« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
New Info Brings More Questions On Secret CIA Program
We've gotten some more information in recent days about that secret CIA program that the agency withheld key information from Congress about, and that CIA director Leon Panetta promptly shut down when he learned about it last month. But the new reports only raise more questions.
On Saturday, the New York Times reported that the CIA withheld information about the secret program "on direct orders" from then-Vice President Dick Cheney. The Times did not identify the program, but noted that, according to intelligence and congressional officials, it involved neither the CIA's interrogation program nor its domestic intelligence (e.g. warrantless wiretapping and surveillance) activities.
Now today, the Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.) that the program was an effort to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, prompted by a 2001 presidential finding authorizing the CIA to conduct such a program. The Journal adds that the program never became fully operational before Panetta shut it down. The report, sourced to "former intelligence officials familiar with the matter," appears to jibe in some respects with comments made by New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh at a public event earlier this year, in which he referred to an "executive assassination ring" reporting to Cheney.
But there's reason to believe we still don't have anything like the full story. First of all, according to one of the Journal's sources, both Cheney and President Bush opposed what seems to be a particularly aggressive iteration of the program, involving using "teams of CIA and military Special Forces commandos to emulate what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympics terrorist attacks," by carrying out targeted assassinations.
That doesn't appear to line up with the Times' report that Cheney was behind the decision to keep Congress in the dark about the secret program, though strictly speaking it doesn't contradict it.
But there are other reasons to keep asking questions:
Perhaps most importantly, a program, launched immediately after September 11 to capture or kill top al Qaeda operatives just doesn't seem sufficiently radioactive to have provoked the kerfuffle it has. To be sure, Congress outlawed targeted CIA assassinations in the 1970s in response to the excesses of 50s and 60s, and the issue played a key role in the move during the same period to give Congress greater powers to oversee the agency. And if the program allowed CIA to act without the consent or knowledge of liaison services in the countries where the targets were located, that's obviously a big deal.
Still, the US military has openly been trying to get Osama bin Laden and other top Qaeda leaders "dead or alive" since shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Would CIA involvement in that effort be so explosive that it would not only need to be kept from Congress in the first place, but would also have been shut down by Panetta as soon as he learned about it?
By the same token, it was Democratic lawmakers who brought the issue into the news last week by complaining that they had for years been kept in the dark on the unidentified program. Would they have chosen to initiate that spat when it seems to allow them to be portrayed as opposing an effort to hunt down al Qaeda terrorists?
We don't have answers to these questions yet, but it seems clear that there's more to be uncovered here. And given the Democratic push to look closer at the circumstances under which Congress was kept out of the loop -- as well as Panetta's own move for an informal, internal probe into CIA's handling of the program -- we may well get them.
Josh
Zachary
Sadly and unfortunately and at this time it appears the same questions will result in the same responses (answers within the recent decades) and as I have recently and again posted.
--------------------------------------------------
Never, never held Accountable by our US Senatorial or Congressional Legislatures and their Judicary Committees.
As you may recall the Washington DC Bar Association, Public Relations Magazine has on approximately 10/2007!! voted US AG Gonzales 'Attorney of the Year 2007' and 'US AG Mulkasey 'Attorney of the Year 2008' and with runner up's of Rove or 'Scooter' Libby and other disgraced White House Attorneys.
'Manical, Deranged, Despotic, Corrupt and Dishonest appears to be overwhelmingly correct for at least the recent decade or decades.
Justice delayed is justice denied = proof.
One of the deadliest retaliations towards 'Whistleblowers' is to ignore a 'Whistleblower' or 'truthteller'.
Want more proof and/or allegations thereof? Go to website YOUR-RIGHTS.COM and link to a seemingly worthwhile documentary video entitled
'Bush Linked to Kennedy Assassination'.
--------------------------------------------------
July 13, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the program wasn't "fully operational" how could Panetta shut it down? Of course it was operational. More Right Wing spin that the MSM gulps down like Cheerios.
July 13, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what does "not fully operational" even mean? That it was just doing a couple assassinations here and there vs. an intended full on assassination corps? Or that they assembled a few people and did a couple trainings? Or that it was all on paper?
Big gray area.
July 13, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly! Some reporters are reporting that phrase just like they did with "weapons of mass destruction." Gutless stenographers.
July 13, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zachary, you're falling into the trap. Why would the Wall Street Journal be working on identifying the program? The right wants the country debating the program itself, and when we try to raise the issue of the CIA lying to Congress under orders from Cheney, they'll come back with accusations we don't want to kill Al Qaida leaders, and the media will accept the frame, just like they accepted the frame that the warrantless wiretapping controversy was about whether we should spy on terrorists.
So seriously, forget the program. That's NOT the story. The story is just about whether the CIA deceived Congress and who told them to do it.
July 13, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct! The story is the game of hide-n-seek, not program itself. Of course, Congress can ask were the funding came from and then they'll start to see where other monies were being siphoned off for "other" programs they're not aware of either. It's the chip-on-the shoulder attitude of deception that needs to be addressed.
July 13, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Makes no sense. CIA drones kill scores of civilians every other day while targeting "high-value operatives" in Pakistan.
Did one of your "operatives" mistake Barry Jennings for al Qaeda, Mr. Cheney?
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/barry-jennings-speaks/
July 13, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cokie Roberts was spreading this WSJ disinformation this morning on NPR's Morning Edition. She stated as fact that the program was designed to apprehend al Qaeda operatives based on this flimsy and incomplete reporting.
Would be nice to see a spotlight on that misreporting from NPR.
July 13, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alpha,
Are Cokie Roberts and Judy Miller the same person? I've never seen them together. Hmmm.
July 13, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
NPR is as bad as (or worse than) the rest of the MSM.
Did anyone hear Melissa Block parroting GOP talking points with Speaker Pelosi last week? They always seemed so deferential with Bushco criminals and still seem so with GOP talking heads.
And, while we're at it, I'd love to see the stats on Cato Institute op-eds vs. all others on Marketplace. They're given a few minutes almost every day.
July 13, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Now that you point it out...!?!? OMG!
I remember decades ago liking Cokie's reporting but one of us changed. Maybe it was when I learned just how deeply ingrained, by birth and occupation, she is into the Washington power structure. Her Dad was a powerful Senator and her brother is now a very influential lobbyist. And her husband is (was?) head of Common Cause.
She's a blueblood.
July 13, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's designed to "kill Al Qaeda".
Just like warrantless wiretapping, Gitmo torture, and unearned-income tax cuts.
What!!!
You say you're against the unearned-income tax cuts? Why do you love Al Qaeda so much!
July 13, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know the military is slow, but there's no way something this clandestine would take 8 years to become fully operational. Anything fermenting in the Illegal and Irresponsible Pipeline like this would have been expidited and been operational years ago; and certainly not something continuing after Cheney (its protector) has left office.
Something's really amiss here.
July 13, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could be a cover to lead everyone astray from what is really going on behind closed doors that, perhaps, Cheney can still pull the strings to manipulate undercover, covert teams with specific assignments at specific moments in time when necessary. I wouldn't put it past him. Why go to all the trouble of setting up a massive and secret command and control center with loyal operatives if you have to vacant the premises in 8 years?
July 13, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My gut tells me that the WSJ article is based on selective leaks from someone(s) with a political or policy axe to grind. Sure, perhaps part of the illegal Bush programs wanted to take out AQ, at least that was the broadest (umbrella) policy goal. (Most of US policy towards the Middle East and South Asia since 9/11 can be subsumed under under this broad umbrella.) But this leaves a false impression, that somehow Obama, Panetta, Pelosi, Democrats, liberals, etc. are undermining US national security by opposing the illegal Bush Admin policies. NONSENSE! No-one in the US Congress would oppose programs to take out AQ.
My bet is that the WSJ article is disinformation, Operation Mockingbird II in action, and reflects an intra-Agency dispute, coming from a tiny faction of right-wing nuts within the Agency.
July 13, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I strongly suspect it's an attempt by the spooks/Cheney to muddy the waters and create confusion and a counter-narrative for the Very Serious People who can't handle the truth.
That is, it's propaganda directed at the American people by rogue elements within the CIA, and the former Administration (who may still be guiding the rogues).
July 13, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Not Fully Operational" means not "Operational."
And not being Operational is an important bureaucratic distinction as Dick Cheney well knows, being a bureaucratic master.
This program was likely tucked into an "Experimental" category, which could mean a ton of things. Like funding could be kept secret. Like it didn't have to be reported because it wasn't "Operational."
But the masterstroke, as always, is that "Operational" versus "Experimental" is in the eye of the beholder. The program remained "not fully operational" for eight years not because it wasn't operating... no... it remained "not fully operational" because Dick said so. Because he could. It's a subjective decision that has a waterfall of ramifications.
Kinda like how the Vice President's Residence at the Naval Observatory is, to this day, "temporary." Not because the VP hasn't lived there for the last 35 years, but because the legislation still calls the place "temporary."
July 13, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey folks, look at the known facts.
1. The program was withheld by Cheney from scrutiny.
2. Addington personally decided who was read in.
3. In the aftermath of 9/11, there was little opposition anywhere to the targeted assassination of Al Qaeda operatives.
4. Despite #3, Panetta shut down the program almost before the briefer finished getting the sentence out.
What does that tell us? It tell us that if this was an assassination squad then the big problem isn't that they were out there trying to kill Osama. The big problem is that they either killed or planned to kill less justifiable targets....i.e. unhelpful local politicians in the ME, radical religious figures, et cetera. We don't know if it will turn out to be a hit squad but if that's what it turns out to be you can bet it answered directly to Addington and was less than fastidious in its targeting.
July 13, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
What could possibly make you think that there was only one "hit squad"?
July 15, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the questions the media should be asking here are as follows:
1) Who was killed as the result of this program?
2) Who ordered these people killed?
3) Why were they killed?
4) Who performed the killings?
If the program were "fully operational", does that mean that ALL of Cheney's political enemies would have ended up dead?
July 13, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Former Enron Corp. vice chairman J. Clifford Baxter was found dead in his car in a Houston suburb early Friday..."
July 13, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another question I have. If:
a) Panetta just learned of the program in June,
b) Panetta canceled the program in June,
does that mean:
1) The program was active under Obama,
2) Following 1, the program was active when neither the Executive nor the Legislative branches were aware of it's existence,
If 1 and 2 are both true, which seems likely now, then we had a secret government operating under the spooks with no accountability to elected authorities.
Further, were people running the program in contact with Dick Cheney after Jan 20, 2009?
Let's be clear we don't know these conclusions to be true but they are important questions.
July 13, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant to include the term "rogue elements within the CIA" in that post. If they operated a program without knowledge of elected officials, they need to be fired and then crated directly off to jail for crimes against the Constitution.
July 13, 2009 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where there are secrets, there are lies. The government has too many secrets and has lied to us too often. And Obama seems to want to keep it that way. How very, very disappointing.
July 13, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I find most....uh...."shocking" is despite the quality and quantity of deliberate wrong-doing by the Bush administration that has come to light in the past 6 months, how little prosecution there has been coming out of the Obama Justice department (which has an irksome pattern of continuing Bush policies). I wonder if Jonathan Turley is correct in his latest observation that no one, Democrat or Republican, has found it in their (and our) interests to put anyone in the Bush administration above the rank of janitor in jail for using the Constitution as toilet paper.
July 13, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had a long argument with a Dem political operative on Saturday night. I kept making the case for prosecutions, and he kept saying that it would be viewed as a "witch hunt". The logic is
a) Clinton became more popular when he was impeached. Therefore, any prosecution would make its target more popular.
b) Watergate really pissed off Republicans, who got "payback" with Clinton's impeachment. I figure payback that takes 25 years to deliver is nothing to fear.
The problem is that it is very easy to sell non-prosecution as the "safe course". It's the coward's choice, but for beltway people, they don't really care about that. Letting Cheney off the hook is just one more compromise on the long list of compromises these people have made.
The underlying argument being made against me was that the public is too stupid to believe Democrats when we tell the truth. It is an argument based on the principle of appeasement.
Personally, I think this kind of appeasement is nothing more than arrogance on the part of the people making it. Yes, it's true that the American public can be accused of inattentiveness. But that's not the same sin as simple stupidity. People want the government to obey laws.
I don't see how anybody can have a coherent personal philosophy in public service based on the notion that the public is too stupid to support the prosecution of crimes carried out by its elected leaders. That attitude is horribly anti-democratic.
July 13, 2009 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the part I don't care for is where your Democratic operative friend cannot discern between a case over a blow job vs a case of real abuse of power and lawbreaking.
July 14, 2009 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Watergate really pissed off Republicans, who got "payback" with Clinton's impeachment."
When do the Democrats get "payback" for the Clinton Impeachment?
Remember that Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. Had his impeachment been about anything serious - like something resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people (Iraqis, Afghanis, and Americans) - and he had been convicted of trashing the Constitution, his popularity would have tanked.
.
July 15, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The smoke and mirrors currently being trotted out about how this "explosive, secret program" has something to do with an assassination team is ludicrous. Of course we were (and still are) going after "terrorist" leaders, and yes, killing them when the opportunity presents itself. If you truly find that shocking then you need to get out a little more often.
So, no - this obviously isn't about that. But the really salient question is, "Why (and by who) is this being brought out into the open now, without details being revealed?" Panetta could have easily killed the program with no public mention of it whatsoever, and the vast majority of covert programs typically are/ When things like this are made public, it is rarely by accident. This is intentional, and it is safe to assume that there is an agenda behind it. Someday we may know what this was about, but it certainly wasn't about the notion of Special Ops assassination teams being some sort of explosive secret. UNLESS, of course, there is controversy surrounding who they were directed to go after...
July 13, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I Disagree.
Assassination, death squads or whatever term you may describe it is completely against and not in accordance within any Law, period.
And so are Illegal Wars, Torture, Illegal and/or False Renditions, Illegal Secrets, Illegal Signing Statements ecetra, ecetra completely against and not in accordance within any Law, period.
July 13, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch this clip of FDL blogger, Marcy Wheeler, say "blow job" on MSNBC in the midst of debating the merits of whether or not to appoint a special prosecutor.
Pretty funny.
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2152
July 13, 2009 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was just watching Jane Mayer, the author of The Dark Side and a New Yorker writer, on Countdown. In discussing the CIA story and Cheney, she brought up the Inspectors General report that came out on Friday, and I thought, gee, I forgot about that report (which is strange, because I was really into it on Friday). And then I thought, maybe that was the goal of this weird CIA story being leaked to the Times at the same time. What a coincidence! And what do you know...no one is talking about the IGs' devastating report, especially as to Cheney, whereas the CIA story, at least as currently being leaked, is not nearly as harmful. After all, how many Americans are gonna get upset that the CIA targeted terrorists for assassination? So Cheney kills two devastating stories at once -- he gets to set the (likely untrue) meme on the CIA story AND buries the really damaging one, namely, the IG report.
You gotta give Cheney credit. He may be amoral, but he ain't dumb.
July 13, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he is dumb.
Being a skilled liar does not mean that Cheney is not a fundamentally stupid person. A smart VP doesn't end his term with a historically low approval rating.
July 13, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by tpmreader: "I Disagree.
Assassination, death squads or whatever term you may describe it is completely against and not in accordance within any Law, period."
Well, you can agree or disagree with it, but I'm not really speaking about personal opinions on the matter, I'm talking about what really happens. And the fact is that there are covert ops that happen outside standing international law, like it or not. And if you don't think that that U.S. has been covertly involved, either directly or indirectly, with many controversial, if not outright illegal, things, including assassinations, then you have little understanding of the real world politik.
But the bigger point is, assuming we can believe what we've learned so far (and I'm highly suspect of that) - why now? Why publicly? And for who's gain? Find the answers to those questions and this may start to make a little more sense.
July 14, 2009 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is exactly what I have been mentioning and in direct agreement with your allegations.
The Video Documentary I have recently and again mentioned is exactly and preciesly on this subject matter you have mentioned. Again the Documentary is readily available for viewing at YOUR-RIGHTS.COM home page, then click on the link
'Bush Linked to Kennedy Assassination'. In my opinion the Documentary and especially for a very sensitive and concerning subject matter is well done. If you choose to view this documentary, my suggestion is that it is viewed from begining to end without skipping ahead. In my view it should and/or may hopefully provide additional answers and/or questions. Also it may provoke proper and forthright conscience towards 'Oversight and Accountability'. Also and most importantly it will hopefully provoke to allow for proper and forthright resolutions thereof!!
Thank you for your time and consideration.
July 14, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I am not buying into the al-Qaeda angle for all the reasons expressed here,
I put up a purely speculative piece at Angry Bear.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/07/cia-tia-rbc-who-was-watching.html
Which notes that over this exact same time period the Cheney/Bush Administration was pushing for and briefly set up the Office of Information Awareness under DARPA with the goal of using a combination of all known information sources to achieve a goal of "total information awareness" or TIA. The office was set up under John Poindexter of Iran-Contra fame and was ostensibly aimed only at overseas targets. It drew a lot of Congressional pushback and was ultimately terminated. Unless of course it never really was and was just transferred to the CIA and directed to report only to the OVP and by the way extended to include domestic targets.
It all fits. We know Cheney/Bush wanted the technical capability, we know they authorized warrantless domestic wiretapping, it is only one step further to planning for and partially implementing a domestic CIA-TIA program. The timeframe, the stop and start nature, the fact that parts of the program would still be enough in operation that Panetta could be said to shut it down. All of this makes more sense in the context of a technical data gathering operation than it does with a program of targetting al-Qaeda leadership, something which presumedly we have been doing without stopping since about Sept 12, 2001.
It may not be right but given the known historical record of the past Administration it is not crazy talk.
July 14, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there is any significant hidden story not yet uncovered here. The truth is bad enough. The reason why this wouldn't be reported to congress is due to the optics of the types of personnel that would be used in these assasination teams.
There is no way these "assasination squads" would be regular military. The Clinton administration had been trying to insert covert teams for years and couldn't get actionable intelligence that would allow for an attack.
Probably what this means is that they wanted to use paramilitary forces or mercenaries. In essence what this program probably was, was a plan to set up death squads to go in and hunt down terrorist figures. That's the only way they'd likely be able to get into these areas.
Given the history of CIA use of "death squads" in other countries it is obvious why an administration considering using such a technique would be leery of involving congress in any oversight.
July 14, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Consider the possibility that these covert "terrorist death squads" were formed and created solely to foment terrorist acts in Muslim countries in order to justify the US presence there and to maintain a justification for continuing the "war on terror" reaping vast profits for Dick Cheney and his friends through their ownership of stock in Harriburton, KBR, and other defense industries.
No wonder Panetta closed down the program as soon as he heard about it, and Congress was so appalled. Dick Cheney running both sides of the war on terror for his own profit.
The BlackWater team which killed 17 Iraqi's at Nisour Square in Baghdad on 9/16/07 may have been one of these teams which got out of hand by being identified before leaving the square. Had they succeeded in leaving the square before being identified, that incident would have been another Al Queda atrocity.
They were surely gotten out of Iraq in a hurry and there has been absolutely no action or desire in the USA to prosecute any of them.
July 15, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink