# CIA Assassination Program



## tjwest (Jul 14, 2009)

This has been in the news for a week or so now, but the NYT just published the purpose of the CIA program that Panetta nixed last month.

NY Times CIA Article

I have mixed feelings on the whole thing, but thought I would post here to see what everyone else was thinking.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 14, 2009)

When I am in the grocery store, I just ignore the tabloids.   Well for me, the actions of the past of the NYT, has reduced what ever that paper had to offer to tabloid status.


----------



## 7point62 (Jul 14, 2009)

I don't have a problem with the gist of the EO in question, the targeting of our enemy's leaders during wartime. The biggest reservation I have about it is jeopardizing our highly trained operators on a dangerous infiltration into a sovereign foreign country where they risk capture and the subsequent propaganda bonanza an incident like that would be to our enemies, not to mention the painful images it conjurs up, like our dead being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. 

I have enormous faith in the abilities and courage of our SOF and SOF-intel guys to put together and execute the mission...but the risks and alternatives should be carefully weighed. When in doubt, JDAM. My reservations do not obviously apply to theaters where we are already engaged in combat operations.

Unrelated to the ethical and risk issues is the political bullshit that's being stirred up about waterboarding, muhj atrocities, assassinations, all the post 9/11 wartime time implementations that are now being dredged up and waved around like Nazi war crimes to further discredit the former administration.


----------



## tjwest (Jul 14, 2009)

HOLLiS said:


> When I am in the grocery store, I just ignore the tabloids.   Well for me, the actions of the past of the NYT, has reduced what ever that paper had to offer to tabloid status.




Ok, you're missing the point.  Yes, the NYT has been reduced in stature in recent years because of bad journalistic decision.  However, in this case conservative news outlets published the same story.  _See_ Fox News Story.

The real issue is, how do you feel about a program that 

In 1976 President Ford issued  Executive Order 11905, which prohibited the CIA from carrying out assassinations.  President Reagan issued a second one, Executive Order 12333, in 1981 that reaffirmed this.  

Following 9/11, both the Bush administration and the CIA put forth arguments that neither of these EO's prevent them from killing AQ leadership or operatives.  Personally, I take everything that the Bush administration's crack(-pot) legal team put out during their tenure with a grain of salt, as the rule of law was never high on their priority list.  Regardless, on some level I have never been entirely sold on EO's 11905 or 12333, and I think that some of the arguments I've read from DOJ and the CIA's general counsel make sense.

So it begs the question, assuming that the Bush administration was correct, and that it's okay to assassinate AQ leadership, is it okay to keep the program hidden from the select members of congress sit on the committee that provides the funding for the program, particularly in light of 1) the oversight laws that exist, and 2) the fact that members of congress that are part of the committee are subject to the same secrecy laws and regulations as anyone else with a similar level of clearance.



.


----------



## fmrMTNsoldier (Jul 14, 2009)

I tend to support such programs as this, even though three Jason Bourne movies were more than I can handle, (which is how the media tends to describe said program) I still believe we as a nation should be actively targeting our enemies. 

With that said I do believe in the need for oversite by congress, but in cases like this I think a limited panel should be informed. There was a report put out by the CIA stating one reason the then VP Dick Cheney wanted it kept out of congress's eyes was to limit the chance of some sort of media leak. This makes sense to me in light of what some politicians will do to improve their footing in the congressional body. In the end though each situation should dictate whether or not to using a surgical type action or turn his house into a parking lot.;)


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 14, 2009)

Well, I have a particularly severe mindset on that kind of issue. My belief is that the need very much exists, but the critical factor is having the right people up and down the chain involved. It's no good having the best professionals in the world doing the "wet work" if they're undermined by weak-kneed politicians above them. If it's to be done, it must be done with the highest level of operatives and short chain of command. 

Most just don't have the stomach for it. That program would have to be run under a particularly ballsy President, with just the right (hand-picked and very short) chain under him. As far as congressional visibility, I don't see any of the members of congress being able to understand that entire realm. It's just too severe for non-operators to comprehend in my opinion. It'd have to be completely black to allow any longevity, whatsoever. 

As an operator, I'd saddle up for a run like that in a heartbeat. I know others that would, as well. There are just too many people in our country now who have no clue of what it takes to defeat a hardened, dedicated, well-prepared, radical, long-term enemy like we have now. Those same people just want to "feel good", so they expose programs they don't like the sound of, even though it's all in the good fight to keep Hadji away from our homes and families with his terroristic evil. . 

America is so divided these days with shockingly sheltered people who've never been out of Beverly Hills, but somehow have a political microphone, that we can't get much done without fighting among ourselves. United we stand, divided we fall. Apparently, not everyone can envision what would happen should we continue to dick around and lose...

That brings up another point. I don't hear any talk about how our economy is the target. Just like those who failed their duties at the top of the Federal Air Marshal Service. They didn't seem to have a clue that another U.S. flagged commercial airline attack would devastate our travel industry. So, they just sat around collecting their fat pay and chasing off all the operators who would be inclined to ask them why they weren't doing their jobs. 

A country lulled into a stupor. How many kicks to the groin will it take to actually wake us up?...


----------



## JBS (Jul 14, 2009)

What is the difference between targetted assassination by some dark-side joes, and a "precision strike" by a drone?

Some people are talking about this as if there is a significant difference between bombing the hell out of someone in their little mud brick hideout while they are taking a shit, and sending a dozen high-n-tights into the front door to do the job in person.

Not that anyone is going to be surprised, but I say we should vaporize them any way we can; JDAM, 7.62, .50, HE, WP, etc., until they quit or there aren't any more of them left.


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 14, 2009)

JBS said:


> What is the difference between targetted assassination by some dark-side joes, and a "precision strike" by a drone?
> 
> Some people are talking about this as if there is a significant difference between bombing the hell out of someone in their little mud brick hideout while they are taking a shit, and sending a dozen high-n-tights into the front door to do the job in person.
> 
> Not that anyone is going to be surprised, but I say we should vaporize them any way we can; JDAM, 7.62, .50, HE, WP, etc., until they quit or there aren't any more of them left.



I'll take "Until there aren't any more of them" for 500, Alex.


----------



## AssadUSMC (Jul 14, 2009)

I only pray the CIA actually had the balls to contemplate this seriously...  That would be a good sign IMO.


----------



## snake_doc (Jul 14, 2009)

I'm all for kill/capture teams! Let's give these guys no where to hide. With that being said, it would be difficult for the US to hide the fact that we were the ones responsible for any such mission that might take place. In addition, the more congressman we inform before the fact about these missions, the more leaks will occur.


----------



## JBS (Jul 14, 2009)

snake_doc said:


> I'm all for kill/capture teams! Let's give these guys no where to hide. With that being said, it would be difficult for the US to hide the fact that we were the ones responsible for any such mission that might take place. In addition, the more congressman we inform before the fact about these missions, the more leaks will occur.



That's the real issue, in my opinion.

It isn't that we don't have finely honed arrows that can go in and do the job.

Its that any time Congress gets involved, we are likely to have reporters sitting at the ORP chewing on a snickers bar, thanks to their "unnamed source".

Or worse, said "unnamed source" that can't shut his fat fucking jowls somehow tips off haji, and he decides to scoot before he can be taken down.  With the speed of the internet, these are very real concerns, when it comes to leaks.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 14, 2009)

From a civilian point of view... I believe such a program should exist, and as SAWMAN pointed out, with the absolute shortest chain of command, maybe three links tops.
The president, the head of whichever agency/department would be selected and the team of assets.

I do not need to know about it, I do not want to know about it.

But I fervently think it ought to exist. I prefer this option by far to using JDAMs, drones or other means, unless of course they are safer to our guys and/or more expedient.


----------



## 7point62 (Jul 14, 2009)

tjwest said:


> So it begs the question, assuming that the Bush administration was correct, and that it's okay to assassinate AQ leadership, is it okay to keep the program hidden from the select members of congress sit on the committee that provides the funding for the program, particularly in light of 1) the oversight laws that exist, and 2) the fact that members of congress that are part of the committee are subject to the same secrecy laws and regulations as anyone else with a similar level of clearance.




Your questions begs a few other questions. Like A) how bad do we want the target? and B) How far is the administration willing to go legally to bend the rules or find loopholes in the rules to omit informing select members of congress _in the interests of national security?_ Lawyers can find loopholes in a loophole. And C) would public opinion be overwhelmingly supportive if it became known we whacked the guy?

Back in WW2 the US assassinated Admiral Yamamoto. There was some soul-searching done...I think FDR even consulted some clergymen--very generally--to cover his ass. And I don't know if he consulted anybody in congress. My guess is he didn't and even if he did he would not have gotten much opposition. 

I think we all assume that our people have conducted missions like this from time to time. Legal? I would think it would depend on the spin your lawyers give it. Congress has forever bitched about being left out of the loop when it comes to top secret operations, so it's really nothing new.


----------



## snake_doc (Jul 14, 2009)

When congress gets a clearance and a need to know, perhaps they can be informed. Beyond that, they just need to get over the fact that they won't know everything that goes on in the world!


----------



## jtprgr375 (Jul 14, 2009)

Here is what is ironic. They want to go after Cheney for trying to keep this program  from being briefed to Congress. This WAS a TS program. Some people in the White House did not even know about it. After less than a week after good ol Leon Panetta testified before Congress, that this program existed, it was leaked. Whether or not it was declassified before hand I do not know, but there is a good reason they did not know about it. They do not need to fucking know. Life continues, our way of life continues, continue on with your lives and let the fucking people do their fucking jobs. 
 We all remember the feeling we felt as we watched those planes slam into the World Trade Center. Do we want that to happen again? Than shut the fuck up and let those who protect you do their job.


----------



## tjwest (Jul 14, 2009)

7point62 said:


> Your questions begs a few other questions. Like A) how bad do we want the target? and B) How far is the administration willing to go legally to bend the rules or find loopholes in the rules to omit informing select members of congress _in the interests of national security?_ Lawyers can find loopholes in a loophole. And C) would public opinion be overwhelmingly supportive if it became known we whacked the guy?



Great questions, and I totally understand where you're coming from in point "B."  I am a lawyer and often times its my job to find ways to protect my clients' interests within the framework of the law.  To find "loopholes" if you will.  I think the bigger problem here is that I expect more of leadership.  It isn't like the former administration needed anyone's permission to set up assassination teams to go after AQ.  The EO's discussed above were not put in place by congress.  They're orders that come from the oval office.  If the president doesn't think they're good law anymore he can change or remove them at any time.  It happens all the time.  In fact, I really would have preferred that the administration had done this.  As I mentioned above, I'm not really opposed to this tactic.  But I really don't care for our leadership putting in place laws that really don't mean anything.  If we're going to let the CIA assassinate bad guys, let's not pretend that we're not.  

The bigger issue I struggle with is deceiving congress.  On one hand, I think back to the 80's when congress and the CIA managed to cooperatively work together to fight a clandestine war in Afghanistan without it being on the front page.  On the other hand, I agree with much of what has been said above in regard to the concern that congressional offices sometimes can't keep their mouths shut.  This is even more disspointing than all of the shoddy legal work that came out of the Bush administration.  The whole thing makes me wonder if there isn't a greater role for the IG when leaks do surface.  It's such a shame that no one has been nailed yet for the Valerie Plame leak.  I don't care if she was an actual operative as she claims or just sitting on a desk at Langley like some others claim.  It ought to be a top priority whenever classified information of that nature is leaked, and the penalties should be severe.  Normally I don't by very much into deterrance theories, but part of me believes that the leak problem would probably go away after one or two congressional staffers (or white house staffers - remember the Plame leak is believed to have come from the executive branch) were sent to prison for life.



7point62 said:


> Back in WW2 the US assassinated Admiral Yamamoto. There was some soul-searching done...I think FDR even consulted some clergymen--very generally--to cover his ass. And I don't know if he consulted anybody in congress. My guess is he didn't and even if he did he would not have gotten much opposition.



This is a less compelling analogy, but does illustrate a couple of key points.  Not only was the law different at that time, but the circumstances were different.  Neither EO had been issued until the late 20th century, long after WWII.  Additionally, Yamamoto was a military officer for a nation-state that was overtly at war with the US, who died in an ambush conducted by the US Navy.  

This is a bit complex, but there are serious questions that haven't been resolved yet in regard to how the current "War on Terror" can and should be fought under the law (can you tell yet that I'm a big Rule of Law guy?).  Today, we are in a global fight with AQ, which is a group that is neither a nation or a state.  Congress has given the executive branch a tremendous amount of authority to prosecute this conflict under, _inter alia_, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).  In spite of this, there are huge problems because in some respect the language of the AUMF is so broad and ambigous that the government is still struggling 8 years later to figure out where the boundries of that authority are.  In large part, this is an even more compelling reason why the Bush administration would have been in the green to go ahead with the assassination program in the absence of the EOs.  So why hide behind lawyers?  





.


----------



## JBS (Jul 14, 2009)

tjwest said:


> I am a lawyer and ....
> 
> .




GAHHHH!:eek:





I keed, I keed!


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 14, 2009)

When a bus bomb takes out Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv, another top Hammas, or Hisballah leader gets hit. It usually happens within 72 hours. 

All you hear from the lib media is crying about the unprovoked "murder" of the terroristic leader, not all the innocent families on the bus. I'm over it. The media has long ago lost its professional credibility. 

The Israelis, however, are used to it. They swiftly hit their enemies and make them pay without a bunch of internal conflict, hand-wringing, whining, second guessing, or any other humiliating jackasserie.

Israel does what works because they must. How simple and functionally beautiful is that? I wish we would go back to doing what works, like we used to. 

We've gotten so far from reality these days, due (in my opinion) to being so big and powerful for so long, many of our citizens simply can't imagine being without all the luxuries they've enjoyed for so long. Little do they know it's all already being undone right in front of them. One Trillion dollars at a time...

We should be on a world-wide extermination campaign. AQ is not a legitimate army, defending their homeland from us. They're radical, extremist murderers. They should simply be hunted down wherever they are and erased without apology. I think the rest of the world would understand much more than we think. They'd whine, but they'd at least know it made sense. 

"Jump us and we'll f-ing hunt you down and crush you. Any questions?"

If only...


----------



## Mac_NZ (Jul 14, 2009)

How is it assassination when you are at war with them?  Dropping a cruise missile on a terrorist training camp could be classed as assassination, it's not like the guy squatting over a hole when the blinding light of freedom turns him medium rear is an *imminent* threat to a Soldiers safety.  He's a long term threat and it's justifiable to take him out.

War is a dirty thing, it's a street fight with broken bottles and biting a guys ear off.  It's not a couple of upper class twats pairing off in the ring with gloves and head gear.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 14, 2009)

It's of major importance if I kill you with a 500 lb'er or a mini gun. 

We need to come up with a new show....say like "I'm a politician, get me out of here"

Next, everyone on the Oversight Committee who's been the most vocal while playing semantics, gets flown to the ME, transpo'd to poppy fields ground zero, given a set of instructions 8000 pages thick on how to request military help and assistance, and let it leak out to both Al Q and the Taliban via an unnamed source who wishes to remain anonymous, that these infidels can be located via long lat or grid at the following location. 

Yeah, if only.


----------



## Trip_Wire (Jul 14, 2009)

I have always thought our CIA or CAG should operate more like the Mossad does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 14, 2009)

Centermass said:


> It's of major importance if I kill you with a 500 lb'er or a mini gun.
> 
> We need to come up with a new show....say like "I'm a politician, get me out of here"
> 
> ...



(Referee's Whistle) "Insensitive use of reality check on those who can't possibly withstand it...Fifteen yard penalty." :) 

If they did that to just 2 poor souls, it would be a serious wake up call to all the others. I'd fund a show like that, bro!


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 14, 2009)

There is a reason why sound suppressors exist, and it is beyond tactics.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 15, 2009)

CIA has shit going on that they don't even know about!

as for super secret units (CAG) and all that, by the time we find abou it, its already 20 years old...

No worries, someone is killing someone some where!


----------



## Centermass (Jul 15, 2009)

The more and more I've thought about this, I've come to the conclusion that this push for an investigation coincides with perfect timing to get Pelosi off the hook for her comment recently about being "lied to" and save face. Not that her face is worth saving for that matter.......:uhh:

Think about it.


----------



## Ajax (Jul 15, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> When a bus bomb takes out Israeli civilians in Tel Aviv, another top Hammas, or Hisballah leader gets hit. It usually happens within 72 hours.
> 
> All you hear from the lib media is crying about the unprovoked "murder" of the terroristic leader, not all the innocent families on the bus. I'm over it. The media has long ago lost its professional credibility.
> 
> ...



White guilt, far more of a hinderance than Hebrew guilt.

When you said you'd jump at the chance to be on one of these teams, I chuckled a little.  I was picturing you in denied LBG territory.  "Hey, who is that huge white guy?"  "I don't know, but he has spectacular hair for his age."


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 15, 2009)

Trip_Wire said:


> I have always thought our CIA or CAG should operate more like the Mossad does.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad


 
Word! :2c:


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 15, 2009)

Ajax said:


> White guilt, far more of a hinderance than Hebrew guilt.
> 
> When you said you'd jump at the chance to be on one of these teams, I chuckled a little.  I was picturing you in denied LBG territory.  "Hey, who is that huge white guy?"  "I don't know, but he has spectacular hair for his age."



Well, contract work is never as sexy as we'd have it be. There's always something more we'd like to be doing. Still, at least there are some other good operators to work with. That's paramount.


----------



## 7point62 (Jul 15, 2009)

tjwest said:


> Great questions, and I totally understand where you're coming from in point "B."  I am a lawyer and often times its my job to find ways to protect my clients' interests within the framework of the law.  To find "loopholes" if you will.  I think the bigger problem here is that I expect more of leadership.  It isn't like the former administration needed anyone's permission to set up assassination teams to go after AQ.  The EO's discussed above were not put in place by congress.  They're orders that come from the oval office.  If the president doesn't think they're good law anymore he can change or remove them at any time.  It happens all the time.  In fact, I really would have preferred that the administration had done this.  As I mentioned above, I'm not really opposed to this tactic.  But I really don't care for our leadership putting in place laws that really don't mean anything.  If we're going to let the CIA assassinate bad guys, let's not pretend that we're not.
> 
> The bigger issue I struggle with is deceiving congress.  On one hand, I think back to the 80's when congress and the CIA managed to cooperatively work together to fight a clandestine war in Afghanistan without it being on the front page.  On the other hand, I agree with much of what has been said above in regard to the concern that congressional offices sometimes can't keep their mouths shut.  This is even more disspointing than all of the shoddy legal work that came out of the Bush administration.  The whole thing makes me wonder if there isn't a greater role for the IG when leaks do surface.  It's such a shame that no one has been nailed yet for the Valerie Plame leak.  I don't care if she was an actual operative as she claims or just sitting on a desk at Langley like some others claim.  It ought to be a top priority whenever classified information of that nature is leaked, and the penalties should be severe.  Normally I don't by very much into deterrance theories, but part of me believes that the leak problem would probably go away after one or two congressional staffers (or white house staffers - remember the Plame leak is believed to have come from the executive branch) were sent to prison for life.
> 
> ...






Now TJ, you might be a lawyer, but _I'm_ a _sea_lawyer, and that means that the only law I _really_ understand, is barracks law. You are looking at it from the point of view of a legal professional who wants the law to be tidy. I look at it from the point of view of a man who thinks everything the President does is okay as long as it makes me feel good. And nothing would make be feel better than somebody shoving a nice big stick of C4 up "The Lion of Islam's" ass and blowing him to fuckin Venus.

But I agree with you.


----------



## TheWookie (Jul 15, 2009)

*This is simply Pelosi pay back.*

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t the CIA been killing all sorts of people in Pakistan with unmanned drones? Um, so what’s the problem here? Oh yeah, they need to distract people from something else by blaming Bush & Cheney for something stupid.

Personally, I still think this all goes back to the Clinton days. Dems hated having Clinton’s affair and impeachment hearings made public. They want a Republican trashed through the mud as payback. That’s why they want Bush so badly (or Cheney). The CIA held the secrets that could be pinned on Bush so who did they put in charge? Panetta. Now Panetta goes digging and quite a few “secret” documents start getting leaked to the press. Panetta feigns ignorance about the whole matter - even has a public” spat with Pelosi so as to keep it looking above board.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 15, 2009)

At its heart, it's a cultural issue, IMHO. We have long moved away from being hunters, in supermarkets, meat is tidily packaged and displayed with the animals' carcass well out of sight (and smell).
Actually I think we're going from having our meat packaged to pre-cooked and packaged, more and more.
People are losing their stomach, and a lot of knowledge along with it. Politically, sure, most people want the terrorists to be dead meat, but they want it done neatly. no sight nor smell of blood and shit. They want it video-game-clean.
Endurance is rooted in patience and we are losing that: every time you do a search on Google, for instance, it tells you how long it took to find and display the results. That's instant gratification people are after, and it's not even entirely their fault.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 15, 2009)

I kind of liked the old days,  when Covert meant Covert, when a secret was a secret,  all protected by oversight and yes, our selected elected few. 

The thing today is partisan politics, use what ever information to shame your political opponents, even if it makes our country more vulnerable or cost the lives of those serving.


----------



## snake_doc (Jul 15, 2009)

HOLLiS said:


> I kind of liked the old days,  when Covert meant Covert, when a secret was a secret,  all protected by oversight and yes, our selected elected few.
> 
> The thing today is partisan politics, use what ever information to shame your political opponents, even if it makes our country more vulnerable or cost the lives of those serving.



Very well said!!!


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 15, 2009)

Frank S. said:


> People are losing their stomach...


Word.  Media and cultural Pussification.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 15, 2009)

arizonaguide said:


> Word.  Media and cultural Pussification.



I think it is more the Media in conjunction with partisan politics. 

Kids are suppose to grow up, get married and have kids.   Work to pay off that home, cars and raise their kids to go to college.  Their kids repeat the process by adding grand kids.  

They are able to live a good life, loving their families because of others, who carry the burden of having to do things, normal people don't do, understand or is capable of doing those things.


