http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/dick-cheney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf6Mg1FD76o

While this case is still under investigation, it is clear Dick Cheney broke the law.  If  he was indeed covertly conducting what Seymour Hersh calls an "executive assassination ring," he needs to be sentenced to federal prison, possibly for the rest of his life.  

In 1976 Republican President Gerald R. Ford signed an executive order that decreed:

“No employee of the United States government shall engage in or conspire to engage in political assassination.�

This post is a little discombobulated because I'm still trying to think this through myself.  Obama and AG Holder are frustratingly demure on this issue, perhaps even wimpy, when they need to be pursuing this matter as robustly as possible for the security of our nation.

Cheney had no business ordering the CIA to conceal its activities from Congress, and the CIA had no business following these orders.

>:(

This is a no-brainer. OF COURSE they should bring him up on charges! The Obama Administration has been saying that they want to move forward. I understand that. There is a lot to do and having investigations would be very distracting. However, on Jan. 20th when Obama raised his hand, he vowed to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!!! It is becoming more and more obvious that Cheney broke the law. As much as the Obama Administration wants to have this all go away, it is not. Everyday more and more evidence is coming to light. If they don't act upon it, they will be just as guilty as the Bush Administration and I think they know that which is why Eric Holder is debating to assign a special prosecutor.




Cat

What, we are going to charge a Vice President for promoting the assasination of AL Qaeda figures?

Them ain't part favors we've been dropping on them all these years.

Geeze.  When this whole thing broke out I thought they were gonna say that they were doing some sort of domestic surveillance in excess of what has already come out.

Trying to bust the CIA for running a covert op to kill Al Qaeda perps?  Gimme a break.

What, we are going to charge a Vice President for promoting the assasination of AL Qaeda figures?

Them ain't part favors we've been dropping on them all these years.

Geeze.  When this whole thing broke out I thought they were gonna say that they were doing some sort of domestic surveillance in excess of what has already come out.

Trying to bust the CIA for running a covert op to kill Al Qaeda perps?  Gimme a break.
nobody knew if they were al qaeda. no one knew who they were. that's the point,  above and beyond the fact it's illegal and antithetical to american values.

but you know, fick it, killin's cool. why not just commit whatever murder gives us wood? embrace lawlessness, cruelty and nihilism. it's great sexual fun until it's directed against you, just ask the nazis.

nobody knew if they were al qaeda. no one knew who they were. that's the point,  above and beyond the fact it's illegal and antithetical to american values.

but you know, fick it, killin's cool. why not just commit whatever murder gives us wood? embrace lawlessness, cruelty and nihilism. it's great sexual fun until it's directed against you, just ask the nazis.


What do you think those missiles are that O'bama is firing into Pakistan at Taliban and Al Qaeda figures?  We're blowing those suckers away 25, 45 at a time.  This is different than assassinating them?

What do you think those missiles are that O'bama is firing into Pakistan at Taliban and Al Qaeda figures?  We're blowing those suckers away 25, 45 at a time.  This is different than assassinating them?
yes, obviously. inflicting casualties in warfare is plainly different than committing targeted political assassination through covert means. what part of the distinction do you not understand? it's pretty straightforward.

for one thing, one's illegal, the other's not.

It's not a question of who they're out to kill.  That's a question of ethics and morality.  It's a question of law.  It appears covert assassination squads are against executive orders 11905 (Ford) and 12333 (Reagan).  Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is calling for a full investigation of this matter.  Furthermore, Cheney was apparently assuming a role in intelligence not delegated to the U.S. vice president by the U.S. Constitution or any subsequent legislation (do correct me if I'm wrong here).  

Cheney was obsesses with secrecy and made no bones about his beliefs that the Congress, let alone Joe Public, has no business snooping into his business --- which would be defined by him and him alone.

The old saw the Right likes to trot out about "keeping us safe from terrorists" does not cut the mustard with me any more than it would the Founding Fathers.

::)

Every intelligent government in history has sent covert missions against it's enemy.
Think about it.

These were not intended to be "political" assassinations from what I understand.
Not to influence the outcome of another country's destiny...
Special Ops are happening against our enemies right now.
It is war. Is it criminal, too?

Seriously. I think Cheney is a scary guy, and one evil mofo. But he had some good ideas.
Let's hope the new administration does as well with our national security.

Every intelligent government in history has sent covert missions against it's enemy.
Think about it.
er.. no, they haven't.  The US has, until one of its (and please note lack of apostrophe in possessive "its") presidents decided that this was no way for a civilized nation to behave.  I'm sure the UK used to do things like this, too, but I'm not aware of a public announcement that we were stopping; however when questioned, all PMs in recent history have denied that this sort of thing happens, even with regard to the IRA (and policy did seem to be "shoot first, ask questions later" with suspected IRA terrorists).


It is war. Is it criminal, too?

Yes - look at it this way: I'm assuming that you're American, so what would you think if Somali execution squads were operating in New York to take out people who they thought threatened things at home?  That would be illegal by American law, wouldn't it?  So why wouldn't it be illegal if an American were doing it elsewhere?


Seriously. I think Cheney is a scary guy, and one evil mofo. But he had some good ideas.

If they were good ideas, they should have been subject to review & democratic oversight; not (AIUI) kept hidden from the people who ought to be deciding whether these sorts of things happen, against the express executive orders of previous presidents.

Do you think he ever got round to telling his boss?  Did he keep Bush in the dark (for plausible deniability, presumably).. it's not very healthy: either the VP set up an illegal operation without telling his president, or the president himself is party to this sort of illegality.  Either option would not be entirely surprising, though: the previous administration did seem to take the attitude that law (especially international law) is something that only applies to other people.  I'm just hoping that the current one doesn't use the same faulty logic that because the US is the strongest nation militarily, that means they can do anything they want.

if it's it's, it's it is. if it's its, it's its.

if it's it's, it's it is. if it's its, it's its.

'tis

yes, obviously. inflicting casualties in warfare is plainly different than committing targeted political assassination through covert means. what part of the distinction do you not understand? it's pretty straightforward.

for one thing, one's illegal, the other's not.


OK, so if I know a Taliban guy is sitting in a house in Pakistan, it is OK to have a Predator drone fire a standoff missle at his house and blow him to smithereens.

But it is illegal if I send in a covert Special Ops team and put a bullet thru his head.

Am I correct?

OK, so if I know a Taliban guy is sitting in a house in Pakistan, it is OK to have a Predator drone fire a standoff missle at his house and blow him to smithereens.

But it is illegal if I send in a covert Special Ops team and put a bullet thru his head.

Am I correct?
i'm not sure if it doesn't only apply to political igures. but im not a lawyer. i know the military uses snipers so it's not the manner of killinf that's illegal per se.

In addition to the legal issues, there are practical ones involved.  There are numerous examples of the CIA undertaking covert ops that seemed to be successful at first but then backfired in the long (or not so long) run.  Iran is the most obvious, but all the attempts to assassinate Castro (some were rather ludicrous) only strengthened his hold on power and made him more "intractable" from the US perspective.  These kinds of tactics seldom work out as planned.

Iran is the most obvious,

with the possible exception of the Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam in Iraq ;)


OK, so if I know a Taliban guy is sitting in a house in Pakistan, it is OK to have a Predator drone fire a standoff missle at his house and blow him to smithereens.

But it is illegal if I send in a covert Special Ops team and put a bullet thru his head.

Am I correct?

No, it's illegal either way.

If, on the other hand, the Pakistan government (also wanting to get rid of Taliban chap) requests that the US send in a missile or a covert ops team, that's a different case altogether; similarly, if there is prior agreement with the Pakistan government.. but even then it's a bit on the dodgy side.

What the US cannot do legally is kill people at will ANYWHERE.

with the possible exception of the Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam in Iraq ;)
No, it's illegal either way.

If, on the other hand, the Pakistan government (also wanting to get rid of Taliban chap) requests that the US send in a missile or a covert ops team, that's a different case altogether; similarly, if there is prior agreement with the Pakistan government.. but even then it's a bit on the dodgy side.

What the US cannot do legally is kill people at will ANYWHERE.


Then where is the outrage at O'Bama as well as Clinton, who authorized similar operations (however ineffective) against Al Qaeda over the years?  Or Reagan when he bombed the living heck out of Qadaffi's crib?

American policy on the war against Al Qaeda and its harbourers (and that includes the Taleban) is that we will kill them anywhere we find them.  Period.  It is why we occasionally make missile strikes into Yemen and Somalia.  I have not heard O'Bama repudiate this position, because he believes it is a correct position.  Of course, he is attempting to do it in the most productive manner diplomatically speaking, and that's cool.

There's a real war going on out there, while some people in Washington are conducting their own war by shooting rubber bands and paper clips at government figures who are actively going after the bad guys.

By the way, I laud O'Bama for turning up the wick on those missile attacks at the Taleban who had/have been hiding in Pakistan.  Bush II lobbed the occasional missile into Pakistan, but O'Bama has opened a complete can of whoop ass on this front.

If the whole bloody crew behind Iran Contra, including Bedtime-for-Ronzo, were tried for treason in the '80s, it might have discouraged monsters like Cheney from pushing violent covert ops in the '00s.  Certainly, handling Iran Contra the right way would have been a blow to America's status on the world stage in the short run, but it would have allowed us to rebuild our intelligence policies, which had been sinking deeper into the sewer since WWII.


So now we face the same issues 25 years later.  Perhaps now is the time to do the right thing.

If the whole bloody crew behind Iran Contra, including Bedtime-for-Ronzo, were tried for treason in the '80s, it might have discouraged monsters like Cheney from pushing violent covert ops in the '00s.  Certainly, handling Iran Contra the right way would have been a blow to America's status on the world stage in the short run, but it would have allowed us to rebuild our intelligence policies, which had been sinking deeper into the sewer since WWII.


So now we face the same issues 25 years later.  Perhaps now is the time to do the right thing.


Treason?  Were any of that crowd accused of plotting against the United States of America?

Treason?  Were any of that crowd accused of plotting against the United States of America?


Yes.  When the President of the United States makes war without consent of the Congress, it is a treasonous act.  I know things have gotten murky since Tricky Dick, but I do try to wipe a few bugs off the windshield now and again.

::)

i'm not sure if it doesn't only apply to political igures. but im not a lawyer. i know the military uses snipers so it's not the manner of killinf that's illegal per se.

You mock my grammar yet post this kind of thing every day.
Whatever, man.  ::)



If they were good ideas, they should have been subject to review & democratic oversight; not (AIUI) kept hidden from the people who ought to be deciding whether these sorts of things happen, against the express executive orders of previous presidents.

I don't think covert ops are against any previous executive orders in time of war.
And too much oversight often leads to failure.

You mock my grammar yet post this kind of thing every day.
Whatever, man.  ::)


I don't think covert ops are against any previous executive orders in time of war.
And too much oversight often leads to failure.


"In a time of war" can be used to justify anything when you're dealing with fascists.

"In a time of war" can be used to justify anything when you're dealing with fascists.


You oppose the death penalty, Max.
So we obviously disagree...  ;)

Yes.  When the President of the United States makes war without consent of the Congress, it is a treasonous act.  I know things have gotten murky since Tricky Dick, but I do try to wipe a few bugs off the windshield now and again.

::)


You'd better check your law books on the meaning of treason.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines "treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. "

You'd better check your law books on the meaning of treason.

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines "treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offence is punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. "


Selling weapons to Iran and funneling the money to to paramilitary death squads in Nicaragua might rise to the occasion, though it's a stretch.  So maybe not treason.  Reagan was just a goddam dirty crook who should have been impeached and thrown in federal prison.

Anyway, that's all blood under the bridge, and would never have been a hypothetical if Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon.  If Tricky Dick spent a few years in the hoosegow, it might have sent a discouraging message to future administrations about fudging with the Constitution.


Well, back to the old drawing board!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/coffee.gif

I don't think covert ops are against any previous executive orders in time of war.
And too much oversight often leads to failure.

Since when has the US been at war with Pakistan?

Answer the question I asked:

Yes - look at it this way: I'm assuming that you're American, so what would you think if Somali execution squads were operating in New York to take out people who they thought threatened things at home?  That would be illegal by American law, wouldn't it?  So why wouldn't it be illegal if an American were doing it elsewhere?

.. would it make any difference if at the time Somalia was at war with Mexico or Canada?

As for too much oversight.. too little would be just as much of an oversight.  What you're arguing here is that for reasons that don't have to be given to anybody, a group of people can go anywhere in the world and kill anyone they want to.

And you're happy with that?


Then where is the outrage at O'Bama as well as Clinton, who authorized similar operations (however ineffective) against Al Qaeda over the years?  Or Reagan when he bombed the living heck out of Qadaffi's crib?
With respect to Obama, you answered your own question:


Of course, he is attempting to do it in the most productive manner diplomatically speaking, and that's cool.

But I don't feel so outraged at Obama because he's having to clean up somebody else's mess: the odds are extremely high that had Bush not been president, the situation in the Middle East would be significantly different... maybe even without the necessity to send in the drones to a "friendly" country.


There's a real war going on out there, while some people in Washington are conducting their own war by shooting rubber bands and paper clips at government figures who are actively going after the bad guys.
One of the problems I have with precisely that attitude is that the people "actively going after the bad guys" are actively making more bad guys with their attitude that it is preferable to take out an indeterminate number of unconnected civilians to try an make sure they don't miss a target they're not 100% sure is there at all.

To reverse the roles: would you be happy with the idea of the 9/11 attacks if there was somebody in one of the buildings the terrorists thought was a threat, and needed to be "taken out"?

With respect to Obama, you answered your own question:
But I don't feel so outraged at Obama because he's having to clean up somebody else's mess:

But if you feel that executing Al Qaeda figures is illegal, "cleaning up somebody's mess" hardly serves as an excuse.  It is like two kids who get collared by their mom and one of them says "It isn't my fault Mom, Billy made me do it!".

Executions of Al Qaeda figures, who have sworn to the USA as a mortal enemy and who are impolementing attacks against American people, are justifiable by the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

To those who have referred to Gerald Ford's Executive Order banning assassinations of foreign leaders, it was indeed in effect until then-President Bush II issued his own Executive Order to hunt down and kill as many Al Qaeda operatives as possible.  The Ford Doctrine was not a matter of legislative law, it was an executive directive which Bush was fully empowered to reverse.  And it appears that President O'Bama has no problem snuffing out the Al Qaeda leaders either.

As a final note... if there is anybody out there who for one moment does not think that the USA has operatives on the ground in Pakistan looking for Al Qaeda leaders, to target them for assasination, you are extremely naive.  We have "feet on the ground" in all the fundamentalist hot spots, and they are not there to sample the local food.

Your analogy is poor: Obama has been left by his predecessor in a lose-lose situation in that part of the world.  "What is the right thing to do" becomes a question of what is going to cause least harm.  That isn't a "he made me do it" sort of excuse, it's a "if I had done anything else, worse things would have happened".

You make it sound so precise and clinical: "executions of Al Qaeda figures"... what about the "collateral damage"?  The people who die because they happen to live in the wrong village? 

The US has no right and no justification to kill whoever they happen to think may be involved with Al Qaeda in a sovereign country without the express permission of the government of that country.  The difference in Pakistan now, of course, is that the Islamist insurgence is spreading there, and the government wants rid of it.. it's a bit ironic, because if the US hadn't started bombing that part of the world, local support for Al Q/Taliban types would be relatively small.

I didn't say "executing Al Qaeda figures" is illegal, I said any killing in a foreign country.. thinks.. come to think of it.. killing like that in your own country would probably not be too well thought of: what do you think the headlines would have been like if the army had decided to take out Tim McVeigh by sending a missile into whichever farm or apartment building he happened to be in?

Since when has the US been at war with Pakistan?



One of the enumerated powers of CONGRESS is to declare war.  Congress has not done so since Dec 8th 1941.  Therefore the United States is not at war anywhere in the world.  The use of military force, on a limited basis, is legal without a declaration.

I'd like to find more info because it looks like Ford signed that because he didn't want another Watergate.

And I really, really, really DON'T like Cheney...he's such a dick!