zlacker

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.

>>anigbr+(OP)
I wonder what Biden was referring to when he stated

> "If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

> When asked how, the president says, "I promise you, we will be able do that."

(C-SPAN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8 )

>>anigbr+(OP)
He claims SOCOM covert military operations have to be reported to Gang of Eight but if you use regular Navy forces to do the covert operation you somehow do not. That seems beyond extremely suspect.

> There was a vital bureaucratic reason for relying on the graduates of the center’s hardcore diving school in Panama City. The divers were Navy only, and not members of America’s Special Operations Command, whose covert operations must be reported to Congress and briefed in advance to the Senate and House leadership—the so-called Gang of Eight. The Biden Administration was doing everything possible to avoid leaks as the planning took place late in 2021 and into the first months of 2022.

>>ttctci+w3
Like the Europeans, Biden miscalculated that income via Nordstream would be crucial to Russia. Nobody would have predicted that the Russians are so crazy to cut off Europe on their own in an attempt to force them (Germany in particular) into submission. Alas that didn't work as European customers saved on Gas and shouldered the increase in cost.

>>anigbr+(OP)
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.

>>oezi+j5
Prima facie, in the context of Hersh's story, it sounds a lot like there's a plan to blow up the pipeline, doesn't it?

I'm anticipating there are more plausible explanations of what his words "We will bring an end to it" might refer to, and was hoping replies might provide them.

>>ttctci+w6
Bringing an end to it can just imply calling chancellor Scholz and making it clear to close the pipelines. Germany could have stopped receiving Gas if they were pressured to.

>>ttctci+w6
It does, but there is a good argument that it was in Russia's strategic interest to blow up the pipeline and blame it on NATO. 'Burning your boats' exists as a catchphrase because it is a real historic strategy to impose force cohesion. In the context of gas supplies, it shuts down internal political dissent about whether the military object outweighs the economic object.

I don't have a firm opinion on who destroyed the pipeline; there are valid strategic arguments for doing so on both sides, and the ambiguity over who did it is the geopolitical equivalent of a smoke bomb.

>>ttctci+w3
Considering the context was about sanctions, and no one at the time thought he was suggesting he would blow it up, then it’s not reasonable to try to retroactively change the context.

>>anigbr+(OP)
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.

>>abraca+U9
I realize I'm just some guy on the internet, but damaging/destroying a section of the pipeline is exactly what I thought President Biden meant when he said that.

>>benmmu+wd
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.

>>abraca+U9
He didn't say no gas would flow. He said the pipeline would no longer exist. Also, why would he be hesitant to use the word "sanctions?" Sanctions would be a totally reasonable explanation. What he said clearly implied the pipeline would be forcefully made inoperative.