[Peace-discuss] how about a Durbin letter to President Obama on new CIA chief and drone strike policy?

Sun Dec 2 19:17:19 UTC 2012

Agreed. I'm proposing that - in addition to individual letters - AWARE write as organization.  --CGE

On Dec 2, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:

> Well, for now, how about we agree to disagree about this, and make
> common cause on the idea that people should be contacting Durbin about
> the drone strikes. Say whatever you want. What we can say with high
> confidence is that if he doesn't hear from anyone, he is probably not
> going to do anything.
> 
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Carl G. Estabrook
> <galliher at illinois.edu> wrote:
>> Bob--
>> 
>> I think Mort is right. How would you evaluate your letter if it were written in the circumstances of 50 years ago?
>> 
>> "But here's the thing. There is no way to do anything about the Kennedy
>> administration's carpet bombing of South Vietnam
>> that will have practical effect without moving mainstream
>> institutions. And there is no way to move mainstream institutions
>> without making plausible asks. And 'stop all the bombing' is not
>> a plausible ask of a Senator right now. There is an important
>> difference between what makes sense to say in a demonstration on the
>> street and what makes sense to say in a conversation with a Senator.
>> 
>> "Stopping all the bombing that blatantly violates international law
>> would stop the overwhelming majority of strikes. That is a plausible
>> ask. It would save a lot of lives. Why not go after that first? If 95%
>> of violence is slam-dunk not justified, and 5% is arguably borderline,
>> why not go after the 95% first, and worry about the 5% later?"
>> 
>> The point is that a demand to "stop all the illegal bombing in Vietnam"
>> would be (a) a call to stop all of Kennedy's bombing of Vietnam
>> or (b) a (false) assertion that some of it was legal.
>> 
>> The situation seems the same today.  --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 2, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Robert Naiman <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> A worthy sentiment.
>>> 
>>> But here's the thing. There is no way to do anything about the drone
>>> strikes that will have practical effect without moving mainstream
>>> institutions. And there is no way to move mainstream institutions
>>> without making plausible asks. And "stop all the drone strikes" is not
>>> a plausible ask of a Senator right now. There is an important
>>> difference between what makes sense to say in a demonstration on the
>>> street and what makes sense to say in a conversation with a Senator.
>>> 
>>> Stopping all drone strikes that blatantly violate international law
>>> would stop the overwhelming majority of strikes. That is a plausible
>>> ask. It would save a lot of lives. Why not go after that first? If 95%
>>> of violence is slam-dunk not justified, and 5% is arguably borderline,
>>> why not go after the 95% first, and worry about the 5% later?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Brussel, Morton K <brussel at illinois.edu> wrote:
>>>> I don't want a "reform"; I want it stopped!
>>>> 
>>>> --mkb
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 1, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Robert Naiman wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> What do you think of the idea of Senator Durbin sending a letter to
>>>>> President Obama ahead of his announcement of his pick to head the CIA,
>>>>> saying this is an opportunity for a fundamental reform of the drone
>>>>> strike policy; in particular, getting the CIA out of drone strikes (a
>>>>> proposal which has been endorsed by the Washington Post editorial
>>>>> board, Human Rights Watch, and the 9/11 Commission.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> That could be the marquee demand for a list of reforms of drone strike
>>>>> policy that Senator Durbin would like to see, knocking down the most
>>>>> egregious aspects of current policy, such as:
>>>>> 
>>>>> - legal justification not disclosed
>>>>> - civilian victims not compensated
>>>>> - civilian harm not publicly assessed
>>>>> - secondary strikes/attacks on rescuers
>>>>> - signature strikes whose targeting criteria violate international law
>>>>> on their face
>>>>> 
>>>>> Here's some relevant ink:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Obama’s pick for CIA could affect drone program
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obamas-pick-for-cia-could-affect-drone-program/2012/11/24/4dc58dc2-3349-11e2-bfd5-e202b6d7b501_story.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> US: Transfer CIA Drone Strikes to Military
>>>>> Ensure Intelligence Agency Abides by International Law
>>>>> APRIL 20, 2012
>>>>> http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/04/20/us-transfer-cia-drone-strikes-military
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pulling the U.S. drone war out of the shadows
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-drone-war-demands-accountability/2012/11/01/56627964-2380-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Robert Naiman
>>>>> Policy Director
>>>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Robert Naiman
>>> Policy Director
>>> Just Foreign Policy
>>> www.justforeignpolicy.org
>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Robert Naiman
> Policy Director
> Just Foreign Policy
> www.justforeignpolicy.org
> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org