More than 30 years after their pathetic attempts to kill Castro came to light the CIA is still incapable of assassinating anybody. :bleeding:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32484932/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/
QuoteBlackwater tied to CIA assassination plot
Millions were spent on program, which did not capture or kill any suspects
By Mark Mazzetti
updated 11:04 p.m. ET, Wed., Aug 19, 2009
WASHINGTON - The Central Intelligence Agency in 2004 hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials.
Executives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects.
The fact that the C.I.A. used an outside company for the program was a major reason that Leon E. Panetta, the new C.I.A. director, became alarmed and called an emergency meeting to tell Congress that the agency had withheld details of the program for seven years, the officials said.
It is unclear whether the C.I.A. had planned to use the contractors to capture or kill Qaeda operatives, or just to help with training and surveillance. American spy agencies have in recent years outsourced some highly controversial work, including the interrogation of prisoners. But government officials said that bringing outsiders into a program with lethal authority raised deep concerns about accountability in covert operations.
Officials said that the C.I.A. did not have a formal contract with Blackwater for this program but instead had individual agreements with top company officials, including the founder, Erik D. Prince, a politically connected former member of the Navy Seals and the heir to a family fortune. Blackwater's work on the program actually ended years before Mr. Panetta took over the agency, after senior C.I.A. officials themselves questioned the wisdom of using outsiders in a targeted killing program.
Blackwater, which has changed its name, most recently to Xe Services, and is based in North Carolina, in recent years has received millions of dollars in government contracts, growing so large that the Bush administration said that it was a necessary part of its war operation in Iraq.
Excessive force?
It has also drawn controversy. Blackwater employees hired to guard American diplomats in Iraq were accused of using excessive force on several occasions, including shootings in downtown Baghdad in 2007 in which 17 civilians were killed. Iraqi officials have since refused to renew the company's operating license.
Several current and former government officials interviewed for this article spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they were discussing details of a still classified program.
Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, declined to provide details about the canceled program, but he said that Mr. Panetta's decision on the assassination program was "clear and straightforward."
"Director Panetta thought this effort should be briefed to Congress, and he did so," Mr. Gimigliano said. "He also knew it hadn't been successful, so he ended it."
A Xe spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, also declined to give details of the program. But she praised Mr. Panetta for notifying Congress. "It is too easy to contract out work that you don't want to accept responsibility for," she said.
The C.I.A. this summer conducted an internal review of the assassination program that recently was presented to the White House and the Congressional intelligence committees. The officials said that the review stated that Mr. Panetta's predecessors did not believe that they needed to tell Congress because the program was not far enough developed.
The House Intelligence Committee is investigating why lawmakers were never told about the program. According to current and former government officials, former Vice President Dick Cheney told C.I.A. officers in 2002 that the spy agency did not need to inform Congress because the agency already had legal authority to kill Qaeda leaders.
One official familiar with the matter said that Mr. Panetta did not tell lawmakers that he believed that the C.I.A. had broken the law by withholding details about the program from Congress. Rather, the official said, Mr. Panetta said he believed that the program had moved beyond a planning stage and deserved Congressional scrutiny.
"It's wrong to think this counterterrorism program was confined to briefing slides or doodles on a cafeteria napkin," the official said. "It went well beyond that."
Current and former government officials said that the C.I.A.'s efforts to use paramilitary hit teams to kill Qaeda operatives ran into logistical, legal and diplomatic hurdles almost from the outset. These efforts had been run by the C.I.A.'s counterterrorism center, which runs operations against Al Qaeda and other terrorist networks.
In 2002, Blackwater won a classified contract to provide security for the C.I.A. station in Kabul, Afghanistan, and the company maintains other classified contracts with the C.I.A., current and former officials said.
Over the years, Blackwater has hired several former top C.I.A. officials, including Cofer Black, who ran the C.I.A. counterterrorism center immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks.
C.I.A. operatives also regularly use the company's training complex in North Carolina. The complex includes a shooting range used for sniper training.
An executive order signed by President Gerald R. Ford in 1976 barred the C.I.A. from carrying out assassinations, a direct response to revelations that the C.I.A. had initiated assassination plots against Fidel Castro of Cuba and other foreign politicians.
The Bush administration took the position that killing members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked the United States and has pledged to attack it again, was no different from killing enemy soldiers in battle, and that therefore the agency was not constrained by the assassination ban.
But former intelligence officials said that employing private contractors to help hunt Qaeda operatives would pose significant legal and diplomatic risks, and they might not be protected in the same way government employees are.
Some Congressional Democrats have hinted that the program was just one of many that the Bush administration hid from Congressional scrutiny and have used the episode as a justification to delve deeper into other Bush-era counterterrorism programs.
But Republicans have criticized Mr. Panetta's decision to cancel the program, saying he created a tempest in a teapot.
"I think there was a little more drama and intrigue than was warranted," said Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.
Officials said that the C.I.A. program was devised partly as an alternative to missile strikes using drone aircraft, which have accidentally killed civilians and cannot be used in urban areas where some terrorists hide.
Yet with most top Qaeda operatives believed to be hiding in the remote mountains of Pakistan, the drones have remained the C.I.A.'s weapon of choice. Like the Bush administration, the Obama administration has embraced the drone campaign because it presents a less risky option than sending paramilitary teams into Pakistan.
This article, "C.I.A. Sought Blackwater's Help in Plan to Kill Jihadists," originally appeared in The New York Times.
Sounds like the biggest crime was the pissing away of a lot of taxpayer money.
The CIA has assassinated plenty of people. :huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
The CIA has assassinated plenty of people. :huh:
Shh. Tim likes his urban legends.
Am I the only one extremely disgusted at how Blackwater seems to be a government entity on one side, a private entity with a plasusible deniability on the other side, and a well-connected entity sucking up billions upon billions of taxpayer money in general? It almost seems like they're the goons hired by the government to do the dirty business for them.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
The CIA has assassinated plenty of people. :huh:
If they used Predator drones it don't count, that's an air-strike, not an assassination.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 11:01:44 AM
If they used Predator drones it don't count, that's an air-strike, not an assassination.
:huh:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 11:05:49 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 20, 2009, 11:04:15 AM
:huh:
If they use a sniper team it's a ground assault.
If they use a poisoned drink it is a poisoning, not an assasination.
CIA can't do shit.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 11:07:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 11:05:49 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 20, 2009, 11:04:15 AM
:huh:
If they use a sniper team it's a ground assault.
If they use a poisoned drink it is a poisoning, not an assasination.
Technically it's only an assassination if the person is kicked to death by a donkey.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 11:00:50 AM
Am I the only one extremely disgusted at how Blackwater seems to be a government entity on one side, a private entity with a plasusible deniability on the other side, and a well-connected entity sucking up billions upon billions of taxpayer money in general? It almost seems like they're the goons hired by the government to do the dirty business for them.
Yeah, I tend to agree with you for the most part. Blackwater has been accused, and convicted, of some nasty stuff in Iraq. They've changed their name, last I heard. Seems like a real goon squad outfit. And there's so much need for the security services that they offer, but they (pardon the pun) seem to shoot themselves in the foot, using their own weapons.
I'm thinking the govt hired them to do other work that would be harder to link to the US govt, targeting AQ, probably in neutral countries, so that the US govt isn't seen as doing it if they used CIA or soldiers.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 11:07:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 11:05:49 AM
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 20, 2009, 11:04:15 AM
:huh:
If they use a sniper team it's a ground assault.
If they use a poisoned drink it is a poisoning, not an assasination.
No, those two would both count as an assassination. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 20, 2009, 11:18:53 AM
No, those two would both count as an assassination. :contract:
But blowing a dude up with a missile wouldn't? I don't get it. Is it just because they might be killing a bunch of other people at the same time?
Tim wants cool Bond-esc murders
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 11:30:47 AM
Tim wants cool Bond-esc murders
I demand laser tables.
Not cool enough. you need a gentlemans cane that shots out poison gas, or a wrist watch witha hidden garrat line.
It's only an assassination if the person being killed is important enough to merit the term when they are killed or there is an attempt. otherwise it's murder. ie: Castro supposedly has had many assassination attempts on his person, but has +2 luck against assassination. Ed Anger killing Timmy and burying his corpse in Cal's backyard is a simple murder. :contract:
QuoteNot cool enough. you need a gentlemans cane that shots out poison gas, or a wrist watch witha hidden garrat line.
Okay, but only if we can also have Oddjob bowler hats.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 20, 2009, 11:08:33 AM
CIA can't do shit.
Yes, they can. You just don't hear about a lot of the stuff they do.
I know: things :shifty:
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 11:00:50 AM
It almost seems like they're the goons hired by the government to do the dirty business for them.
I think that is their official charter. What's the problem?
Who cares? The US government chose to officially endorse torture. That's a bigger deal.
Quote from: The Brain on August 20, 2009, 12:20:02 PM
Who cares? The US government chose to officially endorse torture. That's a bigger deal.
I can't believe that I agree with The Brain. :cry:
Quote from: Scipio on August 20, 2009, 12:22:23 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 20, 2009, 12:20:02 PM
Who cares? The US government chose to officially endorse torture. That's a bigger deal.
I can't believe that I agree with The Brain. :cry:
I can change for you. :)
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2009, 12:16:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 11:00:50 AM
It almost seems like they're the goons hired by the government to do the dirty business for them.
I think that is their official charter. What's the problem?
The problem is that there is a good reason we don't want our government to do dirty business, in spirit and not just in letter.
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2009, 12:16:49 PM
I think that is their official charter. What's the problem?
Dirty deeds done outrageously expensively?
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: derspiess on August 20, 2009, 12:16:49 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 11:00:50 AM
It almost seems like they're the goons hired by the government to do the dirty business for them.
I think that is their official charter. What's the problem?
The problem is that there is a good reason we don't want our government to do dirty business, in spirit and not just in letter.
Personally I don't see why the US government would need someone to do thinks like run child prostitution rings.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:03:10 PM
Ed Anger killing Timmy and burying his corpse in Cal's backyard is a simple murder. :contract:
Dude, wtf, OPSEC. :ultra:
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 12:36:10 PM
The problem is that there is a good reason we don't want our government to do dirty business, in spirit and not just in letter.
Are you against all black ops?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 12:50:18 PM
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 12:36:10 PM
The problem is that there is a good reason we don't want our government to do dirty business, in spirit and not just in letter.
Are you against all black ops?
Against all black ops that the government is prohibited from conducting.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:03:10 PM
Ed Anger killing Timmy and burying his corpse in Cal's backyard is a simple murder. :contract:
the woods are usually better dumping grounds for corpses. A little chemical cocktail, some trashbags, an 8 foot+ hole and voila! Easy body burying.
Not that I'd ever hurt timmay. His feelings, maybe.
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 12:53:15 PM
Against all black ops that the government is prohibited from conducting.
AFAIK that's only assassinating heads of government.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 12:55:56 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:03:10 PM
Ed Anger killing Timmy and burying his corpse in Cal's backyard is a simple murder. :contract:
the woods are usually better dumping grounds for corpses. A little chemical cocktail, some trashbags, an 8 foot+ hole and voila! Easy body burying.
Not that I'd ever hurt timmay. His feelings, maybe.
Don't use too much lyme, it actually preserves the body... just saying :whistle:
Quote from: HVC on August 20, 2009, 01:15:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 20, 2009, 12:55:56 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on August 20, 2009, 12:03:10 PM
Ed Anger killing Timmy and burying his corpse in Cal's backyard is a simple murder. :contract:
the woods are usually better dumping grounds for corpses. A little chemical cocktail, some trashbags, an 8 foot+ hole and voila! Easy body burying.
Not that I'd ever hurt timmay. His feelings, maybe.
Don't use too much lyme, it actually preserves the body... just saying :whistle:
My recipe is a secret.
Quote from: KRonn on August 20, 2009, 11:17:36 AM
I'm thinking the govt hired them to do other work that would be harder to link to the US govt, targeting AQ, probably in neutral countries, so that the US govt isn't seen as doing it if they used CIA or soldiers.
Like you and DG I have problems with them.
However, I've got to take issue with this. I can't imagine anything easier to link to the US government than a group of Blackwater guys. That would increase my suspicion the US were involved more than if the assassins arrived flying on the President's plane :p
Initial reaction? I'd like to see Blackwater escape the "mercenary" moniker now. :D
Quote from: DGuller on August 20, 2009, 12:36:10 PM
The problem is that there is a good reason we don't want our government to do dirty business, in spirit and not just in letter.
I really, really admire your moral clarity. But it's rather naive to think that we won't need to do "dirty business" every once in a while. And sometimes we'll need to work with people who do not have a completely spotless past.
Quote from: Valmy on August 20, 2009, 12:38:00 PM
Dirty deeds done outrageously expensively?
Outsourcing ain't always cheap. Especially if the vendor knows you can't do it yourself.
Quote from: derspiess on August 21, 2009, 10:33:16 AM
I really, really admire your moral clarity. But it's rather naive to think that we won't need to do "dirty business" every once in a while. And sometimes we'll need to work with people who do not have a completely spotless past.
The problem America always has when dealing with people who aren't completely spotless, from friendly dictators to mercenaries, is that you have an unerring ability to pick the least competent :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 10:38:35 AM
The problem America always has when dealing with people who aren't completely spotless, from friendly dictators to mercenaries, is that you have an unerring ability to pick the least competent :(
See, now *that* is a legitimate point. I think you overstated it a bit, but it's not totally baseless.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 10:38:35 AM
The problem America always has when dealing with people who aren't completely spotless, from friendly dictators to mercenaries, is that you have an unerring ability to pick the least competent :(
Sure, that's the standard British conceit. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 21, 2009, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 10:38:35 AM
The problem America always has when dealing with people who aren't completely spotless, from friendly dictators to mercenaries, is that you have an unerring ability to pick the least competent :(
Sure, that's the standard British conceit. :)
True, I don't think Britain's any better at that. But then I think that part of the reason we're bad at it is that we're democracies. We can't keep the dirty stuff hidden forever and we'll never be as good at it as unpleasant regimes. Because of that I think we should do it very rarely.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 21, 2009, 11:37:23 AM
True, I don't think Britain's any better at that. But then I think that part of the reason we're bad at it is that we're democracies. We can't keep the dirty stuff hidden forever and we'll never be as good at it as unpleasant regimes. Because of that I think we should do it very rarely.
Well you guys ran a world wide empire with a tiny army so must have been pretty good at dirty dealings at one point.
WTF are people talking about? This is the money quote from the article:
QuoteExecutives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects.
All they did was the same type of support services they provided to the military and people are going nutso with conspiracy theories. Just more proof that the left is still totally unhinged from reality.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
The CIA has assassinated plenty of people. :huh:
Not anymore, it seems.
They lost their teeth during the Clinton administration.
Today, the CIA does not kill anyone, as shameful and weak as it may sound.
There was a reason why they tried to hire Blackwater. They don't know how to kill anymore.
They fired their operators, and retained their operatives. If you can tell the diference.
Quote from: Siege on August 30, 2009, 08:20:51 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 20, 2009, 10:03:55 AM
The CIA has assassinated plenty of people. :huh:
Not anymore, it seems.
Today, the CIA does not kill anyone, as shameful and weak as it may sound.
He would disagree.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latestnewsonline.net%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F08%2FBaitullah-Mehsud.JPG&hash=d6f3c28932e3354bf923e0fd022b2ef01a778ed7)
Baitullah Mehsud c. 1974 – August 23, 2009
So, they killed a hairy mushroom man?
Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2009, 05:34:08 AM
So, they killed a hairy mushroom man?
Yes. Awesome. Unfortunately the princess was in another castle.
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 21, 2009, 07:46:29 PM
WTF are people talking about? This is the money quote from the article:
QuoteExecutives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance.
Read on: "It is unclear whether the C.I.A. had planned to use the contractors to capture or kill Qaeda operatives, or just to help with training and surveillance"
QuoteThe C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects.
That's sheilbh's point. The fact they were incompetent is not a defense to the policy, whatever the policy was.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2009, 09:29:09 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on August 21, 2009, 07:46:29 PM
WTF are people talking about? This is the money quote from the article:
QuoteExecutives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance.
Read on: "It is unclear whether the C.I.A. had planned to use the contractors to capture or kill Qaeda operatives, or just to help with training and surveillance"
QuoteThe C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects.
That's sheilbh's point. The fact they were incompetent is not a defense to the policy, whatever the policy was.
SInce Blackwater wasn't apparently hired to capture or kill terrorists it would've been strange if they had. It would be highly unusual, to say the least, if you'd killed some terrorists while running a training exercise.
According that that article , we still don't know exactly what they were hired to do