Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
CIA Accountability Hits New Lows
In a virtually unnoticed exchange on February 3, Congressman Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) called the CIA to task for its incredibly ham-fisted handling of an April 20, 2001 incident in Peru. In collaboration with a CIA aircrew working as part of a joint program to interdict drug trafficking, the Peruvian air force shot down a plane carrying an American missionary family, killing two. In an angry tone, the Republican congressman denounced the CIA's response, released the actual film of the incident, and triggered an official statement from the agency — conveniently left off the CIA website to attract as little attention as possible.
This episode is important as part of the continuing effort to bring accountability to CIA operations. More importantly, it sheds light on the low standards of identification and evidence the CIA uses in selecting its targets. It's a fair bet that similar accountability issues will arise in the CIA's Predator operations in the ongoing war on terror.
Shooting Down Civilians
Toward the end of 1994, President Bill Clinton approved a project — buttressed by interagency recommendations and duly diligent Department of Justice memoranda — to halt or hinder airborne shipments of drugs from Peru by means of a common effort between the CIA and Peruvian authorities. Agency flights would identify traffickers and call in the Peruvian air force, which would either force the planes to land or shoot them down.
This Air Bridge Denial Program continued until April 20, 2001, when a CIA flight summoned the Peruvian air force to tail a plane that actually contained an American family, the Bowers, who were returning from vacation to their Baptist mission in the Andes. The CIA contract operators who had identified the plane as a possible target began to doubt their original suspicions, but their calls to Peruvian authorities went unheeded. After making little effort to communicate with the missionaries — a radio message beamed on a frequency the plane was not monitoring — the Peruvians shot at the plane, killing wife Veronica and infant daughter Charity, and wounding pilot Kevin Donaldson. Missionary husband Jim Bowers and his seven-year old son Cory barely survived the crash landing of the aircraft. George J. Tenet, CIA director at the time, gives this moment the "sad distinction" of being "my worst day as DCI before 9/11."
The key facts became known within 10 days of the tragedy. In its scramble to defend themselves, the CIA and the U.S. government released some data but also sought to protect the larger initiative from public scrutiny. Peruvians had done the shooting, but the CIA aircrew had not followed their own standard procedures for identifying the aircraft tail number. Within a month it became known that at the outset of the program, State Department lawyers had recommended against participating in a program that would involve shooting down civilian aircraft. By July 2001, a leaked State Department internal investigation showed that joint training between the CIA and Peruvians had been spotty, embassy oversight lacking, and was conducted by CIA contract employees who knew little Spanish. All this and more was confirmed by an October 2001 report from the Senate Intelligence Committee, which additionally revealed that a similar rush to shoot had occurred in 1997, but got no attention because that time real drug traffickers were involved.
The Cover-Up
The CIA responded to these investigations by burying it all as deeply as possible. The government paid $8 million to settle claims filed by the Bowers family and pilot Donaldson. The Justice Department did conduct a criminal inquiry but in 2005 decided against bringing any charges. Not until August 2008 did CIA inspector general John Helgerson complete his report on the Peruvian aerial incident. That it required seven years to complete this investigation already draws suspicion. According to Hoekstra, the CIA engaged in "repeated failure to follow procedures that resulted in loss of life; false or misleading statements to Congress by CIA officials up to and including former Director George Tenet; and potential obstruction of justice by CIA employees with respect to a Department of Justice criminal investigation."
Helgerson's report, which Hoekstra cited, additionally found that no one involved in modifying the presidentially mandated intercept procedures had had any authority to do so; that within hours of the attack CIA officers had begun falsely saying that the shoot-down was a one-time error in a well-run program; and that the agency had not met legal obligations to keep the NSC and Congress fully informed. This included suppressing adverse results of internal inquiries and ignoring a direct question from National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Only after Hoekstra made an issue of the Helgerson report did CIA director Michael V. Hayden review it and decide to convene an accountability board. That board decided on minor sanctions for 16 individuals — one, for example, received a reprimand letter for his file that would be removed after a year. The individuals involved included the CIA counternarcotics chief, its chief of station in Lima, and the base chief of the facility dispatching the spotter planes.
Lax accountability for CIA operations is not surprising but remains highly disturbing. In the Peruvian case, after nine years only a few mild slaps on the wrist were administered. Today's CIA Predator attack program, like the Peruvian project, involves remote target identification, instant attack, and high secrecy. The criteria for selecting prospective victims are supposed to be very tightly drawn — but that was supposed to be true in Peru also — and the latest palaver, after the Fort Hood murders and the concern over the American Muslim imam Anwar al-Awlaki, is that American citizens may be targeted too.
The CIA as judge, jury, and executioner? Apart from the unintended consequences of this program on American-Pakistani relations, it's only a matter of time before Congress and the American people apply the lessons of Peru to the CIA's Predator drones.
- Posted in

17 Comments so far
Show All-"The CIA as judge, jury, and executioner?"
Don't worry, Obama has handed the job of assassinating Americans to something called "JSOC" or joint special operations command, sexy isn't it? Along with probably an new brand name for the killing operations... this will go a long way towards achieving the Democratic goal of "not looking back".
The Joint forces Special Operations component Command is under U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). Which has as it missions:
-- Develop special operations strategy, doctrine and tactics
-- Prepare and submit budget proposals for SOF
-- Exercise authority, direction and control over special operations expenditures
-- Train assigned forces
-- Conduct specialized courses of instruction
-- Validate requirements
-- Establish requirement priorities
-- Ensure interoperability of equipment and forces
-- Formulate and submit intelligence support requirements
-- Monitor Special Operations officers’ promotions, assignments, retention, training and professional military education
-- Ensure Special Operations Forces’ combat readiness
-- Monitor Special Operations Forces’ preparedness to carry out assigned missions
-- Develop and acquire special operations-peculiar equipment, materiel, supplies and services
http://www.socom.mil/SOCOMHome/Pages/default.aspx
-----
The CIA is a scum-based fascist organization. far from the original information-gathering and analysis agency it was promoted as to get its charter. It's reputation is shot. So command over many special operations have been assigned to a joint civilian and military command structure under the USSOCOM. But who has real oversight over this group? The military it appears. And Congress has done such an excellent job of overseeing that organization has it not?
It may get so bad we may miss the good old CIA.
Gary
"He's usually a good puller -- but he couldn't get it up that time."
-~ Richie Benaud
Yeah right, accountability and the CIA is an oxymoron. The CIA, JSOC, NSA, and all the other so-called intelligence and security ogranizations are not supposed to be accountable and never will be.
The CIA has engaged in the most horrible activities one can imagine, just as bad as the SS,STASI,KGB etc.
Smuggling heroin and cocaine, illegally raising money from drug sales to fund death squads that slaughter women and children, torture, assassination, military coups that install the most brutal dictators, and on and on.
Any effort in Congress to increase "accountability" is complete nonsense and window-dressing only. If we want accountability, these organizations would have to be abolished.
gdgoodman -
Who has real oversight over USSOCOM's "joint civilian and military command structure?" You aptly respond, "The military, it appears."
Aye, there's the rub.
By deliberately blurring the distinction between military and civilian, soldier and spy, we assure that neither can ever be held squarely accountable, while all enjoy plausible deniability whenever the inevitable SNAFU's inevitably occur.
There is a parallel phenomenon in domestic law enforcement. Uniformed police officers who want to go undercover in civvies and exempt themselves from accountability up the ordinary command structure of their local Department often lobby to get assigned to free wheeling, multi-agency, "special ops" task forces focusing upon vice, drugs, guns, gangs, fugitive warrants, auto-theft, burglaries, sexual assaults, or whatever the local crime du jour of the locality or funding grant source may be.
Once safely placed on "special operations" assignment, what happens to enforcement of standard operating procedures, the authority of Internal Affairs to investigate citizen complaints, responsibility for training, and the disciplinary authority of the head of the special task force or the local Department?
Answer: Well, that's gets pretty unclear. Which of course is the whole point of the exercise, for many of its most enthusiastic participants.
It's not just civilian CIA accountability that hits new lows. So, too, does the accountability of the military component in this neither-fish-nor-fowl hybrid structure. And that is what makes it doubly, doubly dangerous.
Bill from Saginaw
RE: "The CIA as judge, jury, and executioner?" - Prados
MY COMMENT: But...but...but, the Mossad does it all the time!
Accountability to whom?
Has the CIA ever been accountable to anyone other than the American executive and whosoever the executive works for?
Was it not accountability to the executive that created the falsified WMD info that fooled the US public into supporting an invasion into Iraq?
I should think this has to be public accountability and transparency: the end of any legal basis for covert anything.
The CIA is accountable to no one.
Like Ron Paul says, they run the show now.
They have so many programs and gadgets no one could even dream of, they are truly dangerous.
And don't bother thinking about all the "nice men and women" in the organization......under the heavy hands of a few wayward top execs they can easily become rogue.
The best thing this country could do is disband them as being intrinsically dangerous to domestic affairs.
CIA the biggest terrorist organization on earth,,, now on campuses around the country!
Nothing to see here... just move along.
"I want to look forward, not backwards." Barack Obama
Maybe I'm getting overly cynical, but to my ears, special-ops = mercenary. Why bother getting any fancier than that? Even Tom Clancy feels comfortable writing books where ex-CIA operatives are portrayed as heros as they extralegally dispatch some evil villain. It seems clear that if they want to get you, you're dead. Except if your name is Osama Bin Laden. Then you're golden.
OMG, now we have a new term to term to deal with, TOO SECRET TO FAIL!
The whole US national security complex is unaccountable to anyone else right now. That's the real problem. The national security, industrial, media complex is so much a part of the problem.
AD
The US Constitution: Article 1, Section 9, Number 7:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
Obama taught constitution law at Harvard and must realize that the CIA is an illegal entity that has never produced an account. Am I missing something here?
The US Constitution: Article 1, Section 9, Number 7:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
Like Bush, Obama is ignoring the US Constitution. We only need to look at the secrecy behind the taxpayer bailouts through TARP, TALF and at least half-a-dozen other Treasury bailouts that we don't know where the money went.
It's called "black ops" money and the budget is secret, but it is appropriated by Congress. Yes, there is potential for it being used in ways that members of Congress wouldn't approve of.
peacekeepertwo: The CIA has been used as a Tool to enforce US policy, by the Presidents since the begining of its History. No one in Washington will get close this Agency down, because everyone wants be able to use it. Allot of Talk but there will be no Action.
Pete Hoekstra is such a damned hypocrite! He was more than willing to defend every illegal action of George Bush before and after our invasion of Iraq and he starts whining and raving about a shoot-down that killed two people. Dozens of drug planes were shot down in Columbia during the same time period and most of that was kept out of the papers. One of the best examples of Hoekstra's stupidity was his "Real Identity Act" which would have required every American to carry an official ID from Uncle Sam. Luckily some common sense came into play when people figured out how easy it is to counterfeit ID's, create phony documents to show proof of citizenship, and how expensive it would have been to maintain.
Someone Asked me to list 12 Things I like about America in response to "negative" information I sent to them:
My response to that question of listing 12 qualities about your country that you admire is that it is the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" The person asking presumes the (unearned) moral high ground - while impugning the motives of the responder with the implicit truism that criticism is "negative" and therefore "wrong" - Meaning be damned. See no evil, Hear no evil, speak no evil - even if that literally translates to "be oblivious to evil" as long as you are not immediately impacted... not your problem.
In answer to the question however... What I like about this country is that the responsibility to demand that the country live up to the stated intent of the founding fathers was clearly spelled out as the role of citizenship. This country was founded on worthy life serving principles. Living here does not make one a citizen. Citizenship in America is not a passive spectator sport or an e-ticket in Consumer Toyland issued in exchange for an obligatory role of knee jerk cheer-leading or a piece of paper that "legally" grants one that status.
If I idly mouth words of praise for what my country is supposed to be while the Constitution is dismantled and atrocities committed in the name of this country that I claim to champion then I would be actively at cause in the destruction of a country for which I feign "love".
Real love demands commitment and vigilance - not robotic repetition of slogans.