So the Double Secret program Panetta killed in its planning stage at the CIA was a trained hit squad to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. The democrats think this is wrong, but don't have a problem with killing Al Qaeda by dropping bombs.

This from the party that started the Bay of Pigs fiasco, pissed their pants and took their ball and went home. I guess the $50 million bounty on OBL no longer says dead or alive. Instead he must be alive, in good spirits and well fed.

(07-15-2009 06:40 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  This from the party that started the Bay of Pigs fiasco, pissed their pants and took their ball and went home. I guess the $50 million bounty on OBL no longer says dead or alive. Instead he must be alive, in good spirits and well fed.

And don't forget Mirandized.

This "controversy" is total F'ing Garbage.

Bush made a finding and sent it up to the Hill. "We are going after AQ leadership".

No objections raised by Congress, because dead terrorists start piling up by Predators, strike teams, etc.. whatever means, start happening.

From looking at the specific statutory requirements of a covert action finding, Bush complied with all legal requirements:

50 USC § 413b. Presidential approval and reporting of covert actions

(a) Presidential findings
The President may not authorize the conduct of a covert action by departments, agencies, or entities of the United States Government unless the President determines such an action is necessary to support identifiable foreign policy objectives of the United States and is important to the national security of the United States, which determination shall be set forth in a finding that shall meet each of the following conditions:

(1) Each finding shall be in writing, unless immediate action by the United States is required and time does not permit the preparation of a written finding, in which case a written record of the President’s decision shall be contemporaneously made and shall be reduced to a written finding as soon as possible but in no event more than 48 hours after the decision is made.

(2) Except as permitted by paragraph (1), a finding may not authorize or sanction a covert action, or any aspect of any such action, which already has occurred.

(3) Each finding shall specify each department, agency, or entity of the United States Government authorized to fund or otherwise participate in any significant way in such action. Any employee, contractor, or contract agent of a department, agency, or entity of the United States Government other than the Central Intelligence Agency directed to participate in any way in a covert action shall be subject either to the policies and regulations of the Central Intelligence Agency, or to written policies or regulations adopted by such department, agency, or entity, to govern such participation.

(4) Each finding shall specify whether it is contemplated that any third party which is not an element of, or a contractor or contract agent of, the United States Government, or is not otherwise subject to United States Government policies and regulations, will be used to fund or otherwise participate in any significant way in the covert action concerned, or be used to undertake the covert action concerned on behalf of the United States.

(5) A finding may not authorize any action that would violate the Constitution or any statute of the United States.

(b) Reports to congressional intelligence committees; production of information

To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and entities of the United States Government involved in a covert action—
(1) shall keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all covert actions which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including significant failures; and
(2) shall furnish to the congressional intelligence committees any information or material concerning covert actions which is in the possession, custody, or control of any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government and which is requested by either of the congressional intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities.

© Timing of reports; access to finding

(1) The President shall ensure that any finding approved pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall be reported to the congressional intelligence committees as soon as possible after such approval and before the initiation of the covert action authorized by the finding, except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) and paragraph (3).

(2) If the President determines that it is essential to limit access to the finding to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States, the finding may be reported to the chairmen and ranking minority members of the congressional intelligence committees, the Speaker and minority leader of the House of Representatives, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and such other member or members of the congressional leadership as may be included by the President.

(3) Whenever a finding is not reported pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2) of this section,[1] the President shall fully inform the congressional intelligence committees in a timely fashion and shall provide a statement of the reasons for not giving prior notice.

(4) In a case under paragraph (1), (2), or (3), a copy of the finding, signed by the President, shall be provided to the chairman of each congressional intelligence committee. When access to a finding is limited to the Members of Congress specified in paragraph (2), a statement of the reasons for limiting such access shall also be provided.

(d) Changes in previously approved actions
The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees, or, if applicable, the Members of Congress specified in subsection ©(2) of this section, are notified of any significant change in a previously approved covert action, or any significant undertaking pursuant to a previously approved finding, in the same manner as findings are reported pursuant to subsection © of this section.

(e) “Covert action” defined
As used in this subchapter, 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—
(1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence, traditional counterintelligence activities, traditional activities to improve or maintain the operational security of United States Government programs, or administrative activities;
(2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities;
(3) traditional law enforcement activities conducted by United States Government law enforcement agencies or routine support to such activities; or
(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.

(f) Prohibition on covert actions intended to influence United States political processes, etc.
No covert action may be conducted which is intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media.

Pure and simple, the stimulus ain't working, and it ain't gonna work, so let's change the subject.

(07-16-2009 04:30 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Pure and simple, the stimulus ain't working, and it ain't gonna work, so let's change the subject.

I think that Mach had suggested in another thread that the previous Attorneys General (Ashcroft, Gonzalez) had acted in a very political manner, and at times issued opinions that allowed CIA et al to perform illegal actions. And, he suggested that Holder was a non-political actor who would act with principle to get to the bottom of the mess those guys created.

The fact is that the Attorney General (at both state and national levels) is primarily a political actor, and Holder is no different. Historically, Ashcroft, Bobby Kennedy, Janet Reno, Edwin Meese, Ramsey Clark - many of those ran for office or have been very involved with politics. I expect to see Holder meter out controversy at times that it most benefits this administration. His solution - don't prosecute CIA when they acted on legal findings by the previous AG - is really a political decision to stay away from unpalatable prosecutions. In the end, I suspect there will never be any prosecutions, just a seemingly endless stream of controversies doled out at politically opportune times.

By the way, can anyone name for which president Eric Holder first served as AG?

(07-15-2009 06:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  So the Double Secret program Panetta killed in its planning stage at the CIA was a trained hit squad to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. The democrats think this is wrong, but don't have a problem with killing Al Qaeda by dropping bombs.

Well, the Republicans had 7 or so years to put it into place. They obviously didn't. Now you have to ask, why not? Also, it was supposed to be reported to Congress and not hidden by Cheney the way it was(not saying this is a reason to stop the program but if it were going to be legal and effective why keep it away from congress?).

(07-16-2009 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 06:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  So the Double Secret program Panetta killed in its planning stage at the CIA was a trained hit squad to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. The democrats think this is wrong, but don't have a problem with killing Al Qaeda by dropping bombs.

Well, the Republicans had 7 or so years to put it into place. They obviously didn't. Now you have to ask, why not? Also, it was supposed to be reported to Congress and not hidden by Cheney the way it was(not saying this is a reason to stop the program but if it were going to be legal and effective why keep it away from congress?).

So then what's the problem? Why the fuss? Where is the criminality? Why do you continue to take up space on this planet?

6 years, Robert, 6. '01-'07

And thus is recorded into history another example of why so many Americans do not trust the Democrats with national security, and another example of why so many Americans do not trust politicians to do what is best for their country.

(07-16-2009 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 06:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  So the Double Secret program Panetta killed in its planning stage at the CIA was a trained hit squad to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. The democrats think this is wrong, but don't have a problem with killing Al Qaeda by dropping bombs.

Well, the Republicans had 7 or so years to put it into place. They obviously didn't. Now you have to ask, why not? Also, it was supposed to be reported to Congress and not hidden by Cheney the way it was(not saying this is a reason to stop the program but if it were going to be legal and effective why keep it away from congress?).

Bush sent Congress a finding. The law states:

To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of National Intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies, and entities of the United States Government involved in a covert action—

(1) shall keep the congressional intelligence committees fully and currently informed of all covert actions which are the responsibility of, are engaged in by, or are carried out for or on behalf of, any department, agency, or entity of the United States Government, including significant failures; and


If the plan isn't operational-- then it doesn't have to be disclosed. Until the hit squad is actually stalking a target, Congress doesnt have to be notified.

(07-16-2009 12:25 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-15-2009 06:37 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  So the Double Secret program Panetta killed in its planning stage at the CIA was a trained hit squad to assassinate Al Qaeda leaders. The democrats think this is wrong, but don't have a problem with killing Al Qaeda by dropping bombs.

Well, the Republicans had 7 or so years to put it into place. They obviously didn't. Now you have to ask, why not? Also, it was supposed to be reported to Congress and not hidden by Cheney the way it was(not saying this is a reason to stop the program but if it were going to be legal and effective why keep it away from congress?).

So then what's the problem? Why the fuss? Where is the criminality? Why do you continue to take up space on this planet?

Well, the proper people were not told. Criminality? I don't think we know all the details of the program so I don't really know. I think the Cheney knowing but not letting the proper people know is the big point so far.

(07-16-2009 12:42 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And thus is recorded into history another example of why so many Americans do not trust the Democrats with national security, and another example of why so many Americans do not trust politicians to do what is best for their country.

WTF? I don't think people were necessarily against the program(which you seem to claim) but that fact that the proper people weren't told IS a problem-and is on the Republicans not the Democrats.

(07-16-2009 12:14 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Also, it was supposed to be reported to Congress .

(07-16-2009 01:10 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Well, the proper people were not told.

(07-16-2009 01:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  but that fact that the proper people weren't told IS a problem.

Robert, try this. READ!!!

(07-16-2009 01:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(07-16-2009 12:42 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  And thus is recorded into history another example of why so many Americans do not trust the Democrats with national security, and another example of why so many Americans do not trust politicians to do what is best for their country.

WTF? I don't think people were necessarily against the program(which you seem to claim) but that fact that the proper people weren't told IS a problem-and is on the Republicans not the Democrats.

You've assumed incorrectly.

I did not state that the Democrats were against the program. I made note that American's have consistently not trusted Democrats with national security because of this exact type of clusterfart political theater. There is tremendous history of Democrats using national security as a political football, and that does not tend to sit well with the American public. I'd say the same thing about the last Administration, the American public got sick and tired of the histronics and secrecy - right or wrong, the public holds the vote and the last election was a clear plebicite against the current set of Republican kabuki.

Which if you stepped back a second from your knee-jerk, foaming at the mouth posting, and stopped reacting to the name of the poster and instead read, thought and reacted appropriatly, could see quite clearly.