What is Digg?64 Comments
- sheasie, on 07/15/2009, -10/+39Liz Cheney and the rest of the apologists are out in force - trying to muddy the waters:
"What's wrong with killing AQ leaders?!"
NOTHING!!! Nothing is wrong with the CIA killing AQ leaders....
BU THAT's NOT THE ISSUE!!! ;)
The issue is that Cheney (for some reason) ordered that Congress NOT be informed - a blatant breaking of the law.
AND don't give that ***** about it was "top secret"... It is entirely possible to inform only select Congressional members of the National Security Council with "top secret" clearance. (You don't need to publish it in ***** USA Today.)
Further curiosities:
1. If it never got off the ground, what was the group doing for the 8 years it was "not off the ground" ?
2. If it "never got off the ground", why was Panetta in such a rush to shut it down... ?
3. If it "never got off the ground", why why were Democrats and Republicans "stunned" when they heard about it ? (Nothing "stunning" about a plan to kill AQ leaders... that never got off the ground.)
MOST CURIOUS: If it was just a matter of killing AQ leaders (something that no one in Congress would have had a problem with... certainly not "stunned" by... why then did Cheney order the cover-up of an EIGHT YEAR program that never got off the ground ?
PS. A distraction from the Pelosi drama?! *****. Pelosi should fry, too. (But that a different issue...) Regardless of Pelosi's controversies, Seymor Hersh reported about this unauthorized Assassination Squad in March!!! And it's finally coming unhinged.
I am not suggesting that we ease-up on Pelosi!!! Hell No!!! Pelosi is a liar!!
But Cheney did (absolutely and definitively) break the law. Period. - SpinningHead, on 07/16/2009, -3/+10Yes, in a democracy, we need a secret organization to protect us from our elected representatives. Good thinking.
- drooder, on 07/15/2009, -10/+14Does anyone think that Cheney, Addington, Feith, Libby, Bolten and the rest would not consider anyone who opposes them as terrorists. My guess is that the Cheney Cabal was involved in more things than can be defined by "assassination sqad". These kind of people don't differentiate. They think they have free reign to do whatever they want. After all they did not think they were accountable to anyone, not the military, not Congress, and probably not even the President because Cheney most likely would think he could go off the ranch in any direction he chose.
- inactive, on 07/16/2009, -1/+5Am I the only one who is surprised that they're NOT currently doing this? Come on, it's the ***** CIA.
- catalysis, on 07/16/2009, -9/+13I love how the right-wing media is trying to spin this like they were planning to kill bin Laden and not like they were going to enter sovereign countries and start assassinating their citizens without a trial.
- johndavidjack, on 07/16/2009, -2/+6Buried for being one paragraph spam...
- NiftyG, on 07/16/2009, -1/+5You might want to look up the Church commission for the reasons why the law requiring the CIA to report to Congress was signed - by a Republican.
- inactive, on 07/16/2009, -5/+8
Its scary knowing that a group of people were given a license to kill/murder with NO oversight and since the program was secret how do we know that they were just going after leadership or even people overseas for that matter?
Also we've been detaining and dropping bombs on Al-Qaeda elements since 2001 so whats the point of having a secret squad of CIA assassins going after Al-Qaeda?
Something doesn't smell right but we'll never know the truth.. - SScottAZ, on 07/16/2009, -2/+5Why tell congress anything? Just let the executive branch run everything. When the supreme court objects...ignore them too!
And let's get rid of the 2 term limit as well. How about we save money by ending this voting thing all together while we ate at it. - mikebritton, on 07/16/2009, -5/+8The CIA should be disbanded. It's a waste of American tax dollars and an embarrassing failure.
- geekee, on 07/16/2009, -0/+3"not like they were going to enter sovereign countries and start assassinating their citizens without a trial."
Obama routinely bombs Pakistan. I don't think the targets got a trial. - NiftyG, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4Don't forget that Congress was firmly controlled by the GOP during this time. Are you saying the Republicans are being "defeatist?"
- sonicpentatonic, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4link to avoid blog-spam (and buried just for that):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_cia_concealment - Zapster, on 07/16/2009, -5/+8Hmm, so now every defense related agency has to run what they are are ~thinking~ about by congress? This was in the planning stages, not put into action. One of the jobs of the military is to make plans for contingencies so if the president orders it they can do it. That is their job. They make plans for nuclear war too. That is their job.
- geekee, on 07/16/2009, -1/+4This whole issue is just a smokescreen to confuse people into thinking Pelosi wasn't aware the CIA was torturing people, and therefore blameless.
Clearly telling congress was a bad idea. It is supposed to still be classified, but we all know what it is now because politicians leak info to the press routinely when it suits their political agenda. - IgorUnchained, on 07/16/2009, -2/+4Some people see all human life as equal and dont base a person's worth by their country of origin.
Im sorry this surprises you.
Sorry for you, that is, because if you dont understand that way of thinking, you are truly lost as a human being.
People who sign up to fight in war deserve to die in war more than people who arent a part of the war. "Casualties of War" can sometimes involve a city block filled with women and children in the current era.
What you call "collateral damage", other people call mother, sister, or Neda. - HotSaucePanCake, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2Congress wants to know everything, except what the top economists in this country have to say in terms of how to fix the economy.
- Clad, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3Treadstone?
- avidbuff, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3The New York Times reported on this in 2002 so anyone who says they are stunned at this "revelation" is either lying or a complete idiot.
- NiftyG, on 07/16/2009, -3/+5Yep. If it was Bin Laden or someone similar, they wouldn't have had to keep it from Congress.
- Nidy1, on 07/16/2009, -0/+2"The plan involved spy-movie-style assassinations of al Qaeda big shots instead of Predator drone missile strikes"
"Sir, we have the black suits all ready, here are your exploding pens, a car with ejection seats..."
"Um, yea, we're just going to bomb them"
"But we just finished the jetpack..."
"Yea, sorry." - therightscoop, on 07/16/2009, -3/+5Nice rebuttal.
Thanks for making my point. - sheasie, on 07/16/2009, -1/+3An EIGHT YEAR program that was never put into action ???
WRONG. Lt. Col Wilkerson just went on record and affirmed it was most likely in action the entire time:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/15/wilkerson-c ... - SScottAZ, on 07/16/2009, -2/+3I'll give them some latitude, but 8 years of "thinking"!
How hard is it to have a meeting with your bosses to get an OK?
One intelligence official tells the Post that lawmakers should have been notified because certain elements were operational and involved "significant resources and high risk." -Slate.com - cjhowe, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1The reason is that it wasn't being done in Afghanistan or any where else in the region. Want to assassinate someone? Just say they're al Queda. Political enemy? No, that's al Queda. Whistleblower? No, al Queda.
- NiftyG, on 07/16/2009, -5/+6If all they did was target Al-Qaeda leaders, Congress would have totally approved. They already approved killing Al-Qaeda and Taliban with drones and other methods.
This was kept secret for a reason. Not sure what the reason would be, but it probably involved doing things that Congress would not approve. - piieerrrree, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2Didn't you hear? Barack Obama decided to double the number of CIA agents so they can go around giving abortions to all those he considers enemies! The bastard!
/s, jsut in case - lhbaker, on 07/30/2009, -0/+1The story was leaked by the Director of the CIA, you ***** moron.
- ZenMojo, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1At least I see who has the REAL culture of life.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 07/17/2009, -0/+1It's easy to bury a controversial idea, but it's apparently hard to tell me why I'm wrong. Understandable, given the current state of intel-*****, why the cat would have your tongues...Once again, Digg's golf and I won, absent any reply (much less a coherent argument as to why I might be wrong) for this long. Thanks for proving me right!
- SpinningHead, on 07/16/2009, -2/+3Pinochet 2012!
- drooder, on 08/10/2009, -0/+1And the lines of command could have been very narrow, in other words few people would know about it. Most of the military was probably bypassed and maybe the CIA too.
- ZenMojo, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2Assassinating enemy combatant leaders? Fine.
Creating an illegal shadow government in order to do it? Er....
By the way, the Democrats didn't leak any of this information, the CIA did. - robflm256, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1Turn off the T.V.
- lhbaker, on 07/30/2009, -0/+1***** like you are the only people calling Obama the Messiah. Nobody on the left ever has.
- drooder, on 08/10/2009, -0/+1The people I mentioned said as much, that people who opposed them were either terrorists or were aiding terrorists. And I believe they meant it. So what might they have done? How would anyone know including within the USA. Everything was a secret. And if they were doing things against American citizens or even soldiers they would want to keep it a secret. There were many incidents that I did not accept the official explanation for including soldiers who died from my own state.
- drooder, on 08/10/2009, -0/+1You have to go by what we actually saw for eight years and that was to continually stretch the laws of the land to provide the absolute most power to the executive branch. Subvert the Constitution and undermine Congress anytime you get a chance. Ram everything through by telling Congress that there will be dire consequences if they don't pass this bill immediately. Actually Obama is now saying that about healthcare. That line is bullcrap.
- Corrosionx, on 07/16/2009, -1/+2The CIA doesn't kill its employees until they are done with them, and they aren't done with al Qaeda.
- lhbaker, on 07/30/2009, -0/+1Yeah, and Republicans sink entire countries.
- lhbaker, on 07/30/2009, -0/+1Judging by these comments, the only thing dumber than a wingnut is two wingnuts. Cheney creates a secret branch, under his own direction, and orders that the program be hidden from Congress. Wingnuts blame the liberals.
- k3rfuffl3, on 07/16/2009, -3/+3You didn't really expose anything except your own stupidity.
- Peteostro, on 07/16/2009, -2/+2I'm sure if the "few casualties of war." where your brother or sister you would think twice. But wait there not Americans so they don't matter right? Your comment is so F'ed up it's not even worth debating with you. You obliviously have no respect for any one but your self.
- garbagedump, on 07/16/2009, -1/+1Can you blame the CIA for not telling the Dems? You can't trust the commies to keep a secret.
- sheasie, on 07/16/2009, -1/+1"But wait there not Americans so they don't matter right?"
Actually, Seymor Hersh was the first to report about this cabal in March. And in that original report, Hersh claims that the assassinations were likely being carried out within America, too. (So far, Hersh - who also broke the "torture" scandals of Abu Ghraib) has never been proven wrong. - inactive, on 07/16/2009, -0/+0RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE YOU DON'T KNOW ***** RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE MY SOCIOLOGY PROFESSOR WITH A PONY TAIL OPENED MY EYES RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!
- tjpc52, on 08/09/2009, -0/+0sheasie...frankly, we don't know so much about these programs, and I hope you are as skeptical as I am about the mainstream press's spin on events and reporting.
One possiblilty with a program like this is that (not knowing how these are started, authorized and/or funded), it may have been started as a program, lost steam, but mothballed yet kept 'active' lest the whole idea would've had to be re-approved and/or re-funded. It may be quite possible that this thing sat as an 'active' program but politically was dead for 6-7 of the 8 years since inception due to loss of political support to attempt such a plan.
I've also read in several 'reports' (again, not sure what to trust) that Bush and Cheney were on record as saying 'no' to the assassination programs early on in its discussions as to feasibility for actual execution (bad use of words, but appropriate here).
I don't know what laws anyone broke or didn't break--where are one's sources of that? I'd like to read. - tjpc52, on 08/09/2009, -0/+0drooder: Not saying that all decisions made by the past adminstration were well thought-out and/or justified, but if in fact one posits that the group you listed didnt' care what anyone thought about accountability, then why would they have gone to the UN 14 times before finally invading Iraq? Re: 'torture', why did the administration go repeatedly for legal opinion as to definition of torture by the Geneva Convention, et al?
You can argue they wanted political cover, but that is exactly the point--if you thought you could do whatever you wanted, why bother? - magicfinger999, on 07/16/2009, -0/+0very nice posting i like it
- hirschab, on 07/16/2009, -2/+2Lol yeah,except for this, the US has pretty much been on the fence on the whether or not they're going to kill Bin Laden issue....
- tjpc52, on 08/09/2009, -0/+0The new Dir of the CIA, who is a political appointee, ihbaker.
Every aspect of this is political -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is