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

Wed Dec 5 12:47:53 UTC 2012

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/04/92_senators_vote_to_require_pentagon_to_report_on_syria_military_options

"...Hill staffers told The Cable that the unusually high support for the amendment was indicative of the Senate's frustration with both the quantity and quality of the information the administration was sharing regarding how much Pentagon has planned for military contingencies inside Syria..."

This amendment was a critique of the administration for not being belligerent enough in Syria (!), by the worst neocons - McCain, Lieberman et al. So the no vote by Durbin - Obama's fp boy in the Senate - was a defense of Obama's thoroughly objectionable war policy. Opposition to that policy, such as it is, came only from the paleocon- & libertarian-infected - who as Wayne points out all fell in line on passage.

--CGE

On Dec 4, 2012, at 8:09 PM, Carl G. Estabrook <galliher at illinois.edu> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20121205/9f45adc7/attachment.html>