I was wondering what the US response should be to the killing of their ambassador to Libya. It’s a fairly serious offence in international relations, but in this case it is complicated no end by it having been done by a mob, in a country that has no real government because it recently overthrew its previous established regime with the help of the US. The best option IMO, would be to have your intelligence agencies establish the identities of the perpetrators, make them known to the world, and then either assist whatever Libyan government there is in arresting and prosecuting them, or in conducting an OBL sort of operation against them. This is of course, just a very half baked notion I came up with in the five minutes I spent thinking about it. I’m not even american.
So I wanted to know what the dope thinks, an American ambassador has been killed. What should the American response be?
ETA - I’m surprised there isn’t a thread about this already. If there is and I just wasn’t able to find it, please remove, merge or lock this. Also, I placed it in GD because I assumed people will disagree wildly about the different courses of action available. In case not suitable, please move.
The UN Security Council has already made clear that those responsible need to be brought to justice. I think keeping things well within the UN would be a good idea for the US right now, because I’m pretty sure this is something the members will agree on easily. That means: more agreement in the UNSC and also the US playing by the rules which makes everyone happy.
The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has already stated that Libyan authorities need to release statements about bringing those responsible to justice. Because the country is obviously a mess it might be necessary to get a resolution from the UNSC to assist the Libyans. Then the US can ask to have them extradited.
Anyway, that seems like a better idea to me than the US going in there for some secret missions and pissing off all manner of people. Also because the entire international community needs to make clear that killing ambassadors will always be detrimental to your cause.
Send over the FBI or other relevant US agency to investigate and collect usable evidence against the killer or killers (I’m sure this is already happening). Then try the accused in the US for killing Americans inside a US consulate office. If Libya is capable, politics might dictate they do it, as a show that they condemn what happened. I’m not sure how all that will play out. However, for now, we should be collecting evidence.
I was aware of this thread. It may be larger, but it is on a completely different, though related, topic which is why I’d started a different thread. The topic and the OP of the other thread had nothing to do with the killing of an ambassador and the US response to it.
ETA: Nor is any of the discussion in this thread centered around the question I’d asked in my OP. I don’t think this was the best action to have taken with that thread, but it’s not really something I care very deeply about, so carry on.
The CIA. And yes, drones are already being authorized and sent to Libya.
I doubt that’s going to happen. The most likely outcome is that whoever did this, if identified, gets hit by a Predator missile. I’m not sure if the guilty parties could be tried in the U.S. My understanding is that the idea of consulates and embassies as U.S. soil is pretty much fiction. Americans were killed, but the crime happened in Libya.
And while using the drone to take out people is likely, wouldn’t the US be served better by making a public example of these people, if they can be identified? Or would that just be too difficult? With the support of the Libyan government, and the people (which they seem to at least partially have, per links in this thread) it should be possible
Yes, arrests and trials are always preferable. Given the risks and complexity of grabbing terrorists in foreign countries, it’s not always possible. So I suspect there will be identification… based on DNA taken from the missile crater.
Why can’t there be both, Marley and bldysabba? Public identification of the alleged perpetrators, a public ‘indictment’ or complaint that lists why we think this guy’s guilty, an appeal to surrender to justice, and finally, when the guy doesn’t show up, a drone launched missile to carry out the sentence. Pity we don’t do trials in absentia, though I acknowledge the potential for abuse.
The public part, IMHO, is important. It’s not the droning qua droning I object to. It’s that the process goes on in secret, targets American citizens too (not likely to be at issue in this instance), and has next to no oversight, only the assurances from ‘top men’ that these are bad guys. And no end in sight to the maintenance of these extraordinary powers.
As I think I mentioned in the other thread, it’s still way early to determine what the U.S.'s response will be, and a lot of that will depend on what degree of cooperation the Libyan government provides in tracking down the perpetrators of this crime.
Some new news: This blog post alleges that the Libyan attack was done by elements of AQ to avenge their #2, Abu Yahya Al-Libi, getting droned three months ago. Their #2 was of Libyan descent, and the AQ #1, according to the article, exhorted Libyans to rise up and take revenge.
Then the post degenerates into conspiracy theory that the Egyptian government deliberately showed the movie in order to piss off Egyptians enough to attack the U.S. embassy. Some dot-connecting by the author is probably in order, and detracts from the persuasiveness of the piece.
Still, I thought it interesting and thought you might too. Additional details of the Benghazi attack certainly sound more thought-out than a mere protest that got out of hand.
Does the CIA collect evidence? Pre-9/11, no way, but I’m legitimately unsure since all that stuff has been reorganized.
I’m sure they will both be there. CIA collecting intelligence, FBI collecting evidence for use in a trial. But if there is no plan for a trial, then yea, no need to collect evidence. Just find out who did it and kill them.
They conduct all kinds of intelligence. I don’t see why they wouldn’t collect evidence here since they believe there’s a clear connection to terrorism in this case.
I don’t think the FBI operates overseas. My understanding is that the FBI operates domestically and the CIA legally cannot do so.
I"m not certain what the response should be, but part of me really thinks that we ought to simply start putting the screws to the new governments over this type of stuff. Pull out all aid programs and funds immediately. Freeze all American donated assets, etc. Make it clear that this type of bullshit isn’t going to fly, and until they get their populations under control they aren’t getting any help money or trade from us. Make it additionally clear, that any further attacks on us from their countries will be met with swift and disproportionate response.
I know that isn’t really the logical way to handle this, but crap like these incidents really riles me up.
My question re: the CIA is I’m not sure they’re trained to properly collect evidence (Miranda, chain of custody, ect.). If you mess up, it might not be admissible.
Also, the FBI can go anywhere it’s needed to investigate a violation of US law.
The new Libyan gov’t is literally a month old. It doesn’t even have a constitution yet. Its more then a little silly, and much more then a little counter-productive to get angry at them for not having complete control over their people. We’d be better off increasing aid and assistance to help them prevent uprisings like this.
More generally, I’m not sure there’s much to be done other then try and help the Libyan gov’t find the perpetrators (and increase Embassy security, obviously). Libya is a dangerous place and will remain so for at least the near-future. The best way to prevent future attacks is to strengthen the central gov’t, but thats what we were doing before the attacks, so I don’t see where anything has really changed.
They don’t follow the same chain-of-custody procedures US law enforcement personnel do, which makes any evidence they gather likely to be inadmissible in a US court.
Isn’t it likely that the intent of the attackers is specifically to drive a wedge between the (current) Libyan government and the US, by really riling us up so that we pull our aid?
You’re probably right they want the U.S. out of Libya so they can take on a weaker Libyan government. Whether the plan is a wedge- who knows. Over the last 11 years I’ve noticed that people ascribe almost every possible motive to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups- whatever the U.S. is doing in response to an attack, someone will say it’s exactly what AQ wants them to do. So I’m leery about speculating about what they want to happen or how they want to do it because they’re often vague or unclear on their details.
