New CIA revelations are a distraction, not a bombshell

Let's get with the present agenda and stop arguing the past. You are right.

Lisa,  it's about more than the past.  It's also about how our government acts on our behalf.  We must hold vile waste like bush accountable and set an example of him.

I understand that Bush and his cronies should be in jail for all the crap they have done to this country, but the fact is, we don't need to spend billions trying to prosecute such slippery disgusting eels, and focus instead on getting our country back on track so people can feed their families and stand on their own again!

Speaking about cost of investigations.  Did you know that Ken Starr and the Republicans spent more investigating Clinton than they did investigating 9/11?  Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

I understand your point and don't totally disagree.  But just as we have to get the country's economy back on track, we have to ensure that our government is as ethical and law abiding as reasonably possible.  We are a nation of laws and if we don't reflect on our past enough to ensure that for the future, then I don't know what the point is.

uh....isn't the  whole point of the afghan war to kill bin laden and his ilk? so....wouldn't it have saved hundreds of lives if they had assassinated him? i don't understand why it is such a big deal that the cia thought about assassinating him… he is not a head of state…he is a terrorist

Of course they should think about killing him.  But we are a nation of laws not a nation of hired killers.

and if we are going to look back and see what the cia did under bush then we will have to go back and see what they did under all presidents don't you think? which will pretty much put an end to the cia. is this the agenda?

The point is that the surrogates that are put in place by a policy of going into foreign nations with the conspiracy of one intelligence service to another sets precedent and corrupts not only the foreign policy agenda, but also the proper diplomacy and judicial restraints.  To see Cheney smirk when asked about an adversary that was persued in another country, and just say, in effect, "never mind, it's no longer an issue", that is simply WRONG.

you think this is the first time this has happened? if so then you are delusional

as i said if we investigate the cia under bush then we must investigate them under every administration otherwise it is not justice but a witch hunt

Good points Dano.  We can't tolerate government employees like bush & company breaking the law.  Just because scum like bush get into office doesn't mean they can break the law.

and are going to investigate just this one program that they thought about or are we going to investigate all of the programs that they have thought about?

If the program was "canceled" it was more than thought about.  You can't cancel something that isn't in effect.

I still can't believe that can't find some frail old man, Bin Laden after eight years, it's ridiculous....thanks for the article

the precedent being set here is the current administration putting the previous administration on trial. we have to ask ourselves what the consequences of this would be  and if this is a precedent we want to set

I agree.  Every administration will be able to come up with "criminal acts" by the previous administration.

Every administration will be able to come up with "criminal acts" by the previous administration.

What a cynical assumption.  Even if your assumption is correct, why should we tolerate illeagal activity on the part of our employees?

I think you would be hard pressed to name a president since Kennedy who hasn't engaged in some sort of "illegal activity".

Our current president is defending and/or continuing many of the programs practiced by the Bush Administration including warrantlesswiretaps, indefinate detention without judicial revew and preditor drone attacts into sovereign nations.  When would you like to launch these investigations?

Interesting that you say at one point that the plan was never put into effect and at another point you say that is was just canceled.  Which is it?  If it was just canceled there are indeed reasons to look into.  

The possiblity that our employees in the bush administration acted illegally is not moot.  It is of great consequence to the future operation of our government.  Investigating possible illegal activity on the part of any federal agency is fair if there enough evidence to make a reasonable person think there may have been wrong doing. 

RF

I was simply quoting the St. Louis Post Dispatch, not exactly a right wing rag.

It is known that the Bush administration was complicit with the interrogation and imprisonment, as well as extraordinary renditions to other nations' secret prisons and their jurisdiction under other governments, to an unprecedented extent, so don't try to dismiss it by comparison to others in the past.  As I have said before elsewhere, both parties during the time, formally or informally, were tacitly in agreement.

Thus, if it is necessary to overturn the policies that have been set in place by trying those who directly authorized this conduct, then so be it.  These policies were contrary to law, but ethics accordingly was not the strong point to those who killed and tortured outside the bounds of US law under executive orders that were deliberately vague, inadequate and WRONG.  Whether they ever reach the light of day to the public in all their bloody detail is left to those who govern from now on.  The question foremost on my mind is whether they will be subject to oversight and governed by proper law in the future.

it is also known that the rendition program was launched under bill clinton. so where is the outrage and trial for his admisistration?

Do you mean extradition, or extraordinary rendition?  Extradition is done under existing law, with no designation as "enemy combatants".  ER is done uner executive order to the country of origin, or third countries, to try outside of normal channels.  I'd be interested in the history you have and the specifics of the charges and their destination.

who was put on trial for the overthrow of the iranian government in 1953, the failed attempts to assassinate fidel castro and patrice lumumba , the phoenix program in vietnam, the "secret war" in laos, aid to the greek colonels who seized power in 1967, the 1973 killing of salvador allende and the list goes on and these people didn't attack us

it is not being cynical r f, it is knowing the history of the cia

oh and btw these are just the few we know about because they were brought to light for reasons of political gains...just like this story

i was wrong reagan was the first ( it think) clinton just did a lot more of it than anyone else till gw

http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2007/1019rendition.aspx

Beginning in 1995, President Bill Clinton's administration turned up the speed with a full-fledged program to use rendition to disrupt terrorism plotting abroad. According to former director of central intelligence George J. Tenet, about 70 renditions were carried out before Sept. 11, 2001, most of them during the Clinton years.

