# Cheney's "Executive Assassination Ring" -- Legal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502 "2009-07-09T22:41:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/61 "2009-07-10T19:31:03Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] How much does Congress get to know about the detailed dirty work done by various covert ops? Not saying it should be that way, but I always figured it was. [/QUOTE] I thought there was a Congressional Sub-Committee on Intelligence that, by law, had to be kept informed, even if the full Congress didn’t (for security reasons). My understanding is that Congress (or some fraction of it) always has to be informed of any action like that being described. Assuming Congress (or a Congressional Sub-Committee) WAS informed, I’m unsure how this necessarily makes it ‘right’ or ‘good’ that we assassinated people…I guess I’d need to see the details of what ‘assassinated’ means exactly in terms of what was done, who it was done too, and why. -XT ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/62 "2009-07-10T19:44:26Z")
[Remarkable timing with that post](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903017_pf.html): > [@](#): > > Four months after he was sworn in, CIA Director Leon E. Panetta learned of an intelligence program that had been hidden from Congress since 2001, a revelation that prompted him to immediately cancel the initiative and schedule a pair of closed-door meetings on Capitol Hill. > > … > > The program remains classified, and those knowledgeable about it would describe it only vaguely yesterday. Several current and former administration officials called it an “on-again, off-again” attempt to create a new intelligence capability and said it was related to the collection of information on suspected terrorists that was instituted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. And that’s a very impressive list of “left wing looniness” there. Not. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/63 "2009-07-10T19:58:48Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] And that’s a very impressive list of “left wing looniness” there. Not. [/QUOTE] Um…no idea where you are going with this, chief. My question is…did you read the article you linked too? Besides the smell of bi-partisan infighting, there doesn’t seem a lot of meat there…which is, you know, where we were when the thread was first posted. If you didn’t pick up on it before, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush et al DID attempt to circumvent the Congress (and I hope they did, and that it was illegal…maybe then one of my OTHER favorite loony lefty rants would come true, and we’d actually see some trials!)…I don’t see how your cite though get’s us any closer to whether this is something to see, or just a load of partisan horseshit as Dem’s and 'Pub’s snipe at each other and defend or attack the CIA. Some things that caught my eye in your cite: > [@](#): > > The incident has reignited a long-running dispute between congressional Democrats and the CIA, with some calling it part of a broader pattern of the agency withholding information from Congress. Some Republicans, meanwhile, privately questioned whether Panetta – who has stood with CIA officers in a dispute with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) – was looking to score points with House Democrats. > [@](#): > > The program remains classified, and those knowledgeable about it would describe it only vaguely yesterday. Several current and former administration officials called it an “on-again, off-again” attempt to create a new intelligence capability and said it was related to the collection of information on suspected terrorists that was instituted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. > [@](#): > > Congressional Republicans said no briefing about the program was required because it was not a major tool used against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. They accused Democrats of using the matter to divert attention away from Pelosi’s accusation that CIA officials intentionally misled her in 2002 about the agency’s interrogations of suspected terrorists > [@](#): > > But Democrats waved away such claims and said they may open a congressional investigation of the concealment of the program. > [@](#): > > “This agency and this director believe it is vital to keep the Congress fully and currently informed. Director Panetta’s actions back that up. As the letter from these six representatives notes, it was the CIA itself that took the initiative to notify the oversight committees,” agency spokesman George Little said. > [@](#): > > Current and former administration officials familiar with the program said it was not directly related to previously disclosed high-priority programs such as detainee interrogations or the warrantless surveillance of suspected terrorists on U.S. soil. It was a intelligence-collection activity run by the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, officials said. It was not a covert action, which by law would have required a presidential finding and a report to Congress. > [@](#): > > The official said he was certain that, if the nature of the program could be revealed, it would be seen as “no big deal.” > > However, another intelligence official said that the program was “sensitive” and should have been briefed to the committees, and that lawmakers had been told they had been fully informed on collection activities. > [@](#): > > The Obama White House, as the Bush administration previously had, has threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill if that provision is attached, citing existing laws allowing the executive branch to conduct intelligence matters while limiting some highly sensitive information. House Democrats said yesterday they are negotiating a compromise to the standoff. > [@](#): > > President Obama has rejected calls from Democrats, led by Pelosi, to create a “truth commission” to investigate allegations of misconduct by Bush administration officials. The White House says such a body would foment a partisan battle. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sinaijon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Sinaijon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaijon)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/64 "2009-07-10T20:05:17Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Okay, I’ll bite. What are a few of your favorite examples of “loony left” ideas about Bush that did not turn out to be true? I don’t know about him, but here’s a couple of my favorites: > **[Bush Admin fomented the Gaza Strip civil war?!](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=459254)** > > Vanity Fair reports: Urk. Just urk. Even for the Bush Admin this is . . . well, incredible. An overt betrayal of W’s purported commitment to ME democracy. A bloody crime. A monumental cock-up. All in one. And now Bush wants to make peace in... > **[Bush signs "finding" authorizing wider covert offensive v. Iran](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=466801)** > > The only source I’ve found for this so far is Alexander Cockburn at Counterpunch, but that’s more than good enough for a Pitting: :dubious: GIVE IT UP, W. Remember that “political capital” you resolved to “spend” after the 2004 election? Well,... > **["Takeover," by Charlie Savage, and the "imperial presidency"](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=455418)** > > I just finished Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, by Charlie Savage. His thesis is this: Although the Nixon, Reagan and both Bush admins are the clearest culprits, the expansion of the powers... These are pretty good too: > **[U.S. intelligence: Iran is not working on a bomb; but W says they're still a...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=446551)** > > According to a new assessment by American intelligence agencies, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has not restarted it. However, they are still working on uranium-enrichment technology. Bush’s response: “Look, Iran was... > **[If/when the U.S. fails in Iraq, will the Right propagate a new...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=443314)** > > N.B.: This is a thread in which Godwinization is for obvious reasons essential and inevitable at the outset. That should be taken into account before anyone invokes Godwin’s Law WRT another’s posts. In this recent column in The Nation, media critic... > **[Long-term legacy of Bush Admin on the balance/separation of powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=450951)** > > The Bush Administration has claimed an expanded role for the presidency that would have made Nixon blush: The power to enact what amounts to an irreversible line-item veto through presidential signing statements; the unitary executive theory and all... I wouldn’t want to leave these out: > **[In 2004, Gonzalez (as WH counsel) & DOJ targeted Edwards contributors](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=440198)** > > A federal court has ordered the DOJ to produce discovery on the matter. Story here. :mad: Impeachment, hell! It’s time for indictments! > **[Dem lawmakers being "slimed in the Green Zone"](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=434896)** > > From WaPo: Images if the flyers here. :mad: Who the fuck is behind this?! > **[Fired U.S. attorney says the orders came from Bush himself. (But how does he...](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=434696)** > > Journalist Greg Palast recently interviewed David Iglesias, one of the U.S. attorneys fired during Gonzales’ tenure as AG. From that interview: If this is true we’re definitely into impeachable-offense territory, in fact we’re into... And since I still have space: > **[Iraq fraud whistleblowers arrested, tortured, by U.S. forces](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=434142)** > > Not Iraqi whistleblowers, either. Americans. Story here. > **[Bush Admin planning post-Labor-Day "product rollout" of war-with-Iran hysteria?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=434787)** > > The thread title ends with a question mark because, at present, this is based solely on a blog quoting an unnamed inside source. Mods, move this to the Pit or MPSIMS or IMHO if you think it belongs there for that reason; otherwise, it’s pure GD... ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/65 "2009-07-10T20:14:06Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Um…no idea where you are going with this, chief. Figures, > [@](#): > > My question is…did you read the article you linked too? Yes, and thanks for posting \*the entire thing \*here, one paragraph at a time. [quotBesides the smell of bi-partisan infighting, there doesn’t seem a lot of meat there…which is, you know, where we were when the thread was first posted. [/quote] A. You’ve heard of secrecy, I hope, and B. There’s enough in there anyway to suit somebody with an interest in having the government follow the law. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush et al DID attempt to circumvent the Congress (and I hope they did, and that it was illegal…maybe then one of my OTHER favorite loony lefty rants would come true, and we’d actually see some trials!) There isn’t much “if” left on this “rant” either, is there? :dubious: How much do you typically need before you can be convinced to stop the dismissive shit? > [@](#): > > just a load of partisan horseshit as Dem’s and 'Pub’s snipe at each other Ah yes, the old, thoughtless, irresponsible “so what, they all do it, yada yada” argument again. :rolleyes: -XT [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/66 "2009-07-10T20:15:58Z")
> [@Sinaijon](#): > > I don’t know about him, but here’s a couple of my favorites: The ones which actually did turn out to be fanciful are which? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/67 "2009-07-10T20:16:09Z")
I can’t help but think that re-litigating those threads isn’t very helpful to this one, but since we’ve no further information to go on, and nothing to do but idly speculate… **Sinaijon** , which of those threads you think is the best example of “ideas about Bush that did not turn out to be true?” Because it looks to me like the balance of them are ideas about Bush that were substantially true (if not exclusive to Bush), or about which we don’t really know if they were true or not. Perhaps you could pick one that best exemplifies your point. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/68 "2009-07-10T20:21:38Z")
Dammit, **Parker,** you’re not supposed to read them! You’re supposed to be impressed with how many there are! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/69 "2009-07-10T20:29:43Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Hm…my favorites? Well, BG brought up the ‘cancel elections’ one. Another was that he was going to overturn RvW and outlaw abortion. Another favorite was the perennial favorite that we were just on the verge of invading \ (ETA: obviously this was after we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq). What was loony about that? I have no doubt Bush/Cheney would have invaded Iran, if it had been politically possible during their Admin, which it never was. There were certainly a lot of noises made and hints dropped. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/70 "2009-07-10T20:36:10Z")
I think it was more along the lines of figuring that Iran was nuts, and they could provoke something that they could respond to. But its dangerous to peer into such minds and speculate, you peer into the Abyss, it peers back. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2009, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/71 "2009-07-10T20:39:08Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] What was loony about that? I have no doubt Bush/Cheney would have invaded Iran, if it had been politically possible during their Admin, which it never was. There were certainly a lot of noises made and hints dropped. [/QUOTE] It was loony because, as I pointed out to you a couple dozen times, it was impossible and there was no real evidence for it. There was no indication we were building up forces or logistics for such a push…or that we HAD the forces or logistics for such an invasion. It was completely divorced from reality, sans some of your ‘hints dropped’ type stuff, which were equally divorced from reality. It was never going to happen, but you and others maintained fervently that it could happen any day, right up to Bush leaving office. [QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] Yes, and thanks for posting the entire thing here, one paragraph at a time. [/QUOTE] If you think I posted the whole thing then it’s pretty obvious you didn’t read it all. 😛 > [@](#): > > How much do you typically need before you can be convinced to stop the dismissive shit? Obviously a bit more than you are willing to credulously swallow… > [@](#): > > Ah yes, the old, thoughtless, irresponsible “so what, they all do it, yada yada” argument again. Ah yes, the old ‘I didn’t read what you wrote for comprehension, so I’ll just toss this out and hope it comes close’, yada yada argument again, ehe? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/72 "2009-07-11T05:21:39Z")
Seymour Hersh is to be taken with a grain of salt. He has been wrong many, many times. His sourcing is anonymous, and sometimes you’re not even sure that there’s a source all, but just wild speculation. In the Huffington Post article, Hersh is quoted as having unnamed sources saying that some kind of program existed, but then he goes on to say that there are ‘several theories’, but he doesn’t say where the theories come from. For all I know, these are his theories and no one else’s. This is the same Seymour Hersch who in 2006 breathlessly reported that his sources inside the military were informing him that the U.S. was planning to strike Iran very soon. In 2006 he also claimed to have sources in the CIA who told him that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program. Hersh wrote a book about John F. Kennedy in which he claimed that Kennedy had had a secret first marriage that was never terminated, making Kennedy a bigamist. He also claimed that Kennedy had a close relationship with mobster Sam Giancana. Arthur Schlesinger Jr, a former aide to Kennedy, said that Hersh was “the most gullible investigative journalist I ever met.” The thing about Hersh is that he’s willing to run with stories that are very thinly sourced and probably not up to the standards that most other journalists would use - especially when the story fits his own biases. Sometimes that means he breaks a story before everyone else, like he did with the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam or Abu Ghraib. But it also means that at times he runs stories that turn out to be, to put it charitably, ‘counter-factual’. I’d wait for another source before expending a lot of attention on this story. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/73 "2009-07-11T23:52:27Z")
**Sam** , you’ve never forgiven Hersh for being consistently _right_ about Bush’s lies, have you? His record isn’t 100 percent, nobody’s is, but it’s far better than the sources \*you \*have more customarily offered to us on the subjects he’s addressed. Give that a moment’s thought if you will. To address your complaints a bit more, shall we say, accurately: [What he wrote about the CIA’s assessment of Iran’s nuclear capability](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/11/27/061127fa_fact) > [@](#): > > The Administration’s planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House’s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.) > > The C.I.A.’s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found. Not quite what you claimed he wrote, is it? You didn’t actually read it yourself, did you? But let’s continue with this list of items that you, obviously, assembled entirely yourself, not from some RW-blog “Get Back at Hersh” stuff. > [@](#): > > Hersh wrote a book about John F. Kennedy in which he claimed that Kennedy had had a secret first marriage that was never terminated, making Kennedy a bigamist. Apparently you read directly from [this review](http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/hersh.htm): > [@](#): > > The rumor began circulating in the **extreme right-wing press** _(sic !)_ in 1961 that in 1947, JFK, then a congressman, had secretly married Durie Malcolm, a Palm Beach socialite. … Spalding, who, though interviewed many times before over 50 years, never before claimed a role, now told Hersh that he knew about the supposed first marriage because he had himself eliminated the record of it ! at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, saying, according to Hersh, “I went out there and removed the papers.” And your trump card: > [@](#): > > Arthur Schlesinger Jr, a former aide to Kennedy, said that Hersh was “the most gullible investigative journalist I ever met.” Have you ever applied the term “consider the source” to sources that _do_ support what you want to believe? Schlesinger was a close friend and strong supporter of JFK. But rather than refute the statements of fact in _The Dark Side of Camelot_, he instead went personal and tried, on a childish level at that, to disparage the abilities of the most accomplished investigative reporter of the half-century. Quite like, to point out the obvious, what you’re trying to do here, but without first-hand information. But then, as we know, you’re \*still \*waiting for those Iraqi WMD’s to be unearthed … any day now … \*then \*we’ll all see .. **xt** , when you’re shown to have no argument, it’s usually best to just keep quiet, ya know? Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/74 "2009-07-12T00:51:15Z")
> [@](#): > > The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday. > > The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy… [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?\_r=1&hp](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp) Offered without comment, none being necessary… ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/75 "2009-07-12T03:03:45Z")
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves] xt, when you’re shown to have no argument, it’s usually best to just keep quiet, ya know? Sheesh. [/QUOTE] Seeing as how that’s never stopped you from commenting, I think I’ll just muddle through, ehe? -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/76 "2009-07-12T03:11:02Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Offered without comment, none being necessary… [/QUOTE] From your uncommented cite, also offered without comment, since nothing actually seems solid enough to comment on as yet (though obviously some folks have already made up their minds on this…stunning, I know)… > [@](#): > > In addition, for covert action programs, a particularly secret category in which the role of the United States is hidden, the law says that briefings can be limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress and of their intelligence committees. > [@](#): > > Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remained secret and which even some Democrats have said was properly classified. Most of those interviewed, however, have said that it was an important activity that should have been disclosed to the intelligence committees. > [@](#): > > Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year. > [@](#): > > One intelligence official, who would speak about the classified program only on condition of anonymity, said there was no resistance inside the C.I.A. to Mr. Panetta’s decision to end the program last month. > > “Because this program never went fully operational and hadn’t been briefed as Panetta thought it should have been, his decision to kill it was neither difficult nor controversial,” the official said. “That’s worth remembering amid all the drama.” > [@](#): > > Democrats in Congress, who contend that the Bush administration improperly limited Congressional briefings on intelligence, are seeking to change the National Security Act to permit the full intelligence committees to be briefed on more matters. President Obama, however, has threatened to veto the intelligence authorization bill if the changes go too far, and the proposal is now being negotiated by the White House and the intelligence committees. -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/77 "2009-07-12T16:53:45Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?\_r=1&hp](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/politics/12intel.html?_r=1&hp) > > Offered without comment, none being necessary… I read this article in the NYT this AM, and what struck me the most was this: > [@](#): > > The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees “are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity.” But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done “to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters.” They’ll just say it wasn’t considered “significant” or something like that. I think we can safely assume that whenever Bush or Cheney saw wiggle room in the law, they’d wiggle as much as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/78 "2009-07-12T17:27:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > They’ll just say it wasn’t considered “significant” or something like that. I think we can safely assume that whenever Bush or Cheney saw wiggle room in the law, they’d wiggle as much as possible. This assumes (and maybe correctly, I don’t know) that there is no definition either in the statute, legislative history, or case law for those terms. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that “to the extent consistent with due regard” has been legally defined. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/79 "2009-07-12T17:45:14Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This assumes (and maybe correctly, I don’t know) that there is no definition either in the statute, legislative history, or case law for those terms. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that “to the extent consistent with due regard” has been legally defined. Sure. I just don’t see Cheney going to jail over this, though. Do you? I mean, we can argue the fine points all day, but if nothing ever happens to Cheney, what does it matter? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2009, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502/80 "2009-07-12T17:48:26Z")
Maybe it wasn’t significant, and that’s why nobody got around to telling Panetta about it, it was just some throwaway little thing, not important, and that’s why nobody talked about it, because it was so trivial. Yeah, that might be it! I mean, I don’t want to jump to any conclusions here, or anything. But maybe the reason they’re keeping it secret is because its so insignificant, you know, a little embarrassing? Maybe Cheney planned to ring the US Embassy in Baghdad with daffodils, and they didn’t tell Panetta because he’s known to be firmly committed to aspidistra! See! It isn’t _necessarily_ something deep, dark and hideous. And such decisions clearly fall under the control of the Vice President, as part of his Constitutional duty to preside over the Senate. There, that’s all sorted out, then! Nothing to see here, move along, you loony lefty looky-loos… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cheneys-executive-assassination-ring-legal/502502.md?page=5)