Cheney reported to have ordered CIA to conceal program from Congress

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: sapiens74
If any member of congress divulges top secret information to the press they should be charged with a felony and imprisoned

All government programs should be run through the 3 branches of government to make sure it is lawful. Period.

And what about when the executive branch runs an illegal program, Congress says stop that, and they say no and dare congress to do anything about it - threatening to jail for exposure?

That's not totally unlike where the briefings Pelosi received - whatever they actually covered - were on the basis of 'no staff or written information allowed, and only notification, not asking your opinion' - how is she going to challenge anything without revealing the program at least to the rest of Congress if asking them to take action?

Maybe we should not be doing too many of these 'ultra secret programs' when you think about it. How have they gone?

The first was to overthrow democracy in Iran that we'd *love* to see in place today; another was covert terrorism in Cuba that pushed Castro to the brink where he invited in nuclear missiles and said he was happy to sacrifice Cuba being destroyed and encourage the destruction of the US, which did nearly start a nuclear war; it resulted in the removal of democracy in Chile and the reign of tyranny; it resulted in the terrorism against Nicaragua to try to force them to not elect who they wanted, and the illegal sellling of missiles to Iran to pay for the Nicaraguan terrorism; it resulted in the evasion of the law to let indonesia invade East Timor with American arms and kill 250,000; and many other assassinations and such that have poisoned big parts of the world against the US.

Indeed, it resulted in the existence of the Pentagon Papers with the 'true story' of our actions there, including terrorism, while the people were lied to about the war.

Later in the war, it resulted in the 'Phoenix' operation where the US was murdering, assassinating, torturing.

Why again do we need 'super secret ops' running around doing acts of violence that we hide our name from being responsible for, is that really our values?

We used to excuse it by pointing out finger at the Soviets and saying they do it too, that doesn't hold up too well now, not that it did then.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
How long until Obama announces the continuation of Cheney's policy and the left praises it as the intelligent smart thing to do?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,672
54,665
136
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Funny this pop up when Obama and overall congress approval rating is down.

You can be sure that there's nothing funny, on coincidental, about it all. This whole time, and this is brought back up when Obama happens to be in Ghana, and his public supporting is being reduced by the economic situation?

On the stage of politics, not likely an accident...

Chuck

Uhmm, this report was scheduled awhile ago and slated to be delivered right around now for quite some time. Time to take off the tinfoil hat.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
How long until Obama announces the continuation of Cheney's policy and the left praises it as the intelligent smart thing to do?

How long until you stop the lies and grasp the fact that the left has been highly critical of Obama continuing some of the Bush policies - while you cheered them on, hypocritically.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,018
37
91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Xellos2099
Funny this pop up when Obama and overall congress approval rating is down.

You can be sure that there's nothing funny, on coincidental, about it all. This whole time, and this is brought back up when Obama happens to be in Ghana, and his public supporting is being reduced by the economic situation?

On the stage of politics, not likely an accident...

Chuck

Uhmm, this report was scheduled awhile ago and slated to be delivered right around now for quite some time. Time to take off the tinfoil hat.

Sorry, don't wear hats... :(

If you don't think there isn't a lot of stuff that isn't leaked/released to the public at predetermined times, you are even less street smart than I thought you were.

Stuff "leaks" at my IT job, to think it doesn't at the Fed. Administrative level approaches fully Moonbeam Delusionment. Say Hi to Macro while you're visiting.....

Chuck
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Looks like Common Courtesy is the only one who has worked in the intelligence community before here, thus the only one who has an inkling of understanding about this.

Craig - THINK for a second. How can he possibly give examples of classified data being leaked without acknowledging that the aforementioned data is classified. There has been information leaked in the NY Times before - still not allowed to give an example. We are not allowed to confirm or deny that information is classified. Just know, that there are many leaks in an already very strict system - just because we can't provide them to the public doesn't mean they don't exist.

Also - do all these members of Congress have a NEED TO KNOW? The answer is absolutely NOT. What goes on in the NSA, CIA, NRO is made available on a need to know basis. Wanting to know is not good enough!

-Kevin

You mean to say that the fact that he's been inside the intelligence community earns him some measure of respect or wisdom? You have got to be kidding. If anything, that gains him LESS.

IN-FUCKING-ADDITION, the entire concept of "need to know" is asinine and childish, for if something is too secret for certain elected groups to want to share with the rest of us, it definitely needs to be known by us ASAP. Secrets and secret societies within government, and secret governments within government need only be BURNED and DESTROYED. I'll have absolutely no patience or respect for that kind of disgusting activity, and I'm sure that I'm not alone here.

Every monster that takes our blood, sweat, tears, money, and time from us and then turns around to say that we don't "need to know" what it is they're spending all of that to create or put into motion needs to be cast out of society in the least merciful way possible.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
The CIA was always intended to operate outside the purview of democracy. They are regulated only by funding, and that's the way it should be, IMO.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
At this point I think these charges are going to seriously hurt Cheney's possibility of re-election.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,672
54,665
136
Originally posted by: Nebor
The CIA was always intended to operate outside the purview of democracy. They are regulated only by funding, and that's the way it should be, IMO.

No they weren't. Go learn about the CIA.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
The CIA was always intended to operate outside the purview of democracy. They are regulated only by funding, and that's the way it should be, IMO.

You're no better than a Nazi, IMO. The people are in charge, and that doesn't mean some secret murdering organization, not even the people turning a blind eye to one.
 

BuckNaked

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,211
0
76
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124736381913627661.html

CIA Had Secret Al Qaeda Plan
Initiative at Heart of Spat With Congress Examined Ways to Seize, Kill Terror Chiefs

By SIOBHAN GORMAN

WASHINGTON -- A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein said CIA Director Panetta, above, told lawmakers Vice President Cheney ordered information be withheld from Congress.

The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

The revelations about the CIA and its post-9/11 activities have emerged amid a renewed fight between the agency and congressional Democrats. Last week, seven Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee released a letter that talked about the CIA effort, which they said Mr. Panetta acknowledged hadn't been properly vetted with Congress. CIA officials had brought the matter to Mr. Panetta's attention and had recommended he inform Congress.

Neither Mr. Panetta nor the lawmakers provided details. Mr. Panetta quashed the CIA effort after learning about it June 23.

The battle is part of a long-running tug of war between the executive branch and the legislature about how to oversee the activities of the country's intelligence services and how extensively the CIA should brief Congress. In recent years, in the light of revelations over CIA secret prisons and harsh interrogation techniques, Congress has pushed for greater oversight. The Obama administration, much like its predecessor, is resisting any moves in that direction.

Most recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a dispute over what she knew about the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror suspects, has accused the agency of lying to lawmakers about its operations.

Republicans on the panel say that the CIA effort didn't advance to a point where Congress clearly should have been notified.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said the agency "has not commented on the substance of the effort." He added that "a candid dialogue with Congress is very important to this director and this agency."

One former senior intelligence official said the program was an attempt "to achieve a capacity to carry out something that was directed in the finding," meaning it was looking for ways to capture or kill al Qaeda chieftains.

The official noted that Congress had long been briefed on the finding, and that the CIA effort wasn't so much a program as "many ideas suggested over the course of years." It hadn't come close to fruition, he added.

Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said little had been spent on the efforts -- closer to $1 million than $50 million. "The idea for this kind of program was tossed around in fits and starts," he said.

Senior CIA leaders were briefed two or three times on the most recent iteration of the initiative, the last time in the spring of 2008. At that time, CIA brass said that the effort should be narrowed and that Congress should be briefed if the preparations reached a critical stage, a former senior intelligence official said.

Amid the high alert following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a small CIA unit examined the potential for targeted assassinations of al Qaeda operatives, according to the three former officials. The Ford administration had banned assassinations in the response to investigations into intelligence abuses in the 1970s. Some officials who advocated the approach were seeking to build teams of CIA and military Special Forces commandos to emulate what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympics terrorist attacks, said another former intelligence official.

"It was straight out of the movies," one of the former intelligence officials said. "It was like: Let's kill them all."

The former official said he had been told that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney didn't support such an operation. The effort appeared to die out after about six months, he said.

Former CIA Director George Tenet, who led the agency in the aftermath of the 2001 attacks, declined through a spokesman to comment.

Also in September 2001, as CIA operatives were preparing for an offensive in Afghanistan, officials drafted cables that would have authorized assassinations of specified targets on the spot.

One draft cable, later scrapped, authorized officers on the ground to "kill on sight" certain al Qaeda targets, according to one person who saw it. The context of the memo suggested it was designed for the most senior leaders in al Qaeda, this person said.

Eventually Mr. Bush issued the finding that authorized the capturing of several top al Qaeda leaders, and allowed officers to kill the targets if capturing proved too dangerous or risky.

Lawmakers first learned specifics of the CIA initiative the day after Mr. Panetta did, when he briefed them on it for 45 minutes.

House lawmakers are now making preparations for an investigation into "an important program" and why Congress wasn't told about it, said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, in an interview.

On Sunday, lawmakers criticized the Bush administration's decision not to tell Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California, hinted that the Bush administration may have broken the law by not telling Congress.

"We were kept in the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again," she said. Withholding such information from Congress, she said, "is a big problem, because the law is very clear."

Ms. Feinstein said Mr. Panetta told the lawmakers that Mr. Cheney had ordered that the information be withheld from Congress. Mr. Cheney on Sunday couldn't be reached for comment through former White House aides.

The Senate's second-ranking official, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, echoed those concerns and called for an investigation, an indication of how the politics of intelligence continue to bedevil the CIA.

Separately, Attorney General Eric Holder is considering whether to order a criminal probe into whether treatment of terrorism detainees exceeded guidelines set by the Justice Department, administration officials said.

President Barack Obama and Mr. Holder have said they don't favor prosecuting lawyers who wrote legal justifications for interrogation methods that the president and his attorney general have declared to be torture. They have sought to protect CIA officers who followed the legal guidelines.

"The Department of Justice will follow the facts and the law with respect to any matter," said Matthew Miller, a department spokesman. "We have made no decisions on investigations or prosecutions, including whether to appoint a prosecutor to conduct further inquiry."
?Evan Perez and Elizabeth Williamson contributed to this article.

Write to Siobhan Gorman at siobhan.gorman@wsj.com

It will be interesting to see how this plays out...
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,987
14,385
146
Bush 1 was the CIA director during the Ford Administration among many other political positions.

Cheney was "Assistant to the President" and later White House Chief of Staff during the Ford Administration.

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense for Bush 1.

Then, George Jr. made him Vice President of the USA.

These "scoundrels" are so tied together, so intricately woven, that you'd have to physically cut them like the mythical gordian knot to separate them.

This group thrives on secrecy...they believe they can function better behind the cloak of invisibility and darkness....


This comes as no surprise, and I sincerely hope (but won't hold my breath) that criminal charges result.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Bush 1 was the CIA director during the Ford Administration among many other political positions.

Cheney was "Assistant to the President" and later White House Chief of Staff during the Ford Administration.

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense for Bush 1.

Then, George Jr. made him Vice President of the USA.

These "scoundrels" are so tied together, so intricately woven, that you'd have to physically cut them like the mythical gordian knot to separate them.

This group thrives on secrecy...they believe they can function better behind the cloak of invisibility and darkness....


This comes as no surprise, and I sincerely hope (but won't hold my breath) that criminal charges result.

Just one example of the impact of these people is how Indochina invaded East Timor using weapons supplied by the US - which the Congress said could only be used for defense.

The invasion was the day after President Ford and Henry Kissinger had visisted. They always denied approving the illegal operation - but recently documents proved they did.

250,000 people were killed for the worst reasons and our nation bears responsibility. But if we just don't pay attention to it, it'll go away, for us. Not for the East Timorans.

I'd like to add a comment to your mention of the role Bush, Sr. played.

On the Nixon tapes, IIRC, Nixon told someone that George Bush was the most 'loyal' - in other words, loyal to the party to keep its wrongdoing secret and not resist or expose anything in the name of the American people's principles or the constitution - guy around to give assignments needing that sort of loyalty.

And in the Nixon era, there was plenty needing it.

Watergate was the biggest political scandal of the last century - no politician would want the job of RNC Chairman during watergate, wnen you had to represent the party and defend Watergate, it was seen as the worst sort of 'whorish' job to have to do, but they found one man who was willing to do it - George Bush.

It was also the era of the CIA's misdeeds for decades being investigated by the Democratic Congress, and they needed a director who could be counted on to do one thing - put the party interests first and keep the secrets. George Bush was assigned to do that, too.

Of course, a compliment from Nixon as the guy who would be that loyal to the party is a terrible insult to him morally and as an American.

Interesting that it was just a few years after the Carter speed bump as punishment for Watergate that Bush was back in power, foreshadowing the Cheney model, as vice-president coordinating schemes with strong evidence suggesting his central role in Iran-Contra among other operations - and then as President, as he led the nation to suspicious operations against former allies Noriega and Saddam.

There are a lot of tangled webs there, not the least of which is his and close advisor Hames Baker's roles with Carlyle Group and other international operations.

It got little attention how Henry Kissinger, most prominent presidential advisor in decades, had to resign his appointment to lead the 9/11 investigation to avoid revealing clients.

There's a great American - one who has traded on his government history to serve interests that have to be kept hidden so much they prevent his 'serving his nation'.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
Originally posted by: Nebor
The CIA was always intended to operate outside the purview of democracy. They are regulated only by funding, and that's the way it should be, IMO.
Central Intelligence Agency
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,653
205
106
Originally posted by: ZeGermans
"did you murder that person?"
"maybe not"
"you lied to me"
"no I concealed information it's different"

there is a big difference between "no" and I please the 5th.
i can conceal it without actually stating i didnt do it.
 

Gamingphreek

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
11,679
0
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Ok first off, as a little light hearted humor, it has taken me about 6 tries to type this post. I keep accidentally hitting 'reply' and it clears everything.

By all these members I thought you were referring to committee members, specifically because in many cases even they aren't allowed to know.

Well, I thought you were arguing that Congress as a whole has a need to know whereas I was arguing that only the Intelligence Committee has a claim to that statement.

I agree that all 535 members of Congress need to know everything

This is where I thought you made the mistake because above you said they aren't allowed to know. Once again, perhaps I am misunderstanding your argument. Did you mean to say "don't" need to know everything?

-Kevin

Oh, apparently I suck as badly at proofreading the second time as the first. I meant that all 535 members don't need to know everything.

Ha it is all good and I completely agree with you in that the committee has claim to that, but not all members do :)

You mean to say that the fact that he's been inside the intelligence community earns him some measure of respect or wisdom? You have got to be kidding. If anything, that gains him LESS.

IN-FUCKING-ADDITION, the entire concept of "need to know" is asinine and childish, for if something is too secret for certain elected groups to want to share with the rest of us, it definitely needs to be known by us ASAP. Secrets and secret societies within government, and secret governments within government need only be BURNED and DESTROYED. I'll have absolutely no patience or respect for that kind of disgusting activity, and I'm sure that I'm not alone here.

Every monster that takes our blood, sweat, tears, money, and time from us and then turns around to say that we don't "need to know" what it is they're spending all of that to create or put into motion needs to be cast out of society in the least merciful way possible.

Why do you need to know the secrets that keep this country safe and sound? Why do you or any other regular person need to know satellite positions, troop deployments, covert operations, weapon capabilities. The resounding answer is YOU DON'T!

I am a person who works for an intelligence contractor - and I assure you I am no monster (except perhaps when I play baseball ;) ... nah just kidding). But once again, what gives you the right to know things that can, if presented, represent both a serious and significant threat to National Security.

If information that is currently restricted is made public, kiss everything you have ever known and loved good bye. Not everyone is responsible and good people like yourself and most on this message board.

The CIA was always intended to operate outside the purview of democracy. They are regulated only by funding, and that's the way it should be, IMO.

That is a dangerous path right there. The CIA wasn't designed that way, nor should it be implemented that way. The intelligence community needs checks and balances just like any other part of the government. The information they carry; however, should be (and is) limited to a select group of individuals in Congress who is then regulated by other checks and balances.

-Kevin