report: Pentagon used secret authority to strike Qaeda

[Neil D]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Since 2004, the Pentagon has used broad, secret authority to carry out about 12 attacks against al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, The New York Times reported on its Web site on Sunday.

Quoting what it said were more than six unnamed military and intelligence officials and senior Bush administration policy makers, the newspaper said the military operations were authorized by a classified order signed by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the approval of President George W. Bush.

Under the order, the military had new authority to strike the al Qaeda network anywhere in the world and a broader mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States, according to the Times.

Despite the order, each mission required high-level government approval, the Times reported.

The order identified 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states, where Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sought sanctuary, a senior administration official told the newspaper.

A former top CIA official told the newspaper that one of the operations included the raid of a suspected militant compound in the Bajuar region of Pakistan. The Times said its sources refused to provide details about the other previously undisclosed attacks, except to say they had been carried out in Syria, Pakistan and other countries.

The newspaper said officials made clear there had been no raids into Iran using that authority, but they suggested that American forces had carried out reconnaissance missions in Iran using other classified directives.

Senior military officials told the paper as many as a dozen additional missions were scrapped because senior administration officials decided they were too dangerous, diplomatically problematic or relied on insufficient evidence.

When contacted by the Times, spokesmen for the White House, the Defense Department and the military declined comment.

[Dr. Shane]

Someone should send the New York Times a thank you card the next time terrorists attack a US city.

[Neil D]

Someone should send the New York Times a thank you card the next time terrorists attack a US city.

considering that this report is on attacks that have already happened, your comment is somewhat out of place....Please explain...

[Dr. Shane]

The New York Times has a history of releasing classified information in order to sell more papers. Perhaps they figure if their leaking classified information results in another terrorist attack that is ok because they will sell more papers reporting on the terrorist attack. They are a despicable paper with no sense of morality.

[Neil D]

Perhaps they figure if their leaking classified information results in another terrorist attack that is ok because they will sell more papers reporting on the terrorist attack.

Hmmmmmm.......and questioning motives aloud and publically...?

What is this called again....? I forget.....

[Jeannieb43]

The New York Times has a history of releasing classified information in order to sell more papers. Perhaps they figure if their leaking classified information results in another terrorist attack that is ok because they will sell more papers reporting on the terrorist attack. They are a despicable paper with no sense of morality.

Sounds like a Rush Limbaugh quote, to me.

[Dr. Shane]

OK, please make the case why secret military missions carried out against terrorists need to be exposed. These were not civilians having civil rights violated. These were military targets. When the enemy captures our troops and holds them as POWs they torture them to get them to release this type of information. And then here comes the New York Times releasing it without any torture at all. The enemy doesn't need to take POWs if they read the New York Times.

[Neil D]

OK, please make the case why secret military missions carried out against terrorists need to be exposed. These were not civilians having civil rights violated. These were military targets. When the enemy captures our troops and holds them as POWs they torture them to get them to release this type of information. And then here comes the New York Times releasing it without any torture at all. The enemy doesn't need to take POWs if they read the New York Times.

Um, let me get this straight...These attacks were carried out between 1 to 4 years ago, and the enemy doesn't know about these attacks???

Explain to me again the logic of your premise????

[Woody]

It's a secret and should not be talked about here in the general public.

[Neil D]

Let's see...Military secrets...Pearl Harbor was bombed...OOOOh, that's a secret...Right????

We used the A-bomb on Japan..OOOOh, that's a secret...

Excuse me, but at what point does military action NOT become a secret anymore?

[Dr. Shane]

When the great Democrat Franklin Roosevelt was President all stories had to be approved by the War Department before they could be printed.

[Woody]

Secrets Secrets everywhere. Why can't people like Obama just keep their mouths shut so these secrets remain secrets.