Seymour Hersh - the very name is repulsive to most conservatives. He was the man who exposed the My Lai massacre by US troops in Vietnam, and since then has gained a bit of an evil reputation in the conservative community. Bush 43 adviser Richard Perle called Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist."
The reporter's most recent big story, as yet unproven, concerns his claim in March of an "executive assassination ring" which reported directly to then-Vice President Dick Cheney. Hersh has said, “Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or to the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving,” There was also a report that Hersh told an Arab television crew that the same unit was responsible for Benazir Bhutto's assassination. There is no hard evidence of this, but considering America's determination to preserve the dictators who work with us, one must admit the possibility exists, but until actual proof is presented, the allegation is only a possibility and nothing more.
Since the initial hullabaloo over Hersh's claim of the assassination ring, we've heard almost nothing—or have we? Just this week, CIA Director, Leon Panetta, briefed the House Intelligence Committee that on the previous day he had just shut a secret CIA program that had been in operation since 2001. None of the House Intelligence Committee members had EVER been briefed on this program. One of the members of the committee, Rep. Anna Eshoo, (D-CA), said she could not discuss what was a “highly classified program.” She did, however, note that when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what had been kept secret, “the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans.” A Republican committee member said it was something they hadn’t heard before.
It's really interesting that Director Panetta said the secret program had been in operation since 2001, because on January 3, 2001 Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) introduced House Resolution 19: Terrorist Elimination Act of 2001. Included in this resolution was a clause that ended the prohibition on assassinations of terrorists or those who support terrorists. It's easy to see how that last phrase could even include heads of state in the view of certain governmental hardliners of the past eight years. Fortunately, the bill never made it out of committee, but with the suspect coincidental timing of Hersh's claim, Director Panetta's briefing this week, and Bob Barr's bill in 2001, one must wonder if the Bush administration decided to continue with the intent of that particular clause in the bill. The content of Bush 43's signing statements, which were effectively government by executive decree as with any monarch, have not all been made public.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
I suspect that when this finally gets fully exposed we'll find that it was a plan which was considered and then rejected in favor of direct military intervention. There just haven't been enough assassinations of relevant targets to suggest that such a program was really in operation. Plus the idea that Bhutto was a target is just ridiculous. She would have been a perfectly reasonable ally in Pakistan. Plus Hersh has backed away from that claim already.
While Hersh has uncovered some real scandals, what he mostly does is make up stories on which he basically cannot be challenged because the evidence to contradict his claims would be classified or otherwise unobtainable. Too many of his stories are highly speculative and paranoid and driven by a clear political agenda.
Plus he lost most of his credibility when he predicted an impending US attack on Iran back in 2006 which was never even being considered and didn't happen.
Dave
2 - Ruvy
Hersh may be the purveyor of useless information - but assassination rings reporting to a high official in gov't makes sense. Shim'on Peres has been running one of those for years....
3 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
You're quick to pooh-pooh the possibility. For one thing, 'assassination' doesn't refer to only heads of state, but anyone the leader wants dead such as recalcitrant sheiks, uncooperative local leaders, union officials.
Second, I just found out that even current CIA Director Leon Panetta did not learn of the program until June 23, more than four months after he took over running the agency.
Now how secret is a CIA program if the doggone CIA DIRECTOR isn't informed about its existence until after he's been on the job for FOUR MONTHS?
"This wasn't an oversight. There was an order given [by VP Dick Cheney] to not inform Congress," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), chairman of the panel's oversight and investigations subcommittee.
Lawmakers learned of the program from CIA Director Leon Panetta at closed-door briefings June 24 for the House and Senate intelligence committees. The day before, CIA officials informed Panetta of the program and told him Congress had not been briefed. He then canceled it.
But you wanna know what's REALLY scary? The WP article goes on to state, "During the second half of the Bush administration, CIA officials did not consult with the administration about the program or take orders from Cheney to keep it secret, according to former agency officials who held senior posts at the time."
In other words, this program which was 'too secret' for the Congressional Intel Committees to know about, and 'too secret' to tell the Obama-nominated CIA director about, operated with NO OVERSIGHT from Congress or the Executive Branch - or from the CIA director himself!
This stinks like yesterday's bad fish, Dave. I wasn't willing to state my suspicion yesterday, but I'll say it now.
Death squads - operating with NO OVERSIGHT!
If this turns out to be true, Dave, will you then support prosecution for those responsible i.e. Dick Cheney?
4 - Clavos
Now how secret is a CIA program if the doggone CIA DIRECTOR isn't informed about its existence until after he's been on the job for FOUR MONTHS?
Since the CIA Director is not OF the CIA, but is a political appointee. that's not at all surprising. It probably is not the only thing he's not been made aware of, and that's likely true of EVERY CIA director, past as well as present.
Spooks are by definition secretive and suspicious of outsiders.
You're naive to think otherwise.
5 - Dave Nalle
You're quick to pooh-pooh the possibility. For one thing, 'assassination' doesn't refer to only heads of state, but anyone the leader wants dead such as recalcitrant sheiks, uncooperative local leaders, union officials.
Any examples of ANY of these sorts of people being assassinated inside or outside of the US? Hersh certainly doesn't provide any. That's the problem here. An assassination plot that doesn't actually KILL anyone isn't really all that interesting.
Now how secret is a CIA program if the doggone CIA DIRECTOR isn't informed about its existence until after he's been on the job for FOUR MONTHS?
Or perhaps the question is, how trivial, hypothetical and basically non-existent is it?
But you wanna know what's REALLY scary? The WP article goes on to state, "During the second half of the Bush administration, CIA officials did not consult with the administration about the program or take orders from Cheney to keep it secret, according to former agency officials who held senior posts at the time."
If I read that right, you're now saying that Cheney himself was not actually involved in the program which Hersh says he was heading. That makes no sense at all.
In other words, this program which was 'too secret' for the Congressional Intel Committees to know about, and 'too secret' to tell the Obama-nominated CIA director about, operated with NO OVERSIGHT from Congress or the Executive Branch - or from the CIA director himself!
OMG, it's a black op. We've never had one of those before.
This stinks like yesterday's bad fish, Dave. I wasn't willing to state my suspicion yesterday, but I'll say it now.
Death squads - operating with NO OVERSIGHT!
Again, name a single dead target.
If this turns out to be true, Dave, will you then support prosecution for those responsible i.e. Dick Cheney?
Glenn, I've previously endorsed the repeal of the 1977 ban on political assassination and the use of assassination as an alternative to miltary interventionism, so I'm not going to be enthusiastic about prosecuting anyone for pursuing it.
Dave
6 - Bliffle
"Assassination Ring"! Oh my g*d!
Does this mean that Cheney, at some state dinner, is going to pop the fake top of his special finger ring and dump poison in some foreign malefactors drink? Just like the Borgias of old!
Who says that Cheney is too cowardly to fight on the frontlines of the Global War On Terror?
7 - Dave Nalle
The latest on this non-story from the NYT and WaPo is that the entire "plot" basically consisted of a bull session on the issue which never resulted in any action or program of any kind.
More hysteria from those who are looking for some excuse to hold a witch hunt.
Dave
8 - Dan(Miller)
History repeats itself; perhaps it merely stutters.
How about the alleged attempt to kill Castro with an exploding cigar during the reign of Kennedy I. According to this article,
The bumbling idiots in the White House and our acclaimed spy agencies have tried everything from a U.S.- backed invasion force to exploding cigars, a Mob contract, a lethal wet suit, an exploding seashell, and some hair remover.
I suspect that VP Cheney liked the hair remover idea; he has even less than I do. However, I rather prefer poison on the tip of an umbrella. I wonder whether it works in the rain.
Dan(Miller)
9 - Bliffle
Cheney had an "Executive Assassination Ring"?
Then why didn't he pop the top on his ring and poison Saddam Hussein 10 years ago when he had a chance? Just like the Borgias. Would've saved a lot of US lives.
Oh. It's not that kind of ring?
Never mind.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos - "Since the CIA Director is not OF the CIA, but is a political appointee."
Hm. Let me see here - after the President and Vice-President, WHO is held responsible for the actions of the CIA? The DIRECTOR of the CIA. Please take no offense at this, Clavos, because I know you're going through a rough time, but your 'explanation' is one of the poorest excuses I've yet seen on BC - and I think you know it, too.
Dave - a CIA op too secret for the head of the CIA to know about? You're trying awful hard to claim that such was no big deal.
But I guess that's the 'conservative mindset these days - torture's okay, assassination's okay, invasions on false pretenses are okay, making millions of refugees from that invasion is okay, too...but don't you dare raise taxes or provide health insurance for tens of millions of Americans, oh, THAT's socialist!
11 - Clavos
after the President and Vice-President, WHO is held responsible for the actions of the CIA? The DIRECTOR of the CIA. And your point would be?
Mine is that those who are career CIA are not necessarily telling him about everything they're doing.
And I'm not presenting as an "excuse;" I see nothing to "excuse," since as you admit in the article, it's all rumor and innuendo, with no evidence.
If you read some of the spook literature out there, (and I don't mean fiction) you'll find that the career CIA people rarely, if ever, trust the Director with everything they do (or have done), and since it's their job, keeping things concealed from the rank amateurs usually appointed as director is child's play for them.
There have been some exceptions, but Panetta is not one of them; he's a politician, not a spook.
12 - Clavos
But I guess that's the 'conservative mindset these days - torture's okay, assassination's okay, invasions on false pretenses are okay, making millions of refugees from that invasion is okay, too...but don't you dare raise taxes or provide health insurance for tens of millions of Americans, oh, THAT's socialist!
No, actually it's just hyperbolic horseshit, like so many of your unsupported fulminations about the right.
13 - Dan(Miller)
Clav, I thought you knew:
"Liberal" = High minded, Honest, Rational, Unbiased, Well informed, Democrat.
"Conservative" = Selfish, Corrupt, Irrational, Dishonest, Bible thumping, Prejudiced, Ill-informed, Republican.
There. Does that help?
Dan(Miller)
14 - Clavos
I'm making myself some flashcards, Dan(Miller) so I can learn and not be confused anymore.
Thank you for setting me straight, my friend.
15 - Dave Nalle
Dave - a CIA op too secret for the head of the CIA to know about? You're trying awful hard to claim that such was no big deal.
No effort at all, actually, just common sense. He wasn't head of the CIA at the time, and by the time he was the "program" was long over and completely irrelevant, as it had never really existed beyond the discussion stage.
But I guess that's the 'conservative mindset these days
The "conservative" mindset is merely the desire not to leap before looking whether into danger or to stupid conclusions.
Dave
16 - Ruvy
"Liberal" = High minded, Honest, Rational, Unbiased, Well informed, Democrat.
"Conservative" = Selfish, Corrupt, Irrational, Dishonest, Bible thumping, Prejudiced, Ill-informed, Republican.
I notice that neither of these groups of pinheads have the phrase "fiscally responible" in their repertoires....
Hmmm....
17 - Christopher Rose
That's because they are just stupid stereotypes, Ruvy, not actual serious definitions.
18 - Ruvy
Chris - it's kinda simple to comprehend. You can thump a Bible, be high minded (or just high), be corrupt honest, dishonest or whatever and it all doesn't matter. Some idiot will listen to you and take you seriously.
If you can't pay your bills, you are not worth even listening to - you're nothing but a bum on the street. Having been there, I know haow that feels. And that is where both "liberals" and "conservatives" are headed for in America. And that is where America is headed, too.
19 - Glenn Contrarian
Here's a question for the conservatives here - at what point should a president and/or a vice president be held accountable for breaking the law?
As far as I can tell, conservatives only want the LAW to apply when it's a liberal under suspicion. But what have we heard from the conservatives on this blog concerning the plethora of laws (federal and international) broken by the Bush administration? "It's just a witch-hunt!" "It's irrelevant!" "It's just hyperbole!"
Uh-huh. Even today there are those in Japan who try to excuse, explain away, or pretend as fiction the atrocities committed by the Japanese during WWII.
I don't know which among the BC conservatives lusted for Clinton's impeachment or called for a murder investigation of Kennedy for Chappaquiddick (I did). I don't know which among the conservatives here called Clinton's actions concerning Bosnia and Kosovo "war crimes" and called for his prosecution for such...
...but if you have done so, and yet continue to defend the Bush admin's patently illegal invasion of Iraq (at the cost of so much blood and national treasure) and their strictly unconstitutional abuse of power...
...if you continue to defend these actions yet cry foul at the actions of the Democrats I mentioned, then you are hypocrites.
Note that I have called NO names - for calling out a particular person would be insulting and unproductive. My aim, rather, is to help those here who may have such hypocritical views to recognize that hypocrisy in themselves - as I did when I began my journey away from the conservative mindset.
Are you hypocrites? I can't answer that. Only you can. And if you are, then what do you call someone who knows he is a hypocrite but refuses to change his ways?
20 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
Two things - if the 'program' was long over when Panetta was informed of it, then why did he need to cancel it the day before he briefed Congress? Why were even the Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee 'stunned' at its existence?
Um, no. Stay away from the grape Kool-Aid, Dave - it's not good for you.
Clavos -
If the CIA spooks didn't trust Panetta enough to tell him the first day (since he was RESPONSIBLE the first day after he was appointed), then why did they tell him at all?
And if YOU took over a company and some of the executive committee of that company didn't tell you of something that company was doing that secret from the rest of the world and may have been illegal, would YOU say, "Oh, that's okay, because I'm not an insider like the rest of you are!" Would you say that?
Again, Clavos, that's a pretty doggone poor excuse, and I think you know it. If I were you, I'd leave that particular train of thought alone because it doesn't reflect well on you. You're better than that.
21 - Clavos
Excuse for whom, Glenn? My contentionis there's nothing to excuse, since there's no error, just a bunch of unsubstantiated rumors.
22 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, I don't agree with either your view that poor people aren't worth listening to or that America is heading towards an impoverished future.
I've learned a lot from some very poor people and been a very poor person too, without ever being troubled about it, for large parts of my life. Unlike some, I've also learned how to change that.
As to your views about the future of the US economy, you've made the same assertion many times now but you have never made anything like a remotely convincing case for it coming true, just wild assumptions about what the Chinese might do. Anyone would think you were ideologically loaded...
23 - roger nowosielski
If we were to go by Ruvy's own pronouncement of his material conditions, we should have stop listening to him ages ago, for he did state he's as poor as a church mouse.
24 - Dave Nalle
Glenn, I'm all for holding everyone accountable when they break the law. But discussing breaking the law is NOT the same as breaking that law, and that's all that seems to have happened with this "program." Again, until you can provide evidence of even one assassination there's no smoking gun here.
Dave
25 - Deano
I think you are dancing around the primary issue. My understanding is that the CIA is legally required to go through the Senate oversight committee. For Cheney to have allegedly ordered them not to tell Congress is the illegal act - not running an assassination squad, wire-tapping or holding an anti-terrorist knitting club...what it is specifically is irrelevant - the legal issue is the unlawful instruction to NOT report the program to the oversight commmittee.