world

House lays groundwork to probe CIA plan to kill al-Qaida leaders

49 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

49 Comments
Login to comment

Doesn't the House have other things to do besides waste taxpayers' money and time on investigating a CIA plan to kill al-Qaida leaders?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This issue of programs that was not disclose to Congress has become a time bomb. Dick Chaney is also under investigation regarding the torture procedures that was apparently not disclosed to the Congress. This is becoming more of a political issue for Democrats to distance themselves from Bush Administration.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There are more important things to work on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh, politics, such a clean and healthy way to make a living! (sarcasm) No one in Washington is an angel, no one, not even Obama. Washington DC is a cesspool, of hatred, backstabbings, scandals of drugs and prostitutes. Now it is the Democrats turn to turn up the heat on Cheney and the rest of the Republicans who thought they were above the law during the Bush years. I just can not wait for Michael Moores newest movie!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is what politicians are good at. Wasting money debating if it's bad or not instead of trying to spend that money on the main objective. Getting rid of the enemies of the state. An input into how to better accomplish this would me more appreciated rather than wasting time finger pointing. Well can't wait for those that will come here telling us how evil the Repubs and the Bush Admin were instead of concentrating on the objective. Where are you Canadians?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

....and Europeans?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

All those people whining about 'wasting the taxpayers money' sure weren't doing the same when Republicans insisted on wasting millions on investigating a love affair (Clinton, in case I have to spell it out), trying to impeach him, etc. But of course, the difference is that Clinton was committing a mere act of adultery, here we are talking about illegal actions by the former president and VP of the US (among other illegal actions).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I was disgusted with the BS they spent money on trying to impeach Clinton with. What a major waste of money. Also could have been better spent. I had no problem with Clinton actually admired him for coming out of it with head up. Now I just wish the Dems would also take the same advice of not wasting money on silly "investigations" as to why they weren't told and just say hey we are on America's side to so lets put our heads together in this too so as not to inherit a mess in the future. But these Dems and Repubs always want to up one another. It's really a big farce these 2 parties.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Big difference is that republicans went after Clinton when there was no crime at all, it was pure politics. And the American people as a whole knew it which is why 70 percent supported Clinton in his second terms. In this case the Boy Blunderer and his even master Dick Cheney did commit crime after crime after crime. What we know I am sure is just the bare minimum to what those liars and crooks did while in office. We know Cheney rigged the energy market with Enron in the first term. Crime. Lied about WMD. Crime, Spied on US citizens. Crime. Outed a CIA agent. Treason, a major crime And now went covert with another CIA plot avoiding laws regarding congress. Crime.

Basically the republicans are a party of criminals. But they do have the love party theme going as well with Ensign and that goofy guy from South Carolina.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bushlover: "I was disgusted with the BS they spent money on trying to impeach Clinton with. What a major waste of money. Also could have been better spent. I had no problem with Clinton actually admired him for coming out of it with head up."

Well, in that case, my apologies for lumping you in with a group who obviously feels it's okay in some cases, but not others. I actually agree to an extent with THIS case that it's somewhat of a waste, and I think the only reason this particular issue is getting so much attention is that it follows the spate of other revelations about bush/cheney not informing Congress of this and that. Likewise, I think the others will not be allowed to be pursued much more fully due to the fact that this one is -- making this issue kind of a 'scapegoat' for the whole shebang. The Dems are also kind of shooting themselves in the feet if they investigate this one and nothing comes up... it'll eliminate the possibility of going after the other issues.

In other words, while I think the truth should be gotten to the bottom of, I don't think THIS particular case warrants it more than others.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why an investigation? This is big political points. Why don't they just throw him jail? Why the fuss? Everyone is so convinced he's bad so why waste the time, just get it over with. Even if they find him not to have committed a crime, it still wins political points and that at the end of the day is what matters most to either political party's supporters.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As I wrote yesterday, it seems that some people in Congress are confusing the accountability and operational security issues. While I agree that this whole issue needs to be looked at, surely it would make better sense to not do the dirty laundry in public. Although I would like to see Cheney and his cabal take their medicine just as much as the next chap, this is beginning to smell like a bit of a political witch-hunt, with politicians grandstanding all over the place. Unfortunately, career officers at the CIA are the meat in the sandwich.

