1 Boring Old Man

CIA Assassin Plan Was Set to Go Active
Panetta Terminated Secret Anti-Terror Program After Learning of Training Proposals
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post
July 16, 2009

^{CIA officials were proposing to activate a plan to train anti-terrorist assassination teams overseas when agency managers brought the secret program to the attention of CIA Director Leon Panetta last month, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter. The plan to kill top al-Qaeda leaders, which had been on the agency’s backburner for much of the past eight years, was suddenly thrust into the spotlight because of proposals to initiate what one intelligence official called a "somewhat more operational phase." Shortly after learning of the plan, CIA Director Leon Panetta terminated the program and then went to Capitol Hill to brief lawmakers, who had been kept in the dark since 2001.}

^{The Obama administration’s top intelligence official, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, yesterday defended Panetta’s decision to cancel the program, which he said had raised serious questions among intelligence officials about its "effectiveness, maturity and the level of control." But Blair broke with some Democrats in Congress by asserting that the CIA did not violate the law when it failed to inform lawmakers about the secret program until last month. Blair said agency officials may not have been required to notify Congress about the program, though he believes they should have done so…}

^{The plan to deploy small teams of assassins grew out of the CIA’s early efforts to battle al-Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A secret document known as a "presidential finding" was signed by then-President George W. Bush that same month, granting the agency broad authority to use deadly force against bin Laden as well as other senior members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. The finding imposed no geographical limitations on the agency’s actions, and intelligence officials have said that they were not obliged to notify Congress of each operation envisaged under the directive…}

^{Some U.S. officials familiar with the program say it never progressed beyond concepts and feasibility studies, but others described more advanced preparations, including selection of teams and limited training. All of the attempts ultimately had to be scrapped, often because of logistical difficulties or because the risks were deemed too great, said several officials who served in counterterrorism units or had access to top-secret files…}

^{Despite the new activity surrounding the program, there were "concerns about its feasibility," the official said. "If the country ever needs a capability like this going forward, smart minds will figure out a better way to do it." Blair said that Panetta told him in advance of his decision to terminate the program, and that he supported the action as well as the decision to inform Congress. "He felt it was urgent and appropriate to brief the Hill," Blair said. "You can make a judgment call on whether a briefing was necessary. We were on the side of ‘Let’s do it.’ We’re trying to reset our relations with Congress"…}

^{"This particular program didn’t make the cut," he said. "But it is absolutely not true that we are doing less against al-Qaeda. Our primary criterion is effectiveness, and we will continue to do things that we think are effective to make terrorist lives miserable, and hopefully, short"…}

I’ve been thinking a lot about how this question about what to do about the conduct of the Bush Administration. I know I don’t want to ignore it. It was so far off the mark that it seems to me it would be like having a Commercial Airliner that barely made it to the ground after innumerable systems failed on a long flight, then loading it up with passengers for the next destination. I say put it in the hanger for a thorough overhaul. So, looking forward because we’ve got other problems to deal with? No thanks.

But the push for investigations, truth commissions, legal cases has broken down along party lines. Conservative Republicans say move ahead. Liberal Democrats and Progressives clamor for  a thorough retrospective. That’s unfortunate, because it intensifies the charge of partisanism, or revenge. Not that partisanism or revenge are necessarily horrible things, but there are better non-emotional reasons for wanting an in depth retrospective.

– that the real force behind American Foreign Policy in the Invasion of Iraq was Commerce – the Oil Trade. Cheney said it in 1998:

^{I think it is a false dichotomy to be told that we have to choose between "commercial" interests and other interests that the United States might have in a particular country or region around the world. Oftentimes the absolute best way to advance human rights and the cause of freedom or the development of democratic institutions is through the active involvement of American businesses. Investment and trade can oftentimes do more to open up a society and to create opportunity for a society’s citizens than reams of diplomatic cables from our State Department.}

– that the Geneva Conventions are optional – habaes corpus, due process, humane treatment.
– that American Foreign Policy involves: pre-emptive strikes without provocation, unilateral military action, strength without equal, ‘evangelical’ democracy.
– that the U.N. is only important when it follows our interests.
– that we have a "unitary executive" – an imperial presidency.
– that the President can invalidate legislation with Signing Statements.
– that secrecy can be used to hide behind rather than only for National security.
– that the DoJ is a tool of the Executive Branch.
– that the Vice President in outside the Executive Branch.

These things and others have been part of our government for eight years. I see no way to repudiate them definitively than by taking action in hearings and in the courts. Otherwise, they become precedents. There’s nothing Conservative or Liberal about these points, nothing Republican or Democrat about them either. These are American points.