CIA Was About To Train Anti-Terror Hit Squads When Panetta Ended The Program

Washington Post:

CIA officials were proposing to activate a plan to train anti-terrorist assassination teams overseas when agency managers brought the secret program to the attention of CIA Director Leon Panetta last month, according to two U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[D-V-H]

Let's use an analogy (i know the righties won't understand, but we'll try)

The police take it upon themselves to go indiscriminately into anyone's home and k.ill those they believe to guilty of m.urder. That means your home.

Who is in favor of that?

[ThunderclapNewman]

All the far-right extremists on this board.

[foxistoofunny]

Jack Ri..ce former CIA operative, former prosecutor and now a freelance analyst declared that chainy and company broke the law and Congress needs to investisge and question him, Yo.o. and....... rum..s feld

[greatlardini]

Good morning foxylady! Hope you are doing well today.

[foxistoofunny]

Good morning GL...I'm doing well, bright sunny Summer morning in Chicagoland.

[bastalready]

Just got off the treadmill and listening to The Doors. This seems http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe.com/watch?v=xJFfj-sZvls

[greatlardini]

break on through, bastalready!!

[bastalready]

love that,gl!

[LooktotheLeft]

just so you know, "Moe" is making a return appearance­...but it won't be my username..­.and that's all I'm going to tell you. You're the only one who knows and it'll be yours and my secret.

[madtom]

It was all just an inside joke. Nothing really happened that we need to know about.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

"We didn't do nuthin' wrong, and we promise not to do it again".

I an SO glad that the CIA is turning over a new leaf, and behaving in accordance with the law and our Constitution, and that they're assuring us that Cheney was just one big, friendly old cuddle-bea­r..

[AirForceBlue]

Umm, right, we gotta have the CIA go back to the President Carter/Admiral Turner/Senator Church days -- symbolically emasculated -- clean hands, 4 in hand ties, sitting in control rooms to gather electronic intelligence that could not even forecast the USSR collapse.

Just another glaring example of dems weakness on defense.

[ThunderclapNewman]

No one but you has suggested any such thing.

All we want is adherence to the rule of law.

Why are you opposed to the rule of law?

[AsianAfricanAMERICAN]

Yeah because your side really shows TRUE strength, huh?


The last Admin was full of chickenhawks and did NOT keep us safe.

[LooktotheLeft]

A MIDDLE-FINGER SALUTE TO YOU AIR FORCE BLUE !

[jasjohn128]

I've read the article and followed the story since it broke, and it looks like a tempest in a teapot.

In 2001 the Bush administration re-stated and re-implemented the Clinton finding that it's in the national interest to capture and, if necessary, kill al Qaeda's leaders. I see nothing wrong with that and agree it's a good idea.

al Qaeda declared war on America in 1996 and they've been fighting it ever since. They aren't fooling around, can't be deterred, and they're winning.

The defense of the United States is not an optional duty of government, not a "suggestion" that it'd be a good thing to do if we felt like it and didn't inconvenience anybody; we should have begun killing al Qaeda's people in 1996, at every opportunity and wherever they might be found, ruthlessly.

CIA was tasked but planning and logistics didn't work out. The project went into go-slow mode (you can't blame CIA for being cautious) but recently picked up momentum. Project planners recommended that Congress be advised. Panetta was informed, and he killed the project.

Nobody's saying we won't try again, or that it has become NOT in the national interest of the United States to capture or kill al Qaeda's people. But now we're being diverted to questions of notification instead of affirming the more important issue: it IS in our interest to kill our enemies, and we intend to do so by any means necessary, wherever and however we can.

[D-V-H]

But it goes to what we believe a representative democracy should be about. Do we (our reps) let our government do whatever it pleases without an airing of pros & cons?

[gladys46]

So, dismantle our democratic system and attempt to NOT inform other nations whom we have exported this "democracy" to that we are covertly targetting whomever, maybe taxi drivers ? Is that the plan ?

[jasjohn128]

Well, delay for an "airing" for how long, while our Lords and Ladies in Congress affix makeup, study talking points, consult contributors, consider implications for re-election and then proceed to fight like cats for primetime exposure to deliver what for them are more likely to be campaign speeches than serious discussions of national policy?

There's got to be a limit to advice and consent, but I don't mean consultation should be pro forma. I mean that we have to consider political realities and remember the natural aversion of elected officials whose responsibility is dispersed (one out of a hundred) to agree or disagree with the executive unless, frankly, there's something in it for them and it won't cause them any embarassment. Or diminish their chances for re-election. Or block the flow of money they need to raise every day to hold onto their seats.

My gripe is that the way this story is developing the issue has become another "bad CIA" melodrama instead of a statement of consensus from our representatives about national security policy with regard to al Qaeda.

What we SHOULD be hearing is what we WON'T be hearing. Nobody wants to talk about the core issue and they're using the notification sideshow to distract.

Re airing pros and cons, let's make our elected officials do just that instead of spinning a diversion. Let's hear them explain whether we should or should not use every means at our command to capture or kill al Qaeda.

[RandomSally]

BINGO!!

[hortonhearsdawho]

O 44, the winner....

[BigFootJesus]

AQ is winning? Bwahahahahahahaha.

[rich misty]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947

The National Security Act was passed in 1947 to prevent secret programs from operating without Congressional oversight. This law is essential to preserving Democracy in America.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000403----001-.html

So you advocate breaking federal laws?

[Disdain]

Spot on!

[bubbuh]

http://www.fugly.com/media/IMAGES/Gross/giant_ass_in_seat.jpg
Assination squads may not be a good idea even if Congress does not object. They may be deadly, but delivering them to the target can be very, very difficult.

[kareemachan]

"Assination"? They sneak in and turn them into donkeys? (Sorry, I just had to...)

[Heavy]

Is there any republican here that would have a problem using the assassinationsquads to target anti ab0rtion clinic b0mbers and doctorkillers?

[hortonhearsdawho]

they are now preying...

[D-V-H]

Pray to prey.

[ladynaga]

I'm betting most of them wouldn't

[egapmar]

Hot avatar!

[greatlardini]

Fancy meetin' you here. Visit often?

[Heavy]

Morning A, =)
How are you today?

[Heavy]

That was supposed to be Morning L =)

[D-V-H]

Hey!! Lovely pic. Good morning!
((hugs))

[MataHari007]

That's a very good question.

[emBARRYsing]

So you're not down with going after Al Q a e d a but you are down with going after rightwing extremists?

[MataHari007]

You didn't answer his question.

[Heavy]

We don't have to break laws to go after them. Why do none of you seem capable of grasping this concept?

[hortonhearsdawho]

might wanna fire up the ole general lee, ehh pal...

[returnofthejedi]

what's the difference. I thought if you were either for or against the terrorist? I don't know that you had exceptable terrorist.

[brandnewstuff]

what dawn johnsen stated.. the bush/cheney admin never wanted checks and balances to their personal counter- terrorism policies..

Dawn Johnsen on the role of the Office of Legal Counsel--

[returnofthejedi]

Well PATina I tried what you suggested and they still scrubbed it!

[returnofthejedi]

Okay there it is. It's a shame that one has to go through such things.

[IhaveaDREAMwhitegirl]

OT

Senator Al Franken, Congratulations Senator!!!

C I A , not so much...'th­e family' , not so much either....­.

[D-V-H]

This goes directly to oversight and how much we(through our reps) should know about what is going on. Do we care if our government wants to go around k.ill.ing people without trial? Or do we just want some nebulous group to have the power of judge, jury & executioner while we sit comfortably in our homes, ignorant of what is being done in our name.

Apparently the right could care less about what is being done as long as they can continue getting corporate welfare and stiffing the poor.

[adey]

Missed you yesterday.

[D-V-H]

Morning to you T. Been having a little HP burnout.

Great to see you. How goes things?
((((((muuu­uah)))))))

[slinkymom]

If we start (or continue) down that road, of having hit squads determining guilt and sentencing people without investigation or trial, then we will / have become everything we are against.

[JGDC]

Slinkymom,
A declared hostile force, included Al Qaeda Senior leadership, do not -- by US law -- require a trial. They can be killed upon identification. Such law is necessary for conducting war.

[RicciRobison]

Slinkymom,

Would have to concur with JGDC on his response. Also, how do you apply our Constitutional laws and American rights to those who have no regard for them to begin with. If such organizations were to be formed to target and eliminate these hostile forces maybe our current situation in Southwest Asia would be different. If you cut the head of a chicken off if will lose all direction and run aimlessly until it dies. Maybe this is the tactic to help shorten our current conflict.

MAJ Ricci Robison
Student
Command and General Staff College
Fort Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this BLOG Response are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the US Government

[foxistoofunny]

The silence of deek chainy is deafening, lizzie borden chainy is going to need bigger skirts for him to hide under.

[Fallout4me]

I want everyone to know that I've had an epiphany and have denounced all of my previous i*diotic positions. I am now a liberal.

P.S. New main...som­ething about fire ants

[slinkymom]

Fireants used in torture.

[AnotherFineMess]

Cheney's definition of a "terrrrorist" is ANY entity that was in the way of the PNAC agenda...

Does anyone ACTUALLY believe that these "squads" wouldn't end up targeting POLITICAL enemies, industrial competitors, whistle-blowers, etc?

Please....­..

[willt7311]

Who is keeping you safe from yourself?

[AnotherFineMess]

Who is letting you run loose?

[emBARRYsing]

My definition would include those men that want to harm America and the Democrats who love them.

[AnotherFineMess]

Your definition is as worthless as your demented worldview.

[hortonhearsdawho]

might wanna re-think summer skool, skippy...

[AsianAfricanAMERICAN]

your definition doesn't matter...

[Grunty1]

So you consider your fellow Rushpublicans to be terraists?

How awkward.

[Grunty1]

Pronounced Terraist.

[PATina]

Heavy...

See if your post will go through as a reply to this one.

[returnofthejedi]

I have a question to all who think rogue assasination squads are a good thing. Would you object to these squads targeting domestic terrorist such as white spremacist groups that threaten people of color or Jewish Americans. How about a pre-eminent strike?

[Heavy]

They are certainly the active threat on our soil.