   The Capture that Never Was - CIA and Bin Laden
Click hereI'm not normally one for politics and such, but I found this little article particularly interesting. Inside the 9/11 report and there for everyone to read. I'm wondering how much of a risk they thought it would be if they knew they *might* be saving close to 3,000 lives at the expense of a handful of operatives. Thoughts?   
  if they failed then Sept 11th would have been on 1999....i believe it was good idea to put it on hold (not scrap it), especially if there was a 40% chance of success. a failure would not have been good especially with the Pres. Clinton dealing with the whole Monica thing.imagine if we failed 1999, 2000, or 1/1/2001 could have been potential dates for disaster.... to scrub the mission completely was a mistake, i believe.   ;  Note: the CIA cannot legally execute plans, such as foreign raids, without presidential approval. The CIA is a data-acquisition organization; it does not have judicial/executive  authority. There's more to the story than in that "skimpy"  article.   ;Quote:Original post by AdraeusNote: the CIA cannot legally execute plans, such as foreign raids, without presidential approval. The CIA is a data-acquisition organization; it does not have judicial/executive  authority.The keyword here is _legally_ right? What they do illegaly is a whole other story. [grin]   ;  Since neither you, DarkWIng, nor I have access to Top Secret data; it would be unreasonably foolish to factually propose or argue that the CIA executes or doesn't execute illegal operations.   ;  Well, Clinton signed an order approving the assasination of Osama, so the presidential approval really isn't an issue in this sense. However, deaths and retaliation do have to be considered, and its not like there haven't been other raids that have been cancelled in the history of the US. Or just raids that intel managed to fuck up (Son Tay).   ;  Assassination is always illegal. It is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.  But because osama is trying to attack the US he exempts himself from the protections of those two documents.   ;  Assassination is also forbidden by U.S. law, however, that only applies to governmental officials and civilians; thus, it would be legal to authorize the assassination of a nomadic terrorist (non-governmental, non-citizen) that poses a significant threat to national security.   ;Quote:Original post by GKWAssassination is always illegal. It is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter.  But because osama is trying to attack the US he exempts himself from the protections of those two documents.I thought that the forums had decided that we don't follow the Geneva convention and UN charter :)By the way, Reagan signed the Presidential order to make the assasination of foreign heads of state illegal. So, of course, another sitting President could just sign his own order, which would take precedence over Reagans.   ;  Not to metion "black ops". The lines from splinter cell are real fellas. "If you are caught during this operation the secretary will disavow (sic) all knowledge of your actions". As a former Marine I can say shit like that does go down. Lets just say the following story is true. Operative A signals the rest of the team with his handheld laser pointer. The four men instantly raid the palace taking out any guards that get in their way. B, being the bleeding heart of the group uses cloroform the knock out the guards the other's methods aren't quite as humane. Two snipers, also US troops are posted on oppisite sides in the thick brush. They'd just as quickly shoot one of their own if they'd get captured. They try their best to help clear a path if needed. After completing their objective, taking photos of checks used to pay for nukes, the 4 men make their way to a local bar have a drink and go their separate ways. All the men have been chosen to blend in the the general populous and nobody is the wiser when they board their planes back to the US over a 2 week period.   