Secret Pentagon spies confirmed

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-24 06:26pm

Senior officials in the US Defense Department have confirmed reports that the Pentagon ran a secret unit to help gather human intelligence.

The Washington Post first revealed on Sunday that the Strategic Support Branch (SSB) was set up on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Pentagon was re-interpreting US law and trying to bypass the CIA, it said.

But the department denies bending laws, saying the group was set up to provide better support for military forces.

It was in regular touch with the CIA and Congress over its plans, officials say.

'Flexibility'

The Post said Pentagon documents and sources said the SSB was designed to counter the "near total dependence" on the CIA for human intelligence.

It reported that the unit had come into being in 2002, following the attacks of 11 September 2001.

It ran small teams in Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries, which gathered battlefield intelligence for special operations units, recruited spies and reconnoitred potential targets, the Post said.

The newspaper said the units were subject to fewer legal constraints than previous intelligence-gathering units.

CNN cited a senior defence official as saying the SSB had been designed "to have as much flexibility as possible".

Turf battles

Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita issued a statement on Sunday saying: "There is no unit that is directly reportable to the secretary of defence for clandestine operations as is described in the Washington Post article...

"Further, the department is not attempting to 'bend' statutes to fit desired activities, as is suggested in this article."

But the statement went on to say: "It is accurate and should not be surprising that the Department of Defense is attempting to improve its long-standing human intelligence capability."

However, the BBC's Nick Childs at the Pentagon says there have inevitably been frictions and turf battles between different departments as the US intelligence community has tried to get to grips with the failings of recent years.

Donald Rumsfeld is known to have a special interest in getting better intelligence for US forces, he says.

Senior Republican Senator John McCain said he would bring the matter before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Mr McCain said the setting up of the alleged unit appeared to have been "a product of the frustration with the CIA of a failure to have decent human intelligence".

BBC

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-24 10:02pm

*shrug* So?[/quote]

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba · Post by **Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba** » 2005-01-24 10:05pm

Isn't this standard fare? Secret intel teams are used by every country. Why is this important.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-24 10:09pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:Isn't this standard fare? Secret intel teams are used by every country. Why is this important.

Big bad US? Evil Rumsfeld?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2005-01-24 10:10pm

Knife wrote:Big bad US? Evil Rumsfeld?

More: interesting in terms of the turf wars/politiking going on.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-24 10:21pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Knife wrote:Big bad US? Evil Rumsfeld?
More: interesting in terms of the turf wars/politiking going on.

Ah, I'll give you that. My take, from listening to the news about it, is that it is a power struggle thing.

If the CIA did it, they'd have to get funding, thus authorization from the Intell Committee of the Senate. Since DoD and by that DIA and presumable SOCOM already has an operations budget, they skirt around the Congressional Oversight for the individual Ops.

Congress hates this becuase they can't poke their nose into everything, or atleast don't know what/when to poke their nose in. Usually poking their nose in is a good thing, but it does bring politics and bueracracy.

DoD like this, because it limits the politics and bueracracy.

Personally, I really don't have a problem with the set up. Makes sense really. If the CIA can't get angents or assets to an area, why can't the military take a shot at it? What is the difference between CIA paramilitary forces and Spec Forces? Only the bueracracy.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2005-01-25 01:23am

The only thing that worries me is the whole 'Subject to fewer legal constraints' bit. Clandestine organizations outside easy congressional oversight and with little legal framework...yeah, it has the POTENTIAL to be scary. Dunno if it is or not.

irishmick79 · Post by **irishmick79** » 2005-01-25 01:28am

It's troubling because the US government is increasingly becoming reliant on the Defense Department to handle foreign affairs - The State Department has had a declining role in directing policy for a while now, and the CIA took several kicks to the nuts when they fucked up the 9/11 and Iraqi WMD intelligence. I think a lot of power to direct government activity abroad is being concentrated in the Defense Department, and I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2005-01-25 08:20am

White Haven wrote:The only thing that worries me is the whole 'Subject to fewer legal constraints' bit. Clandestine organizations outside easy congressional oversight and with little legal framework...yeah, it has the POTENTIAL to be scary. Dunno if it is or not.

Thats just 'hands on legal contraints'. DoD is still under Congressional Oversight. They just don't have to go up to the Hill everytime they want to run a recon mission in a shit hole.