick reaction force located at a second compound a little over a mile away.
One agent, armed with a sidearm and an assault rifle, took Stevens and State Department computer specialist Sean Smith to a safe room inside one of the compound's two main residences - an area protected by a heavy metal grill and several locks and stocked with medical supplies and water. The other agents rushed to equip themselves with long guns, body armor, helmets and ammunition at other buildings. Two tried to make it to the building with Stevens but took fire and were forced to retreat.
The attackers began to overrun the compound, the officials recounted. The intruders penetrated Stevens' building and tried to break the grill locks for the safe room but couldn't gain access. So they dumped cans of diesel fuel in the building, lit furniture on fire and set aflame part of the exterior of the building.
In the compound's other residence, two agents barricaded themselves against the attackers who had gotten inside the building. The attackers failed to enter the tactical operations center, where the last two agents were located, smashing the door but failing to break it.
Meanwhile, Stevens' building rapidly filled with thick diesel smoke and fumes from the burning furniture. Inside, visibility was less than 3 feet and, unable to breathe, the Americans went to a bathroom and opened a window, trying to get air. They decided to get out of the building. The security agent went first, flopping out onto a patio enclosed by sandbags and taking fire immediately.
Stevens and Smith didn't make it out, the officials said. The agent, suffering severely from smoke inhalation, went in and out of the building several times to look for them - in vain. He then climbed a ladder to the roof of the building and collapsed, radioing the other agents in a barely audible voice to alert them to the situation there.
The other four agents were able to then reunite, taking an armored vehicle to Stevens' building. They reached the collapsed agent and tried to set up a perimeter, taking turns going into the building and searching on hands and knees for the missing Americans. Smith was pulled out, dead. Stevens could not be found.
A six-member quick reaction security team arrived on the scene from its compound across town, the officials said. About 60 Libyan militiamen accompanied the team, and it again tried to secure a perimeter around Stevens' building, taking turns searching inside. Taking fire, the Libyan forces determined they couldn't hold the perimeter. An evacuation plan was quickly put in place to retreat to the reaction force's compound.
The evacuation proved anything but easy. Agents piled into an armored vehicle with Smith's body, facing immediate fire as they left through the main gate. Crowds and groups of men blocked two different routes to the security compound, so the Americans looked for an alternate way through heavy traffic at a speed of about 15 mph, so they wouldn't attract attention.
On a narrow street, according to officials, the agents reached a group of men who signaled for them to enter a compound. They sensed an ambush and sped away, but not before taking heavy fire from AK-47 machine guns at a distance of only 2 feet and hand grenades thrown against and under the car. Two tires were blown out.
They raced past another crowd of men and onto a main street, crossing a grassy median into opposing traffic. The agents then drove against oncoming traffic, eventually reaching their compound.
Once there they had to endure several more hours of intermittent gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades fired their way.
A team of reinforcements from the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli arrived on a chartered aircraft at the Benghazi airport and reached the security compound.
But the Americans could do little when their main building was hit by mortar fire around 4 a.m. Two security personnel were killed, and one agent who had been involved in the earlier fighting was severely wounded.
The men decided to leave the city. They spent the next hours securing the annex and moving a large convoy of vehicles to the airport.
They flew out on two planes.
More State Dept reveals new details of Benghazi attack - The State Issues Question by NONAME: Does the following text equal "the separation of church and state" under the terms being claimed today? How? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." To me it says the federal government is not allowed to establish a religion nor interfere with the practice of religion. How can anything more be attributed to these words? Best answer for Does the following text equal "the separation of church and state" under the terms being claimed today? How?:
Answer by Reality bites
Yes, Nothing more is attributed to those words, that's what the "wall of separation" refers to, the establishment clause. Edit: actually the government isn't allowed to promote a religion either., no tax breaks for Baptist but not buddhists etc..
Answer by ArizonaRejects0bamaCare
It does not it is just good sense and that is why America does this. The liberals are clueless.
Answer by Reality has a Liberal Bias
Read your jurisprudence on the topic. A lot has happened since those words were written. "The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion on the one hand and the nation state on the other. The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. Jefferson was responding to a letter that the Association had written him. In that letter, they expressed their concerns about the Constitution not reaching the State level. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not yet exist, thus leaving the States vulnerable to federal legislation. In Jefferson's letter, he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected - a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to force out a state's official church. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, although the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."" Do you also believe that slaves are 3/5 of a person?
Answer by Erik
Since "separation of church and state" has been repeated since the constitution was written, I believe that was the intent of the first amendment. The first Americans came here to get away from religion controlled states.
Answer by J P
The media coverage of this has been extremely biased. No surprise there. The "separation" of church and state is not explicitly embodied in the Constitution, and in fact, it's been the subject of much scholarly debate. There is a tension between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, which can seem to contradict each other. For example, it could be argued that providing military chaplains violates the establishment clause. It could also be argued that forcing members of the military to serve without the benefit of a chaplain violates the free exercise clause. The media have made it seem like O'Donnel was unaware of a fundamental Constitutional provision, when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it appeared to me that Coons was the one who was actually lacking in a basic understanding of the First Amendment.
