Hayden: CIA assassination program 'would be valuable'

[Ret10Echo]

Hayden: CIA assassination program 'would be valuable'

September 1, 2009 - 5:00am


WASHINGTON - The ability to kill dangerous terrorists through a CIA assassination program other than missile strikes would be of value to the United States, former CIA Director Michael Hayden tells WTOP.

"Without confirming or denying what the nature of the program is, the fact that three different directors over the course of seven years returned to the issue, I think you'd have to say, 'Yes, it was valuable,'" Hayden says.

As new details about the program emerge, there are still more questions than answers. One of those questions is whether Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the CIA to keep quiet about the program.

"I was never directed by the vice president, as some have alleged about this program, not to brief this or frankly anything else to Congress. If Congress feels that we should have told them more about this program, my only response would be that this program didn't meet a threshold for me to even brief inside the Executive Branch," Hayden says.

Although it has yet to acknowledge a role in a series of controversial missile strikes, the CIA is credited with successfully eliminating a significant number of government-labeled "high-value-targets," believed to occupy senior positions in al-Qaida.

Since 2007, hundreds of suspected terrorists have been killed in more than four dozen missile strikes the U.S. is believed to have launched inside Pakistan. Among those confirmed dead are some of al-Qaida best connected and talented explosives experts, recruiters and facilitators.

The Taliban recently lost its charismatic leader Baitullah Mehsud to a strike.

High Profile Terrorists Killed in Missile Strikes in Pakistan Since August 2008:


Khalid Habib (veteran combat leader and operations chief involved with plots to attack the West; deputy to Shaikh Sa'id al-Masri, al-Qaida's No. 3)
Rashid Rauf (mastermind of the 2006 transatlantic airliner plot)
Abu Khabab al-Masri (al-Qaida's most seasoned explosives expert and trainer, and the man responsible for its chemical and biological weapons efforts)
Abdallah Azzam (senior aide to Sheikh Sa'id al-Masri)
Abu al-Hassan al-Rimi (led cross-border operations against coalition forces in Afghanistan)
Abu Sulaiman al-Jaziri* (senior external operations planner and facilitator)
Abu Jihad al-Masri (senior operational planner and propagandist)
Usama al-Kini (marriott hotel attack planner and listed on the FBI's terrorist most wanted list)
Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan (involved in the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania)
Abu Sulaiman al-Jaziri* (senior trainer and external operations plotter)
Baitullah Mehsud (leader of the Pakistani Taliban)

* Two different people
But al-Qaida's top leadership is still at large and that, for current intelligence community officials who asked to remain anonymous, validates the need to look at other options for capturing or killing them.

The assassins program never got the traction it need to go operational, Hayden says.

"{The operational status} was very, very difficult to achieve as different approaches were tried and discarded. The activity went dormant for a while and then people were reminded that indeed we'd want to have this capacity and other ideas were surfaced."

Current CIA Director Leon Panetta killed the program in late June after being briefed of its existence and potential problems with the program.

A part of the problem for the agency has been its relationship with the Department of Defense:

"In tracking and targeting al-Qaida's leadership, Senior U.S. intelligence community officials have conceded that the line separating Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and DOD intelligence activities has blurred, making it more difficult to distinguish between the traditional secret intelligence missions carried out by each. They also have acknowledged that the U.S. Intelligence Community confronts a major challenge in clarifying the roles and responsibilities of various intelligence agencies with regard to clandestine activities," according to a July 6, 2009 report prepared by the Congressional Research Service for members of Congress.

Questions remain about the assassins program, and media reports revealing the CIA hired security contractor Blackwater to support the program point out that the blurred lines between DOD and CIA are not the only problems.

Apparently, relationships between some former CIA personnel and Blackwater were very close. The door appears to be open for further inquiry from Congress about why members of Congress never heard more about this program.

The CIA describes the program as "on-again-off-again" and "never operational."

And that's the main reason Hayden says he never talked about it with Congress.

"I never talked to the president about this. I never talked to the vice president about this. I never talked to the national security adviser about this or the national security adviser's deputy about this. That's kind of the batting order of folks with whom you generally have these kinds of discussions," Hayden says.

But, Hayden says, considering nature of the threat, there was some merit to the idea.

"It has been described as this one continuous seven-plus-year program. I think, more accurately, over the course of seven years, three different directors, three different attempts, three different offices within the agency took a crack at developing a capacity that everyone agreed we'd want to have," Hayden says.

It's OK to assassinate with a missile but not OK to do it up close and personal? Hey democrats... WTF?

[rubberneck]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

It's OK to assassinate with a missile but not OK to do it up close and personal? Hey democrats... WTF?

I guess as long as there is sufficient collateral damage it makes it seem less unseemly. I would really like to know what color the sky is in their world.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

It's OK to assassinate with a missile but not OK to do it up close and personal? Hey democrats... WTF?

Oh boy. . . sigh. Here we go.
First read this. http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/ig/Di...EO%2012333.pdf
Now Lets consider that The United States is a member in good standing in the world community, and that this good standing is valuable. As such, we abide by the Hague Conventions and Regulation Article 23B (circa 1907) that outlaws assassination. Then, and more importantly, there is Executive Order 12333 "Executive Order 12333 is the Reagan Administration’s successor to an Executive Order renouncing assassination first promulgated in the Ford Administration. Paragraph 2.11 of EO 12333 states that “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” How far back does this thinking go, try this quote from the link "The scope of assassination in the U.S. military was first outlined in U.S. Army General Orders No. 100 (1863)."

Maybe our problem with assassination is summed up by the defination of the word, assassinate. 1) to murder. 2) to destroy or injure treacherously.
We don't murder (even when we think it is deserved, even if we think it effecient or effective). We are not treacherous.

WTF indeed.

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Oh boy. . . sigh. Here we go.
First read this. http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/ig/Di...EO%2012333.pdf
Now Lets consider that The United States is a member in good standing in the world community, and that this good standing is valuable. As such, we abide by the Hague Conventions and Regulation Article 23B (circa 1907) that outlaws assassination. Then, and more importantly, there is Executive Order 12333 "Executive Order 12333 is the Reagan Administration’s successor to an Executive Order renouncing assassination first promulgated in the Ford Administration. Paragraph 2.11 of EO 12333 states that “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” How far back does this thinking go, try this quote from the link "The scope of assassination in the U.S. military was first outlined in U.S. Army General Orders No. 100 (1863)."

Maybe our problem with assassination is summed up by the defination of the word, assassinate. 1) to murder. 2) to destroy or injure treacherously.
We don't murder (even when we think it is deserved, even if we think it effecient or effective). We are not treacherous.

WTF indeed.

I think you missed two important points I was trying to make. The minor point was I used a small "d" democrats, i.e. not the party. I could have used "liberals." Second, how does one differentiate murder by targeting a specific person by hunting for them with an unpiloted vehicle and executing with a missile and your concept of murder?

[rubberneck]

I am confused by the distinction between targeting high level AQ operatives and assassinating them. Are they not essentially the same? Does the status of the person you target make a distinction between a valid target and an assassination? For instance I thought that the Executive order by Ford applied only to heads of state. I guess I am just missing the entire picture here. To me, the lay person, it seems like there is functionally no difference between targeting a person and assassinating them. I know one is legal and the other isn't I thought it was always done that way to avoid having to admit that is exactly what was being done.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

I think you missed two important points I was trying to make. The minor point was I used a small "d" democrats, i.e. not the party. I could have used "liberals." Second, how does one differentiate murder by targeting a specific person by hunting for them with an unpiloted vehicle and executing with a missile and your concept of murder?

Oh, lower case 'democrat' well . . . that's different. Sort of like using a lower case 'catholic' to mean 'universal' rather then make a blanket statement about a member of the religion? I guess I don't get it.

To your second question about differenting the means of killing (we don't 'execute' either) Try this quote from about the middle of the memorandum. >> Ya could read it, ya know << The address does says USMC. It's written by the ARMY JAG). " Assassination in wartime. Assassination in wartime takes on a different meaning. As Clausewitz noted, war is a “continuation of political activity by other means." In wartime the role of the military includes the legalized killing (as opposed to murder) of the enemy, whether lawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents, and may include in either category civilians who take part in the hostilities.
The term assassination when applied to wartime military activities against enemy combatants or military objectives does not preclude acts of violence involving the element of surprise. Combatants are liable to attack at any time or place, regardless of their activity when attacked. Nor is a distinction made between combat and combat service support with regard to the right to be attacked as combatants; combatants are subject to attack if they are participating in hostilities through fire, maneuver, and assault; providing logistic, communications, administrative, or other support; or functioning as staff planners. An individual combatant’s vulnerability to lawful targeting (as opposed to assassination) is not dependent upon his or her military duties, or proximity to combat as such. Nor does the prohibition on assassination limit means that otherwise are lawful; no distinction is made between an attack accomplished by aircraft, missile, naval gunfire, artillery, mortar, infantry assault, ambush, landmine or booby trap, a single shot by a sniper, a commando attack, or other, similar means. All are lawful means for attacking the enemy and the choice of one vis-à-vis another has no bearing on the legality of the attack. If the person attacked is a combatant, the use of a particular lawful means for attack (as opposed to another) cannot make an otherwise lawful attack either unlawful or assassination.

And as to Rubberneck's comment
"Likewise, the death of noncombatants ancillary to the lawful attack of a military objective is neither assassination nor otherwise unlawful. Civilians and other noncombatants who are within or in close proximity to a military objective assume a certain risk through their presence in or proximity to such targets; this is not something about which an attacking military force normally would have knowledge or over which it would have control."

BTW "unprivileged belligerents" is a really good term to understand.

[Richard]

To me, the lay person, it seems like there is functionally no difference between targeting a person and assassinating them.

Merely wordsmithing to ensure its acceptable to the moral conscience levels du jour of the voting public.

Americans should read USA by Dos Pasos or any of the works discussing the politics of creating terms deemed palaable for public consumption such as collateral damage, surgical strike, and the like.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[Vic]

Obviously there is a huge turn around on the subject when moving from peace time to a time of war. And this is the real question we should be asking: Will this war ever end? Of course we can assassinate during war, it would be beyond foolish to militarily to withhold such a tool. If this war is one in which we admit might never have an end, and we continue to call ourselves at war, then the distinction between war and peace time is meaningless.
Also, who is a combatant: a man with a rifle, a woman with a great knowledge of chemistry, an old guy with a gift for fiery rhetoric, a group of hopelessly indoctrinated youths? The slope is slippery.

[The Reaper]

As I understand it, it is illegal to assassinate, by Executive Order, I believe dating back to the Carter Administration.

OTOH, you can target command and control elements all you want, and the leadership it part of that target set.

TR

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Vic

Obviously there is a huge turn around on the subject when moving from peace time to a time of war.
No there isn't. That is why we write doctrine during peacetime to prevent slap-a-dasical seat of the pants reactions
And this is the real question we should be asking: Will this war ever end?
Not me, I NEVER ask questions if I don't think I can live with the answer. I don't ask that question because the answer should be"when we have accomplished all of our National Objectives". And I don't think that is the answer I'd get. Can't really put a time limit on it. And when you do we have to abandon some National Objectives.
Of course we can assassinate during war, it would be beyond foolish to militarily to withhold such a tool.
No we can't because it isn't a tool. It's murder.
If this war is one in which we admit might never have an end, and we continue to call ourselves at war, then the distinction between war and peace time is meaningless.
Didn't seem to bother us between 1945 and 1999. Would you feel better if we were talking about diplomacy? You aren't bothered when diplomacy might never end, are you? Isn't warfare just Diplomacy by different means? Nothing is really meaningless where human beings with weapons are involved.
Also, who is a combatant: a man with a rifle, a woman with a great knowledge of chemistry, an old guy with a gift for fiery rhetoric, a group of hopelessly indoctrinated youths?
Read http://hqinet001.hqmc.usmc.mil/ig/Di...EO%2012333.pdf
The slope is slippery.
Not really, if you study our craft.

Originally Posted by Dozer523

To your second question about differenting the means of killing (we don't 'execute' either) Try this quote from about the middle of the memorandum. >> Ya could read it, ya know << The address does says USMC. It's written by the ARMY JAG). " Assassination in wartime. Assassination in wartime takes on a different meaning. As Clausewitz noted, war is a “continuation of political activity by other means." In wartime the role of the military includes the legalized killing (as opposed to murder) of the enemy, whether lawful combatants or unprivileged belligerents, and may include in either category civilians who take part in the hostilities.
The term assassination when applied to wartime military activities against enemy combatants or military objectives does not preclude acts of violence involving the element of surprise. Combatants are liable to attack at any time or place, regardless of their activity when attacked. Nor is a distinction made between combat and combat service support with regard to the right to be attacked as combatants; combatants are subject to attack if they are participating in hostilities through fire, maneuver, and assault; providing logistic, communications, administrative, or other support; or functioning as staff planners. An individual combatant’s vulnerability to lawful targeting (as opposed to assassination) is not dependent upon his or her military duties, or proximity to combat as such. Nor does the prohibition on assassination limit means that otherwise are lawful; no distinction is made between an attack accomplished by aircraft, missile, naval gunfire, artillery, mortar, infantry assault, ambush, landmine or booby trap, a single shot by a sniper, a commando attack, or other, similar means. All are lawful means for attacking the enemy and the choice of one vis-à-vis another has no bearing on the legality of the attack. If the person attacked is a combatant, the use of a particular lawful means for attack (as opposed to another) cannot make an otherwise lawful attack either unlawful or assassination.

I'm truly impressed at how many words it took to attempt to make a distinction without a difference. Send in a drone with a rocket, it's OK. Send in a team with a gun or other lethal method and it's not.

The only prohibition on assassination that I am aware of is the prohibition against assassinating a country's leader as the Kennedys tried to do with Castro before the executive order was in place.

[The Reaper]

FYI. More at the link.

TR

http://www.trialbriefs.com/politicalassassination.htm

Executive Orders

How have U.S. presidents used executive orders to address the issue of political assassination?

In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign-intelligence activities. In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford concisely but explicitly outlawed political assassination:

5(g) Prohibition on Assassination. No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford’s prohibition on assassinations. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination:

In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition:

2.11 No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

[Richard]

My question is - has Congress - the only branch of government with Constitutional authority to do so - declared WAR on anybody? And if not...???

As far as EO 12333 - Assassination Ban - a good discussion by the Congressional Research Service's Report to Congress on the matter is at: http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21037.pdf

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

I'm truly impressed at how many words it took to attempt to make a distinction without a difference. .

It's probably a "Lawyer thing".