Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIs Obama Continuing the Bush/Cheney Assassination Program?
Congress is outraged that Cheney concealed a CIA program to assassinate al Qaeda leaders, but they should also be investigating why Obama is continuing—and expanding—U.S. assassinations.
In June, CIA Director Leon Panetta allegedly informed members of the House Intelligence Committee of the existence of a secret Bush era program implemented in the days after 9-11 that, until last month, had been hidden from lawmakers. The concealment of the plan, Panetta alleged, happened at the orders of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
Now, The New York Times is reporting that this secret program that had "been hidden from lawmakers" by Cheney was a plan "to dispatch small teams overseas to kill senior Qaeda terrorists." The Wall Street Journal, which originally reported on the plan, reported that the paramilitary teams were to implement a "2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts."
The plan, the Times says, never was carried out because "Officials at the spy agency over the years ran into myriad logistical, legal and diplomatic obstacles." Instead, the Bush administration "sought an alternative to killing terror suspects with missiles fired from drone aircraft or seizing them overseas and imprisoning them in secret C.I.A. jails."
The House Intelligence Committee is now reportedly preparing an investigation into this program and the Senate may follow suit. "We were kept in the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again," said Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein. Withholding this information from Congress "is a big problem, because the law is very clear."
There are several important issues raised by this unfolding story. First, while the Times claims the program was never implemented, the program sounds very similar to what Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Sy Hersh described in March as an "executive assassination ring" run by Dick Cheney that operated throughout the Bush years:
"Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths."Under President Bush's authority, 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, in the name of all of us.
Hersh's description sounds remarkably similar to that offered by the Times and the Wall Street Journal. While the House and Senate should certainly investigate this program-and lying to Congress, misleading it or concealing from it such programs is likely illegal-it is also important to guarantee that it has actually stopped. But another pressing issue for the Congress is investigating the Obama administration's adoption of this secret program's central components. As the Times noted, the major reason-beyond logistical hurdles-that the program was not implemented (if that is even true) was that the Bush administration began increasing its use of weaponized drones to conduct Israeli-style targeted assassinations (often, these drones kill many more civilians than so-called "targets"). These drone attacks, coupled with the use of extraordinary rendition and secret prisons, became the official program for "eliminating" specific individuals labeled "high value" targets by the administration.
The Obama administration has not only continued the Bush policy of using drones to carry out targeted assassinations, but has also continued the use of prisons where people are held indefinitely without charge or access to the International Committee of the Red Cross. Under Obama, Bagram air base in Afghanistan is expanding and, at present, hundreds of prisoners are held there without charges. In essence, the Obama administration is doing exactly what this secret CIA program sought to do, albeit out in the open.
Beyond the Cheney assassination program, what is really worthy of Congressional investigation right now is the legality of Obama's current policy of assassination. In 1976, President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination," states Executive Order 11905.
White House lawyers--with their seemingly infinite legal creativity--would likely say that the drone strikes are not assassinations, but rather part of war. That putting poison in a cigar of a foreign leader is different than launching missiles at a funeral where an "enemy" is believed to be among the mourners. While the implications of the U.S. assassinating heads of state or foreign officials are grave, it could be argued that, on some levels, the drone attacks are worse in the sense that they kill many more civilians. Moreover, these drone attacks largely take place is Pakistan, which is a sovereign nation. There is no legal or Congressional declaration of war against Pakistan.
It is long past due that the Congress investigate this U.S. government assassination program. The politically inconvenient truth, however, is this: An actual investigation would require the Democrats pounding Cheney over his concealment of an assassination program (that allegedly was not implemented) to focus their investigation on how President Obama actually implemented and expanded that very program.
63 Comments so far
Show AllLIke a dentist with his high carbon steel probe, Jeremy Scahill has found the core of decay in the Obama adminstration though it's not quite 6 months old. Barack O and his gang of whiz-kids are vividly demonstrating the truth of that old saying:
"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing."
The governmental travesties of the Bush adminstrations are a vile, putrid, and toxic pollution on all future federal governments of the US until removed.
Poet
Jeremy Scahill has asked the question that none in the corporate-owned press has asked, and it's the heart of the matter. Even the newspaper that supposedly "broke" this story, the Wall Street Journal, recently editorialized in favor of Predator drone assassinations, as Scahill has pointed out.
It looks like the Democrats in Congress are preparing a cover story - that the assassination program never was enacted. They are saying that even before initiating any Congressional investigations or hearings. The reason, of course, is to continue the murderous Bush policies under Obama, while making the general public think that the policies have changed - even as the scandal boils over. Quite cynical. very Obama.
One of the reasons I think the Congressional Democrats are pushing a false story is the involvement of Senator Diane Feinstein. She's quoted in this article as saying that keeping Congress in the dark about the program "is a big problem, because the law is very clear." While that's a true statement, she has zero credibility in saying it. Feinstein has never raised any objection about "being lied to" about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as a pretext for the Iraq war.
Clearly, the WMD thing was a propaganda campaign cooked up by the Bush administration. Former U.S. Deputy Director of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, has admitted that the White House made it up and the Downing Street Memos confirmed the ruse. But Feinstein has said nothing about it to this day. Not a peep after six or more years.
On the eve of the vote in which Congress granted Bush authority to attack Iraq (an unconstitutional action in itself), Feinstein claimed to have been shown secret proof by the White House of Hussein's secret weapons development program. Based on that so-called secret evidence, Feinstein granted Bush the right to attack Iraq illegally, without provocation. Feinstein voted against the wishes of her home state constituency in doing so.
Why has Feinstein said nothing about being deceived in the lead up to the Iraq war? If being deceived about a war doesn't bother her, why is she whining now about a secret assassination program that supposedly never took place?
It sounds like the public is being given the old slight of hand. Loyal Dems, though, probably won't get it, and Repugs love the mayhem. Heck, Dems probably like it too. It's a fucked-up country. You wonder why they bother with secrecy when the general public is so tuned out and clueless.
-TIA
I agree the excuse will be the program was "not fully implemented".
Which means they haven't killed them all yet.
The US will never be able to kill all those who want us out of their land. Not with drones, bombs, bullets or "winning Hearts and minds".
What are the wars but assassinations of whole populations and nations?
How can you Obama supporters rationalize all this unnecessary bloodshed?
Is Obama continuing the Bush/Cheney assassination program?
Is the Pope catholic?
The real question should be, when are Obamabots, Lesser Evilists, Dem Kool-Aid Drinkers and Dem Party Apologists recognizing Obama for what he is, an experimental mutational cross breeding between Idi Amin Dada and George W. Bush?
Nader told you so, not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans, Tweedledee and Tweedledum. But you fools didn't listen.
Jeremy, Jim Glover, Siouxrose et al. -
Ford's executive order 11905 prohibiting CIA participation in "political assassination" is just the starting point.
The real crux of the current breaking news about the CIA withholding from Congress all knowledge of a classified 2001 presidential "finding" which authorized the sort of hit team operations Sy Hersh has reported is the Foreign Intelligence Authorization Act and the Hughes-Ryan amendment to that federal statute.
The legal hook is funding: covert ops cannot take place via the use of Congressionally appropriated monies (by the CIA or by the military intelligence spooks) without the CIA giving Congress a briefing as soon as feasible after the plans have been authorized in a presidential finding, and (unless there are exceptional circumstances) always in advance of the black ops actually taking place.
If the mainstream media accounts on last night's cable TV are accurate (and the NY Times and Wall Street Journal articles Scahill cites are accurate), how in the world can a 2001 presidential "finding" (authorizing one or more targeted assassinations overseas) have been completely withheld from the relevant House and Senate oversight committees for over seven years? If the Sy Hersh connection then pans out - meaning there were actual death squad hit teams going into various countries, killing people suspected of connection to Al Qaeda and causing collateral civilian casualties - then this is a huge, major scandal.
Last night on Rachel Maddow's show, former US attorney and current Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was interviewed about all this. He hinted that although nondisclosure of Bush's finding was patently illegal, there may be no legal remedy, no actual crime that could be prosecuted. How bizarre.
Like Ford's executive order, these federal statutes were specifically designed to remedy abuses discovered in the immediate post-Watergate era - the efforts to kill Fidel Castro, for instance, and the US military's off-the-books bombing campaigns in Laos and Cambodia. The existing black ops oversight mechanism is truly Kafkaesque: "eliminating with extreme prejudice" is per se illegal, unless and until the president first makes a finding that such covert activity is necessary for reasons of national security. That classified presidential finding then must be promptly communicated to Congress. The law is very clear.
Has the United States had death squads authorized to roam about - or actually roaming about - for the last seven years, with Congress kept completely in the dark until Leon Panetta blew the whistle just a few weeks ago? This is some really heavy shit.
Bill from Saginaw
Right, Bill. But a lot of the black budget is hidden, even from Congress. In theory, concealing budgetary items from Congress should be Constitutionally illegal. However, such skullduggery and secret funding has likely been common practice ever since the rise of the U.S. national security state under President Truman.
If funding is still needed, and Congressional oversight needs to be avoided, then the CIA will get the funds outside Congress. In the past, that's mean doing things like selling illegal drugs (smuggling opium from Vietnam), or executing complex arms sales deals (ala Iran-Contra).
One way to interpret all of this, since Seymour Hersh has said that the assassination program was in action, is that the funds didn't come through Congress. Thus, there's no reason to be accountable to Congress. And this whole thing of saying that the assassination program was never enacted is just a "legal" dodge by Democrats and Republicans in Congress.
-TIA
Yep.
The USA is a grand criminal conspiracy. Who is surprised? Outraged, again, as always, but not surprised.
And don't take ANYTHING any of these criminal kingpins says at face value. Not that everything is necessarily a lie or false, but you can't presume the truth of any of it.
Assassination, death squads, lies: long long long history of it.
First, I beleive that this article is somewhat disingenuous. There is a lot of controversy as to exactly what was and was not authorized. My personal opinion is that conducting assassinations against those whom we are already engaged in conflict with is a VERY GOOD thing. Far better than bombing an entire city block in the hopes of getting one or two leaders.
Second, the internal workings of the CIA should NOT be on public display at all times. There indeed should be congressional oversight, which may need some tweeking. Since the plan was never implemented, there would naturally be no need to consult with the Diane Feinstein et.al.. I consider Dick Chaney and the baby Bush administration to be war criminals for acts that they did, but in this case, I see no foul. In many ways we would be better of I believe had they gone ahead with this plan rather than start shooting from Preditor drones without the degree of accuracy that a sniper or assassin might have. Had Jimmy Carter not "cleaned up" the CIA many decades ago, we may have had the resources in the field to have brought this to a quick solution months ago. (IMHO)
"In many ways we would be better of I believe had they gone ahead with this plan rather than start shooting from Preditor drones without the degree of accuracy that a sniper or assassin might have. Had Jimmy Carter not "cleaned up" the CIA many decades ago, we may have had the resources in the field to have brought this to a quick solution months ago. (IMHO)"
Yes, because killing a few / some al Qaeda operatives over the world would have brought a quick solution months ago in Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA was oh so very successful in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
"Second, the internal workings of the CIA should NOT be on public display at all times. There indeed should be congressional oversight, which may need some tweeking. Since the plan was never implemented, there would naturally be no need to consult with the Diane Feinstein et.al.."
So who is the CIA answerable to? They get to decide what they disclose, and to whom?
Excuse me -- but since WHEN did the United States have the RIGHT to consider or implement assassinating ANYONE , including those the USA is "in conflict with" ?
that easily slides into "we are in conflict with russia or china over taiwan or over gas sold to europe who are our 'allies'" therefore - ASSASSINATE putin, HU Jintao - "INSTEAD OF bombing entire populations".
IN EITHER CASE - the USA has ABSOLUTELY
ZERO rights to ANYTHING of that sort. PERIOD.
the USA is in "conflict" with nations BECAUSE of ITS policies PERIOD.
it TRIED and TRIES to DOMINATE the globe - and creates ENEMIES where there ought to be NONE - because of ITS grasping, exploitative, manipulative policies - OFTEN reflected in "economic sanctions" or TWISTING arms to bow to the USA chamber of commerce resulting iN IMPOVERISHMENTS all across the globe -- from south america, to asia to africa!
PERIOD.
take a GOOD LOOK at what OBAMA JUST said to Africa in his visit:
IN THE FACE of the USA BUILDING UP its MILITARY presence - as usual - with AFRICACOM - like its POINTLESS NATO (except as imperial ARM) in europe and its "taiwan" and Philippines bases - and its "military partnership" with Australia thinking the PACIFIC is ITS LAKE - like south america is its BACKYARD - like Central Asia is its "national interest"- etc. etc. etc.
OBAMA tells africans - the land where HIS OWN FATHER came from - without a HINT OF IRONY - that THEY OUGHT To "adopt the free market"
USED by the USA to IMPOVERISH nations everywhere! or be threatened with MILITARY attacks!
NO WONDER the USA has nations "we are in conflict with"....
anyone that goes ANYWHERE - dictating - and kicking down their doors and cottages and telling them how to behave and GRABBING their resources and leaving their countries and economies SUBJECTS to AMERICAN EMPIRE
OF COURSE is going to have "Conflicts" with those nations and their people -- sooner or later as a RESULT of American policies.
and you are going to say "it is better to assassinate than to bomb?"
NEITHER is AMERICA's RIGHT - by a gazillion lightyears!!
it is america that ought to BEHAVE like a civilized nation that it PRETENDS to know about!
THE USA CIA has attempted to assassinate Castro of CUBA eight times .. .
for what? because CUBA is socialist and WON't BOW to the US IMPERIALIST Capitalist system that LEFT NATIONS left and right IMPOVERISHED - whether through enforced adaptation OR through Sanctions if they WON"T bow?
you CALL THAT justified? that's just the actions of a BULLY that can't get what it wants the way it wants, the moment it wants, however way it wants. that's just EVIL - PERIOD!
how would americans like it if Putin tried to have a US official assassinated? they'd be HOWLING in outrage at the "attack upon our sovereignty and our freedoms"
crying their hypocritical tears!
HTE USA has a conflict with AL QAEDA and OSAMA BIN LADEN because the USA coddled the SAUDI royalty who are OPPRESSIVE of their own people and who have UNEARNED power in their own country tat the USA SUPPLIES with "protection"..and the USA was WARNED by bin laden to LEAVE and REMOVE its military installations in the middle east where they DON"T BELONG!
it has a conflict with the TALIBAN - which the CIA USA SUPPORTED and EMPOWERED when THEY were useful against the USSR - because the USA drops bombs will-nilly for its "victory" in a region IT DOESN"T BELONG TO !
the USA has a conflict with CHINA because the USA plays the DOUBLE GAME of supporting TAIWAN because it happens to be "friendly" to the USA EVEN IF TAIWAN's "separation" from china is a RESULT of divisions DECADES ago between Nationalists in china -- which was itself a RESULT OF IMPERIAL attacks BY the USA and ENGLAND and other european countries to DIVIDE UP CHINA BETWEEN THEM!
not only are so many americans' ideas so SHALLOW - they are also based on such SHALLOW knowledge of history , including THEIR own country's CENTRAL ROLE in creating conflicts that THEY then justify with wars and 'assassinations'......
what a farce!
"
the USA has a conflict with CHINA because the USA plays the DOUBLE GAME of supporting TAIWAN because it happens to be "friendly" to the USA EVEN IF TAIWAN's "separation" from china is a RESULT of divisions DECADES ago between Nationalists in china -- which was itself a RESULT OF IMPERIAL attacks BY the USA and ENGLAND and other european countries to DIVIDE UP CHINA BETWEEN THEM!"
Yes, let's conveniently ignore what the people of Taiwan want. That is so very progressive. So leftist.
Teddy, you're reading far too much into what I wrote. If you dis-agree with what I wrote, than it is logical to assume you would rather kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians rather than take out individual leaders. What a humanitarian you are indeed.
You may not agree with the "war", but like it or not Congress authorized it. I didn't vote for it, neither did you, but many people got the chance to "vote" for those who did, and anybody who voted to re-elect a person who voted for these actions can look in the mirror to find the guilty party. I can absolutely guarantee that I have voted in every election since 1970, and that in the past eight years I have not voted for a single person who voted to allow us to go into IRAQ. (I'm not AS opposed to being in Afghanistan, but feel that the emphasis should be on getting the individuals we went there to get in the first place). As far as having the "right" as you put it, I am a firm believer in the phrase... "I do not believe that the INITIATION of violence is justified in the settlement of any dispute", but I also believe that once violence has been put upon you, you kick ass, PERIOD.
When I said "in conflict with", well I presumed people would have taken that to be 'at war' with, but yes, you are correct that 'conflict' is not strictly 'war' and I should have been more percise. I forget just how anal some people can be on these boards at times. My bad - I'll try to get better. And of course, in this paragraph, I refer to 'war' as armed conflict, not economic or political or cyber-warfare.
But, as you say, we don't have the right to 'assassinate' so let's just bomb the hell out of em, eh?
you are wrong.
I choose NEITHER assassinations nor bombings. PERIOD. they are BOTH WAR. and there is NO such thing as "noble" or "justifiable" war. war is ALWAYS evil.
even if "defensive war" such as a people or nation would make when it is actually ATTACKED by foreigners - is STILL war and contains within it evils , regardless of how much one must CHOOSE to wage it for self-defense.
but DEFENSE war of one's own homeland against Foreign attackers or invaders does not even come into play to begin with - UNLESS
foreign attackers INITIATED an attack.
in the case of the USA -- "attacks" UPON OTHER LANDS and cultures were initiated BY THE USA
LONG BEFORE any BLOWBACKS appeared in the usa - such as 9/11. they were the CONSEQUENCE of the PRECEDING ATTACKS
what general smedly Butler - US marine general of 1933 speeches and revelations as the "USA's High Class Muscle Man Enforcer for Capitalist Rackets" - called:
"OUR CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC ASSAULT upon other lands and peoples".
if anything the BOMBINGS and assassinations by the USA ARE the ATTACKS initiated BY the USA in a continuation of IMPERIAL ASSAULT upon OTHER people. and they are the result of trying to PROTECT its interests PREVIOUS to these assaults that were THEMSELVES attacks and assaults upon other lands....etc . etc. etc. etc.
like a self-perpetuating and self-justifying merry-go round of MURDER, RAPACIOUSNESS , and THEFT of the resources of other lands.
they are not even ANYTHING close to "defense"...the USA Military should really be called
THE DEPARTMENT OF OFFENSE and ASSAULT and WARMAKING and ROBBERY ENFORCEMENT upon OTHER lands.
Bombing or assassinations are METHODS of ENFORCING this US POLICY of ASSAULT outside its own borders.
as Socrates said:
"ALL FOREIGN WARS are waged for Profit and Power."
Teddy never said Bomb anyone you are diggin your hole deeper now.
Thank you Jim Glover. you are correct and i hope that helped to clear up that my position is that BOTH assassinations and bombings are ASSAULT by a nation - the USA - using these methods that can ONLY COME from what is inherently an EVIL "project" which is EMPIRE.
EMPIRE demands it in order for the project to CONTINUE. it is its very nature. and THAT is simply wrong - as well as the "necessary" methods that the Empire HAS HAD TO CREATE ...because of one simple truth:
PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE TO BE RULED by foreigners coming into their lands - extracting their resources and blood and sweat and leaving them subjugated for the benefit of the Foreign power - ESPECIALLY a foreign power such as the USA that deems itself the Lord and Master of the Universe.
and when the time comes -- those natives WILL resent it - and will TRY to kick the foreign DOMINATION away - and the Foreign INTRUDER rather than an honorable guest wishing to trade FAIRLY -
will - in "Defense" of its "national interest" OUTSIDE OF ITS OWN BORDERS - as an effect of its "extra -national" actions - and especially as an EMPIRE - will RESORT to the methods that empires PRACTICE to "secure" their "domination".
THAT is WAR and Assassinations.
terrorism is the method of the weakened or less powerful entities going against the will of the very powerful. .
War is the Terrorism of the RICH and the POWERFUL
The only two choices are to kill individuals, or to kill in mass. If he chooses not to accept the first, the second is the only other option, but I'm sure he can speak for himself.
Well, if those are the only two choices, the USA doesn't seem to think so... We do both always have and secretly or hire hit men and train foreign military to do it like the School of the Americas which changed it's name because it got caught doing just that.
