It Just Doesn't Add Up

David Kurtz of Talking Points Memo and I are on the same page bewildered as to why the secret CIA program that aimed to liquidate Al Qaeda operatives would be so controversial, or "radioactive" as David puts it, that Vice President Cheney deemed that it had to be concealed from Congress. Let's face it, this program is going on at the same time that extraordinary renditions were occurring and that we were detaining hundreds of "enemy combatants" in military gulags across the world. Nor is the policy seemingly different from our current use of drones to target Al Qaeda's leadership and operatives. Drones, it can be argued, are in fact worse than CIA assassination hit squads since drones have also left dozens of innocents dead. Furthermore, Al Qaeda is a military target and the Clinton Administration had concluded that killing Al Qaeda operatives was legal.

While there has been intense speculation about the nature of the CIA program since members of the House Intelligence Committee disclosed last week that CIA Director Leon Panetta had ended it upon learning of it on June 23, 2009 four months into his tenure, what remains puzzling is that nothing revealed so far seems illegal that would then necessitate concealing from the Congress.

Still the New York Times offers insight into some of the questions and problems encountered:

Officials at the spy agency over the years ran into myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles. How could the role of the United States be masked? Should allies be informed and might they block the access of the C.I.A. teams to their targets? What if American officers or their foreign surrogates were caught in the midst of an operation? Would such activities violate international law or American restrictions on assassinations overseas?

Yet year after year, according to officials briefed on the program, the plans were never completely shelved because the Bush administration sought an alternative to killing terror suspects with missiles fired from drone aircraft or seizing them overseas and imprisoning them in secret C.I.A. jails.

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.

The program was designed in the frantic weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks when President George W. Bush signed a secret order authorizing the C.I.A. to capture or kill operatives of Al Qaeda around the world. To be able to kill Osama bin Laden or his top deputies wherever they might be -- even in cities or countries far from a war zone -- struck top agency officials as an urgent goal, according to people involved in the discussions.

But in practice, creating and training the teams proved difficult.

"It sounds great in the movies, but when you try to do it, it's not that easy," a former intelligence official said. "Where do you base them? What do they look like? Are they going to be sitting around at headquarters on 24-hour alert waiting to be called?"

Most of these concerns are operational, not legal. But even so, it is hard to see why this program needed to be concealed from Congress.



Display:


Re: It Just Doesn't Add Up (none / 0)

Quick answer is you are right this has nothing to do with knocking off "Known" Terror Suspects - my guess it is a lot darker like over throwing the shaw of Iran 1953 type stuff.

The only thing that would make a program like that so bad is if it was not only operating in Allied countries but they were knocking off or trying to over throw governments that were deemed Terroist friendly.Example what if they tried to knock some of the leaders in Syria off...

I hate to agree with McCain on anything but this is just the beginning - I have a nasty feeling that Cheney was not Vader but In Fact Lord Sidious.


by jeremylreed on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:50:38 AM EST

Agree w/you Jeremy (none / 0)

Could be that they had targeted some AQ suspects in Saudi Arabia and were thinking about going in and secretly offing them there......could have been a real shitstorm if the Saudi dictatorship had found out.


by RobertNAtl on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:16:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

How does that fit (none / 0)

with a 8 year program?


by Bruce Webb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:48:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Just Doesn't Add Up (none / 0)

That blast against drones was pointless.  It even undermines your point, b/c it makes you look like you will complain about anything.


by midwestdem1 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:43:15 AM EST

Re: It Just Doesn't Add Up (none / 0)

Killing innocent citizens remotely isn't just "anything"


Howard Dean is my go-to guy
by lojasmo on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 09:07:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Just Doesn't Add Up (none / 0)

There is no reason to indict drones.  They are just another tool.  They can be used effectively or poorly.

Throwing them in with CIA death squads or Bush Administration policies doesn't make sense.


by midwestdem1 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:20:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Just Doesn't Add Up (none / 0)

You are right that they are just another tool, but it was under the Bush Administration, if I remember correctly, that they became an attack tool rather than simply a surveilance tool.


Oh Mammy Dear, we're all mad over here livin' in America
by JDF on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:35:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Just Doesn't Add Up (none / 0)

I'm largely against drones because it's not fair. At least with a human assassin you have a decent chance of fighting it off. Yes it's stupid, but my main problem with the fact that we kick around 3rd world countries is that they can't effectively fight back and I feel ashamed that we use methods that are so unstoppable by them.


by MNPundit on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 08:34:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It Just Doesn't Add Up (none / 0)

I think you're reading more into my point on drones than I intended. Perhaps I wasn't clear but the point was not to criticize the use of drones but rather to offer that in comparison the use of drones has more collateral damage. Drones as far as memory serves have been used in Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.


Follow me on Twitter.
by Charles Lemos on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 10:22:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well this adds up (none / 0)

One. We know the Bush/Cheney Administration were pushing a concept known as 'Total Information Awareness" which basically gathers together everything and makes it available for data mining. In fact they set up an Office for Information Awareness within DARPA and under the direction of John Poindexter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information _Awareness_Office

Two. We know that TIA got pushback from Congress and was defunded in 2003, although some components were allowed to continue development.

Three. One of the reasons for Congressional pushback was a fear that TIA would sweep up too much information on Americans with no connection to terrorism.

Four. In the years since we have learned that Cheney/Bush implemented warrentless domestic wire-tapping in ways that actively sought to bypass restrictions set up by Congress under FISA.

One to four are not speculative, they are known facts. What if we add them together and add one small twist.

In the face of a Congressional defunding of OIA and known opposition to domestic spying generally suppose one Richard Bruce Fiscus ordered the CIA to secretly take over OIA and extend the TIA concept to all Americans. This would be a direct violation of Congressional intent and legislation and as such could not be reported to Congress even in a limited fashion.

A secret CIA-OIA reporting directly to the OVP fits all the evidence. The time frame is right. The stop and start nature of the operation makes sense, that is perfectly characteristic of a complicated technical operation under development. This is exactly the kind of bureaucratic operation that could continue to run quietly under the radar of the CIA Director's Office and not be found out until months after his appointment. And it is also the kind of operation that can be shut down more or less at will. Given that it is in direct violation of Congressional direction it would be something of immediate concern to a Director needing Congressional budget and appropriations approval going forward. The kind of brazen F-U'ness from Fourth Branch Cheney to Congress is the kind of thing that would bother even Republicans like Hoekstra.

This may not be the actual whole story, but no one who has had their eyes even partially open over the last years would put this kind of establishment of a TIA based domestic spying capability reporting only to the OVP beyond the will or desire of a certain Richard Bruce Cheney. It would have been just the natural development of everything else we KNOW was going on and of some things we only strongly SUSPECT.


by Bruce Webb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:39:05 PM EST

Richard Bruce Fiscus? (none / 0)

Well that was a mental slip. Dick Fiscus was my Mom's cousin and a pretty noted artist. In fact this I have Artist Proof 1/12 of the following series framed on all my walls. The pictured set is from the SF Fine Arts Museum.

http://search3.famsf.org:8080/search.sht ml?keywords=Khouri

I am pretty sure 'Uncle' Dick did not in fact collaborate with his contemporary Dick Cheney to set up CIA-OIA. (But you never know).


by Bruce Webb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 01:46:38 PM EST

Just a guess (none / 0)

The layman's definition of a pathological liar is one who lies even when they don't have to.

We all tell little white lies when, for some level of self-preservation, we think we need to. For example, you're driving too fast, you know it, and you get pulled over. You don't tell the cop, Yeah, I was speeding and I knew it. That, you gather, is a guarantee of a ticket.  So we say, Why, no, officer, I didn't realize I was speeding.  And you hope for a warning.

The pathological liar, I'm told, will make up stories or other artifices just for the adrenaline rush they derive from the self-gratification that they've pulled something over on you and gotten away with it.

That might be all this is.

Then again, we might keep digging and find some really evil shit.


by gas28man on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 02:18:25 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.