Panetta and CIA no Longer Going After Al Qaeda

We lost in Vietnam largely because our government did have the stomach (or political will) to put a 100% effort into securing a victory. Could it be that we will lose the war against terrorism and Al Qaeda for the same reason?

A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill Al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of Al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Panetta stopped.

The revelations about the CIA and its post-9/11 activities have emerged amid a renewed fight between the agency and congressional Democrats. Last week, seven Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee released a letter that talked about the CIA effort, which they said Panetta acknowledged hadn't been properly vetted with Congress. CIA officials had brought the matter to Panetta's attention and had recommended he inform Congress.

Neither Panetta nor the lawmakers provided details. Panetta quashed the CIA effort after learning about it June 23.

Read more...

What Government Does Well

Government does a lot of things badly. It does a few things well.

Generally speaking, anything that the private sector can do, it can do better than the government. The private sector is more efficient, quicker and often "smarter" than the government. There are some things that the private sector cannot do. National Security on a large scale (i.e., the operation of a military). Government doesn't do that very well. Hammers and toilet seats cost the government thousands of dollars more than they should. Nonetheless, the private sector will never be able to raise and maintain a military.

One thing the government does very well, however, is keep records. Government officials love to keep track of what they do and when they do it. Paperwork greases the wheels of government, ti seems.

It is this fact that will be the downfall of Nancy Pelosi. 

Even though Nancy says that the CIA is lying and can't get its facts straight, the CIA is meticulous about its record keeping. In fact, it's incumbent upon the CIA to keep track of things in an efficient and accurate manner. 

The CIA has no incentive to lie about this issue. They were doing something that they were told was legal. They had the support of the administration. And Nancy's reasons for the CIA lying make absolutely no sense, whatsoever. 

Nancy has every reason to lie. It is political suicide for her to admit she knew about waterboarding after spending the last three or four years joining the chorus of liberals who began to complain about the Bush administration policies.

Nancy is not going to come out on top of this one. The best she can hope for is that she will not lose her congressional seat. Many pundits are already saying she will not be able to remain Speaker of the House past the end of the summer.

I guess you could say that, Nancy Pelosi has the potential to become one of those 500 million people she thinks is losing a job every month.

Read more...

Security Before Politics

Porter J. Goss writes the following for the Washington Post:

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, "Why don't we have better overseas capabilities?" I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat -- or God forbid, another successful attack -- captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.

The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost.

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.

Read more...

Obama Flip-Flops on Investigation of Bush Administration

Under tremendous pressure from leftists politicians and other organizations, the Obama administration has changed its position on the potential investigation and prosecution of officials from the Bush administration over treatment of terrorists.

It appears that now the current administration is willing to allow, if not lead in, the investigation of the courageous men and women who tried to protect our nation and make us safer. Agree or not with the actual policies, this is a bad decision. These people did not violate any laws.

The same day, the Obama administration has taken the position that some 25 million illegal aliens are not actually here illegally. That's right. The official position is now that entering the country without documentation is not illegal. I've yet to read an explanation of this that makes any sense. Perhaps this has something to do with a relative of Obama being here illegally ... I mean, having entered the country without documentation.

Read more...

U.N. Official Blasts Obama's Decision not to Prosecute CIA Operatives

According to Manfred Nowak, an Austrian who serves as a U.N. torture investigator, Obama's decision not to prosecute CiA operatives who used questionable interrogation practices violates international law.

"They are party to the convention and the convention is very, very clear," Nowak said.  "The fact that you carried out an order doesn't relieve you of your responsibility."  

What Nowak omitted, however, makes things less clear.  The Geneva convention, to which he was referring, specifically prohibits torture of soldiers in an army.  It does not refer to terrorists.  The distinction is an important one, from a legal standpoint, regardless of which side of the "to torture or not to torture" issue you fall on.

This is another instance in which I must give Obama credit.  He made the correct decision here.  If you prosecute people in an administration for matters of policy, particularly when that policy is deemed legal by lawyers within the administration, it would be a huge mistake. Any future administration official or anyone in government working under that official would be at risk for retroactive punishment in any future administration that did not like that policy.

While I disagree with most of what Obama stands for, he has shown the ability to make the right call on occasion.  This is one of those times.

Read more...

Epic Fail

A short, but to the point, post.  Leon Panetta has been nominated for Director of the CIA by Barack Obama.  Epic Fail.

Read more...