←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.414s | 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. benmmurphy ◴[] No.34715219[source]
I'm not sure how courts are interpreting section d) but using a plain reading of the three points:

  1) a lethal operation or capture operation...
  2) an operation conducted by the armed forces in self-defense or in defense of foreign partners, including during a cooperative operation; or
  3) an operation conducted by the armed forces to free an individual from the control of hostile foreign forces.
blowing up infrastructure that has no risk of killing someone for an offensive purpose would not be covered. I think they should have notified congress because that is the clear spirit of this law but the executive is always trying to dodge congressional oversight.
replies(1): >>34715424 #
2. anigbrowl ◴[] No.34715424[source]
I would argue that it easily falls under section 2, just like blowing up a bridge with nobody on it for strategic purposes. But you raise an interesting argument and I don't know what current jurisprudence or guidance is on the topic.