PDA

View Full Version : Congress to restrict use of Special Ops



Smoothie104
08-13-2003, 09:17 AM
More breaking news, brought to you by Smoothie104

Congress to restrict use of Special Ops


By Bill Gertz
THE TIMES



Congress is set to impose new restrictions on the use of Special Operations Forces that for the first time will require a presidential order before deploying commandos in routine but hidden activities.
The restrictions are contained in the classified Senate report accompanying the current version of the intelligence authorization bill for fiscal 2004.
The restrictions were added to the report by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee after consultations with Stephen Cambone, the defense undersecretary for intelligence, according to current and former U.S. officials and documents obtained by The Washington Times.
The new rules, if contained in the final version of the bill, would add a burden to the military's deployment of Special Operations Forces by requiring the Pentagon to first obtain a presidential "finding," or directive, similar to those required for covert-action intelligence operations.
Findings are declarations that the president "finds" a secret activity is in national interest.
A former special-operations officer said the committee language would redefine traditional military activity as a covert action.
"What that means is that things that special ops used to do will now require sending a finding to [Capitol Hill] before doing anything," said the former officer who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The restrictions are being called the "Cambone understanding" and would replace earlier intelligence report language from 1991 that excluded Special Operations Forces from the legal finding requirements.
Currently, so-called traditional military activities, where the U.S. military's role is hidden, do not require a finding by the president.
"We want to be able to deploy [special-operations commandos] in minutes and hours instead of days and weeks," said the former special-operations officer. "And this will get us delays. It will make it hard to kill terrorists by turning over deployment decisions to the Senate."
A senior U.S. intelligence official said the new report language undermines the efforts of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George J. Tenet to loosen restrictions on covert action in the war on terrorism since the September 11 attacks.
The senior official said the report language was inserted based on misunderstandings that resulted from conversations between Mr. Cambone and several senators, who were not identified.
"This hurts both CIA and [the Department of Defense]," the official said.
A spokesman for the Senate Intelligence Committee had no comment.
The restrictions are not included in the House intelligence authorization report. A joint House-Senate conference will be held after Congress returns in September to work out differences between the House and Senate intelligence bills.
Covert-action findings are reported to Congress and in many past cases were disclosed to the public by officials opposed to the operations.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the authorization bill, produced in June, says that secret military activities in countries where the role of U.S. forces is known to the public are considered "traditional military activities."
However, those same activities when carried out in a nation where the presence of U.S. military forces is kept secret are to be treated as covert actions and require a presidential finding, the report states.
The Senate report also says that "the committee commends the designee for undersecretary of defense for intelligence for agreeing to these conditions."
The new restrictions are opposed by most U.S. intelligence and defense officials.
Larry DiRita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said he could not discuss any details of the classified Senate report.
"We're confident that by the time Congress has finished acting on this, they won't do anything that will make it more difficult to fight the war on terrorism," Mr. DiRita said. "What we're finding now is that fighting that war requires more flexibility in a number of areas, not more restrictions."
A senior Pentagon official would not say whether Mr. Rumsfeld would recommend that the president veto the bill if the report language is part of the final legislative package.
Army Special Forces, along with Navy and Air Force special operators, played a key role in the rapid U.S. military victory in ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Special-operations troops also were key to the victory in Iraq. They were used in western Iraq to seize airfields and monitor any use of short-range missiles by Iraqi forces.
"What we've been saying is that special operations are not covert action," another official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "If you put a clandestine agent inside Iran to prepare for a hostage rescue, that's traditional military activity, not covert action."
Mr. Rumsfeld told Congress in February that the Bush administration is expanding the use of Special Operations Forces and has added $1.5 billion to its budget and nearly 2,000 more troops.
The Defense Department's office of general counsel sent a memorandum to Mr. Cambone on June 18 that explained the differences between clandestine military activities that require a presidential finding and those that do not.
The memo states that "covert actions are conducted by the CIA and require presidential findings."
"Clandestine activities conducted by [the Department of Defense] are part of traditional military activities and do not require presidential findings," the memo states.
"Covert action does not include 'traditional military activities' or routine support to such," the memo states.
The memo also notes that "traditional military activities by statute are understood to encompass almost every use of uniformed military forces to include hostage rescue, apprehension of individual terrorists, [and] counternarcotics activities."
Traditional military activities include routine support, such as unilateral support for U.S. military forces.
Covert action was defined in the memo by the general counsel's office as U.S. government activities "to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad where it is intended that the role of the United States government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly."
The covert-action definition specifically excludes traditional intelligence and counterintelligence work and "traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such activities," the memo states.

Apogee
08-13-2003, 10:04 AM
I think this bill would seriously hinder the United States ability to act and react quickly. It also gives legislators who have not served in the military much less an SOF oversite and the ability to restrict the forces used.

Does anyone smell another Mog incident? (Senator X: We don't need all of that equipment for this mission. Cut the gunships and armor support to save some money...)

I don't like this at all. Hopefully the new CSA will head up to the hill to give his .02$.

Trident-za
08-13-2003, 10:11 AM
This is simply madness.....

duck
08-13-2003, 10:13 AM
Isn't this more about cutting any possibility of SOF groupings creating their own death lists and acting on "urgent intelligence"?

budanski
08-13-2003, 10:21 AM
Dear DoD:

CC: Congress

I, being the afore mentioned President of the United States, in accordance with article #, of said law do hereby authorize covert special actions in the country of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, N. Korea and the District of Columbia.

Signed,

GW Bush, President



What a creative move by our anti-America politicians. This way there would be no secret Special Ops because any operation has to go through the Congress and therefore direct to America's enemies.

How do they plan to insure that the committee or whatever that gets these advisories from the president are loyal Americans voted in by the American public and entrusted with the defense of America? How do they rule out "moles" or subversive anti-American politicians that have worked their way into the seat of our government, into this particular governmental committee and therefore a direct pipeline to our enemies?

I can just hear it now - "What- you mean Rep Muhammad (Muslim activist who now is in the Congress) cannot sit on that committee?? That is discrimination - all government positions should be open to all representatives no matter their religion, their beliefs, their loyalties".

I don't see this bill passing.

duck
08-13-2003, 10:27 AM
Well, just imagine what a creative president like Nixon could have achieved with his own SOF "death squads" out of legislative control.

Zach R.
08-13-2003, 12:13 PM
Typical liberal bull****. I mean c'mon, how stupid can you be!

Trigger
08-13-2003, 12:30 PM
:bash: Go 'duck' yourself :fork:

martinexsquaddie
08-13-2003, 01:27 PM
Hmm Iran/contra anyone?
Look at some of the stuff coming out of NI about British army covert ops.
You might just thing some sort of oversight is a good idea otherwise you can get an "elite" group doing what they think needs to be done rather than what the president wants doing and what is legal.
Tricky and murky waters Beowulf might have an idea but its beyond me :roll:

BMF
08-13-2003, 04:07 PM
speaking of iran/contra, the same guy who was fired for running that whole scandal is now a brass hat in our intelligence community, specializing in the info concerning iraq!!

p.s. applying this sort of oversite to SOF is idiotic. between JCS and SOCOM theres' already enough micro-managing going on without capitol hill butting in.

duck
08-13-2003, 05:36 PM
The scenario I was thinking of is not a hostage rescue or a terrorist arrest one. Instead, I can picture Mr.Ledeen or Mr.Perle returning from a long dinner with Israeli "embassy staff" and then working the phones on new information on this certain Iranian mullah or Syrian army brass with "threatening Al-Qaeda contacts". And off goes a covert operations team, of course getting all possible assistance from a certain "aligned" service in the target nation. And in given time there are headlines about the mysterious death of Mr.So-and-so, with the arab press pointing out a "zionist aggression".

springwheat
08-13-2003, 05:49 PM
Does this mean we'll be seeing lobbyists from Special Forces, the SEAL teams, etc hanging out on the Hill?

hood
08-17-2003, 01:39 AM
Reports this week that Congress is trying to restrict U.S. military special operations in a move that may thwart Washington's efforts to sneak up on terrorists around the world and nab them are "dead wrong," sources told Foxnews.com.

http://www.foxnews.com.edgesuite.net/story/0,2933,94887,00.html

Sirpad
08-17-2003, 05:23 AM
From your friend on the other side of the ocean, comes this view:

you guys are shooting your own foot off!