What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
202 Comments
- AWBoy666, on 07/14/2009, -19/+63Good heavens no! We wouldn't want to eliminate those responsible for the deadliest attack on the continental US since the 1800s!
Seriously......this is the CIA's JOB. This is the definition of what they are supposed to do and why their programs should not be questioned due to political motivations by Congress. - dodger6, on 07/14/2009, -5/+46I'd be more worried if the CIA DIDN'T have a plan for this.
- LaueOfficer, on 07/14/2009, -1/+41I. No, there was not a legal mandate to kill AL-Q leaders during the war on terror, unless they were armed combatants. This plan allowed for actual assassinations.
II. The CIA has resources that the military does not, just as the military has some resources that the CIA does not. I'm sure they felt that the CIA was better suited for a smaller run, hopefully less bureaucratic (because it avoids command chain and military jurisdiction issues), better financed operation, and with more direct human intel available. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -16/+50In other words: This is all a phoney scandal meant to give the impression that Pelosi wasn't lying about knowing about the waterboarding stuff.
A big todo about a program that never got off the shelf.
100% pure, unadulterated politics. And a complete failure, to boot. - tdmeth, on 07/14/2009, -4/+38Most of America had plans with what they wanted to do to any member of Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks. Why is it a big surprise that the CIA wanted to do the same?
- sheasie, on 07/14/2009, -18/+52My questions:
I. Why the need for secrecy ?
Clearly a legal mandate to kill Al-Qaida leaders existed during the "war on terror". I don't understand why Cheney would have needed/wanted to illegally hide it..?! (Unless, of course, Al-Qaida leaders were NOT the ONLY target?)
II. Why involve the CIA ?
America was already at "war" with terrorists (generally). The mandate to kill Al-Qaida leaders was already tasked to the military, was it not ? So why illegally involve a clandestine department within the CIA to do a job that already fell into the (more than capable) hands of America's military forces.... ? (Unless, of course, Al-Qaida leaders were NOT the ONLY target?) - scoottie, on 07/14/2009, -7/+36Breaking News: Countries have plans to kill their enemies.
- pathouston22, on 07/14/2009, -1/+30We already kill Al Qaeda leaders, by dropping bombs on their hideouts.
- pilgrim3970, on 07/14/2009, -11/+34wow...
ok, now Speaker Pelosi, back to that whole question about how much you knew about the waterboarding that was going on... - footbag01, on 07/14/2009, -5/+27According to reports, there are details of this program that shocked Democratic and Republican senators. I have to assume that they weren't shocked that we were trying to kill Al Qaeda. There must be more that we don't know. Let it come out.
- Number23, on 07/14/2009, -0/+16Apart from the specific method of execution, how it this any different from the predator strikes against AQ and the Taliban Obama has ordered?
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -4/+18Speculate about what?
That this is all a phoney scandal to give Pelosi political cover? - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+14I'm actually speculating LESS than you are, do you realize this?
I'm going off of what has been reported. You, on the other hand, are imagining all kinds of scenarios that haven't been reported. - AWBoy666, on 07/14/2009, -8/+211. Your rampant speculation is just that and entirely unfounded.
2. Secrecy from Congress would make lots of sense if, for example, the program involved sending in ground forces into sovereign nations such as Pakistan, Iran, etc. where we are not supposed to officially be.
3. The CIA has access to all sorts of intelligence that the military does not have so it would make sense that the CIA should handle such a clandestine operation instead of the military. - Fleagleman, on 07/14/2009, -4/+16Hell, my redneck neighbor in Texas had 'plans' to kill Al Queda leaders. Saying it, and DOING it, are two completely different things. Perhaps the C.I.A. also drinks Natty Light.
- Barackalypse, on 07/14/2009, -5/+17How is this any less moral than firing missiles or dropping bombs in Pakistan to kill insurgents or Taliban targets? I really doubt the target cares if it is the American military that kills them inside a sovereign nation we have not delcared war on or if a CIA hit squad kills them in a country we haven't declared war on. Truth be told, if I were the country this was happening in I'd prefer it to be a CIA hit team than a missile.
- ralph12c41, on 07/14/2009, -7/+18I would be shocked if they had NOT had a plan. This is weak attempt to divert attention from Speaker Pelosi and her shameful lies that she was not fully briefed about the techniques being used by the CIA. Anyone else notice the pattern of diversionary techniques using the press to pull our attention from the Socialist policies this crew is attempting to implement.
- brandozilla, on 07/14/2009, -0/+11They don't, anymore.
- DaDrake, on 07/14/2009, -1/+12Got to agree with rbiii. This "scandal" seems to be more of a fabrication then anything else... being pushed by washington insiders.... which means it has everything to do with politics (and nothing to do with the CIA/Cheney/Homeland security/etc).
- Astark, on 07/14/2009, -4/+15Should have put this plan into effect BEFORE SEPTEMBER 11TH! It's not like they didn't know who these guys were, or even where they were at one point. And it's not like they hadn't already killed Americans on the USS Cole and other minor terrorist attacks.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -8/+19OMG Dick Cheney was so evil, god forbid the poor "freedom fighters" need to worry about being assassinated. The ACLU should be all over this, Bin Laden has rights to. How can he receive a fair trial when the CIA is trying to cap his ass.
Bill Clinton had the opportunity to assassinate Bin Laden in the mid 90s, thank god he proved America's inherent moral superiority by respecting the rule against assassinations. The "freedom attack" on 9-11 might never have happened if Clinton had been as "evil" as Bush. - LordRedSnake, on 07/14/2009, -0/+11Nope, not true. The Geneva Convention does not ban assassinations. Some say the Hague Convention does, but that bans "treacherous killings" of civilian leadership, that is luring a leader into an assassination attempt under false pretenses. None of the international agreements that might prohibit torture really apply under the current circumstances.
None of them prohibit assassination of military leadership, so then the question is whether al Qaeda leadership is military or civilian. In any case, all of these treaties allow the killing of an individual when part of a military operation, so predator drones and cruise missiles have been the tools used in the past, but these are often imperfect tools.
The only clear legal obstacle to performing an assassination is an executive order signed by Gerald Ford which could be rescinded at any time. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -5/+15OR...
Why not use every possible tool at our disposal? - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -3/+13Ok, is the REALLY surprising to anyone?
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -4/+13What happened here was pretty obvious. Pelosi claimed she had been misled by the CIA about various things. She obviously hadn't been, but she figured no one would call her on it. Someone called her on it. She looked dumb.
She called Obama and said "make me not look so dumb". Obama called his stooge Panetta and said "make Nancy not look so dumb". Panetta revealed this program, which was totally legal, so that Nancy Pelosi could have evidence the CIA misled her.
The program was totally legal. Since it never carried out an operation, no congressional committees needed to be informed. Also, since assassinations were made illegal by an executive order, all Bush needed to do was countermand that order and they would be legal again. He could even have done it with a secret executive order, and I'd guess that he probably did.
In the days following 9-11, would anyone credible have opposed this initiative. - Ninh, on 07/14/2009, -5/+13That plan still assumes they could actually find them, no?
- JBone007, on 07/14/2009, -4/+12OH NO!! The CIA was going to do something that it was made to do??? Controversial...
- ZenMojo, on 07/14/2009, -1/+9It's not. Technically. The UN only says Self-Defense and due-process. So you can kidnap and arrest a target but if he fights back you can put a bullet in him.
However, the word assassination is not in the Hague Conventions, the UN Charter, or the Geneva Conventions so it's borderline. - Charlotte_Web, on 07/14/2009, -8/+16Ok, kemp34, why do YOU think the Democrats in Congress are huffing and puffing about a project that never made it past the talking stage?
I don't have a problem with the CIA putting all options on the table and then talking about why it might be right or wrong. And in the weeks after 9/11, it's certainly understandable that they might be talking about this. Obviously, they felt that this was the wrong way to go, and they never acted on it. So where is the scandal?
The ONLY purpose it serves Congress to get upset about it now is as a diversionary tactic from their current political woes. - URnotheonly1, on 07/14/2009, -4/+11so ***** what! I would be more pissed if they did not have the plan.
- Hetman, on 07/14/2009, -7/+14I thought it was illegal according to the Geneva convention to assassinate people.
- Maynza, on 07/14/2009, -1/+8It isn't the CIA's job to lie to congress and to have no accountability or oversight. We can't just go around and kill anyone we think might be a terrorist sorry.
- Anachronus, on 07/14/2009, -4/+11So what? Assassinations are far more economical than a major war.
- MacEnvy, on 07/14/2009, -13/+20"why their programs should not be questioned"
*****, Congress is footing the bill, and the committees involved have a right to know what's going on in high-level operations. The only politicizing here is by Bush Administration officials who knew that if Congress knew what they were really up to, they'd demand accountability.
