Crime? Did they even promise to deliver something that wasn't provided?
I think my problem here is how the killing of aid workers is the CIA's fault and not the crazy militants' that are killing aid workers.
In the first link they note that, while the CIA did admit to one fake program that didn't work out, it was not a polio campaign, that is the mistake made by the millitants and the authors of Zero Dark Thirty, that's what I was responding to.
1. This should have been secret. Intelligence agencies do shady things all the time, and mitigate the risk of doing those things with information security. Now posing as aid workers was bad, bad, bad, but posing as aid workers and then allowing that deception to leak was bad, plus incompetent. For it was the information about this campaign that put aid workers in danger, not the campaign itself (which put them at the risk of being in danger, if you catch my drift). Bad is bad, but bad and stupid is much worse.
Pakistan's military and its main intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), saw things differently. After the ISI discovered that Afridi had visited Bin Laden's house just before the raid, its agents arrested him as he was driving home in Peshawar on May 23, and as they say in Pakistan, "he was disappeared." Afridi was taken to a secret prison, leaving unanswered the question of what exactly happened that day in Abbottabad.
« Older DuckTales invented a new animated wonderland—that ... | The Evolution of Irregular War... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt