[987] in peace2
macho macho men: Lawmakers See Need to Loosen Rules on C.I.A.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix F AuYeung)
Sun Sep 16 16:21:26 2001
To: peace-list@mit.edu
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 16:02:14 -0400
Message-ID: <20010916.162257.-204573.0.FelixAuYeung@juno.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Felix F AuYeung <felixauyeung@juno.com>
one man posted on the internet: "it is arguable that the lawmakers who
disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no
chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for
this catastrophe." he is advocating that if decent americans can all
bear arms, they could have stopped the hijackers. you may say this
particular individual might be a bit off-based, but sadly, he is not the
only one. the cia wants to "loosen" some rules, such as hiring of
criminal agents and planning covert assassinations. (hello, did we
forget that bin laden was trained by the cia?! if we blame the countries
(not even specific people, but whole countries) who harbor terrorists as
guilty by association, what about the country that trained them?)
anyway, 40 billion dollars, military on high alert, kids signing up for
the army... "make no mistake," slippery slope, here we come:
Lawmakers See Need to Loosen Rules on C.I.A.
By JAMES RISEN
SEP 16, 2001
New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 — The Congressional leaders who oversee the nation's
intelligence system have concluded that America's spy agencies should be
allowed to combat terrorism with more aggressive tactics, including the
hiring of unsavory foreign agents.
The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have also revived
discussion of reversing the United States' 25-year ban on using covert
agents to assassinate foreigners. A consensus has not been reached on
that point.
But after the attacks, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate
intelligence committee, the chairman of the House intelligence committee
and two former directors of central intelligence said the attacks
justified easing some restrictions on the behavior of spy agencies. Some
of those leaders also said the terrorist assault represented a colossal
failure of American intelligence.
"We have got to be a hell of a lot more aggressive," said Senator Richard
C. Shelby, Republican of Alabama and vice chairman of the Senate
intelligence committee.
R. James Woolsey, the former director of central intelligence, said that
"Washington has absolutely undergone a sea change in thinking this week."
Those comments reflect a turning point in the attitude of political
leaders toward the need for sharp limits on the extent and nature of
covert operations and perhaps for allowing American agents to carry out
the kinds of actions that have long been prohibited as too ruthless or
morally questionable.
They also reflect a strong public sentiment for a powerful, and
prolonged, American assault on the terrorist organizations responsible
for the deaths of thousands of people in New York and Washington, and
others like them. A New York Times/ CBS News poll conducted late last
week showed that 65 percent of those questioned say American agents
should be allowed to seek out and assassinate people in foreign countries
who commit terrorist acts against Americans.
For the moment, the C.I.A. is not pressing Congress or the White House to
change its rules. Administration officials said they understood that for
many Americans the ban on assassinations was a significant symbol of the
nation's role as a standard-bearer of ethical conduct. Under current law,
President Bush would have to authorize personally any such change in the
existing executive order governing intelligence operations.
But the public discussion among influential members of Congress about
freeing the C.I.A. from restrictions on the recruitment of criminals and
known abusers of human rights as informants and about outlaw
assassinations stems from a growing debate over the causes of what many
in Washington are now calling the nation's biggest intelligence lapse
since the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941.
In the 25 years since Congressional hearings disclosed the agency's role
in assassinations and dirty tricks overseas, the government has imposed
increasingly tighter rules and Congressional oversight of the conduct of
America's spies. C.I.A. officers, for example, are not permitted to
foster a plot that has the explicit goal of killing a terrorist leader.
But Congressional leaders said the C.I.A. should be put on a war footing
and given the freedom not only to penetrate but also to destroy tightly
knit terrorist organizations.
"Not everybody is playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules," said
Representative J. Porter Goss, a Florida Republican who is chairman of
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence when asked if he
would support an end to the ban on assassinations of foreign leaders,
first imposed by President Gerald R. Ford in 1976.
Senator Bob Graham, a Florida Democrat who is chairman of the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, is now willing to end limits on the
C.I.A.'s recruitment of agents — spies — who have committed human rights
violations, his spokesman said on Friday.
But one influential lawmaker warned that proposals to unleash
intelligence agencies should be carefully considered.
Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the majority whip, said that while the
C.I.A. should beef up its human intelligence gathering ability, officials
should not move rashly to lift the ban on assassinations.
The nation is understandably "a little panicky," Mr. DeLay said. But he
added, "I think we need to be very clearheaded, very deliberative, about
where we're headed."
Tighter restrictions on whom the C.I.A. can recruit as spies were imposed
in the mid-1990's after disclosures about the agency having had ties to a
Guatemalan Army officer implicated in the killing of an American and the
husband of another American. Although it is unclear whether the
guidelines have ever really undercut the C.I.A.'s operations against
terrorist organizations, the agency's officers have complained in the
past that the rules were symbolic of a broader caution that took hold at
the agency in the 1990's, when managers rejected high-risk operations for
fear they would fail or lead to political scandal.
Senator Graham's spokesman, Paul Anderson, said, "The senator said
something today that I hadn't heard him say before, and that is that we
are not going to find the kinds of spies we need in monasteries."
Senator Graham said immediately after Tuesday's attacks that he was also
willing to reassess the assassination ban. Mr. Anderson, the spokesman,
said Mr. Graham had since modified his stance, but only because he had
been told by experts that the United States could get around the ban if
it chose to do so, even with the current legal strictures.
It remains to be seen whether Congressional leaders will continue to
recommend that the C.I.A. be liberated from such restrictions once the
heated passions in the aftermath of Tuesday's attacks begin to cool.
Previous terrorist attacks like the 1998 bombings of two American
Embassies in Africa have been followed by calls to loosen the limits on
the C.I.A.'s operations. Last year, an independent commission on
terrorism recommended that the C.I.A. lift its guidelines on the use of
agents who had committed human rights violations. The proposals were
ultimately not embraced by the government, and C.I.A officials argued at
the time that it was not necessary to lift these restrictions because
they had not hampered operations.
But the new willingness among lawmakers to allow the C.I.A. greater
latitude underscores the depth of feeling in Washington about the need to
address the intelligence failings exposed on Tuesday.
Former President George Bush, who served as C.I.A. director under
President Ford, spoke publicly this week about the need to "free up the
intelligence system from some of its constraints."
The militant attitude in Congress comes just weeks after some American
leaders were sharply critical of Israel's use of assassinations of
Palestinian leaders in response to a series of suicide bombings against
Israeli targets. But after Tuesday some current and former officials said
that American security services might need to adopt some elements of the
Israeli approach.
"We've never had the political will and the resolve to treat terrorism as
a real foe," observed Ted Price, a former deputy director of operations
at the C.I.A. "But now we're at war."
One former C.I.A. officer argued that the agency was not organized to
fight an all-out war on terrorism and that other organizations might
ultimately be needed. "The C.I.A. wants to penetrate these groups, to
find out about the next attack," the former officer said. "But you can
never stop all the attacks because you can never hear about all of them.
You can't just spy on these groups. You have to destroy them. And that's
not what the C.I.A. has been set up to do."
Mr. Woolsey said in an interview on Friday that he had been steadfastly
opposed to lifting the ban on assassinations until this week's attacks.
"Before Tuesday, I was opposed to anything like that," said Mr. Woolsey,
who also supports an end to the restrictions on the C.I.A.'s recruitment
of spies with troubling background. "But like a lot of people, I've been
somewhat shaken in that conviction by what happened."
The question of whether to change operating orders of the C.I.A., which
operates outside the United States, is up to President Bush. The
restriction on assassinations is part of a presidential executive order
that could be revoked or rewritten. The rules about recruiting spies are
part of the agency's internal procedures and could be revised by the
director of central intelligence.
But until today, Congress, which has broad oversight powers over the
intelligence community, would almost certainly have weighed in on an
effort by a president to end the ban on assassinations.
For now, the C.I.A. is not pressing Congress or the White House to
support any change in its rules. Beyond quick fixes, the Congressional
intelligence committees are also considering more fundamental reforms,
and have promised to study closely why the C.I.A. and other agencies were
caught by surprise by the attacks — the largest terrorist operation ever
launched against the United States.
"I'm certain that we are going to find some significant intelligence
shortfalls that contributed to this tragedy on Tuesday," Senator Graham
said.
Intelligence officials defended the performance of the C.I.A. They
emphasized that while the agency had failed to provide a precise warning
of the attack, it had issued repeated warnings — one as recently as
August — that the terrorism suspect Osama bin Laden and his network were
seeking to attack the domestic United States.
"We have stated on a regular basis that bin Laden had declared that all
U.S. citizens were legitimate targets," noted one American intelligence
official. "Could we, should we, have given a tactical warning? Obviously
we would have loved to."
Others note that the problems exposed on Tuesday range far beyond the
C.I.A. and include the lack of coordination of the government's
counterterrorism efforts, which are spread throughout several agencies.
Critics say the government fails to quickly process and analyze
information that might help unravel terrorist plots. Often, crucial
intelligence is found to have been sitting in the files, but is
recognized as significant only in hindsight, after a terrorist incident.
For instance, United States officials noted that the C.I.A. had gathered
evidence in August that Khalid al-Midhar, identified on Friday by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation as one of the hijackers aboard the plane
that smashed into the Pentagon, had met with suspect associates of Mr.
bin Laden in Malaysia in January of last year. Subsequently the C.I.A.
determined that some people at that meeting may have been involved in the
plot to attack the U.S.S. Cole in October 2000.
The C.I.A. also determined that Nawaq Alhamzi, another hijacking suspect
aboard the same plane, had previously traveled to the United States with
Mr. al-Midhar.
In late August, the C.I.A. notified the Immigration and Naturalization
Service that both men should be placed on the watch list intended to
prevent their entry into the United States. The I.N.S. responded that
both men had already gotten into the country, using their real names.
The F.B.I. was notified, and the bureau began to look for them. But too
late.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
