Cheney 'set up illegal secret spy project'
Hidden Republican policies on terrorism threaten major distraction for Obama
AP
Dick Cheney has stayed quiet over claims he broke the law by directly ordering the CIA to keep secrets from Congress
Former US Vice-President Dick Cheney was at the centre of a bitter new row last night, after charges he had directly ordered the CIA to keep Congress in the dark about a secret intelligence programme set up after the 9/11 attacks – an action that may have been in violation of the law.
A top Democratic senator, Leon Panetta, who took over as CIA director a month into the Obama administration, told Congress on June 24 about the eight year old project, of which Mr Panetta himself had only just been informed. He told the House And Senate intelligence committees that he had immediately scrapped the programme and that information about it had been withheld at Mr Cheney's behest.
In doing so, the Bush administration may have acted illegally, Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee said. "This is a big problem," she said, although she acknowledged the urgency of the circumstances after the attacks on New York and Washington: "I understand the need of the day... but you weaken your case when you go outside the law."
Another top Democrat, Deputy Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin, went further, demanding a full-scale Congressional probe into the affair. He said the executive branch should not create these types of programmes and conceal them from legislators. This was "not only inappropriate, it could be illegal," he said.
The sharp words of the two Democratic Senators came yesterday after the New York Times first reported on the programme, whose exact details still remain a mystery. According to the paper, it did not involve domestic surveillance and wiretapping, subject of a separate ongoing row between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the previous Republican White House, nor the harsh interrogation techniques, including water-boarding, used at secret CIA detention centres abroad.
The secretive and taciturn Mr Cheney was not available for comment. But according to unnamed officials quoted by the paper, the project never become operational, although planning and "some training" had intermittently taken place since 2001. It appears to have emerged amid a search for "radical countermeasures" in the traumatic immediate aftermath of 9/11. But there seems to have been no opposition within the CIA when Mr Panetta recently ordered its end.
The row threatens to be a major distraction and a new rift between the parties at the worst possible moment – just as President Obama's efforts to push through contentious legislation on energy policy, financial market reform, and above all, health care, reach a critical juncture. Yesterday Republicans leapt to the defence of their embattled former vice-president, insisting Mr Cheney and Mr Bush had the constitutional right to protect the country as they saw fit. They accused the Democrats of cooking up the affair to divert attention from their own problems on Capitol Hill, especially on health care.
Nor is the renewed spotlight on Mr Cheney the only instance of how controversies of the Bush era are dogging his successor, despite Mr Obama's insistence that the government must look forward rather than refight battles of the past.
In a potentially explosive move, Eric Holder, the Attorney General, is understood to be considering naming a prosecutor soon to investigate torture allegations against CIA operatives who carried out waterboarding and other "enhanced" methods of interrogation against detainees suspected of terrorism, techniques that may have violated international conventions against torture.
The White House has publicly come out against any legal sanctions, arguing that this would further damage morale at the CIA, and has successfully fended off action against the Bush administration officials who devised the tough interrogation policies – among whose strongest backers was Mr Cheney.
Mr Holder could thus drive an embarrassing wedge between his Justice Department and Mr Obama, a problem the former acknowledged this weekend. "I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the President's agenda," Mr Holder told Newsweek magazine. "But that can't be a part of my decision."
John McCain, Mr Obama's defeated opponent in 2008, also backed the president. A congressional probe into the Cheney revelations, and possible criminal action against some CIA employees were "not a good idea," the Arizona senator said on the NBC's Meet the Press yesterday.
Further washing of such dirty linen in public would merely inflict new damage on the image of the US around the world. "I agree with the President, it's time to move forwards," Mr McCain said.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Comments
What it entails is that anyone, of any position of influence, that dared deny the US a thing, would find themselves bumped off by this group of assassins, they answered to Cheney and ONLY Cheney, CIA station chief's were bypassed and they were very active according to Hersch.
What this means is the US have been murdering people in other nations simply because they were perceived as an "obstacle" to US power, many of them of allied nations, as well as operating at home, Hersch claims they are not murderers but yes they are, the US law does not cover countries where they have operated, they have killed and therefore are murderers.
This won't get anywhere or an "alternative" reason will be aired because the US is not about to announce its been well-stoning its allies people and Congress will have a field day with whats left of the neo-cons in power and it would certainly tilt the balance to see Cheney indicted for crimes even if Bush still evades the law.
Hersh has long been criticised for being fast and loose with his facts, and there is no doubt that his book on Kennedy, 'Dark Camelot', was chock full of lies and falsifications.
After all it was Hersh that blew the cover on a covert operation to strike Iran pre-emptively with nuclear weapons, and exposed too the complicity of David Miliband and Tony Blair.
But whatever this is, its big, Obama has just extended the Secret Service protection on Cheney which expires after six months of leaving office, seen not as much as a courtesy but pundits across the water think more of making sure they know where he is and what he is up to.
Time will tell, I note that with Hersh's claims over Cheney's "assassination ring" that there is little protest or denial which itself is rather odd...
Bush did not strike Iran pre-emptively with nuclear weapons. Bit of an inconvenient fact, that. Hershey's prediction on October 8th, 2004, in front of a Berkeley audience, that the Iraq war was not winnable, was another failed prediction (among many). In fact his assertion casts doubt on his sources, because he said in that speech that his sources told him the Iraq war 'was not winnable. It's over.' 5 years later, after a lot of blood and suffering, the Americans have ground out a result which is an emphatic victory, and which in my view has changed the geo-political situation in the region in a quite astonishing way. One of the ripple effects of that change has been the anti-regime protests in Iran, and another has been the softening of the Syrian position towards the West.
I don't know why you refer to 'my response', with specific regard to the supposed assassination squad. I referred to what Hershey himself had said. I repeat, he said that it would take at least another two years for him to be able to get enough evidence to make his assertions credible.
As for Cheney, he never says anything publicly to anybody if he can avoid it.
Ultimately, if there was such an assassination squad (undoubtedly going after Al Qaeda elements and those linked closely to them),the U.S. would have been doing no more than it did in WWII, and what Mossad has been doing for decades against Muslim terrorists. After the huge shock of 9/11, as Blair said, the rules of the game changed.
Time to reopen the case of Dr David Kelly.
"The programme was shut down on the very day the Obama administration learned of its existence last month. Details remain cloaked in secrecy, however, and assurances have been given that it was never activated."
At this stage, it sounds like there a contingency plan that was never implemened
... not so. Rafiq Hariri tops the list of targeted hits by Darth Vader. In the short term, it worked too ! Lebanon went through a Gucci revolution and the Syrians were forced out... except that Chirac was mighty pissed off about loosing his pension fund paymaster ...
The assisination of Rafiq Hariri, Lebanese PM .. comes to mind as one 'hit' - with tangible gains for the US and their friends.
The assassination of Rafiq Hariri, Lebanese PM on Darth Vader's orders .. comes to mind as one 'hit' - with tangible gains for the US and their friends at a critical moment in the Middle East... no surprises from these revelations for those in the loop.
Unfortunately, Obama is not only continuing, but worse, extending, the abuses of Bush.
He was done-in under the orders of our own stiff-upper lip lot - by our own franchised version of Darth Vaders hit squads .... more subtle ofcourse, but ruthless all the same...
OH, WONDERFUL!
There are many beautiful mature women and men chatting on that community^^^^^^^^^Cougar Circle^^^^^^^^which designed to help ethnically diverse singles meet new friends and make dates. u will have a more lovely baby not long after....
****************************************
Yeh, sure, the US killed the anti-Syrian, anti-Hezbollah democratically elected leader of Lebanon.
What next from these crazies? .... the US carried out 9/11, contrary to all the evidence and Bid Laden's own claim?
Sorry, I forgot, some nutty Independent readers DO claim that too ....... sigh !
as for bin laden, he did mastermind it with the help of the easter bunny, the bogeyman, count dracula and a possee from the clangers. dr no equipped his cave for him too.
get real. do the maths. work it out for gawds sake. 9/11 was immense. too immense for someone in a cave to put together on his own!!!!
and for all the "well, torture and murder is ok if it saves lives" crowd, i pray that one of your families isnt in the same position one day. will it still be ok then?
cheney and his ilk must be brought to book along with blair and his cronies. this is too scary and too blatantly illegal to let it go. rest in peace dr david kelly. i bet your name passed cheney's lips at some time.
It's those who beleive 9/11 wasn't an inside job who are the loonies...
"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9//11." Rex Tomb, FBI Chief of Investigative Publicity, June 5, 2006
Good grief, 9/11 deniers really CAN get published on the Independent !
Yep, those 19 Muslims that took over the planes after leaving long, detailed videos boasting about the plan, were really CIA agents who killed themselves as part of the plot ! DOH !
Yep, destroying the commerical hub of New York, trying the destroy the Pentagon, killing nearly 3000 Americans, etc. was all part of an ingenious plan by Dick Cheney to benefit America. DOH !!
Are you serious, or just 'aving a laugh?
and yes, powerful people within america certainly did benefit from 9/11. an open investigation would dispel all the rumours etc but for some reason nobody wanted that from the start aside from the victims' families. wonder why?
He/she also manages to bring Israel into the fray - as per usual here (sigh)
slingyerhook also now claims that the FBI murdered Martin Luther King (sigh)
What next? Maybe Roosevelt had US airmen pretend to be Japanese pilots attacking Pearl Harbour?
The Independent's willingness to publish such comments are making it look ridiculous. Can such wacko claims really not be moderated?