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

Wed Dec 5 02:20:14 UTC 2012

The final vote was 98-0 with Durbin and "Rand...Who?" both voting in 
favour of the NDAA.

Mark Kirk did not vote.

On 12/05/12 10:09, Carl G. Estabrook wrote:
> [FWIW Durbin was one of 6 senators - and the only Democrat - voting no 
> on this. --CGE]
>
>
> Senate Passes NDAA Amendment on Syria No-Fly Zone
> Posted By John Glaser On December 4, 2012
>
> The Senate on Tuesday passed an amendment to a controversial 2013 
> defense bill requiring the President to submit a plan detailing the 
> military activities for a no-fly zone over Syria.
>
> In a 92-6 vote, the Senate amended the 2013 National Defense 
> Authorization Act to include a provision requiring “a report on 
> military activities to deny or significantly degrade the use of air 
> power against civilian and opposition groups in Syria.”
>
> Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against the amendment, but thanked its 
> authors for “including in this amendment a clause that says that 
> nothing in this amendment is to be construed as a declaration of war 
> or a use of authorization of force. I think that’s very important,” he 
> said in a statement.
>
> In expressing his opposition to the amendment, Paul explained, “Our 
> Defense Department no doubt has contingency plans for a ballistic 
> missile attack on the United States, for a conventional land invasion, 
> for naval or air encounters throughout the world, but we don’t 
> necessarily openly discuss them or encourage them.”
>
> “I hope my colleagues today will not encourage a rush to war by 
> publicly clamoring for a plan to become involved in Syria’s civil 
> war,” he added...
> /
> /
> /http://news.antiwar.com/2012/12/04/senate-passes-ndaa-amendment-on-syria-no-fly-zone//
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Robert Naiman 
> <naiman at justforeignpolicy.org <mailto:naiman at justforeignpolicy.org>> 
> wrote:
>
>> OK, fine. Why not back up Carl on his proposal? He agrees with you on
>> the no compromise, but agrees with me that we should be pushing on
>> Durbin. He and I have agreed to put our disagreement in abeyance in
>> order to focus on our agreement. Why not join us in our agreement?
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Brussel, Morton K 
>> <brussel at illinois.edu <mailto:brussel at illinois.edu>> wrote:
>>> I just have no faith that Senator Durbin would carry forcibly forth 
>>> such a message to the Administration/Obama, for he has backed or 
>>> remained silent and passive  about almost every foreign policy 
>>> action by the administration (save one that I know of, where he 
>>> apologized for  having criticized). Moreover, I think that at best, 
>>> there might be changes only around the margins of the drone program 
>>> leaving the major problem stand, but claiming something significant 
>>> and moral had been done, when the contrary was true.
>>>
>>> In other words, I think this particular initiative is a waste of 
>>> time, but I commend you for trying to do something.  Constant 
>>> condemnation of the drone business is what is needed, on all fronts, 
>>> by as many out there as possible. I'm not ready to compromise on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 2, 2012, at 11:33 AM, Robert Naiman 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 <mailto: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 <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org>
>>>> naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Robert Naiman
>> Policy Director
>> Just Foreign Policy
>> www.justforeignpolicy.org <http://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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20121205/6929de1f/attachment-0001.html>