Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:12 AM
Sat Nov 28
15 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Nights:
Adrian Chen | Email
Azaria Jagger | Email
Ravi Somaiya | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/14/09
Speculation into the real nature of the program can quickly lead into the realm of conspiracy theories and movie plots, but what we've been told so far doesn't really add up. Bush/Cheney led a government that spied on its own citizens and was gung-ho about torture, morality and constitutionality be damned. If that's the shit they were willing to tell us about, what are the things they kept secret?
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Also, this program has been developing for 8 years (or decades, if you believe that it has been ongoing in one way or another since the Cold War) and in at least one significant case still hasn't achieved its goal--Bin Laden is alive (hell, even Castro thrived despite our best efforts.) Apparently, in addition to its illegality, it was shut down due to its ineffectiveness in the face of collateral damage. That doesn't seem to be too 'surgical'.
I have a lot of faith in the legal structure of our government. I would much rather risk the consequences of adhering to our constitution and rules of law than those of clandestine, autonomous actions carried out by powerful people who answer to none but their inadequate consciences. Cheney and those emboldened by him have shirked responsibility for everything they have done wrong (does anyone honestly think that Lynndie England was some sort of torture mastermind?)
I do not think for one moment that Dick Cheney or his cronies will save me from anything. Ever.
07/14/09
If this program had the potential to be so efficient and effective that it could quickly take out enough high-level leaders of formidable terrorist organizations to prevent said organizations recovery then maybe it would make sense, but it's absolutely laughable to believe the CIA would be that effective. They never have been, and life is not the movies. And, even if we were that capable, which we aren't, it wouldn't change the fact that there are real problems in the region that would remain unsolved and would continue to screw shit up.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Christ it's like reading any novel from a Brooklyn writer.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
Look, the law is clear on this. If it weren't, there wouldn't be so much denial going on. Wherever the line is that makes this program not in compliance with the law, Cheney & Co. crossed it.
07/14/09
07/14/09
So it's exactly the same.
07/14/09
07/14/09
In short, we have a whole set of rules and oversight for our military apparatus that exists for a lot of compelling reasons, and a secret, quasi-legal force that reports to no one other than the Executive (and not even the President!) presents a huge amount of problems.
07/14/09
07/14/09
I think trying to eliminate or minimize the death of civilians and physical damage to buildings and roads would be a good thing.
I hate that it was kept secret. However, does it really matter if it is the CIA or a soldier that kills Osama Bin Laden?
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
No fan of Tricky Dick Cheney, but if this is the worst he did while in office, it isn't so bad.
07/14/09
You say that you're uncomfortable with big, involved government. Just what the hell is this?
07/14/09
07/14/09
Question for the attorneys out there: would a program like this fall under the president's Executive Order privilege?
07/14/09
It does if Osama Bin Ladin is a fiction?
07/14/09
Urban legend. And even if it did happen, Bin Laden isn't the only person the CIA would have to eliminate. There are hundreds of high level Al Queda folks that need to be taken out or brought to justice (depending on your opinion).
07/14/09
07/14/09
But to reiterate my original point, I have no problem with surgical strikes against high level operatives especially if it diminishes the killing of innocent people and destruction of property. I could care less if it was a soldier or the CIA who takes them out.
Shame the program wasn't carried out and it is a shame that Cheney asked the CIA to lie about it.
07/14/09
I propose that the tougher question is, why aren't dirty jobs like this simply left to allied forces like Pakistan's ISI? The answer is that they have their own agenda and it doesn't necessarily coincide with ours. It's a frustrating answer, but I imagine the same principle would apply even more directly to any other paramilitary, no-accountability force.
I also note that Steve Coll's Ghost Wars reports two occasions where the CIA advanced to President Clinton plans to eliminate bin Laden in the 1990s. Clinton turned both down -- one because it would have entailed also wiping out half the royal family of the United Arab Emirates (a somewhat moderate Gulf state), and the other because it involved nothing more innovative than a frontal assault by amateur guerrillas on a fortified compound in Afghanistan. Clinton apparently concluded that both plans had low probabilities of success, were likely to cause massive damage to both collateral assets and key relationships in the region, and were just harebrained in general. Coll's description of the two plans suggests that Clinton's judgment was correct on this -- but I admit it's a debatable point if you consider 9/11 to have been an unavoidable certainty just a few years later.
07/14/09
But once you accept the idea that it's OK to have death squads operating outside the law, without oversight, where are the constraints on them being ordered to do something you may consider to be less morally justifiable? Like, you know, engineering a coup, or assassinating a foreign president? Or ours?
07/14/09
Second, it is special because ostensibly an operation could take place outside of combat zones such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Use of Predator drone attacks are pretty standard in these places, where the US has an unchallenged authority to act. Now, in a place like Pakistan, where drones are used (with some controversy), the US has made special arrangements with the host nation's goverment and military. Notwithstanding, the US has publically reserved its right to act in any way, anywhere, it deems necessary for its security and interests. All Obama ever did was to redefine how best to achieve success in that regard; he still reserved the right (example, Iran). American foreign policy has remained remarkably stable for the greater part of the last century (example, Clinton's order for cruise strike on suspected Afghan terror training camp and Sudanese chemical factory in 1998).
It appears that the program itself is legal, provided that it operates fully within the law, including any applicable international treaties to which the US is a party. It also appears as though it was never employed, so it sat on the shelf as an exercise in frustration more than anything else.
What may fall under the president's Executive Order privilege is the decision to withhold any information regarding the program's existence from Congress, specifically the Intelligence Committee, which is contrary to law.
Of course, the universe of Executive privilege claims has expanded recently, but this would probably make the cut. In such a case, the president would look for an opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel (the very same involved with the decision to use torture) to ascertain whether or not the program was a viable solution, from a legal standpoint.
07/14/09
"What makes surgical strikes against Al Qaeda bad?"
Well, for one thing, it appears that Cheney was running the program, or at least, organized the squad and set its modus operandi going forward into the Obama administration.
You know, Cheney, the same guy who knowingly pushed the CIA to proffer bad intelligence to Congress and the American people to support the war in Iraq.
Or Cheney, the same guy who believes the executive branch should not be subject to Congressional oversight.
Or Cheney, you know, the same quick draw motherfucker who shot his friend in the face with a shotgun.
The problem with "surgical strikes" is that with Cheney directing the strikes, even if they were correctly targeted (and that is a huge IF), the strikes would probably not be surgical, because the motherfucker does not care about civilian casualties.
07/14/09
07/14/09
In the interest of full disclosure, I have been the member of several assassin squads and am generally pro-assassination, but with oversight. Damn it!
07/14/09
You might have a point if the law did not require that anticipated CIA activities also be disclosed. Of course, this makes sense, because if the CIA only had to disclose past conduct, well... then... that would not really be too much oversight now would it?
07/14/09
The problem here isnt' the surgical killing, which is generally recognized as a fundamental tool of intelligence organizations, but is the lack of oversight, the lack of proper decision-making channel, and the lack of consequence for this program.
07/14/09
I haven't been given any priveleged knowledge that the CIA has ever actually assassinated anybody, or has ever had an organized clandenstine assassination program (wouldn't be too clandestine if I did). I'd be naive to make such a claim. And yet, nothing I said is contrary to your proposition. That the CIA has engaged in activity that amounts to assassination is certain ("characterized by a high degree of probability"). So checketycheck yourself before you wrecketywreck yourself. I offered my interpretation of history and law, not a moralizing lecture.
For the sake of clarity, my views are as follow:
The application of unitary executive theory over the past decade (the source of visions of executive gradeur and privilege, signing statements and executive orders) has been the most insidious threat to our Constitution since it was first drafted. Many other egregious policy mistakes are subsumed by this one, overarching theme: NSA eavesdropping, detainee torture, military tribunals, politicizing the justice department and scientific reports, the list goes on. These practices are illadvised, immoral, and hurt, not help, the nation's interests. Trespasses are punishable in a court of law. The Supreme Court is the custodian of our inviolable rights and mutable values. The Congress must tirelessly work to exert its constitutionally mandated right to check the power of the Executive. When I vote for president, it is not a capricious choice of who should be the next democratically elected king.
07/14/09
You can't simply say something and then weasel out of saying it. If you think it's a new thing that the CIA targets and kills people, that's not true. The CIA is militarily able, just like every intelligence agency across the world is. During the period of "Extraordinary rendition" they abducted citizens from across the world pretty much effortlessly. And some of those missile strikes in Iraq which killed Al Quaeda members? Fired from Predator drones under the control of intelligence, not military. There's a long string of suspicious incidents leading all the way back to the cold war, where intelligence agencies really learned their craft.
07/14/09
07/15/09
07/02/09
07/02/09
07/02/09
07/02/09
really now?
07/02/09
Will my eyes ever recover from the rolling though?
07/02/09
07/02/09
"Uh huh, yes, really, how wonderful..."
07/02/09
07/02/09