This is NOT what Ahmed Abu Khattala was drinking.

Someone would like you to know that alleged terrorist, Ahmed Abu Khattala, was drinking a strawberry frappe, not a mango juice, at a hotel in Benghazi, as he spoke to New York Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick about his suspected involvement in the attack on the U.S. Consulate last month.

Mr. Abu Khattala's beverage was initially erroneously reported, but, in perhaps the best correction to date, the Times has updated the story with the full correct details about the drink the terror suspect was sipping while scoffing at the US.

The article has been updated with the following correction:

Correction: October 19, 2012

An earlier version of this article described incorrectly a beverage that Ahmed Abu Khattala was drinking at a hotel in Benghazi, Libya. It was a strawberry frappe, not mango juice, which is what he had ordered.

It now reads:

But just days after President Obama reasserted his vow to bring those responsible to justice, Mr. Abu Khattala spent two leisurely hours on Thursday evening at a crowded luxury hotel, sipping a strawberry frappe on a patio and scoffing at the threats coming from the American and Libyan governments," the Times reported today.

Although we wonder who brought the error to the newspaper's attention, we suppose it is this kind of attention to detail that makes the Times the Times.

Update (3:23 p.m.): Times Foreign Editor Joe Kahn gave the backstory behind this correction in an email to the Observer.

"David Kirkpatrick called in the correction himself after the initial version of the story had been published. Re-reading his story after he woke up in Libya, David realized Abu Kattala had ordered mango juice, but that the waiter had brought him strawberry," Mr. Khan wrote. "It's a very minor change but he didn't want to let it slip, and we always let readers know when the content of stories has been changed for factual reasons."

Originally we reached out to the Times' former foreign editor Susan Chira for this story. We subsequently realized she was made assistant managing editor for news and replaced as foreign editor by Mr. Kahn in October of 2011 and we emailed Mr. Kahn. Yes, we do appreciate the humor in the fact we are posting a correction on a story about a correction.

Muammar Qaddafi

Though the deposed Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi remains in hiding, the rebels that overthrew his rule have begun to sort through the damage that has been done in the months of fighting. According to the Guardian, they have some good news to report: at Libya's national archaeological museum, the Jamahiriya Museum, almost no works were damaged.

That is not to say that the rebels did not pay a visit to the Jamahiriya. In late August, a group of 20 men entered the museum, searching for a secret tunnel into one of Qaddafi's residences. While visiting, they came across a variety of cars that the self-styled "king of kings" had installed on the top floor of the museum, which is primarily devoted to ancient art.

The rebels proceeded to smash the automobiles, which included a Volkswagen Beetle and a Jeep that the leader used in the 1960s as he was coming to power.

"It was a revolution – you can't resist. It was better to let the rebels in than have them enter by force," Mustafa Turjman, the head of research for Libya's department of archaeology, told the paper. "When they saw the objects belonging to Gaddafi they couldn't resist."

Museum officials said that they will eventually restore the cars. Said Mohamed Shakshuki, the acting president of the department of archaeology, "Staff never wanted to display the cars but we could not refuse… We don't consider them part of the classical collection. In the future, however, we will expose them to the public because they are part of our history."

Mr. Hope and his colleagues hired a driver and pushed along the coast, trying to get as close as possible to Sirte, where rebels and loyalists were amassing for an anticipated battle or surrender.

"We hardly expected to get as far as this little town called An Nawfiliyah and, once there, we only found rebels in pick-up trucks with machine guns. Another journalist was wearing a flak jacket because he thought the area was unsafe. Then I saw my colleague Kristen Chick from the Christian Science Monitor at this circle of cheering men. I grabbed my notebook and found this unbelievable kid who had made it all the way to the front line," Mr. Hope wrote The Observer in an e-mail from Libya.

Mr. Hope's story was remarkably detailed: Mr. Jeon was still wearing a Los Angeles basketball jersey, had purchased a one-way ticket to save money in the event of his capture, and had been given a nickname, Ahmed El Maghrabi Saidi Barga, which combines tribal and geographic nouns into the Arabic phrase he knows, and repeats, to rebel cheers.

“Whatever you do, don’t tell my parents,” Mr. Jeon asked Mr. Hope. “They don’t know I’m here.”

The Observer asked Mr. Hope if he acquiesced.

"We informed the local US consulate about him, and they have his name," Mr. Hope told The Observer in an e-mail message. "We have terrible access to the internet here and sporadic phone reception, so we didn't have a chance to speak to his family or anyone back in California."

It's safe to say they've gotten wind by now. Mr. Hope's story immediately went viral and was widely disseminated across other news sources. Mr. Jeon has acquired a Facebook fan page.

A reporter for Al Jazeera tweeted that rebels were "fed up" with Mr. Jeon and he had been sent home, but the latest reports from Mr. Hope say he's still the celebrated mascot of Libyan rebels.

Prior to The National, Mr. Hope was a crime reporter for The New York Sun. He graduated from NYU in 2006 and lives in Brooklyn.

Some critics of the president's action, including Congressman Jerrold Nadler, have invoked the cautionary tale of the Taliban, which the U.S. armed to fight Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

Today, Senator Chuck Schumer offered one way the rebels might begin to prove their goodwill to the international community: by extraditing the convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

"This should be straightforward and simple, if you get our support, we get al-Megrahi," said Schumer in a press release. "We are putting American lives on the line, and American taxpayers' money to use to protect Libyan civilians and, in effect, supporting the rebels so it makes perfect sense to insist that support for their cause is conditioned upon sending al-Megrahi back to prison where he belongs."

Al-Megrahi received a compassionate release from a Scottish prison last year, and his re-incarceration has been a cause of Schumer's ever since. Last summer, Schumer wondered whether the British helped secure al-Megrahi's release in order to receive favorable oil deals from the Libyan government.

Schumer has previously cautioned against expanding the U.S. role in the Libyan uprising.

"The Libyan opposition has an opportunity to show the world that the country is ready to join the international community and respects the rule of law," said Schumer. "Extraditing this known terrorist would be a significant step in that direction and I urge the administration and the State Department to predicate any material or diplomatic support for the opposition to their commitment to extradite this terrorist so that he can spend the rest of his life in prison."

Schumer included this letter to his former partner in the Senate, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:

March 31, 2011

Dear Secretary Clinton:

I write to request that the U.S. Department of State condition any long term support or recognition of the Libyan opposition movement or the National Transitional Council of the Libyan Republic, on a public, enforceable commitment by the opposition to send to the United States Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan terrorist convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 that killed 270 people, including 189 Americans, so that he may be tried and convicted in an American criminal court.

On December 21, 1988, Pan Am Flight 103, en route from London's Heathrow Airport to New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport, exploded over the town of Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 people on the ground.  Many New Yorkers were among the 189 Americans killed in the bombing.  In 2001, after thirteen long years, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Al-Megrahi was released by the Scottish Government on August 20, 2009 after serving eight years in prison for the 1988 attack on Pan Am Flight 103.  The Scottish Government claimed the release was a compassionate gesture given al-Megrahi's failing health and he was purportedly expected to have three months to live. There is considerable and well-founded doubt surrounding both this diagnosis and the events that led to al-Megrahi's release from prison. As of March 2011, almost two and a half years after the diagnosis of terminal prostate cancer was made in September 2008, al-Megrahi still remains alive and media outlets have reported that he has been living at his family's lavish villa.

On March 17, 2011 the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1973 with a 10-0 vote and five abstentions. Resolution 1973 sanctioned the establishment a no-fly zone and the use of "all means necessary" to protect civilians within Libya. Additionally, in the last month, the United States has mobilized a strong international coalition, secured an international agreement to protect civilians, prevented the advance of a deadly army, established a no-fly zone and worked to prevent the massacre of innocent life in Libya. The U.S.'s firm commitment to protecting innocent life in Libya should be held into account by any future Libyan government-and the opposition movement that has demonstrated its goal to live in free and accountable Libya must demonstrate its commitment to justice by ensuring that a global terrorist like al-Megrahi lives out his days in prison, not in a luxurious villa.

I thank you for your attention to this important matter, and am eager to work with you to ensure that justice is done and that the families of the victims of this atrocity can see that their government is doing everything it can to ensure a public, enforceable commitment by the Libyan opposition to send to the United States Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Libyan terrorist convicted of the 1988 bombing of Pan-Am flight 103 that killed 270 people, including 189 Americans, so that he may be tried and convicted in an American criminal court.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer

United States Senator

 

 

Libya: Obama's speech. [WSJ]

Libya: "He declined to label the U.S.-led military campaign as a “war,” but made an expansive case for why he believed it was in the national interest of the United States and allies to use force." [AP]

Libya: Obama didn't say when we're leaving. [Marc Ambinder]

Libya: "[M]ade clear that he would rely on political, financial and other pressures—not military force—to drive him out." [WSJ]

