Consider the source, but if true a head needs to roll

[Hayabusa Rider]

The First Rule is to question. That means that this may be untrue or even deliberate deceit.

Given that caveat, if this is indeed factual, then the Ambassador needs to be cleaning raw sewage pits.

REPORTS: No Live Ammo for Marines
Marine blogs say U.S. embassy did not authorize service members to carry ammo

An Egyptian protester throws a tear gas canister toward riot police during clashes near the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt, Sept. 13, 2012. (AP)

BY: Adam Kredo
September 13, 2012 1:20 pm

U.S. Marines defending the American embassy in Egypt were not permitted by the State Department to carry live ammunition, limiting their ability to respond to attacks like those this week on the U.S. consulate in Cairo.

Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson “did not permit U.S. Marine guards to carry live ammunition,” according to multiple reports on U.S. Marine Corps blogs spotted by Nightwatch. “She neutralized any U.S. military capability that was dedicated to preserve her life and protect the US Embassy.”

U.S. officials have yet to confirm or comment on the reports. Time magazine’s Battleland blog reported Thursday “Senior U.S. officials late Wednesday declined to discuss in detail the security at either Cairo or Benghazi, so answers may be slow in coming.”

If true, the reports indicate that Patterson shirked her obligation to protect U.S. interests, Nightwatch states.

“She did not defend U.S. sovereign territory and betrayed her oath of office,” the report states. “She neutered the Marines posted to defend the embassy, trusting the Egyptians over the Marines.”

While Marines are typically relied on to defend U.S. territory abroad, such as embassies, these reports indicate that the Obama administration was relying on Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed government to ensure American security, a move observers are questioning as violence in Cairo continues to rage.

Marc Toner, the State Department’s deputy spokesperson, did not respond to a request for comment from the Free Beacon. White House National Security Council spokesperson Tommy Vietor also did not respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. ambassador to any nation ultimately decides whether Marines are authorized to carry ammunition, according to a GOP national security adviser knowledgeable about American embassy protocols.

“In the end, the ambassador of any country has the final call on what to do in a country,” the source said. “The buck stops with you. You make every decision.”

Security procedures are subjective and subject to change depending on locale, the source said.

Each ambassador, in consultation with their Regional Security Officer (RSO), sets the policy regarding the rules of engagement, according to the adviser. The RSO is responsible for coordinating all security measures and reports directly to the ambassador in any given nation.

“A decision or order to set rules of engagement that you can’t carry live ammunition and can’t engage violent crowds climbing over your walls and tearing down your flag stems from direct orders from the Chief of Mission and possibly whoever the Chief of Mission reports to,” the source explained.

Given that the siege of the Cairo embassy unfolded over many hours, the source wondered if new orders pertaining to the rules of engagement were ever issued.

Ambassador Anne Patterson was in D.C. during the attacks, according to reports.

“I cannot believe that over an eight hour period that nobody … in that chain of command did not ask those questions of their superiors,” the source said. “These protestors did not just appear and within 20 minutes climb the wall.”

The Free Beacon will continue to update this report as events warrant.

Link to article

I've already addressed the issue of this being false or misleading so if that's the case then the ambassador is cleared of wrongdoing, however if this is indeed what happened it's unforgivable. You do not put people in harms way with the responsibility for the protection of others and remove the means to do so. You don't do it. While the host nation has primary responsibility the marines are there because that does not always turn out as we'd expect or like as was the case here.

I want to know what happened. If the facts are that this is false, then the scorn falls on the writers of the article. If true the ambassador is a disgrace.

 

[PokerGuy]

Source is iffy, but it seems very plausible. Absolutely irresponsible if true, and those kinds of orders come from way up high.....

 

[Incorruptible]

Not sure if the source is trusted but its definitely possible that this came from obama, he wouldn't want any Muslims getting hurt but has no problems if its Christians. Disgusted by this pos

 

[spidey07]

Great idea! Couple marines should have kept some rounds or a pump "just in case".

 

[surfsatwerk]

Great idea! Couple marines should have kept some rounds or a pump "just in case".

Flame throwers could have put the crowd down pretty quickly.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I have heard that rumor previously.

the Marines externally are for show. there is live ammo available; but they are not to have it on them until authorized by the diplomatic staff.

 

[Emos]

Great idea! Couple marines should have kept some rounds or a pump "just in case".

I like to keep this...for close encounters.

 

[Budmantom]

If this is true I am sure our dear leader knew nothing about it and shall remain blameless.

 

[Emos]

I have heard that rumor previously.

the Marines externally are for show. there is live ammo available; but they are not to have it on them until authorized by the diplomatic staff.

If true, it's definitely a weakness that can be exploited.

 

[rudder]

I have heard that rumor previously.

the Marines externally are for show. there is live ammo available; but they are not to have it on them until authorized by the diplomatic staff.

