On September 11, 2012, terrorists attacked the American Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi, Libya. Four men died in the attack, including a U.S. ambassador, and 10 others were injured. As has become customary with terrorist attacks, there was constant coverage of the attack by newsrooms all over the world. And as terrorism has become a more prevalent occurrence, newspapers have been confronted with unique ethical issues. This study examines how four international newspapers – The New York Times in the United States, The International Herald Tribune in France, The Gulf Times in Qatar and The Guardian in Britain— responded to the attack in Benghazi and whether they violated journalism ethical codes in three specific areas. A content analysis of 140 print articles published in a little more than three weeks after the attack revealed that The New York Times and The International Herald Tribune were more likely to frame the attack around politics, whereas The Guardian and The Gulf Times focused on international ramifications of the attack. It also found that all four newspapers changed their stories on what was to blame for the attack as time went on. In this study, a total of 41 violations of ethical codes were displayed. The Guardian presented the highest number with 15. These findings suggest that the newspaper’s geographic separation from the incident and Britain’s lack of personal involvement may have influenced its coverage. Additionally, the findings revealed that journalism ethics codes need to be updated to reflect some of the moral dilemmas that are unique to terrorist attacks.