Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - cheney orders cia to conceal assasination program from congress...

roachboy · 07-14-2009, 12:41 PM

wait---i don't follow the logic here. congress was not briefed, not told about the program. the reasons for this--ex post facto--are outlined in both articles above--that the program was in all probability too controversial (and as it turned out ineffective) to risk the debate over being funded. this in the context of the carl schmitt-like understanding of the role of the Leader in a state of exception--which is predicated on by passing democratic process.

in order to get things done there is an assumption of good faith between the branches, which the bush administration certainly abused in the period after 9/11/2001, particularly in the context of selling the iraq debacle--it seems to me meaningless, except as some exculpatory bit of parlor chatter, to simply toss that assumption of good faith out the window. behind that assumption is a legal framework which compels a degree of transparency.

so the idea that somehow, against custom and reason, the legislative branch "should" assume an adversarial relation to the executive seems nothing more than an attempt to blame congress of cheney's actions. which is absurd.

the timeliness argument also seems meaningless given that the information about this program just came out recently. if there's no budget line and no communication between the cia, which in 1997 was estimated to employ 80,000 people, and congress, and this on a vice-presidential order--how exactly do you, ace, imagine that somehow this "should have been caught and investigated already"?

try as i might, it makes no sense to me. like at all.

====
edit:

on the questions about whether panetta should or should not have known---this too seems disengenuous. an organization of 80,000 is *not* transparent to itself. i'm sorry, but it bloody isn't.

secondly, the problem with authorization is that it came from cheney by all accounts.
why would a cia official be fired for following orders?

but past that. the trouble starts...and the questions at this level become troubling. i just don't think ace is asking the correct questions, simply because they all read as though somehow this is either the fault of congress or, even more implausibly, leon panetta.

07-14-2009, 12:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	wait---i don't follow the logic here. congress was not briefed, not told about the program. the reasons for this--ex post facto--are outlined in both articles above--that the program was in all probability too controversial (and as it turned out ineffective) to risk the debate over being funded. this in the context of the carl schmitt-like understanding of the role of the Leader in a state of exception--which is predicated on by passing democratic process. in order to get things done there is an assumption of good faith between the branches, which the bush administration certainly abused in the period after 9/11/2001, particularly in the context of selling the iraq debacle--it seems to me meaningless, except as some exculpatory bit of parlor chatter, to simply toss that assumption of good faith out the window. behind that assumption is a legal framework which compels a degree of transparency. so the idea that somehow, against custom and reason, the legislative branch "should" assume an adversarial relation to the executive seems nothing more than an attempt to blame congress of cheney's actions. which is absurd. the timeliness argument also seems meaningless given that the information about this program just came out recently. if there's no budget line and no communication between the cia, which in 1997 was estimated to employ 80,000 people, and congress, and this on a vice-presidential order--how exactly do you, ace, imagine that somehow this "should have been caught and investigated already"? try as i might, it makes no sense to me. like at all. ==== edit: on the questions about whether panetta should or should not have known---this too seems disengenuous. an organization of 80,000 is not transparent to itself. i'm sorry, but it bloody isn't. secondly, the problem with authorization is that it came from cheney by all accounts. why would a cia official be fired for following orders? but past that. the trouble starts...and the questions at this level become troubling. i just don't think ace is asking the correct questions, simply because they all read as though somehow this is either the fault of congress or, even more implausibly, leon panetta. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 07-14-2009 at 12:44 PM..