You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Top Secret JSOC Uncovered by WaPo
2011-09-03
The CIA's armed drones and paramilitary forces have killed dozens of al-Qaeda leaders and thousands of its foot soldiers. But there is another mysterious organization that has killed even more of America's enemies in the decade since the 9/11 attacks.

CIA operatives have imprisoned and interrogated nearly 100 suspected terrorists in their former secret prisons around the world, but troops from this other secret organization have imprisoned and interrogated 10 times as many, holding them in jails that it alone controls in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This article, adapted from a chapter of the newly released "Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State," by Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and William M. Arkin, chronicles JSOC's spectacular rise, much of which has not been publicly disclosed before. Two presidents and three secretaries of defense routinely have asked JSOC to mount intelligence-gathering missions and lethal raids, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also in countries with which the United States was not at war, including Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, the Philippines, Nigeria and Syria.
It's always about selling a book, isn't it?
The president has also given JSOC the rare authority to select individuals for its kill list -- and then to kill, rather than capture, them. Critics charge that this individual man-hunting mission amounts to assassination, a practice prohibited by U.S. law. JSOC's list is not usually coordinated with the CIA, which maintains a similar, but shorter roster of names.
I wonder if bin Laden's name was on the list? Was it OK to assassinate him? Why is it always reported as "killing of bin Laden? Fortunately, Obooboo didn't take a poll to see if the Seals should wack binny.
In the fall of 2003, JSOC got a new commander who would turn the organization into arguably the most effective weapon in the U.S. counterterrorism arsenal. From his perch as vice director of operations on the Joint Staff, Brig. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal had come to believe there was an aversion to decision making at the top of government. No one wanted to be wrong, so they either asked more questions or added more layers to the process. The new emphasis on interagency cooperation also meant meetings were bigger and longer. Any one of a multitude of agencies could stifle action until it was too late.
Not unlike the rest of the government. Except for the regulators, of course.
McChrystal's legendary work ethic mixed well with his Scotch Irish exuberance and common-man demeanor. He viewed beer calls with subordinates as an important bonding exercise. He made people call him by his first name. He seemed almost naively trusting. (This trait would become McChrystal's undoing in 2010, after he was promoted to commander of forces in Afghanistan. He and members of his inner circle made inappropriate comments about their civilian leaders in the presence of a Rolling Stone reporter. McChrystal offered to resign, and Obama quickly accepted).
Undone by lefties! I'm shocked!
Posted by:Bobby

#20  Rather see Petraeus bust the silos and roll the heads of the fiefdoms that have built them.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-09-03 23:42  

#19  The best thing Petraeus could do is weed out the leaking self-agenda assholes at the CIA bureaucracy. A 50% turnover in the first year sounds about right
Posted by: Frank G   2011-09-03 21:59  

#18  a preemptive strike across Petraeus's bow by the WaPo and CIA apparatchiks?

And/or State Department.
Posted by: Pappy   2011-09-03 21:54  

#17  Panetta told the SEALS it was a kill mission. President Obama may not have been able to make up his mind or wanted credible deniability, but the White House staff didn't want the circus of a trial. If the president wanted bin Laden alive, he and his brood would be the guests of Quantico Brig at this minute.
Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165   2011-09-03 21:52  

#16  I wonder if bin Laden's name was on the list? Was it OK to assassinate him? Why is it always reported as "killing of bin Laden? Fortunately, Obooboo didn't take a poll to see if the Seals should wack binny.

The reason Obama never asked is because he knew the SEALS would ignore him and blast Bin Laden anyway. Never a question whether it was a kill mission to our Finest.
Posted by: Charles   2011-09-03 18:32  

#15  Here now Abu. We all know that it was the Smoking Man that did the deed.
Posted by: whitecollar redneck   2011-09-03 17:22  

#14  #12 Makes me think once again about JFK.
Posted by Abu Uluque


Or Vince Foster.....
Posted by: Besoeker   2011-09-03 16:23  

#13  All I will say is that I know quite well from my past work that "consequences imposed" have quite a good record at driving home how accountability works and wonderfully clarifies the mind as to the personal cost of a specific act, especially when someone is at a decision point of whether or not to commit a particularly evil act directly or even via support of such a thing. Not only for the ones the consequences are imposed upon, but for those "in the know" who are related or working closely with him/her.
Posted by: OldSpook   2011-09-03 14:44  

#12  Makes me think once again about JFK.
Posted by: Abu Uluque   2011-09-03 13:22  

#11  TW: Israel does it at intervals, and it works like a charm.

The difference between assassinating foreign terrorists and their supporters "over there", and any necessary assassinations "over here" is that over there, only a very limited and authorized chain of command is permitted to order hits.

Here, the process would be insanely hard, and only for the most grievous offenses. It would have to be initiated by (my guess) one of our intelligence agencies or the FBI. Likely it would have to then go to one of our intelligence courts for secret hearings.

They would determine if the actions were not just treasonous, and so damaging to the United States, and that the individual involved was effectively "above the law", for some reasons, not just that they could not be tried without causing other major harm.

From there, the execution order would likely go to a subcommittee of the senate Intelligence committee, who would likely have the final say, and designate who will carry out the order, and to some extent, with consultations, how it will be carried out.

How did Ron Brown qualify? In short, he sold the details of NSA listening posts around China and who manned them to the Chinese. And he did so for just a few hundred thousand dollars.

Thus he compromised most NSA monitoring of China, and put the lives of hundreds of NSA personnel, and their families, at grave risk.

He also committed several other criminal acts, but nothing came anywhere close to this. It should be noted that others at the commerce department, seen as complicit in this crime, on the US side, are also deceased, but known Chinese agents involved were just quietly deported or charged with lesser offenses.

This shows the clear difference: spies are just doing their job, and nobody wants to start a nation to nation assassination war. But traitors are a local problem, so can be killed without consequence.

Many do not "make the cut", like traitorous spies like Walker, Pollard, and Bradley Manning, so their destination is a federal Maximum Security prison.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-09-03 12:51  

#10  a preemptive strike across Petraeus's bow by the WaPo and CIA apparatchiks?
Posted by: Frank G   2011-09-03 11:58  

#9  Fixed it, Glinese Big Foot2428. You had a misplaced angle bracket.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-09-03 11:38  

#8  JSOC has grown from 1,800 troops prior to 9/11 to as many as 25,000. It has its own intelligence division, its own drones and reconnaissance planes, even its own dedicated satellites. It also has its own cyberwarriors, who, on Sept. 11, 2008, shut down every jihadist Web site they knew.

To give you an idea of the leathality of our operators, here is a Strategy Page article on the Rangers:

Rangers have kill ratio of 2,000:1
Posted by: Glinese Big Foot2428   2011-09-03 11:34  

#7  10 years later, let's remember Senate Joint Resolution 23 which is still in effect -

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.


nb - Senate (place where the bill was initiate) Joint (that it passed both houses) Resolution
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-09-03 11:26  

#6  that's why we have courts.

Courts that empower themselves to impose personal views upon the people and state. Justice Kennedy et al ignored Yamashita v. Styer and impose civilian processes to what had already been establish by precedent as legitimate prosecution of those captured on the battlefield. He chose to ignore the very standards of the Geneva Convention on the responsibilities of those who seek its protection requires conforming to its rules. He granted status to illegal combatants.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-09-03 11:19  

#5  AH is correct. I'm ambivalent about this. I see nothing other than the honor code of the Military to prevent 'bumble and company, or similar follow on, from starting to use this domestically.

Given our current foreign policy and wars I can approve this against foreign targets, but.....

e.g. if there was enough evidence to get Brown wacked, there was enough to arrest and try him for treason.
Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

Posted by: AlanC   2011-09-03 11:18  

#4  We just don't admit we do that. The problem with extrajudicial killings & killings outside of warfare is that they can be perverted by insiders for their own evil ends - see the acts of Qadaffy & Saddam Hussein for starters.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418   2011-09-03 10:59  

#3  I realize that because I'm not a leftist I won't get this, but what's wrong with killing those who would kill us if only they had the opportunity?
Posted by: Steve White   2011-09-03 10:37  

#2  We don't do that, Anonymoose -- that's why we have courts.
Posted by: trailing wife   2011-09-03 10:35  

#1  Critics charge that this individual man-hunting mission amounts to assassination, a practice prohibited by U.S. law.

No it isn't. US law, since Gerald Ford, prohibits the "assassination of foreign leaders". The interpretation being "political leaders".

Instigators, coordinators, financiers, propagandists, technicians, and all other non-political leaders are fair game.

In fact, I have long advocated that we be far more enthusiastic about taking out such individuals, with means ranging from the (plausible deniability) "looks like an accident", to "with extreme, grotesque, hideous, and inhuman depraved prejudice".

I will conclude by proposing that even under truly extraordinary circumstances, like former commerce secretary Ron Brown, who it has been alleged sold highest security NSA information to the Chinese, that even "US leaders" are not immune from assassination.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2011-09-03 10:15  

00:00