Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to hide secret programme from Congress

[Plow]

With that said; the situation that brought about the Iraq war was a combination of an opportunity to fortify and oil supply from the middle east

Really wish people would stop saying this, it makes sound arguments sound like anti-conservative foolishness.

They have made billions and billions through illegitimate, unfair means off the Iraq war, and virtually none of it is from oil other than construction on the infrastructure.


Iraq is China's big oil supply, you don't really think China's going to be like "oh lawl you got there first, all yours!" do you?

[Atreides]

Iraq is China's big oil supply, you don't really think China's going to be like "oh lawl you got there first, all yours!" do you?

Incorrent, Angola is China's largest supplier of oil, followed by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia had been the largest supplier until 2007.

Into Africa: China's Grab for Influence and Oil

* China has $3 billion invested in Nigerian oil, now the world's eighth largest oil exporter.
* Beijing has at least $3 billion invested in the Sudanese energy sector, for a total of $10 billion since the 1990s.
* In Angola, another African energy giant, a $2 billion credit line for much-needed infrastructure projects secured Chinese access to highly coveted offshore oil fields. Today, Angola is China's biggest oil supplier, outpacing China's previous largest supplier, Saudi Arabia.

Honestly if China's largest supplier of oil was Iraq they would have gotten far more involved in both Iraq wars than they did.

[*Shinzon*]

Really wish people would stop saying this, it makes sound arguments sound like anti-conservative foolishness.

They have made billions and billions through illegitimate, unfair means off the Iraq war, and virtually none of it is from oil other than construction on the infrastructure.


Iraq is China's big oil supply, you don't really think China's going to be like "oh lawl you got there first, all yours!" do you?

I don't understand what your point is. I said to fortify a supply, not monopolize it. If the new government is an ally of the U.S, whats so hard to understand about having a flow of oil? There's nothing untrue in what I said. The country producing it determines where it's sent. If we can get more of it, cost goes down. It's pretty cut and dry.

[Jones]

I'm not advocating unchecked secret programs, but I can understand why those running them would want such a position.

When you deal with Congress, or any elected official, their first priority is to maintain their own image in a positive light. All decisions are filtered not by what is right, what is honorable or what is just, but by how will this make me appear to the people and how does it effect me next election. I guess what I'm trying to say is that sometimes indecision is worse than ANY decision. Congress is all about indecision.

For my better understanding, was this "new secret group" supposed to be briefed to Congress' senior advisory panel, like 8 veteran members from both parties, or to the whole group?

Also, just a thought...defense is always harder than offense. The offense can botch everything up time after time, but so long as they pull it together once, they are the victor. In defense, you can stop the attacks a million times unnoticed, but screw up once and the blame rests solely on you. There is a need for consistent and fluid covert operations for the defense of this country. And in an ideal setting from those doing the real intelligence work, those running and directing the scope of that agency wouldn't be changed out every 4-8 years.

[Plow]

Incorrent, Angola is China's largest supplier of oil, followed by Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia had been the largest supplier until 2007.

Into Africa: China's Grab for Influence and Oil



Honestly if China's largest supplier of oil was Iraq they would have gotten far more involved in both Iraq wars than they did.

Saudi Arabia is damn near everyone's biggest supplier. There's a stretch of land near the Iraq/Kuwait border that holds just unfathomably huge supplies.

Iraq has the 2nd most. But, Iraq has a severe shortage of actual wells. (They've been too broke really to be able afford the necessities to ramp up production)


Things get somewhat debatable as you get into the investment-- there is extremely little international funding at this point, as it took up until a few weeks ago for their government to decide (and to get through the Iraqi oil worker's union) to even allow international companies to get involved.

There are now 2 international companies involved in Iraq oil production: BP (cough cough), and CNPC, who are working together on one field.


What you have to remember is that China was completely self-sufficient on oil until not all that long ago. Also, that Iraq is a largely untapped resource field, because they've just plain sucked at producing from their massive reserves.


Basically, what I'm getting at is that where they currently rank in China's list of importers is misleading. Check back in a few years, when Iraq is actually producing as much as China currently imports, those stats will have changed drastically.


It's a long and complex idea of why it's basically China's shit, but the overlying principal is that there's no other reserves so untapped as China moves towards passing Japan and competing with the U.S. as the biggest importer in the world. Also, it's just plain cheaper to get oil across land, through one of the biggest and best pipelines in the world, than to either use Turkish ports to access the Strait of Gibraltar, go south around Africa, or through the mess that is Indonesia and the Pacific Islands.


As far as why China wasn't involved in the first Iraq war, beyond the simple fact that it wasn't about Iraq, it was about protecting Kuwait and in turn SA, they were still self sufficient on energy until I believe it was '93.

As for the 2nd war, they should have been-- but we fucked it up waaaaaaay too much for them to get very involved.

I don't understand what your point is. I said to fortify a supply, not monopolize it. If the new government is an ally of the U.S, whats so hard to understand about having a flow of oil? There's nothing untrue in what I said. The country producing it determines where it's sent. If we can get more of it, cost goes down. It's pretty cut and dry.

The Iraqi people believe it was an oil grab just as much as anyone. Referring to Iraq as an ally right now is about the biggest stretch of imagination possible.

[guartz]

His post was incredibly well thought out and very detailed. He clearly has a position to defend on the issue and I absolutely appreciate that. I just do not agree completely and was trying, albeit poorly, to explain why and I accept that my argument appears weak.

As for dismantling the CIA do you have any idea the implication of what you're suggesting Guartz? You talk about people burying their heads in the sand, that's exactly what we'd do by dismantling our most efficient intelligence gathering agency. You talk about the CIA being evil? What the fuck do you think would happen when they're gone? I mean I don't mean to attack you either but really man? The world doesn't always play nice yet we have to? I think that's an incredibly foolish idea to even entertain. Maybe we should get rid of the FBI and all our other covert operatives along with it that.

I mean I dunno how to take that statement seriously.

There is a fine distinction between gathering intel on potential threats, and whats happening now.

Just think a little bit more clearly though, we have an entity that is completely secret to public scrutiny and has the power to overthrow governments, and who seem, to have little problem with installing tyrants and butchers if they play along with their agenda.

It's okay though, since they work for us, we are safe from that. It's the others we need to worry about. Lets see, how would the world look if OSS was disbanded instead of creating CIA.

Well, we'd definitely have problems with WMD with Iraq and Iran...

Ah, there is North Korea, they'd definitely invade somebody by now.

What about South America? The whole region is so fucked up with drugs and unstable governments, we'd totally need cia to help us out.

Well, what about the whole terrorist thing. Blowing up everything and everyone.

oh whats that? All these problems came about because of CIA? Muslim brotherhood was a peaceful movement before CIA tortured their leader? you mean.. terrorism wouldn't exist as we know it?

[Kuya]

I will be responding to your post in quote-parts. Let me know if i've taken your post out of context.

However, situations similar to these, regarding specific programs or teams established to be run secretly, are not new. Politicians and average citizens need to understand that again, not everything is black and white. There is a line drawn but that line becomes clouded in a war.

Don't mean to be condescending, but here you've done nothing but use rhetoric and established no conclusion from the rhetoric you used. What do you mean to say by telling me that secrecy in the CIA is nothing new? You made that statement and made no following elaboration. What do you mean that things are not black and white or that war clouds lines? If you're going to make points, you have to connect them to come to a conclusion. I can't possible understand what you're getting at here. But i disgress, this is me nitpicking this part because it is annoying.

But may I ask you this: As a normal citizen of the United States can you, with all your life experience and no military training be confident in providing a guideline for the CIA to follow, and can you, assuming the CIA goes ahead publishing all it's potential projects and operational planning conclusively analyze data on potential terrorist attacks, arms sales, drug sales and determine what the best course of action is? I know I can't and I don't pretend that I can.

