Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
CNN reports:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, told the "FOX News Sunday" program that Panetta testified that "he was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress.""I think this is a problem, obviously," Feinstein said, adding that the law requires full disclosure of such operations to Congress.
In related news, Capt. Renault is still shocked to find out there's gambling in this establishment. This is why I've laughed my ass off over the last few weeks as Pete Hoekstra and the Republicans have thrown a fit over Nancy Pelosi daring to accuse the CIA of withholding information from Congress. If you think the CIA does not routinely do that, under both Republicans and Democrats, you are living in a fantasy world.
Panetta briefed lawmakers on June 24 on an unspecified counterterrorism program, according to a letter from seven House Democrats to Panetta made public Wednesday. The June 26 letter characterized Panetta as testifying that the CIA "concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week."The letter contained no details about what information the CIA officials allegedly concealed or how they purportedly misled members of Congress.
So let's add this up. We now know that the CIA had a program that was so blatantly illegal that they could not reveal its existence to Congress, so clearly a violation of the law that Panetta canceled it immediately upon learning of it. But they won't tell Congress or the American public what it is.
And we know that there were several programs involving surveillance that were so blatantly unconstitutional that even John Ashcroft and the entire leadership core of the DOJ were so appalled by them that they were wiling to quit their jobs if Bush continued them. But they won't tell us what those programs are either.
I think we have a right to know what our government does in our name, don't you?
Politics
Comments
And Pete Hoekstra immediately apologized for having made inaccurate statements about the CIA's truthfulness.
Wait, he didn't?
And this man wants to be my governor?
Posted by: James Hanley | July 15, 2009 9:44 AM
No, he wants to be your Gauleiter, but he'll settle for governor.
Posted by: kehrsam | July 15, 2009 9:49 AM
As long as Renault got his winnings, everything will be okay at Rick's. Beautiful friendship and all that.
As for this minor CIA business, I thought that was what intelligence committees were for. Small, trusted groups with clearance and savvy enough to provide oversight. Is Darth Cheney the one who ordered everyone out of the loop?
Posted by: MikeMa | July 15, 2009 11:26 AM
So let's see if I have this right:
We have the former administration involved in:
-Torture in violation of both US and international law
-Illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying programs
-Involved in additional domestic spying programs that were so bad their own lapdogs refused to play along
-Ordering the CIA to lie to congress about other programs that are so bad no one will tell us what they were
-Launched an unnecessary war with falsified evidence, lied to congress to obtain their approval all the while losing site of the very real war we were already involved in
-Outed a CIA agent, destroying a covert cell in the process, to punish an ambassador for not "playing ball"
Anyone tell me why we aren't having hearings again...?
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 15, 2009 12:08 PM
dogmeatlB, why do you want to make America less safe? Tough choices had to be made and they made them in order to protect me and my family. We must protect the American way of life and secure a future for our children.
As an elected official would you want to chance that enough of the crucial unaligned/undecided voters will see through that kind of rhetoric? That's not the only factor of course. But I'd be willing to bet it's in the top 3.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 15, 2009 1:31 PM
Anyone tell me why we aren't having hearings again...?
Posted by: dogmeatIB
Yes, because none of your assertion pass the laugh test.
Posted by: Dschoen | July 15, 2009 5:18 PM
Riiight, Abby... let's protect our way of life in a way that contradicts what we claim to believe in, and then pretend to be on the moral high road. All the Cheney administration has done in the long run is to give more talking points to the terrorist recruiters of the world. Nice plan.
Posted by: Strummer | July 15, 2009 5:28 PM
Strummer, take a closer look at my second paragraph.
Posted by: Abby Normal | July 15, 2009 5:39 PM
"So let's add this up.
We now know that the CIA had a program that was so blatantly illegal that they could not reveal its existence to Congress. , so clearly a violation of the law that Panetta canceled it immediately upon learning of it.
But they won't tell Congress or the American public what it is."
Where have you been for the last couple of days?
The “Program” as we all know now was to KILL Bin Laden.
Is/was that illegal? I don’t think it was.
Can someone tell me how the goal of KILLING Bin Laden under the Bush admin was SIGNIFICANTLY different than the goal of KILLING Bin Laden under the Clinton admin?
No? didn’t think so.
Was Congress informed of Clintons “secrete” plan to kill Bin laden? If it was ILLEGAL after 9/11 it must have been ILLEGAL before 9/11.
''But at least I tried. That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now,'' Mr. Clinton said when asked whether he had failed to anticipate the full threat from Mr. bin Laden. ''They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.''
The Sept. 11 attacks occurred almost eight months after President Bush succeeded Mr. Clinton in January 2001.
''I authorized the C.I.A. to get groups together to try to kill him,'' Mr. Clinton said. “
September 24, 2006 Bill Clintons interview with for ''Fox News Sunday,''
So what do we know?
We know that the CIA, had and were actually working, on a program to kill Bin laden from 1999 thru ?
We know another “idea” came up after 9/11 to kill Bin laden was shelved.
Was it shelved because it was redundant?
Was congress already informed of the CIA operation to kill Bin laden 1999 thru ?
If yes, then why would they be informed about a plan that had been shelved?
Has anyone got Panetta to substantiate the claim that Cheney “ordered” this program shelved?
Is there a requirement to inform congress on planes that are not ACTUALLY going into effect?
During WW2 was Congress FULLY informed on ALL of the proposed planes for an invasion of Europe?
During WW2 was Congress FULLY informed of the “A” bomb, how when and where we were going to use it?
Posted by: Dschoen | July 15, 2009 5:45 PM
Dschoen,
Oh, oh, did mommy forget your meds again?
Posted by: James Hanley | July 15, 2009 6:30 PM
Dschoen
If you've been following the news (instead of just listening to right wing talking points), you'd know that the secret program involved surveillance. Your ignorance is showing.
Posted by: Ken in Tucson | July 15, 2009 6:30 PM
So, how does the exclusionary rule apply in these matters? In a normal criminal case, if a search was illegal, the results of that search (and any fruit of the poison tree) must be excluded.
But, what if we arrest a professed member of al Qaeda while present in the US and charge him with terrorist acts overseas. The only way that we captured him is because of blatantly unconstitutional wiretap on his phone that provides his location. And by the way, we have him confessing to his roles in the attacks on tapes of the wiretaps (which the prosecutors feel is absolutely necessary in order to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).
So, if he is tried in criminal courts, this will be tossed and he gets released. Right? Can he then be turned over to the military and be held indefinitely without charges because he is an enemy combatant?
What if he is tried in a military tribunal first? Would the evidence be tossed? In other words, does a military tribunal follow the exclusionary rule? Does the fact that he is arrested in the US make a difference?
Does it make any difference whether the defendant is an American citizen?
Posted by: David C. Brayton | July 15, 2009 7:37 PM
Dogmeat sayeth:
We have the former administration involved in:
-Torture in violation of both US and international law
Neither Geneva nor the UN law applies to terrorists.
Sorry, rules of the house. That's the dark side of Geneva--and thus the reason for it. You can't hide Jihad under "rights" when you've dressed in rags and blown marketplaces to smithereens.
-Illegal and unconstitutional domestic spying programs
So says the ACLU, perennial defenders of Jihad and ungulate-like nuisances, in trying to stanch the very methods that the Left bitched about NOT having when we got nailed on 911, and the ability to sort out the info was limited by such compash teams as Jamie Gorelick's famous Wall of Love that prohibited sharing of information, among other things. No one is listing to Betty Sue's chicken kiev recipe, and it's probably not a good idea to tip off the fact that we're tapping into the missives of the Allah Knows Best crowd.
-Involved in additional domestic spying programs that were so bad their own lapdogs refused to play along
same gripe as the one above..
-Ordering the CIA to lie to congress about other programs that are so bad no one will tell us what they were
So it is said--by Feinstein, of all people. Or, Pelosi and the Nancy Boys rapidly painting themselves into a lying corner that they didn't know about such things. Yeah, word up. No agendas here in making sure the new crowd smells better, right? Leon Panetta for his part has made sure the noble thing, "politics", is now injected into all this mess. And at this, we see a program that never even got fully hatched. It was an IDEA, at best. Even if it had gone full monty, WHY are we fretting about the "horrid" notion of killing the Allah Knows Best decapitators????
-Launched an unnecessary war with falsified evidence, lied to congress to obtain their approval all the while losing site of the very real war we were already involved in
Matter of opinion, chico. The evidence was WRONG, not fasified, and that's a distinction worth noting. The Russians, the Israli Mossad, the Chicoms, the Iranians, the French, and Hans Blix--a peacechild Mother Theresa in drag--all thought Saddam Hussein had WMD. So did inspector David Kay and many others. See FactCheck.org on the history of this. We DID have good reason to think Hussein (the other one, over there, now dead) had WMD. And the Duelfer Report detailed that while it turned out he didn't have them at the time after all, he wanted them back and in all probability would have pursued all manner of WMD.
As far as the Iraq nation itself, one guesses that the majority of Iraqis beyond some Imams are not pining for the return of Hussein II in all his 80's Vegas glory. Further, if after spending trillions on defense, the US can't nip two tinhorn nations of tribal warriors, then we'd be better off just purchasing snowballs and slingshots for the money saved.
-Outed a CIA agent, destroying a covert cell in the process, to punish an ambassador for not "playing ball"
That was done by a one Richard Armitage, a Democrat and cretin almost as bad as Walty Mitty fantasist Joe Wilson, whose testimony magically moved through space time and left out the fact that Brit intel knew Hussein (the other one) was actively seeking uranium. A position they hold to this moment. For his wife stumping for him, he and his beloved cloak and dagger girl got a write-up in Vanity Fair and a book deal that made a hell of a lot more money than his low-level gig as an ambassador sipping tea with Nigerians
Anyone tell me why we aren't having hearings again...?
This list might get long, so I'll just pull from the top that the primary reason is that some of the methodology of nipping terror lords might bubble to the surface yet again in this long, drawn out war in Afghanistan. Like it or not, it's your Curtis Lemay types who win wars, not the PC and wonk dickering of the late McNamara and the equivalent of hand-to-hand combat, house-to-house and mountain-to-mountain range
Posted by: Sauron the Great | July 15, 2009 7:46 PM
Okay, last try:
Sauron the Great Torture in violation of both US and international law
"Neither Geneva nor the UN law applies to terrorists"
Don't think we didn't notice how you turned "US and international" into "Geneva and UN", but whose law are they covered under? Is an armed but nonuniformed person (or merely an accused person) under local nation law (ie Afghanistan), or that of the nation that captured them (USA, UK, etc), or what? If they are protected by no law, then they can't be charged anything under that same no-law (because, by definition "We're going to punish you under our laws, but not give you the protections granted by them" is the statement of an asshole). If they're being charged by nation X, then nation X's laws must apply to them. Whether Geneva applies to terrorists (ahem accused terrorists, generally) is moot, since someone's law must apply, and those laws typically ban things like torture, and the Geneva convention on torture still applies anyway (the US was a signatory).
"...and Hans Blix...all thought Saddam Hussein had WMD."
And Hans Blix admitted that they'd found no such thing (pieces of pieces, but not WMDs. Do you know who else also has pieces of pieces? Everybody).
Thinking that something is so is not the same as something being so.
"The evidence was WRONG, not fasified, and that's a distinction worth noting."
Oh, boy! Semantics! Let's play "...is what, exactly?" Hurrah!
*And repeating a lie is what, exactly? *Repeating "intelligence" that even the countries who shared it with us doubt is what, exactly?
*Leaking a tale to the papers, then repeating their story as though it strengthens your case is what, exactly?
*Giving the UK the same bad evidence, then when they mention it, you mention is as though it strengthens your case is what, exactly?
*Having hacks sift through raw data that the experts conclude is not evidence of WMDs, then passing the hacks' (pre-concluded) conclusions as though it meant something is what, exactly?
*Only listening to the exiles that confirm your theory is what, exactly?
*Basing most of your case on on the testimony of an exile that even your own experts think is a fraud is what, exactly?
*Accusing anyone who asks actual questions of "hating America" or "letting the terrorists win" is what, exactly?
"...and left out the fact that Brit intel knew Hussein (the other one) was actively seeking uranium..."
*And, again, repeating a lie is what, exactly?
"...so I'll just pull from the top that the primary reason is that some of the methodology of nipping terror lords might bubble to the surface yet again in this long, drawn out war in Afghanistan..."
Don't forget Iraq. Remember, that we have to make new terrorists over there so that we don't have to make them over here, and anyone who questions the method of us, the good guys, must hate America.
...
Pick up a copy of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, then come back here.
Spin isn't good enough anymore. Spin is getting people killed. Spin is helping "them" to recruit. Pretending that our hats are white doesn't make them so.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 15, 2009 10:57 PM
(There's a couple in moderation. Ignore them, since they're the above, but with varying degrees of links. Also, nudity. I've said too much...)
Posted by: Modusoperandi | July 15, 2009 10:58 PM
"That was done by a one Richard Armitage, a Democrat..."
And also by Karl Rove, a Republican.
Posted by: daniel rotter | July 15, 2009 11:52 PM
"Neither Geneva nor the UN law applies to terrorists"
Clearly, and this is so freaking obvious that I can't believe anyone is legitimately missing this point, whether it "applies to terrorists" is NOT AT ISSUE. It applies to us. The Convention Against Torture -- negotiated by, pushed for, and signed by President Reagan, peace and no taxes be upon him, and ratified by the Senate, and hence the law of the land -- prohibits us from torturing. It doesn't just prohibit us from torturing Americans. It doesn't just prohibit us from torturing nice people. It prohibits us from torturing. Whether or not it prohibits terrorists from torturing is utterly irrelevant, not least because it wouldn't have any practical effect if it did.
Similarly, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention binds signatories (that would be us) from torturing anyone -- again, regardless of American-ness, nice-ness, or terrorist-ness -- "taking no active part in the hostilities, including ... those placed 'hors de combat' by ... detention." Such persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely... [T]he following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons ... (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture."
Care to take another swing at why torture doesn't matter and shouldn't be investigated? Because this defense is a total non-starter. Better trolls, please.
Posted by: Douglas McClean | July 16, 2009 12:53 AM
The smackdownage of the neocon talking points would be delicious, if it weren't so fucking sad that wingnuts are still trying to use them.
Posted by: trog69 | July 16, 2009 1:12 AM
I love that the kool-aid crowd has come out to defend their shrub. I'm not going to bother to respond to much of it because it portrays a general lack of reading comprehension, dishonesty, and willful ignorance that is endemic within the reich wing these days, but I will comment on a few key points:
Has anyone got Panetta to substantiate the claim that Cheney “ordered” this program shelved?
The statement that Cheney ordered the program has since been confirmed by a number of leaks in the intelligence community. Also Panetta is the one who killed the program and called the special session with the intelligence committees.
Is there a requirement to inform congress on planes that are not ACTUALLY going into effect?
Nice bit of obfuscation, the key is that Cheney ordered the program kept in secret even while it was being planned, even while it was going into effect (military rather than CIA), even while it was failing miserably. All of that is illegal.
During WW2 was Congress FULLY informed on ALL of the proposed planes for an invasion of Europe?
I don't know about planes (sic), but congress was aware of activities, expenditures, etc., as per the LAWS OF THE TIME.
During WW2 was Congress FULLY informed of the “A” bomb, how when and where we were going to use it?
Actually Congress was aware of the Manhattan project, a small group of congressmen were aware of and facilitated the funding for the project. But again, what happened in 1941-1945 isn't the same as what happened in 2001-2009. Two key reasons why, first, the law regarding the actions of the CIA and reporting to committee didn't exist at the time (neither did the CIA); second, and this is the key point you keep ignoring, the vice president didn't ORDER information to be kept from congress that the law required to be shared.
One last point, I love how the chicken-hawk reich wing brigade that has popped up here simply assumes that we are squeamish, or fearful of the assassination program. That it upsets our delicate sensibilities. That simply isn't the case, the issues are clear and simple, no matter how much you try to obfuscate to protect Darth Cheney and the little shrub, key points get in your way:
1) Cheney ordered the CIA to LIE to Congress, that is illegal. The end ... no other arguments ... no other points can be made. I-L-L-E-G-A-L.
2) The teams were going to operate within friendly countries without their knowledge. Highly questionable and unethical, bordering on illegal, and possibly in violation of treaties we have with those friendly countries.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 16, 2009 11:40 AM
I get so tired of wingnuts trying to claim that poor, innocent George Bush was misled by faulty intelligence. Bush made up his mind to invade Iraq regardless of the evidence, and cherry-picked anything he could to justify his decision after the fact. That was Shrub's M.O. - go with your gut and stick to your decision no matter what the facts show. Wingnuts seem to think that's an admirable quality in a leader. Intelligent people know it's fucking insane.
Posted by: Taz | July 16, 2009 12:06 PM
Oops... My apologies Abby. I've seen the arguement from your first paragraph put forth in seriousness so many times that I didn't read your second paragraph. Color me humbled.
Posted by: Strummer | July 16, 2009 6:13 PM