CIA director ends secret program

[Invictus ChiKen]

Link

WASHINGTON – CIA Director Leon Panetta has terminated a "very serious" covert program the spy agency kept secret from Congress for eight years, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a House Intelligence subcommittee chairwoman, said Friday.

Schakowsky is pressing for an immediate committee investigation of the classified program, which has not been described publicly. Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has said he is considering an investigation.

"The program is a very, very serious program and certainly deserved a serious debate at the time and through the years," Schakowsky told The Associated Press in an interview. "But now it's over."

Democrats revealed late Tuesday that CIA Director Leon Panetta had informed members of the House Intelligence Committee on June 24 that the spy agency had been withholding important information about a secret intelligence program begun after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Schakowsky described Panetta as "stunned" that he had not been informed of the program until nearly five months into his tenure as director.

Panetta had learned of the program only the day before informing the lawmakers, according to a U.S. intelligence official. The official spoke on condition of anonymity Friday because he was not authorized to discuss the program publicly.

Panetta has launched an internal probe at the CIA to determine why Congress was not told about the program. Exactly what the classified program entailed is still unclear.

The intelligence official said the program was "on-again/off-again" and that it was never fully operational, but he would not provide details.

Schakowsky, D-Ill., said Friday that the CIA and Bush administration consciously decided not to tell Congress.

"It's not as if this was an oversight and over the years it just got buried. There was a decision under several directors of the CIA and administration not to tell the Congress," she said.

Schakowsky, who chairs the Intelligence subcommittee on oversight and investigations, said in a Thursday letter to Reyes that the CIA's lying was systematic and inexcusable. The letter was obtained by The Associated Press on Friday.

She said Reyes indicated to her the committee would conduct a probe into whether the CIA violated the National Security Act, which requires, with rare exceptions, that Congress be informed of covert activities. She told AP she hopes to conduct at least part of the investigation for the committee.

She said this is the fourth time that she knows of that the CIA has misled Congress or not informed it in a timely manner since she began serving on the Intelligence Committee two and half years ago.

In 2008, the CIA inspector general revealed that the CIA had lied to Congress about the accidental shoot down of American missionaries over Peru in 2001. In 2007, news reports disclosed that the CIA had secretly destroyed videotapes of interrogations of a terrorist suspect.

She would not describe the other incident.

Schakowsky said she thinks Panetta is changing the CIA for the better, adding that the failure to inform Congress was indicative of "contempt" the Bush administration and intelligence agencies under him held for Congress.

"Many times I felt it was an annoyance to them to have to come to us and answer our questions," she said. "There was an impatience and a contempt for the Congress."

The House is expected to take up the 2010 intelligence authorization bill next week. It includes a provision that would require the White House to inform the entire committee about upcoming covert operations rather than just the "Gang of Eight"_ the senior members from both parties on the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the Democratic and Republican leaders in both houses.

The White House this week threatened to veto the final version of the bill if it includes that provision.

Democratic aides said the language may be softened in negotiations with the Senate to address the White House's concern.

But Schakowsky said the wider briefings are the best remedy to avoiding future notification abuses.

Republicans charge that Democratic outrage about the Panetta revelation is just an attempt to provide political cover to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who in May accused the CIA of lying to her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding.

What Pelosi knew about the CIA's interrogation program and when she knew it — and why she did not object to it sooner — is expected to be emphasized by Republicans during debate over the intelligence bill.

Just another reason to bring Bush up on trail in my eyes.

[Straha]

Because he had a secret program? A never fully functional secret program? A program about which we have no details at all? I don't mind wanting to bring Bush up on charges but at least wait until we know something about this before you add it to the indictment.

[Themightytom]

Because he had a secret program? A never fully functional secret program? A program about which we have no details at all? I don't mind wanting to bring Bush up on charges but at least wait until we know something about this before you add it to the indictment.

I'm pretttty sure they were building a death star.

Hoenstly though I kind of cringe at whatever it could be, the secret prisons and the torture were pretty much the worst "surprises" I expected, what now??

I suppose an assination/coercion program wouldn't be rediculous

[CmdrWilkens]

Because he had a secret program? A never fully functional secret program? A program about which we have no details at all? I don't mind wanting to bring Bush up on charges but at least wait until we know something about this before you add it to the indictment.

Umm directing the CIA (and the furtherance of the story is that Cheney did so) to NOT reveal a covert program in accordance with the existing rules is a gross breach of responsibility. Cheney, in fact, specifically directed those in the know to not even inform the Gang of 8. In other words this is a program (and the "on again off agian" sounds like ass covering bullshit) which has been kept secret in defiance of the law for nearly 8 years and more than 5 months after the person who ordered it to remain secret left office. At BEST the fact that Bush signed off on this (via authorizing Cheney to do as he pleased) represents a gross breach of executive responsibility and at worst makes him criminally responsible for deliberately deceiving Congress.

[fgalkin]

It might be something like running an actual terrorist group to attract new recruits and to gather useful inside intelligence for the WoT.

In any case, if they thought it was serious and needed to continue, they probably moved everything they needed to move and set up another cover, and only then told the new guy about it. That's why it took 5 months. Which means that the congressional investigation would reveal some things, but fail to stop it.

Or, I might be giving too much credit to an organization that has been historically unable to see beyond it's own nose.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[MKSheppard]

It's probably a murder program. Since US Law says we cant knock off people.

[fgalkin]

It's probably a murder program. Since US Law says we cant knock off people.

Only since 9/11? I'd have thought such a program would have existed since the Cold War at least. Or would they restart them from time to time?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Themightytom]

It might be something like running an actual terrorist group to attract new recruits and to gather useful inside intelligence for the WoT.

In any case, if they thought it was serious and needed to continue, they probably moved everything they needed to move and set up another cover, and only then told the new guy about it. That's why it took 5 months. Which means that the congressional investigation would reveal some things, but fail to stop it.

Or, I might be giving too much credit to an organization that has been historically unable to see beyond it's own nose.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

We're funding the A-Team?

[MKSheppard]

I'd have thought such a program would have existed since the Cold War at least. Or would they restart them from time to time?

Not since the Church Committee, which stripped the CIA of what limited usefulness it had by causing Ford to issue an EO banning assassinations.

[Straha]

Because he had a secret program? A never fully functional secret program? A program about which we have no details at all? I don't mind wanting to bring Bush up on charges but at least wait until we know something about this before you add it to the indictment.

Umm directing the CIA (and the furtherance of the story is that Cheney did so) to NOT reveal a covert program in accordance with the existing rules is a gross breach of responsibility. Cheney, in fact, specifically directed those in the know to not even inform the Gang of 8. In other words this is a program (and the "on again off agian" sounds like ass covering bullshit) which has been kept secret in defiance of the law for nearly 8 years and more than 5 months after the person who ordered it to remain secret left office. At BEST the fact that Bush signed off on this (via authorizing Cheney to do as he pleased) represents a gross breach of executive responsibility and at worst makes him criminally responsible for deliberately deceiving Congress.

Except the program was, according to the article, never fully functional and only sporadically active. For all we know right now the program may have only been in its early stages each time it was discontinued and the CIA/White House just saw it as irrelevant to inform Congress. Hell, if Panetta was only informed now maybe they saw it as irrelevant for him too. We know absolutely nothing about this program, its history, or why it was kept secret. Let's wait until we're not blindly speculating to pass judgement on the motives and criminality behind the program.


Heck, maybe they were trying to genetically engineer Bothan spies to hunt down Osama and bring us info on Saddam's Death Star WMDs. Which would be completely forgiveable in my book.

[fgalkin]

I'd have thought such a program would have existed since the Cold War at least. Or would they restart them from time to time?

Not since the Church Committee, which stripped the CIA of what limited usefulness it had by causing Ford to issue an EO banning assassinations.

Oh wow, that's remarkably...idiotic. "Play nice now, no killing?" How the hell are you supposed to run a spy war with restrictions like that?

Yeah, Shep is probably correct- it's an assassination program. The fact that it was not "fully operational" and used only occasionally further supports it.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Tsyroc]

I thought Ford's EO just prevented the CIA and the US from assassinating the heads of state, and maybe politicians, of other countries? In some sense I always assumed it was as much a move to prevent other countries from trying to whack the president as much as it was supposed to be a moral line that the US wouldn't cross.

[Pelranius]

I thought Ford's EO just prevented the CIA and the US from assassinating the heads of state, and maybe politicians, of other countries? In some sense I always assumed it was as much a move to prevent other countries from trying to whack the president as much as it was supposed to be a moral line that the US wouldn't cross.

Some accounts have it that it had to do with spectacular failures such as the plot to assassinate Fidel Castro, and political fallout from the death of Patrick Lumumba.

[xammer99]

1. No, Ford's EO goes beyond just heads of state.
2. Yes, it was an assassination program that never did anything.

[MKSheppard]

Yep, Assasination program to kill or capture Al-Q leaders.

[Straha]

And it looks like it never really got anywhere, which was probably why it never came up:

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.

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."

So, to recap:

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the administration decided to explore the idea of assassinating Al Qaeda leaders. The idea petered out, never got approval from the White House, and was sporadically brought back up again during the Bush administration but never actually got to any serious stage and was supplanted by a order to capture Al Qaeda leaders and kill them only if necessary. Further, if the program was going to be implemented there were plans to brief congress.

So, on the whole, a largely non-story. Except for the fact that they spent a Million Dollars on this damn thing.

[Logical Mike]

Wow, the C.I.A. under the Cheney-Bush dictatorship was running clandestine operations? And Cheney denies it?

Gee, weird.....

In other news, alien wreck at Roswell increases human technology by 100 years...


I think that every presidency has a little "operation" that the CIA performs with a limited knowledge base. Certainly congress is one step below CNN to an unaccepted presidency like cheney/Bush which adds boiling water to the soup bone. I won't be surprised to learn he put informants in major corporations and large social circles (ie freemasons) either. Cheney was like Stalin, he trusted and respected nobody.

This is yet another reason to try Cheney for treason, let's get it done.

[CmdrWilkens]

So, to recap:

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the administration decided to explore the idea of assassinating Al Qaeda leaders. The idea petered out, never got approval from the White House, and was sporadically brought back up again during the Bush administration but never actually got to any serious stage and was supplanted by a order to capture Al Qaeda leaders and kill them only if necessary. Further, if the program was going to be implemented there were plans to brief congress.

So, on the whole, a largely non-story. Except for the fact that they spent a Million Dollars on this damn thing.

There is also the part where the actual contents of the program are still unrevealed. That this was an al-qaeda assasination program is speculation from many angles. I won't go into the sheer oddity of saying, by Panetta, on one hand that the program was never revealed to Congress and then Hoekstra, on the other, mentioning that he had been briefed about the potential assasination finding and ideas. In other words if the program IS the assasination program then Panetta was incorrect about Congress not having been informed, I think it vastly more likely that it was something entirely different. moreover it was something he saw as so onerous that he shut it down immediately upon learning about it. Even in the current environment a program which sought a means to capture or kill top Al-Qaeda figues doesn't delve into that realm.

My point with all of this is that the data doesn't seem to add up to this being a "hey what about this idea" kind of Bin Laden assasination program. I remain convinced that it was something else.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Outright torture using sensory deprivation tanks, perhaps, performed in various dictatorships by CIA men in cooperation with the local intelligence services after we rendited people to those countries?

[Raj Ahten]

So if this was a CIA assassination program targeted at Al Queda leadership, as reported by the New York Times, why all the damn secrecy and not telling Congress bit? The CIA is saying that the program was undeveloped and that there was no need to tell congress until the program was operational.

On another note saying the CIA isn't allowed to kill people is pretty laughable given that its pretty much common knowledge that the CIA has drones flying all over Pakistan blowing the shit out of people.

[Knife]

Outright torture using sensory deprivation tanks, perhaps, performed in various dictatorships by CIA men in cooperation with the local intelligence services after we rendited people to those countries?

Maybe. supposedly the AG holed up in his office for two days reading an internal CIA audit on 'something' and now is pushing for investigations into the torture programs. Perhaps they are the same thing.

[Straha]

Wilkens, I wouldn't be surprised either if it turned out this wasn't the story from the original article. But, so far, everyone is treating it like this is it. Which is surprising because, honnestly, I expected something at least a little more moustache twirling nefariously evil. Instead we get this and unsubstantiated reports of horrendous failure in Vympel's thread on this.

[SirNitram]

Yea, it's not 'assassination'

Did people forget the whole reveal in 2008 that there were secret orders to do this? Note the signing date and person: 2004 and Rumsfield. Not a CIA program from well before that. So yea. The assassination story is cover bullshit.

[MarshalPurnell]

The order focused on in the article covered military raids by Special Operations Forces into foreign territories, which is quite distinct from having the CIA, a civilian agency, carry out individual assassinations of Islamic fundamentalists. The list of places such raids have taken place, into Somalia, Syria and Pakistan to judge by the article, probably also Yemen, are not particularly problematic either. Having a CIA hit squad operate in stable and friendly countries like Kenya would be quite a different matter.

There is mention of a separate authorization by the CIA to kill or capture Al Qaeda around the world, granted, but such broad authority is not the same as a specific program to execute that authority. The list of countries in which the CIA was authorized to carry out selective termination rather than efforts to apprehend first may also wind up being significantly more embarrassing than the 15-20 or so mostly Arab states the military was authorized to operate in.

[PainRack]

It's probably a murder program. Since US Law says we cant knock off people.

Isn't that indictment only against foreign head of states? And that Clinton already had an order for the assasination or capture of Osama Bin Ladin since the late 90s.