• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project

nonothing

Well-known member
By SCOTT SHANE
Published: July 11, 2009
The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Efforts to reach Mr. Cheney through relatives and associates were unsuccessful.

The question of how completely the C.I.A. informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, a claim Mr. Panetta rejected.

The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees “are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “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.”

In addition, for covert action programs, a particularly secret category in which the role of the United States is hidden, the law says that briefings can be limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress and of their intelligence committees.

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney’s role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general’s report underscored the central role of the former vice president’s office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency’s program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded had hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

An intelligence agency spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, declined on Saturday to comment on the report of Mr. Cheney’s role.

“It’s not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing,” Mr. Gimigliano said. “When a C.I.A. unit brought this matter to Director Panetta’s attention, it was with the recommendation that it be shared appropriately with Congress. That was also his view, and he took swift, decisive action to put it into effect.”

Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remained secret and which even some Democrats have said was properly classified. Most of those interviewed, however, have said that it was an important activity that should have been disclosed to the intelligence committees.

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

In the tense months after 9/11, when Bush administration officials believed new Qaeda attacks could occur at any moment, intelligence officials brainstormed about radical countermeasures. It was in that atmosphere that the unidentified program was devised and deliberately concealed from Congress, officials said.

Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee, said last week that he believed Congress would have approved of the program only in the angry and panicky days after 9/11, on 9/12, he said, but not later, after fears and tempers had begun to cool.

One intelligence official, who would speak about the classified program only on condition of anonymity, said there was no resistance inside the C.I.A. to Mr. Panetta’s decision to end the program last month.

“Because this program never went fully operational and hadn’t been briefed as Panetta thought it should have been, his decision to kill it was neither difficult nor controversial,” the official said. “That’s worth remembering amid all the drama.”

Bill Harlow, a spokesman for George J. Tenet, who was the C.I.A. director when the unidentified program began, declined to comment on Saturday, noting that the program remained classified.

In the eight years of his vice presidency, Mr. Cheney was the Bush administration’s most vehement defender of the secrecy of government activities, particularly in the intelligence arena. He went to the Supreme Court to keep secret the advisers to his task force on energy, and won.

A report released on Friday by the inspectors general of five agencies about the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program makes clear that Mr. Cheney’s legal adviser, David S. Addington, had to approve personally every government official who was told about the program. The report said “the exceptionally compartmented nature of the program” frustrated F.B.I. agents who were assigned to follow up on tips it had turned up.

High-level N.S.A. officials who were responsible for ensuring that the surveillance program was legal, including the agency’s inspector general and general counsel, were not permitted by Mr. Cheney’s office to read the Justice Department opinion that found the eavesdropping legal, several officials said.

Mr. Addington could not be reached for comment on Saturday.

Questions over the adequacy and the truthfulness of the C.I.A.’s briefings for Congress date to the creation of the intelligence oversight committees in the 1970s after disclosures of agency assassination and mind-control programs and other abuses. But complaints increased in the Bush years, when the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies took the major role in pursuing Al Qaeda.

The use of harsh interrogation methods, including waterboarding, for instance, was first described to a handful of lawmakers for the first time in September 2002. Ms. Pelosi and the C.I.A. have disagreed about what she was told, but in any case, the briefing occurred only after a terrorism suspect, Abu Zubaydah, had been waterboarded 83 times.

Democrats in Congress, who contend that the Bush administration improperly limited Congressional briefings on intelligence, are seeking to change the National Security Act to permit the full intelligence committees to be briefed on more matters. President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill if the changes go too far, and the proposal is now being negotiated by the White House and the intelligence committees.

Representative Jan Schakowsky, a Democrat of Illinois on the House committee, wrote on Friday to the chairman, Representative Silvestre Reyes, a Democrat of Texas, to demand an investigation of the unidentified program and why Congress was not told of it. Aides said Mr. Reyes was reviewing the matter.

“There’s been a history of difficulty in getting the C.I.A. to tell us what they should,” said Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat of Washington. “We will absolutely be held accountable for anything the agency does.”

Mr. Hoekstra, the intelligence committee’s ranking Republican, said he would not judge the agency harshly in the case of the unidentified program, because it was not fully operational. But he said that in general, the agency had not been as forthcoming as the law required.

“We have to pull the information out of them to get what we need,” Mr. Hoekstra said.
 

Texan

Well-known member
According to Newsbusters:

"The New York Times' Scott Shane has a history of slanted reporting on intelligence..."

http://newsbusters.org/people/newspaper-magazine-wire/scott-shane


Admittedly, Newsbusters has conservative leanings. Not sure if they lean to the right as much as the NYT leans to the left, though.

Interesting article, regardless of the source. I'd like to hear Cheney's response. And I guess we also need to find out Panetta's source for blaming it all on Cheney, don't we?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
That is one of the biggest problems with Cheney- and Bush- which negatively affected their administration...They arrogantly and paranoidly thought they were the only ones that cared for the safety of the country- or in their paranoid way were "patriots"....

Its almost sad when you watch these Congressional Hearings and some of these relevations that are now coming out- and even the top Repubs were never briefed on it or knew anything- and you can almost watch them turning red with embarassment and disgust/dislike for the Bush/Cheney crew that they wouldn't even trust the tops of their own party...
 

alice

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
That is one of the biggest problems with Cheney- and Bush- which negatively affected their administration...They arrogantly and paranoidly thought they were the only ones that cared for the safety of the country- or in their paranoid way were "patriots"....

Its almost sad when you watch these Congressional Hearings and some of these relevations that are now coming out- and even the top Repubs were never briefed on it or knew anything- and you can almost watch them turning red with embarassment and disgust/dislike for the Bush/Cheney crew that they wouldn't even trust the tops of their own party...

That is one of the biggest problems with Cheney- and Bush- which negatively affected their administration...They arrogantly and paranoidly thought they were the only ones that cared for the safety of the country- or in their paranoid way were "patriots"....

OT, you give Cheney too much credit. I think in Bush's mind he felt himself a patrior...in Cheney's...he knew exactly what he was doing and brought poor old GW along for the ride.

Alice
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Who wants to be first to say , " I'm Sorry" to Nancy Pelosi????"



Come one.....let's don't be shy people.....................
 

VanC

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Who wants to be first to say , " I'm Sorry" to Nancy Pelosi????"



Come one.....let's don't be shy people.....................

Sorry for what? The article isn't about Pelosi. She was mentioned once, and that paragraph seems to verify, at least according to Panetta, that she lied about what she was told about waterboarding, and when she was told about it.

The question of how completely the C.I.A. informed Congress about sensitive programs has been hotly disputed by Democrats and Republicans since May, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the agency of failing to reveal in 2002 that it was waterboarding a terrorism suspect, a claim Mr. Panetta rejected.

We don't even know what the program in question was, except that it had nothing to do with waterboarding, and never became fully operational.

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

Not only that, there is still some dispute over whether any laws were broken.

Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remained secret and which even some Democrats have said was properly classified.

Given what we know, it seems Panetta did the right thing, but I think we should let this thing play out before we go around pointing fingers. What we do know is that the evidence still shows that Pelosi lied about the whole waterboarding thing, so I don't think anyone owes her an apology just yet.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Oh....how quick we forget.


Remember not too long back , Pelosi had stated that the CIA had misled her on several items....one being the torture issue.

The whole site went wild.....calling her every whorish name in the book and she was the devil incarnate and a lied to boot!!


Seems she was right about the CIA hiding things.





BTW...I'm NOT a fan of Nancy Pelosi
 

jigs

Well-known member
I will admit it, I think Pelosi is a skanky bitch who has her votes for sale to the highest bidder.

now wheather you agree with me or not on my feelings for her, do you REALLY want a person like her to know EVERYTHING the CIA is doing? or ANY member of congress for that matter??

these punks are in an office to do OUR work, yet they line THIER pockets with dirty money, and advance themselves....
now, with this in mind, if they knew the details of the CIA, and one of thier buddies decides to blackmail them, the whole covert operation would be out in the open. because none of the spineless pricks representing US would take a fall and go down with the ship...they would spill thier guts.

does the CIA need some balances? of course. does Congress deserve to know everything they are doing?? hell no. these people in office are a bunch of IDIOTS, they are bankrupting us, and you want them to PROTECT us now too???
 

Tam

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
zer0 and biden already know too much and they've already spilled their guts.

So, I'll pass on Congress PROTECTING me...
We know Obama can keep a secret just ask him about his birth certificate but Biden.
Sh*t Biden knew to much right after they told him where he was to hide in case of a terrorist attack. He couldn't keep his month shut on that so does anyone really think he will keep his mouth shut on anything important if he is captured and the guys look at him with a frown on their faces. The guy is a weasal with a big mouth, the less he knows the better off the world will be. :wink:
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
help my memory on this-
does anybody remember when they were tracking binladen by GPS using his cell phone and some senator spilled the beans to the media about it and binladen quit using his cell phone.
anybody else remember that?? who was the senator??
did anything happen to him over it??
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Lonecowboy said:
help my memory on this-
does anybody remember when they were tracking binladen by GPS using his cell phone and some senator spilled the beans to the media about it and binladen quit using his cell phone.
anybody else remember that?? who was the senator??
did anything happen to him over it??

