←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
anigbrowl ◴[] No.34714381[source]
It might be true. But the story rests on the following premise:

*Biden’s and Nuland’s indiscretion, if that is what it was, might have frustrated some of the planners. But it also created an opportunity. According to the source, some of the senior officials of the CIA determined that blowing up the pipeline “no longer could be considered a covert option because the President just announced that we knew how to do it.”

The plan to blow up Nord Stream 1 and 2 was suddenly downgraded from a covert operation requiring that Congress be informed to one that was deemed as a highly classified intelligence operation with U.S. military support. Under the law, the source explained, “There was no longer a legal requirement to report the operation to Congress. [...]'

This glosses over the legal fact that the President can't just carry out military operations and then never mention them again, not least on the grounds that someone needs to be in the loop in case the executive branch suffers some catastrophic attack. As far as I am aware, 10 USC 130f still requires that Congress be notified of sensitive military operations within 48 hours: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/130f

I don't see where Hersh addresses this aspect of the legal environment, he just waves it away. Of course, it could be that Congress notified but only a small number of sufficiently serious members with the capacity to keep their mouths firmly shut, but the article doesn't seem to contemplate that possibility.

replies(4): >>34714599 #>>34714629 #>>34714743 #>>34715219 #
1. ZeroGravitas ◴[] No.34714743[source]
The way I read it this was the second of two different reasons given by Hersh for re-classifying the op and avoiding scrutiny by Congress.

The use of non-SEAL divers from Panama was also given as a reason for that.