Documents indicate Libyan police may have been involved in planning Benghazi consulate attack

Writing in Foreign Policy, reporters maintain that six weeks after the attack on the compound where the U.S. ambassador was killed, there are still sensitive documents to be found that shed light on the attack.

The circumstances surrounding the attack on the Benghazi consulate and associated "safe house" are becoming more and more mind-boggling. An earlier Digital Journal article explores some of the issues with the White House response. Now, an article in Foreign Policy by Harald Doornbos and Jenan Moussa, raises even more troubling questions.

The reporters visited the fire-ravaged compound where Chris Stevens and another foreign service officer died on Sept. 11. When they visited on Oct. 26, they found that the compound still contained sensitive documents, including drafts of two letters that indicate that the compound was under "surveillance" by the Libyan police, and that the Libyan government had not met requests for additional security.

That these documents were still in the compound almost a month after the FBI searched the compound for evidence about the attack is astonishing. Surely the first thing that is done at a crime scene is to isolate the area and not let anyone in until everything is examined thoroughly and any significant items removed. How can one explain that reporters are allowed into the scene and find these items? No wonder there are all sorts of conspiracy theories about U.S. policy. Is it really possible that agents would overlook this evidence?

The reporters claim that they found Steven's personal copy of the Aug. 6, New Yorker, or remnants of it, lying on the bed in the safe room where Stevens spent his final hours. They also found several ash-covered documents in the Tactical Operations Center, that had been looted and was partially destroyed. Some of the documents are clearly marked as State Department correspondence.

Among the documents found were two draft letters unsigned but both dated Sept. 11, the day of the attack. One letter was addressed to Mohamed Obeidi, the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Office in Benghazi. Part of it reads:

"Finally, early this morning at 0643, September 11, 2012, one of our diligent guards made a troubling report. Near our main gate, a member of the police force was seen in the upper level of a building across from our compound. It is reported that this person was photographing the inside of the U.S. special mission and furthermore that this person was part of the police unit sent to protect the mission. The police car stationed where this event occurred was number 322."

The IT officer, Smith, who also was killed in the attack had also remarked earlier on Sept. 11 on a gaming forum:.

"Assuming we don't die tonight. We saw one of our ‘police' that guard the compound taking pictures."

The State Department would not comment directly on the documents found by the reporters because of an ongoing investigation. Mark Toner, a spokesperson said:

"An independent board is conducting a thorough review of the assault on our post in Benghazi. Once we have the board's comprehensive account of what happened, findings and recommendations, we can fully address these matters."

The documents also suggest that the Libyan authorities had been asked earlier on Sept. 9 for extra security because of the Ambassador's visit and claim that the Libyan authorities refused to provide the extra support. The document says in part:

"On Sunday, September 9, 2012, the U.S. mission requested additional police support at our compound for the duration of U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens' visit. We requested daily, twenty-four hour police protection at the front and rear of the U.S. mission as well as a roving patrol. In addition we requested the services of a police explosive detection dog.

We were given assurances from the highest authorities in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that all due support would be provided for Ambassador Stevens' visit to Benghazi. However, we are saddened to report that we have only received an occasional police presence at our main gate. Many hours pass when we have no police support at all."

A second draft letter, as well as the first, requested an investigation into the police surveillance incident. The letter asked for the highest consideration of the issues raised and increased cooperation. The head of the Benghazi police Brigadier Hmeidah was fired a week after the attack. However, the chief refused to step down. According to his office manager, he is on sick leave right now. The new appointee to the job Salah Doghman said in an interview on Sept. 19 with Reuters:

"This is a mess ...When you go to the police headquarters, you will find there no police. The people in charge are not at their desks. They have refused to let me take up my job."

The reporters claim that the documents may have escaped FBI notice because of continued threats to U.S. personnel in Benghazi. Surely, the U.S. has the wherewithal to protect the area while a thorough search was carried out for documents. A Benghazi resident near the compound said that the FBI team spent only about three hours at the compound searching for evidence. This all looks, from my viewpoint, as incompetence on an almost unimaginable scale.

U.S. voting machines open to hacking, rigging. System lacks transparency.

The chief of Russia's Central Election Commission, Vladimir Churov, ranks the U.S. electoral system as one of the worst in the world.

The west is quite familiar with criticism by western observers of elections in other parts of the world but now the United States is also being criticized by the head of the Russian Central Election Commission. In an article in a Russian news outlet, Vladimir Churov claims that the U.S. voting system lacks transparency.

International observers are allowed only in a few states in the U.S. including North Dakota, South Dakota, New Mexico, and Missouri, and D.C. In all other states, the governors have the final say over whether OSCE monitors are allowed. Churov maintains that even in states where they are allowed, observers have sometimes been barred from entering polling stations. This lack of transparency, Churov argues, leaves the way open for manipulation and fraud. Churov next turns to the issue of voting machines.

Voting machines have been an issue for years in U.S. politics. The machines do not provide a receipt for voting and they are subject to manipulation. Actually, there are good reasons not to provide a receipt for a vote. The receipt could be used to sell votes etc. However, a paper ballot plus scrutineers, would seem to provide a much better record and allows ballots to be checked and numbers cast confirmed etc.

Churov said:

"American voting machines have not been designed to provide any documentary evidence of citizen participation in the electoral process. Moreover, operators [of the machinery] are technically capable of adding or dropping votes in favor of one candidate or another, leaving behind no evidence of violations.”

In a recent Harper's Magazine article, Victoria Collier also criticizes the use of voting machines. She claims that with the introduction of the new technology a brave new world of election rigging emerged. She complains that voting technology has been outsourced to a handful of corporations that operate in the shadows, as she puts it.

The trend towards voting machines dates far back to 2002 when George W. Bush offered states $3.9billion in subsidies through the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to help modernize election administration. Bush apppointed DeForest Soaries to head the Election Assistance Commission created by HAVA to oversee security standards for new voting devices. Soaries resigned in 2005. He maintained his office was a charade and that he had been deceived by the White House and Congress. Soaries said

“... there’s an erosion of voting rights implicit in our inability to trust the technology that we use. And if we were another country being analyzed by America, we would conclude that this country is ripe for stealing elections and for fraud.”

Now Churov is saying precisely what Soaries said seven years ago!

Computer science and security experts at the Vulnerability Assessment Team at the Argonne National Laboratory in Illiniois have demonstrated, that for an expenditure of about ten dollars in parts and armed with a limited knowledge of technology, a person could hack into about one quarter of the voting machines used by Americans. The hacker could manipulate the vote without leaving a trace.

There are already suspicions that votes have been altered in the past. In the 2004 presidential election the CEO of Deibold a manufacturer of voting machines said that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president." According to Collier's article:

“In one Ohio precinct, exit polls indicated that Kerry should have received 67 per cent of the vote, but the certified tally gave him only 38 per cent. The odds of such an unexpected outcome occurring only as a result of sampling error are 1 in 867,205,553.”

Churov also criticizes the electoral college system. Churov notes:"It is generally believed that the American people will elect their president on November 6. In fact, the president – an individual bestowed with enormous powers – will be elected by the so-called Electoral College. The president will be elected by the 280 electors, not by all American citizens."

Churov concludes that even with international observers conditions in U.S. elections are such as not to guarantee a democratic process.

While Russia has its own shortcomings when it comes to democracy, this may mostly be for reasons other than the mechanics of voting itself. In the U.S., on the other hand, the actual mechanics may contribute to manipulation of the results. Surprisingly, there does not seem much emphasis this campaign on the issue of voting machines. Any Americans who vote using voting machines are engaged in faith-based voting.