I Don't Understand this Flap Over the CIA

Here is an article in the Wall Street Journal by Siobhan Gorma entitled "CIA Had Secret Al Qaeda Plan: Initiative at Heart of Spat With Congress Examined Ways to Seize, Kill Terror Chiefs". I've read the article. I do understand that the CIA has a responsibility to be under supervision by the Congress which means they need to report all plans.

What I don't understand is the reining in of plans to get Osama bin Laden. Here are the relevant bits:

The revelations about the CIA and its post-9/11 activities have emerged amid a renewed fight between the agency and congressional Democrats. Last week, seven Democratic lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee released a letter that talked about the CIA effort, which they said Mr. Panetta acknowledged hadn't been properly vetted with Congress. CIA officials had brought the matter to Mr. Panetta's attention and had recommended he inform Congress.

Neither Mr. Panetta nor the lawmakers provided details. Mr. Panetta quashed the CIA effort after learning about it June 23.

The battle is part of a long-running tug of war between the executive branch and the legislature about how to oversee the activities of the country's intelligence services and how extensively the CIA should brief Congress. In recent years, in the light of revelations over CIA secret prisons and harsh interrogation techniques, Congress has pushed for greater oversight. The Obama administration, much like its predecessor, is resisting any moves in that direction.

Most recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in a dispute over what she knew about the use of waterboarding in interrogating terror suspects, has accused the agency of lying to lawmakers about its operations.

...

Amid the high alert following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a small CIA unit examined the potential for targeted assassinations of al Qaeda operatives, according to the three former officials. The Ford administration had banned assassinations in the response to investigations into intelligence abuses in the 1970s. Some officials who advocated the approach were seeking to build teams of CIA and military Special Forces commandos to emulate what the Israelis did after the Munich Olympics terrorist attacks, said another former intelligence official.

"It was straight out of the movies," one of the former intelligence officials said. "It was like: Let's kill them all."

The former official said he had been told that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney didn't support such an operation. The effort appeared to die out after about six months, he said.

...

One draft cable, later scrapped, authorized officers on the ground to "kill on sight" certain al Qaeda targets, according to one person who saw it. The context of the memo suggested it was designed for the most senior leaders in al Qaeda, this person said.

Eventually Mr. Bush issued the finding that authorized the capturing of several top al Qaeda leaders, and allowed officers to kill the targets if capturing proved too dangerous or risky.

What I don't understand is that:

• The US is using Predator drones to blast away at Pakistani and Afghani villages to "kill terrorists". This inevitably kills civilians as "collatoral damage". But a plan to target assassinations of Al Qaeda was stopped. Why? It's OK to drop 500 pound bombs, but not to put a bullet in the back of a head. Bizarre.


• Bush said he was going to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive". But when it comes to a CIA program to get his, Bush and Cheney get squeamish and say "no, you can't assassinate him"? What? Are the rules of war that you have to notify the opponent, stand back to back, walk 15 paces, then turn and shoot? I don't get it. Bush was full of braggadocio about "getting" his man, but when it came to a real program, Bush and Cheney "didn't support" the program!


• I don't understand the fine distinction between "capture, but kill if they resist" and "assassinate". Does that mean on the battlefield that a soldier has to shout to his enemy and announce his intention to take a pot shot before he takes a bead on the enemy and pulls the trigger?

I'm all for ending war. But it sure seems to me that if somebody does a surprise attack and kills a lot of innocent civilians, you don't tie yourself up with the Marquess of Queensbury rules for responding.

I think it is funny that Bush did his schtick about "dead of alive" for getting Osama bin Laden, but secretly said "not dead". He was one thing for public consumption. Something else when instructing the CIA.