The Gotcha That Wasn’t
- Posted by Lord Bitememan on July 14th, 2009 filed in Terrorism CIA · Pelosi · terror
Sometime last week everyone in America heard a loud splatting sound. The sound, of course, was a certain joy that was produced (use your shameful imagination) by Democrats upon Leon Panetta’s admission that the previous administration had considered a secret on again off again program of some sort. Dems couldn’t contain themselves because it seemed to confirm that embattled Speaker Nancy Pelosi wasn’t a total lying shrew when she claimed that the CIA kept her in the dark on water boarding. Everyone carped all week long about this secret CIA program, which was reported to have limited success and which we were totally in the dark on. Indeed, we were kept in the dark on it for a whole week. What could it be? Were we being spied on? Was Dick Cheney rounding up newborns and draining them of blood in a failed attempt to transition from Dracula to human? Nope, turns out they were just trying to find a way to kill Bin Laden. The program centered around training paramilitary groups to infiltrate enemy territories undetected for targeted assassinations against high value targets. The “limited successes” were due to insurmountable logistical difficulties in the prgram. The program was ultimately rendered obsolete by the widespread use of predator drones in that role.
So thank you Nancy & Co. You’ve distracted us for a week from your bald-faced CYA lie with the shocking revelation that the CIA was trying to kill Osama bin Laden. What a pathetic crop of putzes that now occupy the majority in Congress.
Kip Russel says:
“Leon Panetta’s admission that the previous administration had considered a secret on again off again program of some sort.”
You miss the point. What people are upset about is that the administration withheld information from Congress about this program, which is in direct violation of the law.
If you argue that the executive branch of government can break the law, I would like to hear more details. Any law? Any administration? Is it OK for Obama to break the law, or is it only OK for Republicans? How should the administration go about deciding which laws to obey and which laws not to obey? Can the administration violate the Constitution, or only statutory law?
Lord Bitememan says:
First of all, let’s consider the “law” in question that you feel was violated. Since you cite that the administration must share, with Congress, information about intelligence programs, we shall assume you are referring to the National Security Act of 1947. You might try reading the act, and for that matter, the Constitution, before you wax polemic about the supposed violations of the law here.
“SEC. 103. (50 U.S.C. 403-3] (a) PROVISION OF INTELLIGENCE. (1) Under the direction of the National Security Council, the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for providing national intelligence -
(A) to the President;
(B) to the heads of departments and agencies of the executive branch;
(C) to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and senior military commanders; and
(D) where appropriate, to the Senate and House of Representatives and the committees thereof.
(2) Such national intelligence should be timely, objective, independent of political considerations, and based upon all sources available to the intelligence community.”
The questions here are, was it appropriate for Congress to be briefed on this program, and was it within a timely fashion that this was addressed? Let’s take the number 1 consideration, was it appropriate for Congress to be briefed? No.
The AUMF of September 18, 2001 clearly states the following:
“(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
The CIA program was started pursuant to this Act and was made specifically to advise and aid the military in the execution of this act. Therefore it falls under the auspices of military tactics pursuant to our war against Al Qaeda terrorism. In as much, the governing law on this matter is found in this little diddy in the Constitution:
“Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;”
Nowhere in that passage does it indicate that Congress is supposed to be consulted about the prosecution of a war effort, that power is vested in the President and by all accounts the administration was appraised of these activities. Furthermore, the AUMF actually authorizes the president to pursue such a program under the auspices of his role as commander in chief, and makes no mention of a need to consult with Congress on relevant intelligence activities. In other words, unless we are going to usurp the presidential powers granted under Article II of the Constitution and dilute them amongst the various committees of Congress, it was NOT appropriate to include Congress in briefings on these activities and the CIA was not under obligation to report them.
Now, as to the timeliness, one could argue that this program was never able to make it past the planning stages. And, once the predator drone program rendered it obsolete, it was destined never to exit the planning stages. So, even if we ignore the role of the President as commander in chief of the military, we’re left with the fact that a “program” had not reached the level of “activities” to be reported, therefore there was nothing particularly untimely in the reporting. In other words, Panetta dug into the wood pile, dug out a stack of papers on things the CIA was legally allowed to do but could never really get to function efficiently, blew the dust off it, and handed it over to his political allies to make a mountain out of a molehill.
So, if you want to talk about violating the law and Constitution, it is Congress trying to back track on its own pronouncements and the military authority of the Constitution, not the other way around.
Chris says:
Jeez, LB. I guess you should hang him by his intestines as a warning to others that if you’re going to argue with a post, you had better at least know what the heck you’re talking about. I haven’t seen an ass kicking destruction of a comment like that since Beth posted here back in the day. Wow. It was like killing a deer with a machine gune and flame thrower.
Kip, dude, that had to hurt. I hope it doesn’t leave that big a mark. Still, even though you’re not a winner this time, please try again sometime…
Kip Russel says:
You stopped your research a little early. All the stuff about notifying Congress is in 50 U.S.C. s 413, et seq. Take a look.
(I prefer code section numbers to statute section numbers. Blue Book.)
Don’t take it for granted that assassinating Al Qaeda members is the beginning and the end of this program. That’s the description being leaked to sympathetic quarters in the press.
And you underestimate the Congressional oversight power over conduct of war. Believers in unrestricted executive power generally do.
Lord Bitememan says:
Oh, I didn’t think you were going to step on the Section 501 land mine Kip. Well, you asked for it.
501 (f) “(f) As used in this section, the term “intelligence activities” includes covert actions as defined in section 503(e), and includes financial intelligence activities.”
K, so we need to see what an intelligence activity is under this act.
503 (e) ” (e) As used in this title, the term “covert action” means an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include - ”
Wait, you mean the CIA doesn’t have to report to Congress every time an agent farts!? There’s things that aren’t included? Like what?
“(2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities;”
” (4) activities to provide routine support to the overt activities (other than activities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3)) of other United States Government agencies abroad”
So, let’s tally this up. The traditional role of the US military is fighting enemies at war. The CIA was providing assistance in helping to fight an enemy at war. We were not hiding the fact that we are fighting an enemy at war, we are OVERTLY trying to kill Bin Laden. Once again, the language of the National Security Act exculpates the actions of the CIA.
Galin Iddy says:
The God hater s in the govermnt hate our rights to be portected from terrists! They will all burn in hell Nanc y Plelosi first in line!!!!
raz0r says:
Ouch.
GlenF says:
So what does Cheney have to say about all of this?
GlenF says:
Isn’t it strange how vocal Cheney was until this came out? Now we only hear from his daughter, who claims to not know the scope of the program.
Lord Bitememan says:
Nope. It’s absolutely and completely mundane Glen. Next?