I remember it. I get your drift and agree with you. However the purpose of having a small, highly cleared group of individuals in Congress who oversee our intelligence agencies is part of what makes the U.S. a better form of government, because we do have oversight and checks and balances. The oversight can and has been limited to 1 - 2 individuals.

I do not know what happened to the senator but it is my view that government officials who disclose classified information should be jailed just as you and I would be. You are right, this goes on and it is outrageous, illegal and puts lives in danger and compromises national security.

Thanks R2- do you remember the senators name??
I've tried googling but without a name I don't get to far.

I agree oversight is needed- checks and balances!!
but I also believe that "Loose lips sink ships"
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Wouldn't a program like this have the potential to save civilian lives by close range targeting of terrorists?

The policy and strategy of using Drone attacks is killing more and more civilians.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Does your comment stand for this SENIOR Democrat Reader?

Senator Dianne Feinstein (Dem-CA) leaked classified information to the press yesterday damaging US and Pakistani operations against Taliban radicals.The Chicago Tribune reported:


A senior U.S. lawmaker said Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator aircraft operating in Pakistan are flown from an airbase inside that country, a revelation likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counterterrorism collaboration with the United States.

The disclosure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, marked the first time a U.S. official had publicly commented on where the Predator aircraft patrolling Pakistan take off and land.

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise at Pakistani opposition to the ongoing campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets along Pakistan's northwest border.

"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said of the planes.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counterterrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.

The CIA declined to comment, but former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, confirmed that Feinstein's account was accurate.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Lonecowboy said:
reader (the Second) said:
Lonecowboy said:
help my memory on this-
does anybody remember when they were tracking binladen by GPS using his cell phone and some senator spilled the beans to the media about it and binladen quit using his cell phone.
anybody else remember that?? who was the senator??
did anything happen to him over it??

I remember it. I get your drift and agree with you. However the purpose of having a small, highly cleared group of individuals in Congress who oversee our intelligence agencies is part of what makes the U.S. a better form of government, because we do have oversight and checks and balances. The oversight can and has been limited to 1 - 2 individuals.

I do not know what happened to the senator but it is my view that government officials who disclose classified information should be jailed just as you and I would be. You are right, this goes on and it is outrageous, illegal and puts lives in danger and compromises national security.

Thanks R2- do you remember the senators name??
I've tried googling but without a name I don't get to far.

I agree oversight is needed- checks and balances!!
but I also believe that "Loose lips sink ships"
Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama

Too many feel they are above the law and can say/do what they want to further their agenda
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
CIA Weighs 'Targeted Killing' Missions
Administration Believes Restraints Do Not Bar Singling Out Individual Terrorists

By Barton Gellman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 28, 2001; Page A01

Armed with new authority from President Bush for a global campaign against al Qaeda, the Central Intelligence Agency is contemplating clandestine missions expressly aimed at killing specified individuals for the first time since the assassination scandals and consequent legal restraints of the 1970s.

Drawing on two classified legal memoranda, one written for President Bill Clinton in 1998 and one since the attacks of Sept. 11, the Bush administration has concluded that executive orders banning assassination do not prevent the president from lawfully singling out a terrorist for death by covert action. The CIA is reluctant to accept a broad grant of authority to hunt and kill U.S. enemies at its discretion, knowledgeable sources said. But the agency is willing and believes itself able to take the lives of terrorists designated by the president.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MsSage said:
Lonecowboy said:
reader (the Second) said:
I remember it. I get your drift and agree with you. However the purpose of having a small, highly cleared group of individuals in Congress who oversee our intelligence agencies is part of what makes the U.S. a better form of government, because we do have oversight and checks and balances. The oversight can and has been limited to 1 - 2 individuals.

I do not know what happened to the senator but it is my view that government officials who disclose classified information should be jailed just as you and I would be. You are right, this goes on and it is outrageous, illegal and puts lives in danger and compromises national security.

Thanks R2- do you remember the senators name??
I've tried googling but without a name I don't get to far.

I agree oversight is needed- checks and balances!!
but I also believe that "Loose lips sink ships"
Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama

Too many feel they are above the law and can say/do what they want to further their agenda

Interestingly it is another Repub Senator- Lindsey Graham that is leading the charge to put thru the Obama proposed rules that MsSage and some of the rightwingernuts were screaming a couple weeks ago would lock up everyone in their fearmongering attempt :roll: :wink: putting some rule of law back into the detention and trial of terrorists- that GW thru out the window- and reinstating habeas corpus...
The other day in a hearing he was saying that its time to "close that dark era of our history regarding the rule of law"- while speaking of how Bush had mangled the Constitution and rule of law....
And Senator McCain is a co-sponsor along with several Dems on the proposal they are working on- which will sit up policy on detentions and trials/hearings and follow the guidelines of the SCOTUS rulings against the GW crew......
 
Top