Brennan tries to paint a happy face on this, but its implication is clear. “Arab Spring” Egypt won’t let U.S. officials talk to Abu Ahmed, and “Arab Spring” Tunisia released al-Harzi. Neither one is a friend of the U.S., despite the warm support Obama gave to the “Arab Spring” uprisings. Both are Islamic supremacist regimes whose hostility to the U.S. will become ever clearer as time goes by.
“US denied direct access to Benghazi suspect held in Egypt,” by Catherine Herridge for FoxNews.com, February 21 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):
The U.S. has been denied direct access to the only publicly known suspect in custody in connection with the Benghazi terror attack, Fox News has learned, with U.S. interrogators still unable to sit in the same room as the Egypt-held prisoner to ask questions.
Abu Ahmed, also known as Mohammed Jamal, is suspected of establishing Islamist training camps in Eastern Libya where militants who took part in the Sept. 11 Benghazi terrorist attack were able to train.
Ahmed is not suspected of directly taking part in the attack which left four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. But this is at least the second time U.S. interrogators have been denied access to a suspect held by a foreign government.
In January, Tunisian authorities released Ali Ani al-Harzi, who is suspected of taking part in the attack, citing a lack of evidence.
FBI agents finally got access to al-Harzi after the personal intervention of Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham….
Separately, sources familiar with the case told Fox News that Egyptian authorities have been providing to U.S. authorities information from their own investigation of Ahmed.
The implication is that the lack of direct access does not mean a total lack of information. In recent confirmation hearings, the president’s nominee for CIA director was pressed about the Tunisian case and the problems the FBI faced.
When Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., asked about access to al-Harzi, White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan said: “We work with our partners across the board and when they are able to detain individuals, according to their laws, we work to see if we can have the ability to ask them questions, sometimes indirectly and sometimes directly.”