"Cheney's Assassination Ring"

[boloboffin]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/12/intel-official-congress-not-briefed-on-cia-program/

Top Bush administration officials, including former CIA Director George J. Tenet and former Vice President Dick Cheney, opted not to brief Congress on a secret program belatedly disclosed to Congress last month by CIA Director Leon E. Panetta, according to an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the program.

The official, who asked not to be named because of the classified nature of the program, said that the decision to keep the details of the program secret in the past was made in part because the program remained "in the capability stage," meaning it had been developed but not necessarily implemented.

"These activities lasted, if you will, for years," this official said. "There were other conversations about whether this should be taken to Congress. The same decision was made again by senior officials at the time."

...The exact nature of the program remains a mystery. This official hinted that the secret program involved assassinations overseas but declined to provide further details.

 

[Oliver]

Main story on CNN/US right now:

Source: Cheney kept CIA program from Congress

The CIA withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress during the Bush administration on direct orders from then-Vice President Dick Cheney, current CIA director Leon Panetta told members of Congress, a knowledgeable source confirmed to CNN. full story

• Story Highlights
• Cheney ordered CIA to withhold info on counterterrorism program, source tells CNN
• Program reportedly initiated after 9/11 attacks, stopped by CIA Director Panetta
• House Democrats recently wrote letter claiming CIA misled Congress for years
  
  full story

 

[Monketi Ghost]

Now where the **** does the VP get the authority to do that? How can the VP order the CIA to do anything?

 

[JihadJane]

Now where the **** does the VP get the authority to do that? How can the VP order the CIA to do anything?

C.O.G.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_Ornithologists_Group

These guys?

 

[JihadJane]

Maybe, birdwatching is favorite excuse for wandering around, up to no good, with a pair of binoculars. The logo, Gang-gang Cockatoo, sounds suspiciously like MK-ULTRA code.

There has been no indication that Continuity of Government measures, implemented on 9/11, have ever been revoked.

Discussed here

 

[boloboffin]

The Vice-President has the authority delegated to him by the President.

 

[Brainster]

NY Times this morning:

Since 2001, the Central Intelligence Agency has developed plans to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Qaeda terrorists, according to current and former government officials.

But:

The plans remained vague and were never carried out, the officials said, and Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, canceled the program last month.

So the only remaining issue is the failure to brief Congress on a program that was never implemented.

ETA: And according to former CIA Director Hayden, Cheney never told him not to brief Congress.

The man who ran the CIA from 2006 through January says he wasn't told by then-vice president Dick Cheney not to brief Congress about a covert program aimed at members of al-Qaida, NPR's Mary Louise Kelly reports.

Looks like there's no beef in that burger.

 

[boloboffin]

So the only remaining issue is the failure to brief Congress on a program that was never implemented.

How much taxpayer money was spent on this never-went-anywhere boondoggle, Brainster? I hope you're not minimizing this by emphasizing that the program was never implemented. Thank FSM it wasn't. But that doesn't minimize what's happened here.

And as Pelosi alluded yesterday, when Congress critters say, "Is there anything else we should know about?" and the CIA critters say, "No," and something like this is hiding under the rug, then that's called lying to Congress, right?

ETA: And according to former CIA Director Hayden, Cheney never told him not to brief Congress.

Looks like there's no beef in that burger.

So it was Scooter that brought the word over? Or it was Bush?

I still think we ought to keep the grill fired up. Burgers could be on their way.

 

[Ziggurat]

How much taxpayer money was spent on this never-went-anywhere boondoggle, Brainster?

Is your complaint that money was wasted? I don't think you'll get very far with that one, because whatever the total was, it's not going to even compare to other examples of government waste, past, present, and future.

I hope you're not minimizing this by emphasizing that the program was never implemented. Thank FSM it wasn't.

Why should we be thankful it was never implemented? Because planning never got to a stage where it would have worked? I'd accept that, but that too is rather unremarkable. Or because we never should have had any covert operations to target al Qaeda leadership? I think you will find a rather marked lack of agreement with such a position.

But that doesn't minimize what's happened here.

And what, exactly, has happened? As far as I can tell, the CIA engaged in planning which they did not inform Congress about. So what? I see no reason congress needs to be told every planning program the CIA engages in. If the program had progressed to implementation and had remained secret, there might be an issue, but by the sound of it, they were never close to that step.

And as Pelosi alluded yesterday, when Congress critters say, "Is there anything else we should know about?" and the CIA critters say, "No," and something like this is hiding under the rug, then that's called lying to Congress, right?

Why is that a lie? I have yet to hear a serious argument for why congress needed to know about this.

So it was Scooter that brought the word over? Or it was Bush?

Why does the idea that the CIA could have decided not to divulge this on their own not even merit consideration?

 

[dudalb]

How much taxpayer money was spent on this never-went-anywhere boondoggle, Brainster? I hope you're not minimizing this by emphasizing that the program was never implemented. Thank FSM it wasn't. But that doesn't minimize what's happened here.

Yeah, actually getting Osama and company would have been a terrible thing.
An if you think taking out Osama is a bad idea, we will never agree.

 

[dudalb]

How much taxpayer money was spent on this never-went-anywhere boondoggle, Brainster? I hope you're not minimizing this by emphasizing that the program was never implemented. Thank FSM it wasn't. But that doesn't minimize what's happened here.

And as Pelosi alluded yesterday, when Congress critters say, "Is there anything else we should know about?" and the CIA critters say, "No," and something like this is hiding under the rug, then that's called lying to Congress, right?



So it was Scooter that brought the word over? Or it was Bush?

I still think we ought to keep the grill fired up. Burgers could be on their way.

Sounds as if you want to dismantle the CIA, guy.
Good luck with that. If the more liberal dems push this, it will blow up in their face. The Blue Dogs will desert them, most people will see them as more interested in a vendetta then getting the Al Qaida leadership, and the GOP might finally have an issue to hurt the Dems with:That they are more interested in pursuing a left wing poltical agenda then protecting the American people.
DO you really want to go there?

 

[Brainster]

How much taxpayer money was spent on this never-went-anywhere boondoggle, Brainster? I hope you're not minimizing this by emphasizing that the program was never implemented. Thank FSM it wasn't. But that doesn't minimize what's happened here.

Well, it certainly minimizes it compared to what was being alleged, by Hersh, right? To remind you what Hersh claimed:

And just today in “The Times,” there was a story saying that its leader, a three-star admiral named McRaven ordered a stop to certain activities because there were so many collateral deaths. [...] They‘ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That‘s been going on, well, in the name of all of us.

In fact, reading the Times' story makes it clear that the proposed program was kept alive precisely because the other option (predator drones) caused so much collateral deaths.

And as Pelosi alluded yesterday, when Congress critters say, "Is there anything else we should know about?" and the CIA critters say, "No," and something like this is hiding under the rug, then that's called lying to Congress, right?

Well, come on. "Is there anything else we should know about?" is rather broad brush. Does the CIA consult with Congress about every proposal it looks at but does not implement? I don't know.

So it was Scooter that brought the word over? Or it was Bush?

What a shame the right wing journalist at NPR didn't think to ask that question.

I still think we ought to keep the grill fired up. Burgers could be on their way.

I like mine with Dijon.

 

[Brainster]

Turns out the NY Times covered this story in 2002:

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.

The previously undisclosed C.I.A. list includes key Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, as well as other principal figures from Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, the officials said. The names of about two dozen terrorist leaders have recently been on the lethal-force list, officials said. "It's the worst of the worst," an official said.

 

[boloboffin]

Is your complaint that money was wasted? I don't think you'll get very far with that one, because whatever the total was, it's not going to even compare to other examples of government waste, past, present, and future.

