Dick Cheney's secret CIA Death Squad outed

[TonyGosling]

Feinstein: Secret CIA program "outside of the law"
A secret CIA counterterrorism program that was apparently hid from Congress was discussed on the Sunday morning talk shows, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., saying the intelligence committees were kept in the dark and "that's something that should never, ever happen again."
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/archives/173552.asp

[Frazzel]

also go to
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8146466.stm

Cheney 'ordered CIA to hide plan'

Dick Cheney played a key role in US anti-terror policy after 9/11
The head of the CIA has accused former US Vice-President Dick Cheney of concealing an intelligence programme from Congress, a top US senator says.

The existence of the programme, set up after 9/11, was hidden for eight years and its precise nature remains unclear.

Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein confirmed that CIA chief Leon Panetta told Congressional committees he had abandoned the project on hearing of it.

He said that Mr Cheney was behind the secrecy, Sen Feinstein said.

There has been no comment from Mr Cheney.

War of words



'Congress should have been told,' said Sen Feinstein
The California senator, who is chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, told Fox News on Sunday that Mr Panetta told her about the programme on 24 June, shortly after hearing about it, and said he had cancelled it.

The Bush administration may have broken the law, Sen Feinstein said, adding that Congress should never be kept in the dark, even though the country was still in shock after the 9/11 attacks.

"This is a big problem," she said.

"I understand the need of the day... but I think you weaken your case when you go outside the law."

But Texas Republican John Cornyn told Fox News that the allegations were part of political moves to distract attention from problems faced by Democrat leaders in Congress.

The claims come amid an increasingly bitter row between the CIA and Congress over whether key information was withheld about other aspects of the agency's operations.

'Capture or kill'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has claimed that the CIA misled her about interrogation methods including water-boarding, while other senior Democrats have quoted Mr Panetta as admitting that his agency regularly misled Congress before he took office.



CIA chief Leon Panetta is said to have closed the programme
Details of the newly-revealed secret programme have still not been divulged.

However, the Wall Street Journal reports that the programme was an attempt to act on a 2001 presidential authorisation issued by President George W Bush to capture or kill al-Qaeda operatives.

Quoting current and former government officials, the newspaper says the CIA spent money on planning and possibly some training.

The New York Times, which broke the story about Mr Cheney's alleged role, also quoted officials as saying the programme was launched by anti-terror operatives at the CIA soon after the 2001 attacks, and involved planning and training but never became fully operational.

Another unnamed official told AP it was an embryonic intelligence-gathering effort, aimed at yielding intelligence that would be used to conduct covert operations abroad.

But the BBC's Kim Ghattas, in Washington, says there is some debate in the intelligence world about how significant the programme actually was.

Regardless of the details, the debate now is about the secrecy that surrounded the programme and whether by concealing it the Bush administration broke the law, our correspondent says.

Veto threat

Mr Panetta - who took over directorship of the CIA under President Obama's administration - is said to have learnt about the programme only on 23 June.

The next day he called an emergency meeting with congressional intelligence committees to tell them about its existence and to say that it was being cancelled.

The allegations come as Democrats in Congress are trying to push through new rules that would increase the number of members of Congress who are told about covert operations.

The White House is threatening to veto the bill, fearing that operational secrecy could be compromised.

The CIA has not commented on the reports of Mr Cheney's role.

"It's not agency practice to discuss what may or may not have been said in a classified briefing," said spokesman Paul Gimigliano.

"When a CIA 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."

A CIA spokesman insisted earlier this week that "it is not the policy or practice of the CIA to mislead Congress
CIA chief Leon Panetta's accusation has got columnists, commentators and bloggers talking about the implications for Dick Cheney and the intelligence community.

Fox News's Congress correspondent Chad Pergram wonders what the news reveals about the relationship between the intelligence community and politicians:


All of this is baffling. But it points to one thing: a potential politicization of U.S. intelligence. Someone leaking the allegation that this program was hidden from Congress by Vice President Cheney is political. True or not, someone wanted to get that out. The fact that the gang of seven leaked its letter is political. Someone wanted that document publicized.

Rupert Cornwell in the Independent says that the US now needs a truth and reconciliation inquiry:


There will surely also be new demands for a broad investigation into how the Bush administration waged its war on terror. The White House has so far rejected demands for a South African-style truth and reconciliation commission to examine what happened. But for how much longer?

In the New York Times' politics and government blog, The Caucus, Janie Lorber pictures the scene of the CIA chief finding out about the project:


By law, intelligence committees are to be "kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity." But an amendment leaves some leeway for judgment when it comes to "exceptionally sensitive matters".
While few details about the program have emerged, we do know that the agency's current director, Leon Panetta, did not know about the program until June 23 when he was alerted by subordinates—imagine that conversation—at which point he halted the program and alerted Congress in closed-door meetings the following day.

Kansas City Star Editorial Page columnist Yael T. Abouhalkah looks at what this will mean for Cheney's reputation:


Former Vice President Dick Cheney's penchant for keeping secrets may permanently damage his legacy as a patriotic American.
…If Cheney were involved in purposefully misleading Congress, that could wind up being a huge black mark against the former vice president.
It begs for a complete congressional investigation, so the American people know whether Cheney violated his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Republican strategist Mary Matalin said on CNN that the reports about Cheney were a distraction designed to avert attention away from the policy struggles of the Obama administration:


The president's agenda is almost in shambles. His [poll] numbers are dropping. Isn't it coincidental …Every time they get in trouble . . . they dredge up a Darth Vader story.

The US veterans' blog This Aint Hell takes a tongue-in-cheek look at the story:


The media and the Democrat Congress is having conniption fits because they think that the Evil Bush Administration (TM) had a secret program to kill terrorist leaders and they didn't bother to tell Congress about it ...Oh, no! Bush and Cheney didn't support the operation? But that doesn't fit the narrative! Look, fellas, if we're going to have an evil plot against Congress, we're going to need Bush and Cheney involved, otherwise, how will we ever be able to impeach them? Um, retroactively?
If I was going to have an operation against the nation's enemies and I needed to keep it secret, I wouldn't tell the drama queen, leaky Democrats until the last possible moment either.

In the Huffington Post, comedian John Marshall sends up the story:

In lieu of an investigation, officials are considering commemorating Cheney's vice presidency with an all-star memorial, to be broadcast on five networks and feature video clips of water boarding, sleep deprivation, e-mail mining, iPhone tapping and face shooting. Fans could Twitter their favorite Cheney security violations.




SEE ALSO
CIA 'often lied to congressmen'

09 Jul 09 | Americas
CIA rejects Pelosi torture blame

15 May 09 | Americas
Washington diary: Cheney's party

13 May 09 | World News America
Obama takes aim at Bush-era security

21 May 09 | Americas
Pelosi says CIA lied on 'torture'

14 May 09 | Americas
Fresh torture claims against CIA

16 Jun 09 | Americas


RELATED INTERNET LINKS
CIA
US Congress
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites


FROM OTHER NEWS SITES
San Francisco Chronicle Dems seek review of Bush-era torture policies - 1 hr ago

[scienceplease 2]

More revelations but subtlety pro-Cheney! Also suggests the 9/11 Commission was a "success"!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jul/13/cheney- cia-black-ops

Dick Cheney's fantasy war

New revelations about the Bush administration's secret post-9/11 anti-terror operations demand a full investigation

* John McQuaid

The comments section is good though...

[TonyGosling]

Counterpunch is pretty good on stories like this and doesn't miss here.

Mister Fixer
Cheney Sweating Bullets
By RAY McGOVERN

So far the summer has been mild in the Washington, D.C., area. But for former Vice President Dick Cheney the temperature is well over 100 degrees. He is sweating profusely, and it is becoming increasingly clear why.


http://www.counterpunch.org/mcgovern07152009.html

Cheney has broken openly with former President George W. Bush on one issue of transcendent importance — to Cheney. For whatever reason, Bush decided not to hand out blanket pardons before they both rode off into the sunset.

Cheney has complained bitterly that his former chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, should have been pardoned, rather than simply having his jail sentence “commuted.” The former Vice President told the press that Bush left Libby "sort of hanging in the wind" by refusing to issue Libby a pardon before Bush left office. Libby had been convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to federal agents investigating the leak of a former CIA operations officer's identity.

"I believe firmly that Scooter was unjustly accused and prosecuted and deserved a pardon, and the President disagreed with that," Cheney said. He would disclose no details of his efforts to lobby Bush on Libby's behalf, saying they would be "best left to history."

It is getting close to history time. You do not need to be a cracker-jack analyst to understand that Cheney is feeling betrayed — that he is thinking not of Libby, but of himself, and fearing that, if our system of justice works, he could be in for some serious, uncommuted jail time.

His situation has grown pathetic. Aside from the man himself, it has fallen almost solely to faithful daughter Liz to defend her dad and to start a political backfire to keep him out of prison. She is to be admired for her faithfulness. In the process, though, she has unwittingly given much away.

Liz on the Offensive

On Washington Times’ “America’s Morning News” radio program Monday, Liz acted again as designated hitter, responding to the recent New York Times report that her father had given “direct orders” to the CIA to withhold “information about a secret counterterrorism program for eight years.” Not for the first time, Liz Cheney disclosed what has her father so worried and agitated. She said he is “very angry” over recent press reports that Attorney General Eric Holder may be about to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration’s interrogation practices.

She branded this “shameful” — worse still, “un-American.” Not the interrogation practices, mind you, but the notion that her father should be held to account for them.

Typically, Ms. Cheney did well in sticking closely to her talking points, arguing that the issue is “somebody taking office and then starting to prosecute people who carried out policies that they disagreed with, you know, in the previous administration.” As if unprecedented decisions to torture, in violation of international law and the War Crimes Act of 1996, can be accurately described as “policies” over which there can be honest disagreement. This is about crimes, not “policies.”

Pulling out all the stops, Ms. Cheney worried aloud over what this does to “morale at the CIA,” where the practitioners of what Bush called “an alternative set of procedures” for interrogation were told they were acting with the blessing of the Justice Department.

Liz Cheney went on to argue that this could in the future inhibit CIA functionaries from various actions, out of fear of criminal liability. (Not a bad idea, it seems to me.)

The Decider

What has pretty much escaped notice in the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) is that the former Vice President has also reminded us all that President Bush was the “decider.” That unusual word sounded quite macho as Bush strutted around and about reminding us regularly that he was also “commander in chief.” But now, it could be the kiss of death — for Bush, as well as for Cheney.

Here’s what Cheney allowed himself to tell Face the Nation’s Bob Schieffer about “enhanced interrogation techniques” on May 10:

SCHIEFFER: How much did President Bush know specifically about the methods that were being used? We know that you – and you have said – that you approved this…

CHENEY: Right.

SCHIEFFER: … somewhere down the line. Did President Bush know everything you knew?

CHENEY: I certainly, yes, have every reason to believe he knew — he knew a great deal about the program. He basically authorized it. I mean, this was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the President. He signed off on it.

Small wonder that Republicans are wincing, although the winces have been largely suppressed. The Washington Post reported recently that many Republicans now consider Cheney a major problem, but cannot say so.

The Post quoted one Republican strategist on the Cheney dilemma: “He continues to be a force among many members of our base, and while he is entirely unhelpful, no one has the standing to show him the door."

Spending four days in Dallas last week, I learned that George W. Bush continues to be a lofty hero among many folks there — with the notable exception of the hardy activists of the Dallas Peace Center and Code Pink. Hefty donations keep pouring in for his library and institute, and any “mistakes” that may have been made during the Bush/Cheney administration are laid at the door of the former Vice President.

Leading Republicans are passionate about this. And the phenomenon is not limited to Dallas. Cheney is smart enough to know that he, too, may soon be “sort of hanging in the wind” along with his former subordinate, Libby.

It’s Also About “Fixing” Intelligence

Approval of torture, assassination, warrantless eavesdropping — hey, there is quite enough to go on, and increasing signs that Cheney will be called on the carpet.

What we have been focusing on, however, glosses over Cheney’s key role in purveying lies to get our representatives in Congress to approve a war that qualifies for what the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal called the “supreme international crime” — a war of aggression.

Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) were on to Cheney very early. Exactly six years ago, we took the unusual step of sending a formal recommendation to President Bush that he “ask for Cheney’s immediate resignation.”

Our unprecedented appeal even caught the eye of the FCM, since our Memorandum for the President reviewed some of the deceit engineered by the Vice President in concocting a rationale for war on Iraq and leading the cheerleading for it.

We noted that Cheney, skilled at preemption, had stolen a march on his vacationing colleagues by launching, in a major speech on Aug. 26, 2002, a meretricious campaign to persuade Congress and the American people that Iraq was about to acquire nuclear weapons. That campaign mushroomed, literally, in early October, with Bush and senior advisers raising the specter of a “mushroom cloud” threatening our cities. On the inside of the synthetic clouds one could almost read the label — “manufactured out of thin air in the Office of the Vice President.”

In his memoir, the pitiable former CIA Director George Tenet complains that Cheney’s assertion that Iraq would acquire nuclear weapons “fairly soon” did not square with the intelligence community’s assessment. Tenet adds, “I was surprised when I read about Cheney’s assertion that, ‘Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.’”

Tenet whines that the Vice President did not send him a copy of the speech for clearance. But the malleable CIA director quickly got over it, and told CIA analysts to compose the kind of National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that would provide ex post facto support for Cheney’s bogus assertions. Just what Cheney (and Bush) ordered.

Tenet explains lamely, “I should have told the Vice President privately that, in my view, his speech had gone too far ... and not let silence imply agreement.”

Yes, George; and you should have resisted White House pressure for a dishonest NIE to grease the skids to unnecessary war.

In fact Cheney, as well as Tenet, knew very well that Cheney’s assertions were lies.

How? Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, whom Saddam had put in charge of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, as well as missile development, told the United States when he defected in mid-1995 that all (that’s right, all) such weapons had been destroyed at his order by the summer of 1991.

And in mid-2002, the Iraqi foreign minister, whom CIA operatives had recruited and persuaded to remain in place, was telling us the same thing.

Unwelcome Intelligence

When they briefed the President and his senior advisers on this, CIA operations officers were astonished to learn first-hand that this intelligence was unwelcome. These officers, who had used every trick in the book to “turn” the foreign minister and get him working for us, were told that further reporting from this source was not needed: “This isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change,” they were told.

Tenet was hardly astonished at reports of the non-existence of WMD. From documentary evidence in the Downing Street Minutes we know that Tenet on July 20, 2002, told the chief of British intelligence that the intelligence was being “fixed” around the policy. And former UN inspectors like Scott Ritter could verify that some 90 percent of the WMD Iraq earlier possessed had been destroyed — some during the Gulf War in 1991, but most as a result of the inspections conducted by the UN.

The reporting from Hussein Kamel and the Iraqi foreign minister, sources with excellent access, was suppressed in favor of “evidence” — from forgeries, for example, like the infamous Iraq-Niger yellowcake report. When finally U.S. officials were forced to concede that the Iraq-Niger information was based on a forgery, lawmakers like Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California, protested loudly — but too late.

Three days before President Bush let slip the dogs of war, NBC’s Tim Russert braced Cheney with the assertion by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Saddam Hussein did not have a nuclear weapons program.

Cheney strongly disagreed and claimed support for his view from the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community. He even ratcheted up his bogus assessment of Iraq’s nuclear capability: “We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

We? Maybe his wife, Lynne, and Liz were on board for that judgment; few others believed it.

Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, retired CENTCOM commander but still enjoying access to the most sensitive information on Iraq, was sitting in the audience on Aug. 26, 2002, and later described himself as astonished at the way Cheney hyped the Iraqi threat. And the most knowledgeable analysts — those who knew Iraq and nuclear weapons — scoffed at Cheney’s faith-based intelligence.

In our July 14, 2003, appeal to President Bush to ask for Cheney’s resignation, we warned of the likelihood that intelligence analysts would conclude that the best way to climb the ladder of success is to acquiesce in the cooking or “fixing” of their judgments, since neither senior nor junior officials would ever be held accountable.

This remains as acute a concern as the tolerance for torture and the like.

We shall have to demand that Attorney General Eric Holder do his duty and move quickly to start the process to hold accountable those responsible for dragging our country down into a moral abyss.

Ray McGovern was an Army officer and CIA analyst for almost 30 years. He now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is a contributor to Imperial Crusades: Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair (Verso). He can be reached at: rrmcgovern@aol.com

[chek]

Fille de Cheney is looking to enter the political arena.
Surfing its media echo chamber for the past months has been only a prelude.

Despite what might be inferred from the November election results, the Cheney faction does not yet seem to have been ousted from power.

[Thermate911]

[TonyGosling]

The Cheney faction are making great play of the BS (what about Senator Welstone?) that all these assassinations took place outside the USA.

David Kelly?
Robin Cook?

[QuitTheirClogs]

Report: ‘No geographical limitations’ on CIA assassination program

By Stephen C. Webster - July 16, 2009
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/16/report-no-geographical-limitati ons-on-cia-assassination-program/

The Central Intelligence Agency’s secret assassination squad was allowed to operate anywhere in the world, including the United States, according to a Thursday report in The Washington Post.

“The plan to deploy small teams of assassins grew out of the CIA’s early efforts to battle al-Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks,” the paper reported. “A secret document known as a ‘presidential finding’ was signed by President George W. Bush that same month, granting the agency broad authority to use deadly force against bin Laden as well as other senior members of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.”

Reporter Joby Warrick added: “The finding imposed no geographical limitations on the agency’s actions, and intelligence officials have said that they were not obliged to notify Congress of each operation envisaged under the directive.”

This revelation, buried in paragraph 12 of the Post’s report, was highlighted by Talking Points Memo’s Zachary Roth later in the afternoon.

“‘No geographical limitations’ presumably means that operations could potentially be carried out in countries, friendly or unfriendly, that are far from any war zone — including even the US itself,” he opined. “And it seems likely that they would be carried out without notifying the foreign country in question.”

[xmasdale]

Obama admin to limit investigation into Bush admin lawbreaking

From CCR - Center for Constitutional Rights

News reports are now saying the Attorney General is close to appointing a Special Prosecutor, but it doesn't look like good news. Insiders say Eric Holder wants to limit the scope of the prosecutor's investigation to low-level CIA operatives and let those who ordered, designed, and justified the torture program off the hook. Before it's too late, please write Holder today, and tell him not to tie the Prosecutor's hands but to let the investigation go as far up the chain of command as the facts lead.

This is a key opportunity for us to put the Obama administration on the right track, because it is currently in violation of U.S. law: Dick Cheney admitted his role in waterboarding and said he would do it again; the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, said that waterboarding is torture; and the Convention Against Torture, which is U.S. law, requires the administration to initiate a meaningful criminal investigation when torture occurs.

Should Eric Holder limit the scope of the Special Prosecutor's investigation to focus on "just a few bad apples" he would be allowing high level government officials to shield themselves with the very torture memos they created to break the law in the first place. And what about the lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee and David Addington who tried to rig the law to justify their bosses' actions? They must be investigated, too.

President Obama has told us and the world that no one is above the law. Prosecuting the high-level former officials responsible for torture can give a measure of justice to the victims and provide the strongest deterrent against future administrations going down this dark path again. Prosecution will also be a clear signal to countries around the world that the U.S. has drawn the line at torture. No executive order, policy change or new legislation will have that same power.

Stand with CCR in the fight for justice. Tell the Attorney General to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor to hold the entire Torture Team accountable.

Sincerely,

Vincent Warren
Executive Director

[outsider]

@ xmas:

Obama admin to limit investigation into Bush admin lawbreaking

I don't think many of us are surprised!!

To Hades with Cheney, the 'Smirking Chimp' & 'Uncle Tom' Obomba; our best current hope is the NYCCAN effort in New York.
Hope you're all assisting it financially (none of us are rich, 'cept maybe the 'trolls & shills').

[TonyGosling]

If you don't go for Cheney's sworn testimony explaining Continuity Of Government and other anomalies in the evidence on 9/11 you may be wasting your time.
Great talk here - one of the best voices in the world on Dick Cheney's September 11th 2001.

Link

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2978244787099383010

[outsider]

Ray Mc Govern on Cheney:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=Pundits-Trying-to -Help-Che-by-Ray-McGovern-090814-289.html

[TonyGosling]

Cheney criticizes 'political' CIA probe plan

WASHINGTON, Aug 25 (Reuters) - Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney criticized President Barack Obama's ability to handle national security after the Justice Department appointed a special prosecutor to investigate CIA interrogation abuses.

Cheney, who has emerged as a vocal defender of Bush administration policies since leaving the White House, said the intelligence obtained from harsh interrogation techniques had saved lives.

"The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions," he said in a statement dated Monday.

Cheney took issue with the Obama administration's decisions this week to have a special prosecutor investigate CIA prisoner abuse cases and to have a new group handling terrorism interrogations report to the White House.

"President Obama's decision to allow the Justice Department to investigate and possibly prosecute CIA personnel, and his decision to remove authority for interrogation from the CIA to the White House, serves as a reminder, if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this Administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security," Cheney said.

Earlier this year, Cheney had asked the CIA to declassify two memos that he said showed the effectiveness of using harsh interrogation methods on terrorism suspects.

The CIA in May rejected that request, but on Monday released the documents, with classified portions blacked out......

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN25208112

[TonyGosling]

At least Counterpunch is still there.
This Citizen Spook site you mentioned appeared for a little while and then vanished. What did it say?