"Cheney's Assassination Ring"

[Oliver]

I have no opinion regarding the allegations yet, but since we will probably hear a lot more about it ...

Mr. Seymour Hersh claimed that the "Joint Special Operations Command" is/was secretly conducting assassinations around the world:

HERSH: It‘s a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. [...] they reported directly to the Cheney office. They do not report to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to Mr. Gates, the secretary of defense. [...] Congress has no oversight of it. It‘s an executive assassination wing essentially, and it‘s been going on and on and on.

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. [Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29676575/)]

Olbermann reporting about the issue:

mcBaAofDYwk

[Dragoonster]

1. Wow, if true I hope people will go to jail for good, no pardons or coverups.

2. It seems Hersh is waiting "a year or two" until his book is ready when he'll reveal more? If so he's a complete jerk.

3. "McRaven"? I don't know if I can take the allegations seriously if that's supposed to be the name of the boss.

4. Giving a few names of targets of the program would go a long way to giving the report credibility.

[funk de fino]

Wheres Jack Bauer?

[Oliver]

Wheres Jack Bauer?


Uhmm, it looks as if he has more important things to do...

Sudbury Star - ‎3 hours ago‎

Kiefer Sutherland (on The List) answers the all important question about the toilet habits of his 24 character, Jack Bauer.


:boggled:

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

3. "McRaven"? I don't know if I can take the allegations seriously if that's supposed to be the name of the boss.


In fairness, the part about there being a Joint Special Operations Command and it being led by Vice Admiral McRaven is true. (http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=401)

It was actually a bit of a controversy when McRaven was appointed commander of the JSOC, since it had typically been an Army-led command (but being Joint, an officer from any service could command it).

As for the rest... well, I wouldn't be surprised if they do go into countries and take people out. The question is how you define "assassination." When we killed Al-Zarqawi in Iraq, was that an assassination? Would killing Osama bin Laden be an assassination?

It will depend on who is on this alleged list of targets as to whether they are conducting "assassinations" or not.

The problem I have with that report is that it reads like (though doesn't state outright) the revelation of the JSOC's very existence is some sort of big story. It isn't. The JSOC has been around for quite a while -- nearly 30 years, in fact -- and its overall role in the org structure of USSOCOM has been public for most of that time.

If Hersh has some specifics about their operations it might be interesting, but otherwise... what's the story?

[JihadJane]

Would killing Dick Cheney be assassination?

[funk de fino]

Would killing Dick Cheney be assassination?

No

[WildCat]

If Hersh has some specifics about their operations it might be interesting, but otherwise... what's the story?
Apparently Hersh has his undies in a knot because President Ford signed an executive order against political assasinations. However, Hersh has not established that any of these were political assasinations. Taking out an al Qaeda honcho in a safe area of Pakistan hardly constitutes a "political assasination".

If there's been Predator strikes in other parts of the world taking part in political assasinations which caused collateral damage no one seems to know about it for some reason.

[INRM]

Too bad that the people who did this will probably never have to answer for what they did

[WildCat]

Too bad that the people who did this will probably never have to answer for what they did
What did they do?

[Pardalis]

Who was assassinated?

[Doctor Evil]

Who was assassinated?

SpongeBob

[Pardalis]

SpongeBob

He probably wasn't waterboarded.

[Doctor Evil]

He probably wasn't waterboarded.

He probably asked to be waterboarded. However, since they are sadistic SOB's, they naturally refused.

[Pardalis]

He'll probably enjoy his new life as a tampon anyway.

[Doctor Evil]

He'll probably enjoy his new life as a tampon anyway.

Well done. You win.

[leftysergeant]

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.

[gdnp]

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.

The lack of oversight certainly raises the probability of abuse

[Brainster]

So Sy "I can't fudge what I write but I can fudge what I say" Hersh is making charges in speeches that he's unwilling to back up in print again?

[dudalb]

Hersh has done some good reporting, but there seems to be little doubt his Left Wing Political views cause him to play fast and loose with the evidence a lot.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The lack of oversight certainly raises the probability of abuse

Presuming that there is a complete lack of oversight, of course. I am skeptical for a couple of reasons:
- As I mentioned earlier, JSOC has been around for nearly three decades, and its existence and even general org. structure is well known. If none of the Congressional committees (Intelligence, Armed Forces, etc.) have inquired about it in all that time, I'd be shocked. If the JSOC does report directly to the President and no one else, Congress is well aware of it.
- JSOC is actually subordinate to the larger USSOCOM in the organizational structure.
- This quote makes no sense:
It‘s a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody except in the Clinton, I mean, in the Bush/Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office.

Uh.. they reported to nobody until the Bush administration? For 20+ years they were just a unit hanging out there, doing what they felt like?

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Would killing Dick Cheney be assassination?

I would treat such an event with the same contempt and intensity as Cheney treated the deaths of the million or more that suffered as a result of his power.

[funk de fino]

I would treat such an event with the same contempt and intensity as Cheney treated the deaths of the million or more that suffered as a result of his power.

Source?

[JihadJane]

I would treat such an event with the same contempt and intensity as Cheney treated the deaths of the million or more that suffered as a result of his power.

Wouldn't it be a justifiable act of self defense if an Iraqi did it?

[WildCat]

Who was assassinated?
Castro, it's a fiendish plot to make him die slowly of old age.

[funk de fino]

Wouldn't it be a justifiable act of self defense if an Iraqi did it?

Only in your Tinky Winky land.

[Cicero]

I have no opinion regarding the allegations yet, but since we will probably hear a lot more about it ...

Mr. Seymour Hersh claimed that the "Joint Special Operations Command" is/was secretly conducting assassinations around the world:



Olbermann reporting about the issue:

mcBaAofDYwk


When Hersch wrote "The Dark Side of Camelot" the libs reflexively condemned his well annotated account of JFK's disastrous 1000 day administration. If Hersch has the facts to back up his allegations about Cheney it is unlikely to result in any actions being taken against the guy. But how can Hersch possibly top the perfidy committed by the 35th President?

KO as the front man for Hersch's story has got to be the kiss of death for credibility. It would be like Gen. Edwin Walker hawking the "Myth Of Camelot."

[INRM]

leftysergent,

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.

That is a very good point. The fact that Congress doesn't have oversight is also a serious problem


gdnp,

The lack of oversight certainly raises the probability of abuse

Exactly


INRM

[Ziggurat]

3. "McRaven"? I don't know if I can take the allegations seriously if that's supposed to be the name of the boss.

Maybe he's related to this (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/05/05/) fellow.

[Ziggurat]

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.

That is a very good point. The fact that Congress doesn't have oversight is also a serious problem

Fact? These aren't facts. These are allegations. Made by a reporter with a track record of major mistakes who admits that he tells lies (http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/) when giving talks.

[Skeptic]

I can't believe someone still takes Hersh seriously. He broke some very important stories in the 1960s and 70s, but since then he had been taken for a ride by scam artists in just about every "shocking discovery" he claimed (e.g., the Kennedy files).

[Cicero]

I can't believe someone still takes Hersh seriously. He broke some very important stories in the 1960s and 70s, but since then he had been taken for a ride by scam artists in just about every "shocking discovery" he claimed (e.g., the Kennedy files).

Well, Hersh's 1997 "Dark Side Of Camelot," which had nothing to do about JFK's assassination, is well-documented. In order for a story abut "Cheney's Assassination Ring" to be legitimate, he had better be able to back up his accusations with facts as he did in his book on JFK.

[Ziggurat]

Well, Hersh's 1997 "Dark Side Of Camelot," which had nothing to do about JFK's assassination, is well-documented.

Are you sure we're talking about the same book (http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm)?

[Cicero]

Are you sure we're talking about the same book (http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm)?

Epstein has a problem with Hersch because his material is not original, not because it is in error.


"For example, six of the eight major "secrets" Hersh cites in his opening chapter--Kennedy's undisclosed health problems, the secret negotiations during the Cuban missile crisis, the administration's plots to remove Fidel Castro, h! is extramarital affairs, campaign finance diversions and the taping system in the White House--can all be found, often in greater detail, clarity and perspective, in Richard Reeves' 1993 biography, "President Kennedy: Profile of Power."

And then he applauds Hersch for using discretion in his source material.

"To his credit, Hersh excluded that fraudulent documentation from his book."

So what did Hersch get wrong about the now well-known truths about Camelot and how JFK and zero intention of getting out of Southeast Asia?

[Checkmite]

Sounds to me like Hersh has been reading too much Richard Marcinko.

[Ziggurat]

Epstein has a problem with Hersch because his material is not original, not because it is in error.

Some of it most definitely was in error. Hersh had the good sense to pull the forgeries from his book just before publication, but not the good sense to spot them as such before writing it. But the objection to what remains is far more than it not being original, because in fact some of it was original. The fundamental problem is that what was original was not in the least bit reliable. That, ultimately, is the heart of Epstein's criticism, and it's hard to see how you missed that.

"To his credit, Hersh excluded that fraudulent documentation from his book."

That's called a back-handed compliment, aka "damning with faint praise".

[Cicero]

Some of it most definitely was in error. Hersh had the good sense to pull the forgeries from his book just before publication, but not the good sense to spot them as such before writing it. But the objection to what remains is far more than it not being original, because in fact some of it was original. The fundamental problem is that what was original was not in the least bit reliable. That, ultimately, is the heart of Epstein's criticism, and it's hard to see how you missed that.



That's called a back-handed compliment, aka "damning with faint praise".

Exactly what did Hersch get wrong about JFK? Sally Bedell Smith's 2004 "Grace & Power" even expands on the the Camelot myths that Hersch/Reeves merely scratched at the surface. Not reliable? Do you think the Arthur Schlessinger and Ted Sorenson account of JFK's life and presidency are reliable? Please.

Is your beef with Hersch because as an investigative journalist, he couldn't resist some sensationalism, or because he took on the JFK myth?

There isn't a biographer, historian, or investigative journalist whose books couldn't be subjected to the same criticisms that Epstein applies to "Darkside Of Camelot," including Epstein's own 1966 "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth."

[Ziggurat]

Is your beef with Hersch because as an investigative journalist, he couldn't resist some sensationalism, or because he took on the JFK myth?

If you think I'm trying to stick up for JFK, you're barking up the wrong tree. I could give a damn about the JFK myth. It's not only Hersh's sensationalism that should give one pause, but the combination of his gullibility (he wasn't the one who figured out those JFK papers were forgeries), his use of anonymous and unreliable sources, and his penchant for implying far more than his evidence actually indicates. He is simply not reliable. And the JFK incident isn't the only one to indicate this.

[gumboot]

People... don't believe nonsense.

The JSOC's primary task is:

to study special operations requirements and techniques to ensure interoperability and equipment standardization, plan and conduct special operations exercises and training, and develop Joint Special Operations Tactics.

It's a friggen training unit. And it reports to the Secretary of Defense, not the VP.

They have normal command over three special units, however they have no covert operational authority, and when those units are deployed they're assigned to a task force under a Major Command.

If there's any special unit doing this sort of thing it would be the CIA's Special Activities Division, and they have some of the most stringent oversight of any government department. Their activities are overseen by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

[Cicero]

If you think I'm trying to stick up for JFK, you're barking up the wrong tree. I could give a damn about the JFK myth. It's not only Hersh's sensationalism that should give one pause, but the combination of his gullibility (he wasn't the one who figured out those JFK papers were forgeries), his use of anonymous and unreliable sources, and his penchant for implying far more than his evidence actually indicates. He is simply not reliable. And the JFK incident isn't the only one to indicate this.

But unlike Dan Rather, who relied on obvious forgeries for his entire Bush 43 National Guard story, Hersch did not use the Lawrence Cusack Kennedy papers in "Darkside," and his mention of the Monroe connection to JFK is minimal.

Hersch is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist and author when he takes on the My Lai Massacre, Abu Ghraib prison, and a Cheney/Rumsfeld conspiracy about Iraq, but when he goes after JFK it is just a hiccup in his credibility?

[Allen773]

You have to use anonymous sources to get the truth.

Hersh is one of the best journalists around.

[Cobalt]

You have to use anonymous sources to get the truth.

Hersh is one of the best journalists around.

I have it from many anonymous sources that Obama is in fact a socialist, Marxist, Muslim who plans on turning America into a dictatorship that only he will rule.

My sources also tell me that 9/11 was an inside job, that we did not land on the moon, that the moon is in fact made of cheese, and that Bigfoot is really W in disguise.

It's true!

[Ziggurat]

But unlike Dan Rather, who relied on obvious forgeries for his entire Bush 43 National Guard story, Hersch did not use the Lawrence Cusack Kennedy papers in "Darkside,"

No. The difference between Rather and Hersh isn't that Hersh didn't use the forgeries, it's that he wasn't too stupid torecognize when someone else proved they were forgeries. Luckily for him it also happened before he went to print. But the comparison only damns Rather, it doesn't rescue Hersh.

Hersch is a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist

So was Walter Durranty.

but when he goes after JFK it is just a hiccup in his credibility?

Frankly, the whole JFK mess is NOT actually one of the cases of Hersh's unreliability I care much about (I wasn't the one who brought it up), it's just one of the more obvious ones. Like I said, you're barking up the wrong tree, because I don't care that he attacked JFK. There's plenty JFK deserved criticism for.

[gdnp]

Could a mod please split the JFK derail to it's own thread? Although it does speak to Hersch's credibility, it is only marginally relevant to the thread.

[Cicero]

Could a mod please split the JFK derail to it's own thread? Although it does speak to Hersch's credibility, it is only marginally relevant to the thread.

Boo f'in hoo. Hersh's JFK book proves even a blind squirrel can root up a chestnut. While his story on Cheney is still in the rough, Hersh can deliver the goods and "Dark Side Of Camelot" proves this.

[Cicero]

There's plenty JFK deserved criticism for.

But apparently for you, not the criticisms found in Hersh's book? If we dismiss those, what's left?

[gdnp]

Boo f'in hoo. Hersh's JFK book proves even a blind squirrel can root up a chestnut. While his story on Cheney is still in the rough, Hersh can deliver the goods and "Dark Side Of Camelot" proves this.

Not having read the book, I can't really critique it. This is not, however, a line I would like to have in a review of a book I had written:

Hersh claims his evidence is both new and substantiated. But, to paraphrase Dr. Johnson, much of what can be substantiated in this book is not new, and much of what is new, including his most sensational findings, cannot be substantiated.

[Allen773]

I have it from many anonymous sources that Obama is in fact a socialist, Marxist, Muslim who plans on turning America into a dictatorship that only he will rule.

My sources also tell me that 9/11 was an inside job, that we did not land on the moon, that the moon is in fact made of cheese, and that Bigfoot is really W in disguise.

It's true!

:rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

But apparently for you, not the criticisms found in Hersh's book? If we dismiss those, what's left?

Jeez. How many times do I have to say this? I'm not defending JFK. This isn't about JFK.

[JihadJane]

I have it from many anonymous sources that Obama is in fact a socialist, Marxist, Muslim who plans on turning America into a dictatorship that only he will rule.

My sources also tell me that 9/11 was an inside job, that we did not land on the moon, that the moon is in fact made of cheese, and that Bigfoot is really W in disguise.

It's true!

Why has no-one thought to equate 911 skepticism with moon landing skepticism and Bigfoot before?

Sheer genius!

[Cicero]

Not having read the book, I can't really critique it. This is not, however, a line I would like to have in a review of a book I had written:

Something you need never worry about considering any book you might be able to cobble together would be fiction anyway.

Just because Epstein's opinion that Hersch's new material isn't substantiated doesn't make it true.

Epstein's own 1966 "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" is a model of unsubstantiated claims.

[WildCat]

Why has no-one thought to equate 911 skepticism with moon landing skepticism and Bigfoot before?

Sheer genius!
The W is Bigfoot bit is actually less insane than a lot of truther theories.

[Cicero]

Jeez. How many times do I have to say this? I'm not defending JFK. This isn't about JFK.

Dismissing the material in Hersch's book out of hand is what JFK apologists have done since the book came out in 1997. So you can see why I might confuse you with the other apologists.

[Brainster]

I have recently discovered that Seymour Hersh was responsible for the assassination of Paul Wellstone, using modified flying attack baboons.

Unfortunately it will be a couple years before I can present my evidence in book form. Till then just take my word for it, okay?

[Oliver]

I wonder if Hersh was talking about Task Force 121 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_121) carrying out assassinations.

[Oliver]

Oh, and Kucinich stepping up to the plate ...

Kucinich wants House to investigate assasination claims (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2009/03/kucinich_wants_house_to_invest.html)
The Plain Dealer - cleveland.com - ‎2 hours ago‎

[Ziggurat]

Oh, and Kucinich stepping up to the plate ...

Yeah, um... that doesn't help Hersh's credibility. But I liked this quote:
"Mr. Hersh is within a year or more of releasing a book that is said to include evidence of this allegation."

I'm within a year or more of making a billionaire dollars selling toilet plunger doilies. And becoming the first person to scale Mt. Everest in only my underwear. And translating Shakespeare into Klingon. And writing a book that provides photographic evidence of Hersh snorting paprika from Obama's navel.

[gumboot]

I wonder if Hersh was talking about Task Force 121 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_121) carrying out assassinations.


If he was (and you may be right) he's wrong on two counts. This task force (it seems it keeps changing its name for opsec reasons) is operating under CENTCOM so to say it operates without oversight is simple nonsense. Secondly, it's a combat unit involved in very specific combat operations. There's nothing wrong with trying to kill enemy leaders in war. It's smart.

[WildCat]

I wonder if Hersh was talking about Task Force 121 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task_Force_121) carrying out assassinations.
Might I ask you which assasination in the last 10 years you think was done by this secret Cheney assasination squad?

[Texas]

Might I ask you which assasination in the last 10 years you think was done by this secret Cheney assasination squad?

Jimmy Hoffa.

[Texas]

What I find funny is that many liberals said that we should have assassinated Saddam and avoided the war.

[Skeptic]

I'm within a year or more of ... translating Shakespeare into Klingon.

Too late. Already done.

[Oliver]

If he was (and you may be right) he's wrong on two counts. This task force (it seems it keeps changing its name for opsec reasons) is operating under CENTCOM so to say it operates without oversight is simple nonsense. Secondly, it's a combat unit involved in very specific combat operations. There's nothing wrong with trying to kill enemy leaders in war. It's smart.


While TF[XXX] operating under CENTCOM isn't a bad thing, that doesn't mean that the Task Force Unit wouldn't operate under a more secretive command as well - as Hersh suggested.

And I'm not that much familiar with covert special units anyway - so I don't have a more secretive unit in mind concerning the topic - or are there more secretive units I failed to acknowlege here?

[Ziggurat]

Too late. Already done.

Yes, but it's not my translation. Mine will be the definitive version. Of course, I haven't learned Klingon yet. But I can do that in a year or more.

Random observation for the day: the built-in spell checker in Firefox recognizes the word "Klingon".

[Donal]

Yes, but it's not my translation. Mine will be the definitive version. Of course, I haven't learned Klingon yet. But I can do that in a year or more.

Random observation for the day: the built-in spell checker in Firefox recognizes the word "Klingon".

It also recognizes Micro$oft...just saying


And why do you need to translate Shakespeare back into its original Klingon?

[Ziggurat]

It also recognizes Micro$oft...just saying

Amusing, but that's actually because it recognizes "micro" and "oft", and ignores the $ since it's not a letter. So for example, it won't complain about teddy$bear or Micro*oft or $cam either, but it will complain about $oup.

And why do you need to translate Shakespeare back into its original Klingon?

For the teenagers. They don't like the archaic language.

[Donal]

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.

Glad to see the around 800 laws this would break isn't that big a deal. You just want the team you shake your pom-poms for to benefit from it.

[KellyG]

The argument that I've heard a lot of right-wingers bring up is the idea that Cheney was doing us a favor by allowing special ops to narrow their focus and take out targets without killling civilians. I hope everyone sees this as a dangerous precedent. I'm a fan of Obama, but I certainly don't see the merit of Biden calling in assassination squads to take down foreign leaders of his choosing without any oversight or accountability! :boggled:

[Crowlogic]

Would killing Dick Cheney be assassination?

Yes it would be an assassination. However assassination is quick and too good for the likes of Cheney. It is infinately more fitting that if there is something to these alligations that he is brought to trial and judged to the letter of the law. Then exceuted for the world to wittness.

[moon1969]

So other countries like Russia and China do not have any secrets? :D

[JihadJane]

In a recent interview Hersh says he said “wing” not “ring”.


http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090401124547570

[Skeptic]

Glad to see the around 800 laws this would break isn't that big a deal. You just want the team you shake your pom-poms for to benefit from it.

Not surprising. Since when do Communists have anything against political murder?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The argument that I've heard a lot of right-wingers bring up is the idea that Cheney was doing us a favor by allowing special ops to narrow their focus and take out targets without killling civilians. I hope everyone sees this as a dangerous precedent. I'm a fan of Obama, but I certainly don't see the merit of Biden calling in assassination squads to take down foreign leaders of his choosing without any oversight or accountability! :boggled:

What foreign leader did Cheney "allow special ops" to "take down"??

[KellyG]

What foreign leader did Cheney "allow special ops" to "take down"??
Let's wait and see...

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Let's wait and see...

So you don't know. And have no evidence that such a thing has occurred.

Even Sy Hersh doesn't seem to have claimed that the JSOC has assassinated any foreign political leaders. The only thing mentioned in either article is "a list of terrorists, suspected terrorists out there who can be assassinated." There's no mention of "foreign leaders" being targeted.

[Donal]

OK, when did Hersh start venturing into woo? He was a pretty damned respected journalist.

But, reading those articles Jihad Jane posted (from a woo site, no less), he is starting to ramble and make a lot of assumptions in order to make his story stick.

[JihadJane]

Where was your wooometer made? There was a recall recently on a faulty batch.

[Minadin]

The super-secret special ops command stuff is all true, but Hersh isn't the one to blow the lid off of the story. They're making a documentary about it right now and have already released some footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsogJy3zxLk

[Donal]

Thanks, Minadin. Now I know.

[Minadin]

And, knowing is half the battle.

[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 (http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/11/cheney.surveillance/index.html)

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 (http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/11/cheney.surveillance/index.html)



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 (http://us.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/11/cheney.surveillance/index.html)

[Monketey 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.

[Monketey 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 (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/02/continuity-of-government-plans-were.html)

[boloboffin]

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

[Brainster]

NY Times this morning (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/us/14intel.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss):

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 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/07/former_cia_director_no_one_tol.html), 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 (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/07/former_cia_director_no_one_tol.html), 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. :D

[Brainster]

Turns out the NY Times covered this story (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/international/15INTE.html) 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. :D

Socialist! :D

[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?