The Shadow CIA

To paraphrase Styx -- don't even fucking deny it -- the jig is up, the news is out, they've finally found them. The Pentagon's alt-CIA has a name: Strategic Support Branch. Evidently Wonderbra was taken.

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Two shows nightly. Tip your server.

There's no joking about the intent of this little set-up, to evade any kind of congressional, and hence public, oversight or accountability. It is now crystal clear that the Bushian war powers formulation starts with the president as commander-in-chief and ends with the president being able to do as he pleases to whomever he pleases.

Comments

thoreau | January 24, 2005, 7:51pm | #

So, with so many different intelligence agencies (both official and unofficial) wandering around the world, I wonder if the CIA's people in, say, Iran have ever spied on Rumsfeld's people in Iran or vice-versa.

And I wonder if such things have happened accidentally (one group hears about some suspicious characters coming to town and decides to investigate) or deliberately (bureaucratic turf wars).

Ken Shultz | January 24, 2005, 8:13pm | #

"The group, now called Strategic Support teams, were previously called Humint Augmentation teams, the officials said, speaking on condition that they not be further identified."

I knew it!

..."Augmentation" is to silicone as "Support" is to Curves, which can only mean that Rumsfeld's into some seriously freaky shit!

Joe Bonforte | January 24, 2005, 9:18pm | #

Oh, no!! Another intelligence agency! We're all gonna be thrown in gulags! It's Bush's fault!

Hey, I come to Reason and Hit & Run for intelligent commentary, not knee-jerk stuff that's more at home on Democratic Underground.

So it "ends with the president being able to do as he pleases to whomever he pleases", huh? I'm used to such hyperbole from the left, but I expected better here.

Stevo Darkly | January 24, 2005, 9:21pm | #

Damn. I still have the "Pieces of Eight" album. In vinyl. Along with "Equinox."

D Anghelone | January 24, 2005, 9:25pm | #

What has DIA been doing up til now?

Stevo Darkly | January 24, 2005, 9:32pm | #

America...America...America...America...
America...America...America...America...
America...America...America...America...

Red white and blue, gaze in your looking glass
You’re not a child anymore
Red, white, and blue, the future is all but past
So lift up your heart, make a new start
And lead us away from here

Jeff A. Taylor | January 24, 2005, 9:35pm | #

Jesus fucking Christ, Stevo, you just couldn't leave well enough alone, could you? We're doomed.....doomed....

Stevo Darkly | January 24, 2005, 9:37pm | #

Just remember that it's a grand illusion...

thoreau | January 24, 2005, 10:13pm | #

You know, when the country is in peril, there's really only one thing to do: Create a new government agency that is less accountable than the previous ones!

I don't see a dark conspiracy that will bring about the end of American freedom, but I do wonder whether we really need yet another intelligence agency. I'm not convinced that total consolidation under one Intelligence Czar is the answer, but creating even more agencies doesn't seem all that productive either.

I guess that using the current resources more intelligently would make too much sense.

Stevo Darkly | January 24, 2005, 10:28pm | #

You see the world through your cynical eyes
You're a troubled young man I can tell
You've got it all in the palm of your hand
But your hand's wet with sweat
And your head needs a rest

And you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it

Why must you be such an angry young man
When your future looks quite bright to me
And how can there be such a sinister plan
That could hide such a lamb
Such a caring young man

And you're fooling yourself if you don't believe it
You're killing yourself if you don't believe it

Get up, get back on your feet
You're the one they can't beat and you know it
Come on let's see what you've got
Just take your best shot and don't blow it.

John | January 24, 2005, 10:51pm | #

Just win baby. As long as Bush wins the war I could give a shit less what he does. Let libertarian historians in the safety of the future whine about how horrible his methods were, just like they do about Lincoln and Roosavelt now.

Ultimate Fitness Program | January 24, 2005, 11:17pm | #

Damn. I still have the "Pieces of Eight" album. In vinyl. Along with "Equinox."

I still have "Equinox" somewhere, and "Kilroy Was Here" somehow vanished from my collection. But I do still have "The Grand Illusion" and "Paradise Theater" on kick-ass magnetic cassette tape. That'll last forever...

Agent Invisible Hand | January 24, 2005, 11:57pm | #

If I actually thought market forces were at work, I would LOVE to have competing intelligence agencies. Each could work dig up the best dirt, and the agents & agencies that provided the most valuable intelligence would be rewarded, while the slackers would be driven out of business.

Unfortunately, we all know market forces aren't at work, and craphole intelligence will be rewarded as much as usefull intelligence. They'll just claim they weren't properly funded (just like the public schools) and that their crappy intelligence (or teaching) will improve with a nice 23% raise.



Would it be at all possible to foster a market economy among the dozens of competeing intelligence agencies?

cdunlea | January 25, 2005, 1:25am | #

"Let libertarian historians in the safety of the future whine"

If the powers of secret spook agencies is allowed to increase to whatever the executive wants it to be, do you really think future libertarians will be allowed to write anything?

Where's Gaius to tell us about the Praetorians?

raymond | January 25, 2005, 2:34am | #

From HA to SS.

No more kidding around here. Things are getting serious.

Hmmm | January 25, 2005, 7:11am | #

Actually, after someone suggested that they name the USA Patriot Act (actually called the Uniting and Strangthening America by Providing for the Appropriate Tools to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) the I Love Puppies Act, I came up with a title that might be perfect to statutorily provide for this system:

Intelligence Linking to Overcome Vicious Evildoers and Provide for the Undermining of Positively Petrifying Insurgents and Enemy States Act

Then nobody can oppose it! And if people start to claim that it fails to protect puppies, then Bush could simply make it a foreign policy objective to wage war against groups and nations that promote cruelty toward animals.

Hmmm | January 25, 2005, 7:13am | #

Correction:
Uniting and Strangthening America by Providing for the Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act

Evan Williams | January 25, 2005, 8:32am | #

Look, hardly anyone other than Karen Kwiatkowski blinked the last time this kind of bullshit came to light. I mention the Office of Special Plans and Dougie Feith, and who knows what I'm talking about? But they were the ones who second-guessed the CIA. They were the ones who cherry-picked intelligence looking for an Iraq justification. But were they the ones who caught flak when their entire case for war was proven to be absolute bullshit? Of course not. Tenet and his minions take the hit (and even then, "taking a hit" means receiving a "medal of freedom"; damn, I'd love to receive a motherfucking MEDAL every time I fucked up!).

These shadow intel groups are nothing new. This should sound familiar to anyone who read any of Kwiatkowski's expose's that were printed in a military mag and at LewRockwell.

But nothing will ever come of this, just like nothing ever came of the OSP. These bastards could tell Bush that the earth is a cube, and he would listen to them, so long as it fit the neocons' imperialistic agenda.

Instead, we have people who spout trash like this: "Just win baby. As long as Bush wins the war I could give a shit less what he does." Win? Exactly what "war" is Bush "winning"? And even if he was "winning" a "war", only a complete fucking fascist would say something like "I could give a shit less what he does". Hey, look, Dubya just nuked Kansas City. But at least he's "winning" the "war"! Hey, look, Dubya just set up nazi-style concentration camps for anyone with dark skin. But at least he's "winning" the "war"!

Fucking moron.

[John: if you were being sarcastic, I retract the above]

boughtmysoul | January 25, 2005, 9:01am | #

John:

"Just win baby. As long as Bush wins the war I could give a shit less what he does. Let libertarian historians in the safety of the future whine about how horrible his methods were, just like they do about Lincoln and Roosavelt now."

You *can't* win this "war", because there is no war to win, and in one of his honest moments, Bush admitted it (later, after being corrected by his policy makers, he changed his answer to yes, we *can* win). Terrorism has been around as long as civilization, and Bush isn't going to buck the trend by eliminating it. There isn't going to be some safe, rosy future without terrorism so yeah, it *does* matter how he does things now.

Deacon Blues | January 25, 2005, 9:04am | #

These groups have been around for a long time, predating the Bush administration. The only real difference is that now they will be going out on operations with regular US Army personnel. They will be more out in the open than ever before. I think Mr. Taylor is misinformed about the activities of these groups. They are there to develope human intelligence sources, not just to interrogate detainees.

Matt | January 25, 2005, 9:17am | #

All you guys bitch and moan now, but wait until the Pentagon trots out their team of tearful 9-11 widows, who will argue that this is the sort of organizational reshuffling that our security forces need. Then you'll see the light.

Because nobody knows how to manage and organize a security bureaucracy like a grieving widow, right?

Evan Williams | January 25, 2005, 9:26am | #

They are there to develope human intelligence sources, not just to interrogate detainees.

Or, in the case of the OSP, they're there to second-guess the CIA and cherry-pick intelligence to suit a particular agenda. And the best part is that, when they end up being wrong, the CIA takes the blame. This is what I call an efficient system...

Skeptikos | January 25, 2005, 10:18am | #

His favorite foreign leader is the former head of the KGB, he says things like "There ought to be limits to freedom", he does everything he can to thwart due process.

Excuse me, but it just now became official? Ummmm....I think you are about 3 years late.

gaius marius | January 25, 2005, 10:55am | #

As long as Bush wins the war

oh -- perhaps you mean the Global Democratic Revolution? because that's the trotskyite crusade that seems to be on dubya's mind, if his inaugural address means anything at all.

The only real difference is that now they will be going out on operations with regular US Army personnel.

i think the point missed, mr blues, is that they are not subject ot any congressional oversight at all -- which the cia's like-kind were. this is clearly a move made by the white house to further eliminate congress from any oversight or authority.

i for one have trouble imagining how people can see units of the american armed forces invading a foreign nation with no disclosure, accountability or oversight to congress and the people as consistent with democracy. yes yes -- "it's all been done before". it was a threat to democracy then and it is so now. dismissive apathy on this point is akin to forfeiture of your rights under the constitution, it seems to me.

gaius marius | January 25, 2005, 11:20am | #

Where's Gaius to tell us about the Praetorians?

here, mr cdunlea. and i can't imagine that the department of defense, armed with such freedom from senatorial interference as they are openly seeking to procure, is any less a constitution-wrecking, kingmaking threat than they were. if history is any guide, such a shadow army will quickly (if not already) be selected and staffed on vitriolic personal loyalty as much as competency. augustus was careful not to let the praetorians get too large or prominent -- preferring the illusion of republic, much as we do now -- but that cannot last once they realize their power.

perhaps rumsfeld is something of a sejanus -- but even if he isn't, someone soon will be. i don't think congress retains the authority anymore to provoke a confrontation with the imperial presidency and survive it as anything more than a hollow shell.

you're probably read stockwell's emotional book, which is essentially about the cia that these SS teams are designed to reconstruct.

whaaaaa? | January 25, 2005, 11:24am | #

There's no joking about the intent of this little set-up, to evade any kind of congressional, and hence public, oversight or accountability.

Whaaaa? Did you read the link you provided, Jeff?

Another defense official said lawmakers may not recognize the news media's descriptions of the intelligence group because its name was changed after they were briefed on it last year.

whaaaaa? | January 25, 2005, 11:27am | #

Gaius --

i think the point missed, mr blues, is that they are not subject ot any congressional oversight at all

Again, from the link provided, I don't understand that to be the case at all...

Another defense official said lawmakers may not recognize the news media's descriptions of the intelligence group because its name was changed after they were briefed on it last year.

isildur | January 25, 2005, 12:30pm | #

Sure we can win this war.

The problem isn't 'is the war winnable' but 'who wants to live in the kind of nation that can win this war.'

Some war-winning policy proposals:

* National ID card with biometric data encoded on it
* ID checkpoints at state lines, and randomly throughout all metro areas
* No more interstate travel, period, without government authorization
* No international travel, both for US citizens and for foriegn visitors
* Permanent suspension of habeas corpus
* Suspension of judicial oversight of 'terrorism' cases (meaning the death penalty at the executive branch's discretion)
* Suspension of elections until the 'crisis' has passed
* Mandatory background checks for any employment
* Nationalization of all 'critical infrastructure' industries 'for the public good'
* Nationalization of all news outlets to ensure no information is inadvertently leaked to terrorists

We'd win the war in no time. We'd never have another foriegn terrorist attack. (*Domestic* terrorism, on the other hand...)

But frankly, I don't think I want to win the war that badly. In fact, I think I'd prefer to take my chances with terrorists nuking the Space Needle while I'm at work, thanks.

gaius marius | January 25, 2005, 12:37pm | #

why was the name changed, mr whaaaaa?

recall that these same lawmakers are the ones who can't be bothered to read the bills they pass, much less be familiar with the arcana of DoD black ops.

i would cite seymour hersh:

The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

The President's decision enables Rumsfeld to run the operations off the books -- free from legal restrictions imposed on the C.I.A. Under current law, all C.I.A. covert activities overseas must be authorized by a Presidential finding and reported to the Senate and House intelligence committees. (The laws were enacted after a series of scandals in the nineteen-seventies involving C.I.A. domestic spying and attempted assassinations of foreign leaders.) "The Pentagon doesn't feel obligated to report any of this to Congress," the former high-level intelligence official said. "They don't even call it 'covert ops' -- it's too close to the C.I.A. phrase. In their view, it's 'black reconnaissance.' They're not even going to tell the cincs -- the regional American military commanders-in-chief."

whaaaaa? | January 25, 2005, 12:48pm | #

why was the name changed, mr whaaaaa?

How is that relevant in discussing whether or not this particular program is subject to oversight?


recall that these same lawmakers are the ones who can't be bothered to read the bills they pass, much less be familiar with the arcana of DoD black ops.

If that is true, then why is it relevant that they have oversight over the program at all?

Your citation from Seymour Hersh seems to be describing an entirely different operation from the one described in the link provided by Jeff, so exactly how is that relevant?

John | January 25, 2005, 12:50pm | #

Yah, well screw it. I take it back, if we can't win the war and keep the country exactly as the people on this forum want it, then it isn't worth it. I would rather live under the Taliban, if I can't have everything. As far as privacy concerns, ever notice that those who are the biggest crusaders for "privacy rights" are the very ones who have lives the least likely to produce anything anyone would care about? For them is forever 1968 and J. Edgar Hoover is tapping their phone listening to them talk to their mom or beg their old high school girlfriend to take them back after twenty years.

gaius marius | January 25, 2005, 1:01pm | #

How is that relevant in discussing whether or not this particular program is subject to oversight?

because i would argue that oversight in the face of intentional obfuscation is impossible when institutions become as complex as the united states government. to the extent that name changes without notification constitute obfuscation, it is relevant.

If that is true, then why is it relevant that they have oversight over the program at all?

clearly because if we are not even to maintain the notion of congressional prerogative to oversight, we can change the name on the door from "democracy" to "dictatorship" right now.

seems to be describing an entirely different operation

???... no, it's actually *precisely* the identical issue -- armed teams in iran at the administration's secret order. i mean no offense, but have you read both hersh's article and the one posted by mr taylor?

gaius marius | January 25, 2005, 1:06pm | #

forever 1968

mr john, your argument is a silly strawman. it's secret armies in iran or we live under the taliban? please, restrain yourself.

this is elemental locke. divide powers, provide checks for one against the other, make the parliament the repository of ultimate authority. all those in favor of abandoning locke, the constitution and the republic -- by all means, advocate rummy's secret army.

whaaaaa? | January 25, 2005, 1:22pm | #

because i would argue that oversight in the face of intentional obfuscation is impossible when institutions become as complex as the united states government. to the extent that name changes without notification constitute obfuscation, it is relevant.

Totally reasonable. Do you any evidence to support that the name change was an attempt at intentional obfuscation?


clearly because if we are not even to maintain the notion of congressional prerogative to oversight, we can change the name on the door from "democracy" to "dictatorship" right now.

Also totally reasonable. However, as the program was disclosed last year, and lacking any evidence that any name change occured as a result of intentional obfuscation, I would say we can keep that "democracy" name on the door for the time being.

???... no, it's actually *precisely* the identical issue -- armed teams in iran at the administration's secret order. i mean no offense, but have you read both hersh's article and the one posted by mr taylor?

No offense taken, Gaius. But excuse me, Burns describes...

The teams - each with about 10 mostly civilian linguists, case officers, interrogators and debriefers - are designed to provide the military's conventional and special operations forces with more sustainable battlefield intelligence to support combat and other activities.

While Hersh describes...

The President has signed a series of findings and executive orders authorizing secret commando groups and other Special Forces units to conduct covert operations against suspected terrorist targets in as many as ten nations in the Middle East and South Asia.

So how is it you are determining that they are referring to "*precisely* the identical issue"?

gaius marius | January 25, 2005, 2:56pm | #

Do you any evidence to support that the name change was an attempt at intentional obfuscation?

no, and

I would say we can keep that "democracy" name on the door for the time being.

i tentatively agree, mr whaaaaa.

however, what burns and hersh describe are two faces of the same presidential orders. burns repeats the pentagon's innocent, almost academic-sounding public assertion; hersh repeats the private assertions from individuals inside the pentagon which are not designed as state propaganda. this is not uncommon dichotomy in washington, obviously, and the private assertions are far more likely to be borne out if history is any guide. but both describe secret army units created and operated without congressional notification and beyond the authority of laws set up to deter cia from similar activity.

feinstein and others claim to be surprised; the pentagon says they informed the "appropriate committees". i have no doubt that these are logically consistent events.

what is disturbing, imo, is that clearly gone are the days when clear communication of important facts to congress was deemed important by the pentagon. organizing an entirely new intelligence network within the DoD is a bold undertaking with deep legal and political ramifications. but such is the cult of secrecy and the power of the executive that the entire venture can be seen to completion and brought online before the public or even people like feinstein know about it.

feinstein, fwiw, is a member of the senate select committee on intelligence, as well as the defense subcommittee and the appropriations committee. she's supposed to see the intelligence, the defense and the money for both. and she hasn't been told?

does it help if the pentagon informs john warner but tells him to shut up about it? i don't think so.

gaius marius | January 25, 2005, 3:09pm | #

here's the wapo article that kicked it all off.

some nuggets:

Perhaps the most significant shift is the Defense Department's bid to conduct surreptitious missions, in friendly and unfriendly states, when conventional war is a distant or unlikely prospect -- activities that have traditionally been the province of the CIA's Directorate of Operations. Senior Rumsfeld advisers said those missions are central to what they called the department's predominant role in combating terrorist threats.

Pentagon officials said they established the Strategic Support Branch using "reprogrammed" funds, without explicit congressional authority or appropriation. Defense intelligence missions, they said, are subject to less stringent congressional oversight than comparable operations by the CIA.

Two longtime members of the House Intelligence Committee, a Democrat and a Republican, said they knew no details before being interviewed for this article.

Rumsfeld's ambitious plans rely principally on the Tampa-based U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, and on its clandestine component, the Joint Special Operations Command. Rumsfeld has designated SOCOM's leader, Army Gen. Bryan D. Brown, as the military commander in chief in the war on terrorism. He has also given Brown's subordinates new authority to pay foreign agents. ... Known as "special mission units," Brown's elite forces are not acknowledged publicly. They include two squadrons of an Army unit popularly known as Delta Force, another Army squadron -- formerly code-named Gray Fox -- that specializes in close-in electronic surveillance, an Air Force human intelligence unit and the Navy unit popularly known as SEAL Team Six.

Some Pentagon officials refer to the combined units as the "secret army of Northern Virginia."

Pentagon officials emphasized their intention to remain accountable to Congress, but they also asserted that defense intelligence missions are subject to fewer legal constraints than Rumsfeld's predecessors believed. That assertion involves new interpretations of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the armed services, and Title 50, which governs, among other things, foreign intelligence

Under Title 50, all departments of the executive branch are obliged to keep Congress "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." The law exempts "traditional . . . military activities" and their "routine support." Advisers said Rumsfeld, after requesting a fresh legal review by the Pentagon's general counsel, interprets "traditional" and "routine" more expansively than his predecessors.

"Operations the CIA runs have one set of restrictions and oversight, and the military has another," said a Republican member of Congress with a substantial role in national security oversight, declining to speak publicly against political allies. "It sounds like there's an angle here of, 'Let's get around having any oversight by having the military do something that normally the [CIA] does, and not tell anybody.' That immediately raises all kinds of red flags for me. Why aren't they telling us?"

Isaac Bartram | January 25, 2005, 5:04pm | #

OK, I know that this really is something to be concerned about, but doesn't anybody find it ironic that every-fucking-body knows about this SECRET OUTFIT?

whaaaaa? | January 25, 2005, 5:10pm | #

what is disturbing, imo, is that clearly gone are the days when clear communication of important facts to congress was deemed important by the pentagon.

When exactly were these days? Can something "be gone" when it is not clear it ever was?

More seriously though.....

both describe secret army units created and operated without congressional notification

again, not quite accurate, as congress was notified last year in regards to the link provided by Jeff.

feinstein, fwiw, is a member of the senate select committee on intelligence, as well as the defense subcommittee and the appropriations committee. she's supposed to see the intelligence, the defense and the money for both. and she hasn't been told?

I'm not sure she was supposed to have been told. The senate select committee on intelligence only oversees those intelligence efforts that fall under the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP), (which does include the DIA, whose Human Intelligence Service was supposed to manage this effort). However, the nature of this particular effort may have been classified under JMIP or TIARA (getting tired of typing out and explaning acronyms, see

whaaaaa? | January 25, 2005, 5:16pm | #

BTW, not to pick nits but....

mr john, your argument is a silly strawman. it's secret armies in iran or we live under the taliban? please, restrain yourself.

Wouldn't that be rather a false dichotomy that straw man similar to....

whaaaaa? | January 25, 2005, 5:26pm | #

Also, this from wapo is rather obnoxious....

"Operations the CIA runs have one set of restrictions and oversight, and the military has another," said a Republican member of Congress with a substantial role in national security oversight, declining to speak publicly against political allies."

Why characterize it like this: "declining to speak publicly against political allies?"

Why not like this: "accurately describing the congressional oversight of U.S. intelligence efforts?"

thoreau | January 25, 2005, 7:00pm | #

Is this Shadow CIA anything like the agency that Sidney now works for on Alias? I stopped watching Alias after the new season premiere because I thought the concept was pretty lame.

So I'd be really disappointed if Donald Rumsfeld is trying to make a real life version of Alias.