Obama's secret order

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.

Obama signed the order, known as a presidential "finding", within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.

Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA and the White House declined immediate comment.

News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi's opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.

The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.

Story continues below
In interviews with American TV networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to "ultimately step down" from power. He spoke of applying "steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means" to force Gaddafi out.

Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. "It's fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We're looking at all our options at this point," the President told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer.

U.S. officials monitoring events in Libya say that at present, neither Gaddafi's forces nor the rebels, who have asked the West for heavy weapons, appear able to make decisive gains.

While U.S. and allied airstrikes have seriously damaged Gaddafi's military forces and disrupted his chain of command, officials say, rebel forces remain disorganized and unable to take full advantage of western military support.

SPECIFIC OPERATIONS

People familiar with U.S. intelligence procedures said that Presidential covert action "findings" are normally crafted to provide broad authorization for a range of potential U.S. government actions to support a particular covert objective.

In order for specific operations to be carried out under the provisions of such a broad authorization -- for example the delivery of cash or weapons to anti-Gaddafi forces -- the White House also would have to give additional "permission" allowing such activities to proceed.

Former officials say these follow-up authorizations are known in the intelligence world as "'Mother may I' findings."

In 2009 Obama gave a similar authorization for the expansion of covert U.S. counter-terrorism actions by the CIA in Yemen. The White House does not normally confirm such orders have been issued.

Because U.S. and allied intelligence agencies still have many questions about the identities and leadership of anti-Gaddafi forces, any covert U.S. activities are likely to proceed cautiously until more information about the rebels can be collected and analyzed, officials said.

"The whole issue on (providing rebels with) training and equipment requires knowing who the rebels are," said Bruce Riedel, a former senior CIA Middle East expert who has advised the Obama White House.

Riedel said that helping the rebels to organize themselves and training them how use weapons effectively would be more urgent then shipping them arms.

According to an article speculating on possible U.S. covert actions in Libya published early in March on the website of the Voice of America, the U.S. government's broadcasting service, a covert action is "any U.S. government effort to change the economic, military, or political situation overseas in a hidden way."

ARMS SUPPLIES

The article, by VOA intelligence correspondent Gary Thomas, said covert action "can encompass many things, including propaganda, covert funding, electoral manipulation, arming and training insurgents, and even encouraging a coup."

U.S. officials also have said that Saudi Arabia and Qatar, whose leaders despise Gaddafi, have indicated a willingness to supply Libyan rebels with weapons.

Members of Congress have expressed anxiety about U.S. government activates in Libya. Some have recalled that weapons provided by the U.S. and Saudis to mujahedeen fighting Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s later ended up in the hands of anti-American militants.

There are fears that the same thing could happen in Libya unless the U.S. is sure who it is dealing with. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Wednesday he opposed supplying arms to the Libyan rebels fighting Gaddafi "at this time."

"We need to understand more about the opposition before I would support passing out guns and advanced weapons to them," Rogers said in a statement.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...rder-libya-signed-rebel-support_n_842734.html
 
This is probably the least shocking news out of Libya yet. Anyone find this a bit coincidental:

WASHINGTON - The new leader of Libya's opposition military spent the past two decades in suburban Virginia but felt compelled — even in his late-60s — to return to the battlefield in his homeland, according to people who know him.

Khalifa Hifter was once a top military officer for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but after a disastrous military adventure in Chad in the late 1980s, Hifter switched to the anti-Gadhafi opposition. In the early 1990s, he moved to suburban Virginia, where he established a life but maintained ties to anti-Gadhafi groups.

Late last week, Hifter was appointed to lead the rebel army, which has been in chaos for weeks. He is the third such leader in less than a month, and rebels interviewed in Libya openly voiced distrust for the most recent leader, Abdel Fatah Younes, who had been at Gadhafi's side until just a month ago.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/26/111109/new-rebel-leader-spent-much-of.html#ixzz1IBflHit7
 
The way this got out, I'm wondering if it was released through the same "leaks" they use for trial balloons... Seriously, he supposedly signed it and then people were talking about it in minutes afterward... WTF?
 
I'm guessing that the leak is either (1) someone in Congress that was informed of the order that opposes the direction that Libya is headed or (2) someone in the administration that opposes the direction that Libya is headed.

It's the same story as the leak of the Bush order for Iran.

And Damo, the order was signed several weeks ago.
 
I'm guessing that the leak is either (1) someone in Congress that was informed of the order that opposes the direction that Libya is headed or (2) someone in the administration that opposes the direction that Libya is headed.

It's the same story as the leak of the Bush order for Iran.

And Damo, the order was signed several weeks ago.

I would say that it is a safe assumption. I find it very interesting that this seems to have leaked right at the same time NATO decided (thankfully) to not arm the rebels.
 
I'm guessing that the leak is either (1) someone in Congress that was informed of the order that opposes the direction that Libya is headed or (2) someone in the administration that opposes the direction that Libya is headed.

It's the same story as the leak of the Bush order for Iran.

And Damo, the order was signed several weeks ago.

:rolleyes:

This is a conversation, you are more anal retentive about what I see as a clear sardonic exaggeration than most of the engineers that I know, and they are almost all literalists. The attempt at "gotcha" is silly. Three weeks ago is not long enough to keep something secret. Find out who is releasing this kind of information, and put them in prison.
 
:rolleyes:

This is a conversation, you are more anal retentive about what I see as a clear sardonic exaggeration than most of the engineers that I know, and they are almost all literalists. The attempt at "gotcha" is silly. Three weeks ago is not long enough to keep something secret. Find out who is releasing this kind of information, and put them in prison.


I just thought that maybe you were misinformed. I wasn't attempting a "gotcha." Just trying to help you out.

As for calls to put the leaker in prison, no thanks. I don't think the fact that disclosure that the order exists in any way harms anyone or anything anywhere at all.
 
By the way, I'm not sure exactly when it happened, but at some point the default mode of everyone on the board shifted to "DICK" and its been stuck there ever since.
 
I just thought that maybe you were misinformed. I wasn't attempting a "gotcha." Just trying to help you out.

As for calls to put the leaker in prison, no thanks. I don't think the fact that disclosure that the order exists in any way harms anyone or anything anywhere at all.

In the article I posted, the leaker didn't just leak the fact that the order existed, but also pointed out what part of Libya they were operating in. The leaker should be put in prison.
 
In the article I posted, the leaker didn't just leak the fact that the order existed, but also pointed out what part of Libya they were operating in. The leaker should be put in prison.


How hard would it be to figure out that CIA operatives tasked with assisting the rebels would be operating where the rebels are? "Eastern Libya" is not the kind of information that harms anyone or increases the risk of harm to anyone.
 
How hard would it be to figure out that CIA operatives tasked with assisting the rebels would be operating where the rebels are? "Eastern Libya" is not the kind of information that harms anyone or increases the risk of harm to anyone.

Valid point.... but the leaker was still trying to provide what he/she knew, despite any potential consequences to those in the middle of a war zone.
 
Valid point.... but the leaker was still trying to provide what he/she knew, despite any potential consequences to those in the middle of a war zone.


Conversely, the leaker was trying to provide limited information about what he/she knew to prevent more disastrous consequences than would be the case if the secret operations remained secret.

My bottom line on this stuff is that we have a right to know what the government does in our name. Except where people are put in harm's way or individuals/groups are targeted for political reasons, leaks are fine by me. On the other hand, I don't blame the government for prosecuting leakers to the full extent of the law, and I (and any would be leaker should) fully expect it to.
 
Conversely, the leaker was trying to provide limited information about what he/she knew to prevent more disastrous consequences than would be the case if the secret operations remained secret.

My bottom line on this stuff is that we have a right to know what the government does in our name. Except where people are put in harm's way or individuals/groups are targeted for political reasons, leaks are fine by me. On the other hand, I don't blame the government for prosecuting leakers to the full extent of the law, and I (and any would be leaker should) fully expect it to.

we do not have a right to know in this case.
 
Back
Top