When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Enjoy unlimited access to quality journalism.

Limited time offer

Get your 30-day free trial!

US STATE DEPT. (USA), AFP

Worldcrunch

An independent inquiry has criticized the State Department for inadequate security at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on the day of the September attack that killed four American government personnel including Ambassador John Christopher Stevens.

The 39-page unclassified report, which also cited intelligence failures, focused much of its attention on the on-site security at the Consulate: “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

The report cites the "remarkable heroism shown by American personnel" during the Sept 11 assault, but says the response was inadequate "in the face of a series of attacks that began with the sudden penetration of the Special Mission compound by dozens of armed attackers.”

The Board also cited intelligence failures and a lack of "understanding of extremist militias in Libya and the potential threat they posed to U.S. interests, although some threats were known to exist.”

The report concludes by saying that despite the shortfalls, "no individual U.S. Government employee engaged in misconduct or willfully ignored his or her responsibilities."

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she accepted "every one" of 29 recommendations made by the inquiry and was working to boost global security, according to the AFP.

In a letter to U.S. lawmakers, she said the State Department was partnering with the Pentagon to "dispatch hundreds of additional Marine Security Guards to bolster our posts."

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Ideas

Absolute Free Speech Is A Recipe For Violence: Notes From Paris For Monsieur Musk

Elon Musk bought Twitter in the name of absolute freedom. But numerous research shows that social media hate speech leads to actual violence. Musk and others running social networks need to strike a balance.

Absolute Free Speech Is A Recipe For Violence: Notes From Paris For Monsieur Musk

Freedom on social networks can result in insults and defamation

Jean-Marc Vittori

-Analysis-

PARIS — Elon Musk is the world's leading reckless driver. The ever unpredictable CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is now behind a very different wheel as the new head of Twitter.

He began by banning remote work before slightly backtracking and authorizing it for the company’s “significant contributors.” Now he’s opened the door to Donald Trump to return to Twitter, while at the same time vaunting a decrease in the number of hate-messages that appear on the social network…all while firing Twitter’s content moderation teams.

But this time, the world’s richest man will have to make choices. He’ll have to limit his otherwise unconditional love of free speech. “Freedom consists of being able to do everything that does not harm others,” proclaimed the French-born Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789.

Yet freedom on social networks results not only in insults and defamation, but sometimes also in physical aggression.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest