Cheney ordered CIA to conceal program from Congress

[jAZ]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp

July 12, 2009
Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project
By SCOTT SHANE

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

The question of how completely the C.I.A. informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, a claim Mr. Panetta rejected.

The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees “are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”

In addition, for covert action programs, a particularly secret category in which the role of the United States is hidden, the law says that briefings can be limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress and of their intelligence committees.

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney’s role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general’s report underscored the central role of the former vice president’s office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

Democrats in Congress, who contend that the covert action provision was abused to cover up programs under President Bush, are seeking to change the law to permit the full committees to be briefed on more matters. President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill if the changes go too far, and the proposal is now being negotiated by the White House and the intelligence committees.

A spokesman for the intelligence agency, Paul Gimigliano, declined on Saturday to comment on the report of Mr. Cheney’s role.

“It’s not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing,” Mr. Gimigliano said. “When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta’s attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect.”

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for George J. Tenet, who was the C.I.A. director when the unidentified program began, declined to comment on Saturday, noting that the program remains classified.

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

“Because this program never went fully operational and hadn’t been briefed as Panetta thought it should have been, his decision to kill it was neither difficult nor controversial,” one intelligence official, who would speak about the classified program only on condition of anonymity. “That’s worth remembering amid all the drama.”

Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remain secret. Most of those interviewed, however, have said that it was an important activity that they felt should have been disclosed.

In the eight years of his vice presidency, Mr. Cheney was the Bush administration’s most vehement defender of the secrecy of government activities, particularly in the intelligence arena. He went to the Supreme Court to keep secret the advisers to his task force on energy, and won.

A report released on Friday by the inspectors general of five agencies about the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program makes clear that Mr. Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, had to personally approve every government official who was told about the program. The report said “the exceptionally compartmented nature of the program” frustrated F.B.I. agents who were assigned to follow up on tips it turned up.

High-level N.S.A. officials who were responsible for ensuring that the surveillance program was legal, including the agency’s inspector general and general counsel, were not permitted by Mr. Cheney’s office to read the Justice Department opinion that found the eavesdropping legal, several officials said.

Mr. Addington could not be reached for comment on Saturday.

Questions over the adequacy and the truthfulness of the C.I.A.’s briefings for Congress date back to the creation of the intelligence oversight committees in the 1970s after disclosures of agency assassination and mind-control programs and other abuses. But complaints increased in the Bush years, when the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies took the major role in pursuing Al Qaeda.

The use of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, for instance, was first described to a handful of lawmakers for the first time in September 2002. Ms. Pelosi and the C.I.A. have disagreed about what she was told, but in any case, the briefing occurred only after a terrorism suspect, Abu Zubaydah, had been waterboarded 83 times.

Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat of Illinois on the House committee, wrote on Friday to the chairman, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, to demand an investigation of the unidentified program and why Congress was not told of it. Aides said Mr. Reyes was reviewing the matter.

“There’s been a history of difficulty in getting the C.I.A. to tell us what they should,” said Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington. “We will absolutely be held accountable for anything the agency does.”

Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the committee’s top Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program, because it was not fully operational. But he said that in general, the agency has not been as forthcoming as the law requires.

“We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need,” Mr. Hoekstra said.

[Mojo Jojo]

So far only MSNBC is running with this story, and they report that any "legal changes" to this practice by congress will be vetoed by the White House. There appear to be several loopholes in the current law passed in 1949 and the Executive Office has exploited them over the years.

[BigChiefFan]

I don't think this suprises many, but it would be nice if they actually pursued criminal charges.

[Mojo Jojo]

I don't think this suprises many, but it would be nice if they actually pursued criminal charges.

It will be hard to pursue criminal charges when the current WH doesn't think the law needs to be changed.

[KC Dan]

Release of this just in time for the Presidential poll numbers dropping, SCOTUS hearings, cap and trade in the Senate, health care in both houses and Stimulus 2 or 3 or 4 (whatever it is)....

[petegz28]

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

I didn't know Cheney was still in a position of power?
It was probably so secret it doesn't even exist...


Panetta: "They said to keep the wraps on a secret project..."

The People" Ok, what project was it?"

Panetta" "we can't tell you...."

LMAO

[wild1]

I remember when Clinton left office and the media and the left (but I repeat myself) told everyone to quit talking about him because he wasn't president anymore.

[jAZ]

I didn't know Cheney was still in a position of power?
It was probably so secret it doesn't even exist...


Panetta: "They said to keep the wraps on a secret project..."

The People" Ok, what project was it?"

Panetta" "we can't tell you...."

LMAO

If this is the same program recently mentioned by the house dems, then it was discovered by LP on June 25 and disclosed to congress on June 26.

[petegz28]

If this is the same program recently mentioned by the house dems, then it was discovered by LP on June 25 and disclosed to congress on June 26.

It is July 11th and the program is "still unindentified"

[jAZ]

It is July 11th and the program is "still unindentified"

Publicly. It was disclosed to Congress (both Dems and Reps) on June 26th.

[petegz28]

Publicly. It was disclosed to Congress (both Dems and Reps) on June 26th.

If you aren't going to say what the program is, then don't come out and run your mouth

[donkhater]

How is this surprising? When Congress abdicated all control of the military over to Bush by allowing him to declare war on Iraq, the WH probably thought that they could do whatever they wanted without Congressional approval. I wonder why they thought that?

[headsnap]

Release of this just in time for the Presidential poll numbers dropping, SCOTUS hearings, cap and trade in the Senate, health care in both houses and Stimulus 2 or 3 or 4 (whatever it is)....

and when this doesn't take, they'll just off another b-list celebrity...



or two...

[jAZ]

If you aren't going to say what the program is, then don't come out and run your mouth

That doesn't make any sense.

[patteeu]

Lo and behold, an American secret was actually kept! That is, until a democrat administration decided to tell Congress about it. No doubt we'll be reading about the details in the NYTimes any day now.

[jAZ]

Release of this just in time for the Presidential poll numbers dropping, SCOTUS hearings, cap and trade in the Senate, health care in both houses and Stimulus 2 or 3 or 4 (whatever it is)....
Withheld long enough to get re-elected in 2004.

[patteeu]

I don't think this suprises many, but it would be nice if they actually pursued criminal charges.

There was a crime committed?

[penchief]

There was a crime committed?

There's usually an investigation before that can be determined. But too many people are not interested in knowing the truth even when there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an investigation. Everybody's too afraid of the political fallout. Republicans are against it because they are afraid it will reveal what most of us already suspect and democrats because of the PR pushback and the political capital they will expend if they pursue an investigation.

[Dallas Chief]

:whackit::whackit::whackit:Total FAP session! Next! It's been proven that fuggin congress can't keep there mouths shut anyway. Hell 20% of them could make it through a background check anyway. (Totally made up factoid by me.) Nothing to see here. Move along!!!Who's watching UFC100?

[petegz28]

That doesn't make any sense.

No, jAZ, it makes plenty of sense. Otherwise it looks like they are making it up.

[jAZ]

No, jAZ, it makes plenty of sense. Otherwise it looks like they are making it up.

It looks like who is making what up?

[Mr. Kotter]

LMAO


"TWO more weeks!!!"


ROFL


LMAO

[patteeu]

There's usually an investigation before that can be determined. But too many people are not interested in knowing the truth even when there is enough circumstantial evidence to warrant an investigation. Everybody's too afraid of the political fallout. Republicans are against it because they are afraid it will reveal what most of us already suspect and democrats because of the PR pushback and the political capital they will expend if they pursue an investigation.

It sounds like you're talking about a fishing expedition. Usually, an investigation follows a crime or at least the belief that a specific crime was likely to have been committed, not the other way around.

There was no crime here.

[HonestChieffan]

Demons!! Secrets...no my god no no no, no we cannot have secrets. Prison for Bush and Chaney.

and now back to our news, today Rasmussen announced that the Presidents poll numbers continue to erode to lowest level in his short time in office. The White House said they will release coments after the president travels to San Francisco to take the lovely Michelle to lunch.

Coming up after the break, What happened to the stimulus and Barney Frank talks about giving homes to people free.

[Hog Farmer]

I don't think this suprises many, but it would be nice if they actually pursued criminal charges.


But isn't this secretive program to help secure americans from terrorists ?

[BigRedChief]

I don't think this suprises many, but it would be nice if they actually pursued criminal charges.
No way will they do it. This wasn't some rogue program. It was approved/sanctioned and ran by Bush and Cheney. You ready to see a former president and vice-president and this country put through a criminal trial?

[NCarlsCorner2]

If you tell a lie enough times people will eventually believe that it's true.

[petegz28]

It looks like who is making what up?

Panetta...say what the program was, otherwise, as far as I am concerned...this is all BS.


CIA: They covered up an unindentified program?
People: What program?
CIA: Can't tell you
People: So how do I know you aren't making this up?
CIA: Trust us


LMAO

[jAZ]

Panetta...say what the program was, otherwise, as far as I am concerned...this is all BS.


CIA: They covered up an unindentified program?
People: What program?
CIA: Can't tell you
People: So how do I know you aren't making this up?
CIA: Trust us


LMAO

While I don't blame your general skepticism, I don't think you make any sense. First, they are disclosing the details of the program to both Republicans and Dems in the Congress. That's what the June 25 letter was about. Second, Both Reps and Dems appear to acknowledge that the program exists. Third, while it makes sense to suspect that CIA would hide an existing program, it makes no sense that they would expsose a non-existant program.

[petegz28]

While I don't blame your general skepticism, I don't think you make any sense. First, they are disclosing the details of the program to both Republicans and Dems in the Congress. That's what the June 25 letter was about. Second, Both Reps and Dems appear to acknowledge that the program exists. Third, while it makes sense to suspect that CIA would hide an existing program, it makes no sense that they would expsose a non-existant program.

Sure it does....ever hear of misinformation?

[jAZ]

Sure it does....ever hear of misinformation?

To what end?

[HonestChieffan]

Is that like "I never had sex with that woman"

[orange]

McCain: CIA secrecy story just beginning
Posted: 09:50 AM ET

(CNN) — Sen. John McCain thinks we haven’t heard the last about allegations that former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered secrecy for a CIA surveillance operation after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“If I know Washington, this is the beginning of a pretty involved and detailed story,” McCain said Sunday on the NBC program “Meet the Press.”

According to a New York Times report, Cheney ordered the CIA to withhold information about the unspecified program from Congress. CIA Director Leon Panetta told the House Intelligence Committee last month about the program, which he said had been shut down.

McCain said he knew little about the program and offered no details. He said he expected Cheney, who has yet to comment on the story, to speak up.

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/12/mccain-cia-secrecy-story-just-beginning/

[petegz28]

McCain: CIA secrecy story just beginning
Posted: 09:50 AM ET

(CNN) — Sen. John McCain thinks we haven’t heard the last about allegations that former Vice President Dick Cheney ordered secrecy for a CIA surveillance operation after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

“If I know Washington, this is the beginning of a pretty involved and detailed story,” McCain said Sunday on the NBC program “Meet the Press.”

According to a New York Times report, Cheney ordered the CIA to withhold information about the unspecified program from Congress. CIA Director Leon Panetta told the House Intelligence Committee last month about the program, which he said had been shut down.

McCain said he knew little about the program and offered no details. He said he expected Cheney, who has yet to comment on the story, to speak up.

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/07/12/mccain-cia-secrecy-story-just-beginning/

This is a non-story until we know what said "unindentied program" is.

[jAZ]

This is a non-story until we know what said "unindentied program" is.

Ok, you hold to that belief. The rest of the world will keep turning without you.

[petegz28]

Ok, you hold to that belief. The rest of the world will keep turning without you.

Will do....

and you keep going on your "Dems never do anything wrong" mantra, the rest of us will live in reality without you

[patteeu]

This is a non-story until we know what said "unindentied program" is.

More than likely, it's a non-story even after we find out what the "unidentified program" is. But you're right, until we know what it was, it's quite premature for jAZ to be building the gallows.

[jAZ]

you keep going on your "Dems never do anything wrong" mantra

It's only your flair for the false that makes the world appear this way to you.

[dirk digler]

I am curious if it has to do with the rumored assassination group that Cheney ran?

[jAZ]

But you're right, until we know what it was, it's quite premature for jAZ to be building the gallows.

See, this is why you guys always have to be corrected.

pete says it's a total "non-story" until the program is identified. pat says he agrees that it's "premature ... to be building the gallows".

Those are not the same thing, clearly.

pat say's its a story insufficient for punishment. pete says it's entirely a non-story.

pat pretends to agree they are saying the same thing.

[jAZ]

I am curious if it has to do with the rumored assassination group that Cheney ran?

That would make perfect sense when put into the context of the early republican deflections that were used to dismiss this as a non-story. I saw a few of the GOP members of the committe carefully word a statement saying that effectively "this is much ado about nothing, because we don't even know if Congress was required to be told because we don't know that it was technically implemented" or something along those lines.

[petegz28]

See, this is why you guys always have to be corrected.

pete says it's a total "non-story" until the program is identified. pat says he agrees that it's "premature ... to be building the gallows".

Those are not the same thing, clearly.

pat say's its a story insufficient for punishment. pete says it's entirely a non-story.

pat pretends to agree they are saying the same thing.

IF it isn't worht punishment, it's a non-story

[Direckshun]

IF it isn't worht punishment, it's a non-story

Not true.

I'm willing to bet I can think up loads of things that Obama's done that aren't worth punishment that you'd prefer the media to report on more.

[petegz28]

Not true.

I'm willing to bet I can think up loads of things that Obama's done that aren't worth punishment that you'd prefer the media to report on more.

Obama is the President...if Cheney were still VP you would have a point. But he isn't.

[dirk digler]

That would make perfect sense when put into the context of the early republican deflections that were used to dismiss this as a non-story. I saw a few of the GOP members of the committe carefully word a statement saying that effectively "this is much ado about nothing, because we don't even know if Congress was required to be told because we don't know that it was technically implemented" or something along those lines.

As much as I dislike Dick Cheney I really hope it is not the case.

[Direckshun]

Obama is the President...if Cheney were still VP you would have a point. But he isn't.

Oh man, LOL.

[orange]

I am curious if it has to do with the rumored assassination group that Cheney ran?

That would make perfect sense when put into the context of the early republican deflections that were used to dismiss this as a non-story. I saw a few of the GOP members of the committe carefully word a statement saying that effectively "this is much ado about nothing, because we don't even know if Congress was required to be told because we don't know that it was technically implemented" or something along those lines.

It sounds more along the lines of Poindexter's data-mining.

[petegz28]

Oh man, LOL.

If it comes out he did something that was seriously bad\wrong then take it to him. If this is some technicality BS then fuck it. It is just media cover for the Obama Admin

[Direckshun]

If it comes out he did something that was seriously bad\wrong then take it to him. If this is some technicality BS then **** it. It is just media cover for the Obama Admin

It may very well be media cover, but that doesn't mean it's an illegitimate story.

Any time an administration comes out with timed shit like this, I like the media to cover it and expose it as either an illegitimate distraction (as Ridge's HomeSec warnings were in 2004) or legit. And this story is just beginning to become investigated.

No doubt that it's timed well, and that's no doubt intentional. But that doesn't mean it's just smoke.

And I think if it IS just smoke, it deserves all the media attention it can get to expose its perpetrators for what they are: fear-mongers or distractors.

[petegz28]

It may very well be media cover, but that doesn't mean it's an illegitimate story.

Any time an administration comes out with timed shit like this, I like the media to cover it and expose it as either an illegitimate distraction (as Ridge's HomeSec warnings were in 2004) or legit. And this story is just beginning to become investigated.

No doubt that it's timed well, and that's no doubt intentional. But that doesn't mean it's just smoke.

And I think if it IS just smoke, it deserves all the media attention it can get to expose its perpetrators for what they are: fear-mongers or distractors.


You and I both know, that will not happen if it is the case.

[jAZ]

As much as I dislike Dick Cheney I really hope it is not the case.

As much sense as it makes in the context of the somewhat odd comments made when the story first broke, I tend to doubt that that's what it was about.

[jAZ]

You and I both know, that will not happen if it is the case.

Did the media ever expose Bush's raising the terror level to tweak the fear levels in conjection with the 2004 election polls?

[petegz28]

Did the media ever expose Bush's raising the terror level to tweak the fear levels in conjection with the 2004 election polls?

Are you implying the media will go after Obama like they did Bush? ROFL

[BigChiefFan]

No way will they do it. This wasn't some rogue program. It was approved/sanctioned and ran by Bush and Cheney. You ready to see a former president and vice-president and this country put through a criminal trial?If they committed a crime, you darn right I want to see a trial or at least a hearing. I believe it would be a federal court case and would be held behind CLOSED DOORS.

Obviously, I don't WISH for a past President/VP,Etc... to be found guilty as a criminal, but they are not above the law and in order to have justice, ALL should be held accountable for their actions.

Concealing a CIA counter terrorism report from Congress is no small thing, especially if the CIA was ORDERED to keep it from them-that's conspiracy against the will of the people.

[orange]

It sounds more along the lines of Poindexter's data-mining.

I stand corrected:

CIA Had Secret Al Qaeda Plan
Initiative at Heart of Spat With Congress Examined Ways to Seize, Kill Terror Chiefs

By SIOBHAN GORMAN
WASHINGTON -- A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said CIA Director Panetta, above, told lawmakers Vice President Cheney ordered information be withheld from Congress. The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

The revelations about the CIA and its post-9/11 activities have emerged amid a renewed fight between the agency and congressional Democrats. Last week, seven Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee released a letter that talked about the CIA effort, which they said Mr. Panetta acknowledged hadn't been properly vetted with Congress. CIA officials had brought the matter to Mr. Panetta's attention and had recommended he inform Congress.

Neither Mr. Panetta nor the lawmakers provided details. Mr. Panetta quashed the CIA effort after learning about it June 23.

The battle is part of a long-running tug of war between the executive branch and the legislature about how to oversee the activities of the country's intelligence services and how extensively the CIA should brief Congress. In recent years, in the light of revelations over CIA secret prisons and harsh interrogation techniques, Congress has pushed for greater oversight. The Obama administration, much like its predecessor, is resisting any moves in that direction.

Most recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a dispute over what she knew about the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror suspects, has accused the agency of lying to lawmakers about its operations.

Republicans on the panel say that the CIA effort didn't advance to a point where Congress clearly should have been notified.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the agency "has not commented on the substance of the effort." He added that "a candid dialogue with Congress is very important to this director and this agency."

One former senior intelligence official said the program was an attempt "to achieve a capacity to carry out something that was directed in the finding," meaning it was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.

The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added.

Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said little had been spent on the efforts -- closer to $1 million than $50 million. "The idea for this kind of program was tossed around in fits and starts," he said.

Senior CIA leaders were briefed two or three times on the most recent iteration of the initiative, the last time in the spring of 2008. At that time, CIA brass said that the effort should be narrowed and that Congress should be briefed if the preparations reached a critical stage, a former senior intelligence official said.

Amid the high alert following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a small CIA unit examined the potential for targeted assassinations of al Qaeda operatives, according to the three former officials. The Ford administration had banned assassinations in the response to investigations into intelligence abuses in the 1970s. Some officials who advocated the approach were seeking to build teams of CIA and military Special Forces commandos to emulate what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympics terrorist attacks, said another former intelligence official.

"It was straight out of the movies," one of the former intelligence officials said. "It was like: Let's kill them all."

The former official said he had been told that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney didn't support such an operation. The effort appeared to die out after about six months, he said.

Former CIA Director George Tenet, who led the agency in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks, declined through a spokesman to comment.

Also in September 2001, as CIA operatives were preparing for an offensive in Afghanistan, officials drafted cables that would have authorized assassinations of specified targets on the spot.

One draft cable, later scrapped, authorized officers on the ground to "kill on sight" certain al Qaeda targets, according to one person who saw it. The context of the memo suggested it was designed for the most senior leaders in al Qaeda, this person said.

Eventually Mr. Bush issued the finding that authorized the capturing of several top al Qaeda leaders, and allowed officers to kill the targets if capturing proved too dangerous or risky.

Lawmakers first learned specifics of the CIA initiative the day after Mr. Panetta did, when he briefed them on it for 45 minutes.

House lawmakers are now making preparations for an investigation into "an important program" and why Congress wasn't told about it, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, in an interview.

On Sunday, lawmakers criticized the Bush administration's decision not to tell Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, hinted that the Bush administration may have broken the law by not telling Congress.

"We were kept in the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again," she said. Withholding such information from Congress, she said, "is a big problem, because the law is very clear."

Ms. Feinstein said Mr. Panetta told the lawmakers that Mr. Cheney had ordered that the information be withheld from Congress. Mr. Cheney on Sunday couldn't be reached for comment through former White House aides.

The Senate's second-ranking official, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, echoed those concerns and called for an investigation, an indication of how the politics of intelligence continue to bedevil the CIA.

Separately, Attorney General Eric Holder is considering whether to order a criminal probe into whether treatment of terrorism detainees exceeded guidelines set by the Justice Department, administration officials said.

President Barack Obama and Mr. Holder have said they don't favor prosecuting lawyers who wrote legal justifications for interrogation methods that the president and his attorney general have declared to be torture. They have sought to protect CIA officers who followed the legal guidelines.

"The Department of Justice will follow the facts and the law with respect to any matter," said Matthew Miller, a department spokesman. "We have made no decisions on investigations or prosecutions, including whether to appoint a prosecutor to conduct further inquiry."

—Evan Perez and Elizabeth Williamson contributed to this article.
Write to Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

[patteeu]

See, this is why you guys always have to be corrected.

pete says it's a total "non-story" until the program is identified. pat says he agrees that it's "premature ... to be building the gallows".

Those are not the same thing, clearly.

pat say's its a story insufficient for punishment. pete says it's entirely a non-story.

pat pretends to agree they are saying the same thing.

We're both saying that at this point none of us knows enough about this alleged program to make any determination about whether or not wrongdoing occurred. petegz28 is skeptical about whether a program even existed while I accept that this story is built around the kernel of truth of a real program but suspect that the whoopla about Congressional notification is overblown for political purposes.

One thing we know for sure though. If there is a real program involved, it remained secret for 8 years. Now, less than one month after being disclosed to Congress, hints about it's existence are already in the NYTimes.

[patteeu]

It may very well be media cover, but that doesn't mean it's an illegitimate story.

Any time an administration comes out with timed shit like this, I like the media to cover it and expose it as either an illegitimate distraction (as Ridge's HomeSec warnings were in 2004) or legit. And this story is just beginning to become investigated.

No doubt that it's timed well, and that's no doubt intentional. But that doesn't mean it's just smoke.

And I think if it IS just smoke, it deserves all the media attention it can get to expose its perpetrators for what they are: fear-mongers or distractors.

Did the media ever expose Bush's raising the terror level to tweak the fear levels in conjection with the 2004 election polls?

How do you know that Ridge's HomeSec warnings in 2004 were illegitimate distractions?

[D2112]

More than likely, it's a non-story even after we find out what the "unidentified program" is. But you're right, until we know what it was, it's quite premature for jAZ to be building the gallows.

Cheney is evil! off with his head! (Jaz rolling back and forth in bed at night)

[jAZ]

We're both saying that at this point none of us knows enough about this alleged program to make any determination about whether or not wrongdoing occurred. petegz28 is skeptical about whether a program even existed while I accept that this story is built around the kernel of truth of a real program but suspect that the whoopla about Congressional notification is overblown for political purposes.

One thing we know for sure though. If there is a real program involved, it remained secret for 8 years. Now, less than one month after being disclosed to Congress, hints about it's existence are already in the NYTimes.

pete's stated reseveration is not one you have.

[HonestChieffan]

Did the media ever expose Bush's raising the terror level to tweak the fear levels in conjection with the 2004 election polls?

No but we all know the media was in love with Bush so they covered it up. Plus Chaney had contracts out on the MSM bigwigs that were part of a second tier in Halliburtons food and kitchen contracts for Iraq. It was done with cooperation from Blackwater in a black ops assignment. That where this swine flu thing started as well you know.

[Donger]

I don't understand this. Why doesn't Obama want to capture/kill al Qaeda members?

[orange]

Why didn't Bush/Cheney inform Congress of this undertaking as required by law? Why in fact did Cheney give specific orders to NOT inform Congressional leadership as required by law? Why didn't Bush make an Executive Order repealing Ford's Executive Order prohibiting assassinations? Why were few even in the CIA informed about this operation - including withholding information from the new Director?

[Donger]

Why didn't Bush/Cheney inform Congress of this undertaking as required by law? Why didn't Bush make an Executive Order repealing Ford's Executive Order prohibiting assassinations? Why were few even in the CIA informed about this operation - including withholding information from the new Director?

As far as I can tell, certain members of Congress were briefed about the idea. That being said, it seems like this wasn't an a operation at all. In other words, don't and didn't have shooter spooks out there hunting.

I don't believe that CIA is required to inform Congress about non-operations.

[Calcountry]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp
July 12, 2009
Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project
By SCOTT SHANE

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

The question of how completely the C.I.A. informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, a claim Mr. Panetta rejected.

The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees “are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.”

In addition, for covert action programs, a particularly secret category in which the role of the United States is hidden, the law says that briefings can be limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress and of their intelligence committees.

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney’s role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general’s report underscored the central role of the former vice president’s office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

Democrats in Congress, who contend that the covert action provision was abused to cover up programs under President Bush, are seeking to change the law to permit the full committees to be briefed on more matters. President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill if the changes go too far, and the proposal is now being negotiated by the White House and the intelligence committees.

A spokesman for the intelligence agency, Paul Gimigliano, declined on Saturday to comment on the report of Mr. Cheney’s role.

“It’s not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing,” Mr. Gimigliano said. “When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta’s attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect.”

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for George J. Tenet, who was the C.I.A. director when the unidentified program began, declined to comment on Saturday, noting that the program remains classified.

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

“Because this program never went fully operational and hadn’t been briefed as Panetta thought it should have been, his decision to kill it was neither difficult nor controversial,” one intelligence official, who would speak about the classified program only on condition of anonymity. “That’s worth remembering amid all the drama.”

Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remain secret. Most of those interviewed, however, have said that it was an important activity that they felt should have been disclosed.

In the eight years of his vice presidency, Mr. Cheney was the Bush administration’s most vehement defender of the secrecy of government activities, particularly in the intelligence arena. He went to the Supreme Court to keep secret the advisers to his task force on energy, and won.

A report released on Friday by the inspectors general of five agencies about the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program makes clear that Mr. Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, had to personally approve every government official who was told about the program. The report said “the exceptionally compartmented nature of the program” frustrated F.B.I. agents who were assigned to follow up on tips it turned up.

High-level N.S.A. officials who were responsible for ensuring that the surveillance program was legal, including the agency’s inspector general and general counsel, were not permitted by Mr. Cheney’s office to read the Justice Department opinion that found the eavesdropping legal, several officials said.

Mr. Addington could not be reached for comment on Saturday.

Questions over the adequacy and the truthfulness of the C.I.A.’s briefings for Congress date back to the creation of the intelligence oversight committees in the 1970s after disclosures of agency assassination and mind-control programs and other abuses. But complaints increased in the Bush years, when the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies took the major role in pursuing Al Qaeda.

The use of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, for instance, was first described to a handful of lawmakers for the first time in September 2002. Ms. Pelosi and the C.I.A. have disagreed about what she was told, but in any case, the briefing occurred only after a terrorism suspect, Abu Zubaydah, had been waterboarded 83 times.

Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat of Illinois on the House committee, wrote on Friday to the chairman, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, to demand an investigation of the unidentified program and why Congress was not told of it. Aides said Mr. Reyes was reviewing the matter.

“There’s been a history of difficulty in getting the C.I.A. to tell us what they should,” said Representative Adam Smith, Democrat of Washington. “We will absolutely be held accountable for anything the agency does.”

Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the committee’s top Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program, because it was not fully operational. But he said that in general, the agency has not been as forthcoming as the law requires.

“We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need,” Mr. Hoekstra said.
So when is Rove going to be indicted?

[orange]

As far as I can tell, certain members of Congress were briefed about the idea. That being said, it seems like this wasn't an a operation at all. In other words, don't and didn't have shooter spooks out there hunting.

I don't believe that CIA is required to inform Congress about non-operations.

I think you have it wrong. There are several overlapping reports from last week.

The one about the assassination effort was never reported to Congress:

"Lawmakers first learned specifics of the CIA initiative the day after Mr. Panetta did, when he briefed them on it for 45 minutes."
As for it "not being an operation at all," from Hoekstra's comment, up to $25.5 million was spent on it.

"According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training."

"Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said little had been spent on the efforts -- closer to $1 million than $50 million."

Even that's assuming the number isn't being downplayed.

[Donger]

I think you have it wrong. There are several overlapping reports from last week.

The one about the assassination effort was never reported to Congress:

"Lawmakers first learned specifics of the CIA initiative the day after Mr. Panetta did, when he briefed them on it for 45 minutes."

As for it "not being an operation at all," from Hoekstra's(?) comment, up to $25.5 million was spent on it.

Well, how do you define "effort"? Sure, I have no doubt that they spent money looking at getting this operation active, but since it was never green-lighted, I fail to see the problem.

And, I could have sworn that I heard a GOP congress critter say this weekend that he was briefed. Sorry, but I can't recall who it was. Some senior guy.

[orange]

Well, how do you define "effort"? Sure, I have no doubt that they spent money looking at getting this operation active, but since it was never green-lighted, I fail to see the problem.

The problem is you have to report it.

And you certainly have to issue and report an Executive Order that changes a major law (Ford's).

[KC Dan]

Unless any of this crap went beyond the planning phase (where $$$ would be spent without the need to disclose), this is all a non-story and an end-around to distract. If programs had went beyond planning then not disclosing it is a huge problem and probably illegal.

[Donger]

The problem is you have to report it.

And you certainly have to issue and report an Executive Order that changes a major law (Ford's).

You think wasting al Qaeda people falls under the definition of political assassination?

[orange]

Turner: They've got all of it.
Higgins: What? What did you do?
Turner: I told them a story. I told 'em a story. You play games; I told 'em a story.
Higgins: Oh, you… you poor, dumb son of a bitch. You've done more damage than you know.
Turner: I hope so.
Higgins: You're about to be a very lonely man. It didn't have to end this way.
Turner: Of course it did.
Higgins: Hey Turner! How do you know they'll print it? You can take a walk… but how far if they don't print it?
Turner: They'll print it.
Higgins: How do you know?

[orange]

... and on withholding this from Panetta.

There are going to be some heads rolling. I think we can count on that.

[Donger]

... and on withholding this from Panetta.

There are going to be some heads rolling. I think we can count on that.

Sure. Let's go after our own people instead of the enemy. That makes perfect sense.

[penchief]

I don't understand this. Why doesn't Obama want to capture/kill al Qaeda members?

I doubt anyone has an issue with the mission. That is, after all, the major justification for our war with Afghanistan. But it still needed to be disclosed to the people's representatives. There may be some oversight issues that would have been very appropriate for such a program. A program like that can be exploited or abused very easily. A rogue executive branch is not at all what our founding fathers had in mind.

[Dave Lane]

Doesn't matter Obama commie, GWB jr, take my guns, take my money, evil baby killer!!!

[Donger]

Interesting.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

"CIA officials had brought the matter to Mr. Panetta's attention and had recommended he inform Congress."

"One former senior intelligence official said the program was an attempt "to achieve a capacity to carry out something that was directed in the finding," meaning it was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.

The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added."

[jAZ]

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/new_info_brings_more_questions_on_secret_cia_progr.php?ref=fpblg

New Info Brings More Questions On Secret CIA Program
By Zachary Roth - July 13, 2009, 12:13PM
We've gotten some more information in recent days about that secret CIA program that the agency withheld key information from Congress about, and that CIA director Leon Panetta promptly shut down when he learned about it last month. But the new reports only raise more questions.

On Saturday, the New York Times reported that the CIA withheld information about the secret program "on direct orders" from then-Vice President Dick Cheney. The Times did not identify the program, but noted that, according to intelligence and congressional officials, it involved neither the CIA's interrogation program nor its domestic intelligence (e.g. warrantless wiretapping and surveillance) activities.

Now today, the Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.) that the program was an effort to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, prompted by a 2001 presidential finding authorizing the CIA to conduct such a program. The Journal adds that the program never became fully operational before Panetta shut it down. The report, sourced to "former intelligence officials familiar with the matter," appears to jibe in some respects with comments made by New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh at a public event earlier this year, in which he referred to an "executive assassination ring" reporting to Cheney.

But there's reason to believe we still don't have anything like the full story. First of all, according to one of the Journal's sources, both Cheney and President Bush opposed what seems to be a particularly aggressive iteration of the program, involving using "teams of CIA and military Special Forces commandos to emulate what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympics terrorist attacks," by carrying out targeted assassinations.

That doesn't appear to line up with the Times' report that Cheney was behind the decision to keep Congress in the dark about the secret program, though strictly speaking it doesn't contradict it.

But there are other reasons to keep asking questions:

Perhaps most importantly, a program, launched immediately after September 11 to capture or kill top al Qaeda operatives just doesn't seem sufficiently radioactive to have provoked the kerfuffle it has. To be sure, Congress outlawed targeted CIA assassinations in the 1970s in response to the excesses of 50s and 60s, and the issue played a key role in the move during the same period to give Congress greater powers to oversee the agency. And if the program allowed CIA to act without the consent or knowledge of liaison services in the countries where the targets were located, that's obviously a big deal.

Still, the US military has openly been trying to get Osama bin Laden and other top Qaeda leaders "dead or alive" since shortly after the 9/11 attacks. Would CIA involvement in that effort be so explosive that it would not only need to be kept from Congress in the first place, but would also have been shut down by Panetta as soon as he learned about it?

By the same token, it was Democratic lawmakers who brought the issue into the news last week by complaining that they had for years been kept in the dark on the unidentified program. Would they have chosen to initiate that spat when it seems to allow them to be portrayed as opposing an effort to hunt down al Qaeda terrorists?

We don't have answers to these questions yet, but it seems clear that there's more to be uncovered here. And given the Democratic push to look closer at the circumstances under which Congress was kept out of the loop -- as well as Panetta's own move for an informal, internal probe into CIA's handling of the program -- we may well get them.

[BigChiefFan]

There's some serious allegations coming to the surface.

[HonestChieffan]

silly facts.

[BigChiefFan]

silly facts.

Yes, Panetta promptly shut down the secret CIA program based on silliness, right?:rolleyes:

[Donger]

I doubt anyone has an issue with the mission. That is, after all, the major justification for our war with Afghanistan. But it still needed to be disclosed to the people's representatives. There may be some oversight issues that would have been very appropriate for such a program. A program like that can be exploited or abused very easily. A rogue executive branch is not at all what our founding fathers had in mind.

That doesn't make sense. If Obama wanted to continue this effort, he could have done so. The alleged non-informing of Congress part of the effort is entirely independent of the goal.

[Donger]

Yes, Panetta promptly shut down the secret CIA program based on silliness, right?:rolleyes:

I don't know why Obama terminated the effort, but I sure would like to know.

[orange]

I don't know why Obama terminated the effort, but I sure would like to know.

Because it was unauthorized, illegal and preposterous?

[patteeu]

Why didn't Bush/Cheney inform Congress of this undertaking as required by law? Why in fact did Cheney give specific orders to NOT inform Congressional leadership as required by law? Why didn't Bush make an Executive Order repealing Ford's Executive Order prohibiting assassinations? Why were few even in the CIA informed about this operation - including withholding information from the new Director?

The obvious answer is that they determined that there was no such legal requirement.

[Donger]

Because it was unauthorized, illegal and preposterous?

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion on the first two. Regarding the third, why is it preposterous? You don't want us to kill al Qaeda members?

[patteeu]

I doubt anyone has an issue with the mission. That is, after all, the major justification for our war with Afghanistan. But it still needed to be disclosed to the people's representatives. There may be some oversight issues that would have been very appropriate for such a program. A program like that can be exploited or abused very easily. A rogue executive branch is not at all what our founding fathers had in mind.

It's hilarious to me that in this case you people act like disclosure is everything, but in the case of real programs like detainee interrogations, disclosure means nothing to you. It's hard for me to take you guys seriously sometimes.

[Donger]

Tempest in a teapot.

Panetta canceled the effort on June 23 after learning of its existence, its failure to yield results, and the fact that Congress had been unaware of the program since its inception in 2001, according to one official with direct knowledge of the plan.

That official said former President George W. Bush authorized killing al-Qaida leaders shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and that Congress was made aware of that. However, the official said, Panetta also told members of Congress that according to notes that he had been given on the early months of the program, then-Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA not to inform Congress of the specifics of the secret program.

Panetta told the committees there was no indication that there was anything illegal or inappropriate about the effort itself, the official said.

CIA directors since 2001 agreed with Cheney's decision not to inform Congress because the highly classified operation, described as "sporadic" and "embryonic," never managed to turn up the intelligence needed to carry out a kill and was not considered a covert operation, according to a former intelligence official. That official also was not authorized to discuss the program and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Congress has a right to know everything the CIA does, but the president can by law limit those told about covert operations to just the top four members of the House and Senate from the two parties and the senior members of the intelligence committees. Democrats on the House intelligence committee are pushing for a legal provision that would require the president to brief both committees in their entirety more often, but the White House has threatened to veto the move.

[patteeu]

There's some serious allegations coming to the surface.

Sounds ominous. Of course, you don't seem to have any real thoughts on the matter. The only one that comes immediately to my mind is that Congress appears to leak classified information like a sieve and the WH has so far failed to seriously punish a single Congressperson.

[petegz28]

Tempest in a teapot.

Panetta canceled the effort on June 23 after learning of its existence, its failure to yield results, and the fact that Congress had been unaware of the program since its inception in 2001, according to one official with direct knowledge of the plan.

That official said former President George W. Bush authorized killing al-Qaida leaders shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and that Congress was made aware of that. However, the official said, Panetta also told members of Congress that according to notes that he had been given on the early months of the program, then-Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA not to inform Congress of the specifics of the secret program.

Panetta told the committees there was no indication that there was anything illegal or inappropriate about the effort itself, the official said.

CIA directors since 2001 agreed with Cheney's decision not to inform Congress because the highly classified operation, described as "sporadic" and "embryonic," never managed to turn up the intelligence needed to carry out a kill and was not considered a covert operation, according to a former intelligence official. That official also was not authorized to discuss the program and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Congress has a right to know everything the CIA does, but the president can by law limit those told about covert operations to just the top four members of the House and Senate from the two parties and the senior members of the intelligence committees. Democrats on the House intelligence committee are pushing for a legal provision that would require the president to brief both committees in their entirety more often, but the White House has threatened to veto the move.

Like I said, non-story and just another diversion to get the focus off of Barry's falling #'s. Let us not pretend Panetta is not biased in his politics.

[orange]

Because it was unauthorized, illegal and preposterous?

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion on the first two. Regarding the third, why is it preposterous? You don't want us to kill al Qaeda members?

.................................................................................................... ...........................................................................


Panetta canceled the effort on June 23 after learning of its existence, its failure to yield results, - preposterous

and the fact that Congress had been unaware of the program since its inception in 2001, - unauthorized

.

As for illegal - that's what the debate is all about, isn't it?

[Donger]

.................................................................................................... ...............

- preposterous

- unauthorized

.

As for illegal - that's what the debate is all about, isn't it?

I agree. It is preposterous to terminate a plan that might lead to the deaths of our enemies.

And, it seems pretty clear that Bush authorized this effort with his finding, don't you think?

As to illegal, we'll see. I think you are being somewhat presumptuous in your declaration, however.

[orange]

It was preposterous because it was preposterous.

Some officials who advocated the approach were seeking to build teams of CIA and military Special Forces commandos to emulate what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympics terrorist attacks, said another former intelligence official.

"It was straight out of the movies," one of the former intelligence officials said. "It was like: Let's kill them all."

Rambo or Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.?

[dirk digler]

CIA planned al-Qaida assassinations in friendly countries, officials say

• Friendly countries kept in the dark about assassination plans
• US military killed al-Qaida activist in Kenya
• Congress concerned over covert surveillance of US citizens


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/13/cheney-cia-al-qaida-assassinations/print

Dick Cheney, former vice president, ordered a highly classified CIA operation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/12/dick-cheney-counter-terrorist-cia) hidden from Congress because it pushed the limits of legality by planning to assassinate of al-Qaida (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/al-qaida) operatives in friendly countries without the knowledge of their governments, according to former intelligence officials.

Former counter-terrorism officials who retain close links to the intelligence community say that the hidden operation involved plans by the CIA (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cia) and the military to launch operations, similar to those by Israel's Mossad intelligence service, to hunt down and kill al-Qaida activists abroad without informing the governments concerned, even though some were regarded as friendly if unreliable.

The CIA apparently did not put the plan in to operation but the US military did, carrying out several assassinations including one in Kenya that proved to be a severe embarrassment and helped lead to the quashing of the programme.

A former intelligence official said the plan was hatched in the cauldron of the September 11 attacks when officials were pushing various forms of unilateral action and some settled on the Israelis as an example.

"One of the most sensitive areas has been what we do in friendly countries that don't want to cooperate or maybe we don't have enough confidence to entrust them with information. If you have an al-Qaida guy wandering around certain bits of the world we might decide that we need to deal with that ourselves, directly, without making a lot of noise," he said. "There was a plan to deal with that. It was much talked about in the CIA and the military had its own operation."

Another former senior intelligence official responsible for dealing with al-Qaida said that assassination plans were reined in after similar covert operations by the military were botched and proved to be embarrassing, particularly the killing in Kenya. He did not give details of the operation.

The official said he believes from conversations with serving members of the CIA that the area of real concern in Congress is that the planned operations may also have involved the covert surveillance of American citizens, a particularly sensitive subject in the US.

There appears to be common agreement among knowledgeable former intelligence officials that the controversy goes beyond the immediate question of assassination and capture of al-Qaida operatives as there have been numerous killings and detentions since the 9/11 attacks. One former official said that the Bush administration discussed the assassination question in the context of a ban introduced in the 1970s in response to several failed CIA attempts to murder Fidel Castro and concluded that as the US had declared itself at war with al-Qaida and the Taliban the ban did not apply.

Peter Bergen, a senior security analyst at the New America Foundation, said that the secret operation must have gone further than that to have created such a backlash in Congress: "If it's an assassination programme of al-Qaida leaders that is hardly surprising. Clinton had an assassination programme against bin Laden. There have been 27 drone missile strikes against al-Qaida alone this year."

The CIA has declined to comment and members of Congress who were finally briefed about the issue by the CIA director, Leon Panetta, last month are bound by confidentiality.

Some former intelligence officials and Republicans have attempted to portray the programme as barely getting out of the planning stages but others in the intelligence community have said it is highly unlikely that the CIA would have kept such an operation going for eight years without advancing it.

The evident anger in Congress is fuelling demands for a full blown investigation in to the CIA's failure to disclose the programme and Cheney's role in the cover up. The Senate majority whip, Dick Durbin, said the programme could have been illegal: "The executive branch of government should not create programs like these programs and keep Congress in the dark. To have a massive program that was concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate, it could be illegal."

Anna Eshoo, a senior Democrat on the House of Representatives intelligence committee, is also calling for a probe. "We, by no means, have the full story. We don't know who gave the order. We don't know where the money came from. We don't know all the people who were involved," she told Politico. "We need a full investigation. My preference is that we hire an attorney to come in and run this, someone that is known for their prosecutorial knowledge as well as their knowledge of this particular area of the law."

[Donger]

It was preposterous because it was preposterous.

Some officials who advocated the approach were seeking to build teams of CIA and military Special Forces commandos to emulate what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympics terrorist attacks, said another former intelligence official.

"It was straight out of the movies," one of the former intelligence officials said. "It was like: Let's kill them all."

Rambo or Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.?

I see. You want them dead, but they way we go about killing them is your sticking point?

[orange]

I see. You want them dead, but they way we go about killing them is your sticking point?

Yep, spending millions chasing Hollywood fantasies is a sticking point for me - no doubt about it.

[Donger]

Yep, spending millions chasing Hollywood fantasies is a sticking point for me - no doubt about it.

Fantasy? Seems like if anything, we were too squeamish. I see no problem going after them wherever they are.

[dirk digler]

I see no problem going after them wherever they are.

Personally I don't either but they need to follow US laws where they apply and that includes letting Congress know what is up.

From the article I posted it appears the bad part maybe the spying of Americans which IMO is treasonous.

[orange]

From the article I posted it appears the bad part maybe the spying of Americans which IMO is treasonous.

Well, that and the keystone-cop bungling:

"similar covert operations by the military were botched and proved to be embarrassing, particularly the killing in Kenya. He did not give details of the operation."

[dirk digler]

Well, that and the keystone-cop bungling:

"similar covert operations by the military were botched and proved to be embarrassing, particularly the killing in Kenya. He did not give details of the operation."

That killing really doesn't bother me either as long as they got the right person.

What I found most interesting is that we have alot of righties that bemoan the fact that Obama is turning the US into a communist country but they have no problem with the previous admin spying on Americans. Somehow this doesn't add up.

[Donger]

Personally I don't either but they need to follow US laws where they apply and that includes letting Congress know what is up.

From the article I posted it appears the bad part maybe the spying of Americans which IMO is treasonous.

Here are the pertinent parts of the National Security Act of 1947, just for reference:

TITLE V - ACCOUNTABILITY FOR INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES

GENERAL CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT PROVISIONS

SEC. 501. [50 U.S.C. 413] (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title.

(2) Nothing in this title shall be construed as requiring the approval of the congressional intelligence committees as a condition precedent to the initiation of any significant anticipated intelligence activity.

(b) The President shall ensure that any illegal intelligence activity is reported promptly to the congressional intelligence committees, as well as any corrective action that has been taken or is planned in connection with such illegal activity.

(c) The President and the congressional intelligence committees shall each establish such procedures as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

(d) The House of Representatives and the Senate shall each establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information, and all information relating to intelligence sources and methods, that is furnished to the congressional intelligence committees or to Members of Congress under this title. Such procedures shall be established in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence. In accordance with such procedures, each of the congressional intelligence committees shall promptly call to the attention of its respective House, or to any appropriate committee or committees of its respective House, any matter relating to intelligence activities requiring the attention of such House or such committee or committees.

(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to withhold information from the congressional intelligence committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods.

(f) As used in this section, the term "intelligence activities" includes covert actions as defined in section 503(e), and includes financial intelligence activities.

REPORTING OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN COVERT ACTIONS

SEC. 502. [50 U.S.C. 413a] To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities shall -

(1) keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities, other than a covert action (as defined in section 503(e)), which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure; and

(2) furnish the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning intelligence activities, other than covert actions, which is within their custody or control, and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities.

PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL AND REPORTING OF COVERT ACTIONS

SEC. 503. [50 U.S.C. 413b] (a) The President may not authorize the conduct of a covert action by departments, agencies, or entities of the United States Government unless the President determines such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States, which determination shall be set forth in a finding that shall meet each of the following conditions:

(1) Each finding shall be in writing, unless immediate action by the United States is required and time does not permit the preparation of a written finding, in which case a written record of the President's decision shall be contemporaneously made and shall be reduced to a written finding as soon as possible but in no event more than 48 hours after the decision is made.

(2) Except as permitted by paragraph (1), a finding may not authorize or sanction a covert action, or any aspect of any such action, which already has occurred.

(3) Each finding shall specify each department, agency, or entity of the United States Government authorized to fund or otherwise participate in any significant way in such action. Any employee, contractor, or contract agent of a department, agency, or entity of the United States Government other than the Central Intelligence Agency directed to participate in any way in a covert action shall be subject either to the policies and regulations of the Central Intelligence Agency, or to written policies or regulations adopted by such department, agency, or entity, to govern such participation..

(4) Each finding shall specify whether it is contemplated that any third party which is not an element of, or a contractor or contract agent of, the United States Government, or is not otherwise subject to United States Government policies and regulations, will be used to fund or otherwise participate in any significant way in the covert action concerned, or be used to undertake the covert action concerned on behalf of the United States.

(5) A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States.

(b) To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and entities of the United States Government involved in a covert action -

(1) shall keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all covert actions which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including significant failures; and

(2) shall furnish to the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning covert actions which is in the possession custody, or control of any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities.

(c)(1) The President shall ensure that any finding approved pursuant to subsection (a) shall be reported to the congressional intelligence committees as soon as possible after such approval and before the initiation of the covert action authorized by the finding, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3).

(2) if the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

(3) Whenever a finding is not reported pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this section, the President shall fully inform the congressional intelligence committees in a timely fashion and shall provide a statement of the reasons for not giving prior notice.

(4) In a case under paragraph (1), (2), or (3), a copy of the finding, signed by the President, shall be provided to the chairman of each congressional intelligence committee. When access to a finding is limited to the Members of Congress specified in paragraph (2), a statement of the reasons for limiting such access shall also be provided.

(d) The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees, or, if applicable, the Members of Congress specified in subsection (c)(2), are notified of any significant change in a previously approved covert action, or any significant undertaking pursuant to a previously approved finding, in the same manner as findings are reported pursuant to subsection (c).

(e) As used in this title, the term "covert action" means an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include -

(1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence, traditional counterintelligence activities, traditional activities to improve or maintain the operational security of United States Government programs, or administrative activities;

(2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities;

(3) traditional law enforcement activities conducted by United States Government law enforcement agencies or routine support to such activities; or

(4) activities to provide routine support to the overt activities (other than activities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3)) of other United States Government agencies abroad.

(f) No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.

[dirk digler]

Here are the pertinent parts of the National Security Act of 1947, just for reference:



Thanks Donger. It seems the very first line pretty much says the President needs to keep Congress informed which obviously he didn't.

You know I hate to say this but I really wonder how much Bush really knew about what Cheney was up to. It does make you wonder and all those jokes about Cheney really being charge aren't quite as funny now.

[penchief]

That doesn't make sense. If Obama wanted to continue this effort, he could have done so. The alleged non-informing of Congress part of the effort is entirely independent of the goal.

They are separate issues. Once the Obama administration found out it would have had to inform congress even if it wanted to continue the program. The fact that the program existed and the fact that congress had been kept in the dark are two separate facts.

[orange]

You know I hate to say this but I really wonder how much Bush really knew about what Cheney was up to. It does make you wonder and all those jokes about Cheney really being charge aren't quite as funny now.

It wouldn't be the first time a George Bush was "out of the loop."

[Donger]

Thanks Donger. It seems the very first line pretty much says the President needs to keep Congress informed which obviously he didn't.

You know I hate to say this but I really wonder how much Bush really knew about what Cheney was up to. It does make you wonder and all those jokes about Cheney really being charge aren't quite as funny now.

I don't read it that way at all. From what has been written, this "project" never really went anywhere to begin with. Therefore, how is POTUS supposed to make sure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities?

"We told you about that finding and we still haven't acted on it"?

[dirk digler]

I don't read it that way at all. From what has been written, this "project" never really went anywhere to begin with. Therefore, how is POTUS supposed to make sure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities?

"We told you about that finding and we still haven't acted on it"?

Why would they have a program funded and not use it for 8 years. I doubt the CIA works like that.

but others in the intelligence community have said it is highly unlikely that the CIA would have kept such an operation going for eight years without advancing it.

[Donger]

Why would they have a program funded and not use it for 8 years. I doubt the CIA works like that.

Well, it sounds like they didn't utilize it, right? I have no doubt that CIA is just as wasteful as any other government entity.

[dirk digler]

Well, it sounds like they didn't utilize it, right? I have no doubt that CIA is just as wasteful as any other government entity.

We don't know for sure and I think that will be the deciding factor of whether anyone is guilty or not.

According to the article I posted they were apparently spying on Americans so if that part is true someone needs to be swinging.

[mlyonsd]

Panetta: "LOOK, OVER THERE, IT'S A SHINY OBJECT".

(media runs over there)

Too funny.

[dirk digler]

Panetta: "LOOK, OVER THERE, IT'S A SHINY OBJECT".

(media runs over there)

Too funny.

So you are another one that doesn't care that the government is spying on its citizens?

Too funny

[Donger]

We don't know for sure and I think that will be the deciding factor of whether anyone is guilty or not.

According to the article I posted they were apparently spying on Americans so if that part is true someone needs to be swinging.

You may note that the article does not mention where those American citizens were located when the alleged surveillance took place.

[dirk digler]

You may note that the article does not mention where those American citizens were located when the alleged surveillance took place.

I would assume it is here since if they were overseas it wouldn't matter would it?

[KC Dan]

I would ass u me it is here since if they were overseas it wouldn't matter would it?
fyp

& what the hell - String 'em up!

And, while you are at that, let's pass Cap & Trade, Health Care and Stimulus #3 at 3am...

[dirk digler]

You may note that the article does not mention where those American citizens were located when the alleged surveillance took place.

Here you go Donger.

Two former CIA officials tell TIME there's another, somewhat less dramatic, possibility: a plan to conduct domestic surveillance. Spying on Americans is outside the CIA's purview and would be highly controversial — good enough reason for Cheney to want it kept under wraps.

How would you feel about that?

[dirk digler]

fyp

& what the hell - String 'em up!

And, while you are at that, let's pass Cap & Trade, Health Care and Stimulus #3 at 3am...

You suck at fyp. Next time come up with something better.

[KC Dan]

You suck at fyp. Next time come up with something better.come on man...you got it, right? if so, then it was perfect. :D

[Donger]

Here you go Donger.



How would you feel about that?

I wouldn't like it.

[petegz28]

So you are another one that doesn't care that the government is spying on its citizens?

Too funny

Why has Obama not stopped said spying on citizens?

[dirk digler]

come on man...you got it, right? if so, then it was perfect. :D

Actually I didn't get that is why I didn't like it or maybe I am just slow. Probably the latter. :)

[KC Dan]

Actually I didn't get that is why I didn't like it or maybe I am just slow. Probably the latter. :)highly doubtful... I was just pointing out that when one "assumes" like you did on that post, they usually make an "A__" out of "U" and "ME"

[dirk digler]

I wouldn't like it.

Me neither and I think that if this turns out to be true and that is a big if then someone should pay.

Why has Obama not stopped said spying on citizens?

I never supported him on his decision but there is 1 big difference between the 2 administrations. The previous one avoided FISA like the plague while the current one is using FISA as intended (that we know of).

[dirk digler]

highly doubtful... I was just pointing out that when one "assumes" like you did on that post, they usually make an "A__" out of "U" and "ME"

Ok I get it now see I told you I was slow. :D

But in all seriousness I don't think there is much to assume. If you are an American citizen overseas then your calls can be monitored and I don't think that violates any laws so there shouldn't be any reason to hide that.

I could be wrong on that law though.

[patteeu]

The real scandal here is if the Congress had no information about CIA making efforts to kill or capture al Qaeda leadership and yet they weren't demanding that a program be started.

[jAZ]

The real scandal here is if the Congress had no information about CIA making efforts to kill or capture al Qaeda leadership and yet they weren't demanding that a program be started.

The real scandal here would be if the Cheney established a CIA program that he kept from Congress AND didn't disclose the existing program to the incoming President and DCI until it was discovered 6 months into the new administration.

[patteeu]

The real scandal here would be if the Cheney established a CIA program that he kept from Congress AND didn't disclose the existing program to the incoming President and DCI until it was discovered 6 months into the new administration.

Keep your fingers crossed. On behalf of Dick Cheney, I'm laughing at your wishful thinking. When it comes to identifying the enemy, you and your party never cease to shame yourselves.

[mlyonsd]

So you are another one that doesn't care that the government is spying on its citizens?

Too funny

Get your facts straight and get back to me.

Generally I'd answer no to your question but understand there might be times when it is necessary.

[jAZ]

Keep your fingers crossed. On behalf of Dick Cheney, I'm laughing at your wishful thinking. When it comes to identifying the enemy, you and your party never cease to shame yourselves.

So you agree that would be the real scandal.

[BigChiefFan]

Keep your fingers crossed. On behalf of Dick Cheney, I'm laughing at your wishful thinking. When it comes to identifying the enemy, you and your party never cease to shame yourselves.


Yea, Cheney was great at identifying IRAQI'S as the enemy, too bad, he was WRONG, but yes, let's trust him now, and IGNORE his false flag war.

[dirk digler]

Get your facts straight and get back to me.

Generally I'd answer no to your question but understand there might be times when it is necessary.

What facts are that? That the government with the help of most of the telco's spied on Americans illegally?

When we give into fear and relinquish our civil liberties then the terrorists have already won.

[mlyonsd]

What facts are that? That the government with the help of most of the telco's spied on Americans illegally?

When we give into fear and relinquish our civil liberties then the terrorists have already won.

Prove it.

[dirk digler]

Prove it.

prove what? That they used telco's to spy on Americans? We already know this.

[patteeu]

So you agree that would be the real scandal.

I think your description was ambiguous. I don't think the VP has any duty to disclose CIA operations to an incoming administration or an incoming DCI so that part is a non-factor. I also don't know that the VP has any authority to prevent the DCI from fulfilling his duties to Congress in terms of oversight. If, however, the VP did somehow prevent the CIA from disclosing a program AND it was a SIGNIFICANT program, it might be a very minor scandal but nothing to write Josh Marshall about.

The real scandal is what I described though.

[patteeu]

What facts are that? That the government with the help of most of the telco's spied on Americans illegally?

When we give into fear and relinquish our civil liberties then the terrorists have already won.

That's not a fact so it can't be that one.

[patteeu]

Yea, Cheney was great at identifying IRAQI'S as the enemy, too bad, he was WRONG, but yes, let's trust him now, and IGNORE his false flag war.

What are you babbling about?

[dirk digler]

That's not a fact so it can't be that one.

You really aren't pretending. It is a fact. Why do you think Congress gave immunity to the telco's that helped. Couldn't be for the fact that what they did was illegal and knew they would be sued to oblivion would it?

[BigChiefFan]

What are you babbling about?
The truth.

[ROYC75]

Lie and deflect, do whatever it takes to keep the heat off of Obamanamics.

[dirk digler]

Yeah the telcoms were innocent.

The Democratic-led Congress this afternoon voted to put an end to the NSA spying scandal, as the Senate approved a bill -- approved last week by the House -- to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, terminate all pending lawsuits against them, and vest whole new warrantless eavesdropping powers in the President.

[Amnorix]

Lo and behold, an American secret was actually kept! That is, until a democrat administration decided to tell Congress about it. No doubt we'll be reading about the details in the NYTimes any day now.

So you support undermining Congressional oversight?

You realize that there are one or more Congressional committees specifically designed to handle SuperSecret (tm) stuff, yes?

[BigChiefFan]

[QUOTE=ROYC75;5899632]Lie and deflect, do whatever it takes to keep the heat off QUOTE]
Rest assured, Cheney's doing his part.

[patteeu]

So you support undermining Congressional oversight?

You realize that there are one or more Congressional committees specifically designed to handle SuperSecret (tm) stuff, yes?

Yes, I understand that. I'm not undermining the theoretical role of Congress, I'm just pointing out the obvious. I think we ought to see more effort put into finding leakers both in Congress and in the Executive branch and we should see more of the culprits behind bars. Did we even have a single person who leaked unauthorized information prosecuted or significantly punished over the past 8 years? It's a travesty that Scooter Libby was prosecuted but none of the people who actually leaked damaging information were ever dealt with.

[patteeu]

Yeah the telcoms were innocent.

Where did that come from? What laws did they break?

[dirk digler]

Where did that come from? What laws did they break?

CNET good enough?

They broke federal wiretapping laws by spying on Americans.

The deleted portions of the legal brief seek to offer benign reasons why AT&T would allegedly have a secret room at its downtown San Francisco switching center that would be designed to monitor Internet and telephone traffic. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the class-action lawsuit (http://news.cnet.com/ATT-sued-over-NSA-spy-program/2100-1028_3-6033501.html) in January, alleges that the room is used by an unlawful National Security Agency surveillance program (http://news.cnet.com/Some-companies-helped-the-NSA%2C-but-which/2100-1028_3-6035305.html).


"AT&T notes that the facts recited by plaintiffs are entirely consistent with any number of legitimate Internet monitoring systems, such as those used to detect viruses and stop hackers," the redacted pages say.
Another section says: "Although the plaintiffs ominously refer to the equipment as the 'Surveillance Configuration,' the same physical equipment could be utilized exclusively for other surveillance in full compliance with" the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Although EFF's lawsuit was filed before allegations about the room surfaced, reports of its existence have become central to the nonprofit group's attempts to prove AT&T opened its network to the NSA. A former AT&T employee, Mark Klein, has released documents alleging the company spliced its fiber optic cables and ran a duplicate set of cables to Room 641A at its 611 Folsom Street building.
Section 222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/usc_sec_47_00000222----000-.html) provides that "[e]very telecommunications carrier has a duty to protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of . . . customers." 18 U.S.C. 2511 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html) makes warrantless eavesdropping a felony; 18 U.S.C. 2702 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002702----000-.html) requires that any "entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication" without a court order; 47 U.S.C. 605 (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/47usc605.htm) states that "no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception"; and 18 U.S.C. 2520 (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002520----000-.html) provides for civil damages for any violations.


Like all statutes, those are all laws democratically enacted by the American people through their Congress and signed into law by the President. They were enacted precisely in order to make it illegal for telecoms to allow government spying on our calls and written communications without court orders -- precisely because Americans discovered that telecoms had previously allowed unfettered government spying on our communications and wanted to make it illegal for them to do so ever again. Those are exactly the laws the telecoms broke, in exactly the way that the American people wanted to prohibit.

[patteeu]

CNET good enough?

They broke federal wiretapping laws by spying on Americans.

Thanks for that info, but I'm looking for a link to your quote (now "links" for "quotes"). Surely you have them. :shrug: