About that Secret Program
Last week it was reported that CIA Director Leon Panetta briefed Congress about a secret CIA program that Vice President Dick Cheney had personally ordered the CIA not to disclose to Congress. Panetta himself apparently learned about the program for the first time on June 23 of this year and immediately ordered that it be terminated. These reports have, understandably, led to widespread speculation about what exactly this program was.
The New York Times now appears to have cleared up the mystery. Apparently the program, which never got past the planning stages, involved sending out Munich-style assassination teams to take out terrorist suspects around the world.
Some have expressed skepticism about this explanation, suggesting that it doesn't add up, that targeted assassinations aren't all that different--at least from a legal/political perspective--from the drone attacks that we've been carrying out since the Clinton administration. David Kurtz at TPM writes:
If the New York Times is correct, this program was intended to take out people all over the world, presumably including places like Hamburg, Paris, and Jakarta. There's quite a big difference, both legally and diplomatically, between sending a missile into a training camp in Afghanistan and sending an assassination team into an apartment complex in Hamburg. Imagine how we would react if we learned that secret German military teams were assassinating people within the United States. Everyone would pretty much flip the hell out. Well, Europeans would have the exact same reaction. That is no doubt why Cheney was so secretive. Even he had sense enough to understand what a colossal diplomatic clusterf*ck would result from disclosure of such a program (though apparently not enough sense to conclude that the program was an incredibly bad idea).
Needless to say, Congress needs to investigate and find out what this program was and why it was not disclosed sooner.
The New York Times now appears to have cleared up the mystery. Apparently the program, which never got past the planning stages, involved sending out Munich-style assassination teams to take out terrorist suspects around the world.
Some have expressed skepticism about this explanation, suggesting that it doesn't add up, that targeted assassinations aren't all that different--at least from a legal/political perspective--from the drone attacks that we've been carrying out since the Clinton administration. David Kurtz at TPM writes:
So regardless of how you might feel about targeted assassinations, it's not at all clear why this particular program would be so radioactive -- compared to what the U.S. was, and still is, doing more or less openly -- that (1) Cheney would demand the CIA not brief Congress about it for eight years; (2) Panetta would cancel it immediately upon learning of it; and (3) Democrats would howl quite so loudly when finally informed.Respectfully, I think there's a quite a big difference between this sort of program and drone attacks. As Tim F. at Balloon Juice observes--quite correctly--"[t]he difference between, say, cratering a car outside of Kabul and sniping a shopkeeper in Jakarta is that one could at least argue that we are still fighting a war in Afghanistan."
If the New York Times is correct, this program was intended to take out people all over the world, presumably including places like Hamburg, Paris, and Jakarta. There's quite a big difference, both legally and diplomatically, between sending a missile into a training camp in Afghanistan and sending an assassination team into an apartment complex in Hamburg. Imagine how we would react if we learned that secret German military teams were assassinating people within the United States. Everyone would pretty much flip the hell out. Well, Europeans would have the exact same reaction. That is no doubt why Cheney was so secretive. Even he had sense enough to understand what a colossal diplomatic clusterf*ck would result from disclosure of such a program (though apparently not enough sense to conclude that the program was an incredibly bad idea).
Needless to say, Congress needs to investigate and find out what this program was and why it was not disclosed sooner.
posted by A.L. at 10:35 PM
33 Comments:
I'm leaning to the 'domestic spying' angle - but how about a hybrid guess: domestic assassination of suspects *inside* the US? Keeping that secret would sure be worth the risk of hiding it from Congress...
To me, this verifies the earlier reports that Darth Vader Cheney was running the perpetually-denied Delta Force directly out of his office to assassinate evildoers all over the word.
The team was likely versatile enough to also provide snatch services when necessary.
Dick likes to torture confessions out of his adversaries before allowing them to die.
Another possible explanation for the conflicting stories about the program is that, in fact, there wasn't one program, but several, all hidden from Congress.
What I really want to know is where Cheney got this idea. Some are calling the death squads "Mossad"-like, but it all sounds to me like the "Bourne Identity" wet teams. Did Cheney and his crew really just concoct all of this from reading Ludlum novels?
"Imagine how we would react if we learned that secret German military teams were assassinating people within the United States."
Well imagine how we would react if Mexico was firing Hellfire missiles from pilotless drones into downtown Midvale AZ because they thought there was an arms dealer there? And maybe that Hellfire millile killed a bunch of American civilians?
Their justification might be "Well, if America won't act against these brigands, then we will. We can't help it if your civilians hang out with arms dealers. We need to be able to protect our national security."
I'll wager a dollar that no Congressional Democrat or their leftist martinets will be embarrassed by the fools they are making of themselves.
A.L.:
Needless to say, Congress needs to investigate and find out what this program was and why it was not disclosed sooner.
The investigation should last a total of five minutes:
The Bush administration has prepared a list of terrorist leaders the Central Intelligence Agency is authorized to kill, if capture is impractical and civilian casualties can be minimized, senior military and intelligence officials said.
[snip]
Despite the authority given to the agency, Mr. Bush has not waived the executive order banning assassinations, officials said. The presidential authority to kill terrorists defines operatives of Al Qaeda as enemy combatants and thus legitimate targets for lethal force.
Mr. Bush issued a presidential finding last year, after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, providing the basic executive and legal authority for the C.I.A. to either kill or capture terrorist leaders.
[snip]
Under current intelligence law, the president must sign a finding to provide the legal basis for covert actions to be carried out by the C.I.A. In response to past abuses, the decision-making process has grown into a highly formalized review in which the White House, Justice Department, State Department, Pentagon and C.I.A. take part.
The administration must notify Congressional leaders of any covert action finding signed by the president. In the case of the presidential finding authorizing the use of lethal force against members of Al Qaeda, Congressional leaders have been notified as required, the officials said.
Some secret. You know where all this came from? The New York Times. Note the date of the piece.
Like I said, I'll wager a dollar that no Congressional Democrat or their leftist martinets will be embarrassed by the fools they are making of themselves.
A.L.:
There's quite a big difference, both legally and diplomatically, between sending a missile into a training camp in Afghanistan and sending an assassination team into an apartment complex in Hamburg.
OK, you can put the strawman away.
SteveAR: I think you are misusing "martinet." Suggest you look it up.
SteveAR: "The investigation should last a total of five minutes", and "I'll wager a dollar that no Congressional Democrat or their leftist martinets will be embarrassed by the fools they are making of themselves"
Great, that means you support such an investigation since it should be so fast and simple and No Big Deal. I'm all for that myself.
Luke:
Great, that means you support such an investigation since it should be so fast and simple and No Big Deal.
Yes, I'm all in favor of Democrats and their leftist puppets (that better, Egypt Steve?) making complete asses of themselves protecting Pelosi over a "secret" program the New York Times reported on nearly 7 years ago that wasn't really such a secret. Bring it on.
Mossad "advisors" just like at Abu Ghraib?
B52 errant nukes, USMilSpec anthrax, 7/7 London bombings, Madrid train bombings, Tillman's tight 3 shot group in the forehead, Benazir Bhutto?
DNC & RNC have BOTH sold out the country in order to enrich themselves.
Independents agree on more than we disagree.
Beware the divide and conquer.
Gravel Kucinich Paul Nader
McKinney Ventura too
perotcharts.com
Five veterans
The Fed
AIPAC
9/11
Steve,
Fine. If this program was really no big deal, then why would Cheney have allegedly broken several federal laws directing the CIA to conceal its existence? You can run your mouth about tactics and public relations in the War on Terror, but it is still against Federal Law for the Executive Branch to direct the intelligence wing of Justice to conceal operations from Congressional oversight.
Re: what if some foreign government....
Two words: Orlando Letelier.
Beef Supreme:
Fine. If this program was really no big deal, then why would Cheney have allegedly broken several federal laws directing the CIA to conceal its existence?
Interesting. You're still insisting that Cheney is the probable culprit of concealing this program. Let's go through it. The NYT article A.L. linked to said the following:
Mr. Panetta scuttled the program, which would have relied on paramilitary teams, shortly after the C.I.A.’s counterterrorism center recently informed him of its existence. The next day, June 24, he told the two Congressional Intelligence Committees that the plan had been hidden from lawmakers, initially at the instruction of former Vice President Dick Cheney.
So, Panetta found out about the program less than a month ago, cancelled it shortly thereafter, and the day after that, told both the House and Senate Intelligence Committee that Cheney kept this program hidden. There is no information on where Panetta got this or if he acted like a Democrat to help cover for Pelosi and just made it up.
That same piece mentioned a book by James Risen, but neglected to mention their own 2002 piece, which happened to have been cowritten by...James Risen. This is the article that says the program wasn't a secret to Congress. In fact, the only one who seems to think the program was a secret was Leon Panetta.
It is clear that this program wasn't concealed by Cheney or anyone in the Bush administration from Congress or the general public since it was reported on nearly 7 years ago. To continue saying that Cheney concealed this is perpetuating a lie to cover up Pelosi's lies.