I wonder is that is dependent on the wishes of the ambassador. I remember my days in the Philippines and the embassy guards were definitely carrying ammo (at least in the CIA office ).

I know of other instances where marines fired on threats to embassies in other parts of Africa.

Unfortunately the Libya office where the ambassador was killed was not a fully functional embassy and had no marine guards... methinks the ambassador would still be alive.

 

[Incorruptible]

If this is true I am sure our dear leader knew nothing about it and shall remain blameless.

obama is responsible for the killings, hes so scared of offending Muslims that he would let these guys die. Why did they not have live ammo?

 

[JKing106]

Linking to an obvious right wing shit rag that nobody has ever heard of. That's fucking brilliant. Was dead-piece-of-shit Bretibart's site down, or something?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I have heard that rumor previously.

the Marines externally are for show. there is live ammo available; but they are not to have it on them until authorized by the diplomatic staff.

Nevertheless they are there and armed. I can see not having live weapons during ordinary times, but again if true there was a long time where permission could be given. In effect they and the staff were expendable to any protester who made it over the wall. Doesn't sit well.

Heavens I hope no one really did that.

 

[Incorruptible]

Linking to an obvious right wing shit rag that nobody has ever heard of. That's fucking brilliant. Was dead-piece-of-shit Bretibart's site down, or something?

The tolerant left striking again, making fun of dead people

 

[Emos]

Linking to an obvious right wing shit rag that nobody has ever heard of. That's fucking brilliant. Was dead-piece-of-shit Bretibart's site down, or something?

Umm he did say that this needs to be questioned and verified instead of accepting it at blind partisan faith, sounds reasonable to me *shrugs*

 

[kage69]

Horrible, if true. I'm all for avoiding situations that could inflame tensions outside the embassy, but on Sovereign US Territory all bets are off. If local governments can't be bothered to keep raiding crowds away from diplomatic posts, then it falls to Marines to do it.


'What are we supposed to use man, harsh language?'

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Linking to an obvious right wing shit rag that nobody has ever heard of. That's fucking brilliant. Was dead-piece-of-shit Bretibart's site down, or something?

The whole thread is contingent on this being correct. The issue is whether the Marines were armed and if not why. The title itself starts with "Consider the source" to help prevent some dimwit from coming up with nonsense. You obliged anyway.

 

[Budmantom]

obama is responsible for the killings, hes so scared of offending Muslims that he would let these guys die. Why did they not have live ammo?

One doesn't need ammo to apologize.

 

[Emos]

Nevertheless they are there and armed. I can see not having live weapons during ordinary times, but again if true there was a long time where permission could be given. In effect they and the staff were expendable to any protester who made it over the wall. Doesn't sit well.

Heavens I hope no one really did that.

That would be like the Pratorian Guard brandishing training swords instead of a trusty gladius just for show only.

 

[Lithium381]

if this is true, and it's a cmmon theme around the world, it sounds like open season on our embassies

 

[Incorruptible]

if this is true, and it's a cmmon theme around the world, it sounds like open season on our embassies

Only in Muslim countries, bark has to pander to them, if its Christians he doesn't care if they have to die

 

[spacejamz]

Great idea! Couple marines should have kept some rounds or a pump "just in case".

Gorman: Apone! Look... we can't have any firing in there. I, uh... I want you to collect magazines from everybody.
Hudson: Is he fuckin' crazy?
Frost: What the hell are we supposed to use man? Harsh language?

 

[kage69]

If this is true I am sure our dear leader knew nothing about it and shall remain blameless.

Your unimaginative and snarky attempt to involve Obama makes you look stupid, did you know that?

If Colin Powell can be kept "out of the loop" about something as huge as the details and justifications for a full scale invasion, then it's entirely plausible that Obama could be out of the loop concerning security procedures in one of the hundreds of embassies we maintain around the globe.

If it comes out that the White House made a directive specifically calling for this however, bash away. Till then, this unconfirmed story looks to be the work of a stupendously stupid Ambassador.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That would be like the Pratorian Guard brandishing training swords instead of a trusty gladius just for show only.

That's not far from the truth. The Marines are there more for ceremonial purposes than serve as the main deterrent force. As Eaglekeeper correctly states it is the obligation of the host nation to provide for the security of an embassy. Even so in an unstable political environment prudence dictates contingency plans which include the absence or death of senior staff. A government failing to prevent an assault on our embassy would seem to meet the trigger for such action. Perhaps there is and everything went as well as it possibly could, but in any case the actions of the embassy staff deserve close inspection.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If it comes out that the White House made a directive specifically calling for this however, bash away. Till then, this unconfirmed story looks to be the work of a stupendously stupid Ambassador.

I agree. One cannot make a rational judgment in the absence of data. Speculating beyond the immediate allegations does not serve the truth, and then I'll say it again, this is all unverified. It rises to a sufficient level of concern for me to bring it up, but I'm not ready to reach for the noose.