Washington Post<\/strong>
July 16, 2009<\/div>\nCIA 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. <\/sup><\/p>\nThe 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… <\/sup><\/p>\nThe 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…<\/sup><\/p>\nSome 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…<\/sup><\/p>\nDespite 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"…<\/sup><\/p>\n"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"…<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nYou know what? For the moment, I buy this story as it’s reported here. I don’t mind them not telling Congress until the program was considering becoming operational. I respect Panetta for reporting it, given the current climate. And I’m glad they didn’t try it half cocked. Remember Carter’s attempt to free the hostages in Iran in the late 1970’s? We’re not out to punish failure or cripple the C.I.A. What we want is an honest government that only uses secrecy for genuine National Defense reasons – not as a way to hide from our law or oversight.<\/div>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The charges are grave.<\/div>\n