HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » White House Tactic for C....

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 12:56 AM

White House Tactic for C.I.A. Bid Holds Back Drone Memos

Source: NYT

The White House is refusing to share fully with Congress the legal opinions that justify targeted killings, while maneuvering to make sure its stance does not do anything to endanger the confirmation of John O. Brennan as C.I.A. director.

Rather than agreeing to some Democratic senators’ demands for full access to the classified legal memos on the targeted killing program, Obama administration officials are negotiating with Republicans to provide more information on the lethal attack last year on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, according to three Congressional staff members.

The strategy is intended to produce a bipartisan majority vote for Mr. Brennan in the Senate Intelligence Committee without giving its members seven additional legal opinions on targeted killing sought by senators and while protecting what the White House views as the confidentiality of the Justice Department’s legal advice to the president. It would allow Mr. Brennan’s nomination to go to the Senate floor even if one or two Democrats vote no to protest the refusal to share more legal memos.

At issue is the critical question of how Congress conducts oversight of a shadow war against people suspected of being terrorists. The administration routinely reports on its lethal drone strikes to both the Senate and the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, but it has long rebuffed Congressional attempts to see the legal opinions that authorize the strikes — let alone requests to make them public.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/21/us/politics/strategy-seeks-to-ensure-bid-of-brennan-for-cia.html?pagewanted=all



Back in the senate confirmation hearings, when grilled by Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Brennan said that he never thought that killing terrorists was better than capture/detention. Then responding to Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, Brennan stated that the CIA uses drone killings only as a last resort. Mike Malloy broke down Brennan's poor testimony:

25 replies, 2453 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 25 replies Author Time Post
Reply White House Tactic for C.I.A. Bid Holds Back Drone Memos (Original post)
alp227 Feb 2013 OP
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #1
TwilightGardener Feb 2013 #2
pmorlan1 Feb 2013 #3
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #4
Veri1138 Feb 2013 #5
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #6
AverageMe Feb 2013 #7
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #8
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #10
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #12
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #14
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #15
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #16
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #17
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #18
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #19
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #20
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #21
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #22
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #23
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #24
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #25
OnyxCollie Feb 2013 #9
FleetwoodMac Feb 2013 #13
Enrique Feb 2013 #11

Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:34 AM

1. Wait, what? They won't provide their legal basis for killing people without a trial?

Gotta love that national security state. It's most definitely a bipartisan thing, too. Fucking creepy as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 01:45 AM

2. Fishy? Yeah, it's a little fishy.

What can ya do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 02:06 AM

3. Who is Obama's John Yoo?

The WH would rather kowtow to the Republicans than reveal the legal memos used to justify due process free assassinations of Americans. Our country is not only on the wrong track it's well off the tracks. Who is Obama's John Yoo?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:16 AM

4. What an ugly growing stain on the Obama administration

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:58 AM

6. I don't buy this.

Mark Mazetti has a history of pandering to the Bush regime and the CIA.
In case anyone forgot, he kept the story of Bush's illegal spying on civilians under wraps for a whole year until the 2008 presidential election was over. And then more recently, the Judicial Watch obtained via FOIA an email from Mazetti to the CIA with a copy of an unpublished story from a colleague, who was doing a story about the CIA's intentional leaks of data.

Condensed version of the multiple emails:
Marie E. Harf (CIA): Any word?
Mazetti: Going to see a version before it gets filed. My sense is there is a very brief mention at bottom of column of a CIA ceremony, but that Boal also got high level access at the Pentagon.
Marie E. Harf (CIA): Ok thanks. Keep me posted. I really appreciate it.
Mazetti: This didn't come from me... and please delete after you read. See, nothing to worry about.


This man has no credibility in my eyes, and I am willing to bet that his "three Congressional staff members" are all wearing elephant badges last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:16 AM

7. I Love Obama, but this should be a cause we all take up

He must reveal the facts and end this program. Freedom and liberty are lost in small steps. First the *Patriot Act* and now this. On this, and only on this, I am in agreement with the right wing teanuts and Obama should be held to account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AverageMe (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 09:27 AM

8. I get what you're saying, but this article is not factual,...

... based on unnamed sources, and written by a hack with credibility issues.

If we're going to criticize the President, then let it be based on facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:34 AM

10. Your previous post was not factual.

The credibility issue lies with you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:22 PM

12. It is factual! Disprove me and show Mazetti's innocence...

or have the courtesy to apologize.

ps: So eager to defend Mazetti but not your own President?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 07:20 PM

14. And here's where Mazetti partially credited the killing of Bin Laden to the Bush torture program...

]
The raid was the culmination of years of painstaking intelligence work, including the interrogation of C.I.A. detainees in secret prisons in Eastern Europe, where sometimes what was not said was as useful as what was...

... It wasn’t until after 2002, when the agency began rounding up Qaeda operatives — and subjecting them to hours of brutal interrogation sessions in secret overseas prisons — that they finally began filling in the gaps about the foot soldiers, couriers and money men Bin Laden relied on.

Prisoners in American custody told stories of a trusted courier. When the Americans ran the man’s pseudonym past two top-level detainees — the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed; and Al Qaeda’s operational chief, Abu Faraj al-Libi — the men claimed never to have heard his name. That raised suspicions among interrogators that the two detainees were lying and that the courier probably was an important figure



And this is Cheney speaking several months later. Notice the common theme here?

"It was out of the enhanced interrogation techniques that some of the leads came that ultimately produced the result when President Obama was able to send in Seal Team 6 to kill Bin Laden," he said.

"They've been successful in part because of the capabilities we left them with, the intelligence we left them with, because of what we learned from men like Khaled Sheikh Mohammed back when he was subjected. I think it's a mistake not to have an enhanced interrogation programme available now. I don't know what they would do today if they captured the equivalent of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed."



Ps: I stand corrected on the year of the surveillance story being held back. It was 2004, not 2008 as I initially wrote. And for the record, Keller had nothing to do with the story. He was the Exec Ed. Mazzetti and his team wrote the story (first the article, and then the book).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:09 PM

15. You wrote:

"In case anyone forgot, he (Marzetti) kept the story of Bush's illegal spying on civilians under wraps for a whole year until the 2008 presidential election was over."

Bill Keller, editor for the NYT, kept the story of Bush's illegal spying on civilians under wraps for a whole year until the 2004 Presidential election was over.

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: December 16, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The End of the Bill Keller Era
NYT chief did not challenge state power—he served it
http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/the-end-of-the-bill-keller-era/

Keller’s first major misstep was his handling of George W. Bush’s illegal wiretapping program. The Times had knowledge prior to the 2004 elections that the U.S. government was secretly monitoring communications between Americans without a warrant; the program was an unambiguous violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which makes each instance of such monitoring a felony.

But the paper, under the urging of the Bush administration, withheld this vital information until December 2005, more than a year after the 2004 election, denying Americans the chance to factor this abuse of power into their vote (FAIR Action Alert, 1/11/06). (Bush received 50.7 percent of the popular vote; a shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio would have cost him the election.) The Times’ article on the program admitted and explained the paper’s decision to sit on the story, nine paragraphs into its blockbuster front-page article (12/16/05):

The White House asked the New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Keller expressed no regret about his decision to enable a massive crime to continue for more than a year without public scrutiny. In fact, his statements revealed a jarring lack of skepticism toward the government: “Officials also assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions,” he said in a statement (CNN, 12/16/05). “As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.”

You are wrong and I don't owe you shit, let alone a fucking apology. Piss off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #15)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:03 AM

16. Oh please, Keller also used the same approach in defending Judith Miller. That's what Exec Eds do!

Are you going to start defending Miller too now?

This story is based on three anonymous sources, and is written by a reporter with a history of pandering to the neocons. And here you are defending him, while conveniently ignoring the other points I raised about him!

I'm not holding my breath for an apology for you. I've just looked at your comment history in an attempt to understand you, and it is littered with diatribes against the President and the Democratic party, along with an avalanche of foul-mouthed comments directed towards anyone who disagrees with you.

I'm going to place some random comments of yours below so everyone reading this get a glimpse of your mentality.

1
2
3
4
5

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #16)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 10:41 AM

17. Oh, look.

I have a stalker. (And you still lied about the Times story, which Mazetti had no part of.)

That's typical behavior for an authoritarian.

The Authoritarians
http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

Authoritarian followers seem to have a “Daddy and mommy know best”
attitude toward the government. They do not see laws as social standards that apply
to all. Instead, they appear to think that authorities are above the law, and can decide
which laws apply to them and which do not--just as parents can when one is young.
But in a democracy no one is supposed to be above the law. Still, authoritarians quite
easily put that aside. They also believe that only criminals and terrorists would object
to having their phones tapped, their mail opened, and their lives put under
surveillance. They have bought their tickets and are standing in line waiting for 1984,
The Real Thing.
There might as well not be a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.
And when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is used to deny people the right of
habeas corpus--one of the oldest rights in western law--it is unlikely that right-wing
authoritarians will object to the loss of this constitutional guarantee either.

Authoritarian Aggression. When I say authoritarian followers are aggressive
I don’t mean they stride into bars and start fights. First of all, high RWAs go to church
enormously more often than they go to bars. Secondly, they usually avoid anything
approaching a fair fight. Instead they aggress when they believe right and might are
on their side. “Right” for them means, more than anything else, that their hostility is
(in their minds) endorsed by established authority, or supports such authority. “Might”
means they have a huge physical advantage over their target, in weaponry say, or in
numbers, as in a lynch mob. It’s striking how often authoritarian aggression happens
in dark and cowardly ways, in the dark, by cowards who later will do everything they
possibly can to avoid responsibility for what they did. Women, children, and others
unable to defend themselves are typical victims. Even more striking, the attackers
typically feel morally superior to the people they are assaulting in an unfair fight. We
shall see research evidence in the next chapter that this self-righteousness plays a huge
role in high RWAs’ hostility.

~snip~

If some day George W. Bush is indicted for authorizing torture, you can bet
your bottom dollar the high RWAs will howl to the heavens in protest. It won’t matter
how extensive the torture was, how cruel and sickening it was, how many years it
went on, how many prisoners died, how devious Bush was in trying to evade
America’s laws and traditional stand against torture, or how many treaties the U.S.
broke. Such an indictment would grind right up against the core of authoritarian
followers, and they won’t have it. Maybe they’ll even say, “The president was busy
running the war. He didn’t really know. It was all done by Rumsfeld and others.”16

~snip~

One more thing. Remember when I was talking about putting President Bush
on trial for authorizing torture? Look back at Items 5 and 6 in my list of acts an ardent
authoritarian follower might do in support of a malevolent government. It’s been
clear in my studies for several decades that lots of people, with no persuading by the
authorities at all, were already close to endorsing the torture and execution of their
fellow citizens
if the government simply said it was necessary. So it would be no
surprise at all if they supported President Bush’s insistence that America be allowed
to torture suspected foreign terrorists.

Nice of you to post a collection of the many examples where Obama continues Bush's legacy.

Lots of people here were upset when "Hubris" aired Monday. They called Bush and Cheney, "war criminals."

So when is the Obama administration going to do something about these so-called war criminals?

When is the Obama administration going to do something about torture?

When is the Obama administration going to restore our Fourth Amendment rights and end domestic surveillance?

And lastly, how many licks does it take to get to the center of one of these?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:09 PM

18. True to form, you're back into Obama bashing mode.

The fact is, you and I both know you're the one lying here. But worse, you and I know that your defending of Mazzetti is nothing more than an attempt to validate another piece of negative story against the President.

Your arguments and contention are juvenile and simplistic in nature, and fits in perfectly in the Daily Paul.

For instance, you rants reveal that you clearly have very little understanding of the NDAA beyond the usual ravings of a Paulbot, but you continue day after day in post after post speaking about it.

Once confronted with facts, you will resort to ad hominem. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #18)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 05:40 PM

19. Uh oh. Now it's the "serious, moralistic" approach.

You'll blow through your repertoire in no time, LOL!

On edit: Where did I mention the NDAA? I don't see it anywhere.

Why don't you move your straw man so I can get a better look?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:08 PM

20. Another diversionary attempt, I see...

Repertoire = projection much?

In any case, how can it be a straw man, when you've written about it over and over again?

Here's a thought. Why don't you start a thread of your own on the subject of NDAA, rather than simply injecting your comments in others' (that's clever, by the way)?
I promise to address every single one of your accusations tomorrow. How does that sound?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:08 PM

21. Another diversionary attempt, I see...

Repertoire = projection much?

In any case, how can it be a straw man, when you've written about it over and over again?

Here's a thought. Why don't you start a thread of your own on the subject of NDAA, rather than simply injecting your comments in others' (that's clever, by the way)?
I promise to address every single one of your accusations tomorrow. How does that sound?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:12 PM

22. Sounds like a waste of my time.

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain.

So, how many people do you think you've persuaded in this thread?

#epicfail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:46 PM

23. So in others words, you know you won't be able to defend

your accusations, so the best approach would be to once again insult me. Amazing how utterly predictable and without substance you are. Aww, you're even resorting to cute little hash tags now.

I think everyone reading this exchange would have learned a lot about you, and what you stand for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #23)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:48 PM

24. I has a sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #24)

Fri Feb 22, 2013, 06:54 PM

25. Cool emoticon, bro!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FleetwoodMac (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:29 AM

9. Bill Keller kept the domestic surveillance story

under wraps for a year until the 2004 election was over.

Try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnyxCollie (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:23 PM

13. I see your very eager to defend Mazetti. It would help if you look at the story first before comment

commenting.

Try again.

Edit: I see you've completely ignored the part about how Mazetti betrayed his colleague's confidence? Aren't you going to defend him for that too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:49 AM

11. ha ha ha they are cooperating with the Benghazi morons

but stonewalling the Dems. What a farce!!!!!

Obama administration officials are negotiating with Republicans to provide more information on the lethal attack last year on the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, according to three Congressional staff members.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread