The CIA has always had a reputation as a rogue agency.\u00a0 Hollywood has portrayed this agency a lot of ways, mostly negative.\u00a0 It is well documented that the CIA tried to assassinate Fidel Castro.\u00a0 They were also involved in other activities that angered the liberal left.\u00a0 After some embarrassing mistakes, the Church Committee was authorized to investigate alleged abuse by the CIA.\u00a0 The liberal left was among the loudest voices demanding congressional oversight:<\/p>\n
\u00a0http:\/\/www.senate.gov\/artandhistory\/history\/minute\/Church_Committee_Created.htm<\/a><\/p>\n \u00a0There have been three Executive orders on assassinations.\u00a0 The first, 11905 was issued by Gerald Ford on February 18, 1976.\u00a0 The second, 12036, was issued by Jimmy Carter on January 24, 1978.\u00a0 The third, 12333 was issued by Ronald Reagan on December 4, 1983.\u00a0 To the best of my knowledge, this executive order remains in effect.<\/p>\n \u00a0The Reagan order contained the same language as the Carter order:<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cNo person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.\u2026 No agency of the Intelligence Community shall request or otherwise encourage, directly or indirectly, any person, organization, or government agency to undertake activities forbidden by this order or by applicable law.\u201d [<\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n When there is a Republican President, the liberal left expresses outrage at the very hint of an assassination.\u00a0 George W. Bush was even criticized for the mission that killed Saddam Hussein\u2019s sons during a fire fight, even though this was during a war and they were definitely shooting back.<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.mcgeorge.edu\/documents\/centers\/government\/TARGETING%20SADDAM-Final%20Draft.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n But the liberal left has been deafly silent on this subject during the Obama administration.\u00a0 They said nothing when Obama ordered the \u201chit\u201d on Osama bin Laden.\u00a0 There was not even a pretense of taking him alive.\u00a0 (I am glad he is gone, but justified or not, this was an assassination.)\u00a0 Now, according to the Washington Post, Obama administration has allegedly transformed the mission of the CIA from intelligence gathering to a full time assassination squad.\u00a0<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/world\/national-security\/cia-shifts-focus-to-killing-targets\/2011\/08\/30\/gIQA7MZGvJ_story.html<\/a><\/p>\n Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia without approval from congress and he made no attempt to get UN approval.\u00a0 NATO said it was ok, so it was ok.\u00a0 When some members of congress, including Tom Campbell and Dennis Kucinich filed a Declaratory Relief action against Bill Clinton, the majority of the liberal left and the main stream media just ignored the issue:\u00a0<\/p>\n http:\/\/jurist.law.pitt.edu\/ratner.htm<\/a><\/p>\n George Bush attacked Iraq with both UN approval and bi-partisan approval from congress, yet the liberal left still considers this to be an illegal war.\u00a0 (They rarely, if ever, mention Yugoslavia.)\u00a0 Obama attacked Libya, with no authority, and refused to even call it a war.\u00a0 Yet the liberal left, and the supporting main stream media, has been noticeably silent.<\/p>\n If this article is correct than Obama is apparently conducting wide scale assassinations.\u00a0 Bush ordered drone attacks on terrorists, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan.\u00a0 But, the Bush administration at least argued that this was an exception to the rule during a time of war.\u00a0 The liberal left was vocal in their criticism of Bush for doing this.\u00a0<\/p>\n The Obama administration has expanded this to places like Yemen and Libya, where he himself says we are not engaged in war.\u00a0 He won\u2019t even call it combat.\u00a0 He has not requested authority from congress or anyone else.\u00a0 In addition, Obama refuses to use the word war in describing the fight against terrorism.\u00a0 Apparently the only standard for Obama is whether or not he (or the French) thinks it\u2019s a good idea.\u00a0<\/p>\n The liberal left and the mainstream media still tries to portray the Bush administration as evil because of the decision to water board certain terrorists.\u00a0 So far, no one seems to be concerned over Obama turning the CIA into Murder Incorporated.\u00a0 I guess killing terrorists is ok, as long as we don\u2019t water board them first.\u00a0 In addition killing them eliminates the inconvenience of having to decide whether or not to use military tribunals instead of trying them in federal court.<\/p>\n It is my understanding that at least some of these people are U.S. citizens.\u00a0 That raises some serious questions.\u00a0 Do we really want the President of the United States able to order the assassination of an American citizen solely because he considers them a threat?\u00a0 Sometimes the rule of law is messy and it gives undeserved protection to our worst offenders. \u00a0But there is a reason for the rule of law.\u00a0 \u00a0I can perhaps understand why, in an emergency a President may deliberately violate the law.\u00a0 Lincoln certainly did that during the civil war when he suspended the writ of habeas corpus.\u00a0 But at least Lincoln acknowledged this and explained the justification for his actions.\u00a0 In addition, even during the civil war there were people who challenged Lincoln about this decision.\u00a0 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, ordered Lincoln to hand over John Merryman, an active and vocal secessionist, who was being held by the military:\u00a0<\/p>\n http:\/\/www.etymonline.com\/cw\/habeas.htm<\/a><\/p>\n Taney ordered Merryman brought before him on a writ of habeas corpus and commanded the military officer in charge of Merryman to show “the cause, if any, for his arrest and detention.”<\/p>\n Lincoln just ignored the order.\u00a0 (Keep in mind that Taney was also the Supreme Court Justice who issued the Dred Scott decision.)\u00a0 But the point is that at least the issue was discussed and Lincoln did explain his reason for making these decisions.\u00a0 In retrospect, Lincoln is considered to be one of our greatest Presidents because he made the decisions that saved the Union.\u00a0 If you want more information on how this has been viewed legal scholars following is the link:<\/p>\n http:\/\/millercenter.org\/president\/lincoln\/essays\/biography\/9<\/a><\/p>\n Obama, on the other hand, has given no explanation or justification at all.\u00a0<\/p>\n A President has the duty to protect the country and one suspects other Presidents have authorized missions that were legally over the line.\u00a0 I am relatively sure that no one is overly concerned with regard to the health and well-being of the terrorists being targeted by Obama in Yemen and Pakistan.\u00a0 But, if Bush had done this there would be loud calls for his impeachment from the liberal left.\u00a0 Instead all we hear now deafening roar of silence.\u00a0\u00a0 In addition, it appears we are sacrificing our intelligence capabilities in exchange for just eliminating specific people.\u00a0 In my opinion it was the downgrading of our intelligence operations under Bill Clinton that lead to 9-11 in the first place.\u00a0\u00a0At best this appears to be another convenient short term fix as a replacement for long term strategic planning.<\/p>\n \u00a0TDM<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The CIA has always had a reputation as a rogue agency.\u00a0 Hollywood has portrayed this agency a lot of ways, mostly negative.\u00a0 It is well documented that the CIA tried to assassinate Fidel Castro.\u00a0 They were also involved in other … Continue reading