and here is more if your interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition

According to Clinton administration official Richard Clarke:

“ 'extraordinary renditions', were operations to apprehend terrorists abroad, usually without the knowledge of and almost always without public acknowledgment of the host government…. The first time I proposed a snatch, in 1993, the White House Counsel, Lloyd Cutler, demanded a meeting with the President to explain how it violated international law. Clinton had seemed to be siding with Cutler until Al Gore belatedly joined the meeting, having just flown overnight from South Africa. Clinton recapped the arguments on both sides for Gore: "Lloyd says this. Dick says that. Gore laughed and said, 'That's a no-brainer. Of course it's a violation of international law, that's why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.'" [21] ”

Both the Reagan and Clinton cases involved apprehending known terrorists abroad, by covert means if necessary. The policy later expanded.

In a New Yorker interview with CIA veteran Michael Scheuer, an author of the rendition program under the Clinton administration, writer Jane Mayer noted, "In 1995, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally — including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea... 'What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,' Scheuer said. 'It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.' Technically, U.S. law requires the CIA to seek 'assurances' from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was 'not sure' if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed." [22] However, Scheuer testified before Congress that no such assurances were received. [23] He further acknowledged that treatment of prisoners may not have been "up to U.S. standards." However, he stated,

This is a matter of no concern as the Rendition Program’s goal was to protect America, and the rendered fighters delivered to Middle Eastern governments are now either dead or in places from which they cannot harm America. Mission accomplished, as the saying goes. [24]

Thereafter, with the approval of President Clinton and a presidential directive (PDD 39), the CIA instead elected to send suspects to Egypt, where they were turned over to the Egyptian Mukhabarat.

 

the point of all this, of course, is that their is proof that clinton acted illegally also and knew it...so.....it still goes back to....if we put the bush administration on trial  then we have to prosecute the others too

How about the Kennedy Administration's attempts to kill Castro?

We cannot afford to not address this...and move on....just because it is behind us is not an excuse to check out the serious implications this kind of business handling can create.

If your child was disobediant or involved in some unacceptable behavior last week and you just found out...but because you had more pressing business going on in your life - possibly a lost job concern...would you not address it....would you just move on?????

The linked editorial brings up Ford's 1976 order and suggests that the program he orderd be terminated was also a program akin to the more recent  CIA program, but if my recollection is correct, the old program went beyond killing and caputuring what we currently think of as terrorists.  Again if I recall correctly it also involved disposing of leaders of foreign governments that we decided were on the wrong side of the Cold War and disposing of leaders of movements that opposed foreign leaders that were on our side.  If my recollections are correct the 1976 program was a much more deliberate attempt to interfere in what were the internal affairs of foreign nations.

As to whether the current controversy involving the CIA is a bombshell or a distraction, there is no doubt that it is a distraction, but whether it is a distraction we can simply ignore is another matter.  There will always be distractions from the bigger problems that our nation faces, but ignoring some of those distractions could ultimately result in a much bigger problem if it is not dealt with while it still just a distraction.

Anyone prosecuted except the lowly troops that carried out Bush insurrection will be pardoned by Obama.

America has no justice system and the American public refused to create one.

That's like assembling a prototype of new car from scrap iron.  If we are all citizens with our own responsibilities, where is there to start?  Most aren't even familiar with the issue, including those competent enough to do anything to begin.

Who starts with the review, and what is to be subpoenaed first?  Who was directly involved in what situation to review?  Of the Congress, in the relevant commitees of oversight, who knew and when did they know it?  If they suspected, or simply were briefed on the rough outlines, were they legally complicit?  Who had a tacit understanding?  There are too many options for me to fathom.

That's the prosecutors job is.

I agree.

The trouble with this current series of executive orders is that it was not internal CIA direct action to a single country, neither was it an executive order planning specific covert action.  That was my take on the matter. There were a series of renditions to secret locations under control of the CIA, and also return of foreign nationals to their country of origin, where they were subsequently under the jurisdiction of their host country.  Egypt was the first to come to my mind, where they are accustomed to dealing harshly with those opposed to the current regime there.

These joint operations with existing governments leave us vulnerable to International law, and muddy the waters of any judicial review.  Can you imagine unraveling that ball of string and attempting to deal with the disputes without a body of law or a court of resolution to try the matters?  I am no expert in International law, nor am I privy to where and how these secret prisons were run, but I do know that I cannot reach a decision without the facts or a trusted rule of action to follow.

there are lessons to be learned and the biggest would be a runaway office of the vice president.  We really cannot let that occur again.

No danger of that with Biden, unless you include his foot in mouth disease.

Your comment just confirms that our educational system has failed...it needs to teach more common sense and how to come to an intelligent decision, so that one can disagree and make an intelligent comment

Glad you liked it!

I agree and like the guy but the word pompus does come to mind lol

We must be getting near election seasons lol the extreme right and left are back

I sure as hell hope the CIA at least planned to try something like that. Indirect work as such is cheaper/easier than thousands of conventional troops and equipment trying to do the same.

Are the Dems now saying it's wrong to use similar tactics or just that its a new tool to go after Bush for failing to do so? Panetta is not so stupid (nor is Obama I think) to pretend we wouldn't use such if we could.