BS: U.S. Death Squads

Subject: U.S. Death Squads
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Aug 02 - 08:34 AM

Today, al-Quaida; tommorrow.....whom? 'Cause we're the cops of the world, boys!

********

Rumsfeld, top officers considering plan to use special operations teams to hunt al-Qaida leaders far from war zone

By THOM SHANKER and JAMES RISEN, New York Times

First published: Monday, August 12, 2002

WASHINGTON --

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is considering ways to broadly expand the role of U.S. special operations forces in the global campaign against terrorism, including sending them worldwide to capture or kill al-Qaida leaders, according to Pentagon and intelligence officials.

Proposals now being discussed by Rumsfeld and senior military officers could ultimately lead special operations units to get more deeply involved in long-term covert operations in countries where the United States is not at war and, in some cases, where the local government is not informed of their presence. This expansion of the military's involvement in clandestine activities could be justified, Pentagon officials said, by defining it as "preparation of the battlefield" in a campaign against terrorism that knows no boundaries.

Some officials outside the Pentagon have expressed concerns that the proposals ultimately could lead the military into covert operations that have traditionally been conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency under tightly controlled legal conditions set out by the president in secret "findings," operations that are then closely monitored by Congress.

The discussion whether to give special operations forces missions to capture or kill individual al-Qaida leaders may at some point conflict with the executive order prohibiting assassinations.

In past administrations, there was a clear effort to distinguish between the combat activities conducted by special operations forces and missions handled by the CIA. But the line has gradually blurred as the campaign against terrorism required greater cooperation among U.S. law enforcement, intelligence and military officials.

Indeed, some of Rumsfeld's senior advisers said a legal finding allowing lethal force to be used as part of a mission against a terrorist leader may not be necessary to send special operations forces to hunt, capture or kill al-Qaida leaders, in any country -- especially since the terror network attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and thereby created a state of armed conflict.

"We're at war with al-Qaida," a senior adviser to Rumsfeld said. "If we find an enemy combatant, then we should be able to use military forces to take military action against them." No formal plans have yet been written for Rumsfeld, and the discussions remain far from any form that might be presented to President Bush for his approval.

Rumsfeld is described by aides as frustrated that military operations in and around Afghanistan have reached a plateau without the elimination of al-Qaida. A classified directive issued recently by the Pentagon to the U.S. Special Operations Command ordered it to formulate new operations for elite counterterrorism units to "disrupt and destroy enemy assets," according to three Pentagon and administration officials who have seen the document. The directive made clear that proposals for increased funds, new equipment and more personnel would be considered if special operations forces were cleared by the President and Rumsfeld to take the lead in attacking terrorist leaders far beyond the Afghan theater, these officials said.

More broadly, officials outside the Pentagon said that as Rumsfeld tries to stretch the limits on special operations activities, he may be moving them into areas of political intelligence-gathering and related clandestine operations traditionally conducted by CIA operatives. Rumsfeld was said to be dissatisfied that it was the CIA that first developed ties to Afghan warlords as early as two years before Sept. 11, which put them in a position to introduce those warlords to U.S. military personnel after the war in Afghanistan began. And it was the CIA that paid local warlords to obtain their cooperation with the American-led military campaign against al-Qaida and the Taliban.

In some cases, efforts by U.S. special forces working with anti-Taliban commanders in Afghanistan to buy back Stinger missiles were slowed by the fact that they had to await payments to these Afghan fighters by CIA operatives because the U.S. soldiers were not allowed to hand out cash.

George Tenet, the director of central intelligence, is described as not opposing the proposals, and at least one Pentagon official said discussions were under way with intelligence agencies on how to coordinate new arrangements among them and special operations forces. This would "optimize each other's capabilities" in ways that have not been possible up to now, the official said.

A number of Pentagon and administration officials said a central goal of stepping up special operations missions would be to seek out terrorist leaders themselves in their safe houses or as they travel the world to coordinate attacks or seek safe havens.

A senior administration official said that having declared war on al-Qaida, on terrorists with global reach and nations that assist them, "If we find a high-value target somewhere, anywhere, in the world, and if we have the forces to get there and get to them, we should get there and get to them."

With a stealthy, mercurial adversary like al-Qaida, which learns quickly and adapts its tactics to the American response, the military has to be allowed to react just as quickly, this official said.

"Right now, there are 18 food chains, 20 levels of paperwork and 22 hoops we have to jump through before we can take action," the official said. "Our enemy moves faster than that."

The head of the U.S. Special Operations Command, Gen. Charles Holland, has briefed Rumsfeld and a small group of senior military officers on initial proposals. While some of the missions could be conducted under the direction of regional war-fighting commanders, others could be the sole mission of the Special Operations Command working around the world, which likewise would break new ground in the military, officials said.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Death Squads
From: X
Date: 12 Aug 02 - 11:57 PM

Yippee!

Lets get the show on the road. Today the al-Quaida tommorrow...Whom? Maybe you Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Death Squads
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Aug 02 - 02:26 AM

There are several MCer's that could take a number. I'd rather discuss this than shaved pussy.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Death Squads
From: GUEST,memphis mud
Date: 13 Aug 02 - 09:58 AM

there is a time and place for everything. This is not the place. Take it elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Death Squads
From: harpgirl
Date: 13 Aug 02 - 10:10 AM

Oh, this must be our resident psychopath. My dear, you are still misinformed as to how to engage mudcatters in a prosocial way. Please try a little harder. hg

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Death Squads
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 02 - 07:35 AM

The US government keep on saying things like "we're at war with..." But so far as I am aware war has not been declared on anybody. Supposedly that's supposed to be a figure of speech or something like that.

What's the point of having all those rules and procedures if they are completely ignored? If they are outdated and need changing, change them. As stands the definition of where this metaphorical war is supposed to begin and end is just floating in the air.

The other day Bush appeared to be saying that any country seeking to acquire of mass destruction which is "an enemy of freedom" is a justifiable target. That is a definition that can arguably include a pretty high proportion of countyries in the world, especially the last part of it.

If you aren't at war and you carry out warlike actions in a foreign country doesn't that count as piracy? By illegal combatants.

Subject: RE: BS: U.S. Death Squads
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Aug 02 - 07:36 AM

The US government keep on saying things like "we're at war with..." But so far as I am aware war has not been declared on anybody. Supposedly that's supposed to be a figure of speech or something like that.

What's the point of having all those rules and procedures if they are completely ignored? If they are outdated and need changing, change them. As it stands the definition of where this metaphorical war is supposed to begin and end is just floating in the air.

The other day Bush appeared to be saying that any country seeking to acquire of mass destruction which is "an enemy of freedom" is a justifiable target. That is a definition that can arguably include a pretty high proportion of countyries in the world, especially the last part of it.

If you aren't at war and you carry out warlike actions in a foreign country doesn't that count as piracy? By illegal combatants.