So either somebody in the CIA lied to Panetta about Cheney concealing this program, or Panetta himself lied to Congress. After Pelosi claimed the CIA has been lying to Congress for years, Panetta vigorously defended the agency from that charge. I imagine that Congressional Democrats and/or the Obama administration have put heat on Panetta to figure out how to vindicate Pelosi, regardless of how it was done. With Panetta defending the CIA like he did, he'll have to own this lie even if his own people lied to him.
If the story drops off the radar, nothing more will happen. If this story gets bigger, then expect Panetta to resign for lying to Congress. Potentially, Panetta could get hit with a potential perjury charge down the road, but it probably won't happen until there is a responsible President and Congress in office.
I guess in SteveAR's opinion unsourced reports in the NY Times are the legal equivalent of an official briefing.
"I'm all in favor of Democrats and their leftist puppets (that better, Egypt Steve?) making complete asses of themselves"
Don't be an inane ass, SteveAR. If it's no big deal then don't make a big deal out of it.
SteveAR-
Nowhere in either NYT article is Pelosi's name mentioned. Now, I'm perfectly willing to believe that operatives of either party are willing to do whatever it takes to save the asses of their favorites. But you might just be making shit up.
And who's to say that the recent article and the '02 article are talking about the same program?
One widely known since '02 - the other just discovered. Kinda sounds different, doncha think?
C2, Jazzbbumpa,
Lose your delusions.
Jazzbumpa, it's the same program. Plus, the NYT didn't mention Pelosi in 2002 because she didn't call the CIA liars back then. The NYT didn't mention Pelosi in the piece linked to by A.L. because she did call the CIA liars within the last couple of months, and the NYT is helping to provide cover for her, Congressional Democrats, and the Obama administration.
Luke:
If it's no big deal then don't make a big deal out of it.
I'm not the one who was going to make a big deal out of it because I thought it was a big nothing in the first place. In fact, it was A.L. who said:
Needless to say, Congress needs to investigate and find out what this program was and why it was not disclosed sooner.
Maybe someone will subpoena Panetta to find who caused him to lie to Congress, or if he did it himself.
SteveAR,
When you say "it's the same program.", categorically, is that based on your top secret clearance? And if it is, perhaps you should turn yourself in.
Only an idiot would imagine that they can know the truth of this.
"If it's no big deal then don't make a big deal out of it.
I'm not the one who was going to make a big deal out of it because I thought it was a big nothing in the first place. In fact, it was A.L. who said:
'Needless to say, Congress needs to investigate and find out what this program was and why it was not disclosed sooner.'
Maybe someone will subpoena Panetta to find who caused him to lie to Congress, or if he did it himself."
Steve, give me a break, stop whining. YOU are the one claiming it's not a big deal and then making a huge stink over it with dark plots and conspiracies right and left. That has nothing to do with what A.L. might have said.
Personally I think it should be looked into too. Wanting to know more makes me a lunatic? I don't think so. If Cheney broke the law then that should be pursued too. And if it turns out to be nothing then we know it's nothing. Life goes on. Why are you freaking out over it with all these wacko, paranoid accusations?
Maybe Panetta went to Congress because if he didn't follow the law about disclosing to Congress, and the program was discovered on his watch, he could be fired. That's SO much simpler than your bizarre conspiracy theories.
You've all missed the point and bought this smoke about hit squads..this is all BS
Conveniently happening to push the real story--the IG report on surveillance out of the picture.
This hit squad stuff gives a pseudo patriotic spin that is quite intentional.
Why would Panetta rush to congress to tell about a program that never happened?
Why would a non functional program exist for 7 years?
Why did all this happen now--just days after a report describing data mining of email, credit card info, bank records, phone records, internet usage--all said to have accomplished little or nothing against a terror threat. This conclusion by 5 Bush appointed IGs for all intelligence departments.
Somebody wanted to ring the Cheney bell and like Pavlovs dogs the media and you all ran to the BS food dish and are slurping up the misdirection.
There's way more involved than hit squads. Take a deep breath and step back. The view is always more encompassing with a wider lens.
Luke:
If Cheney broke the law then that should be pursued too.
Maybe Panetta went to Congress because if he didn't follow the law about disclosing to Congress, and the program was discovered on his watch, he could be fired.
Still pushing the "Cheney broke the law" meme? Maybe you need to read that Dec. 2002 NYT piece I linked to in an earlier comment if you hadn't read it already. Cheney couldn't have broken the law by concealing the program since it obviously wasn't concealed. So if it wasn't a secret back in 2002, how could Panetta have broken the law by not disclosing it last month? The fact that he didn't know about it says more about him than anyone else, except for those Democrats trying to blame Cheney for "concealing" a "secret" program that has been known for nearly 7 years. But it was Panetta who told Congress that Cheney did conceal a non-secret program, and that could be considered perjury.
Steve, give me a break, stop whining. YOU are the one claiming it's not a big deal and then making a huge stink over it with dark plots and conspiracies right and left.
As opposed to whom, leftists for the past 8 years claiming Bush was setting up a personal dictatorship? Leftists claiming Bush sent troops into Iraq for personal reasons, imperialism, and on a lie, a lie that was actually created solely by Saddam Hussein? More than A.L. when he said in the post:
If the New York Times is correct, this program was intended to take out people all over the world, presumably including places like Hamburg, Paris, and Jakarta. There's quite a big difference, both legally and diplomatically, between sending a missile into a training camp in Afghanistan and sending an assassination team into an apartment complex in Hamburg. Imagine how we would react if we learned that secret German military teams were assassinating people within the United States. Everyone would pretty much flip the hell out. Well, Europeans would have the exact same reaction. That is no doubt why Cheney was so secretive.
How is that not a rambling of dark plots and conspiracy theories?
Besides, I didn't claim it wasn't a big deal in my first comment. I said I'd wager a buck that Democrats and their leftist puppets wouldn't be embarrassed for making themselves out to be fools over this. And I was right; you keep proving it.
SteveAR,
Two short comments (no need to reply):
1. Even assuming (without basis, so far as I can tell) that the program referred to is the one in the 2002 NYT, that it was leaked has no bearing on whether it was, as was required by law, briefed to Congress. Unless you either can show it was briefed (which, of course, you can't) or you are trying to claim that a leak to the NYT is equivalent to a briefing for Congress, the available evidence is that there was no briefing -- and Cheney broke the law.
2. How come, all of a sudden, the NYT is totally beyond dispute? I seem to recall a few times when those like you didn't regard it as authoritative.
"Still pushing the "Cheney broke the law" meme?"
Classic SteveAR: Make shit up, make up more shit to explain it, then make up shit about what other people think and say about it.
FWIW I'm not "pushing a meme". If my great-aunt Dahlia was implicated in a murder I'd like to know about it. Is that "pushing a meme"? If Pelosi was sleeping with a green monkey conspiring to force the head of the CIA to claim Cheney's poop didn't smell like roses, and I think it's curious, is that "pushing a meme"?
The only "meme" you ever push SteveAR, is that you're full of shit.
Boy, that was a lot of heated back and forth considering that we still really don't know what program(s) we're talking about.
Isn't it better to let the facts come out and have a discussion on a solid foundation rather than on pure speculation? I'm just sayin'....
SteveAR --
re your: "I'm all in favor of Democrats and their leftist puppets (that better, Egypt Steve?) making complete asses of themselves"
I got you. You were going for "marionettes," not "martinets."
Don't mention it.
I will note that the way the law on covert action is structured, the president does not need to issue a finding and inform Congress (more correctly, select congressmen, a very small number of them) until the operation is past the planning services. Morally questionable or not, the CIA can 'plan' anything and remain legally compliant until they actually do something.
Even then, the president can issue a back-dated finding after the fact and wait to inform congress in many situations. By the /strictest/ interpretation of the rules covering covert action, the president can wait to inform congress until the operation is actively beginning.
I am not trying to defend the administration or Cheney, merely saying that the legal framework is designed to give maximum protection to the administration and it is very difficult to break the law in this area because of the freedom enjoyed by the president.
Significant violations of the law only really occur specifically when something happens 'unofficially', as Iran-Contra, which was a specific decision made to contravene more specific and less flexible law regarding aid to the Contras.
ER,
We have already discussed, at great length, the willingness of the Bush administration to "interpret" all statutes in a manner which restricted their activities as little as possible.
Put simply, just because a dishonest reading of the law, or a dodge like pretending that the training went on for 7 years (what, were they training neurosurgeons?), that does not mean we have to take their interpretation as exonerating.
If, as reported by anonymous sources, Cheney flatly ordered the CIA not to brief Congress, that would clearly be in violation of the law.
He will, of course, never be charged, let alone tried, convicted, and undergo punishment.
That is because, as a nation, we have given up on the polite fiction that noone is above the law.
Of course, if the "Panetta is being to forced to lie to exonerate Pelosi for lying about something that turned out to be true" meme is where Steve wants to go, then Rove's Hannity appearance where he said that it was "dangerous" for the Executive Branch to inform Congress about intelligence efforts seems curious.
In summary, we're not saying that the CIA either lied to Congress or violated the law by not giving full disclosure of operations to Congress, we're just saying that if the CIA lied, not that we are saying that they did, it's because they had a really really really good reason.
For a movement that is allegedly about the Constitution and limited government, modern conservatism has expended a lot of energy arguing that the executive branch ought to have unlimited and unquestioned powers as long as the reason is extra special.
I had the sense watching the Bush administration that we had foreign policy by popular media. Bush's determination to "get evildoer's" is a quote from any Marvel comic book; Bush's macho stance from any John Wayne movie; our interrogation policy came from "24", and now our enforcement policy from Spielberg's "Munich".
It is too bad people in the Bush administration didn't take their cues from great men in our real history. They might instead act like real American heroes such as Washington, Lincoln, and Eisenhower acted during war, not like vengeance fantasy fans.
"We have already discussed, at great length, the willingness of the Bush administration to "interpret" all statutes in a manner which restricted their activities as little as possible."
I'm hardly talking about or defending about the 'Bush interpretation' of the law. Certainly, in many areas of civil liberties and executive privilege they have completely destroyed the law, far beyond merely 'breaking' it. Some of the laws that have been passed to excuse it, some with Democratic votes, are themselves of questionable constitutional validity.
However, under the National Security Act nearly all the leeway in issues of 'covert action' lies with the president. The president makes the decision of whether or not to issue a finding, and when, and has a great deal of leeway on when and how he informs the specific congressmen who must be informed according to the law. It does not require congress as a whole to be informed, nor does it require the individuals it does require be informed to be informed before the operation is fully planned and ready to go. Several presidents have given the go order, issued the finding, and then informed the proper people in congress when the operation was in the process of beginning. This is the way the law is written and it may very well shield Bush, Cheney, and the CIA in a great many areas. Planning a covert action is not a violation of the law, carrying a covert action out is. Ordering the CIA not to inform Congress is irrelevant because the CIA doesn't inform Congress. The president informs Congress when he issues the finding.
I don't approve of the matter and I am not defending Bush or Cheney. The problem is that the National Security Act is designed to give the president maximum flexibility in using the CIA. The Church Committee reforms of the 1970s do not in any way restrict the presidential control of the CIA under the National Security Act, they merely restrict the CIA's ability to act without a presidential finding.
Most importantly, several key restrictions on the CIA are not points of written law. They are rules of operation imposed by executive order that can be suspended by executive order.
Despicable acts are not necessarily illegal. If the CIA carried out covert actions without a presidential finding or the president issued a finding without informing the proper individuals in Congress, this would be a crime. Planning or training for covert actions is not criminal, nor is Congress required to be notified of what the CIA is planning for or training for. Whether we like it or not, the law is not written that way.
The only other way this would be illegal is the usual Bush White House crime, contempt of Congress by refusing subpoenas on executive activities. THAT would be illegal if the training or planning were part of subpoenaed documents.
The National Security Act, however, really is skewed wildly in favor of the president using the CIA as his private hit squad with little responsibility or oversight. It's arguably a bad, Cold War era law from a paranoid time, but it is the law.
Bringing up the legal issues of the question does not make me in favor of the dirty tricks, but everything we don't approve of is not automatically illegal.
There are plenty of real crimes of which the Bush administration is almost assuredly guilty. But foregoing specific subpoena information, this is not one of those crimes.
ER,
I understand perfectly well that it is difficult to successfully prosecute under these national security statutes. Let me just say two things:
1. Nobody can know, without aggressively pursuing an investigation under the theory that illegality occurred, whether illegality occurred. I think it extremely unwise to foreclose the investigation on the basis that "it will be hard to prosecute". I said this before, in the context of torture by the Bush administration.
2. While it is possible that, in every single one of the many cases where Cheney's operations skirted the law, there is no way to prove a crime, the effort should still be pursued for two reasons, first because otherwise we'll never know the truth, and second -- remember Scooter Libby?
The way to handle the investigation is precisely the same as in the case of the mafia, and for similar reasons.
And that means that you cannot afford to treat any possible crime as ignorable, because you don't know which will break the conspiracy.
Why are people getting all upset over Cheney’s illegal death squads, illegal torture techniques, illegal NSA spying program, lets face it, nothing will happen to him, they might investigate, the justification will be 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 or you are only giving ammunition to our enemies and in the end nothing will happen, he is part of the ruling class. The chickens are coming home to roost from the operatives that stole the election for Bush/Cheney 2000 in Florida and 2004 in Ohio. I love listening to Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, these chicken hawks on the War of Terror have become chicken little’s that the sky is falling when it comes to the economy, too funny.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home