I'm not even sure if the CIA should exist. As Chalmers said:

That’s turned out to be the tail that wags the dog. Intelligence is not taken all that seriously. It’s not that good. My function inside the agency in the late ‘60s, early ’70s was in the Office of National Estimates. My wife used to ask me at times, “Why are they so highly classified?” And I said, "Well, probably and mostly, simply because they’re the very best we can do, and they read like a sort of lowbrow foreign affairs article." They’re not full of great technical detail and certainty nothing on sources of intelligence.

Since you seem to like arguing that we should leave things to the professionals, what basis do you have to refute what Chalmers is saying (that the CIA is essentially of little use) when he was a consultant to the CIA? Furthermore, what does monitoring terrorist activity and drug sales have to do with the CIA breaking the law? I'm not talking about the CIA telling us about banal thing they do. So i don't see where you're going with that.

When I said what I said before, I was referring to involving the bureaucratic process in matters of national security and intelligence gathering. These kinds of situations need to on average, be decided quickly and swiftly to often provide and effect defense for our country. The problem is that the bureaucratic process is slow and often times is drawn out with many different steps. This creates a situation where too many people get involved and a situation can get MUCH WORSE as it moves through the bureaucratic process. While our elected officials should absolutely be involved, they too must also be considerate to the sensitivity of military situations and that not everything can be used to further their political goals.

What are you talking about here? First of all, you don't seem to know what bureaucracy means. What you're referring to is the deliberative and democratic nature of parliaments which are slower to response, however the executive and the intelligence institutions are unitary institutions. They are bureaucracies, all of it is a bureaucracy, but the difference is that they are not deliberative like Congress is and are instead unitary, which means they act faster and have more centralized decision making and power. I don't understand what you mean; the parliamentary institution is not involved in the decision making processes of the executive institutions, but rather it verifies that the acts of said institutions are following rules ex-post facto. You are talking about something that is not at this time an issue, nor has anyone argued that Congress should be involved in the decision making process of the executive branch.

With that said; the situation that brought about the Iraq war was a combination of an opportunity to fortify and oil supply from the middle east and to be able to exact revenge on a group of individuals that could be blamed for having connections with terrorism. I absolutely believe that our government did a terrible of job in investigating claims of WMDs in Iraq and all the other propaganda that was forged to bring was to war. However, when stuff like this, designed to attack one of our defense agencies, is brought into public light, politicians attempt to abuse the situation and often times further their own interests rather than the interests of the nation, and I hope that you'll agree with me and say that that is a fair claim to make.

What? The people in the executive are politicians, but they are in charge of said military and intelligence institutions. In fact, the faulties that you are describing are exactly the sort of features that led to the quagmire that is Iraq. What you're saying is obvious, of course politicians seek their own interests; they are human. What controls them is accountability (which we've seen none of thus far). You're talking as if letting investigations into the CIA and the executive branch will make these things happen when they already happened and they are the same exact reasons that these problems arose in the first place. Because politicians sought personal interest rather than the nations's. It doesn't matter whether a politician in Congress will use investigations to further his own goals, if rules were broken, then investigations must be forthwith.

The only way to stop the interest of politicians from affect the military and the CIA is to make them completely independent from the executive. Is that what you're suggesting? Because it seems you are focusing on what politicians in charge of investigations will do to the defense forces, rather than what politicians in charge of the defense forces will make said forces do.

Finally, I absolutely agree with the right of congress to control the purse of the nation and control what our military does. I simply said that I did not agree with the way it was done. Without being sensitive to the situation, and with political uproar regarding all the claims that were found to be baseless regarding the war we were in; I felt that congress and the average citizen was attempting to punish our soldiers rather than the upper echelons of our intelligence and military organizations.

Even if we do not support a war it is ABSOLUTELY critical to support our service men REGARDLESS of the situation. These men and women sacrifice their lives for us every day and the least we can do is ensure that they have the funding to properly survive and carry out their duty effectively.

You've said two completely contradictory things. First you claim that you agree with the constitutional power of Congress to reign in the executive, and then you say that we shouldn't use those powers and we should instead support the troops no matter the circumstances. Which is it? What you are saying is that if the president sends the military to a war for selfish reasons, then the Congress should not stop it by stopping funding because we should "support our troops regardless of the circumstances". You can't have it both ways. These powers were given to Congress to stop a president on a rampage, if the military is harmed is then it is not harmed by virtue of Congress exercising its power, but rather by the president who is out of control. And you can't just impeach a president for going to a war for frivolous reasons as that is not an explicitly illegal thing to do, furthermore, if the president where to have misled the country to war, and one could use that as a justification for impeaching said president, one would first have to get past all the bullshit to even come close to impeaching. It is far faster and more efficient for the Congress to stop funding.

But then, what was the point of this? Why are you criticizing this constitutional power? You think this has something with "ordinary" citizens and crooked politicians interefering in the military and the CIA? You've already said that we can't allow them to do whatever they want, and we have the means to stop them. So if you agree we have to stop them, why do you insist on the "bad things" about it when it is necessary to do?

But to assume that torture need not ever be used to extract information, whether through psychological torture or physical, is a foolish perception to have. Unless you are training in the methods of gathering intelligence there is no way that you can ever tell someone who is trained in these methods how it is that they can conduct their jobs.

First of all. torture is not efficient, it is extremely unreliable and there are better ways to obtain information (rapport building), furthermore, the torture program was proposed by two quack psychologists with no experience in interrogation, and the CIA does not have much experience in interrogation, unlike the FBI, so this all lead to not only a program of torture being created without any evidence that it worked, it was also used by an organization with little experience with interrogations, not to mention that torture is innefficient. Furthermore, torture is often said to be justified in a "ticking time bomb scenario" however, that scenario entails that you KNOW that an imminent terrorist attack is going to happen and that you KNOW that the person you have has this information. This is a scenario that rarely ever happens and is only seen in movies.

There is also the fact that torture is illegal according to the charter the US signed, and the US has prosecuted others for torturing US troops. And finally the fact that torture is incredibly inmoral, it is dehumanizing for everyone involved, including the torturer, since it requires they suspend empathy in order to carry it out. The fact that torture is wrong should be enough, but apparently, some people don't believe in right or wrong.

So not only do you have Chalmers saying that CIA intelligence is not good, you also have the fact that the CIA involved itself with something it hardly had the expertise in carrying out in the first place. Do you want to see sources for the things that i've said?

The program was created by amateurs:

KATHERINE EBAN: Well, from my research, I found exactly the opposite, that there had been an FB—the issue is very active over the detainee Abu Zubaydah, and there had been an FBI interrogation team with him initially, which had basically nursed him back to health after gunshot wounds and used rapport-building, classic rapport-building tactics, which is what the FBI excels at, and it was because of those tactics that he revealed that KSM, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was the architect of 9/11 and also revealed the name of Jose Padilla, and that in fact he was talking to interrogators until Mitchell showed up along with the CIA interrogation team, began imposing these harsh tactics, and Zubaydah clammed up.

So, in response to that, they made a request to accelerate these tactics. I think they refer to it in the memos that were just released as an “intense pressure phase.” You know, basically, what my sources say is, “Sure, these tactics, these coercive tactics, can get you to talk. But about what? So how do you verify the legitimacy of the information?” Well, apparently, under torture, Zubaydah gave investigators a lot of false leads, which ate up the time of American intelligence back at home. So, you know, the debate is a very live one. There are people in the CIA who say these tactics absolutely worked, and I do think that this is going to be a central question of investigations as they go forward, is the effectiveness of these tactics. And people are now—yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: You know, I thought it was very interesting, Katherine Eban, how you describe what happened. The FBI there, they’re getting intelligence that they think is actually useful. George Tenet, then Director of Central Intelligence, hears about this. He’s very proud that intelligence is coming out from the interrogation. And then he’s informed it’s not coming from CIA interrogators, it’s coming from FBI interrogators. And he hits the roof. And that’s when they send in Jessen and the other CIA interrogators. You could take it from there.

KATHERINE EBAN: Right. You know, and let me just say that they sent in Mitchell. I don’t believe that Jessen was there at that point. But it was interesting—

AMY GOODMAN: I mean Mitchell.

KATHERINE EBAN: —that Mitchell Jessen—Mitchell’s company at that point closed up shop about a day before—the day after Zubaydah was captured, and then he was deployed to Thailand to the safe house where they were interrogating Zubaydah. But what you had in this situation was a classic turf war. You know, you had the CIA wanting to take the credit for getting actionable intelligence.
As soon as they started using these coercive tactics, it had a rather profound effect, which is that the FBI felt compelled to withdraw their investigators from the scene. The effect of that, the end result, is that the CIA had total control over these interrogations. So, by using these coercive tactics, they also won a turf war.

AMY GOODMAN: Mark Benjamin, as you look at these torture memos right now and the whole cachet around Mitchell Jessen, if you can call it that, around getting effective intelligence when, as Katherine Eban was saying, it was the opposite.

MARK BENJAMIN: Well, that’s right. And when you look at the memos, there are even some hints there that show what interrogators have long believed, which is that these are not effective ways to gather intelligence, what Mitchell and Jessen were doing is just—it’s just not an effective way of running an intelligence operation.

And I would just add, you know, my reporting suggests that when the CIA put together this interrogation program, this torture program, they didn’t involve any experienced interrogators. There were no interrogators involved. Nobody who knows how to question—effectively question a suspect set this thing up. The CIA didn’t have anybody on board that knew how to do this stuff. I mean, it was people who just frankly didn’t know what they were doing. I mean, you know, they knew how to train soldiers how to resist torture, but not how to get effective intelligence.

And, in fact, if you look at the memos that came out last week, there is a reference in one of the memos to a CIA inspector general report. And according to the reference, the CIA inspector general criticized the CIA’s own interrogation program, saying essentially they didn’t know when somebody was being recalcitrant and wouldn’t talk and when they just didn’t know anything. That’s the problem with torture. And so, they ended up torturing people even though they had already said everything they know. I mean, it was just—and that’s the problem with torture. You don’t know—I mean, how do you know when to torture somebody and when not to? How do you know when they’re telling you the truth and when they’re not? It’s just, you know—and I think the memos, you know, while they’re meant to back up and say that this torture program is defensible, I think if you look at them pretty closely, that that facade starts to fall apart pretty fast.

More on this:

An Oct. 2, 2002, Army memo for the general in charge of Guantánamo at the time discussed the use of SERE techniques at GTMO. It included the warning, "Experts in the field of interrogation indicate the most effective interrogation strategy is a rapport-building approach." A lieutenant colonel who had helped organize SERE training for interrogators also sent a warning attached to that memo that, "If individuals are put under enough discomfort, i.e. pain, they will eventually do whatever it takes to stop the pain. This will increase the amount of information they will tell the interrogator, but it does not mean the information is accurate," he wrote. "In fact, it usually decreases the reliability of the information because the person will say whatever he believes will stop the pain." Of course, by then the administration had already made up its mind.

The Bush administration's motives for employing the harsh techniques are also called into question by the report. The Bush administration has argued publicly that it got tough on detainees to prevent another al-Qaida attack. The Senate report describes another possible motive, and a sobering example of how torture can produce bad intelligence.

An FBI interrogator pitches in:

Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator who stayed mum for seven years about "the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding" breaks his silence in the NYT today. Along with other CIA and FBI agents, he questioned Zubadayah in June of 2002 before "harsh techniques" were introduced:

Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence. We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber.

Let me conclude this post: You've argued that the average citizen shouldn't be involved in the decision making in these institutions. I've demonstrated that they aren't, what they do, along with their elected officials is make sure they are following what the law puts forth. Making them accountable. They are not made inneficient because the average citizen does not define what the CIA does, they only litigate, and the Congress may investigate, and they only do so when they feel rules have been broken.

Your defense of supposed professionals whom we should let lead these things has apprently been undercut by the fact that other professionals, ex CIA consultants, FBI agents, and investigative professionals have found the CIA to be clumsy, and found it to provide weak intelligence. Furthermore the actions of the CIA and the executive, as mentioned by Chalmers, are directly linked to the very things we are supposedly having them defend us from. If actions that are not meant to defend a nation, but rather advance selfish geopolitical goals, like installing the Shah dictator in Iran, lead to, in the future, to fatal attacks on Americans as relation for the sinister acts of secretive institutions, then we have a severe problem.

[Atreides]

china & oil

Yes but your point was that china wouldn't look at Iraq and say "oh lawl you got there first, all yours!", which is more or less exactly what they did.

In the years leading up to the first gulf conflict in 2003 China was getting most of its oil from Saudi Arabia, and attempting to secure oil from other mideast producers including Iraq, which at the time had the 2nd largest standing reserves of oil. After the 1st gulf war began Iraqi oil was no longer an option and Beijing didn't feel comfortable that the US had more control over Saudi politics, leaving them in a sticky situation.

It was a situation in which China had to find alternate sources of oil in order to support their massive growth, sources that weren't going to be ultimately US-controlled/influenced (for various reasons).

To state that the Chinese have this massive stake in Iraqi oil development is somewhat preposterous because their investment in Angola and other african nations has made it significantly more irrelevant than it was before the first US-Iraq War.

[Plow]

Yes but your point was that china wouldn't look at Iraq and say "oh lawl you got there first, all yours!", which is more or less exactly what they did.

In the years leading up to the first gulf conflict in 2003 China was getting most of its oil from Saudi Arabia, and attempting to secure oil from other mideast producers including Iraq, which at the time had the 2nd largest standing reserves of oil. After the 1st gulf war began Iraqi oil was no longer an option and Beijing didn't feel comfortable that the US had more control over Saudi politics, leaving them in a sticky situation.

It was a situation in which China had to find alternate sources of oil in order to support their massive growth, sources that weren't going to be ultimately US-controlled/influenced (for various reasons).

To state that the Chinese have this massive stake in Iraqi oil development is somewhat preposterous because their investment in Angola and other african nations has made it significantly more irrelevant than it was before the first US-Iraq War.

Bolded is the key, the course of action was not "lol u got their first all urs!"

Much more accurate:

Us: Halp plz

China: Are you kidding me, with that mess? lol Here's a dollar.

Us: Dude this is your shit, you should be the ones worrying about this.

China: You're absolutely correct, but your mess is way too fucking huge for us to fuck with, even if it does cost us some influence. In the end, it's coming to us regardless, so, uh, yeah, you have fun with that.

[Neosutra]

Actually, I think they responded in cheesy chinese subtitles and really bad voice overs.

[Plow]

If I had the tools I would totally make a youtube video out of that.

[Shuvo]

Bolded is the key, the course of action was not "lol u got their first all urs!"

Much more accurate:

Us: Halp plz

China: Are you kidding me, with that mess? lol Here's a dollar.

Us: Dude this is your shit, you should be the ones worrying about this.

China: You're absolutely correct, but your mess is way too fucking huge for us to fuck with, even if it does cost us some influence. In the end, it's coming to us regardless, so, uh, yeah, you have fun with that.

Bahahahahahhahaha

/clap

[Olo401]

Not for nothing, but you got Congress doing investigations for when they were not told of counter terrorism progams, yet, when it came to water boarding, where they were told of counter terrorism programs, they still ran investigations to breaking the law.

Seems to me a concise case of "damned-if-you, damned-if-you-don't" when dealing with Congress.

Sounds like you don't give a damn about people who break the law then.

[Bingbong]

Sounds like you don't give a damn about people who break the law then.

First off, drop the "breaking the law" thing, it's not like Cheney was out stealing TV's, or selling drugs. As much as folks 'round these parts would rather not admit it, Cheney was trying to keep Americans from not getting blown up.

So, in one case, you have the use of water boarding being used, which whether or not you think it's torture, was put to Congress, or semantically, congressional committees, who ok'd it and then later decided to run investigations hoping to come out with criminal proceedings.

Move forward to this new unknown counter terrorism group, which Congress, or semantically, congressional committees were not told about, so they started investigations hoping to to come out with criminal proceedings.

For me, it's gotten to the point of "considering the source" meets "the boy who cried wolf".
A highly democratic congress is digging up whatever they can on a republican vice-president because they didn't like his policies. And they will keep on digging until they find something that maybe might stick. If this one doesn't, it will be something else in 6-8 weeks.

Like someone on page 1 said, wake me up when someone goes to jail. Until then, it's a congressman trying to make a name for himself by putting big-bad Dicky C. in jail.

[Elvis]

Controlling the flow of oil is enough. We do not have to make money off of it directly.

[Dimmauk]

First off, drop the "breaking the law" thing, it's not like Cheney was out stealing TV's, or selling drugs. As much as folks 'round these parts would rather not admit it, Cheney was trying to keep Americans from not getting blown up.

So, in one case, you have the use of water boarding being used, which whether or not you think it's torture, was put to Congress, or semantically, congressional committees, who ok'd it and then later decided to run investigations hoping to come out with criminal proceedings.

Move forward to this new unknown counter terrorism group, which Congress, or semantically, congressional committees were not told about, so they started investigations hoping to to come out with criminal proceedings.

For me, it's gotten to the point of "considering the source" meets "the boy who cried wolf".
A highly democratic congress is digging up whatever they can on a republican vice-president because they didn't like his policies. And they will keep on digging until they find something that maybe might stick. If this one doesn't, it will be something else in 6-8 weeks.

Like someone on page 1 said, wake me up when someone goes to jail. Until then, it's a congressman trying to make a name for himself by putting big-bad Dicky C. in jail.

They should leave Dick alone! Its not like he got a Blowjob in the Oval office! He is a hero!

How much shit do the Republicans throw at the Clintons? Bush had a magical 9/11 shield that helped him not get shit on. Well its gone now, and the PEOPLE want answers.

[Demosthenes11]

First off, drop the "breaking the law" thing, it's not like Cheney was out stealing TV's, or selling drugs. As much as folks 'round these parts would rather not admit it, Cheney was trying to keep Americans from not getting blown up.

dear god man.
are you saying it's not breaking the law because he did it to "protect americans" ?

[Kuya]

It's going around the news a lot that the programme in the OP is talking about was an assassination squad:

Dick Cheney, the former vice president, ordered a highly classified CIA operation hidden from Congress because it pushed the limits of legality by planning to assassinate al-Qaida operatives in friendly countries without the knowledge of their governments, according to former intelligence officials.

Former counter-terrorism officials who retain close links to the intelligence community say that the hidden operation involved plans by the CIA and the military to launch operations, similar to those by Israel's Mossad intelligence service, to hunt down and kill al-Qaida activists abroad without informing the governments concerned, even though some were regarded as friendly if unreliable.

The CIA apparently did not put the plan in to operation but the US military did, carrying out several assassinations including one in Kenya that proved to be a severe embarrassment and helped lead to the quashing of the programme.

Is this the same thing Symon Hersh was talking about last year?

[Olo401]

First off, drop the "breaking the law" thing, it's not like Cheney was out stealing TV's, or selling drugs.

Neither was Bernard Madoff.

[*Shinzon*]

It's going around the news a lot that the programme in the OP is talking about was an assassination squad:


Is this the same thing Symon Hersh was talking about last year?

I think it might be for the most part. I also think at this point I'd like to concede my argument because I clearly suck at saying what I want to lol. Anyway Kuya nice work on all the evidence and stuff. I'd just like to say that as far as civilians go, I was referring to keep them out of the system. Not that they were actually part of it and that's probably why it was confusing to you.

As for Bureaucracy, I was referring to the Bureaucratic process. The process by which a decision is arrived at through a long drawn out step by step process involving politicians, specialists, and those who will be effected by the decision. I guess the easiest way to compare that to something is the Half moon Bay dredging situation. Where many people get involved to provide evidence, impact analysis, and argue effectiveness based on the evidence provided by experts to decide on the best course of action. Hope that clears up what I meant.