From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Tue Aug 13 2002 - 23:54:16 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> --- Amara Graps <amara@amara.com> wrote:
>
>>insanity
>>
>>http://iht.com/articles/67503.htm
>>U.S. considering wide terror hunt
>>
>>
>
> Oh, where to start?
> How about here:
> "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 which are then closely
> monitored by Congress"
>
> While I'm not surprised much that the New York Times can't seem to get
> their facts straight, it does bother me that they think they can
> blatantly get away with this despite the widespread public knowledge
> that special forces teams are regularly used in CIA covert operations.
> There is little that is new in this story, but much that is false, for
> example:
No, it is not widespread public knowledge. I am not even sure
it is true. Please provide facts for your claim.
>
> "The discussion whether to give special forces missions to capture or
> kill individual Al Qaeda leaders may at some point conflict with the
> executive order prohibiting assassinations."
>
Yes it would except that Bush rescinded part of that last year
for CIA operatives in at least some circumstances iirc. It was
most unfortunate.
> The falsehood by the writers is the assumption that killing a terrorist
> is somehow an 'assasination'. Assasinations are the killing of
Make that "alleged terrorist" and you begin to see the problem.
Remember that this is within a soevereign foreign state we are
not at war with and without their knowledge and you see more of
the problem. Calling it "assasination" is precisely accurate.
It can also, by our own definitions, be called "terrorism".
> political leaders of governments or political parties with standing. Al
> Qaeda is neither of these, unless the New York Times is implying that
> it considers Bin Laden a legitimate political leader of a government or
> political party.
>
I know of no definition of assasination that restricts it to
only political leaders. So lets not be silly.
Main Entry: as.sas.si.nate
Pronunciation: &-'sa-s[^&]n-"At
Function: transitive verb
Date: 1607
Inflected Form(s): -nat.ed; -nat.ing
1 : to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously
2 : to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal
reasons
synonym see KILL
- as.sas.si.na.tion /-"sa-s[^&]n-'A-sh&n/ noun
- as.sas.si.na.tor /-'sa-s[^&]n-"A-t&r/ noun
> "In past administrations, there was a clear effort to distinguish
> between the combat activities conducted by special 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."
>
> No, there was no such effort, outside of an effort to use individuals
> and equipment which could not be traced easily to the US government,
> 'plausible deniability' and all that.
Actually the CIA was severely restricted in 1972 due to its
extreme activities. The FBI was also restricted in part for the
very sorts of domestic mass surveillance and intervention during
the Vietnam and Civil Rights era that it is now encouraged to
undertake. The blurring is the difference between the legal use
of force and coercion at home and abroad and doing whatever the
hell we feel like. The campaign against terrorism in no way
justifies the massive threats on our rights and liberties that
have already been set in motion, much less those that have been
proposed. It in no way justifies ignoring international law and
the sovereignity of other governments. If you believe it does
then make your case.
Are you actually claiming the normal situation is and/or should
be that those with the power do whatever they want?
>
> Amara, I would not rely on the New York Times for factual reporting of
> anything they don't like. As a 2nd Amendment activist, I can attest to
> their pervasive use of lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and
> frauds upon their readers in that issue, I cannot believe that they
> would change their stripes for this one.
>
So you are aware in the single sphere of 2nd amendment rights
and ignore much of anything else?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:04 MST