Answer by JW B
Well according to the Supreme Court, it certainly does. That Establishment Clause is the key. Since the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, I think perhaps they are little more aware than you on what the meaning is. And that would be over 25 cases in which the principle has been upheld, by both Liberal AND Conservative courts. Or maybe you would agree more with Thomas Jefferson... "Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part: "...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..." Or James Madison "During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part: "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." http://www.religioustolerance.org/scs_intr.htm
Answer by jwthoughts
Because liberals and liberal judges who legislate from the bench, love to say that the Constitution is a living breathing document and should be interpreted for today. The reality is that the Framers did not intend that at all. They left an amendment process that is difficult for a reason. The liberals want to label any picture, reference, insinuation, or thought of religion by a government employee anywhere while on duty an attempt at "establishment of religion" That is how they misinterpreted those words to mean "separation of church and state" that does not appear there. The funny thing is that the part of the clause that DOES equate to separation of church and state is the part that says "OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF" For them to prohibit any government employee their right to free exercise of their faith it a violation of the Constitution. If a Senator wants to put the 10 commandments on his office door...the government cannot LEGALLY stop him according to the Constitution. That is his/her FREE EXERCISE of religion. The courts got the intent of the founding fathers 180 degrees off. The only thing that the Constitution says is that the government cannot CREATE LAWS that tell you that you must believe or how to believe. Liberal Bias....you are wrong once again. The amendment process is how we change the Constitution. It has never been amended to include "separation of church and state" Reality Bites..."wall of separation" does not appear in the Constitution either. Nice try thought...NOT!
Answer by timothy p
You are correct. It says the government has to stay out of it. They can't promote a state religion and they can't suppress it. It has to remain separate. Some people have taken the separation of church and state to mean the suppression of church by state. That is totally against how the text reads. People love to point to the first part but choose to ignore the second part. Many people hear separation of church and state and don't read the text.
Answer by a little fricking sarcasm
A wee bit more. "Respecting" in this case can mean both respecting as in establishing and as "in regards to". There can be no religion that the government supports which is the first part, and the second part means the government has to stay *completely* out of religion in all areas and anything religious. What it doesn't mean is a religion not being able to hold a stance on political issues, candidates, etc. Sure they can. They just can't have authority.
Answer by Cheryl
Under the terms being used today, NO. Thomas Jefferson's Letters to the churches speaks the meaning of Separation of Church and State real clear (How odd I am reading it as I am answering questions here, interesting. Some Quotes: Thomas Jefferson to The Baptist Associations in Dan-bury "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or Prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties." Christianity is a faith followed by those who believe in Christ, live,and teach according to the teaching of Jesus his precept are what The U.S. Constitution are based upon. Established Churches are of different denominations such as Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Protestant,... Our government was denied any legal, manipulating way to pick Catholic, or Baptist as our National Religion. Our government has violated our Constitutional Rights,and our Natural rights,and our rights of conscience(of what our children learn, of praying over a meal in public, of saying the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, and admitting we are one nation under God) by claiming that GOD, or Christ could not be taught in schools,and forced the Churches out of the public, which by the way the public is the peoples domain, not government domain. Our nation was never meant to be under Atheistic Rule since 1962. Which in the year of 2012 will be about 50 years.
Is It A Good Idea To Microwave An Apple?Experiment #22: Apple Not content with the traditional method of making Apple sauce, Jory looks for alternatives, using his microwave. So, you're probably wondering, Is It A Good Idea To Microwave This? Tune in to find out. Each week, microwave specialist Jory Caron microwaves different objects... so you don't have to! The "Jory Caron Microwave Laboratory II" is a state-of-the-art facility equipped with tinfoil shielding, a proper ventilation system, emergency surge protector, and of course - another Sharp Carousel microwave. ~~ Links ~~ FAQ Video --------- bit.ly Merchandise ------- bit.ly Flagged Videos --- bit.ly ~~ Connect With Us ~~ ::: Jonathan Paula ::: YouTube ---- bit.ly Facebook --- bit.ly Twitter ------- bit.ly ::: Jory Caron ::: YouTube ---- bit.ly Facebook --- bit.ly Twitter ------- bit.ly ::: Ezra Horne ::: YouTube ---- bit.ly Twitter ------- bit.ly ::: Jogwheel Productions ::: Facebook --- bit.ly Twitter ------- bit.ly ~~ Te chnical ~~ Created by ----- Jonathan Paula & Jory Caron Starring --------- Jory Caron, Jonathan Paula, & Ezra Horne Camera --------- Panasonic DVX-100b & Canon Elura 100 Software -------- Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 Computer ------ bit.ly • Jogwheel Productions © 2007 • ~
0 comments:
Post a Comment