cheney orders cia to conceal assasination program from congress...
 

this story broke on sunday:

Former vice-president Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to conceal counter-terrorism plan from Congress | World news | guardian.co.uk

there are a few interesting elements to this.
first, it is the only revelation thus far about the various--um---aspects of the cavalier relation to that pesky law business endemic to the bush administration that does not link back to ongoing institutionalized actions--in the way that the infotainment concerning the cia's use of---o let's use that nice antiseptic rhetoric of the american "free press"--"harsh interrogation techniques"... so this in principle becomes an action that would enable cheney (and perhaps others of the bush people) to be hoisted legally, and for it to happen without that conflict between past and present actions that seems to have brought the obama administration to it's knees over the torture matter.

it is pretty obvious that this action unfolded in what is at best a legal grey area. whether it was or was not legal could end up being a thornier problem than those of us who would like to see the bush people hoisted for much of "the war on terror" in all it's state-of-emergency gradneur would prefer.

but that said:

do you think that there should be an investigation and/or prosecution of bush administration officials over this? why or why not?

what do you think about the action itself?

I think there should be a mandatory class for all vice presidents outlining exactly what their job does and does not entail they're required to pass before serving. For example, the vice president can break a tie in the senate, but the vice president cannot organize secret CIA murder squads without oversight. The vice president can become president in the event of the president dying, but the vice president cannot leak the identities of current US spies in order to punish them for speaking the truth about current or possible military engagements. The vice president can speak as a representative of the white house and on behalf of the president as a part of white house strategy, but the vice president cannot shoot a person in the face with a gun and expect that person to apologize.

Honestly, I've never seen the difference between the effect of a CIA sniper and a cruise missile, but I'm incredibly uncomfortable with someone like Dick Cheney asking the CIA to go assassinate people. I'm also uncomfortable with the obvious breaching of President Ford's executive order ending assassinations. After seeing what the CIA did in the 60s and 70s (and probably 80s, 90s, and very recently) to democratically elected leaders of other countries, it's clear that this should be banned.

i am putting this up because it quotes norman ornstein from that lovely conservative "think tank" the american enterprise institute, who seems to be articulating the right's main line of defense.
what it consists of is not real surprising:

FT.com / US & Canada - Fightback over CIA targeting of top al-Qaeda

I think Congress should investigate their concerns. I think Congress has a responsibility as outlined in the Constitution to, check the Executive Branch. They should never assume that the Executive Branch is being fully cooperative and following the law. They should have controls in place and people willing to drill down and get the information they should have. At the Congressional level, ignorance is not an excuse. At the Congressional level, being "lied to" is not an excuse. If the law was violated, congress needs to act and there needs to be consequences for the law being violated. In my view this is a simple matter.

I think there are more questions than answers. My gut tells me that this is a political issue rather than a legal issue or a balance of power issue.

I wonder why it has taken so long for Obama to find out about this "program"?
Why did it take Panetta so long to find out?
Why hasn't Pannetta fired the highest ranking CIA official who knew, but did not report it to him immediately?
Some say it was not an active program, and Pannetta says he canceled the program???
Why haven't previous CIA directors supported Pannetta's claims?
Since when is making plans, in war, to kill the enemy a problem, if that was the nature of the "program"?

I (*shudder*) second Ace. If Congress had used its oversight authority, including its ability to hold people it subpoenaed in contempt and jail them, to investigate this sort of thing a couple years ago, when it was clear that the Bush administration was not being honest with them, this probably would have come out then.

Many of these are indeed troubling questions. I'm a little more interested in who started this program than I am in who perpetuated it. But only a little; six months is a long time to find out about something like this and put a stop to it, I have to say.

I think the point is that it involved assassinations carried out outside the theater. The war justification is pretty sketchy. I don't even hear any right-wing commentators pulling that one out, actually.

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.

Sorry, I missed this part. The reason it's a problem is because assassinations have been illegal since the Ford administration.

This explains why you don't understand my logic. I would never make the assumption of "good faith".

The pressure seems to be mounting on these issues of illegal actions perpetuated by the Bush administration. I am sure a lot of these "leaks" and the pressure from the follow up is an attempt by certain elements to ensure that Obama's administration makes the investigations into these alleged illegal actions. Obama has been clear that he wants to move forward. He doesn't want to get too far into attacking the Agencies as he could sow discord just when he needs the Agency's support (FBI, CIA, Military, etc.).

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is all part of Obama's long game. Publicly state that he's not interested in investigations but then have to do them due to public pressure thanks to all of the leaks.

I can appreciate the position Obama is in with regards to maintaining the support of the Agencies and also maintaining an appearance of keeping state security secrets but he needs to start these investigations. He needs to restore the credibility of both the executive branch and the various agencies.

but i thought the question was about what the actually existing congress does and does not do with respect to the executive branch and not about an imaginary congress full of versions of yourself.

i agree with you that more aggressive oversight would have been good--but how would you imagine that this program would have been revealed if it was basically off the books that oversight presupposes, typically, are complete?

this is not at all to minimize the spinelessness of congress, particularly after 9.1.2001--but i would expect that you supported that spinelessness at the time--so it wasn't spinelessness but "recognition of danger in a dangerous world" or something.

I'm not sure 'assassination' is the right word for this. I mean, how many people have we 'assassinated' in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan so far in this undeclared 'war'. Why can the military use bombs to kill targeted people and innocents when the CIA has techniques that would kill people with no trace of American involvement.

I actually agree with Cheney and this program. If we were able to kill the leaders quietly and make it seem like Allah was killing them in various accidents, it would have been a different battle.

Assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure. These are definitely public figures, as they're in the public hierarchy of al Qaeda. It's extrajudicial, so it's not just casualties of a foreign conflict.

Well, and it's inside the sovereign territory of a friendly country. This isn't in a combat theater--this is targeting, hunting down, and killing individuals who we think are a threat (but hopefully not the same way we thought that about Saddam Hussein) inside a friendly country. Entirely different from a war-engagement killing.

I thought it was about taking out people in Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan? Was it setup to be done in any country?

Then again, this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. To quote a James Bond movie "Any thug can kill". These spys should be capturing these terrorists and bringing them to some secret prison. Or kill them with Ebola or something nasty.

How does assassination differ from firing predator missiles at suspected terrorist leaders?

Like rat said, this isn't in a combat theater. This isn't hitting an encampment of insurgents that are cooling off from a day of planting road-side bombs or shooting at coalition forces, this is hitting suspected terrorists at home or on the street. And consider our track record on "suspected terrorists".

Isn't it though? Clinton fired some cruise missiles into Afghanistan in the 90s at some training camps, why would using CIA operatives to monitor them and plan a little 'accident' or outbreak at these camps would be different? Besides the fact that they can't prove the US was involved in the second case.

how is this any different, at all, from "terrorism"?
isn't it *exactly* the same thing, except you like the motivations so the motivations are relevant?

Nothing has been proven illegal in a court of law on any of these alleged related matters commonly called illegal by some.

When are they going to stop complaining about it and act? They control Congress, the WH, Justice Dept.. They have their own people now in key positions that can do internal investigations and support those willing to testify against the Bush administration. They need to act or move on.

This "they" you're speaking of is commonly referred to by psychologists as a Persecuting Other. Just fyi.

Hoooo bingo.

Children playing children games get "do overs". People who accept the highest levels of responsibility, don't get "do overs". The consequences of their actions or inaction often will have dire consequences. Hence, at the Congressional level their are no excuses for failing in their responsibilities for oversight. They either fail or they live up to their responsibility. So, I do not want to hear Congress giving speeches passing the blame for their failures.

In answer to your question, the first thing that has to happen is that a "tone" be set. You go in and act like you own it. You let people know what is expected. You let people know what the consequences will be for them failing to meet expectations. You act accordingly, with no surprises. You ask specific questions, like: are any "programs" in the planing stages related to ...., what are those "programs", how much money has been spent, who is involved, how are you going to decide if the "program" get implimented, etc, etc.,etc,. etc. There are hundreds of specific questions that I whould ask if I had oversight responsibility. In addition, I would not only talk to the director, I would talk to random people - all the way down the chain to the janitor. I would act like I own it.

By this logic, if I punch you in the nose, it's your fault you didn't move. I don't want to hear you whining about me punching you--you're to blame for your failure to move.

It's ironic that you're deploying an anti-buck-passing strategy to get your boy Cheney off the hook of the mess he made here.

You miss an important point in my logic. It is your fault for punching me in the nose. You would pay a price( consequences) for the punch. I got punched and I will have to live with the consequences of being punched. That can not be undone. I will have to live with that. I have to take responsibility for letting myself get punched in the nose. I have to ask myself, why did I let you punch me in the nose? What do I need to do not to get punched in the nose by a person like you again? what action am I going to take against you? what message am I going to send to others? Etc., etc., etc.

Trust me, I won't whine.

I am being who I am. The irony is that if Chaney was in Pelosi's shoes or the roles were reversed - my bet is that Chaney would figuratively shoot first and ask questions later. Remember the Valerie Plame matter?

There are two issues here that need to be discussed independently.

The first issue is on the morality and legality of assassinating enemy leaders or terrorist. To me this issue is minor. As others have pointed out there isn't much difference between assassinating and dropping a bomb on them.

The second issue is the big issue to me. That issue is the CIA acting illegally without oversight from is legal oversight committee on an illegal order from the vice president. This includes lying under oath to the oversight committee.

To me this issue is big. This country is based on checks and balances, when those checks and balances do not occur there is way to much potential for evil. When the CIA lied and withheld information from the oversight committee they broke the law and the same is true when Cheney ordered them to do that. At minimum the people who lied should be charged with perjury and cheny should be charged with aiding and abetting a felony. At most they should be charged with treason.

You miss my logic entirely.

Put yourself outside it. I punch Willravel in the nose. Whose fault is it? Mine for the punching? His for the not moving?

Here's where my analogy fails: Will might have been able to see my punch coming. Cheney set this thing up so there was NO way Congress could have seen it coming.

Sorry man. Making a point. Let me help you up. (Although ace says you had it coming like those pussy Democrats in Congress.)

You are.

You would be guilty of assault and battery, given the information.

He lives with the consequences of being hit. He does not get a "do over", perhaps he can recover his medical expenses and perhaps get compensatory damages. But, his nose will never be the same, he will always live with the fact that he got hit in the nose. His life has been altered.

He can do a few things after the above. He can asses what happened and why. He can do things to reduce the risk of getting hit in the future.

He could have done a few things before the fact. If he knows he is going into an adversarial situation with you, if he know you have a history of punching people in the nose, if he knows the consequences of getting hit, etc., etc., he could have done things to reduce the risk of getting hit to begin with.


According to Pelosi - the CIA lied to Congress in the past.
According to previous incidents there is evidence that the CIA as acted inappropriately in the past.
We have the known history of men like J. Edgar Hoover.
We have had virtually 8 years of Democrats saying the Bush administration lied.
We have a VP that wrote the book on increasing executive power.
We have had secrete wire tap programs.
We had the failed CIA intel regarding WMD
We had the Plame matter.
We had alledged torture.
We had secrete renditions.
We had the President of the US say - ..."I will do everything in my power to keep the US safe..."
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

And you want to make excuses for Congress?????

In matters like this you get one "bite of the apple", what if the issue was launching a nuclear bomb and starting a nuclear war - oops, they lied to us, in Congress, we hope you (the human race) understand that we just didn't have the balls to stop it!!!! I don't accept that as an o.k. response, do you? Really???

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 PM ----------

See, this illustrates that you simply don't understand. I am not calling them names. I simply want them to act in a manner consistent with their words, reality, and live up to the responsibilities we have given them. Pelosi, is what, the third or fourth most powerful person politically in the nation - and she acts like a victim!!! I would resign rather than go in front of the American people saying "they lied" to me. I would not let them "lie" to me. that is how important her job is, and the jobs of our elected officials.

{added} I just thought of my own "punch in the nose" analogy:

Let's say you are a boxer. And you enter the ring against your opponent. You get hit in the nose. To me you are not a victim. You are in a fight. You knew you were in a fight when you stepped into the ring. that is what oversight responsibility is like - you know you are in a fight.

Okay, let's say I grant you all that. I don't exactly, but I'm done arguing the point--because by the time I tear down THIS point, you'll have changed your tune again to something ELSE I'll have to tear down. The real irony is, you think you're being consistent and true to yourself, that you have Convictions and Principles. It is to laugh.

I'm still curious why, with all this stuff about Cheney having created this "agency", your attention is on Congress's failure. What's that about? Not a word about the ratbastid fist, ALL your attention is on the Willravel nose. Doesn't that seem odd? Doesn't that seem perhaps a little partisan?

Government isn't supposed to be a boxing match. It never was until your pal Cheney came along.

BTW, I think it's HYSTERICAL how terrified the right is of Nancy Pelosi. You think liberals are afraid of Sara Palin? Sheer stark raving terror is the conservative response to Pelosi.

Because they make the charge.

She (Pelosi) has real political power. Palin does not.

It's funny, I know all those words, but I don't have the faintest idea what you mean by putting them together in that order.

Because they are in charge or because they're the ones bringing the charges. I think.

Will is correct.

The Democrats making these charges are in control of what they are complaining about. The course of action that they should take at this point is clear.

I think so too. I'm not sure whether we agree on the course they should take, though. Do you think Cheney should be investigated or even indicted for this? I do.

Do I think congress will do it? Don't know. I'd like to hope so, but I wouldn't bet my car on it. I'd be willing to bet that Kucinich will raise a stink about it.

I have no objection to investigation. My gut tells me this is a political issue, and Chaney did not violate the law.

I think this is political cover for Pelosi. And I think they want to give the "hate Bush/Chaney" crowd something to get excited about.

I don't think Obama wants any part of this, and this issue die a silent/uncerimonial death in a few more days.

Could be. The administration could also be playing it quiet until there's enough general public call for investigation that they can graciously fold to the pressure. That way they get to do the digging without the appearance of going after a former president.

Seem to remember something on the news about this, and the questions about the legality.

On the one hand you have the whole issue about the lack of oversight because everything was kept hush hush. The law on the issue is actually fairly direct in addressing this, and how it is a no-no.

At the same time there is a back door, where information is allowed to be withheld if it is considered sensitive, or ongoing. Granted this was Rick Sanchez showing the two codified statutes, explaining this to me as I lazily watched CNN during Sotomayer's recess. Maybe I'm completely offbase here.

I think RB was right in saying