Damaging revelations make the CIA more risk averse
John Stokes 11:53am
The latest revelations about the CIA’s prospective covert assassination program is yet another nail in the coffin of US intelligence and its willingness to take risks.
Immediately after the World Trade Center attacks in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney called a meeting of intelligence chiefs to ask them what new powers they would like to fight terrorism. A whole laundry list was presented, including increased eavesdropping on Americans, the seizing of terrorists overseas and a torture program that evolved to include a number of foreign countries.
Since those early days in the war on terrorism, the intelligence community has been rocked by a series of revelations that began with the failure of find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and continued with the details of the rendition and torture program and the illegal interception of millions of communications by Americans.
And now the CIA stands accused of thinking about assassinating terrorists and not telling Congress about their plans. While the CIA has been killing terrorists using Predator drones for years, these other discussions involved possible killings on the streets of foreign capitals using more personal weapons. And, once again, Dick Cheney was at the heart of the matter and told the CIA not to notify Congress.
In fact, Cheney has an unusual role in all of this. It was he who unleashed the intelligence dogs of war post-9.11. But it was he who put a chill on the spooks by aggressively demanding that their intelligence showed links (which, in reality, were non-existent) between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. And it was Cheney who used his own political apparatus to polarise both Congress and the leaders of the intelligence community to fuel the leaks that have caused so much damage.
The result of all this has been a steady reduction in the number of risky covert operations. Today, it is very difficult to find any part of the intelligence community willing to authorise projects that might have been routine in the Cold War. With the possible exception of the Pentagon, no agency is prepared to do anything that might result in headlines or a congressional investigation.
This risk aversion is only going to get worse. Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is thinking of appointing a special prosecutor to investigate the intelligence community’s involvement in torture. A grand jury is looking into the destruction of videotapes that showed Al Qaeda suspects being tortured and a criminal prosecution of a senior CIA official is possible. And Congress is certain to demand blood over what it sees as routine lying by the CIA over the past ten years about the extent of secret covert activities.
The message for the intelligence community is very clear: you don’t actually need to do anything that might be considered illegal; even thinking about doing something is enough to kill your career.
Previous
Justicia
July 14th, 2009 12:39pm Report this commentThe CIA are not a rogue operation, they have rules that they must obey, and for good reason.
If a fair society is going to create an organization with wide ranging and secretive powers to defend itself, then it must be sure that they will not overstep their bounds.
The only risks the CIA may be less averse to now will be the ones that they should not take in any situation. It is ludicrous to suggest that not giving them free reign would somehow hinder them from doing their jobs; the US has perfectly good mechanisms in place for congressional consultation in secret. Use them.
- J
TomTom
July 14th, 2009 1:48pm Report this commentYou should read The Symington Committee Report into the great JFK who pledged US forces to keep Franco in power.
This is a red herring from Leon Panetta and is farcical. The CIA did not carry out any such missions...unfortunately.
Sheila
July 14th, 2009 1:52pm Report this comment"Demanding that their intelligence showed links (which, in reality, were non-existent) between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda" - that's not what ex-CIA chief George Tenet said in his book.
I'd personally like to thank Dick Cheney for what he has done to protect the American people.
The sooner these dreadful lawyers and politicians fall victim to their own de facto sponsorship of al Qaeda's terrorism, the better. They have never given a damn about ordinary people's safety and I'll be damned if I give two hoots about theirs.
Andre
July 14th, 2009 2:01pm Report this commentA few days ago I chortled through a Vince Flynn novel - could never happen really, I thought.
I'm not laughing now. Are we serious about winning the war on terror? I don't think so. do we understand the nature and the stratagems of the enemy? Apparently not. This is what comes of having elected politicians who have never commanded men under fire or run a commercial business. back to P G Wodehouse, methinks
Mirtha Tidville
July 14th, 2009 3:24pm Report this commentJust hope whatever happens, that someone manages to nail Cheney`s ass to a wall....The world is just a bit safer with him having left office Thank god..Vile man
Andre
July 14th, 2009 4:14pm Report this commentWell said Sheila. As for Mirtha Tidsville - you're talking through your colliery, dear
Max Kaye
July 14th, 2009 4:28pm Report this commentKilling terrorists - by whatever means - is a sound policy.
If the CIA can't do it, then this wet work will be sub-contracted.
Hysteria
July 14th, 2009 4:58pm Report this commentSo the main overseas secret intelligence agency were thinking about killing some of the opposition.
I am shocked ! Shocked I tell you !!
Robert Eve
July 14th, 2009 5:57pm Report this commentWe need some Dick Cheneys over here to defend the UK.
TGF UKIP
July 14th, 2009 6:31pm Report this commentInevitable that there will be another terorist attack on the US, so the more fuss that the Democratic Congress and Holder and the rest of the Obama Administration make the better.
Might not be too long before the US electorate are clamouring for Jeb Bush in 2012.
Conservative Cabbie
July 14th, 2009 8:20pm Report this commentTGF
"Might not be too long before the US electorate are clamouring for Jeb Bush in 2012."
Ha! Jeb Bush and Liz Cheney. Another eight years of a Bush-Cheney administration would be priceless.
Mirtha Tidville
July 14th, 2009 9:01pm Report this commentandre
I take it you are American!!
porkbelly
July 15th, 2009 3:07am Report this comment9/11 was a traumatic event for the American left since it punctured one of their fondest illusions: that the world is composed exclusively of rational, moral, decent people, and that the only thing that motivates enemies of the United States is well-founded anger at American crimes and sundry moral failings. Al Qaeda brought the left - briefly - to its senses (one wonders if the result would have been the same if they had targeted, say, Dallas?)
But as a forest regenerates after a devastating fire, so the mythology began to take shape again...and like any good fairytale it needed an ogre. How convenient was Dick Cheney - forever acting as though America ought to be defended by methods not sanctioned by the bureaucrats of Brussels, the Hague or Turtle Bay. The horror!
Surely any CIA covert operative with any sense of self-preservation will be requesting to transfer to the Office of Diversity and Community Outreach posthaste. One can only hope that Bin Laden has a stroke from laughing too hard at all this.
Sheila
July 15th, 2009 10:58am Report this commentNational Review explains the timing of this story:
Another Phony Scandal:
Of course the CIA was plotting to kill bin Laden.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjYxMzEyMmFmYzZkOWY1Y2NiNWU3YWM3NTNkNjEwMjk=
Andre
July 16th, 2009 12:34pm Report this commentMirtha
American? Hell no - am an anglo-scot once domiciled in De Cymru
Back to top