If you want peace forget about Assassinations if you want even to win war, forget about assassination.
War crimes cannot be brought to justice with more war Crimes.
We need to quite Empire and use international and local Police to arrest with just cause and try those the USA seeks to Assassinate like our laws and any civilized nation would.
Forget about Assassinations and win war by ending War.
That is the only good choice the other two that you want us to choose between are both EVIL.
False dichotomy.
There are more than the 2 choices you present. There always are more than 2 choices of assassinations or bombing en masse.
Also, by all means authorise and support assassinations. What do you think will happen when everyone else in the world goes down the same route?
nobodyknown,
The plan was never implemented?
Who Says?
You need to research what the CIA does in the world not what any Director says they do.
In any case Top Secret programs even if not implemented, by law must be explained to those authorized in Congress.
Third paragraph down, first sentence.
It ran into problems so it was implemented.
Farther down,
logistical problems like
"Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths."
So they did more crimes, Torture and drone bombings of civilians. We don't know which is worse the secret program or what is now in the open.
Collateral damage can not happen if it was not implemented... the New York times is playin Catch up as usual.
Now we won't know more until this crime is investigated.
I believe the "collateral damage" they are refering to is the use of drones to do the "assassinating" rather than the use of skilled individuals. We obviously are still trying to kill the leaders, just that we've taken a different pathway. Rather than send in trained snipers or hire local hit men, we send in drones with missiles. With the assassin, there is usually the home of "plausible deniability", but with the drones, everybody knows where they come from.
Like my first post said, there is still some controversy as to what was and was not authorized. I do believe we should look to see what happened. I have never trusted Dick Chaney and consider him the most UN-American person to ever have served in government, but if we're going to kill people in war, I'd much rather see us take out stratigic targets (read individual men) than bomb the crap out of poor farmers who only want to be left alone to plant and harvest their crops.
Well, I am glad you now want to investigate this.
The reason I am skeptical about your thinking that the Collateral damage was from only drones, The story in March was:
"Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths."
There have been dozens of these attacks since March.
You can Google "the latest Drone attacks that have killed civilians"
Investigate
"My personal opinion is that conducting assassinations against those whom we are already engaged in conflict with is a VERY GOOD thing." Please give a concrete example, and back it up with a link please, that identifies exactly how the semi-literate tribesmen and women (and their children)of the Swat Valley have intentionally gone out of their way to harm us. But do not include examples whereby they are defending themselves in their own land. Why don't you come up with an example of how a single one of these folks, citizens of one of the poorest areas on earth, actually traveled to America or Europe and killed a single citizen of the developing world. Oh, and don't confuse these people with Saudi's who learned how to fly jets. Once you've come up empty handed, have failed to produce a single instigating act which would justify shooting an internationally illegal hellfire missile at children and women morning the butchering of one their own as they bury them, then look at yourself in the mirror. Take a long look, my friend.
You obviously failed to read beyond what you commented on. As I've written, it is an opinion, that to take out ONE person via sniper or other means of assassination, is far better than bombing innocent civilians. I NEVER said that we had done this, but that it would be a better thing. I do not subscribe to assassination of leaders that we are not fighting, but since Congress decided that we are at war, it would be better to do pin-point extermination.
Pin point extermination?
Bush was sayin "you are either with us or against us and Terrorists in 60 countries" ... now that is also a logistical problem.
I would not be surprised if Americans were targeted right here in the "Homeland".
Jim, you and the others are totally missing my point. I'm not saying that it's okay to have the agency just go out and 'shoot-em-up', but that it would be far better to take out one or two individual than to drop 5,000 pound bombs on city blocks, or to send in Preditor missles without exact guidance. If the rest of you feel that it is better to kill hundreds of innocent civilians, so be it, it is your opinion, but not mine.
That is now your point?
OK
Before you were saying that the program was not implemented and you also were implying that it should not be investigated.
There is no proof that this plan was about pin pointing Assassination.
I never said that blowing up innocents is better than an assassination, nobody here said that. You are making that up.
The problem is that Bush and Cheney were not even trying to get Osama bin Laden, they let him get away.
They fabricated almost all the evidence for this War, fixed the facts to fit what thy had planned before 9/11.
This is just one more crime in a long train of war crimes.
If you still think that this should just be left alone, Your point is pointless.
Money and power can turn anyone conservative, especially peer pressured young Presidents.
BTW, Pedantic, patronizing conservative assholes like Lindsey Graham really piss me off.
I am so sad to say....I don't think there is enough "people of consciousness & courage" in Congress to do the just thing which is to HOLD LEGITIMATE HEARINGS (OPEN TO THE PUBLIC) AND CALL ALL WITNESSES WHO CAN ATTEST TO THE COVERT CIA & BUSH ADMINISTRATION POLICIES. Obama is not interested in "looking back" which is necessary to form a direction for the present and future. He is part of the Bush & Co. mentality. Why are people so afraid to see Obama for what he really is???
Jeremy,
The congress doesn't even care that Obama is illegally bombing Pakistan. How can you expect them to be concerned that he's violating an executive order by a President most have forgotten about.
The law is for losers.
Another thing to keep in mind is all of the fraudulent Usama Bin Ladin tape recordings the Bush administration claimed were of him talking to us in the current sense every time. Some weren't even UBL! The others were from old recordings "touched up" a little.
I haven't read the following article, which was found with a Web search for some example pages on the UBL tapes, but the article should be fitting, given the subtitle for it.
"Bin Laden tapes: Fact or fiction?
Osama tapes foster pro-war rhetoric",
by AlJazeera.com, Jan 21 2006
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=1768
QUOTE:
In the past year, Zawahri has been issuing tapes, and Bin Laden has been careful not to appear
The audiotapes of OSAMA BIN LADEN have become an important medium between AL-QAEDA network and the outside world. If authentic, these tapes could enable BIN LADEN to convey his opinions to his enemies and followers, issue threats and even claim responsibility for terror attacks carried out by his group. It is obvious that the usefulness of such tapes cannot be questioned, but how can people be sure of their origin and authenticity? Little time is dedicated to such examinations. But an analysis can really influence the way we judge similar evidence in the future.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that these audiotapes are authentic. While they are always followed by reports of scientific voice analyses, these studies have been invariably done by CIA experts. In fact, only one occasion was an independent analysis done. And while American officials were certain of the tape’s authenticity, Swedish scientists were convinced that it was fake.
END QUOTE
Ha ha ha ... When is all of this damn U.S. presidential folly going to stop!
Oh, readers who haven't yet seen fake pictures of UBL, that is, pictures the Bush administration claimed were him when they weren't him, and this was easy to quickly see will get a "kick" out of the following Web page, which is good, is truthful, and has a little humour.
"The Fake 2001 bin Laden Video Tape"
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osamatape.html
"sunflower333 July 14th, 2009 1:57 pm
Essentially, nobody cares. "
Nobody cares about what? About the US employing assassination squads? If that's what you mean, then I disagree with you; I'm sure a lot of people care about this.
Iraqis certainly care, and if you wish a real insight into why, then read the article by Dahr Jamail linked in my second post in this page.
With that said, Obama is commanding nothing better or less than assassinations with his war in Pakistan, massacring many Pakistanis who were no threat to the US at all.
Essentially, nobody cares. It is just entertainment. CNN published the CIA assassination manual that describes recruiting the mentally ill because they have no credibility when caught (but also make lousy shots. Recent disclosures also mentioned that bankers of al Qaeda were also targets. One wonders if this was a domestic program to silence witnesses and whistle blowers. Remember when only international terrorists were wiretapped? Who were the collateral damage?
Who they were?
Here you find an answer that will test any denial of logic, reason and facts:
“Collateral Damage” by E. P Heidner, part I and II.
>>> www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner <<<
Be warned, it is an extremely distressing result.
The CIA's kill teams were modeled on Israel's hit squads.
With so many of the Bush insiders holding Israeli passports what should we expect? Obama selected his insiders from the same pack of Zionists. Whips and Chains we can believe in, eh?
Humbaba ,
What you wrote is a lot of bs. Both Israel and the US have death squads, but the US has centuries of history of this. Consider what was done in wiping out MOST American Indians. There was "death squads" activity in all of this.
The CIA couldn't have started to use death squads prior to WW II. The CIA didn't exist prior to WW II. But don't worry; the US didn't need Israel to learn how to operate in evil ways.
People who write stuff, garbage, whiny garbage like you did should either cease and grow up, or provide links to supporting resources. You NEVER have any links to offer though.
But (saying 'but' due to what's said in my first post in this CD page) there is a sort of assassination "program" going on in Iraq. This is with the ISOF the US formed; having, early into this war on Iraq, taken Iraqi youths of around 18 years of age and taken them for training, until they became what evidently is equivalent in capabilities of US Marines, Special Ops Forces. Since then, the ISOF are Iraqi, still, but they're not overseen, at all, by any part of the Iraqi government. The US is their boss, and the US employs them as "death squads", El-Salvador Option "style".
"The Dirty War", by Dahr Jamail, Truthout.org, Jul 12, 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14330
He provides a link to an article by Shane Bauer, a piece at The Nation and about these "death squads", and in that article there is a picture of one of these death squad Iraqis. He is completely covered, except for the eyes and a little of the face around the eyes being visible. I'm not sure, but looking at the guy's face, what little we see of it, I wonder if the eyes and possibly nose are not Iraqi-like at all. Can we distinguish between the apparence of the forms of eyes and noses of whites and Arabs? I think we sometimes can, but perhaps not with all Arabs. Am not sure though; I could be wholly mistaken. Maybe there are no natural differences between the forms or shapes of the eyes and noses.
If we can normally perceive facial differences though, then back to what I am wondering. After all, the ISOF soldiers is so covered up that he could actually be an American and not Iraqi at all.
Furthermore, I also wonder if the U.S. war-makers would trust training Iraqis to become as trained, capable as U.S. Marines, Special Ops Forces; figuring that they likely wouldn't want to take the risk that once these ISOF soldiers become greater in number, and it seems that the US is planning on doubling their number within a relatively short time-frame, well, the US could end up surprised to find out that these ISOF eventually turn around against their until-then "master(s)".
Dahr Jamail seems to believe that these ISOF soldiers are truly Iraqis who were taken for this training when they were 18 years of age, but what real proof is there for us to really know that they're Iraqis, at all?
I think that what CIA Director Leon Panetta allegedly said and what the NYT reports is a lot of bs. Without being a position to be absolutely certain about this, I will nevertheless believe what we learn in the documentary film that's by families of 9-11 victims, 9-11 Families, and which is entitled, "9/11: Press for Truth".
"9/11: Press for Truth" (1:24:23), produced by Banded Artists Production and posted at Google Sep 28 2006
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481
What I'm referring to begins, for a more thorough viewing of this particular part, around 50 minutes into the film, perhaps a little before; or a person could start at around 53 minutes and then decide if they wish to back up a little. At that point, the film will develop to the point where it tells and shows viewers about the U.S. having, evidently, deliberately let Usama Bin Ladin and other Al Qa'ida leaders, as well as their companion Taliban leaders, escape; allowing them to make it to Tora Bora in a considerably large convoy that, as said in the film, the U.S. should have been able to detect; and once at Tora Bora, US forces surrounded the town or village on three sides, leaving one side completely uncovered or unsecured, and the U.S. conducted aerial bombings on, evidently, the same three sides, again leaving one side open. And it is through that unsecured and unbombed side that Usama Bin Ladin et alia escaped and fled to Pakistan.
The US forces moving up to Tora Bora, being right there and the aerial bombings are shown in the film, and the CIA field commander, Gary Bernsten, became angry enough over this evidently deliberate event that he resigned two years early in order to write a book on this. He also did an exclusive for Newsweek in August, 2005, "CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away". The book is, "JAWBREAKER: The Attack On Bin Laden And Al-Qaeda".
The following is a copy of the exclusive with Newsweek.
"Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away",
by Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, Dec 27, 2005
http://911citizenswatch.org/?p=766
EXCERPT:
Aug. 15, 2005 issue - During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, “didn’t choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill” the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent’s allegation “the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking.” Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.
But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency’s Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora -- intelligence operatives had tracked him -- and could have been caught. “He was there,” Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen’s remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. “We don’t know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001,” Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. “Bin Laden was never within our grasp.” Berntsen says Franks is “a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was.”
In his book—titled “Jawbreaker”—the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld’s Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon’s own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen’s lawyer, Roy Krieger. ...
END EXCERPT
Oh, btw, "9/11: Press for Truth" says that there's serious cause to believe that some of Usama Bin Ladin's Saudi family members were there at Tora Bora, too. :) If that's true, then I'll conjecture that it's like guaranteed that the Bush administration would not want to truly track down and capture these people; unless it was to provide them with limousine air service, say.
I read over the past few days that there's some U.S. military officer, high in rank, who says the U.S. has never really sought Usama Bin Ladin and that it's strategically not worth spending time on the leaders of "terrorist" groups, that, instead, it's better to go for the lower ranked members, given they're more numerous. That sophisticated sort of reasoning can potentially seem persuasive to us, but it shouldn't be. However, what it usefully does tell us is that who ever this U.S. officer is, whatever his name is, since I haven't retained it, he said the U.S. has [not] sought to truly track down and capture UBL. In saying the US in this, it's obviously not to mean the US troops and many officers, but the White House and surely some of the corporate oligarchy running the government of the USA.
I doubt they'd try to assassinate leaders like Usama Bin Ladin and the or some of the other Al Qa'ida leaders. When the US will use assassination will be when it's strategically useful, and Usama Bin Ladin and the other Al Qa'ida leaders really are [not] in the way, at all. It's the Taliban that the US has really been fighting against all along.
"French 'had bin Laden in sights'", Jan 14, 2007
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2006/12/
2008525142737243808.html
"Afghan article says US Bin-Ladin hunt phoney", Nov 17, 2008
http://www.juancole.com/2008/11/afghan-article-says-us-bin-ladin-hunt.html
WHAT DEMOCRACY? lots of logistical problems. hmm let me count
some of the ways this could get ugly. that spy that the locals aren:t quite sure about but see this firestorm in the news.
gone.then reverse that scenario and do the same. its like
lying they go on and on and no one can remember everything
that happened. these clowns got so mad when mommy took their
toy cowboy guns and holsters away even though they were only
22 when that happened. could go into the fellini thing with
this too.
It's partisanship business as usual but not surprising. With regards to Al Quaida, since they were responsible for a lot of the terrorism involved, I'm afraid that the public will remain content with this, provided that they even know it. Personally, I am sorry but I cannot excuse Al Quaida for what it has done so far. It can make their brothers and sisters feel good for a second about strapping up and getting ready to terrorize but Al Quaida is not only a threat to their own but to everyone else. I find it surprising that the CIA would suddenly want to terminate their own creation that is Al Quaida so I'm guessing they'll down Bush/Cheney/Obama's program.
Please show me the evidence of "Al-Quaeda" and what they have done. Where is the evidence that 'they' were behind the 9/11 attacks? What is Al-Quaeada anyway? Do you believe the official story?
The CIA is why bin Laden was able to expand and strengthen AQ. You wanna support a fanatic group that has fun exploiting the plight of the poor and throwing their lives in harm's way? FINE ! But hey, according to some know-it-alls I ain't "intelligent" enough ! As a real pro-lifer, I don't believe that any religious wacko group regardless of religion has the authority to turn the working poor into weapons.
Please explain how the CIA 'created' Al-Qaida? Because that myth has been debunked numerous times.
guess who July 14th, 2009 5:52 pm Try this.....
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
thanks for the link cynical.
Al-Quaeda = Politics of Fear
A textbook case
Double post.
Oh, ha-ha hee-hee!!!!!
Does the USA do anything that is morally and legally right these days???
From the quote from Hersh's article in March:
"Just today in the Times there was a story that its leaders, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths"
If it was reportedly stopped, it is a lie that it was never implemented!
This does not make sense. A direct assassination has less collateral killing than the drone attacks Obama is guilty of now.
If Obama wanted peace, he could do it, but as an acting war criminal his credibility is gone.
If impeachment and prosecution is still 'off the table' for past and present atrocities
then maybe this is another path to sudden justice. It's like being only a little bit . pregnant.
I wish that Scahill had at least addressed the allegation that Panetta "cancelled" or "terminated" the assassination program, as reported elsewhere.
Personally, I don't believe anything Panetta says; in fact, it's far more sensible to assume that any public statement by the head of a clandestine state security service is a falsehood.
And even if it's true that Panetta has terminated the program-- and further assuming that his administrators follow his orders, another highly problematic assumption-- it by no means renders the issue moot.
Still, I would have liked to have seen Scahill address the point.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Siouxrose - the ol' Spartans had a system for their people. When a lad reached the time to be considered a Spartan man, one night he would be awakened by his elders and sent to murder an obstreperous helot or two. This proved his worth, bravery, and got rid of potential future terrorists as well.
Nothing new about murder in the night.
Somebody said somewhere that the Dims wouldn't be upset if this program only took out al-Qaeda. The program must have be something that spooks even the Dims.
locust's law - Nobody gives up power voluntarily.
Remember, it's all about taking out potential future terrorists, a category which includes everybody.
Sioux Rose
LOCUST: Interesting historical tidbit. I prefer Felini's depiction of Italy where fathers took their sons to the local house of ill repute to get their first taste of sex. (Felini turned the scene into a grotesque carnival with aging fat women, but it still beats murder and teasing a taste for blood in the young as hormones flood their systems.)
Indigenous societies and matriarchal communes that pre-dated Western civilization suggest ways to live together that do not accord to war the highest status a society can allot. Broader models would help ease humanity into other arrangements; however, those who profit from war and make billions making weapons of destruction will not gently ease their fingers from the triggers held at their current command.
I agree wholeheartedly with you, as usual.
Hunter-gatherers dealt with conflict by avoiding it as much as possible. Unfortunately, the Earth is finite and agriculturists and exploiters took all the lands and seas.
In Roman times, to get into government a man had to serve in a number of military campaigns at increasingly higher rank. This proved his worth and bravery, or shall I say (and this holds true for my earlier post about Spartans) this proved his viciousness and obedience to the system.
Those seeking power always find or manufacture 'enemies' in order to posit themselves as 'heroes'. The bigger the 'enemy', obviously the bigger that makes the 'hero'.
Let's all watch as the politicians pop up and scream 'Iran!' or 'Russia' or 'China!' or 'terrorists'.
ION (in other news) - we had 4 red-tailed hawks circling the neighborhood air streams the other day. I wished I could have joined them. It looked like fun.
Obimbo has proven himself to be, after a mere six months, as miserable a human being and as great a threat to what little is left of democracy here as George Wanker Bush. I loathe and despise the Democratic party even more than the Republicans.
Not so fast with the condemnations of BlackBush... he has given me some good ideas. I am now in the process of developing a new product called - "Hope on a Rope".
If the a-Merkin public is as gullible as they seem to be I will clean up.
I second that
Sioux Rose
One reads items like this article by Scahill and wonders to what extent the popularity of "007" films celebrating (and sexualizing) a "license to kill" took hold in the American imagination. Just as today's programs where cops bust into homes relaxes the very PREMISE of privacy, movies that glorified international programs of endorsed assassination may have been purposely planted. They were to mass American consciousness what seeds are to the fertile field. Now we witness the harvest. Killing IS natural in America. From its more passive form seen as road rage (leading to 45,000 deaths a year) to its most brutal "Exhibit A" in the form of wars based on the naked rites of resource acquisition, it is the singular thing that defines the American way. (Also known as MARS RULES.)
During the Gulf War (1990) the Pentagon introduced the euphemism "collateral damage" when referring to killing civilians (non-American civilians)and destroying their nations and Americans became much more comfortable with the idea of war, pre-emptive and otherwise.
Movies are extremely influential in this nation. You would not believe the number of maniacs driving the streets where I live as if they were starring in "The Fast and the Furious". You wouldn't believe it but I do since I was almost killed by one. That said, I don't think people holding powerful positions in the Commissariat for Infiltration and Assassination are influenced by James Bond movies. And if they are, they identify with particular villains, like Robert Shaw in "From Russia With Love". I'm sure they think James Bond is a pussy. It's the psychotics and sociopaths they cheer on.
"Commissariat for Infiltration and Assassination"
You're in good form today Mordechai.