Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"CIA Weighs 'Targeted Killing' Missions" - WaPo 10/28/2001

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:12 AM
Original message
"CIA Weighs 'Targeted Killing' Missions" - WaPo 10/28/2001
Edited on Fri Jul-17-09 06:39 AM by leveymg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A63203-2001Oct27?language=printer


CIA Weighs 'Targeted Killing' Missions
Administration Believes Restraints Do Not Bar Singling Out Individual Terrorists


By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 28, 2001; Page A01

Armed with new authority from President Bush for a global campaign against al Qaeda, the Central Intelligence Agency is contemplating clandestine missions expressly aimed at killing specified individuals for the first time since the assassination scandals and consequent legal restraints of the 1970s.

Drawing on two classified legal memoranda, one written for President Bill Clinton in 1998 and one since the attacks of Sept. 11, the Bush administration has concluded that executive orders banning assassination do not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action. The CIA is reluctant to accept a broad grant of authority to hunt and kill U.S. enemies at its discretion, knowledgeable sources said. But the agency is willing and believes itself able to take the lives of terrorists designated by the president.

Clinton authorized covert lethal force against al Qaeda beginning in 1998, and The Washington Post reported last Sunday that Bush has signed a more encompassing intelligence "finding" that calls for attacks on newly identified weaknesses in Osama bin Laden's communications, security apparatus and infrastructure.

Bush's directive broadens the class of potential targets beyond bin Laden and his immediate circle of operational planners, and also beyond the present boundaries of the fight in Afghanistan, officials said.But it also holds the potential to target violence more narrowly than its precedents of the past 25 years because previous findings did not permit explicit planning for the death of an individual.

SNIP

"There's nothing involved in this operation that isn't being debated by somebody somewhere, but our responsibilities are pretty clear to those who have the top secret code-word clearance and the need to know," said a senior intelligence official.

Botched assassinations in the 1960s and 1970s, and their airing in congressional hearings in 1974, left deep scars on the CIA. Executive orders signed by three presidents since, beginning Feb. 18, 1976, were interpreted until recently as forbidding clandestine acts of targeted killing.

It is significant that the directive Bush signed last month took the form of a presidential finding. As defined in the Hughes-Ryan amendment of 1974 and the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980, a finding concerns only the use of appropriated funds for covert action by intelligence agencies. The military chain of command uses separate legal instruments called operations orders, numbered sequentially and prefixed by year.

SNIP

The CIA's Directorate of Operations, which runs the clandestine service, is mindful of a traumatizing past in which assassination attempts in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East were blamed on rogue agents when they failed. The agency is determined to leave no room this time for "plausible denial" of responsibility on the part of the president and the agency's top management. That does not mean that operations will be publicly proclaimed, one source said, but that the paper trail inside government must begin undeniably with "the political leadership."

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, remembered commonly as the Church committee, reported on Nov. 20, 1975, that plots against five foreign leaders under Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon were deliberately organized in terms "so ambiguous that it is difficult to be certain at what levels assassination activity was known and authorized."

"The important thing is that the accountability chain is clear," said John C. Gannon, who retired in June as deputy director of central intelligence, the agency's second-ranking position, in comments that mirrored those of colleagues who declined to be named. "I would want the president's guidance to be as clear as it could be, including the names of individuals. You've got to have the political levels behind you so the intelligence officers are not left hanging."

With explicit authority, he said, "I think the case officers are capable (of targeted killing) and would follow instructions, and would, I think, have the capability of succeeding."

National security officials noted that the White House and at least three executive departments already maintain lists in which terrorists are singled out by name. Executive Order 12947, signed by Clinton on Jan. 23, 1995, introduced a legal category of "specially designated terrorists." The list is maintained and amended by the secretary of state and by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Most recently the FBI named 22 men on Oct. 10 as its "most wanted terrorists," of whom 13 are linked to al Qaeda.

One view, apparently a minority position but one expressed in private recently by two senior managers in the Directorate of Operations, is that the clandestine service should target not only commanders but also financiers of al Qaeda. "You have to go after the Gucci guys, the guys who write the checks," said one person reflecting that view. It is easier to find financiers, he said, and killing them would have dramatic impact because they are not commonly prepared to die for their cause.


SNIP

Senior officials said the president's finding directs new forms of cooperation between the CIA and uniformed military commando units. Some knowledgeable sources said it is also possible that the instruments of targeted killings will be foreign agents, the CIA's term for nonemployees who act on its behalf. That is controversial, because it involves risks of betrayal and conflicting agendas on the part of the agents, but it is also seen in parts of the agency as advantageous.

MORE




There it is. Military and CIA and foreign agent death squads. We already knew they knocked off the Pakistani Air Marshall and some sheiks, and a bunch of bioweapons scientists. So, what's all the fuss about, now? But, there's more to it than this. There's more to it than the global authorizations for "targeted killing" (they wouldn't use the term "assassination", which might violate previous Presidential Orders.

The answer to that is in other Bush Presidential Orders, the ones that authorized the military and intelligence services to watch everyone and identify everyone who potentially posed a threat to their plans, and to deal with everyone in any way they saw fit. No laws. No limits. The President decides who lives and dies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Their criminal insanity was right under our noses.
And this find of yours shows why Paul Thompson is a genius for setting up the history commons. Because the information is in the media, it's just not always on the front page above the fold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:33 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It was on the front-page, above the fold. Everyone else in the MSM ignored it.
Right before our noses - that's how these things get hidden. And, that's why it's important to stick to the record. The rest is just a distraction from the incriminating record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crabby Appleton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
20. It was in the New York Times also
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Beth, really, under our noses?
You were paying attention, you don't remember ou faces being collectively rubbed in it?

These arrogant bastards must serve time. That is the only way it will stop in the future.

BTW, I'm not sure if it (the article cited) was above or below the fold, but it was page one.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I swear I don't remember this story. Maybe the anthrax attacks
"drowned it out" for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. From reading some of the "informed" commentary, so did a lot of people.
The issue is distraction from a larger truth that's self-evident. TPQ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Just connect the dots - the whole picture emerges. We were all profiled - given a TPQ.
Terrorist Potential Quotient (or something similar). Every word was collected and analyzed. Score high enough, and you're gone. No trial. Everyone got a Q - Congressmen, former Presidents, even you and me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:53 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. In order to believe that, you first have to believe they cared about terrorism
and I don't know that I do believe that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. The front-line officers and agents believed it, intensely. But, AQ was a cover story.
Most assassinations are quarrels among former allies within elite factions.

Political murder is as old as business. Assassination is business by other means.

The Bin Laden/Bin Mahfouz and Bush/Baker families were business partners who had a falling out over how best to take over Saudi Arabia and America. 9/11 and the GWOT were the result of a failed hostile takeover.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. A lot of people were made to believe, and still believe,
that we are a hair away from being blown up by AQ. Someone just a moment ago on Washington Journal repeated the story that AQ has drones.

What seems just as real to me is that grabbing all that information makes bilking the American people so much easier and at so many levels.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:19 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. AQ effectively destroyed itself on 9/11
What's come after AQ has been largely inspired by the Bush Administration's calculated overreaction.

Not to say there aren't people who really hate us out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. Right and even people who took out a franchise.
But, the thing about Cheney/Rumsfeld is that all their violence was excessive. It's like they were the world's most inept control freaks ever. No matter what they really wanted those teams for, you can bet it was over and badly done. No wonder CIA hated them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. You can't operate a dictatorship with unwilling secret police.
In the end, they turn on their unwanted masters and destroy them all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
10. And the question is how many were killed because they were
in the way or new too much that made them dangerous to the mission?
We may never know. And it may well still be going on now whether Obama or the congress knows about it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. You're right on both points. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. But who are we talking about? General Massoud?
People like that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. No I am talking about people we don't even know.
that know too much to be allowed to live.
And they would be killed in accidents or commit suicide or just disappeared forever. And we will never know their names.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
17. Rec'd. Robert Parry went back in time today, too, to talk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
18. Except they then used it to target OTHERS they needed dead while they IGNORED BinLaden/AlQaeda
leaders.

NO program to target BinLaden or AlQaeda would need to be kept secret - they used the secretive cover for high value targets like weapon scientists, charismatic leaders (Bhutto), and anyone who might expose the inner workings of the fascist agenda. And, of course, DC Madams with OTHER types of damaging info (especially about Cheney).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. That's tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist bullshit!
Not.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-17-09 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
21. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC