There's a lot of headlines popping up lately that's slightly annoying me as they seem to be attacking people who are simply doing their jobs. Apparently, some Democrats in Congress have been surprised that the CIA has been wanting to hunt down terrorists with paramilitary assets. They are now criticizing the agency for acting improperly for not telling them that they were "planning" to do so.
I must be missing something.
In 2002, the New York Times published a generic summary of the plan to kill terrorists and Bush's authorization to go after them. The title of the article was, "Bush Has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists", dated Dec 20, 2002 by James Risen and David Johnston.
In fact, here's an excerpt of it:
President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. Some officials said the terrorist list was known as the "high-value target list." A spokesman for the White House declined to discuss the list or issues involving the use of lethal force against terrorists. A spokesman for the C.I.A. also declined to comment on the list.
Democrats in Congress are now ordering an investigation on why they weren't told about the program.
To my elected officials, and I ask this with respect -- but can't you read between the lines? If the White House gives the CIA the authority to hunt down terrorists, don't you think you need people to hunt them down with? Don't you think you need to gather intelligence by arresting low level terrorists or have localized paramilitary personnel (not uniformed soldiers) so you can blend in the field?
I dunno...was I the only one that got the memo that national security agencies have a mandate to arrest or kill terrorists?