Libya: "Presidents get more credit for stopping atrocities after they begin than for preventing them before they get out of hand." [Tom Malinowski]

Libya: "He was making this mission more like a '90s-style intervention than an indeologically motivated lengthy misadventure." [Alex Pareene]

Geraldine Ferraro: "[M]any of us…expected better." [Ta-Nehisi Coates]

State Budget: How Cuomo won. [Fred Dicker]

State Budget: "Mr. Silver suddenly finds himself diminished, leading a depleted Democratic caucus that is more politically isolated than at any time in years. And he has found himself in the formidable shadow of Mr. Cuomo, the freshman Democratic governor who has reinvigorated an office already vested with considerable powers." [Nick Confessore]

State Budget: Legislators keep "two pots of pork money Gov. Andrew Cuomo had sought to divert to other uses." [Jimmy Vielkind]

State Budget: Bloomberg doesn't like it. [Dave Evans]

State Budget: "Unleashing a lengthy critique of the emerging budget, Mr. Bloomberg described Mr. Cuomo's deal as an inequitable and half-baked attempt to deal with fiscal strain." [Jacob Gershman]

State Budget: More Cuomo and Bloomberg sparring. [Glenn Blain and Erin Einhorn]

State Budget: "Cuomo told Mayor Bloomberg to quit his whining." [Brendan Scott and David Seifman]

Independence Party: In Rockland County, they failed to file financial disclosure reports and are facing $4,000 in fines. [Laura Incalcaterra]

"Well, obviously the president has made a limited engagement in Libya because of the humanitarian crisis," said Gillibrand, who noted the military action also had approval from the U.N., NATO allies and the Arab League. "His mission is to protect the innocent Libyan lives he can by enforcing a no-fly zone," she said.

Gillibrand did not definitely express support for what the president was doing, but merely reiterated what he has said publicly. She hinted at areas of concern, repeatedly referring to "limited" military engagement.

Rep. Nadler was more expansive in his remarks. He reiterated his skepticism about the president's stated goals, and complained about the lack of congressional approval for the action.

"I have not heard, have not seen the evidence that justifies our involvement in Libya so far," he said. "We are supposedly in Libya to prevent massacres. Well, maybe. I have not seen any evidence that there were going to be any massacres."

He said there was a civil war in that country, "but we don't involve ourselves in every civil war."

Nadler went on to say, "if there was a real necessity" for this action, "Congress should have been called back into session immediately." "But," he added, "I don't think it is right for the executive to have the untrammeled authority to start a war."

Before there were any follow-up questions following Nadler's remarks, Mayor Bloomberg announced the two lawmakers had other places to be. (All three were on hand to announce federal legislation to allow New York City and other local governments more authority in setting fuel standards for their taxis.)

President Obama is expected to discuss Libya during a televised speech tonight. 

"We have two goals," Schumer said. "The first is the humanitarian goal of preventing Muammar Qaddafi from rolling in and massacring innocent civilians."

In stating the second goal, Schumer echoed his words from the last several weeks--and Morning Joe this morning--that the Obama administration aims "to disrupt the command, control and supply" of Qaddafi's forces, preferably with the aid of European and Arab nations that have far more economic and social investments in Libya than does the U.S. "It's time that they stepped up," said the senator.

When asked about the administration's exit strategy, Sen. Schumer put greater emphasis on the military's current plan of action. "Our goal is to allow the major proportion of action to be taken up by NATO, the United Emirates, and the Arab League countries. We want to give them as much control as possible. No one is envisioning ground troops. Our goal is to slow down Qaddafi so that the rebel forces can have a chance."

He concluded: "My watch word is and always has been 'caution'. We need to be careful that the United States' role doesn't expand."

Here's his Morning Joe appearance (which concludes with some comments about Anthony Weiner's hair):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Maloney had summoned the press to the City Hall steps to discuss Republican efforts to terminate federal foreclosure-avoidance programs, but one special guest, Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel, took the occasion to continue his criticism of the president's executive decision to intervene in Libya.

Rangel has been one of the most outspoken critics of the president's decision, including an editorial in the Daily News this morning, and he couldn't help himself during the question-and-answer session.

"You sound like you want to say something about Libya," one reporter pressed. "Are you concerned that there needs to be more advice and consent?"

"There doesn't need to be more, there has to be some," Rangel said. "And it would be interesting even at the end of the press conference if we find out how much is the war costing us? I think it's a million dollars a rocket, I think we're on the way to 500 million, and we're still going...I don't want to talk about Libya."

"But you raised it four or five times," the reporter noted. "I figured you wanted to go there."

"Well, I don't want to take away from this press conference," Rangel said, "but anybody who's glanced at the Constitution will tell you that, president after president ever since Roosevelt, have [sic] ignored the constitutional mandate to check with the American people before they put our kids in harm's way. And Congress has just completely been ignored about this. If indeed our role is one of humaneness, we have to see whether we can develop a policy to see whether Sudan and other areas should be treated the same way. But we're here because we're broke, or at least they say we're broke--"

The reporter noted that it was the congressman who had made the connection.

"Well, how can you not?" Rangel said. "It's costing us two billion a week in Afghanistan, that money is coming from somewhere, and all of a sudden we're slashing this program for people, laying off teachers, fireman, the whole works. And this is not for free."

Finally, Maloney--who had been visibly amused by the exchange--was asked for her opinion.

"I agree completely," she said, but added, "I am pleased with the president's statement that in a couple of days they're going to be turning over the leadership to the Arab League, NATO, and others, and hopefully that means we can bring our men and our dollars back to the housing programs and the needs of the American people."

Rangel jumped in, "Now, who are they going to turn their leadership over to in Libya?"

"He seemed so intent on getting multi-lateral support, United Nations support," rather than congressional support, King told John Gambling during a radio interview on WOR Wednesday morning.

"I don't think he spoke to the committees, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee," said King, who chairs the Homeland Security Committee and seemed particularly annoyed that he didn't hear about this from the president directly.

"On St. Patrick's Day Thursday, I was at a lunch sitting two seats away from the president and three seats away from the [House] Speaker, and Libya never even came up."

That was Jerry Nadler, the liberal Democratic congressman, in an interview this weekend, referring to President Obama and the military intervention in Libya.

Those concerns were also raised on a conference call Saturday, where other liberals, like Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, raised constitutional questions about Mr. Obama's actions.

The tension is over who has the authority to declare war, the Congress, or the president? Nadler, and his colleagues, say had the president sought congressional approval before taking military action, many of the questions they now have could have been answered.

The split on Libya is also dividing liberal and conservative non-interventionists from liberal and conservative interventionists.

Hence John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, who have been harshly critical of the Obama administration for waiting several days before agreeing to participate in a multilateral military attack on the forces of Mohamar Qaddafi, are on the same side as Hillary Clinton and other Democrats who tend to regard Bill Clinton's decision to intervene in Bosnia as the height of enlightened humanitarianism.

"We did not lead this," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was quoted saying this Sunday in the New York Times and other outlets. "We did not engage in unilateral actions in any way, but we strongly support the international community taking action against governments and leaders who behave as Qaddafi is unfortunately doing so now."

Nadler, who is generally a hawk on Israel, but who was also an early proponent of unilateral withdrawal from Iraq, doesn't buy the argument about multilateralism. "It doesn't matter that the U.S. is not taking the lead," said Nalder. "So what. We are still using U.S. military forces" and "the fact that other countries are doing it to are irrelevant. This act was unconstitutional."

French and British forces led the military assault in support rebel forces in Libya, who seek to depose President Qaddafi, whom President Obama has already said "needs to go." But Nadler said that the decision to pile in against the rebels could set a precedent for American forces taking action all over the place.

"If we're intervening for humanitarian reasons, why not the Ivory Coast or Darfur? Why here ?" he asked. "We cannot intervene at every situation."

"It's hard to see any vital national interest" in Libya, he said, referring to the constitutional powers a president has for using military force without the requisite consent of the congress beforehand.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, who has been broadly supportive of the steps taken in Libya, has warned of uncertainty about the mission.

"I do believe we must be a country that steps in to protect citizens from despotic leaders of their own country," Weiner said at a press conference this Sunday.  When I asked Weiner why there was intervention in Libya, versus other places facing political unrest, he said, "We haven't heard the president articulate that. It's been only a vague articulation from the president's cabinet."

He went on to repeat explanations he said came from the president's administration about why Libya was more suitable for U.S. military action: "that this was an achievable objective, making it different from other places around the world; this is something that there's a ready-made coalition, making it different than places like the Congo," he said.

"But that's a question a lot of members in Congress were asking," he said.

"Who are these rebels?" Mr. Nadler asked, referring to the soldiers on the ground in Libya. "Are they democratic, with a little d? Look at what we did in Afghanistan. We armed anti-Soviet forces, and we got the Taliban."

[Note: This item was slightly expanded from an earlier draft.]