Prometheus 6

True, they didn't need to hide their plans unless designating someone as a "senior Al Qaeda terrorist" was simply a cover for justifying murdering any Arab, Persian or Muslim who disagreed with U.S. policies. During the Cold War, the preferred designation of opprobrium was either Communist or, more insidiously, "Communist sympathizer." A whole lot of folks were tagged as "Communist sympathizers" when in fact they were not or were nothing more than liberal nationalists.

I don't see the value of hiding this. I don't see a problem of going to get - dead or alive - an Al Qaeda leader whatsoever. And I'm sure the Obama Administration has a similar operation underway. I think there is something else to this that hasn't been exposed yet.

Under the laws of war, the U.S. cannot simply target and murder people because they are suspected of being or are members of Al Qaeda. It is illegal. See, for example, Raffi Khatchadourian's piece The Kill Company in the July 6 & 13 issue of the New Yorker.

But there are legal ways of doing this, which I'm sure the Bush Administration ignored. Not every world leader is in love with Al Qaeda and I'm sure many nations have already given the US permission to go in and find as many as they can.

There are no legal ways under international laws and the U.S. military code of murdering people even "suspected Al Qaeda leading terrorists."  Can they be killed? Yes, they can be but only under certain prescribed circumstances. If there was a legal way to kill them outside of the framework of U.S. laws and international treaties, then the Bush Administration would have pursued that process rather than setting up an extra-legal framework.

I didn't say anything about murdering anyone. But the US has treaties with all kinds of nations for all kinds of reasons that would, if need be, enable the US go in these nations to get them. But the Obama Administration is rightly reparing international good-will the Bush Administration tore down. I'm not cheerleading the tactics of the Bush Administration but I see nothing wrong with C.I.A having plans to dispatch teams overseas to hunt and kill Al Qaeda members. That by itself is not illegal and should not have been hidden. I think there are other motives that only a Senate investigation will reveal why it was.

I'm not cheerleading the tactics of the Bush Administration but I see nothing wrong with C.I.A having plans to dispatch teams overseas to hunt and kill Al Qaeda members.

I see a great deal wrong with teams of American agents covertly entering the sovereign territory of other nations and assassinating residents of those nations. Among other things, it opens the door for foreign agents to covertly enter the United States and assassinate residents of this country. We really don't, for example, want to give Israel the opportunity to send Mossad agents here to pick off Palestinians or other Arabs who are living in this country.

"When your hand is in the lion's mouth, you have to move slowly."

First, I'll re-state what I said earlier: "the US has treaties with all kinds of nations for all kinds of reasons that would, if need be, enable the US go in these nations to get them". And there is nothing wrong or illegal about HAVING PLANS to capture (or kill if we can't capture) individuals that have already attacted this nation. 2nd, you misuse the word "assassinate" when referring to the killing of Al Qaeda members. Al Qaeda members are not lagit world leaders with a status nor residency to be respected. Thay are international criminals who's killings will never be characterized as or seen as assassinations or murder. Finally, I'm not calling for the US to do what you are implying. I'm in favor of the US using all legal remedies to go into nations that allow us and capture them and try them in a US court [see Manuel Noriega].

And there is nothing wrong or illegal about HAVING PLANS to capture (or kill if we can't capture) individuals that have already attacted this nation.

If, as you concede, they are individuals, then we cannot legally have plans to kill them under our governing system unless we place them on trial and upon a finding of guilt sentence them to be executed.

2nd, you misuse the word "assassinate" when referring to the killing of Al Qaeda members. Al Qaeda members are not lagit world leaders with a status nor residency to be respected.

I agree but why are you defending the U.S. creating assassination teams to murder these individuals? If we have treaties and other agreements that allow us to pursue criminal charges against these persons, then that's what we should do. If we are drafting plans and creating operational units whose sole purpose is to kill these individuals then we are, in effect, planning to assassinate them. We cannot have it both ways.

Thay are international criminals who's killings will never be characterized as or seen as assassinations or murder.

I consider Charles Taylor, the former head of Liberia who somehow miraculously escaped from a federal prison in Boston and boarded a plane for Africa, an international criminal. He is on trial right now at the Hague for his crimes. If he had been shot to death during the process of his bloody regime being overthrown, then it would not have been murder. If, however, he was taken from the country where he had fled to in exile and subsequently brought to a public square in Monrovia and shot to death it would have been murder. I would not have regretted his death but it would still have been murder.

Finally, I'm not calling for the US to do what you are implying. I'm in favor of the US using all legal remedies to go into nations that allow us and capture them and try them in a US court [see Manuel Noriega].

The entire process of capturing, trying and convicting Noriega was a farce of grandiose proportions. Our government assisted Noriega in his criminal enterprises long before he became the head of Panama's government.