The CIA has a well-defined mandate to collect intelligence and engage in certain under-the-radar operations. However, they do NOT have the legal right to hide these actions from the Congressional committees who are charged with oversight.
Your Bush apologism is showing. - duncan202, on 07/14/2009, -5/+12I see no problem with this. Either with the plan itself, or the fact they didn't tell congress... like I'd trust those ass hats to help get anything useful done.
- AWBoy666, on 07/14/2009, -9/+15Judging from the way we use predators to eliminate high value targets, I'm thinking we changed our stance on that.
And that's not what all the hubub is about.....it's because it was secret and Congress wasn't informed. Don't change the subject. - Quick2822, on 07/14/2009, -18/+24"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment." - John F. Kennedy
- PeppermintPig, on 07/14/2009, -2/+8Could you be any more abstract, AWBoy666? That's a massive pass on unethical activity justified under the name of secrecy and security.
You do NOT have a right to privacy. Government, however, is not supposed to violate your privacy without a specific reason attributable to some sort of criminal investigation, which is a LIMIT ON THE GOVERNMENT. Furthermore, government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around, and 'state secrets' run counter to a free society. Clearly the system is broken and should be abolished for superior forms of accountability. - Charlotte_Web, on 07/14/2009, -3/+9I think it depends a lot on digg's internal scoring of individual diggers; probably had some high-ranking diggers promoting it towards the end. The system is very lopsided, and digg has stated that they like it that way.
- Charlotte_Web, on 07/14/2009, -8/+14"Why the need for secrecy ?"
As soon as the Democrats in Congress caught wind of it, it became a political beach ball to knock around in a very public manner. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -9/+14SERIOUSLY!
The Dems themselves have shown why these plans were kept secret. The moment they heard about it they blabbed. And this is just about plans, nothing ever came of them. - AWBoy666, on 07/14/2009, -2/+7@kemp34 - Fair enough. Let's concentrate on the facts then: there was absolutely nothing surprising about the fact that the CIA had a plan to kill Al Quaeda leaders.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -7/+12Not true. At a minimum the Gang of Four (or Eight) gets briefed on programs that are either going to be executed or are operational.
This program never got that far. - mnocket, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6It isn't.
- Charlotte_Web, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6What part was the lie?
- mountain1488, on 07/14/2009, -6/+11Yea ***** that *****. We're America. We assassinate whoever the ***** we like ya hear! Didn't ya'll know that!
- SarcasticPirate, on 07/14/2009, -5/+10Could be sarcasm, but truthers are so goddamn retarded that it's sometimes hard to tell the difference.
Terrorist attacks carried out by al-Quaeda:
-Gold Mohur hotel bombing in Aden, Yemen (1992) - 2 Australians killed.
-World Trade Center bombing in New York City, New York, United States (1993) - 6 killed, 1,042 injured.
-Khobar Towers bombing in Khobar, Saudi Arabia (1996) - 19 U.S. USAF servicemen & 1 Saudi killed, 372 others injured.
-U.S. Embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya (1998) - 12 people killed, and an estimated 4,000 injured in the Nairobi attack; 11 killed and 85 injured in the Dar es Salaam attack.
-USS Cole bombing in the harbor of Aden, Yemen (2000) - 17 USN servicemen killed, 39 injured.
-September 11 attacks in New York City, New York, United States; Arlington County, Virginia, United States; Shanksville, Pennsylvania, United States (2001) - 2,974 killed, 6,291 injured.
-April 11, 2007 Algiers bombings in Algiers, Algeria (2007) - 33 killed, 162 injured.
-December 11, 2007 Algiers bombings in Algiers, Algeria (2007) - 41 killed (including 17 UN staff), 170 injured.
-Danish embassy bombing in Islamabad, Pakistan (2008) - 8 killed, 24 injured.
That makes for a total of 3,124 killed and 12,185 injured.
***** al-Qaeda. - kolobcreek, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5Well since we know about it its obvious Congress can not be trusted. I say we prosecute whoever leaked the info. Should be open and shut? As for Congress good luck sticking it to the CIA.
- FortyCaliber, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6No one knows whether to Digg you or Bury you on this one.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -5/+10In this case they were hoping for a twofer.
1) Give Pelosi cover
2) Tarnish the CIA who they've always hated.
They failed at both. -
Show 51 - 100 of 203 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is