http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...ef=mpstoryview
what a loser.
Printable View
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/...ef=mpstoryview
what a loser.
What's the problem?
You don't give classified information to a group of people who habitually leak stuff!
I say good going Cheney.
Except for the part where the VP has no authority whatsoever to tell the CIA not to fulfill their duties with Congress?
He can suggest, and they can make up their own mind.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I was just commenting without knowing all the facts. I do know that the democrats leak too secret information. I don't know who, but they care about the politics of destruction more than this nation.
Since when has that EVER stopped Dick?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
It's an interesting conflict of interest, really, since the Vice President is both an Article I and an Article II actor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I'm sure you can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the intelligence agencies have, at the very least, inform the G8 on the congressional intelligence commission about their programs.Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
I don't believe the assigned duties under Article II for the VP trumps or even hint at having any authority over that.
I don't think this is accurate at all. My understanding is that they're under obligation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Congress is on a need to know basis at all times, anything otherwise is defying the constitutionQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
WC, you seriously can't support Dick on this.
It wasn't even bush who was crooked, it was this guy all along.
This guy basically did whatever he wanted for 4 or 5 straight years. No surprises here. I hope he burns in hell.
Say what you will. Show me some real evidence rather than this bullshit propaganda by republican haters. Till then, I will make remarks to piss you Kool-Aid drinking Lemmings off.Quote:
Originally Posted by sook
You guys buy off on this partisan propaganda, hook line and sinker.
Guess what. Congress likely was notified, but only the members on the right committees who had both the clearance and need to know. Such people will not be talking about it to disprove it wasn't talked about.
Learn a bit about national security practices before you repeat other people lies.
Prove me wrong.
you spiteful man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
Would you like a quote from the head of the CIA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The only reason this is news is because not even the 'gang of 8' were informed.
Please do a little more research before you come out swinging the partisan card.
I read that. I said likely, and if it was classified deep enough, they will deny it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You have to remember. The gang of 8 aren't even suppose to acknowledge what they know. Now here's the members:
* Nancy Pelosi (D), Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
* John Boehner (R), House Minority Leader
* Harry Reid (D), Senate Majority Leader
* Mitch McConnell (R), Senate Minority Leader
* Silvestre Reyes (D), Chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
* Peter Hoekstra (R), Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
* Dianne Feinstein (D), Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
* Kit Bond (R), Ranking Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Now I can see a scenario where, by executive privileged, the office of the president decided not to inform them. Quite frankly, looking at the names of some of them, I wouldn't tell them anything I want kept a secret.
Besides, the law is another one that is unenforceable. It's another law that presumes it can supersede the president's powers.
I don't really care what the truth is. I find it sad that so many people choose to use this for a reason to hate. I pity you guys when you choose to ignore the truth about the separation of powers in favor of Bush Bashing.
Again, you guys are pitiful.
We know what your stance is. You didn't need to make such a long post to rehash that partisan hackery is more important than the actual truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Just write 'I hate the Democrats' and you'll save yourself and us some time.
You have just turned into such a bitter partisan hack lately, it's difficult to take you seriously anymore.
Yes, I hate democrats. Still, learn a bit about National Security practices before you support probable lies. Also understand the the executive office must abide by the constitution, but not laws passed by congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I really get tired of you guys demonizing the republicans over the wrong reasons. Really makes you guys look dumb. Especially since there are so many valid reason to demonize them over.
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
"Elevator eyes! ELEVATOR EYES!
Wrong thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
You've turned into a slightly more literate version of ducks.
Congrats.
Opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Democrats bad. Republicans good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So, given your understanding of the separation of powers, the president could theoretically kill someone with impunity, correct? I don't think murder is listed in the Constitution, after all. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
For Republicans a president can do what ever he wants, unless of course it is Democrat.
As opposed to democrats who think what exactly???Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
No the question is, do republicans feel that a president can do whatever he wants? Yes or no?Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
I personally don't think any president can.
Where do you stand?
That's not the question I asked. Do democrats hold democrat presidents to a higher standard than republicans hold republican presidents?Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
And to answer your question I agree with you. No president can do whatever they want. Even though democrats and republicans alike will only hold the other team's guy to that standard.
I am sure there some in both parties that are hypocrites and only want their side to get away with this sh*t.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Murder violates someones freedom of speech ;) You can't speak if you're dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.
In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.
So taking out AQ leaders is bad.. lol.. way to go democrats this just makes you look so weak on national defense, since when is it bad to kill AQ leaders.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya Vez
So you fall on the side that the president can do whatever he wants. Of course you purposely (or your stupid) dodge the fact that Cheney told them to keep it from Congress. You ignore that and then mention what the program's purpose. I guess you think Obama now has no interest in killing the leadership of Al-Qaeda?
So what about killing AQ leaders does congress need to know about, doesn't one in war use all tools necessary to gain the advantage? Are we not in a war against a defined enemy AQ? So what about war does the congress need to know about, I mean they did authorize the war, so with war comes killing and destruction, what is it about war they don't understand..
I heard an interview with someone who I think was talking about this. I didn't get names, I was driving from point A to B in the car, so what I heard was incomplete. I did catch this much on the 15 minute drive. What is being complained about, was a plan that was never implemented, and therefore never needed to be disclosed. The demonrats are just blowing smoke up everyone's butts over this.
We get it. The president can do whatever he wants. No need to further discuss a program that was bandied about in 2001 when Bush was in office. So I guess , by your logic, Bush wasn't into killing terrorist leaders. Great job bolstering your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ya Vez
Stop asking stupid questions. We all know who we are fighting against but what concerns others is that the previous administration used 'shaky intel' to start a war so the trust factor is zero. When we question anything that has happened since we are accused of rambling , incoherent charges by the right.
You mean the head of the CIA is blowing smoke up everyone's butt. Do you even know what's going on McFly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I think the discussion about Panetta's part was that his words were twisted.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Do you have an exact quote, in context?
I'm not sure if this is it, I think it is. I'm listening to it now:
Pete Hoekstra Interview
Actually the program was described as an 'on and off' program. Panetta just found out about it and shut it down. This topic is actually relevant because that program predates the Congressional majority of Democrats. So not even the Republicans were informed about this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
But you can feel free to stick with your schtick. After all, you don't even care what the truth is.
Link please.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
It's on the first post. You didn't even bother to read it, did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The program was on-again, off-again and was never fully operational, but was rather a tool put on the shelf that could have been used, the source said. Panetta has put an end to the program, according to the source.
Do you have a quote of Panetta denying he wrote that in the letter or saying his words were twisted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Link please.
That's it? You believe Dianne Feinstein? I don't see much in context. Did you listen to the interview I linked? At least the story Pete Hoekstra gives makes 100% sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Hey, it's this thread making the allegations. How about some proper evidence rather than the "He said, She said" bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Again, Pete Hoekstra's interview makes complete sense.
You need to catch up. Panetta briefed two committees about it the day after he found out about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LINK
There's no allegations. There was a letter and briefings. Those are facts, confirmed by people that attended them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Even Republicans were going around the Sunday talk shows saying the CIA should have disclosed it to Congress. You need quotes? I have them.
You really want to trust such a link? Since when does the CIA take directions from the VP?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
My God... You believe all the propaganda against republicans you read. Don't you.
Besides, if it really is an executive decision, then the law is invalid.
The CIA doest protest too much.
Wait. So you don't buy your own executive order bullshit yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Make up your mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Snipers killing 3 pirates to save one person == Good
Enhanced interrogation of a few people to potentially save thousands == Bad
fifyQuote:
Originally Posted by darrins
How do we know the intel we got is bad? Obama won't tell us.
We don't really know if we got any intel at all. Notice the word 'potential'.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
I personally don't care if there's potential to gather good intel either. Torture is off limits.
We gotta just trust him. You know, because thats the way an open and honest government works. They tell us that its true, and we know it is because they are the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Its no different than the Bush administration.
It's funny how Wild Cobra's commitment to pimping the Bush/Chaney/Addington/Yoo theories of Presidential power grows geometrically over time to suggest that there is absolutely nothing Congress can do to constrain a President, no matter the circumstance. If the GOP wins back a confessional majority at midterm, it will be fascinating to see if that expansive view of presidential power will remain vogue with WC or if some clear constitutional limits that were unavailing with respect to the Bush Administration will remarkably be found to constrain President Obama's conduct. I have a hunch . . . .
Meanwhile, I don't care who the President is or with what party he or she is affiliated - my view is that there are practical values served by Constitutional checks and balances and that ignorance of those threatens the values that have made America great. There is no justification for the aggrandizement of power or knowledge (or an attempt to do so) in any single branch of our government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FromWayDowntown
translation for resident conservatives: If GOP wins Congressional majority in 2010 will they sit by silently and allow Obama to run roughshod over the constitution.
Hmm should be interesting. I think they're hypocrites and are going to claim constitutional limitations left and right...
No shit... They are politicians. If you haven't noticed, the Democrats aren't really limiting presidential power either. No politician gives a shit about the Constitution any more, they only care about power, and how to get some. The ones that are out of it, connive to get into it, and the ones in it connive to maintain control. They will use whatever means necessary to do so also...Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
And yes, I know there are some non-corrupt politicians, but the vast majority are evil.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
I'm not arguing otherwise. The one promptly displaying the party pompoms is WC.
Pfft. What if the President's need to secure the nation of our country demanded that he kill such a person?Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
Besides, even if he DID commit a crime, who's going to arrest him? He controls the executive branch, doesn't he? ;) '
The only way to getting him out, per what WC said, would be impeachment at that point, it seems.
We can always be like Honduras and ship him off to Ecuador.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
But yeah, no man should be above the law, and while the Executive branch has some ability to not enforce laws put forth by Congress, they can't just ignore them.
I only get tired of the slander and incorrect conclusions that are stated as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I don't really see how a secret Al Qaeda hit squad is any different from missiles fired from drones in Yemen and Pakistan. Rep. Hoekstra said the program probably wouldn't have passed muster after the first flush of 9/11. I wonder why not.
If going after Al Qaeda was all it amounted to, there was little need to keep it secret from Congress, since our overt policy of drone warfare conduces to exactly the same effect and is (domestically anyway) almost completely uncontroversial.
There's something -- still -- not disclosed here IMHO. If the program was never operational, there would be no harm in disclosing it to Congress. What was Cheney trying to hide?
A desire to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders needn't have been concealed at all. Indeed, it hasn't been concealed whatsoever re: armed drones, and the country still seems to demand it.
Furthermore, the claim that Cheney's secret program never got off the ground suggests incompetence at the very best. At worst, it's a damn lie.
Dam first it was Yonnivore now it's Wild Cobra, who's next to have a mental breakdown?
http://hfwiki.vibrantlogic.com/w/ima...ightJacket.jpg
It really doesn't matter who's political parties dick you suck, young men and women died for lies.
http://msl1.mit.edu/furdlog/images/h...g_the_dead.jpg
Well, the difference is that the CIA is a civilian agency. And my understanding of the program is that their operatives under that program could have acted outside war zones (drones are part of the military and operate inside war zones). So you get into the issue that said operatives now fall under international criminal law, you have the issue of sovereignty, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The program was definitely active within the agency, otherwise Panetta wouldn't have a need to shut it down. That they never actually managed to use it against a target is really irrelevant, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
In addtion WH23, if we have CIVILIAN agents, in plainclothes, attacking and killing terrorists, then how's it any different than civilians from any country killing whoever they deem a 'terrorist'?
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Like Pakistan and Yemen, you mean? Isn't the whole world tendentially the battlefield for the GWOT?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I know that assassinations went out out of style after the Church Commission. I just assumed they came back in style after 9/11, international law and sovereignty be damned. We sure have been acting that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nono
EDIT: I thought you were referring to the CIA operatives. Drones firing into Pakistan (I believe) do so from Afghan aerospace. I don't exactly recall the Yemen episode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
No, I really mean more like London, Germany, or pretty much anywhere they thought a they could hit a brain on that organization.
In a way. I think guys like Cheney most definitely thought that way. I think bringing up to the light a program like this and shutting it down actually does give the US more credibility internationally. Which I'm sure it's in part why this happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
case closed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIA Told to Do 'Whatever Necessary' to Kill Bin Laden
Agency and Military Collaborating at 'Unprecedented' Level; Cheney Says War Against Terror 'May Never End'
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 21, 2001; 12:26 AM
President Bush last month signed an intelligence order directing the CIA to undertake its most sweeping and lethal covert action since the founding of the agency in 1947, explicitly calling for the destruction of Osama bin Laden and his worldwide al Qaeda network, according to senior government officials.
The president also added more than $1 billion to the agency's war on terrorism, most of it for the new covert action. The operation will include what officials said is "unprecedented" coordination between the CIA and commando and other military units. Officials said that the president, operating through his "war cabinet," has pledged to dispatch military units to take advantage of the CIA's latest and best intelligence.
Bush's order, called an intelligence "finding," instructs the agency to attack bin Laden's communications, security apparatus and infrastructure, senior government officials said. U.S. intelligence has identified new and important specific weaknesses in the bin Laden organization that are not publicly known, and these vulnerabilities will be the focus of the lethal covert action, sources said.
"The gloves are off," one senior official said. "The president has given the agency the green light to do whatever is necessary. Lethal operations that were unthinkable pre-September 11 are now underway."
The CIA's covert action is a key part of the president's offensive against terrorism, but the agency is also playing a critical role in the defense against future terrorist attacks.
For example, each day a CIA document called the "Threat Matrix," which has the highest security classification ("Top Secret/Codeword"), lands on the desks of the top national security and intelligence officials in the Bush administration. It presents the freshest and most sensitive raw intelligence on dozens of threatened bombings, hijackings or poisonings. Only threats deemed to have some credibility are included in the document.
One day last week, the Threat Matrix contained 100 threats to U.S. facilities in the United States and around the world -- shopping complexes, specific cities, places where thousands gather, embassies. Though nearly all the listed threats have passed without incident and 99 percent turned out to be groundless, dozens more take their place in the matrix each day.
It was the matrix that generated the national alert of impending terrorist action issued by the FBI on Oct. 11. The goal of the matrix is simple: Look for patterns and specific details that might prevent another Sept. 11.
"I don't think there has been such risk to the country since the Cuban missile crisis," a senior official said.
During an interview in his West Wing office Friday morning, Vice President Cheney spoke of the new war on terrorism as much more problematic and protracted than the Persian Gulf War of 1991, when Cheney served as secretary of defense to Bush's father.
The vice president bluntly said: "It is different than the Gulf War was, in the sense that it may never end. At least, not in our lifetime."
Pushing the Envelope In issuing the finding that targets bin Laden, the president has said he wants the CIA to undertake high-risk operations. He has stated to his advisers that he is willing to risk failure in the pursuit of ultimate victory, even if the results are some embarrassing public setbacks in individual operations. The overall military and covert plan is intended to be massive and decisive, officials said.
"If you are going to push the envelope some things will go wrong, and [President Bush] sees that and understands risk-taking," one senior official said.
In the interview, Cheney said, "I think it's fair to say you can't predict a straight line to victory. You know, there'll be good days and bad days along the way."
The new determination among Bush officials to go after bin Laden and his network is informed by their pained knowledge that U.S. intelligence last spring obtained high quality video of bin Laden himself but were unable to act on it.
The video showed bin Laden with his distinctive beard and white robes surrounded by a large entourage at one of his known locations in Afghanistan. But neither the CIA nor the U.S. military had the means to shoot a missile or another weapon at him while he was being photographed.
Since then, the CIA-operated Predator unmanned drone with high-resolution cameras has been equipped with Hellfire antitank missiles that can be fired at targets of opportunity. The technology was not operational at the time bin Laden was caught on video. The weapons capability, which was revealed last week in the New Yorker magazine, was developed specifically to attack bin Laden, the officials said.
In addition, with the U.S. military heavily deployed in some nations around Afghanistan, commando and other units are now available to move quickly on bin Laden or his key associates as intelligence becomes available.
U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies recently received an important break in the effort to track down terrorist leaders overseas, according to officials.
The FBI and CIA have been given limited access in the last several weeks to a topbin Laden lieutenant who was arrested after Sept. 11 and is being held in a foreign country. The person, whose various aliases include "Abu Ahmed," is "a significant player," in the words of one senior Bush official. Ahmed was arrested with five other members of al Qaeda. He is believed by several senior officials to be the highest-ranking member of al Qaeda ever held for systematic interrogation.
Though Ahmed has not given information about future terrorist operations, he has provided some details about the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in a Yemeni port, when 17 sailors were killed. One source said he also has information about the planned terrorist attacks in the United States that were disrupted before the millennium celebrations in December 1999.
The New Normalcy When specific facilities or locations are threatened, as they have been repeatedly in the last month, the FBI informs local law enforcement authorities or foreign intelligence services that are supposed to increase security and take protective measures.
The Threat Matrix lists where the intelligence comes from -- intercepted communications, walk-in sources, e-mails, friendly foreign intelligence services, telephone threats, and FBI or CIA human sources.
The public is not informed except when the threat is considered highly credible or specific, as it was on Oct. 11 when the FBI issued its nationwide alert.
In the interview, Cheney said that deciding when to go public and when to withhold threat information is one of the most difficult tasks the administration faces.
"You have to avoid falling into the trap of letting it be a cover-your-ass exercise," Cheney said. "If you scare the hell out of people too often, and nothing happens, that can also create problems. Then when you do finally get a valid threat and warn people and they don't pay attention, that's equally damaging."
He also noted, "If you create panic, the terrorist wins without ever doing anything. So these are tough calls."
Making details from the Threat Matrix public could result in chaos, several officials said. Literally hundreds of places, institutions and cities from across the country have been on the list.
"It could destroy the livelihood of all those organizations and places without a bomb being thrown or a spore of anthrax being released," another senior Bush official said. The official was asked what would happen if there was a major terrorist incident and many were killed at one of the facilities or places on the Threat Matrix and no public warning had been issued.
"Then they would have our heads," the official said.
Intelligence and law enforcement agencies attempt to run every threat to ground to see if it is genuine, officials said. The results at times have been unexpected. In early October, a woman called authorities to say it was her patriotic duty to report that her husband, who is from the Middle East, was planning an attack with eight or nine friends on Chicago's Sears Tower.
The woman sounded credible and her allegations were reported in the Threat Matrix. The FBI then detained her husband and friends. On the next Threat Matrix the CIA reported that the FBI might have broken up an al Qaeda cell.
Upon further investigation, the FBI learned that the woman was furious with her husband, who had a second wife. Her allegations had no merit, but the bureau discovered that some of the people were involved in an arranged-marriage scheme.
"Instead of terrorism," one official said, "we found an angry wife."
Another senior official said, "There can be a problem in a marriage and it results in, you know, an allegation that shows up in the Threat Matrix."
During the interview in his West Wing office, Cheney, with a large map of Afghanistan on an easel near his desk, spoke of life post-Sept. 11.
"The way I think of it is, it's a new normalcy," he said. "We're going to have to take steps, and are taking steps, that'll become a permanent part of the way we live. In terms of security, in terms of the way we deal with travel and airlines, all of those measures that we end up having to adopt in order to sort of harden the target, make it tougher for the terrorists to get at us. And I think those will become permanent features in our kind of way of life."
New War, Old Problems Though the new intelligence war presents the CIA with an opportunity to excel, several officials noted that the campaign is also fraught with risk.
The agency is being assigned a monumental task for which it is not fully equipped or trained, said one CIA veteran who knows the agency from many perspectives. Human, on-the-ground sources are scarce in the region and in the Muslim world in general. Since the end of the Cold War more than a decade ago, the Directorate of Operations (DO), which runs covert activity, has been out of the business of funding and managing major lethal covert action.
The CIA has a history of bungling such operations going back to the 1950s and 1960s, most notably when the agency unsuccessfully plotted to assassinate Fidel Castro.
In one of the celebrated anti-Castro plots, a CIA agent code-named AM/LASH planned to use Blackleaf-40, a high-grade poison, with a ballpoint-hypodermic needle on the Cuban leader. The device was delivered on Nov. 22, 1963, and a later CIA inspector general's report noted it was likely "at the very moment President Kennedy was shot."
Though no connections were ever established between the Castro plots and the Kennedy assassination, the CIA's reputation was severely tarnished.
The covert war in Nicaragua in the 1980s was another source of negative publicity, as the CIA mined harbors without adequate notification to Congress and published a 90-page guerrilla-warfare manual on the "selective use of violence" against targets such as judges, police and state security officials. It became known as the "assassination manual."
William J. Casey, President Ronald Reagan's CIA director from 1981 to early 1987, was mired in the disastrous outcome of the "off-the-books" operations of the Iran-contra scandal. That scandal involved secret arms sales to Iran and the illegal diversion of profits from those sales to the contra rebels supported by the CIA in Nicaragua.
Reagan and Casey had trouble when they sought to punish covertly the terrorists responsible for the 1983 truck bombing of the U.S. Marine compound in Lebanon, which killed 241 American servicemen in the deadliest terrorist attack on Americans before Sept. 11. Casey worked personally and secretly with Saudi Arabia to plan the assassination of Muslim leader Sheikh Fadlallah, the head of the Party of God or Hezbollah, who was connected to the Marine bombing. The method of retaliation was a massive car bomb that was exploded 50 yards from Fadlallah's residence in Beirut, killing 80 people and wounding 200 in 1985. But Fadlallah escaped without injury.
Since the Ford administration, all presidents have signed an executive order banning the CIA or any other U.S. government agency from involvement in political assassination. Generally speaking, lawyers for the White House and the CIA have said that the ban does not apply to wartime when the military is striking the enemy's command and control or leadership targets.
The United States can also legally invoke the right of self-defense as justification for striking terrorists or their leaders planning attacks on the United States.
Bush's new presidential finding differs from past findings against the terrorists in a number of significant ways. First, it puts more military muscle behind the clandestine effort to crush al Qaeda. Second, it is far better funded. Third, senior officials said, it has the highest possible priority and will involve better coordination within the entire national security structure: the White House, the president's national security adviser, the CIA, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the departments of State, Defense and Justice.
On Friday, Cheney said the country had a sense of confidence in Bush's team, which includes an experienced trio of advisers -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and Cheney himself. CIA Director George J. Tenet has developed an unusually close relationship with the new president, becoming a regular during Camp David weekends and briefing the chief executive most days.
"There's a lot of tough decisions that are involved here, and some of them very close calls," Cheney said. "But if I had to go out and design a team of people . . . this is it."
The vice president added that the war on bin Laden and terrorists in general is going to be particularly difficult.
"They have nothing to defend," he said. "You know, for 50 years we deterred the Soviets by threatening the utter destruction of the Soviet Union. What does bin Laden value?
"There's no piece of real estate. It's not like a state or a country. The notion of deterrence doesn't really apply here. There's no treaty to be negotiated, there's no arms control agreement that's going to guarantee our safety and security. The only way you can deal with them is to destroy them."
'Smoke Them Out' Six days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush publicly declared the intentions of his administration with the statement that bin Laden was "Wanted: Dead or Alive."
In those remarks at the Pentagon, he said that the new enemy, bin Laden and other terrorists, liked "to hide and burrow in" and conceal themselves in caves. He first mentioned "a different type of war" that would "require a new thought process."
Two days later, Sept. 19, Bush made his first public mention of "covert activities," noting that some foreign governments would be "comfortable" supporting such action.
He added a broad outline of the goal: "Clearly, one of our focuses is to get people out of their caves, smoke them out and get them moving and get them. That's about as plainly as I can put it."
Bush sounded this theme again during his nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 20, when he spoke of "covert activities, secret even in success." In public remarks to CIA employees at the agency's headquarters in Langley a week later, the president dropped more hints: "You see, the enemy is sometimes hard to find; they like to hide. They think they can hide, but we know better."
Officials said that the covert activities approved by the president include a wide range of traditional CIA operations, such as close cooperation with friendly foreign intelligence services and covert and overt assistance to the Afghan rebels fighting to overthrow the Taliban leadership that harbors bin Laden.
The CIA has studied bin Laden and his al Qaeda network for years. A special unit or "Bin Laden station," created in 1996, works round the clock at headquarters.
When Cheney gave a speech Thursday night in New York City, he noticed a sea change. As his motorcade went through Manhattan, people stopped their cars, got out and applauded.
During his short speech before the 56th Annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, he was interrupted by applause 15 times.
On Friday morning, while sitting in his comfortable, well-lit West Wing office, he said with a smile, "There wasn't a dove in the room."
You mean we were trying to kill terrorists after 9/11? Wow ..:rolleyesQuote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
maybe one day you'll realize 1 + 1 = 2Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Sigworthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
thanks for closing the gap:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
too bad it doesn't pertain to your left and right ear
kudos to your way of thinking, it takes an open mind to view it in such a mannerQuote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
do you not do what you wantQuote:
Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded
do you want to burn in helll?
What the fuck is wrong with this? A group of assassins that was going to kill terrorists? Why are people being bitches about this? Terrorists deserve to be fucked up by assassins. I give props to Cheney on this one. He made a lot of mistakes and had a lot of epic fails as VP but this one is a triumph. I mean it shows he was pretty clever and sneaky to keep this hidden for this long. Besides, Congress probably shouldn't have been aware of this anyways. Sometimes it's good not to know. Besides, shouldn't all the Democrats follow the lead of their almighty leader and the leave the past in the past?
cheney wanted that war to make a profit and let his oil buddies get a hold of those oil refineries and that is a fact.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
http://suzieqq.files.wordpress.com/2...omplished2.jpg
Jacob, use your brain, and think about this for two seconds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob1983
What if another country killed a US citizen in the middle of the street, claiming he was a terrorist?
Do you think that would go over well here in the US?
We can get away with it. OTOH, we'll punish anyone who does it to us. Severely.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
(En serio, I agree there's no difference in principle.)
I was pointing out that the result isn't much different than using drones. The target is the same, and many Americans aren't too particular about the instrumentalities, so long as we are the ones doing the killing.
But the person OPERATING the drones is wearing a uniform! ;)
Yes, it definitely does present interesting questions. However, I think drones are legal because they are obviously combat drones.
The major point of the Geneva conventions is that, as long as you're wearing a uniform of some sort, that you have IDENTIFIED yourself as a combatant, then you are a legal target. I'm guessing those drones are identified as such.
Now, if drones were small enough to look like other items, and were disguised as such, I have no doubt would be breaking the Geneva conventions.
You guys didn't get the memo. We have the moral high ground. We're always the good guys. Plus, "You're either with us, or against us".
It makes a difference to me. I was alluding to the fact that this sort of nuance is growing scarcer, even if it is officially in vogue right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
PFA: The official nuance is out of step with the majority of US voters.
(BTW, are you sure the drone operators are all uniformed US armed forces?)
Used without permission within the borders of Pakistan, our ally, or Yemen, a sovereign country with which we are not at war?Quote:
Originally Posted by LngR
This goes back to a *battlefield* of global dimensions, in the case of the *war* on terror. The battlefield lies on a procrustean bed, and the duration of the war has no rational limit.
Within Iraq and Afghanistan you are obviously right, LNGR. These are traditional and recognizable war zones. Actions elsewhere are of more dubious "legality" IMO.
The targets are "unlawful enemy combatants," but this is a quibble.Quote:
Originally Posted by LngR
There is an obvious problem with using uniformed troops under official orders for targeted assassinations *out of theater*. It's not the most dignified use of our warriors (gives us a bad reputation and as such may tend to imperil such soldiers as may fall into the custody of the enemy) and it sets a bad example for others.
As a matter of strategy, I can see the reasoning behind using civilians for black ops targeted killings, instead of US armed forces. You want the enemy to focus on the *evil* USG, not our brave men and women at the point of the spear.
Back on topic, the case as presented suggests Cheney got cold feet. If the program was never operational, but purely notional, I can see the argument that Congress was not entitled to be advised.
OTOH, that Cheney specifically directed the CIA to keep mum, suggests to me that advising Congress may have been considered obligatory within the Bush Administration with regard to this program or at least, within the CIA.
well, i hate to break it to you, but look at the current administration and this global warming farce.Quote:
Originally Posted by antimvp
did you not read the article i posted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
It's rather long. Is there something in it you'd care to direct my attention to?
ah, i should address you as Congressman Winehole from now on. nevermind. carry onQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The article is one long winded self-justification for a ragbag of unspecified covert actions. I do not bow to it as you seem to.
I understand that Bush officials sanctified all their actions in advance and covered their behinds afterwards, by pointing to 9/11.
Was that your point, VLE?
I actually have, and after reading it, I think it's unrelated. The article mentions the CIA doing covert operation to inform the military to carry operations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
The plan we're talking about mentions civilian CIA operatives carrying the operations.
Too nuanced, ElNono. I think VLE sees his post as a blanket amnesty for anything the President chooses to do in the GWOT.
Oh yes, it's definitely a question that will only come up more and more. I'm rather well-read in the philosophical questions that future technology bring... being a geek who's into philosophy and dystopian futures, that kind of topic is right up my alley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
And you as well as I know that the only people who are "sure" are the people behind the instruments, and their bosses. Hence my smiley face.
I would argue that they are most likely illegal. Again, put the shoe on the other foot. Would we allow other countries not at war with us to have drones in our nation, shooting down suspected terrorists? Of course not. Everyone would be screaming bloody murder about sovereignty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The 'everywhere battlefield' is total bullshit, and anyone with half a brain can see the obviously dire implications it has.
So our government says. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I would argue that the damage to America done by not standing on high moral ground would outweigh far more any damage from the military performing assassinations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
After all, the evil US government is in charge of the military, correct?
And enemies won't care if it's the military or CIA using drones illegally once a soldier is kidnapped.
At any rate VLE missed my point that putting the kibosh on the assassination program suggests officials felt themselves under obligation to disclose it to Congress.
well i can care less about whatever "plans" are being hatched here. it's simply an article published a little more than a month after 9/11 to let everyone know pretty much that they were going after the taliban at all costs. it pretty much voids out the "hiding from congress" claim. that is all. sorry, congressman hole, for not posting an article from your favorite rag. which rags do you "bow down" to?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
like i said. i could care less about points. the article i posted addressed what the thread opened up with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
The damage is already done IMO. Panetta is in full damage control mode. We no longer occupy the moral high ground in the eyes of others.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
If we hold ourselves to a higher standard that is because we care about our own moral worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by LngR
Our own scruples do not bind the enemy, but they do not prejudice him against our troops either, as using them to bomb weddings and funerals may.
Agreed. I'm not a believer that it is morally acceptable to lower ourselves to the level of our enemies. Didn't we learn that lesson as children? I guess only some of us did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Obviously. If you think the conversation is over or have nothing further to contribute or respond to, please feel free to excuse yourself. Your points have been duly noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
Blanket amnesty, self-proclaimed in advance, for any unspecified action. Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by VLE
That may dispense with the necessity of Congressional notification for you. The US Congress may not share your sentiment, and I have argued that Cheney's kibosh suggests he may not have thought notification avoidable in the normal administrative course of things.
If it was avoidable, what need was there to order the CIA to be silent?
None. For damn sure it isn't the Washington Post.Quote:
Originally Posted by VLE
I disagree. The universal battlefield appeals to the common sense of fully intact brains as well as anyone who has ever played a first-person shooter video game.Quote:
The 'everywhere battlefield' is total bullshit, and anyone with half a brain can see the obviously dire implications it has.
At any rate, it has been our official war policy for some time now, and already possesses the dignity that attaches to settled custom.
I'm sure you're being facetious here. Sadly, many people push war as if it were a giant game of Risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23