It's a reason the CIA should have told the Congressional overseers about it. You spend taxpayer money on programs, you submit to oversight by the taxpayers' representatives.

Why should we be thankful it was never implemented? Because planning never got to a stage where it would have worked? I'd accept that, but that too is rather unremarkable. Or because we never should have had any covert operations to target al Qaeda leadership? I think you will find a rather marked lack of agreement with such a position.

Because implementing a plan like this without informing the Congressional oversight panels concerned would have been even worse than simply designing it and abandoning it.

And what, exactly, has happened? As far as I can tell, the CIA engaged in planning which they did not inform Congress about. So what? I see no reason congress needs to be told every planning program the CIA engages in. If the program had progressed to implementation and had remained secret, there might be an issue, but by the sound of it, they were never close to that step.

You and I disagree.

Why is that a lie? I have yet to hear a serious argument for why congress needed to know about this.

See above. Or perhaps you're more comfortable living in a more authoritarian-style government. You're free to move.

Why does the idea that the CIA could have decided not to divulge this on their own not even merit consideration?

It does. It fits into Hayden's weasel words just fine.

Yeah, actually getting Osama and company would have been a terrible thing.
An if you think taking out Osama is a bad idea, we will never agree.

I don't. Submitting to Congressional oversight is quite compatible with getting Osama and company.

I'm glad to have given you another chance to kick around hated leftists in your mind, dudalb. Feel free to land another on the straw man you call Michael Moore in your mind.

Sounds as if you want to dismantle the CIA, guy.
Good luck with that. If the more liberal dems push this, it will blow up in their face. The Blue Dogs will desert them, most people will see them as more interested in a vendetta then getting the Al Qaida leadership, and the GOP might finally have an issue to hurt the Dems with:That they are more interested in pursuing a left wing poltical agenda then protecting the American people.
DO you really want to go there?

Please hit the mud room before tracking all that trash in the house. You do get enthusiastic about your straw man sessions!

Well, it certainly minimizes it compared to what was being alleged, by Hersh, right? To remind you what Hersh claimed:

In fact, reading the Times' story makes it clear that the proposed program was kept alive precisely because the other option (predator drones) caused so much collateral deaths.

Yes, what Hersh was alleging is far worse than this program as currently revealed. It does show that Hersh was onto something as well.

Again, it's not so much the program for me as the "not submitting to proper oversight" and "lying to Congress" bit.

Well, come on. "Is there anything else we should know about?" is rather broad brush. Does the CIA consult with Congress about every proposal it looks at but does not implement? I don't know.

The CIA did a little bit more than look at this proposal, by all accounts. You don't look at a proposal for eight years or so.

What a shame the right wing journalist at NPR didn't think to ask that question.

With the exception of "right wing", I agree.

I like mine with Dijon.

Socialist!

 

[Ziggurat]

Because implementing a plan like this without informing the Congressional oversight panels concerned would have been even worse than simply designing it and abandoning it.

That presumes that Congress would not have been informed had it been implemented. I see no reason to make such a presumption.

You and I disagree.

But you didn't answer my question. If you think it was something other than what I described, then what do you think happened? This is the second time I've asked this question. Will it go unanswered this time too?

See above. Or perhaps you're more comfortable living in a more authoritarian-style government. You're free to move.

Oh please. The executive branch having some discretionary spending which they don't describe in minute detail hardly makes the country authoritarian. The only complaint you've actually make explicit is the lack of budgetary oversight, an issue which, while I understand why it's of some concern, is not exactly the sort of thing to pass a brick over. I have seen no argument to indicate that this lack of oversight was illegal in any way. If Congress is not satisfied with current laws regarding oversight requirements, it is within their power to change that.

You have suggested the CIA lied to Congress, but you have yet to explain what the lie was, and why it was a lie.

 

[boloboffin]

That presumes that Congress would not have been informed had it been implemented. I see no reason to make such a presumption.

Yes, if you don't allow the premise, I have no argument. It's AMAZING how that works. You keep trusting the CIA. I'll stay over here.

But you didn't answer my question. If you think it was something other than what I described, then what do you think happened? This is the second time I've asked this question. Will it go unanswered this time too?

I don't know what's happened. Taking your description of what you describe as happening, I disagree that Congress didn't need to be told about it. That's what I said. You're going to have to accept this disagreement. I have.

Oh please. The executive branch having some discretionary spending which they don't describe in minute detail hardly makes the country authoritarian. The only complaint you've actually make explicit is the lack of budgetary oversight, an issue which, while I understand why it's of some concern, is not exactly the sort of thing to pass a brick over. I have seen no argument to indicate that this lack of oversight was illegal in any way. If Congress is not satisfied with current laws regarding oversight requirements, it is within their power to change that.

Ziggurat, if we were talking about discretionary oversight over some stalled plan to buy pencils at Costco, I'd agree Congress didn't need to be told about it. But plans to sneak into other sovereign nations and kill anybody the U.S. President deems fit to be assassinated? Let's let the peoples' representatives know about it, if only for the nice warm feeling about the CIA's backside such revelation entails.

And the issue here is the CIA not following the oversight requirements that do exist! Congress passing some more laws is going to suddenly make the CIA think, wow, they're serious now?

You have suggested the CIA lied to Congress, but you have yet to explain what the lie was, and why it was a lie.

I most certainly have.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, if you don't allow the premise, I have no argument. It's AMAZING how that works.

That's a strange thing for you to say, since you objected to planning in and of itself without oversight.

You keep trusting the CIA. I'll stay over here.

It's not a matter of trusting the CIA. It's a matter of not getting upset over something that didn't happen.

Ziggurat, if we were talking about discretionary oversight over some stalled plan to buy pencils at Costco, I'd agree Congress didn't need to be told about it. But plans to sneak into other sovereign nations and kill anybody the U.S. President deems fit to be assassinated? Let's let the peoples' representatives know about it, if only for the nice warm feeling about the CIA's backside such revelation entails.

Oh, but they WERE told that al Qaeda people would be targetted. That was public knowledge, even beyond the halls of Congress. They just weren't told about what specific planning was being done to try to accomplish that. And since it never got past planning stages, why did Congress need to know?

And the issue here is the CIA not following the oversight requirements that do exist!

But is that really the case? What statute, law, or regulation was violated here? You seem to be presuming that because somebody in Congress got upset, that rules must have been broken. But where's the evidence?

Congress passing some more laws is going to suddenly make the CIA think, wow, they're serious now?

If the lack of disclosure was previously legal (and I've seen no evidence yet that it wasn't), then yes.

I most certainly have.

No, you haven't. You've referred to the CIA stating that there wasn't anything else that Congress needed to know about. But I don't see that they needed to know about this program. As far as I can tell, they only wanted to be told about it. Which isn't the same thing.

 

[Darth Rotor]

My main objection is to the fact that the unit was only answerable to a sociopath, and not monitored by any agency which might have to deal with the results of an operation gone sour.

Lefty, you might want to get more facts than Hersh foaming at the mouth, per his usual. Any military force is, by law and habit, commanded by something other than this phantom sociopath you refer to. You ought to recall that thing called a chain of command.

JSOC isn't Cheney's toy, it is part of the US Force Structure, has been for decades.

I'd ask you to be a bit more skeptical regarding the loose and careless claims Hersch has made. Unless he backs them up, he isn't breaking any story.

If you can provide evidence of written or verbal orders from VP that were not vetted by Sec Def or the Chain of command, made with no agreement nor knowledge of the Pres, aka the Commander in Chief at the time, I will be all ears and happy to join the Greek chorus demanding charges be filed for violation of the law.

Please do so before you assume a conspiracy theory; get some facts, that is.

JSOC has a lot of interesting missions, some of which include snipers.

So what?