It also has to be remembered that Cheney is a political walking corpse anyway. Moreover, he has immunity from the current administration for anything he did while he was VP. As such, any public talk-fest would seem to be a waste of time and money. Those in power should wake up and realize that this sort of skulduggery goes on all the time down at Langley. Just the size of the agency means that everything happening does not go across the director's desk. Micromanagement is impossible. While ensuring accountability (in a low-profile manner), the politicians should stick to grandstanding and let the CIA get on with its job.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

only one million spent in 8yrs!!! -must be a Republican at the helm of that one. Why aren't people giving out awards to these guys! -Now that is careful spending.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skipthesong: "This is big political points. Why don't they just throw him jail? Why the fuss? Everyone is so convinced he's bad so why waste the time, just get it over with."

Fortunately for cheney/bush, etc., the Dems are interested in seeking out justice (or at least purport to be doing so), rather than doing exactly what cheney and co. have been doing and just locking people up without any proof and/or trial (ie. Gitmo).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: don't you think you are putting a lot of trust in career politicians?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: Not at all. In fact, go back and check my comment where I put, "or at least purport to be doing so" in brackets. There are elements to distrust in every politician, I think, but some deserve less trust than others, and bush/cheney are proving day in and day out that they were not worthy of their former positions at all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smith: you can call me prejudiced, but I just have a problem trusting basically all overly rich white politicians, Pelosi, Gore, Bush,etc.. It just boggles me when I see all these who have it all coming down to the working class masses and telling them how things are supposed to be. While they are wasting time on this, we have unemployment rising, health care issue, the war, crises after crises. Why can't this wait until at the very least they get the stimulus money working? Why does it have to be RIGHT NOW? that is what leaves me feeling suspicious! Again, call me prejudice, but I just think this is more of a distraction than anything else; for what I don't know. IMO, it can wait until after a few other open crises are dealt with. right now, the country is barely on first base, unless you are that type of person where an issue trumps all..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

leave it to the democrats to have a problem with taking out Al Queda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

leave it to the democrats to have a problem with taking out Al Queda.

Don't be a dork. This has nothing to do with that. It has to do with circumventing the law.

Honestly, I'm curious as to why the program never got off the ground in the first place. It sounds pretty good on paper: Kill Al-Qaida leadership, prevent civilian casualties. Why did Cheney feel compelled to hide this program from Congress, particularly when Democrats had been very vocal during both Bush administrations about doing more to go after Al-Qaida and Bin Ladden? You'd think something like this would have pleased more than a few on both sides of the aisle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why did Cheney feel compelled to hide this program from Congress, particularly when Democrats had been very vocal during both Bush administrations about doing more to go after Al-Qaida and Bin Ladden?

According to the article they didn't hide anything at all really if you think about it.

President George W Bush authorized the killing of al-Qaida leaders in 2001. Congress was aware of that notification.

This is just politics being played here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Something just isn't right. There are a whole lot of open cases and pending investigations going on in the US government much less that the issue here is that he didn't tell.. which is a crime, but hardly worth all media over riding all other important news.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"This is just politics being played here."

I'm compelled to agree with you entirely. I'm no fan of Cheney or Bush-era foreign policy, but this seems entirely too contrived. Purposefully directing the CIA to NOT tell Congress certainly reeks of something rotten, but a program that was never enacted doesn't exactly strike me as particularly sinister, especially since Congress was already aware that Bush's order to specifically target Al-Qaida leaders would in all likelihood lead to just this type of plan. This is a politiclaly motivated gambit,

But I still want to know why Cheney didn't want Congress to know about this particular program, particularly since it never materialized into anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But I still want to know why Cheney didn't want Congress to know about this particular program, particularly since it never materialized into anything." You know my wife accuses me of turning a deaf ear to her, so on many occasions she just does what she does. When I ask why this or that, she says, I told you but you didn't listen to me.. I mean, let's get real, I don't think too many people wanted to sit down and have a chat with the guy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

albore,

"leave it to the democrats to have a problem with taking out Al Queda."

I don't think that is actually the issue, but welcome back all the same old friend. We missed you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Talk about an intel bonanza for terrorism. Once again the liberals come out for their Al Qaida friends.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "This is just politics being played here."

As pretty much everyone is pointing out, and agrees with (well, where some objectivity still presides).

But what's with: "According to the article they didn't hide anything at all really if you think about it."

It sounds pretty silly to say, "According to the article..." and, "...if you think about it" in the same sentence.

It's like saying something like, "Look, the answer is right in front of your face... if you take some time to figure it out".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

skip: "I mean, let's get real, I don't think too many people wanted to sit down and have a chat with the guy."

Don't equate bush/cheney lies of omission (or outright lies) with the day to day conversations between you and your wife. Your wife talking about coffee with Kuniko isn't quite the same as clandestine assissination attempts on AQ leaders, and this isn't an issue of, "He told them but they didn't hear".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ok, let's drop everything else and get this guy!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It really doesn't matter -Since Pelosi would have gotten it backwards anyway. I honestly believe it's better not telling some people. Why stress Pelosi's feable brain anymore than you have to -She is already trying her hardest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why waste resources chasing the guy who did things his way and start looking forward and correcting them as best we can. This shouldn't be a witch hunt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, I just want to say I am opposed to ALL wars (EXCEPT class war) and that even though people may not like Al Qaeda we really can't judge them,especially if you supported the failed policies of bush,who was the worst president ever from the get-go,and couldn't even catch Osama Bin Laden and who started an illegal invasion based on lies and whose dwindling supporters here are just upset about last November's shelaking.

Like Mahatma Ghandi before me I KNOW that violence won't solve the problem.And clandestine assassination attempts are beyond the pale!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"leave it to the democrats to have a problem with taking out al Queda"

"I don't think that is actually the issue."

From the article: "Panetta told Congress on June 24 that he had canceled the effort to kill al-Qaida leaders with hit teams soon after learning about the operation."

Heh, it seems like at least some Democrats do indeed have a problem with taking out al-Qaida.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind said:

President George W Bush authorized the killing of al-Qaida leaders in 2001. Congress was aware of that notification.

Leave to the conservatives to trivialize congressional overersight. Our constitution was founded on removing power from kings. Seperation of power is a founding principle of the United States. The conservatives have never given a crap about the constitution. When Reagan lied by saying "I don't recall" and "I don't remember" they thought of him as a patriot. Never mind that he violated a law enacted to curb the very actions he took in a clandestine manner against the law, which he in fact signed. The conservatives never liked the law so it was ok to violate it. I thought that was the lowest thing they did collectively (since they did not shield Nixon collectively) in my lifetime. But now they have no problem throwing out the constitution to protect Dick Cheney. Soon enough to be President, James Madison clearly spelled out the intent of our constitution in the Federalist Papers (From Federalist No. 51):

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.

But let's not let our precious constitution get in the way of citing specific law:

NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 (ACT OF JULY 26, 1947)

SEC. 102A.. [50 U.S.C. 403-1] There is a Central Intelligence Agency. The function of the Agency shall be to assist the Director of Central Intelligence in carrying out the responsibilities referred to in paragraphs (1) through (5) of section 103(d) of this Act.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE

SEC. 103. (50 U.S.C. 403-3] (a) PROVISION OF INTELLIGENCE. (1) Under the direction of the National Security Council, the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for providing national intelligence -

(A) to the President; (B) to the heads of departments and agencies of the executive branch; (C) to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior

military commanders; and

(D) where appropriate, to the Senate and House of Representatives

and the committees thereof.

TITLE VI - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES

PROVIDING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS

SEC. 605. [50 U.S.C. 425] Nothing in this title may be construed as authority to withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress.

So sailwind's statement: "According to the article they didn't hide anything at all really if you think about it."

"President George W Bush authorized the killing of al-Qaida leaders in 2001. Congress was aware of that notification."

As I was saying sailwind's statement, is total bunk. The law is clear that the CIA must not "withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress." It is the CIA's responsibility clearly. sailwind is in fact the one "playing politics" both with the very essence of our constitution and with a very clearly defined law. The conservatives would rather throw the constition out the window then not provide Cheney with cover. Cheney gave an order not to inform Congress of the CIA's information.

The merit of the CIA's program is irrelevant. Because if it was a good program then Congress could have enriched support for it. They have that power. Congress must be informed. The CIA was not Cheney's Private Dick (detective) Agency. Now I will let the conservatives continue to spew crap in defense of the indefensible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It would appear that all we have to do is prove Cheney gave the orders that have been clearly defined in the news: "Former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA eight years ago not to inform Congress about a new counterterrorism program that CIA...."

Oh and JoeBiggs, I swear I did not see your posting of the NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947. I went to get the quote on Dick directing the CIA not to inform Congress and saw you had done your research. I also did independent research since I saw the B.S. comments that I quoted that claimed to exonerate Dick. When you posted the comment that referenced the law I was probably still studying the Federalist Papers and James Madison. lol

Hey I don't mind giving credit where credit is due but I worked my ass off to get that information. I will give JoeBiggs credit for scooping me. Curse you JoeBiggs for stealing my thunder. I wanted sole credit for dropping that bombshell.

For those who care to reference the actual law instead of taking conservative's word for what the laws are in this country I offer the following:

http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

I came across the act on a CIA webpage. I was looking into there description of Congressional oversight of the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/97unclass/wagenen.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgain:

Don't be a dork. This has nothing to do with that. It has to do with circumventing the law.

Well, Panetta nixed the program the minute he heard of it, so there's one Democrat who did have a problem with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"leave it to the democrats to have a problem with taking out al Queda"

American Democrats have a problem with the Republican "president" who allowed Osama bin Laden to remain free almost eight years after the atrocities of 9/11. We have a huge problem with an incompetent Republican "C-n-C" who not only dropped the ball but then ran around the bases the wrong way but sending us into the wrong country, a.k.a. Iraq. But then, that's why we voted his "party" out of office and replaced them with Americans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WhiteHawk said:

Well, Panetta nixed the program the minute he heard of it, so there's one Democrat who did have a problem with it.

You don't know that to be fact. You criticized others on the other thread about the difference between fact and opinion. Your conservative comrades have been reciting over and over like a mantra "The program never was active." So you have no evidence that Pannetta did not cancel the program because it was an inactive program or for any other reason for that matter. But you so boldly say he had a problem with it. So go ahead now, you have enough wiggle room to say his problem with it could have been that it was inactive. But the prior implications by people were that Democrats did not want to go after al Qaeda. Most people would interpret the "a problem with it" to be something other than deleting an inactive program. I would say you don't have to have a problem with a program because you deleted it due to it being inactive. You may just be following protocol. But that is just my opinion of one possibility.

But regardless of Pannetta's intent it was a nice red herring to throw out to divert attention from the only remaining question. Did Cheney direct the CIA to withhold information? It was a nice red herring while it lasted.

PROVIDING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS

SEC. 605. [50 U.S.C. 425] Nothing in this title may be construed as authority to withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress.

According to the article above:

Panetta also told lawmakers that former Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA not to inform Congress of the specifics of the secret program.

Let's just see if there is evidence to back that up. Shall we?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Makes one wonder how many Billions the Libs will spend attacking this 1M program?

-Whatever makes the Federal Reserve richer it seems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: But let's not let our precious constitution get in the way of citing specific law:

No one here knows to what extent the CIA discloses information to Congress. Maybe they just give the broad strokes to Congress until a more coherent plan is formed. Maybe they give details about every little thing they brainstorm. The fact that the plan was shelved tells me it probably never got very far, and it's probably a reason why some people aren't all that outraged except for the usual obsessive crowd. You don't have to be a Cheney-loving Conservative to smell a bit of politics in the air, especially when the Pelosi angle is factored in.

So really, get over yourself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said:

Maybe they just give the broad strokes to Congress until a more coherent plan is formed.

Pure conjecture on your part. I actually posted the law. You start out with "No one knows..." and follow up with nothing but conjecture and speculation. I do know for a fact that Congress is entitled to know everything. I do know the media reported Pannetta said Cheney directed the CIA to withhold information.

PROVIDING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS

SEC. 605. [50 U.S.C. 425] Nothing in this title may be construed as authority to withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress.

The executive branch is not allowed to order or direct agencies to break the law. Typical SuperLib. He has determined that this is political. He has determined it is obsessive to be protective of the constitution where it has at its core a separation of powers. I posted the law itself. If Cheney directed the CIA to withhold information as has been alleged then he broke the law.

SuperLib said:

So really, get over yourself.

I am over myself. That is why I spend huge portions of time researching and delivering facts along with my opinion. That is why I have admitted to making mistakes in the past. I do my best to get my facts straight and when I screw up I eventually humble myself into admitting my mistakes. And that is why when you say "get over yourself" it will not deter me from stating a heartfelt desire to expose Cheney as someone who didn't give a rat's ass about the constitution. I took the time to dig for facts that prove my opinions are based on the law and the original intent of the constitution. SuperLib why don't you spend some time reading the Federalist Papers and gain a respect for a constitution that puts the highest value on the rule of law and not the rule of the executive at the top.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

goodDonkey: Pure conjecture on your part.

Actually, the conjecture is all yours. I'm saying that no one here really knows to what extent information is shared. Saying "all" is meaningless. They obviously some kind of threshold for the sheer sake of logistics. What needs to be established is whether Cheney's actions fall within the norms of what's been done in the past. You have no evidence regarding that so spare me your lectures on the law.

I have no love for Cheney. I even said in a previous post that my guess was that he was trying to find a way around the assassination laws. But this does smell like politics to me, and in the end it's going to hurt Obama because an investigation will most likely prove nothing, and if it does prove something Obama most likely will do nothing about it and he'll be criticized for it. It's a no-win situation for him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Cheney was the head but this program never started. If it never started, why do you have to tell the Congress?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cheney is past due for a Freedom Medal and a Congressional Medal of Honor. He alone has kept America safe since Clinton allowed 9.11

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib said:

...so spare me your lectures on the law.

Never mind my "lectures on the law." I posted the law itself.

Whoever said anything about Obama doing anything about it? This thread is on the House of Representatives conducting an investigation. I guess you are still having problems distinguishing the branches of government.

PROVIDING INFORMATION TO CONGRESS

SEC. 605. [50 U.S.C. 425] Nothing in this title may be construed as authority to withhold information from the Congress or from a committee of either House of Congress.

SuperLib, we know you won't get those pesky facts get in the way of your opinion.

My interest lies in the House of Representatives investigating the matter and divulging the truth. I hope the Senate opens an investigation also.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This program was never actually implemented -- and that's why Congress was never told about it. Nothing illegal about that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As much as I hate to say anything nice about Republicans, there was a time when they actually would have cared that a secret program was being run with nobody in Congress informed about it. Not that they wouldn't run it, but someone on both sides of the aisle would have been informed. They also used to be rich, smart, and have better food on election day than the Democrats. Sigh, now everyone has stale donuts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You don't know that to be fact. You criticized others on the other thread about the difference between fact and opinion. Your conservative comrades have been reciting over and over like a mantra "The program never was active." So you have no evidence that Pannetta did not cancel the program because it was an inactive program or for any other reason for that matter. But you so boldly say he had a problem with it.

Google "Panetta cancelled cia program" and see what you get. You're possibly the only person on the planet debating that he cancelled it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it were not operational panetta would not have immediately cancelled the program. Hersh pointed out months ago that cheney assembled a hit squad and kept it secret for years. Now, slowly, the truth is coming out. Notice that cheney has said nothing about this as he knows he cannot lie about at least this issue any longer.

Conservatives are so easily misled and confused. Logic is like a foreign language to them, like Japanese in most instances.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In World War Two, wasn't there a set or two of plans to try and tetch off Hitler and his buddies? And here I thought that the USA and Great Britain were at war with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites