Did the CIA Assassinate? What We Need to Know

A serious examination of the CIA/assassination story should begin by sweeping aside the rubbish cluttering the electronic ether on this issue, an accumulation of equal parts litter from the Langley fabricators and regurgitations from a slothful press. What we know seems to be the following:

1. The CIA, as commanded by Dick Cheney, was designing a wide-ranging program to liquidate persons who they judged hostile to the United States in terms of some loosely defined terrorist connection. The Agency for decades has taken considerable license in doing just that with other reference points under a presidential directive (see Tim Weiner's Legacy of Ashes). Let's also recall the revelations of the Church Committee in 1975-6.
2. This venture was chewed over for seven-plus years but was never set in motion -- so we are told.
3. It was kept secret from Leon Panetta who, upon eventually stumbling across it, decided to terminate it -- if in fact his order is being executed.
4. Panetta ran to Congress to tell the Group of 8 and they were 'shocked' beyond belief.

Inferences

1. A seven-plus year delay in response to an ukase from the vice president post 9/11 strains credulity.
2. A powerful recoil by 'even Republicans' among the '8' from Panetta's recitation is utterly incommensurate with the 'facts' about the CIA's plans as they have been publicly described, especially since they are in full conformity with stated American objectives in the 'war on terror.' It is likely to Panetta gave some details about another, operational program lodged in the Pentagon. His shocking testimony may have been about: inter alia killings on the soil of friendly countries; 'accidents' in the form of misidentifications and/or collateral damage; kidnappings, incarceration at 'black sites, torture; hostage taking/blackmail; free-lancing.
3. There is considerable evidence that such an 'Executive assassination ring' was indeed put in place by Don Rumsfeld years ago. It supposedly was a dedicated unit (Task Force 121) based in the Joint Special Operations Command. On this, see Sy Hersh's reporting going back to 2003. Let us also recall that George Bush boasted in his Second Inaugural Address of our success in eliminating terrorists who never will be heard from again. (ad lib-ed remarks not in official transcript).
4. CIA Operations were peeved by being kept out of the action. Their attempts at hooking up with their DoD counterparts in some partnership, or competing against them, at last seemed on the point of success when somehow Panetta got wind of it.

Questions

1. Exactly who was killed by whom? Where? When?
2. Which foreign governments cooperated actively with us?
3. Can we believe that Bob Gates was unaware of this enterprise? If we cannot, did he try to kill it or just ride along upon discovering its existence?
4. Why the preference for the DoD rather than the more experienced CIA? Were 'specialists' from the latter seconded to assist the former?
5. Given the stories circulating about such an operation since 2005, did Obama or any of his senior national security appointees make any effort to find out what had gone on/was going on? If not, was this another expression of the 'let bygones be bygones' philosophy that has set policy on torture, illegal surveillance, extraordinary rendition, etc?
6. Will there be a strategy by the current administration to keep the 'ultra-secret, highly classified' information about these illegal, counter productive actions from being revealed to the public?
7. Will any tangible evidence ever be presented of connections between these crimes and actual threats to the United States -- past or 'going forward?' We might remind ourselves, in this regard, of the abundant testimony by FBI Director Mueller, among many others, that we never learned anything of serious value from either the use of torture (including that of Zubyaid and Mohammed) or from illegal electronic surveillance.

Finally, how as a nation are we going to cleanse ourselves of the odious residue from these outrageous actions taken in the name of the United States by unscrupulous, panicked leaders who engaged in a cynical exploitation of a scared and trusting country?

This story was cross-posted at the National Journal's Security Blog.

Comments

[mcmchugh99]

It's not just the CIA.

[mtracy9]

"The accusations linger. In some minds the suspicions persist of a dark, unsolved conspiracy behind his [JFK's] murder. You can dismiss them, as many of us do, but knowing now what our secret government planned for Castro, the possibility remains: Once we decide that anything goes, anything can come home to haunt us." --Bill Moyers, for the 1987 documentary, The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis

[OliverTwist]

The methods of finding, tracking, and killing that are regularly discussed in connection with military and civilian special and covert actions are primitive compared to the capabilities known by many to be fully feasible and doubly primitive compared to what can be supposed by some to be within reach of development.

The press releases and news reports must be trash otherwise the military and civilian agents are just not doing their jobs very well.

But really, who is the enemy who is being fooled anyway?

[bascombe]

the bourne identity comes to life.

what about the anthrax?

that seems a great place to start.

[OliverTwist]

Psy Ops?

[4evright]

Who cares? This is what we have the CIA for. They do the dirty jobs. They take out people that are a threat to the US. They keep us safe at night. That stop things from happening while we watch tv or play on the computer never knowing the difference. This is only an example of more people begging for a reason to prosecute the past administration. I think we have big enough problems to worry about.

[CyrusBeaucephus]

I will agree-you have some big problems. #1 being that you are concerned about illegal action taken by our government, illegal actions that never accomplished anything excep to trash our Great Country's reputation, and the reputations of all those who have ever fought in its name

[zizyphus]

It is not the role of the CIA to serve as judge, jury and executioner.

[guajiro]

If other countries find out that the U.S. is doing the same thing they are doing and for which we invade in order to eliminate then how in god's name can we publicly state that the reason we are invading said country is to expunge those who carry on those illegal acts? Surely you see the dilemma publicity of these acts has for the U.S.. Could it be that under the U.S.'s own definition of terrorism, that these acts are considered the acts of a terrorist? That the U.S. is then nothing more than a terrorist state? Would not the Chinese, the Russians, and others not be justified in attacking the U.S. in order to protect themselves from "terrorists"? Those past actions have current and real consequences today and tomorrow.

[madtom]

WHO did the CIA as sass in ate in America, and when did they do it?

ALL the names, please. Including ALL the names of their victims that the CIA does not want to name.

Let's go back to the founding of the CIA in the 1940s.

[zionistoilmafia]

You do realize Tom DoD and NSA and CIA had about 8 months of fore warning that they would need to hide and cover before they told Panetta some illusory version of the awful truth that he then; sanitized and redacted for Congress briefing and the timing was exquisite;

his acting breathless and shocked , shocked at having to tell them, superb....­.

[jasjohn128]

If CIA, DoD or any other entity assassinates al Qaeda's people, that's fine with me. If they've killed any in the past, if they're killing them now or if they're making plans to kill more in the future, that's good too.

I won't feel bad if details aren't blared across nightly News-Entertainment shows for weeks on end. The Republic won't fall if we don't give Congress time to affix its makeup, study talking points, consult contributors, consider implications for re-election and then fight like cats for primetime exposure to deliver what for them are more likely to be campaign speeches than serious discussions of national policy.

Since when do we NOT expect government to kill anyone that's been in an active state of war against us since 1996? What is it about al Qaeda's multiple declarations of war, its actions against us wherever it chooses, its offers of surrender (on their terms) that inspires anyone to think, Maybe they're not serious, maybe we'd better not do anything violent that somebody somewhere might find offensive?

al Qaeda aren't fooling and can't be deterred. They're fighting and winning. Why shouldn't we use our assets to kill them whenever and wherever we find them, without shouting it from the rooftops? And instead of this endless navel-gazing about notification, let's get our leaders to affirm the principle that we intend to kill our enemies, without mercy, and we don't intend to broadcast details about it to the whole damned world.

[Montanagramma]

My question is " was it only Al Qaeda we were poised to assasinate?" If it was only Al Qaeda, why is the big secret?

[OliverTwist]

Seems reasonable on the face of it but easily becomes just a license to commit murder rather than an enforment of the rule of law

How will they know whether someone belongs to al Qaeda? If they make a mistake will there be any way to know? Al Qaeda is not a government organization. US criteria for judging who is al Qaeda has clearly become very broad and nonspecific and in some cases become nothing more than a rationalisation for murderous actions or plans for murder for other reasons.

What about collateral damage?

[jasjohn128]

Well, what about collateral damage? Are you asking me or al Qaeda? The concept doesn't exist for them. That it does for us is seen by them as weakness.

The country I care about protecting is my own, the United States. I care far less, if at all, about the survival of any country, people or transnational gang that threatens my own.

Life is hard and war is ugly. The longer we put off killing those who ought to be killed, the stronger they'll get and the more likely it is that collateral damage ultimately will be higher.

It's not easy to do (or pleasant to think about) assassination and "targeted killing". But it's better than losing a war to a bunch of savages from the other side of the planet. So if we've got a chance to pull triggers on a relative handful of killers and their pals, that's a better option than, say, burning Quetta or Waziristan (or all of Pakistan) into the ground with tactical or theater nuclear weapons, don't you think?

Pour l'exemple des autres. To remind them who we are, and that "Don't tread on me" isn't just a motto on an old American flag. Get it?

[Rap]

Here's why we need to know- to people like Cheney, Addington, Fieth, or Rove an enemy is anyone who disagrees with or challenges them. Does that mean people who called for the resignation of the attorney general? Does that include people actually fighting for the USA but who were thought to be expendable to achieve a political purpose or simply to get revenge? Does that mean people opposed to other things the CIA is doing which other people think is over the line of acceptability?

[BostonBill]

Between their spearheading initiatives of tortue, mind control research, overthrowing foreign governments, manipulating our government and in one possible case.....a­ssassinati­ng a US President.­........I can't help but conclude that the CIA is an evil, useless organization that really does alot more harm than good and needs to be shut down.

[JohnHKennedy]

A wide open investigation into the abuse of power by Bush and Cheney would reveal that this assassination scheme was just part of their evil, that there was far worse being done in our name.

We need to know the truth. Obama must get out of the way and allow complete and unfettered investigations. Congress must have a commission of inquiry that actually investigates and not whitewash the truth. Attorney General Holder must appoint a Special Prosecutor.

We will have to make a lot of noise to make them do it.

THIS is about violating Our Federal Laws and abuse of our Constitution.

SIGN THE PETITIONS
Demanding both a Commission of Inquiry
and a Special Prosecutor
For All Their Crimes
at ANGRYVOTER­S.ORG

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

You should also
contact AG Holder directly &
Demand a Special Prosecutor.

Department of Justice Switchboard - 202-514-2000
Office of the AG - 202-353-1555

Email: usdoj.govdoj.gov

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

NOTE: IF your group has a related petition, send me the url and I'll include it on our website.
We have all the petitions for investigation and prosecution of the criminals in the Bush Administration in one place where you have quick and easy access. Takes just a few minutes to sign them all.
.

[SamEllison]

Because of the Church/Pike hearings legislation was passed to rein in Presidential abuse of the CIA.
No such legislation exists to keep the DoD in check. Neither is by law able to operate within the United States of America. Therein lies the problem, somewhere between the first and one hundred and eighty third time that he was dunked in the water KSM started saying what Cheney wanted to hear.

Remember a month or so ago a giant law and order program was cancelled by I think Homeland Security and the police chiefs from the major cities were never invited in on it?
Law and order w/o the Police?

Connect the dots people....­..

[mcmchugh99]

People are at least starting to ask the right questions now, even if few have all the answers. Think of it as a global program, following a very comprehensive strategy, political, economic, military, with one part of it consisting of specail operations and assassinations. There are many countries and "partners" involved, including countries in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia, to name just a few places, and there is not going to be much in the way of disclosure from those governments and foreign militaries and intelligence services. This global war is ongoing, and the Obama administration has taken over most of it, while putting in some more restraints on interrogation, for example.

[j mcdouglas]

Cronkite is truly dead.

While our so-called News newtorks and newspapers obsess about Michael Jackson and words like "stupidly," the only people carrying on Cronkite's legacy are the folks writing on blogs like Michael Brenner.

The news models on TV are clowns, the tools writing emails to Mark Sandford in our press and promising friendly interviews are a joke, and anybody that pays them any more attention than they would a TV commercial is a fool.

[pmorlan]

Thank you for an excellent piece.

Slothful press indeed. It's mind boggling what our establishment media considers a "non-story­." I don't think the majority of our so called journalists have any clue about what real journalism is all about (Chuck Todd and David Gregory sure don't). One can only hope that a few real journalists are still around to dig for this story while the faux journalists continue to pretend that they are walking in the shoes of heavyweights like Walter Cronkite.

[jimpager]

I'm tempted to laugh here but I won't. Gee, the CIA assassinate someone? Who woulda thunk it? Let's take a quick poll...Lum­umba, Trujillio, 30 some tries on Castro, how did Arbenz turn out in Guatemala? How about the guy in Chile? How did our ally in Vetnam turn out...Diem and his buddy Nhu? But I tire. And like "renditioning" doesn't take American fingerprints off torture, if you plan, finance, train, and provide the arms to someone from a third country, that doesn't make America innocent of the murder. Probably the more interesting question is what other American intelligence operations have such capability or has the assassination capability been isolated to the CIA? I really doubt it.

Jimpager