Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Assassinations Anyone? CIA Claims of Cancelled Campaign are Hogwash
CIA director Leon Panetta just told Congress he cancelled a secret operation to assassinate al-Qaida leaders. The CIA campaign, authorized in 2001, had not yet become operational, claimed Panetta.
I respect Panetta, but his claim is humbug. The U.S. has been trying to kill al-Qaida personnel (real and imagined) since the Clinton administration. These efforts continue under President Barack Obama. Claims by Congress it was never informed are hogwash.
The CIA and Pentagon have been in the assassination business since the early 1950s, using American hit teams or third parties. For example, a CIA-organized attempt to assassinate Lebanon's leading Shia cleric, Muhammad Fadlallah, using a truck bomb, failed, but killed 83 civilians and wounded 240.
In 1975, I was approached to join the Church Committee of the U.S. Congress investigating CIA's attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, Congo's Patrice Lumumba, Vietnam's Ngo Dinh Diem, and Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Add to America's hit list Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan's Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Indonesia's Sukarno, Chile's Marxist leaders and, very likely, Yasser Arafat.
Libya's Moammar Khadaffy led me by the hand through the ruins of his private quarters, showing me where a 2,000-pound U.S. bomb hit his bedroom, killing his infant daughter. Most Pakistanis believe, rightly or wrongly, the U.S. played a role in the assassination of President Zia ul-Haq.
To quote Josef Stalin's favourite saying, "No man. No problem."
Assassination was outlawed in the U.S. in 1976, but that did not stop attempts by its last three administrations to emulate Israel's Mossad in the "targeted killing" of enemies. The George W. Bush administration, and now the Obama White House, sidestepped American law by saying the U.S. was at war, and thus legally killing "enemy combatants." But Congress never declared war.
CHENEY'S SQUAD
Washington is buzzing about a secret death squad run by Dick Cheney when he was vice-president and his protege, the new U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. This gung-ho general led the Pentagon's super secret Special Operations Command, which has become a major rival to the CIA in the business of "wet affairs" (as the KGB used to call assassinations) and covert raids.
Democrats are all over Cheney on the death squad issue, as are some Republicans -- in order to shield Bush. But the orders likely came from Bush, who bears ultimate responsibility.
Americans are now being deluged by sordid scandals from the Bush years about torture, kidnapping, brutal secret prisons, brainwashing, mass surveillance of American's phones, e-mail, and banking.
In 2001, as this column previously reported, U.S. Special Forces oversaw the murder at Dasht-e-Leili, Afghanistan, of thousands of captured Taliban fighters by Uzbek forces of the Communist warlord, Rashid Dostum.
CIA was paying Dostum, a notorious war criminal from the 1980s, millions to fight Taliban. Dostum is poised to become vice-president of the U.S.-installed government of President Hamid Karzai. Bush hushed up this major war crime.
America is hardly alone in trying to rub out enemies or those who thwart its designs. Britain's MI-6 and France's SDECE were notorious for sending out assassins. The late chief of SDECE told me how he had been ordered by then-president Francois Mitterrand to kill Libya's Khadaffy. Israel's hit teams are feared around the globe.
DISGRACE
History shows that state-directed murder is more often than not counterproductive and inevitably runs out of control, disgracing nations and organizations that practise it.
But U.S. assassins are still at work. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, U.S. drones are killing tribesmen almost daily. Over 90% are civilians. Americans have a curious notion that killing people from the air is not murder or even a crime, but somehow clean.
U.S. Predator attacks are illegal and violate U.S. and international law. Pakistan's government, against which no war has been declared, is not even asked permission or warned of the attacks.
Dropping 2,000-pound bombs on apartment buildings in Gaza or Predator raids on Pakistan's tribal territory are as much murder as exploding car bombs or suicide bombers.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
65 Comments so far
Show AllThere is a fascinating interview, recorded a couple of weeks ago, with Daniel Ellsberg, by Scott Horton at antiwar.com/radio. Ellsberg talks about his role in the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and about his role as a military analyst prior to his releasing the Pentagon Papers. Scott Horton, at one point, expressed his bewilderment at how Ellsberg and others, could have ignored, and even promoted, blatant lies and distortions for so long.
It was interesting to hear Ellsberg searching for an answer. He was very candid and honest and essentially said that it's easy for people in the halls of power to get caught up in the secrecy of a group lie, it tends to enhance their sense of self importance. Thousands can get caught up in it.
He said it much better than I so I encourage others to give him a listen.
Merely 2 days ago, here on CD, I read numerous posts lamenting the long life of Robert McNamara. In two of posts individuals had an opportunity to harm or kill McNamara, and the posters stated (apparently real) regret over their failure to murder him. Where is the outrage from the posters in this board?
At what point do "enemies" become worthy of death; only when they are American? Are only foreign leaders of openly hostile groups deserving of protection from assassination?
I am not a fan of the operational side (as opposed to the intelligence-collection side) of the CIA. I feel like the war-time killing that must be done is best accomplished my the military. I also feel that a few, well-controlled assassignations of hostile leaders makes more sense than bombing cities and shooting ordinary foot soldiers.
If the argument is for no war at all...OK. The next ballot is in about 16 months. Let's get busy.
I believe you are overreacting to our silence on those who bragged about wanting to kill McNamara. Everyone has killer thoughts and desires. What makes us civilized is that we don't carry them out.
Now as to who deserves death and who doesn't, I really don't think that is our big beef here. We want TRANSPARENCY. You are a government agency that kills people but you don't tell us about it because we can't "handle it". Well then you don't deserve to be a government agency, period. You work for us, pal. Yeah, I know that's not the reality but we are sick and tired of this myth pushing bullshit of our pristine government boyscouts who only kill the bad guys. The entire PR effort by our media and government to position us on the side of the angels is nationalistic bullshit. That is our beef. But I understand the unwillingness on the part of these agencies to be transparent. They would no longer be able to justify their budgets or existence.
I'm not really seeing a huge call for transparency in these posts. Mostly, I see a lot of folks calling the CIA, Special Operations Forces, and other government outfits that go do "dirty work" EEEVILLL. Well, I hate to let ya'll in on this, but there are a lot of bad folk out there who, as they say around here just "need killin'". It sure is a lot easier to kill them if they don't know when we're coming.
That said, the civilian leadership of this nation need to saddle up and start making real decisions about who our enemies are. In warfare, there are no angels or boy scouts. The whole business is pure hell and damned ugly. Politicians are afraid to supervise the military and clandestine forces for fear of "something bad" happening and not being able to blame someone else. (They also have notoriously big mouths about the really cool stuff.) Don't blame the (mostly) good men and women who do the hard work for the lack of decent oversight and direction.
As for Americans not being able to "handle it", I don't see it. Most folks would prefer not to hear about the latest assassination over breakfast, but completely support killing the bad guys when they feel like the folks they voted for are in charge.
The solution comes back to the same thing. If you don't like the folks in charge of securing our national safety and prosperity, VOTE!
For the posts alleging that the "alphabet soup" guys are coming for Americans next, leave that crap to the black helicopter fringe. Those folks are nutty enough for all of us.
What Rubbish. Who "NEEDS KILLING" and who decides such?
Don"t blame the men and women that commit criminal acts because they need Direction? What kind of nonsense is that? Are they children with no minds of their own? Wind up automans that someone else MUST be in control of?
So when the CIA was testing Mind Control drugs on American Citizens, it was not really their fault and it was something that had to be done to get the bad guys?
Back to the "CIA bad!" argument again. The discussion here is about whether assassination programs are legitimate actions of a government, worthwhile activities, and adequately supervised in practice.
Positions on either side of these questions have validity, and somewhere across the spectrum is a reasonably good answer. Like it or not, national leaders (of this and every other nation) send people out to conduct warfare, openly or clandestinely. That decision is the "who needs killing" call. If you want your nation to make a different call, elect someone else!
As for the mind control drugs, call the helicopters.
I also feel that a few, well-controlled assassignations of hostile leaders makes more sense than bombing cities and shooting ordinary foot soldiers.
And in the context of an illegal war this statment makes me want to vomit. Who are the hostile leaders? And who decides? If you asked me GWB and Obama and Harper and Merkle and all the rest of our fearless leaders are hostile. Shall we then assassinate all of them?
Rule of law. Rule of international law. Prosecute leaders who break the law.
Are you an elected national leader, chosen by the people to make decisions on the initiation and conduct of war? If so, you might commission your own assassination squads, or you might not. That would be between you, your God, and your electorate.
The CIA/U.S. Military planned and engineered coups are quite revealing as to what we can expect when the corporo-military takeover of the homeland is completed. No unauthorized gatherings of more than three people will be permitted, there'll be a 6pm curfew, censorship of the media (already partially in effect via self-censorship) and leftists and other anti-coup types will be incarcerated. That's because invariably fascist Empires do unto their own, what they do unto people in the occupied lands. Unless, of course, we rise up en masse, post haste, whereupon, it'll be up to us, what sort of world.
there was a short news clip today somewhere - was it a new york times or something? - that the FBI "raided" the offices of "public defenders" attorneys in Florida.
er...........fascism anyone?
something sinister has been evolving in the USA - in which the supposed "defenders of PUBLIC interest" - such as for safety, security, etc...: FBI - Police, CIA, NSA -
are instead - becoming or always have been INTIMIDATORS of PUBLIC interests where public interests clash with POWERFUL PRIVATE interests of a certain nature :
Militarism, Corporatism, Wall StreetISM, and similar things.
and then "public defenders" BECOME "outsiders" and "suspects".....should what they DEFEND - the interest of the public CLASH with the interests of private corporate entities.
"That's because invariably fascist Empires do unto their own, what they do unto people in the occupied lands."
In case you haven't noticed, USA Incorporated's paid representatives have already discovered that they can treat the domestic populace with the same disdain that they've shown the rest of the world for many years. In fact, their current concerns are probably higher for certain evolving aspects of foreign resistance.
Whatever made Americans think that they would forever be immune to the kind of treatment their government hands out to "lesser" peoples is beyond comprehension. You can already be declared an "enemy combattant" with no recourse whatever and there are bounties offered elsewhere. Think that will never come home?
Mike Corbeil, benningwentworth--
I quite agree. The CIA is only one of the entities swimming in the alphabet soup of state security agencies.
There's considerable lateral cooperation between agencies: operatives (such as LHO) may have a pedigree that incorporates a number of military and civilian intelligence agencies. Operatives are "lent" between agencies, with or without ulterior missions and full knowledge of the borrower, lender, and lendee.
Anyone who can keep track of who's really working for who ought to have no problem solving Rubik's Cube with their eyes closed. Of course, the agencies don't always coordinate their activities harmoniously, so there's always a potential for intra-agency and internecine conflicts, working at cross-purposes, plots within plots, etc.
Within the fog of the state security network, an endless lobster quadrille takes place-- the NSA steps forward while the CIA steps back. But they all join the death-dance, and all place loyalty to the security state above loyalty to the nation, regardless of their oaths of office.
So my comments apply equally as well to the NSA and all of the other clandestine services; truth is classified, and disseminated on a need-to-know basis-- and the rule of thumb is that the higher-ups don't necessarily "need to know", and the public DEFINITELY doesn't "need to know".
· Yr Obd't Servant
And we can include the U.S. State Dept and its NED, or certainly the NED, anyway. Whenever we read or hear of the NED operating anywhere in foreign countries, then we can "rest assured" that the U.S. is up to hellbent ungoodness ... [again].
USAID's no better, but perhaps it's sole role is propaganda (?). It's role certainly isn't about doing any real good, but perhaps it's only to serve as a propaganda (of deception) scheme (?). Meanwhile, the NED apparently, purportedly and credibly anyway, has very much replaced use of CIA (ops branch), after it drew too much (for the "elites") attention due to its black covert ops.
National Endowment [for Democracy], eh? US AID; are we kidding? What aid? Propaganda for deceiving others is [not] aid; not as we're supposed to be deceived into believing it is, anyway. It's aid for the ruling avaricial "elites", but not for humanity. They are enemies of democracy.
NED and USAID are deception devices. And, again, the NED has purportedly come to be used to very much replace the CIA, ops branch, after it had drawn too much attention due to its covert black ops. This has to do with deposing political leaders, as well as assasinating the ones who the ruling "elites" of the U.S. government want out of the way, but have been unsuccessful in having overthrown.
The State Dept is no better. It might not directly carry out any of the "dirty work", but it's as guilty as the rest.
This whole blogstream is so good that
I'm tempted to print it all to add to
the stacks of paper, books and mags that
surround me