Secret Pentagon spies confirmed

[Stockholm]

Senior officials in the US Defense Department have confirmed reports that the Pentagon ran a secret unit to help gather human intelligence.

The Washington Post first revealed on Sunday that the Strategic Support Branch (SSB) was set up on the orders of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The Pentagon was re-interpreting US law and trying to bypass the CIA, it said.

snip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4202837.stm

[chicagojoe]

1. Busted!!!!!

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Yes, but you should have seen the apologist for Rumsfeld last night

I think it was on a Tweety show. He said that Rumsfeld should be commended for taking the initiative for doing what was eventually done. (i.e. Porter Goss) The apologist also said that he didn't agree with centralizing intelligence. That the competition in gathering the news was a good thing. I guess he didn't hear that it is that competition which helped bring on the impotence in news sharing between the intelligence agencies and which resulted in 9/11.

[ogradda]

2. caught again huh?

wonder how many times we'll have to hear the 9/11 chant when they try and wiggle out of this one?

[Kahuna]

4. IMPEACH!! IMPEACH!!! The whole administration denied that..

there was such an office.

[cthrumatrix]

10. exactly...where is the MSM calling these liars out?

[Just Me]

59. It is time to hold it responsible for its treacherous deception,...

,...of the American people!!!

It is time for this neoCONimperialist tyranny to GO!!! :mad:

[Cooley Hurd]

5. And this will receive as much media attention as OSP did...

...which is none. None more black...

[The Zanti Regent]

6. Your Main $tream Media covers this up

as we march off to Jesusland!

[ChicanoPwr]

7. So when do start ....

doing the one arm salute to the B* Dictatorship??? I think Rummy's "SS" Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, deputy undersecretary for intelligence, acknowledged that Rummy intends to direct some missions previously undertaken (or is that take away some missions) by the CIA.

(Boykin) added that it is wrong to make "an assumption that what the secretary is trying to say is, 'Get the CIA out of this business, and we'll take it.' I don't interpret it that way at all."

"The secretary actually has more responsibility to collect intelligence for the national foreign intelligence program . . . than does the CIA director," Boykin said. "That's why you hear all this information being published about the secretary having 80 percent of the budget. Well, yeah, but he has 80 percent of the responsibility for collection, as well."

[DistantWind88]

8. Bottom line: what's the big deal?

The SECDEF has more intelligence funding and people than the DCI already. The NSA, NGA, and DIA ALL work for the SECDEF. The SECDEF controls billions of NFIP dollars via those "national" level agencies and has for decades. This new SSB (which doesn't work for Boykin BTW) is completely within the military's TIARA (Tactical Intelligence and Related Activities) portfolio. People making a big deal out of this obviously do not understand the intelligence community nor the DoD.

[FlemingsGhost]

14. Once upon a time, we had a thing called Congressional oversight

The U.S. Constitution seems to think it's a big deal.

[DistantWind88]

16. We still do

The military conducts intelligence operations ALL the time under Congressional Oversight--even HUMINT. The DIA owns the DHS, in which the main HUMINT assets of the DoD are employed. Also, special ops forces are used as HUMINT assets under military operations auspices. HUMINT and Special Ops can be teamed and used any what the COCOM wants. Congress does NOT approve, nor should they approve every single military operation. Do you think Congress "oversees" every single U-2 or RC-135 track or flight?

[leveymg]

23. Also, DOD already controls most Homeland Security functions

Responsibility for DHS "critical infrastructure protection" (everything from NYC sewer lines to the US Internet backbone), is administered by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J-5). The budget for this function is eight times larger than any other DHS component, including the FBI (and presumably the CIA, although that figure is still classified).

I don't see anything fundamentally new in SSB, either. It is an attempt by Rummy to stovepipe the sort of raw (dis)information he wants. Son of OSP.

Thanks for your reality check, DistantWinds88. Glad to see that someone else out there actually reads source materials. The stuff we get filtered through the MSM is worse than useless, and a lot of what one reads in the progressive press is not technically well-informed.

I'd like to get together an ongoing National Security forum at DU. Can we form up such a chat group?

- Mark

[ChicanoPwr]

17. The big deal is...

This Administration has a nasty habit of re-writing existing laws. How is it that the SECDEF interprets that defense intelligence missions are subject to fewer legal constraints than Rumsfeld's predecessors believed. Once again, the laws are re-defined to make it fit into Rummy's role as SECDEF.

Title 10 of the U.S. Code clearly states that the Defense Department must report to Congress all "deployment orders," or formal instructions from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to position U.S. forces for combat. I guess Rummy did not like that rule so he gets DoD to hire Alberto Gonzalez type lawyers to re-interpret existing laws. From the Washington Post:

"Pentagon lawyers also define the 'war on terror' as ongoing, indefinite and global in scope. That analysis effectively discards the limitation of the defense secretary's war powers to times and places of imminent combat."

So presto chango....he gets to new division. I think that is a Big Deal.

Title 50, also clearly states all departments of the executive branch are obliged to keep Congress "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." The law exempts "traditional . . . military activities" and their "routine support." Just like Title 10, Rummy decides to have a "fresh look" at the law in which the Pentagon's general counsel, suddenly interprets "traditional" and "routine" more expansively than his predecessors.

People making a big deal out of this obviously do not understand the intelligence community nor the DoD.

As always you are entitle to your own opinion, but I do have to disagree with you. IMO, I do think it is a Big Deal, especially when the current SECDEF decides to re-define the laws that previous SECDEF never questioned. And IMO, I do think a lot of people do understand the role of intelligence community and of DoD.

[DistantWind88]

20. The military is allowed to conduct

TIARA for force protection, or in furtherance of combat operations, at any time in combat. They need not inform Congress of every single TIARA activity they undertake in a combat area.

What law has been broken by using authorized and appropriated DoD intelligence assets for TIARA purposes? The military is allowed to task organize ant way they see fit by forming special teams and groups in furtherance of their mission without informing Congress UNLESS they begin to use funds for other than their intended purpose. Forming a SSB out of authorized and appropriated HUMINT and Special Forces assets and using them is a TIARA role is PERFECTLY permitted. As I asked before, do you think that Congress is informed every time we fly an RC-135 or U-2? No, they are not.

[leveymg]

35. Reinterpretation of law by Agency heads is routine. Violation isn't

Congress often chooses not to exercise its oversight powers. That's a political decision. There has been no failure to keep lawmakers "currently informed" -- no violation of law -- unless the majority makes such a finding.

You have a valid complaint. The Administration clearly violated law in its lies to Congress about WMDs, and in its policy of torturing prisoners. But, I think the larger issue is political, and the blame needs to be assigned to Congress -- for its failure to inquire and act, and for its failure to press for prosecution -- as much as with Rumsfeld. Ultimately, with this government (as in any One-Party State), law is nothing but power politics.

- Mark

[leveymg]

22. moved post n/t

[Rose Siding]

31. Feinstein doesn't "understand the intelligence community"?

News to her I'll bet, being on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and all.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., and other Democrats called for hearings, but Republicans balked.

"According to The Washington Post, the Department of Defense (news - web sites) is changing the guidelines with respect to oversight and notification of Congress by military intelligence. Is this true or false?" Feinstein wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Feinstein and others appeared puzzled by the disclosure that the Pentagon had created a new battlefield intelligence group — "strategic support teams," in Pentagon parlance — to perform clandestine missions that had been largely the province of the CIA (news - web sites).

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=5&u=/ap/20050125/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/pentagon_spy_teams

Pre-Goss CIA agents are reported to also have thought this is a "big deal".

[DistantWind88]

32. The SSCI has no oversight

of the Pentagon's TIARA activities, since they are of a "military" nature. Only the SASC does on the Senate side.

It's interesting that the HASC and the HPSIC "share" jursisdiction of TIARA.

So,no,Fienstein may not know about what's going on on the TIARA side.

[notadmblnd]

9. This needs to be prosecuted

how can they keep getting away with committing crimes against the US like this and getting away with it?

[DistantWind88]

11. What's the crime?

While myriad other offenses have been committed against the American people under this mis-administration, I see no crime here.

[cthrumatrix]

12. was Clinton getting a blowjob a "crime"...? This admin lies thru it's

teeth and the corp owned MSM sells us down the river.

[DistantWind88]

13. That BJ thing was and is a load

of crap. Of course, that was no crime!

[trapper914]

19. It sounds very Iran-Contra-ish to me

eom

[yellowcanine]

24. Misappropriation of funds, for starters. Congress did not approve this

expenditure. Furthermore, whenever an executive agency starts talking "reinterpreting the law" you can be sure laws are being broken. It it was always legal, why the need to reinterpret?

[DistantWind88]

25. How do you know the funds were misappropriated?

If Congress authorized and appropriated funds for HUMINT assets to conduct TIARA missions, then the Pentagon can task organize those assets any way they see fit. The Pentagon doesn't need approval to from Congress to form teams and special groups to conduct appropriate military missions.

[yellowcanine]

27. Yeah well, that's the famous "reinterpretation of the law", isn't it?

Like I said, it was considered illegal by all previous administrations, and this one, right up to the time Rummy gor his "reinterpretation", so what are we to make of that?

[DistantWind88]

30. Where did anyone ever consider HUMINT

collection by the DoD illegal? Can you show me where every other administration considered that illegal? If it is illegal, why does the military have a DHS?

[yellowcanine]

36. All I can tell you is what was in the Post article - I am not a lawyer -

so far, no one at the Defense Dept has disputed the essential facts of the WP article - they may have disputed some of the conclusions in that they say "nothing new here". However - as I said, when one "reinterprets the law" that is a red flag to me. The fact is, the Defense Dept set up a whole new apparatus for gathering intelligence and apparently didn't inform Congress. Why? You tell me.

[DistantWind88]

38. All I can tell you is that they didn't

They task-organized HUMINT and special ops folks to provide better intelligence. The facts of the WP article are essentially correct, the conclusions are erroneous.

[yellowcanine]

39. So you don't have even a teensy problem with "reinterpreting the law"?

If there is nothing new here, why the need to do that?

[DistantWind88]

40. It's the WaPo

That said the Pentagon was "reinterpreting the law, " not the Pentagon. As soon as I see what law the the WaPo accused the Pentagon of "reinterpreting," I'll see if I have a problem with it.

[yellowcanine]

42. Sure sounds like the source was in the Pentagon to me. Here.

"Pentagon officials emphasized their intention to remain accountable to Congress, but they also asserted that defense intelligence missions are subject to fewer legal constraints than Rumsfeld's predecessors believed. That assertion involves new interpretations of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the armed services, and Title 50, which governs, among other things, foreign intelligence.

Under Title 10, for example, the Defense Department must report to Congress all "deployment orders," or formal instructions from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to position U.S. forces for combat. But guidelines issued this month by Undersecretary for Intelligence Stephen A. Cambone state that special operations forces may "conduct clandestine HUMINT operations . . . before publication" of a deployment order, rendering notification unnecessary. Pentagon lawyers also define the "war on terror" as ongoing, indefinite and global in scope. That analysis effectively discards the limitation of the defense secretary's war powers to times and places of imminent combat.

Under Title 50, all departments of the executive branch are obliged to keep Congress "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." The law exempts "traditional . . . military activities" and their "routine support." Advisers said Rumsfeld, after requesting a fresh legal review by the Pentagon's general counsel, interprets "traditional" and "routine" more expansively than his predecessors.

[DistantWind88]

43. It's the post asserting that

these are reinterpretations; not the SECDEF.

[yellowcanine]

44. and here - more from a mouth in the Pentagon -

Assistant Secretary of Defense Thomas O'Connell, who oversees special operations policy, said Rumsfeld has discarded the "hide-bound way of thinking" and "risk-averse mentalities" of previous Pentagon officials under every president since Gerald R. Ford.

"Many of the restrictions imposed on the Defense Department were imposed by tradition, by legislation, and by interpretations of various leaders and legal advisors," O'Connell said in a written reply to follow-up questions. "The interpretations take on the force of law and may preclude activities that are legal. In my view, many of the authorities inherent to . . . were winnowed away over the years."


Sure sounds like some "reinterpreting " going on to me. Now maybe O'Connell is right. But shouldn't Congress at least hold a hearing or two to find out?

[DistantWind88]

45. Only

if Cambone can't explain it to the ranking Dem on the SASC like he did to Warner yesterday.

[yellowcanine]

51. It will take a lot more "splainen" than that to convince me. After all

of the twisted explainations for why we went to war and why there were no WMDs and why the intelligence was bad and why we were told the aluminum tubes were for centrifuges and why we were told the drones could attack the East Coast of the U.S. and why the faulty "Niger yellow cake" story got into the SOTU and why we couldn't stop the looting and why the insurgency was much worse than expected and why we had the prisoner abuses and why the "torture memo" and why the "no torture memo" - Oh yeah, going to take a lot more "splainen" than that. I'm sorry, but this Sec. of Defence and this President have no more credibility left with me.

[yellowcanine]

55. Nice "bait and switch" by the way. First you maintained that the

"reinterpretation" was a Post construction - then when I showed you the relevant passage that clearly demonstrated that it came from an Assist. Sec. of Defense - you say it is ok if it is explained to the satisfaction of the ranking Dem.

[ChicanoPwr]

58. I am surprised by the bait and switch

Atleast when I posted the same Post passage, I was told it still was not a big deal. Some how, I think re-interperting the law is a big deal. Other SECDEF did not re-interpert the law when ever they did not see fit.

[DistantWind88]

60. I still maintain that is was a Post construct

It is the WaPo's interpretation of what actually happened. Until the SECDEF says it was a "reinterpretation of the LAW," you don't what he thought.

[yellowcanine]

61. Well, Assistant Sec. O'Connell talked about previous interpretations

being incorrect so that would seem he is reinterpreting, no? But your mind is made up, damn the facts.

[DistantWind88]

62. And O'Connell

made this decsion or was it Rummy? Or do you know?

[yellowcanine]

63. No I don't know but do you seriously think an Assist. Sec. makes a

decision like that on his own? Get real. Look - we are not getting anywhere here. O'Connell's statement makes it crystal clear that the law was reinterpreted. You, for some reason, don't want to believe that. Fine but there is no reason for me to continue to banter with you about it.

[notadmblnd]

28. Whether or not a crime has been committed needs to be determined

I'm no insider and certainly have no legal back ground but I have had my coffee. just your average Joe citizen. But my thinking is that this is a repeat of the Gonzales Torture paper. They have once again reinterpreted the laws to expand and consolidate their power.

Rumsfeld can't get along with the CIA, they either disagree with him or won't do what he requests. who knows, maybe CIA didn't want to go along with the torture? Rumsfeld decides to have his people look for a way to get around the CIA. He has his people comb titles 10 and 50 of the US code to determine what his authority is. His people come back and tell him he has the authority under US law to create clandestine organizations. Rumsfeld diverts 2.6 million from another program/account in the pentagon (this is where another crime may have been committed) of which no one knows and they wont tell us because that information is classified.

This organization was created in 2002, funded in 2003 and congress did not find out about it till late 2004. To create a clandestine organization without notification of congress is a violation of the national security act of 1947.

Congress needs to look into this and determine if high crimes have been committed by Rumsfeld.

[ally_sc]

15. help me out...is this grounds for impeachment???

it should be on a long list of other deeds they have done in the name of "liberty" and "freedom"...

[DistantWind88]

18. How?

What law has been broken here?

They've done many OTHER things that are quasi-legal, I think. But this is not one of them.

[yellowcanine]

26. If Bush knew about it and there was no "Presidential Finding" it may have

been illegal because Congress did not approve the funds be used for this. If there was a Presidential Finding, then I believe Congress had to be informed within a certain period of time, which was apparently not done. It is very similar to Iran-Contra, for which Reagan COULD HAVE been impeached, but wasn't, probably because he pleaded confusion and because the Democrats were not as blood thirsty as the Republicans were with Clinton.

[DistantWind88]

29. Why does there need to be a finding for the military to conduct

HUMINT activities? The DHS does it every single day. It's part of general military day-to-day activities, just like SIGINT and IMINT collection. Congress HAS approved the funds for this: They funded DIA (DHS) using General Defense Intelligence Program funds and the services using TIARA funds to conduct HUMINT activities. This is part of the military's internal military intelligence program. Now if you were to tell me that the military is not allowed to conduct HUMINT collection activities, you might have a case.

[Oilwellian]

41. A quote by Malcolm Muggeridge

"In the eyes of posterity it will inevitably seem that, in safeguarding our freedom, we destroyed it; that the vast clandestine apparatus we built up to probe our enemies' resources and intentions only served in the end to confuse our own purposes; that the practice of deceiving others for the good of the state led infallibly to our deceiving ourselves; and that the vast army of intelligence personnel built up to execute these purposes were soon caught up in the web of their own sick fantasies, with disastrous consequences to them and us."

[atreides1]

64. High Crimes and Misdemenors

High Crimes and Misdemenors are the only requirements for impeachment, and even those do not have to be fully defined.

[Just Me]

66. I agree!!!!

The neoCONimperialists' pattern of secrecy and deception certainly falls within the realm of "high crimes and misdemeanors". :mad:

[Just Me]

33. It's another example of a pattern of acting outside/beyond the scope

of their legal power (ultra vires). They continue to dodge constitutional and legal restraints, consolidating/concentrating an unacceptable amount of power, by unilaterally re-interpreting the law.

Secretly setting up (and funding) a clandestine intelligence unit without the consent of congress is very naughty. Such an action certainly constitutes acting ultra vires and should constitute misappropriation of federal funds.

[DistantWind88]

34. That's not true

Congress funds DoD HUMINT assets through DIA (DHS) via GDIP funds. They also fund service HUMINT assets through TIARA.

Congress funds special forces through Major Force Program 10.

Congress does NOT tell the military HOW to use these assets, that's left up to military commanders to decide.

If DoD decides to team HUMINT assets with Special Forces Assets in a new way to create better, actionable intelligence, how have they broken the law?

[Mountainman]

46. Can you recite the law for me? Your post is so confusing I don't know

what you said.

Which law do they say was broken?

[DistantWind88]

47. I'm asserting that

no law was broken (in this case). I'm sure other laws have been broken by the (mis)Administration.

[Just Me]

50. Listen, secretive ultra vires acts are S.O.P for these folks.

"Concealing" what may be simply a reformation of the former OSP or "concealing" the creation of an intelligence body and the funding for its sustenance is yet another secretive ultra vires act.

Such actions DO establish a pattern of behavior which demonstrates activity outside the scope of these individuals' power, a breach of their oathes, and falls within the scope of "high crimes and misdemeanors",...in my humble opinion.

[DistantWind88]

53. I don't agree with you

Rummy may be an ass, but this WELL within the purview of the DoD under existing laws and funding.

[Just Me]

56. You disagree that secretive ultra vires acts are S.O.P. for the neoCONs?

If so,...we will definitely not agree on anything pertaining to a discussion of the legality of these folks' actions.

I do wonder at your persistent defensive position on this news of a secret intelligence group created by DoD. I find it,...odd. But, hey, you're entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine.

[Straight Shooter]

49. "better, actionable intelligence" with Rumsfeld in charge?

The argument falls apart right there. He is interested in the benefit to himself of the broadening of his powers, not the judicious application of those powers.

From what I'm reading, you seem to be defending the erosion of principles which held Rumsfeld's predecessors in check, at least to an extent. Rumsfeld is hell-bent on acquiring as much power as possible, over as many people as possible. When you have people pursuing ends and creating means to achieve those ends, without regard for ultimate consequences, you find yourself in the middle of a disaster. OSP is a prime example. Yet he is staunchly defended by bush.

We are being looked at by the world as a country without a conscience, and in the realm of intelligence gathering, the poster boys are Rumsfeld and Gonzalez.

I see your point, but you cannot take the factor of immense power-hungry egos out of this equation.

Now I must return to work ...

[Just Me]

52. The neoCONimperialists blamed the CIA for OSP's cherry-picked

intelligence concerning the WMD BS. Rummy and his "intelligence" gathering has proven unreliable and self-serving.

[TexasLawyer]

68. and not just unreliable--

I'd say lying, conniving, and vindictive to anyone questioning OSP "intelligence".

[Just Me]

69. I agree. It was an intentional manipulation of facts in order to mislead

and "con" others into doing what they otherwise would never have done had they known all the facts.

[74dodgedart]

21. The Plumbers..

It's like deja vu all over again

[Justitia]

37. Does this remind anyone else of Cambodia / Laos ops under Nixon?

Funny, another Rumsfeld / Cheney era.....

Congress didn't know about Nixon's adventures there either.

Birth of the Khmer Rouge.

[Guns Aximbo]

48. Nothing will happen

There be no impeachment.

[Acryliccalico]

54. We have to keep catching

and calling them on their lies and making it public.:kick:

[lovuian]

57. Its always nice to have US Soldiers be Pentagon spys

cause they are their own army and under their total control and are dispensable and the only one who knows about their information is Rumsfeld!!!

How Special!!! How Scary!!!

We have groups in the Government working for not the US but for Rumsfeld

[leftchick]

67. good explaination

someone upthread is not getting te meassage.

[Just Me]

70. Precisely!!! That usurpation of power is anti-constitutional & dangerous!

The neoCONimperialists are DANGEROUS!!! :mad:

[Mark D]

65. Yawn... Big deal.

Military Intelligence has employed on-the-ground assets for decades. This is nothing new. This article is trying to make a mole-hill out of a perfectly flat spot.

[74dodgedart]

71. They've always had oversight in the past.Checks and Balances.

Even the CIA has had a degree of congressional oversight.

Abu Grahib is an example of what can happen without checks and balances. Based un Rumsfaileds record, someone need to keep an eye on him.