CIA Strikes Inside Pakistan without Governent's Permission

[paparush]

Source: WashingtonPost.com

U.S. strikes within Pakistan — without notice
Unilateral attack on al-Qaeda commander called a model for operations

In the predawn hours of Jan. 29, a CIA Predator aircraft flew in a slow arc above the Pakistani town of Mir Ali. The drone's operator, relying on information secretly passed to the CIA by local informants, clicked a computer mouse and sent the first of two Hellfire missiles hurtling toward a cluster of mud-brick buildings a few miles from the town center.

The missiles killed Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander and a man who had repeatedly eluded the CIA's dragnet. It was the first successful strike against al-Qaeda's core leadership in two years, and it involved, U.S. officials say, an unusual degree of autonomy by the CIA inside Pakistan.

Having requested the Pakistani government's official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.

Model for the future
Officials say the incident was a model of how Washington often scores its rare victories these days in the fight against al-Qaeda inside Pakistan's national borders: It acts with assistance from well-paid sympathizers inside the country, but without getting the government's formal permission beforehand.

It is an approach that some U.S. officials say could be used more frequently this year, particularly if a power vacuum results from yesterday's election and associated political tumult. The administration also feels an increased sense of urgency about undermining al-Qaeda before President Bush leaves office, making it less hesitant, said one official familiar with the incident.

Independent actions by U.S. military forces on another country's sovereign territory are always controversial, and both U.S. and Pakistani officials have repeatedly sought to obscure operational details that would reveal that key decisions are sometimes made in the United States, not in Islamabad. Some Pentagon operations have been undertaken only after intense disputes with the State Department, which has worried that they might inflame Pakistani public resentment; the CIA itself has sometimes sought to put the brakes on because of anxieties about the consequences for its relationship with Pakistani intelligence officials.


Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23228197

---

"Model For the Future" - In other words - We recognize no borders. We ignore your sovereignty. Your laws are meaningless to us.

The War On Terror (tm) is coming to a country near YOU!

[lies]

1. Well...

We have to be dead clear on what we're talking about.

Should the US aim it's military at it's "enemies" in Pakistan? Should the US aim it's military at it's "enemies" in North Korea?

If we only use our force within countries that give us permission, what will the impact be, in terms of the real threat to America?

Seriously.

In other words, the US has always and will always attack preemptively within countries of it's choosing, with or without permission.

So.. if that's the case, and it is, maybe we should be happy that the US is finally not simply kissing Musharraf's ass, but is instead doing what Obama suggested a while ago and deal with the threat ourselves. It's cheaper, it's arguably more effective in military terms, and it's a public (more or less) acknowledgment that we won't kowtow to dictators when it comes to our security.

Wishing the US would stop acting unilaterally is stupid. It will never ever ever happen.

Never.

No chance.

Wishing that US would stop propping up dictators in Asia might be accomplish-able ... might.

[lies]

5. And

No one disagrees...

I know that this shit is disgusting in many ways, and it's completely unregulated by any chain of command or oversite, but it's the norm.

Vote for a completely different kind of leader if you want to stop this shit, and even then...

[shraby]

15. I think it's time you read the constitution. We cannot

unilateraly invade another country, and that is what this technically is. Another war crime has been perpetrated.

[lies]

20. ha...

Name a president that hasn't done it.

Name a candidate running that wouldn't do it.

In case you haven't noticed no government cares about their citizens opinions when the military is involved.

[OKthatsIT]

62. BUT...

That kind of 'Jackal Ops' only allows the BUSH CIA(and I do mean Bush's SKULL&BONES CIA), to fabricate any 'media psyop' of their choosing, too. They can waltz right in to any country, kill someone then tell the media they got an AL QAEDA LEADER.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

AL QAEDA IS the BUSH/CHENEY CIA...they hire the muslims to do their 'insurgent dirty work', then, when they know they've only got 10 mos left in office....they're worried about ALL THOSE AL QAEDA operatives out there with bank accounts and no future's.

[ixion]

6. No, stupid is:

continuing to act unilaterally and thinking that no one will care. That's stupid, and it will cost us dearly in the long run.

[lies]

8. ha

So you seem to be implying that there's some course of action that citizens could take that would stop our intelligence services from acting without permission in foreign countries.

I think that's completely nuts.

Maybe pleasantly naive would be a better way to say it, but impossible however you say it.

You can't point to a single moment in the history of any modern country in which they didn't covertly interfere with another country.

won't happen.

can't happen.

won't happen.

[ixion]

16. lol... no, naive is thinking no other country will care

I'm not saying they're going to stop. I'm saying that ultimately we will suffer the consequences of our arrogance.

[lies]

24. yes

v true, but since no one that could stop it cares about the consequences, it doesn't matter.

[Tempest]

39. Just look at Iran

The CIA is the reason for the Islamic rule in Iran.

And no they are one of the biggest exporters of terrorism. Terrorism that is responsible for killing Americans.

[lies]

43. agreed

completely...

and tell me, did that fiasco in anyway change the way we act toward the rest of the world?

No, of course not.

In fact, we engaged in more meddling after the Shah debacle than before it.

[ixion]

46. and the US is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world

so what's you point?

[Tempest]

50. Blowback

Some think it's a good idea to clandestinely attack other countries and believe there will be no repercussions.

[coalition_unwilling]

You're justifying a policy of extra-judicial assassination. Pakistan

is a sovereign nation. Or does the principle of national sovereignty no longer apply, ca. pre-1648 and the peace of Westphalia?

Whatever

[lies]

27. not really justifiying, but...

am accepting reality...

and in this case, they should be ignoring that dictator and doing what they want.

dictators are not legitimate leaders, by definition.

if we let them decide our foreign policy...

[LynnTheDem]

30. You gotta be kidding.

Put the koolaide down and back away.

[lies]

34. Giving Pakistan to AQ

Is the real joke...

would I prefer to see actual terrorists (not the made up ones Bush loves to blab on about) with nukes?

would you?

if Pakistan collapses what should we do?

say that the constitution prohibits us from doing shit?

Maybe let the congress, whomever that may be, and whatever their re-election worries may be, to decide?

Maybe...

but if you found out we had a chance to prevent a nuke from being smuggled out of PK and we didn't do it, because of bureaucracy in the Congress, how would you feel?

Seriously.

These are serious issues and playing politics from either side is just as stupid.

[Tempest]

41. By secretly bombing in Pakistan, we are giving the country to the Islamists

It's scarry you don't see that.

Apparently the lessons of Iran are completely lost on you.

[LynnTheDem]

55. Here's an idea! Let's blow up the entire world!!!

Then we'll never ever have to worry about them Islamofacists!

[Thor_MN]

60. 488-8888 Wrong brand, I know, but you get the idea

[formercia]

2. You will be assimilated

to resist is futile.

[leveymg]

3. Saudi Arabia, next?

A "target-rich" environment.

[lies]

7. hope

we can only hope.

[sam sarrha]

9. we let 911 happen, they work for the puppet masters.

[BulletproofLandshark]

4. "associated poltical tumult" = Our boy didn't win

Naturally, we have no choice but to send the CIA in to "protect our interests"

[fascisthunter]

10. Jesus... what a Stupid Thing to Do

[LiberalFighter]

11. When can we expect a foreign country to bomb one of their enemies within US borders?

[lies]

13. as soon

as they aren't scared of us.

that's how this shit works.. we can do it because they can't openly attack us back...

Remember that dynamic created Hizbollah and the US has suffered from Hizbollah, but not as much as the hurt we've put on various Arab nations and nationals...

[Phred42]

12. Bush just Commited another act of War

Impeachment is the only way to stop the insanity.

[lies]

14. It

wouldn't work... Clinton did it, FDR did it, JFK did it... they will all do it... and always have...

[Phred42]

17. The US dosen't have the Status in the world any longer

to get away with this.

Well see.....

[lies]

23. Compared to Musharraf

we could nuke hawaii and people wouldn't mind

Pakistan can't and won't retaliate and who in the world will back Musharraf (if he threatened us which he won't) against the US?

[Phred42]

59. Setting the bar kind of low there - How Low can you go?

[coalition_unwilling]

21. "FDR did it, JFK did it"? Care to be specific? ??? -n/t

[lies]

25. ok

FDR secretly aided Britain, knowing Britain was using it's weapons to attack a sovereign state (Germany) long before Pearl Harbor.

One example:

"By 1941, U.S. Navy aircraft carriers were secretly ferrying British fighter planes between the UK and the Mediterranean war zones, and the British Royal Navy was receiving supply and repair assistance at American naval bases in the United States."

JFK gave the CIA clearance to act in lots of places, most famously Cuba.

Example:

On April 17, 1961, Kennedy ordered the previously planned invasion of Cuba (i.e The Bay of Pigs) to proceed.


All presidents do it.

[Tempest]

40. Your FDR example falls well short of the mark

Secretly assisting an ally is not the same as violating a nation's soveignty by bombing within its borders.

[lies]

44. semantics

truly...

the US secretly funded another nations attacks on a sovereign nation...

attacks which killed plenty of innocent people..

in fact we did what we did with Saddam, in his quest to destroy Iran.

You gonna say that wasn't unilaterally interfering..?

[Tempest]

51. No, not semantics

You are grossly distorting the facts to try to make a point.

As the other poster who responded clearly shows.

[lies]

53. How?

How did I distort the facts?

Did the US secretly fund a war against a foreign nation without a declaration of war?

Yep.

Did we send our troops and our weapons to help them wage this secret war?

Yep.

If you guys are gonna say a government has existed that hasn't secretly waged war against some other nation or entity, without approval of the congress, based on that, you're delibertly fooling yourselves.

And, if you are gonna say that, name one other government that's done it.

I mean really.

It's nice to get up on your high horse... it's an impossible standard for our government and it will not achieve it.

[coalition_unwilling]

48. I'll respond to each of your "examples" in turn. First, FDR --

"FDR secretly aided Britain, knowing Britain was using it's weapons to attack a sovereign state (Germany) long before Pearl Harbor."

Nazi Germany had declared war on Britain. Technically speaking, Nazi Germany was attacking a sovereign state (Britain) -- see the Blitz and Battle of Britain for more on that topic. No matter whether you side with the British Empire or with Nazi Germany, both countries were at war with one another. FDR's materiel assistance to the British is hardly the same as a CIA attack inside the boundaries of a sovereign state. Last time I checked, by the way, Nazi Germany was the first to attack a sovereign state, i.e., Poland. That attack by Hitler's forces in 1939 triggered the mutual assistance pact between Britain and Poland. Or are you actually insinuating that Britain had no right to attack Nazi Germany at all?

JFK - "On April 17, 1961, Kennedy ordered the previously planned invasion of Cuba (i.e The Bay of Pigs) to proceed."

Does it matter to you at all that the ground troops for the Bay of Pigs were Cuban exiles? Once the debacle was under way, Kennedy actually rejected Nixon's advice to follow up with airstrikes by U.S. forces on Cuba in support of the Cuban exiles. Again, JFK explicitly rejected the very behavior (an attack on a sovereign state by U.S. forces) that is at issue here. JFK was certainly no saint, I'll grant you. And you would have a better example for your argument in JFK's and RFK's attempts to assasinate Castro extra-judicially after the Bay of Pigs, I would suggest

[monktonman]

18. Hate to say it, but its true

I Hillary were our president
and the CIA pulled this shit and produced the body of Osama Bin Ladin,
we'd all be chinking our glasses and clapping our hands.
Just sayin.

[Zhade]

66. *I* wouldn't.

NT!

[balantz]

19. What will happen when the day comes that we see China step into the fray?

[Supersedeas]

65. China probably remembers the embassy that was bombed by US airstrikes

[Tempest]

22. Don't anyone be surprised

When the Islamists take control of Pakistan and their nuclear weapons over misguided policies like this.

[lies]

26. we'll nuke Islamabad

before we let that happen...

[closeupready]

28. While this is just a discussion board, talk like that imbues urgency to

efforts in countries like Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and also in countries that already have them, like Russia, efforts to modernize what weapons they have.

So keep on beating those war drums, neocon, and you'll be helping to eventually unleash the gates of Hell.

[lies]

31. I don't think it's a good idea

but it's reality.

you guys can't name a single president that hasn't done it or a candidate that has promised not to do it.

calling me a neocon is pointless as well as I am about the biggest critic of there's you'll ever run into, I actually have read Strauss so that I could poke holes in it... which wasn't too difficult, btw.

Someone that disagrees with me, again, I say, show me an example of a leader anywhere in the world that didn't engage in this behaviour...

And yes, we will openly attack Pakistan in AQ was to get nukes in Pakistan...

As we should in that case.

What will we do otherwise? Give AQ a nation and condemn its residents to the outcome...

If we did have to act, the middle class in PK would support us, as they hate AQ (as they are corrupt and fat off the land).

[Tempest]

36. Never happen

Not even the most insane neocon would go through with nuking a nuclear country.

You don't seem to be grounded well in reality from reading your posts.

[LynnTheDem]

29. That's ok. Americans won't mind at all when other nations strike inside the USA

without permission or notice.

All for "TWAT", of course.

[balantz]

32. Excellent point.

[lies]

35. won't happen

as long as nations are scared of the US...

not a great system, but one we spent the entire cold war perfecting...

you won't reverse it by whining..

[Tempest]

38. You seem to be confusing fear with contempt and anger

No country fears us.

We can't even control a small, undeveloped country like Iraq and you think countries fear us?

Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

[Amonester]

42. Bingo. n/t

[lies]

54. they fear us

in some ways even more..

they used to be able to rely on u be practical...

now they're scared we're no longer rational...


to pretend any nation will openly declare war on the US in silly...

[Tempest]

58. Keep thinking that

And be surprised when it all goes wrong for you.

[lies]

64. So...

You think another country is going to declare open war with the US?

Ain't gonna happen in our lifetime.

If ever.

We'll take ourselves down a long time before another country declares war on us.

[seriousstan]

61. they're scared we're no longer rational....that's why I say..NUKE THE MOON!!!

A Realistic Plan for World Peace

[MisterP]

63. hell, we're harboring a guy who blew up 73 Cubans and almost blew up

40,000 Panamanians and 1 Castro. MiGs are crisscrossing Florida and will initiate "pacification" if conditions are not met

[JohnCheg]

33. Drones

Don't count.

Look at Condi Rice

[TrogL]

37. The United States attacks a building in a foreign country

That's it. Pakistan should invade Norway!!!

[legin]

45. I think this why Benazir Bhutto got 'wacked'

In return for being shoehorned into power by the u.s. she was going to give the u.s. a freehand in these lawless areas that are controlled by Al-Qeida.

Although they seem to be doing it anyway. Probably the election has somethig to do with this.

[closeupready]

47. I think so, too.

n/t

[Azazel]

49. This is the kind of thing the US should have been doing for the past 5 years...

Instead of invading Iraq.

[Tempest]

52. The U.S. wouldn't have had to do this

If Bush didn't pull troops and intelligence agents from Afghanistan.

It's the failures in Afghanistan that made the Pakistan border a haven for al-Qaeda.

[Ian David]

56. It's not The War ON Terror. It's The War AGAINST Terror (TWAT). n/t

[BobbyVan]

57. Unlike Hillary, Obama agrees with this

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801