If a covert program is planned and never comes close to being executed. Does the CIA have an obligation to disclose this program to Congress ? :confused:
|
If a covert program is planned and never comes close to being executed. Does the CIA have an obligation to disclose this program to Congress ? :confused:
I don't think they should have to disclose squat to Congress. Security in this country is so lax as it is it's pathetic. Americans seem to have a mindset that doesn't value self-defense. I mean, heaven forbid we should actually waterboard a terror suspect! Oh my, how terrible! Well, guess what? If it saves 3000 lives and prevents another 9/11, I say waterboard them! And leave them at gitmo, don't bring them here or to Bermuda! Thank goodness this mentality didn't exist back in the 1940s. Otherwise we'd all be speaking German now. And the other half of the world would be speaking Japanese. And the Jewish people would literally be an extinct race. But we don't have to worry about things like that happening now, do we?
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know about you, but "planned" means somebody anticipated it.
I didn't research the law, but the NY Times did, and thinks the program does need to be disclosed. They say, 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.”
I believe 'em. I'm sure you don't.
Pete Hoekstra, the intelligence committee's ranking Republican, said the unidentified program was not fully operational. What does that mean?? 85% operational?? 65%?? That's pretty operational, in my view.
I don't know. It seems like it was pretty operational because SOME of it went on for EIGHT years. Besides, if it never got underway, like you're suggesting, why would they EVER need to disclose it, and/or CANCEL it? They did both.
Look. This is simply MORE illegal activity by vice and the dufus. NONE of this surprises me. Hopefully, they'll charge vice, convict him, and put him away forever. He's about as big a crook as I've ever encountered!
excon
Hello s:Quote:
Originally Posted by s_cianci
Even if the law says they should?? Okee doakee, then.
excon
Excon,
The US military and the intelligence community keep a list of plans for military contingencies for the invasion of or defense from various countries around the world on a just-in-case basis. This includes plans to invade, bomb, and defend against allies, friendlies and enemies alike. The plans are updated on a regular basis, based on changes in our and the opposition's military status. These military contingencies are generally not very well known.
Based on your understanding of the law, the CIA and the military would have to disclose those plans to Congress, even though the chances of ever executing any of them are slim to none. The fact that they are "plans" and therefore "anticipated" means that Congress should get those plans.
Is that what you are saying?
And if so, are you NUTS?!
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
You spin weakly, but that's what I'm here for. Try to deflect the argument all you like, but it ain't going to work.
There ain't NOTHING contingent about this CIA plan. It wasn't based on what if, as your scenarios are. Nope. It's based on let's get it GOING - NOW - because vice and the dufus ORDERED it. Does the law say that they have to tell congress about it?? YES!!
I guess you aren't able to tell the difference... Good thing I'm here to help you out.
excon
As for Cheney ;you know that he did not have the best relations with the CIA . The shadow warriors inside the agency were more than willing to do anything in their power to discredit him. But still the plan remained a secret through that time .
The Demorats are in a tizzy because they were never briefed about an intelligence program that never became operational... This smells more of a lame attempt at validating Madame Mimi's claim that the CIA lies to Congress than anything else. For 8 years this "plan" was never implemented.
The law is the amended National Security Act of 1947. According to the NY Slimes article ;the law 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.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us...2intel.html?hp
Perhaps if there was some assurance that the plan wouldn't make it onto the front page of the NY Slimes within days of Congressional briefing then the agency would be more inclined .
And what was this plan? To capture or kill bin Laden. Gee, I wonder who else wanted to capture or kill bin Laden?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
This is where you righty's go wrong... You look at the program, and not the LEGALITY of the program... That's not how we do things here in America. We are a nation of laws. There are a lot of plans that would work, that are illegal, and that we shouldn't do. Besides, if all they had to do was TELL somebody to make it legal, why wouldn't they do that??
Yeah, it's really pretty funny... Here, the exconvict is trying to convince the righty's to obey the law - and they don't want to.
excon
You mean like Kennedy's Operation Mongoose ?
Hello tom:
I'm not sure what you're saying... Are you saying Cheney is to be EXCUSED from breaking the law because somebody else broke a law too?? Really now.
Boy, have you guys fallen a loooooong ways.
excon
I know you occasionally need to pat yourself on the back but I haven't said anything about wanting to break the law today have I? Which laws do you think are OK to break, something related to marijuana perhaps?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The only point I'm making is the utter hypocrisy of the Democrats in this. They're ready to investigate Cheney to cover for their lying Speaker (who wanted to appoint Cold Cash Jefferson to the House Homeland Security Committee AFTER getting caught with the money), but they won't do a darn thing about their own corruptocrats like Murtha, Rangel, Frank and Dodd.
Actually, excon, it was NEVER ordered, never happened, and never executed. That's why this whole question has come up. The question is: if the CIA never actually executed the plan, and never even came close to executing the plan, do they have to report it to Congress. That question is only possible IF it was never executed, and never came close to execution.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So it is YOU who are trying to spin the facts to make a plan that was never executed and never came close to execution into something that was imminent and that had been ordered. Your spin, not mine, ex.
Nice try, though.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I don't know. I've been in business for a LONG time. If I had a plan in my head, that I didn't order, and never got underway, I wouldn't have to cancel it. But, they DID cancel it. Hmmmm.
I agree with you, in that this plan was never fully operational... But, how did it get even partially operational if it was NEVER ordered, NEVER happened, and NEVER executed??
You really ought to start listening to yourself.
excon
A plan for dealing with AQ leadership was requested as a contingency... just like the plans for us to attack all those countries I mentioned above.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Frankly, I would have been very happy if the plan, which called for the assassinations of AQ leaders, would have been carried out as more than a contingency. But it wasn't. It never got past the contingency planning stage. Therefore, there was no requirement for it to be reported to the CIA.
Elliot
Hello again, El:
So, we're back to where we were 10 posts ago. You call it a "contingency" plan that never got underway.
But, I'm still not sure how you cancel something that never happened. I can't figure that out. If you want to stop something, you NEVER start it in the first place. So, where does all this STOPPING and CANCELLING come from??
Are you saying that Panetta DIDN'T cancel it?? What, did he cancel - something that wasn't happening and wasn't going to happen??
Like I said, you really ought to listen to yourself.
excon
Are you saying that an assassination plot started in 2004 under the Bush administration was put in play? No action was ever taken for 5 years, despite plenty of opportunity to bump off a few high-profile targets, but despite the fact that no action had been taken, the plot had to be stopped by Panetta... because this plot that had seen no action in 5 years was operational.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
You believe that scenario? This makes sense to you?
Don't you think that if this plan had been in effect during the last 5 years, we would have seen just ONE assassination of an AQ leader in the media? Hell, with prep time of five years, I COULD HAVE PULLED OFF SUCH AN Assassination... much more so the experts at the CIA. Yet it never happened. Why not? Because no such plan was ever in effect. No such order was ever given.
Here's what I think. I think that Panetta, being the Lib hack that he is, saw a white paper on a proposal for a contingency plan to assassinate AQ leaders that was either addressed to Bush and Cheney or signed by Bush and Cheney. Panatta decided to turn the existence of this contingency plan white paper into a media event that could be spun as a war crime or Constitutional crime committed by Bush and Cheney. So he made a big show of canceling a plan that was never put in effect in the first place (so that he could have a paper trail showing him as the hero of the story) and gave it to the media to run with. Panetta becomes both a hero of the MSM and a darling of his bosses in the Democrat party.
And useful idiots like you are running with this story as if there was something to it, as if some crime really was committed.
Elliot
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Well, you ARE reverting to right wing formula. When you're out of gas and you don't like the message, attack the messenger...
I'll take that as a WIN for my side.
excon
PS> There ARE going to be investigations, now. Finally, Holder has come to his senses and he knows that he can't avoid it anymore. The dufus and vice are going down... Law and Order rules!
What are our Predators doing in Pakistan? Photo ops?
The WSJ says that discussions on possible assassination plots ended within 6 months of initiation.
Believe me , if the plan was credible it would not have taken 8 years to implement. The Manhattan Project took much less time. It is preposterous to claim any law was broken by not disclosing this non-operation.
No there aren't. Obama allowed Holder to leak the possibility of an investigation to Newsweek in order to gauge the reaction of the people. The idea is that if the people like the idea, Obama can jum aboard and officially order the investigation. If the people don't like it, Obama can say that Holder spoke out of turn, and that he has no intention of authorizing such an investigation. Right now people are NOT jumping on board this particular bandwagon. They would prefer the Admin to get on with the job of creating jobs and saving the economy rather than investigating Bush and Co. I suspect that within the next 3 weeks or so, Obama will throw Holder under the bus and claim that he never ordered any such investigation, and any actions Holder took and any comments he made are not the official position on the Administration.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Good try though, excon. You see, not only is Panetta a hack. So is Obama, and Holder's his b!tch.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:34 PM. |