----------



## tjwest (Jul 15, 2009)

7point62 said:


> Now TJ, you might be a lawyer, but _I'm_ a _sea_lawyer, and that means that the only law I _really_ understand, is barracks law. You are looking at it from the point of view of a legal professional who wants the law to be tidy. I look at it from the point of view of a man who thinks everything the President does is okay as long as it makes me feel good. And nothing would make be feel better than somebody shoving a nice big stick of C4 up "The Lion of Islam's" ass and blowing him to fuckin Venus.
> 
> But I agree with you.



Rock on brother.  Although if the law were tidy I'd be out of a job.


----------



## Nasty (Jul 16, 2009)

*CIA Sought to Activate Secret Plan to Train Al Qaeda Hit Teams*

Officials proposed activating a plan to train teams to kill Al Qaeda leaders abroad when managers within the agency told Director Leon Panetta about the secret program last month. 

FOXNews.com

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 

Feb. 25: CIA Director Leon Panetta speaks with reporters at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va. (AP)

WASHINGTON -- CIA officials proposed activating a plan to train teams to kill Al Qaeda leaders abroad when managers within the agency told Director Leon Panetta about the secret program last month, two U.S. officials told The Washington Post.

The plan to assassinate terror leaders, which was terminated in 2004 by Director George Tenet but resurrected by his successors, was brought to light after proposals to initiate a "somewhat more operational phase," the Post reported on Thursday.

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair defended Panetta's decision on Wednesday to cancel the program because, according to the paper, serious questions were raised among officials about its "effectiveness, maturity and level of control."

Officials told the Associated Press that Tenet ended the secret program because the agency could not work out its practical details. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the classified program.

Porter Goss, who replaced Tenet in 2005, restarted the program, the former officials said. By the time Michael Hayden succeeded Goss as CIA chief in 2006 the effort was again flagging because of practical challenges.

Panetta drove the final stake into the effort in June after learning about the program. He called an emergency meeting with the House and Senate Intelligence committees the next day, informing lawmakers about the program and saying that as vice president Dick Cheney had directed the CIA not to inform Congress about the operation.

The CIA declined to comment on the officials' comments.

One former senior intelligence official said Wednesday that the idea never quite died because it was a capability -- the details of which remain classified -- that the CIA wanted in its arsenal. But as time wore on, the official said, its need became less urgent.

Another former official said that the CIA's reliance on foreign intelligence services and on drone-launched missile strikes proved over time to be less risky yet effective in targeting Al Qaeda chiefs for death or capture. President George W. Bush authorized the killing of Al Qaeda leaders in 2001.

According to one congressional official, the agency spent more than $1 million over the eight years that the CIA considered launching the hit teams. The official would not detail the exact amount or how it was spent.

The House Intelligence Committee is laying the groundwork for a possible investigation of the program and its concealment from Congress. In late June it asked the CIA to provide documents about the now-canceled program to kill Al Qaeda leaders.

Agency officials say it is complying with the request. Panetta has at the same time ordered a thorough internal review of the program.

The committee will likely focus on how much was spent on the effort, whether any training was conducted and whether any officials traveled in association with the program, a congressional official said. Those factors would determine whether the program had progressed enough to require congressional notification.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes is expected to decide as early as this week whether to press ahead with a full investigation.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


----------



## TheWookie (Jul 16, 2009)

A month ago Obama authorized a missile strike, from an unmanned drone, on a Taliban stronghold that killed a Taliban leader just as Bush had before him. 

There was no trial... the missile was judge and jury just as the CIA program would have been if enacted. Like many CIA programs... only those above a cost threshold or are about to be operational are presented to Congress. Idea and concepts within the CIA are like any other government organizations, they stay within the organization. There is not a single organization in the US government where every thought and idea is presented to Congress... nor should there be. 

The Dems are distorting and abusing the system as they always do.  

General Hayden stated that the program was never operational and no one told him not to report it. That is yet another Democrat "untruth." Do these people ever tell the truth? This is the third or fourth Democrat bogeyman red herring story launched to undermine good people while distracting America from Obama's management and economy failures.


----------



## BLACKMags (Jul 16, 2009)

WTF!!?? Why the hell is Obama allowing the government to be aired out like it has been lately ? I know that the people of this country have a right to know(Which i really don't agree with anyway!) But DAMN if we want to be the top dog we can't keep letting this happen. It makes us look like weenies like we are on the soft side and won't do what it takes to keep this country safe.


----------



## vicat777 (Jul 16, 2009)

Looks like a case of "Plausible Deniability" for our new administration.


----------



## arizonaguide (Jul 16, 2009)

Similar (excellent) thread in INTEL section :cool:


----------



## Scotth (Jul 16, 2009)

I don't have a problem with the concept of this program. I tend to agree with the view that assassinating an AQ leader is far different from the EO that Ford issued baring assassination of heads of states. There is a good rational basis for baring that action. Assassinating foreign national leaders can lead to many unintentional consequences. Targeting a terrorist leader will not have the same effect. A missile from a Predator into a mud hut isn't any different then a person on the ground taking the shot when you look at final results. Of course there is different levels of risk involved.

I have a real problem if it's proven that the program was withheld from Congressional oversight. I'm not to concerned with the he said she said crap at this point because we don't know the truth and both-sides will say whatever they want until they are caught with overwhelming evidence. I hope it gets investigated. The issue for me isn't what the program entailed was it operational or not or any other side issues.  My big question is, was it required to be reported to Congress? If it was required and not done then I have a big issue regardless of operational status. 

This issue, for me, is about checks and balances in our government and the three coequal branches of government. It's not a democratic/republican issue and if the time comes when Obama doesn't inform congress on something they needed to you will see the republicans jump on the issue just as hard as the democrats are doing now.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 16, 2009)

Threads merged.


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 16, 2009)

vicat777 said:


> Looks like a case of "Plausible Deniability" for our new administration.



Interesting part that bares a lot truth;  President Bush said (my words), "Once in office he will see things and know things and that will compel him to do the same."....  I wish I could remember the quote.  Out side of the office and running for the office a person can make a lot of claims.  Once inside the office reality sets in.   


Or we can just have dishonest politicians, like Peloshi, just lie..... and lie.... and lie.


----------



## AssadUSMC (Jul 17, 2009)

There was an op-ed in today's WSJ from a Democratic strategist about how Obama needs to "reset" his Presidency since he has changed 100% from how he campaigned.  That's a good thing IMO - now if we could just oust Pelosi and the other horrible c$%ts from my home state of CA...


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 18, 2009)

U.S.: Reaction to the CIA Assassination Program
July 15, 2009 | 1634 GMT

By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton
On June 23, 2009, Director of Central Intelligence Leon Panetta learned of a highly compartmentalized program to assassinate al Qaeda operatives that was launched by the CIA in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. When Panetta found out that the covert program had not been disclosed to Congress, he canceled it and then called an emergency meeting June 24 to brief congressional oversight committees on the program. Over the past week, many details of the program have been leaked to the press and the issue has received extensive media coverage.
That a program existed to assassinate al Qaeda leaders should certainly come as no surprise to anyone. It has been well-publicized that the Clinton administration had launched military operations and attempted to use covert programs to strike the al Qaeda leadership in the wake of the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings. In fact, the Clinton administration has come under strong criticism for not doing more to decapitate al Qaeda prior to 2001. Furthermore, since 2002, the CIA has conducted scores of strikes against al Qaeda targets in Pakistan using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)20like the MQ-1 Predator and the larger MQ-9 Reaper.
These strikes have dramatically increased over the past two years and the pace did not slacken when the Obama administration came to power in January. So far in 2009 there have been more than two dozen UAV strikes in Pakistan alone. In November 2002, the CIA also employed a UAV to kill Abu Ali al-Harithi, a senior al Qaeda leader suspected of planning the October 2000 attack against the USS Cole. The U.S. government has also attacked al Qaeda leaders at other times and in other places, such as the May 1, 2008, attack against al Qaeda-linked figures in Somalia using an AC-130 gunship.
As early as Oct. 28, 2001, The Washington Post ran a story discussing the Clinton-era presidential finding authorizing operations to capture or kill al Qaeda targets. The Oct. 28 Washington Post story also provided details of a finding signed by President George W. Bush following the 9/11 attacks that reportedly provided authorization to strike a larger cross section of al Qaeda targets, including those who are not in the Afghan theater of operations. Such presidential findings are used to authorize covert actions, but in this case the finding would also provide permission to contravene Executive Order 12333, which prohibits assassinations.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Bush and the members of his administration were very clear that they sought to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and the members of the al Qaeda organization. During the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections in the United States, every major candidate, including Barack Obama, stated that they would seek to kill bin Laden and destroy al Qaeda. Indeed, on the campaign trail, Obama was quite vocal in his criticism of the Bush administration for not doing more to go after al Qaeda’s leadership in Pakistan. This means that, regardless of who is in the White House, it is U.S. policy to go after individual al Qaeda members as well as the al Qaeda organization.
In light of these facts, it would appear that there was nothing particularly controversial about the covert assassination program itself, and the controversy that has arisen over it has more to do with the failure to report covert activities to Cong ress. The political uproar and the manner in which the program was canceled, however, will likely have a negative impact on CIA morale and U.S. counterterrorism efforts.
Program Details
As noted above, that the U.S. government has attempted to locate and kill al Qaeda members is not shocking. Bush’s signing of a classified finding authorizing the assassination of al Qaeda members has been a poorly kept secret for many years now, and the U.S. government has succeeded in killing al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
While Hellfire missiles are quite effective at hitting trucks in Yemen and AC-130 gunships are great for striking walled compounds in the Somali badlands, there are many places in the world where it is simply not possible to use such tools against militants. One cannot launch a hellfire from a UAV at a target in Milan or use an AC-130 to attack a target in Doha. Furthermore, there are certain parts of the world — including some countries considered to be U.S. allies — where it is very difficult for the United States to conduct counterterrorism operations at all. These difficulties have been seen in past cases where the governments have refused U.S. requests to detain terrorist suspects or have alerted the suspects to the U.S. interest in them, compromising U.S. intelligence efforts and allowing the suspects to flee.
0A
A prime example of this occurred in 1996, when the United States asked the government of Qatar for assistance in capturing al Qaeda operational mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was living openly in Qatar and even working for the Qatari government as a project engineer. Mohammed was tipped off to American intentions by the Qatari authorities and fled to Pakistan. According to the 9/11 commission report, Mohammed was closely associated with Sheikh Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, who was then the Qatari minister of religious affairs. After fleeing Doha, Mohammed went on to plan several al Qaeda attacks against the United States, including the 9/11 operation.
Given these realities, it appears that the recently disclosed assassination program was intended to provide the United States with a far more subtle and surgical tool to use in attacks against al Qaeda leaders in locations where Hellfire missiles are not appropriate and where host government assistance is unlikely to be provided. Some media reports indicate that the program was never fully developed and deployed; others indicate that it may have conducted a limited number of operations.
Unlike U AV strikes, where pilots fly the vehicles by satellite link and can actually be located a half a world away, or the very tough and resilient airframe of an AC-130, which can fly thousands of feet above a target, a surgical assassination capability means that the CIA would have to put boots on the ground in hostile territory where operatives, by their very presence, would be violating the laws of the sovereign country in which they were operating. Such operatives, under nonofficial cover by necessity, would be at risk of arrest if they were detected.
Also, because of the nature of such a program, a higher level of operational security is required than in the program to strike al Qaeda targets using UAVs. It is far more complex to move officers and weapons into hostile territory in a stealthy manner to strike a target without warning and with plausible deniability. Once a target is struck with a barrage of Hellfire missiles, it is fairly hard to deny what happened. There is ample physical evidence tying the attack to American UAVs. When a person is struck by a sniper’s bullet or a small IED, the perpetrator and sponsor have f ar more deniability. By its very nature, and by operational necessity, such a program must be extremely covert.
Even with the cooperation of the host government, conducting an extraordinary rendition in a friendly country like Italy has proved to be politically controversial and personally risky for CIA officers, who can be threatened with arrest and trial. Conducting assassination operations in a country that is not so friendly is a far riskier undertaking. As seen by the Russian officers arrested in Doha after the February 2004 assassination of former Chechen President Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, such operations can generate blowback. The Russian officers responsible for the Yandarbiyev hit were arrested, tortured, tried and sentenced to life in prison (though after several months they were released into Russian custody to serve the remainder of their sentences).
Because of the physical risk to the officers involved in such operations, and the political blowback such operations can cause, it is not surprising that the details of such a program would be strictly=2 0compartmentalized inside the CIA and not widely disseminated beyond the gates of Langley. In fact, it is highly doubtful that the details of such a program were even widely known inside the CIA’s counterterrorism center (CTC) — though almost certainly some of the CTC staff suspected that such a covert program existed somewhere. The details regarding such a program were undoubtedly guarded carefully within the clandestine service, with the officer in charge most likely reporting directly to the deputy director of operations, who reports personally to the director of the CIA.
Loose Lips Sink Ships
As trite as this old saying may sound, it is painfully true. In the counterterrorism realm, leaks destroy counterterrorism cases and often allow terrorist suspects to escape and kill again. There have been several leaks of “sources and methods” by congressional sources over the past decade that have disclosed details of sensitive U.S. government programs designed to do things such as intercept al Qaeda satellite phone signals and track al Qaeda financing. A classified appendix to the report of the 2005 Robb-Silberman Commission on Intelligence Capabilities (which incidentally was leaked to the press) discussed several such leaks, noted the costs they impose on the American taxpayers and highlighted the damage they do to intelligence programs.
The fear that details of a s ensitive program designed to assassinate al Qaeda operatives in foreign countries could be leaked was probably the reason for the Bush administration’s decision to withhold knowledge of the program from the U.S. Congress, even though amendments to the National Security Act of 1947 mandate the reporting of most covert intelligence programs to Congress. Given the imaginative legal guidance provided by Bush administration lawyers regarding subjects such as enhanced interrogation, it would not be surprising to find that White House lawyers focused on loopholes in the National Security Act reporting requirements.
The validity of such legal opinions may soon be tested. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, recently said he was considering an investigation into the failure to report the program to Congress, and House Democrats have announced that they want to change the reporting requirements to make them even more inclusive.
Under the current version of the National Security Act, with very few exceptions, the administration is required to report the most sensitive covert activities to, at the very least, the so-called “gang of eight” that includes the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. In the wake of the prog ram’s disclosure, some Democrats would like to expand this minimum reporting requirement to include the entire membership of the congressional intelligence committees, which would increase the absolute minimum number of people to be briefed from eight to 40. Some congressmen argue that presidents, prompted by the CIA, are too loose in their invocation of the “extraordinary circumstances” that allow them to report only to the gang of eight and not the full committees. Yet ironically, the existence of the covert CIA program stayed secret for over seven and a half years, and yet here we are writing about it less than a month after the congressional committees were briefed.
The addition of that many additional lips to briefings pertaining to covert actions is not the only thing that will cause great consternation at the CIA. While legally mandated, disclosing covert programs to Congress has been very problematic. The angst felt at Langley over potential increases in the number of people to be briefed will be compounded by the recent reports that Attorney General Eric Holder may appoint a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogations and ethics reporting.
In April we discussed how some of the early actions of the Obama administration were having a chilling effect on U.S. counterterrorism programs and personnel. Expanding the minimum reporting requirements under the National Security Act will serve to turn the thermostat down several additional notches, as did Panetta’s overt killing of the covert program. It is one thing to quietly kill a controversial program; it is quite another to repudiate the CIA in public. In addition to damaging the already low morale at the agency, Panetta has announced in a very public manner that the United States has taken one important tool entirely out of the counterterrorism toolbox: Al Qaeda no longer has to fear the possibility of clandestine American assassination teams.


----------



## CBTech (Jul 18, 2009)

Scotth said:


> The issue for me isn't what the program entailed was it operational or not or any other side issues.  My big question is, was it required to be reported to Congress? If it was required and not done then I have a big issue regardless of operational status.



The way I see it, if the program wasn't finalized then they shouldn't have had to tell anyone. At that point it would have just been a plan. If they wer req'ed to tell congress everything the MIGHT do it would lead to CIA telling Congress they were THINKING about getting a new coffee maker. 

Now, that being said, if they had all the parts alligned and were no shit going to put the plan to action and hadn't told congress then, yes, that would be wrong.


----------



## AssadUSMC (Jul 18, 2009)

Bill Donovan is rolling in his grave...  WTF happened to our country's balls?


----------



## x SF med (Jul 18, 2009)

What happened to Honor?
What happened to Integrity?

Dark Ops have been around forever, the public does not need to know about them.

Things get done for the security of the nation that are not pretty, this is a fact, and the sheeple don't need to know.  Hell most of the government idiots don't need to know.

Many of the memebership of this board have seved in SPECIAL Operations - there is a reason this name was given - there is a reason all SOF soldiers are required to have Security Clearances - there is a reason that for many years there was no fanfare about these 'white' units, much less the units that may or may not exist.

The frigging public has no clue why Intelligence is needed.  Why surgical removal of 'tumors' might be required.  The frigging general public should never even know some of these things exist.

I'm tired of the expectation of privacy in the public's lives without the expectation of privacy for certain areas of the government.  Sorry, Joe Shit the Ragman does not need to know what a SOF soldier who might or might not work with certain governmental agencies that shall not be named knows.

Those that leak this information to the press are traitors in my mind, and should be treated as such.


----------



## Gypsy (Jul 19, 2009)

x SF med said:


> Things get done for the security of the nation that are not pretty, this is a fact, and the sheeple don't need to know.  Hell most of the government idiots don't need to know.



I for one give thanks that there are people willing to do what needs to be done.  

The "handwringing" over the killing of key terrorists/BGs is flipping ridiculous.


----------



## Paddlefoot (Jul 19, 2009)

Robert Baer wrote a piece in the current issue of _Time_, puts it all in perspective.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1910670,00.html


----------



## Hush (Jul 19, 2009)

Sounds like a modern-day PHOENIX program....and that was devastatingly successfull correct?


----------



## Scotth (Jul 20, 2009)

CBTech said:


> The way I see it, if the program wasn't finalized then they shouldn't have had to tell anyone. At that point it would have just been a plan. If they wer req'ed to tell congress everything the MIGHT do it would lead to CIA telling Congress they were THINKING about getting a new coffee maker.
> 
> Now, that being said, if they had all the parts alligned and were no shit going to put the plan to action and hadn't told congress then, yes, that would be wrong.


 
Agreed.  I don't know where the discloser rules start and stop that's why I'm taking a wait and see approach.  My gut feeling is they have some type of documentation from Cheney telling the CIA not to report it and that's what this is all about.


----------



## TheWookie (Jul 20, 2009)

Paddlefoot said:


> Robert Baer wrote a piece in the current issue of _Time_, puts it all in perspective.
> 
> http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1910670,00.html




That's a good article; I like him and he always seems to be spot on.  When you cook all the fat outa this whole story the only thing left is dirty nasty politics, a classic misdirection.


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Jul 20, 2009)

Once again I can't help but feel almost ashamed at the way our government is conducting business. Regardless of any wrong that may or may not have happened why the hell has it been made public. As someone said earlier it makes us look weak as a world leader. Situations like this need to be kept internal. Certain things the public has the rights to know about, taxes, new bills, etc. Other things they do not need or realistically want to know. They say they want to know all the details but they don't. 

It's like when I go home and see someone I haven't seen since high school, and they either heard or remember that I'm in the military. The question almost always comes up, without me even telling them exactly what my job is, "have you ever killed anyone?". They ask this question as if they really want to know, and maybe, like some of the American public, they want a nice clean yes or no. But they certainly don't want the details. If I was to give them the full out details it would completely change their view of the world and probably leave them feeling sick, just as it would for the majority of Americans who don't have the stomach for reality. 

For some reason the sheep in our nation, damn near 90%, seem to have this vision of war being this nice clean event. They see a Predator fire a Hellfire into a house on CNN and just think "wow they blew that house up". The ground reality of body parts or gurgled last breaths never really sets in with them. However, if they were to hear that a team went in and put two in the back of everybody’s head "that’s too violent why would they do such a savage thing". Sorry to bust their bubble but dead is dead, and frankly depending on what type of ordinance gets put into the house they might be better off with two to the head since a bomb or missile does not always kill instantly.

As it was said earlier, it would be nice if we as a nation operated more like Israel, or even better adopted the Swordfish doctrine. If you blow up a plane we blow up an airport, you bomb a train station we tactically nuke a small city, you martyr yourself and we eliminate your bloodline. Sounds harsh? Yes it is and that’s the point. Without provocation you killed innocent civilians, some who ironicaly enough feel sorry for you, I have no remorse for the consequences that you have brought onto yourself, family, or community.. This enemy is not a traditional enemy that plays by rules and is just seeking more land, riches, or power. This enemy wants us dead, erased off the face of the earth in their own words. They will give us no mercy. If we as a nation or as warriors were to ever surrender and beg for mercy the only mercy we would receive is a bullet to the head if we're lucky. Some of you know the atrocities that they have committed against their own people in Iraq and Afghanistan. I almost wish some of those things were made public so that people understand the people we are fighting, but at the same time hope my family is never exposed to such things. That’s why there are people like us, who do the dirty but neccessary things so they don't have to.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 21, 2009)

Hitman2/3 said:


> Once again I can't help but feel almost ashamed at the way our government is conducting business. Regardless of any wrong that may or may not have happened why the hell has it been made public.



You make some excellent points, but just to add to the above, I think it does give pause to allied or friendly foreign agencies who might otherwise cooperate with the US. If we cannot realistically assure them that their cooperation/involvement will remain secret, then it hampers us.


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 21, 2009)

Hitman2/3 said:


> Once again I can't help but feel almost ashamed at the way our government is conducting business. Regardless of any wrong that may or may not have happened why the hell has it been made public. As someone said earlier it makes us look weak as a world leader. Situations like this need to be kept internal. Certain things the public has the rights to know about, taxes, new bills, etc. Other things they do not need or realistically want to know. They say they want to know all the details but they don't.
> 
> It's like when I go home and see someone I haven't seen since high school, and they either heard or remember that I'm in the military. The question almost always comes up, without me even telling them exactly what my job is, "have you ever killed anyone?". They ask this question as if they really want to know, and maybe, like some of the American public, they want a nice clean yes or no. But they certainly don't want the details. If I was to give them the full out details it would completely change their view of the world and probably leave them feeling sick, just as it would for the majority of Americans who don't have the stomach for reality.
> 
> ...



Absolutely. I think we're completely failing on the front of educating our people what's involved and at stake in this fight. I'm not talking about specific, sensitive info. I'm talking about our people understanding EXACTLY what our enemies are getting at and why they must be dealt with harshly and swiftly. 

Having our public in a poorly-informed daze is hurting us all. 

Back to Israel; You can bet each citizen there knows precisely what's at stake and what to do about it. I suppose we'll have to be hit again and again on our own soil to fully wake up as a nation. We're still just way too comfy and disconnected to pull together. That's lack of leadership. A real leader would be informing the public about the nature of the fight and what's needed to win. When in a big fight, a country should be galvanized and focused, not disbanded and distracted like we are. It's just surreal to see.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 21, 2009)

I'm afraid no amount of leadership can address this by itself. We have a built-in cultural stress fracture.

http://www.history.vt.edu/Barrow/Hist2104/readings/bambi.html


----------



## JBS (Jul 21, 2009)

Frank S. said:


> I'm afraid no amount of leadership can address this by itself. We have a built-in cultural stress fracture.
> 
> http://www.history.vt.edu/Barrow/Hist2104/readings/bambi.html



LOL! Great link!

I love Bambi!
















"If God didn't want us to eat animals, he never would have made them out of meat."


----------



## JBS (Jul 21, 2009)

Another viewpoint.





> http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/17/cia/
> *Who is the CIA allowed to kill?*
> 
> Cheney's secret assassination program may be terminated, but the U.S. is already carrying out "targeted killings"
> ...


The more one reads up on this, the more one realizes just how much all of this sensationalism is fueled by politics.:2c:


----------



## Hitman2/3 (Jul 21, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> I suppose we'll have to be hit again and again on our own soil to fully wake up as a nation. We're still just way too comfy and disconnected to pull together.



I agree. I say the same thing all the time. We throw up more metal detectors and some fancy bomb sniffing machines  at the airports (false sense of security),and everybody thinks we're safe and it will never happen again. The only thing that suprises me is that it hasn't happend yet. Like you said brother it will have to happen again and again, or on a large scale for people to let us take off the kid gloves.


----------



## SexyBeast (Jul 23, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> Absolutely. I think we're completely failing on the front of educating our people what's involved and at stake in this fight. I'm not talking about specific, sensitive info. I'm talking about our people understanding EXACTLY what our enemies are getting at and why they must be dealt with harshly and swiftly.
> 
> Having our public in a poorly-informed daze is hurting us all.
> 
> Back to Israel; You can bet each citizen there knows precisely what's at stake and what to do about it. I suppose we'll have to be hit again and again on our own soil to fully wake up as a nation. We're still just way too comfy and disconnected to pull together. That's lack of leadership. A real leader would be informing the public about the nature of the fight and what's needed to win. When in a big fight, a country should be galvanized and focused, not disbanded and distracted like we are. It's just surreal to see.




You're absolutely right. I'm taking a class on assassination and politics right now for school and Israel seems to be the only ones who understand the point. They seem to be about the only ones who understand what's at stake if they don't erase certain dickheads from the face of the planet.

Like you said, it's going to take some bad shit happening again and again for our citizens to finally get their heads out of their asses and understand why programs like this must exist. People here are much more concerned about Jon and Kate or who is in the top 5 for American Idol than they are about what the fuck is actually going on in the world.


----------



## Frank S. (Jul 23, 2009)

SexyBeast said:


> Israel seems to be the only ones who understand the point.



Google "DGSE operations HOMO" (yes, seriously) my friend...


----------



## SexyBeast (Jul 23, 2009)

Frank S. said:


> Google "DGSE operations HOMO" (yes, seriously) my friend...




ha ha cool! I guess that's also one way of keeping people from blabbing about what they do.."oh I'm in the homo division"

Thanks for the info bro!


----------



## FORAC (Jul 25, 2009)

AssadUSMC said:


> *Bill Donovan* is rolling in his grave...  WTF happened to our country's balls?



A perverse part of me wishes he was alive so he could be dual-hatted as the "Awesome Czar" and "Anything-you-White House-and-State-pussies-don't-have-the-stomach-for Czar"

We need a Donovan/Boykin/McChrystal-type character up there on the NSC to keep the bullshit and leaks to a minimum. Let people do their jobs. Heaping piles of equipment and funding, minimal oversight. 

LTGEN Lute is the AfPak/Iraq Czar in real-life.


----------



## FORAC (Jul 25, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> U.S.: Reaction to the CIA Assassination Program
> July 15, 2009 | 1634 GMT
> 
> By Scott Stewart and Fred Burton
> ...



Why do I keep reading about SAP's *I'm* not supposed to talk about in the fucking paper? And within 24 hours it's all over the web and MSNBC?

That is fourth of fifth time I've seen stuff like this in the open. It's clas for a reason! Jesus. /rant off


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 25, 2009)

FORAC said:


> Why do I keep reading about SAP's *I'm* not supposed to talk about in the fucking paper? And within 24 hours it's all over the web and MSNBC?
> 
> That is fourth of fifth time I've seen stuff like this in the open. It's clas for a reason! Jesus. /rant off



I'm with you bro. I hope you're not saying you're pissed at me for sharing it on a spec ops forum after it was published for the world to see. I appreciate OPSEC at least as much as the next operator who has had to survive by it. You're absolutely right. People should be behind bars for this crap.


----------



## SexyBeast (Jul 25, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> I'm with you bro. I hope you're not saying you're pissed at me for sharing it on a spec ops forum after it was published for the world to see. I appreciate OPSEC at least as much as the next operator who has had to survive by it. You're absolutely right. People should be behind bars for this crap.




Fuckin A, Sawman.


----------



## FORAC (Jul 27, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> I'm with you bro. I hope you're not saying you're pissed at me for sharing it on a spec ops forum after it was published for the world to see. I appreciate OPSEC at least as much as the next operator who has had to survive by it. You're absolutely right. People should be behind bars for this crap.



I'm not. 

It shouldn't be out there.
We shouldn't even be commenting on it...
it should not be anywhere except in a SCIF somewhere.

Whoever leaked this latest nugget from McLean (or Capitol Hill, because that's where I think it leaked, through a Congressional staffer or aide to a reporter) should be shot. 

Since I am not advocating members of Congress or the Senate to be shot, rather their incompetent and leak-happy aides and staff, I stand by my statement above 100%.


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 27, 2009)

FORAC,

Many times the information is put out there by irresponsible people at the higher levels and the enemy has it straight out of the gate. In this case, my impression was that the operators might as well know what the enemy has already gotten. 

Still, if you feel like this forum is a significant source, I'd say contact one of the moderators and request he simply pull the entire thread. I'm sure they'd comply, especially if you effectively articulate your concern.


----------



## FORAC (Jul 28, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> FORAC,
> 
> Many times the information is put out there by irresponsible people at the higher levels and the enemy has it straight out of the gate. In this case, my impression was that the operators might as well know what the enemy has already gotten.
> 
> Still, if you feel like this forum is a significant source, I'd say contact one of the moderators and request he simply pull the entire thread. I'm sure they'd comply, especially if you effectively articulate your concern.



You misread my post.

SS is not the problem. The LEAKERS are the problem. Most here are .mil or .gov and realize the implications of unauthorized disclosure. Myself included.

The leakers are the issue here and the target of my anger and frustration. I protect stuff in safes for a living, I did it in the Navy, I did it for a coalition task force and I do it as a civilian. This stuff really bothers me.


----------



## AssadUSMC (Jul 30, 2009)

I always live by the rule of "Just because it's in the paper doesn't make it unclassified".


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 30, 2009)

AS it once was explained to me:

Intel is like a jig saw puzzle.  Except you don't know what pieces the other guys has or needs.   

A piece maybe seemingly insignificant, of absolute NO value to you, but that one piece is the one piece the other guy needs to pull it together for him.  


This is why, nothing is said one way or another, no denial, no admittance, NO nothing.


----------



## EverSoLost (Jul 31, 2009)

HOLLiS said:


> AS it once was explained to me:
> 
> Intel is like a jig saw puzzle.  Except you don't know what pieces the other guys has or needs.
> 
> ...


Can I quote this?


----------



## HOLLiS (Jul 31, 2009)

EverSoLost said:


> Can I quote this?



Sure,  I probably should have asked who told me this, if I could do that too.  

I don't think he would mind.


----------



## EverSoLost (Jul 31, 2009)

HOLLiS said:


> Sure,  I probably should have asked who told me this, if I could do that too.
> 
> I don't think he would mind.


Thanks!  In my sig now.  :)


----------



## SAWMAN (Jul 31, 2009)

That's how I always heard it taught, as well. It's a good analogy for it.


----------



## Ajax (Jul 31, 2009)

Back on the topic of assasination, I was thinking about this last night, not having read through all these posts.  I pose a couple of questions for your bemusment:

1.  What was the intended end state for the war in Iraq?
2.  What is the current desired end state?
3.  Could this have been accomplished with a greater economy of time and resources?

In my opinion, if the desired endstate was to be rid of the Saddam regime, taking out the key players could have accomplished that mission.  Anyone that has worked with IA or IP forces knows that the officers that Americans train and work with on a daily basis were members of the same Army/ Security Forces we fought against, twice.  

We are told that assasination is wrong, but is it?  Four thousand sons and daughters of America dead and counting for the same result that could have been achieved through darker, less "valiant" means.  Where is the ethical dilemna?  This, of course, is not a fact.  Just something to think about.

The counterpoint as I see it, is we should not return to shaping the world through puppet governments and botched CIA plans, such as in the days of the Banana Republics and on into the 1960's.  There should be the same air of responsibility in killing an enemy of the state as there would be in considering a full-on invasion.  At the end of the day, I think if something like this were to be carried out, it should be carried out transparently and by men who take an oath.  People who wear suits to work sometimes think too much for the good of everyone.

Another counterpoint would be the truth in that there is no substitute for BOG (boots on ground) perspective.  Intel, good intel, is 70-80% accurate.  Who among us would pull a trigger and intiate the butterfly effect based on "kinda sure"?  What if that invasion is needed to figure out the endstate?  

Or you could just give the standard backbrief answer, "METT-TC sir."


----------



## Rabid Badger (Aug 3, 2009)

SAWMAN said:


> FORAC,
> 
> Many times the information is put out there by irresponsible people at the higher levels and the enemy has it straight out of the gate. In this case, my impression was that the operators might as well know what the enemy has already gotten.
> 
> Still, if you feel like this forum is a significant source, I'd say contact one of the moderators and request he simply pull the entire thread. I'm sure they'd comply, especially if you effectively articulate your concern.



No sweat here...



> In addition to damaging the already low morale at the agency, Panetta has announced in a very public manner that the United States has taken one important tool entirely out of the counterterrorism toolbox: _Al Qaeda no longer has to fear the possibility of clandestine American assassination teams_.



at least that's what we want'em to think.....;)


----------



## SexyBeast (Aug 3, 2009)

RB said:


> No sweat here...
> 
> 
> 
> at least that's what we want'em to think.....;)






heh heh heh yup


----------



## arizonaguide (Aug 10, 2009)

*Congressional sources/leaks*



> July 15 - Scott Stewart and Fred Burton
> 
> Under the current version of the National Security Act, with very few exceptions, the administration is required to report the most sensitive covert activities to, at the very least, the so-called “gang of eight” that includes the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate. In the wake of the program’s disclosure, some Democrats would like to expand this minimum reporting requirement to include the entire membership of the congressional intelligence committees, which would increase the absolute minimum number of people to be briefed from eight to 40. Some congressmen argue that presidents, prompted by the CIA, are too loose in their invocation of the “extraordinary circumstances” that allow them to report only to the gang of eight and not the full committees. Yet ironically, the existence of the covert CIA program stayed secret for over seven and a half years, and yet here we are writing about it less than a month after the congressional committees were briefed.


Yup. :2c:


----------



## Mercenary Customs (Aug 10, 2009)

Ajax,
I'll respond to your first question by saying something we all probubly realize.
"The end state in Iraq is fluid". 
Not so much in the military sense were all familiar with, but in a Political sense.
Politicaly speaking, truth is fluid when adapted to reality in a way that sheople, who want to, through sound bites, form their opinion.
It seems fairly obvious that Obama wants to declare victory in Iraq and leave, period.
The Generals and Military/Strategic advisors will do their best to hold onto the advantages we've gained through the blood of patriots as we declair Victory we withdraw.
Chances are good that 12 to 18 months from now he'll be doing the same thing concerning Afghanistan, regardless of the "Ground Truth" because it'll be election time for Congress, and a politician's gotta keep their seat you know...
But as already said earlier in this thread, modern politicians have little regard or concern for OPSEC when it comes to furthering their career or even their parties standing on an issue.
Aparently thats what happens when you interpret "walking the walk" as meening the halls of Congress.


----------



## Manolito (Aug 10, 2009)

For me I had to resign from the debating society. I left all that to the non doers if that is a word. 

I went to work I took an assignment concluded that assignment and went on from there. Right or wrong is not my problem, my problem is get the job done.

I saw a great shirt the other day "If you weren't there shut up"

I have one question have you ever seen a politician outside the wire?


----------



## HOLLiS (Aug 10, 2009)

Manolito said:


> I have one question have you ever seen a politician outside the wire?




Probably never will, the politicians know that out side of the wire, their name changes to target.


----------



## JBS (Aug 10, 2009)

Manolito said:


> For me I had to resign from the debating society. I left all that to the non doers if that is a word.
> 
> I went to work I took an assignment concluded that assignment and went on from there. Right or wrong is not my problem, my problem is get the job done.
> 
> ...


Politicians are famously absent from "the wire".  I have much more respect for leaders who have served, and who have sent their sons & daughters into harm's way.  


			
				Manolito said:
			
		

> For me I had to resign from the debating society. I left all that to the non doers if that is a word.



We need more "doers" _*in*_ the debating society.:2c:


----------



## Headshot (Aug 14, 2009)

If someone is a global threat and needs a good dirt nap, then by all means nix the fucker by whatever COVERT means necessary to prevent war in the future and the cost of more lives.


----------



## crapgame (Aug 20, 2009)

So now we read in the New York Times and Washington Post that the CIA was contracting out this assassination program to Blackwater!

...just when it looked like the issue was going to be overtaken by other things!

Anybody want to start a pool, betting on when we'll hear the first call for "hearings"?


----------

