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

Wed Dec 5 02:25:32 UTC 2012

Kirk is still recovering from his stroke. He is supposed to be back in January.

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 8:20 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" <ewj at pigsqq.org> wrote:
> 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>
> 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>
> 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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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