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
US secretly strikes Qaeda: report
2008-11-11
Since 2004, the Pentagon has used broad, secret authority to carry out about 12 attacks against al-Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, the New York Times reported on its website Sunday.

Quoting what it said were more than six unnamed military and intelligence officials and senior Bush administration policy makers, the newspaper said the military operations were authorized by a classified order signed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the approval of President George W. Bush.

The order gave the military permission to attack al-Qaeda and other hostile targets anywhere in the world, even in countries not at war with the United States, without any additional approval, the report said. Despite the order, each mission required high-level government approval, the Times reported.

The order identified 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, where Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sought sanctuary, a senior administration official told the newspaper.

A former top CIA official told the newspaper that one of the operations included the raid of a suspected militant compound in the Bajuar region of Pakistan. What's more, military planners were able to watch the entire attack "live" at CIA headquarters in Virginia through a video camera installed on a Predator aircraft that was sent to the area, the paper said.
Is there nothing the NYT won't print when it comes to hitting our enemies?
There is no information about the remaining secret military strikes, but officials made clear the list of targets did not include Iran, the Times pointed out.

The paper said, however, that U.S. forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.

Senior military officials told the paper that as many as a dozen additional missions were scrapped because senior administration officials decided they were too dangerous, diplomatically problematic or relied on insufficient evidence.

Before the 2004 order, the Pentagon needed to get approval for missions on a case-by-case basis, which could take days, the paper noted. But Rumsfeld was not satisfied with the status-quo and pressed hard for permission to use military power automatically outside the combat zones of Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the Times.
Posted by:Fred

#15  My money's on the Chavez model...
Posted by: Hyper   2008-11-11 21:05  

#14  Remoteman's question is certainly a scary one; i suspect that the second option he describes will be very tempting to Bambi.......
Posted by: USN, Ret.   2008-11-11 15:13  

#13  Rob06, go crawl back under your rock.

Expose the NYT. Keep the pressure on it. Shine the light of day and watch the cockroaches scurry.

Don't talk like a cockroach yourself.
Posted by: mom   2008-11-11 15:06  

#12  Yeah, that's the question.
Posted by: lotp   2008-11-11 14:45  

#11  If the Times is endangering our operators, then environment exists for some of our operators to endanger the Times. Most of these stories are attributed to a reporter. We know who the editors are. Where is Mitch Rapp (rhyms with bi+ch slap) these days? I for one, while not condoning the punishment of americans by Americans, could not generate much sympathy for libtards suffering "at home" accidental drownings, electrocutions, hangings and piercings.
Posted by: Rob06   2008-11-11 14:30  

#10  Lets say we do get a major attack in the next four years. I'm talking something an order of magnitude greater than 9/11...ie 30 - 50,000 US citizens killed.

Does this cause everyone to focus and realize the threat, then go after it with ruthless efficiency (screw the puppies & baby ducks) or does it give Barry the opportunity to make a serious extra-Constitutional power grab?
Posted by: remoteman   2008-11-11 14:04  

#9  All this leaking classified information will come haunt us. I have a bad feeling that we will take a hit in the future, because we are shackled from doing what needs to be done to prevent attacks.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2008-11-11 13:18  

#8  B's legacy should be a clever 'sting'.
Posted by: Thealing Borgia 122   2008-11-11 11:28  

#7  You know, when something is marked "Classified", it shouldn't be printed for the entire fucking world to see.

I'm just sayin'. People usually go to prison for that.
Posted by: DarthVader   2008-11-11 09:24  

#6  Well you know that won't be happening for at least the next four years. A friendly phone call from Barry to Pinchy and they'll sit on whatever he wants.
Posted by: tu3031   2008-11-11 08:54  

#5  The Times is so precictably treasonous that it would be the perfect vehicle for a disinformation campaign. Like leaking that we have moles highly placed in the Iranian theocracy (on the assumption we don't.) It would be fun watching them accuse and torture each other trying to find them.
Posted by: Glenmore   2008-11-11 08:13  

#4  Congress repealed the Sedition Act in 1920.
Posted by: .5MT   2008-11-11 06:50  

#3  Time to try out the Sedition Act on a few of these guys. Any half-assed prosecutor from the bottom half of his law class could show that they are undermining the security of the U.S.
Posted by: bigjim-ky   2008-11-11 06:34  

#2  Is there nothing the NYT won't print when it comes to hitting our enemies?

Yeah. Our side of the story.
Posted by: gorb   2008-11-11 02:09  

#1  Good. Kill them all.

And their families. Evolution in action.
Posted by: Snakes Spuns8770   2008-11-11 00:11  

00:00