No Comment — August 20, 2009, 10:09 am

Cheney’s Snuff Program Involved Blackwater

Mark Mazzetti reports in the New York Times:

The Central Intelligence Agency in 2004 hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials. Executives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The C.I.A. spent several million dollars on the program, which did not successfully capture or kill any terrorist suspects. The fact that the C.I.A. used an outside company for the program was a major reason that Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A.’s director, became alarmed and called an emergency meeting in June to tell Congress that the agency had withheld details of the program for seven years, the officials said.

This was a curious kind of contract, the Times reports. It wasn’t formalized but rather rested on “individual agreements with top company officials, including” CEO Erik Prince. No paper trail for the auditors.

Why would the CIA turn to a private security company for the implementation of one of its most sensitive programs? That will be a point for congressional study. But one answer might be plausible deniability. The last eight years have made clear that congressional oversight committees have a hard time keeping track of contractors, especially contractors engaged in sensitive intelligence projects. Contractors also show up repeatedly in other highly sensitive intelligence projects—consistently, whenever the projects skirt the law. The Bush Administration’s torture program is a good example. Further answers might lie with Cofer Black, the 28-year agency veteran who ended his tenure as head of the Counterterrorist Center only to assume new duties at Blackwater. If the targeted killings program was under Black’s aegis, then he may have had something to do with the secret, informal relationship between Blackwater and the CIA.

Mazzetti also reports that “the Bush administration took the position that killing members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist group that attacked the United States and has pledged to attack it again, was no different from killing enemy soldiers in battle, and that therefore the agency was not constrained by the assassination ban.” This is evidence of the typically muddle-headed thinking that characterized the Bush Administration’s lawyer-cowboys. Let’s unpack it a bit.

First, clearly, in wartime, a nation is entitled to attack the command and control of its adversary, even seeking them out in civilian population centers. That’s not a particularly controversial point. But that’s a right that exists for privileged combatants, namely the uniformed armed services of a party to the conflict. The CIA itself does not field privileged combatants (with some limited exceptions); its predecessor organization, OSS, was attached to the military, but one rationale for the reorganization of the intelligence service was to loosen the bonds tying it to the laws of war. A targeted killings program of the sort contemplated could therefore plausibly be operated by the Pentagon, but not by the CIA. For this reason, many observers were not surprised by earlier reports tying this program to the joint special forces command.

There are also limitations on how such a program could operate. Mazzetti’s reporting suggests—as do other reports—that this plan involved attacks in states where no active combat was raging, and indeed, the talk of “diplomatic” problems suggests it might involve U.S. allies who are unwilling to authorize such operations on their soil. Would that be lawful? However the United States views such an operation, the country where it occurs might very well see it as a homicide and might therefore arrest and prosecute the U.S. agents—that’s one of the “risks” alluded to. Under the laws of war, the right to strike against an enemy command and control figure is not absolute, either. If that figure is not engaged in actual military activities and is sheltering in a neutral state, the attack could be seen as the violation of the neutrality of that state, for instance.

That means that a targeted killings program could easily have been implemented in Iraq, Afghanistan, on the Pakistani frontier, or another theater of warfare, consistent with the law. But when it involves a strike against an Al Qaeda cell based in Germany, for instance, the operation has serious legal issues. In between these two examples are a number of other possibilities in varying shades of gray. In dealing with these cases, decision-makers have to take into account the law, the consequences of the action for relations with the state where the attacks occur, and the practical effect of an attack, particularly if innocent lives are claimed and no legitimate target is affected. Historically, even states that generally recognize and follow the laws of war may launch covert strikes against enemy leaders outside of a theater of war. It is a risk they may feel compelled to take.

But even if the United States could run a targeted killings program, that doesn’t mean it could or should use private contractors to implement it. These contractors are not privileged combatants under the laws of war. In concept, the United States has justified their use solely in terms of the protection of other contractors and military forces, not for any sort of offensive use. As I discuss in Private Security Contractors at War, that distinction is extremely difficult to maintain. For instance, when persons protected by security contractors come under attack, what are their rules of engagement? Are they required to retreat in the face of fire, or may they use offensive tactics by way of defense? In theory the view has been that they are required to retreat, but practice has shown that offensive tactics are used. Indeed, Blackwater has followed what one Marine officer described to me as “spray and pray”—use heavy firepower in an urban setting and pray that some of it actually hits the enemy. The bottom line is that private security companies have no business becoming involved in a project like the CIA targeted killings program. So why would the CIA use them? On that question, we need answers.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

From the April 2015 issue

Company Men

Torture, treachery, and the CIA

Six Questions October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm

The APA Grapples with Its Torture Demons: Six Questions for Nathaniel Raymond

Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

February 2016

The Trouble with Iowa

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Queen and I

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Disunified Front

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

We Don’t Have Rights, But We Are Alive

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Isn’t It Romantic?

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Trusted Traveler

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
New Movies·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Force Awakens criticizes American imperialism while also celebrating the revolutionary spirit that founded this country. When the movie needs to bridge the two points of view, it shifts to aerial combat, a default setting that mirrors the war on terror all too well.”
Still © Lucasfilm
Article
Isn’t It Romantic?·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“He had paid for much of her schooling, something he cannot help but mention, since the aftermath of any failed relationship brings an ungenerous and impossible impulse to claw back one’s misspent resources.”
Illustration by Shonagh Rae
Article
The Trouble with Iowa·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“It seems to defy reason that this anachronistic farm state — a demographic outlier, with no major cities and just 3 million people, nine out of ten of them white — should play such an outsized role in American politics.”
Photograph (detail) © Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Article
Rule, Britannica·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“This is the strange magic of an arrangement of all the world’s knowledge in alphabetical order: any search for anything passes through things that have nothing in common with it but an initial letter.”
Artwork by Brian Dettmer. Courtesy the artist and P.P.O.W., New York City.
Article
The Queen and I·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“Buckingham Palace is a theater in need of renovation. There is something pathetic about a fiercely vacuumed throne room. The plants are tired. Plastic is nailed to walls and mirrors. The ballroom is set for a ghostly banquet. Everyone is whispering, for we are in a mad kind of church. A child weeps.”
Photograph (detail) © Martin Parr/Magnum Photos

Estimated percentage of New Hampshire’s bat population that died in 2010:

65

A horticulturalist in Florida announced a new low-carb potato.

In Peru, a 51-year-old activist became the first former sex worker to run for the national legislature. “I’m going to put order,” she said, “in that big brothel which is Congress.”

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Two Christmas Mornings of the Great War

By

Civilization masks us with a screen, from ourselves and from one another, with thin depth of unreality. We habitually live — do we not? — in a world self-created, half established, of false values arbitrarily upheld, largely inspired by misconception, misapprehension, wrong perspective, and defective proportion, misapplication.

Subscribe Today