Archive for the ‘U.S. Military’ Category

« Older Entries

Benghazi reactions: Commentary, opinion and analysis

Thursday, May 16th, 2013

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
–Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)

Commentary and Opinion on Benghazi

Jonah Goldberg (op-ed), “Benghazi’s smoking guns; There’s an arsenal worth, from testimony at congressional hearings to the State Department’s flawed internal review to the four dead Americans,” Los Angles Times, May 14, 2013.

Thomas Sowell, “Lies, darn lies and Benghazi,” The Patriot-News (Penn.), May 16, 2013 (updated May 16, 2013 at 8:16 AM).

Scott Wilson, “Benghazi e-mails released by White House,” Washington Post, May 15, 2013 (at 5:20 pm). The article contains a link to the e-mails that were released.

Peggy Noonan, “The Inconvenient Truth About Benghazi Did the Obama administration’s politically expedient story cost American lives?” The Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2013 (Updated 6:41 p.m. ET).

Brett Stephens, “The Kissinger Question: Does America need a foreign policy? Obama thinks not,” Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2013 (8:35 p.m. ET)

Charles Krauthammer, “Redacted truth, subjunctive outrage,” Washington Post, May 17, 2013.

Analysis

The so-called “Benghazi talking points” are merely the symbol, the tip of the iceberg so to speak, for something much bigger.

     Credibility

We now know that the Obama administration lied to the American people about Benghazi.

We now know how the Obama administration lied to the American people about Benghazi.

We now know that the initial lie, represented by Susan Rice’s talk show appearances on September 16, was followed by other lies, by a cover-up of the initial lie. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told the press, for example, that the White House made only one or two stylistic changes to the talking points, such as using another term instead of the “consulate” in Benghazi (there was no consulate, just a CIA black operation).

But we now know that the White House insisted that the State Department’s concerns be taken into account, that a Principals Deputies Committee meeting was held (under National Security Council procedures) on September 15, hours before the talking points were given to Susan Rice on the eve of her Sunday talk show appearances, that the State Department pushed hard for the elimination of any references to prior warnings about the tenuous situation in Benghazi, or to the involvement of terrorist organizations or al-Qaeda affiliates in the attacks, and that the talking points that emerged from that Deputies meeting adhered to the State Department’s demands.

We now know that the Obama administration employs the massive apparatus of the state to manage the news, subjecting something as straightforward as telling the American people why and how four Americans, including their Ambassador, were killed in Benghazi on September 11-12, 2013, to endless convolutions of negotiated texts which had as their aim to downplay or obfuscate the known facts: the attacks in Benghazi were carried out by terrorist organizations with links to al-Qaeda, including Ansar al-Sharia.

We now know that we cannot take anything Jay Carney or Barack Obama says at face value.

President Obama’s credibility is in a free fall, whereas that of his press secretary has already hit the earth, shattered. Obama doesn’t understand these facts. Until he does, and takes forceful corrective action, his presidency will be crippled.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

     Incompetence

Beneath this tip of the iceberg, the release of the e-mails reveals a shocking level of incompetence in the White House foreign policy team’s management of the Benghazi talking points and crisis. They were concerned about the the prejudicial impact of statements based on the talking points on judicial proceedings that might result from the FBI’s investigation into who was behind the attack!

Wait a minute!

Since when does the U.S. government ascertain who is behind events in foreign countries through an FBI investigation? Doesn’t the FBI investigate crimes within the U.S., and aren’t the CIA, other intelligence agencies, and the State Department responsible for reporting on the causes of events abroad? To be sure, the FBI may be called in when its special expertise is needed, as in the USS Cole investigation in Yemen in 2000, though in retrospect even that precedent raises serious questions.

But what utter incompetence and confusion can explain the fact that the Obama administration, in response to a terrorist attack on what was essentially a CIA black operation in Benghazi, resulting in the deaths of four Americans including the Ambassador, assigned responsibility for ascertaining who was behind and participated in the attack to…the FBI?

With regard to Benghazi, we seem to have encountered the perfect marriage of supreme incompetence and politically motivated manipulation of the facts presented to the American people.

The situation is much worse than we thought.

Democrats Must Come Forward

This is not ultimately, or should not be, a partisan issue.

For the good of the Republic, one can only hope that Democrats will now come forward to force the president to look at and face the facts, as others see them, and to quickly take whatever actions may be necessary both to organize his foreign policy team so that competent people are in charge, and to revamp his communications strategy and personnel in order to restore his credibility, starting by shooting straight with the American people.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, CIA, History, Intelligence, Libya, Libya, State Department, syria, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, U.S. news coverage, United States, use of force | No Comments »

Benghazi and Beyond

Friday, May 10th, 2013

After the Congressional testimony before a House subcommittee on Wednesday, May 8, 2013, new attention has been directed to the facts of the Beghazi affair. The North American Editor of BBC News has written, for example, that “heads will roll”.

See Mark Mardell (North American Editor), “After Benghazi revelations, heads will roll,” BBC News, May 10, 2013.

In order to understand the signficance of the Benghazi affair, it is important to recall how it has unfolded. For a detailed analysis of this saga, in roughly chronological order, see the following articles previously published by the Trenchant Observer:

New York Times makes ad hominem attack against Senator Lindsey Graham (R–South Carolina), February 13, 2013 ”

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and the foreign policy “successes” of our celebrity leaders, February 2, 2013

Hillary Clinton and “The Benghazi Triangle”—where careers and reputations vanish without a trace, December 17, 2012

Lies, Spies and Politics: The Incredible Evolution of the Benghazi “Talking Points” Narrative–Part II, November 27, 2012

Lies, Spies and Politics: The Incredible Evolution of the Benghazi “Talking Points” Narrative–Part I, November 22, 2012

Possible motives for forcing Petraeus resignation, November 19, 2012

Deliberate ambiguity: Talking points, and what Susan Rice said on September 16 talk shows, November 16, 2012

Petraeus, Allen, Benghazi potpourri, November 16, 2012

Benghazi machinations continue: CIA announces investigation of Petraeus on eve of his testimony to Congress, November 16, 2012

Chain-of-command failure? Benghazi and the ghost of “Black Hawk Down”; Obama’s credibility (Updated November 15), November 14, 2012

All Eyes on Benghazi: The Petraeus Affair, Allen’s e-mails, and other distractions, November 13, 2012

Collateral damage: Holly Petraeus, and other victims of the Petraeus affaire (II), November 11, 2012

Collateral damage: Holly Petraeus, and other victims of the Petraeus affair, November 11, 2012

On eve of testimony to Congress on Benghazi, CIA Director David Petraeus forced out over an affair, November 9th, 2012

Benghazi update: New questions raised on intelligence, decision-making failures (Updated November 6, 2012), November 5, 2012

New details on Benghazi attack on consulate, American response, October 13, 2012

No time for cowboys: U.S. preparation for reprisals against Libyan targets, October 3, 2012

U.S. Ambassador to Libya murdered during assault on American consulate in Benghazi, September 12, 2012

The Ultimate Questions

At the end of the day, the most important questions that remain unanswered are the following:

1. What did the President know, and when did he know it?

2. What was the involvement of the President in the decision making on the night of September 11-12?

3. What orders did the President issue to the military and other agencies (such as the CIA) on the night of September 11-12, 2012?

4. What recommendations for military action did the President receive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and what was his response to these recommendations?

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Africa, CIA, foreign correspondents, foreign news coverage, International Law, Libya, Libya, State Department, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force | Comments Off

Obama’s “red line” baby talk, and the Red Herring of whether it has been crossed

Thursday, April 25th, 2013

In the 21st century, statesmen don’t shout at the leaders of other nations and threaten, “if you cross this red line, my red line because I am powerful and can hurt you, if you cross this red line which I have drawn in the sand, I will huff and puff and I’ll blow your house down.”

The apogee of all of this red line talk was when Benjamin Netanyahu, at the United Nations, drew a crude picture of a bomb with an arbitrary red line to show the point beyond which Iran can’t continue down the path to making a nuclear bomb without Israel attacking it militarily.

All this talk of red lines is silly because it is unilateral, arbitrary, and lacks any claim of legitimacy.

It’s the way some leaders might have spoken to leaders in other countries in the 19th century or earlier.

Now, things have changed. We have a United Nations Charter and well-developed rules of international law governing the use of force.

Statesmen today talk to each other in the language of international law, not the playground threats of children who don’t know yet much about rules and law and the limits society places on their behavior.

Statesmen don’t talk that way, but regrettably some national leaders still do.

All the talk about Obama’s “red lines” in Syria and whether they have been crossed constitutes one big RED HERRING.

The questions we ought to be discussing, instead of chasing the Red Herring, include the following:

1. Does the present situation in Syria, including al-Assad’s barbarism (e.g., war crimes and crimes against humanity on a massive scale), negatively affect the vital national interests of the United States, or those of its allies?

2. If so, what must be done, both alone and in conjunction with others, to defend those vital national interests?

3. How are those interests likely to be affected if no effective action is taken to halt al-Assad’s barbarism?

4. Does the United States have a vital national interest in preventing and halting the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and widespread violations of fundamental human rights on a massive scale?

5. If the United States is going to act, “If not now, when?”

These are the questions people should be talking about, and not Obama’s baby talk about red lines and arguments about whether they have been crossed.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Crimes Against Humanity, Dimming Vision of World Affairs, History, human rights, internal supporters of human rights, International Law, self-defense, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, U.N. Charter, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »

Obama’s distorted relationship with the truth: Al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria

Wednesday, April 24th, 2013

(developing story)

See Isabelle Lasserre, “Washington tergiverse face aux armes chimiques d’Assad,” Le Figaro, 23 avril 2013 (mis à jour le 24/04/2013 à 16:13).

President Obama has gotten himself into a real bind with all of his talk of “red lines” in Syria. If al-Assad crossed Obama’s red line on using chemical weapons, the U.S. was going to…going to…going to…do something really big, like even intervene militarily.

Now, with Israeli generals asserting al-Assad has used chemical weapons, and other allies’ intelligence agencies essentially in agreement, it would seem that Obama has to do … SOMETHING!

The situation is reminiscent of Hillary Clinton’s reluctance to call al-Assad a war criminal, because that would increase pressures on the administration to act.

But Obama does not want to act in Syria. Despite the unanimous recommendations of his secretaries of state, his defense minister, his CIA Director, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So, his solution for the moment is to say we are still investigating whether Syria used chemical weapons in places like Homs, Aleppo, and maybe even Damascus.

One would think he can only investigate for so long. On the other hand, as his leak investigations show, or his torture investigations, he’s pretty good at stretching out investigations until no one remembers or cares.

This time, in Syria, however. the truth just may be getting poised to take a big bite out of Obama’s credibility–such as it is–and his silly use of words like “red lines”.

He really ought to be basing his statements on international law, not imaginary and unilaterally imposed “red lines”, which are naked assertions of power devoid of the appeals to legitimacy contained in international law.

Obama’s principal approach to foreign policy issues is to try to solve them with words. We’ll see if words suffice this time, or if action may be forced upon a reluctant president.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Crimes Against Humanity, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Israel, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, U.N. Charter, U.S. Intervention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »

Smart drones, the goal of peace, and the future of mankind

Sunday, March 17th, 2013

In an Op-Ed piece by Bill Keller published in the New York Times on March 16, 2013, Keller describes the high probability that “smart drones” will be introduced in the future, in which the aerial-borne robotic machine and its computer will decide which targets and individuals and groups to fire upon, without human intervention. Keller notes that Israel, in fact, has already introduced such an aircraft, the Harpy. Keller notes,

Israel is the first country to make and deploy (and sell, to China, India, South Korea and others) a weapon that can attack pre-emptively without a human in charge. The hovering drone called the Harpy is programmed to recognize and automatically divebomb any radar signal that is not in its database of “friendlies.” No reported misfires so far, but suppose an adversary installs its antiaircraft radar on the roof of a hospital?

–Bill Keller, Op-Ed, “Smart Drones,” New York Times, March 16, 2013.

The entire op-ed piece speaks of advances in warfare based on the underlying assumption that continued warfare is inevitable, and that the most we can aspire to is to limit some forms of warfare or weapons used, such as land-mines. While there is a great deal to be said for international treaties and institutions that limit types and the extent of warfare–international humanitarian law or “the law of war” has precisely that aim, it seems that humanity has fallen into a downward spiral in its thinking and aspirations relating to war, and into what is in fact a profound moral abyss.

In 1945, no one doubted that the goal of international society and the new United Nations Charter and Organization should be the prevention of war, and the maintenance of international peace and security. This goal was almost self-evident to generations which had suffered the ravages of World War I (1914-1918) and World War II (1939-1945).

But today our leaders no longer espouse the goal of international peace. Like President Barack Obama in his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech or Lecture in 2009, they have no vision of peace as an overriding goal to which other objectives should be subordinated. Rather, permanent war is in the minds of the leaders of today. Obama, in thinking about his pivot to Asia, is thinking about military deployments in the region to check China’s rising military power. In the stand-off with Russia and China in the United Nations Security Council over Syria, the larger question of the goals and vision of international society has been lost, primarily but not exclusively as a result of Russian and Chinese obstinacy.

At best, particularly under Obama, we have a dearth of American leadership in world affairs in general and in the maintenance of international peace and security in particular. Here, France has stepped into the vacuum, first acting as a catalyst in Libya and more recently, acting by introducing French forces into Mali to halt the fall of that country to Islamic terrorist groups and Tuareg guerrillas.

But who, and in which countries, dares today to articulate a powerful vision of peace and how to get there?

Without a powerful vision of peace, such as that originally laid out in 1945 in the Preamble and Articles 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, humanity will continue to stumble down the terrible path of war, now to be mechanized with smart drones, and also soon to be characterized by an imminent breakdown in the international nuclear non-proliferation regime.

In five years, or at most 10, Iran will have nuclear weapons. In five years, or at most 10, North Korea will have weapons and delivery vehicles that can land a nuclear bomb in Seattle or Los Angeles, if not Washington, New York, Moscow or London.

Is it not time that we in the United States seek to purify ourselves of the flawed thinking of the Bush and the Obama administrations about the inevitability of war, about the malleability of our most sacred moral values such as the inviolability of the human person, about the central importance of respect for fundamental human rights, of every person–even enemy combatants–and begin to concentrate with all our mental, social and political powers on the question of peace, and how to achieve it?

Is not war, and the pursuit of war, evil, and are not the pursuit of international peace and the fundamental human rights of all persons in all countries goals which embody our highest moral values?

Should we, then, not act on the basis of those values, and turn all of our efforts to developing our visions of peace and our roadmaps on how to get there?

It is perhaps no exaggeration to assert that a positive future for mankind depends on our visions of peace and our efforts to achieve them, far more than it depends on the technological “advances” we might make in developing ever-better machines of war.

Now, let’s think one step further and ask whether peace can be established without international rules that are binding in nature. Is there any realistic vision of peace that does not rest, ultimately, on the development and observance of international law and institutions? That was the vision of the founders of the League of Nations in 1919, and of the founders of the United Nations in 1945.

Is it not time for a renewal of hope, of positive goals, of our own deeply-felt visions of peace, and of our own stalwart and courageous actions to secure that peace?

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, China, Crimes Against Humanity, extrajudicial execution, France, human rights, International Law, Iran, Israel, Libya, Nobel Lecture, Nobel Peace Prize, Nuclear Proliferation, State Department Human Rights Country Reports, syria, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, vision of peace, war crimes | No Comments »

Hamid Karzai’s Scurrilous Attacks on the U.S. in Afghanistan

Thursday, March 14th, 2013

Recent News and Opinion

Alyssa J. Rubin, News Analysis: Karzai Bets on Vilifying U.S. to Shed His Image as a Lackey,” New York Times, March 12, 2013

Alyssa J. Rubin and Rod Norland, “U.S. General Puts Troops on Security Alert After Karzai Remarks,” New York Times, March 13, 2013

Leslie H. Gelb, “To Hell With Karzai,” The Daily Beast, March 12, 2013 (4:45 AM ET)

Ewen MacAskill (in Washington), “White House: claims of US collusion with Taliban ‘categorically false’; Obama spokesman rejects Karzai’s criticism of US as Afghan in police uniform kills seven including two American troops,” The Guardian, March 11, 2013 (15.51 ET)

Analysis

The United States has tolerated Hamid Karzai’s scurrilous attacks on the U.S. over the years, reacting with “understanding” that, e.g., Karzai is speaking to a domestic audience, or is acting crazy again.

But the U.S. has never reacted to these outrageous attacks with any understanding of their impact in a culture based on honor, and as a result has suffered the double humiliation of being attacked falsely and of being viewed as not having the courage to defend one’s honor.

Such attacks have worked for Karzai in the past, due to the American insistence that its envoys and military commanders get along with the green-caped magician. Karzai has proven far more adept than his allies at manipulating the other party or parties in an alliance which has kept him and the country’s corrupt political elite in power at the cost of U.S. and allied soldiers’ and civilians’ lives, and billions of dollars funneled into the coffers of government officials in what Dexter Filkins has quite aptly termed “Corruptistan”.

In 2009, the U.S. and NATO had a chance to bring Karzai to heel when decisions were being made on whether to insist that a second round in the presidential elections in Afghanistan actually be held, following the first-round elections held on August 20. Karzai’s fraud was so immense, that even the International Elections Commission, which found electoral corruption sufficient to require a second-round run-off,  barely touched the surface of the real fraud, due to the highly selective criteria it used to sample precincts for voting abuses.

The United States blinked, and backed Karzai instead of the democratic project the elections had been intended to further.

In view of the American backing of Karzai and the latter’s failure to guarantee that the second-round election would be fairly conducted, Abdullah Abdullah, the candidate who came in second with backing from the Northern Alliance and others, withdrew.

In any event, it had been obvious for some time that Karzai was the favored candidate of the U.S., for reasons which may have included his brother’s involvement in Kandahar with the CIA as well as that of many other high government officials who were on the CIA payroll.  While there is no public evidence of direct involvement of Hamid Karzai with the CIA, such a relationship now or in the past seems quite plausible given the CIA’s penetration of the highest ranks of the Afghan government, and therefore cannot be ruled out.

For whatever reasons, America could not break with Karzai.

As a result, without improvement of governance in the country to keep pace with military gains, Afghanistan now faces a period of growing instability in which it is fairly likely that the Taliban will achieve increasing control of the countryside as U.S. and ISAF forces draw down and essentially withdraw from the country.

Obama’s decisions in 2009 relating to the presidential elections constituted one of his worst foreign policy failures since assuming office.

The fact that the elections and decisions regarding the holding of the second-round election were not addressed within Obama’s much-touted Afghanistan policy review group revealed either the president’s incompetence in the foreign policy arena, or the fact that he and the CIA had decided issues relating to Karzai outside of the Afghan policy review process, or both of the above. The fact that then CIA Director Leon Panetta did not attend the last sessions of the policy review group lend support to the second hypothesis.

As for Karzai, Thomas Friedman predicted with unerring accuracy the following in an op-ed piece in March, 2010:

We have thousands of U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan and more heading there. Love it or hate it, we’re now deep in it, so you have to want our engagement there to build something that is both decent and self-sustaining — so we can get out. But I still fear that Karzai is ready to fight to the last U.S. soldier. And once we clear, hold and build Afghanistan for him, he is going to break our hearts.
–Thomas L. Friedman, “This Time We Really Mean It,” New York Times, March 30, 2010

As long as Karzai is calling the shots, the chances for the kinds of improvements in governance that are required for the government to remain in power and hold off the Taliban after the draw-down and departure of U.S. and ISAF troops do not appear great.

The Trenchant Observer

For (numerous) previous articles on Afghanistan by the Trenchant Observer, use the Search box in the upper right-hand corner of the home page.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Abdoulah, Abdullah, Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, corruption, elections, Hamid Karzai, Intelligence, Taliban, U.S. Military, United States, use of force | No Comments »

Senate confirms John Brennan as CIA Director—with tally and breakdown of vote

Friday, March 8th, 2013

The United States confirmed the nomination of John Brennan to be Director of Central Intelligence on Thursday afternoon, March 7, 2013, by a vote of 63-34, with three Senators not voting.

See the official vote tally, with a break-down by senator, state, and party, here.

(http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00032)

Senator Rand Paul’s filibuster on March 6 succeeded in enlisting a large number of Republicans to vote against the Brennan nomination.

The questions Paul raised go far beyond whether a president may kill an American citizen in the United States by a drone strike. A number of questions raised by Paul, and other critics including The Trenchant Observer, remain unanswered.

They are not academic questions. They call out not for more fancy legal analysis, bur rather for actions by Senators, Congressmen, and citizens to stop the Obama administration from violating international law and the Constitution, and to force the administration to publish—for all—their secret legal memoranda, so that citizens can react to uphold the rule of law, and leading scholars, foreign countries, and the judges of international tribunals may answer U.S. claims in their writings, state practice (official reactions by other countries), and judicial decisions.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Azerbaijan, Barack Obama, CIA, debate over the efficacy of torture, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Justice Department, Libya, self-defense, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »

UPDATE (MARCH 6) WITH LINKS TO SENATOR RAND PAUL FILIBUSTER; REPRISE: Secret Laws, the John Brennan vote, and the rule of law

Sunday, March 3rd, 2013

SENATOR RAND PAUL FILIBUSTER UPDATE

At 12:39 a.m. EST, Senator Rand Paul concluded a filibuster on the floor of the U.S. Senate that lasted more than 12 hours, conducting a rare “speaking” filibuster of the confirmation vote for John Brennan to be CIA Director. Brennan was approved by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence earlier by a vote of 12-3.

The filibuster was carried live on C-Span II.

See C-SPAN for the archived debate up to the present, here.

Brennan is expected to be confirmed shortly.

But historians will look back at this dark period in which America abandoned the rule of law, and ask, “Who Spoke Up? Who opposed such actions?” Rand Paul will have a privileged place in the history they write. At least one Senator took this set of issues beyond the comfort zone. Others will stand up in voting against the Brennan nomination, some for the reasons set forth by Paul and in the article reproduced below.

************************************************************

REPRISE: Secret Laws, the John Brennan vote, and the rule of law

We must bear witness to the truth and fight to uphold the rule of law.

Originally published February 24, 2013

Let  us step back for a moment from the details of what John Brennan is saying now in order to get confirmed by the Senate as CIA Director.

The Senate Select Intelligence Committee vote on his confirmation, like the full Senate vote that may follow, poses fundamental moral and political questions for the Senators who will be voting.  Because the Brennan confirmation itself raises key questions regarding the struggle against terrorism and the rule of law, they will in effect be voting for a definition of American democracy as it exists today, in 2013.

Moreover, because the U.S. has been been viewed over the centuries as a beacon of liberty, their votes will have far-reaching impacts throughout the world, where the nature of democracy is also at issue.

Most importantly, perhaps, their votes will engage their own individual moral responsibilty for government actions which they, whether by acquiescence or affirmation, in effect approve of by their votes on the Brennan nomination.

These questions go to the heart of what it means to say America is a democratic nation governed by the rule of law.

In a democracy, can the government rule by secret laws?

In a democracy, can secret decrees or interpretations of legal authority be used to authorize or condone acts of torture, extraordinary renditions, or targeted killings?

What is the difference between secret star chamber proceedings in a dictatorship and secret proceedings in the U.S. Executive Branch by which it is decided that the right to life of a U.S. citizen, or a foreign citizen for that matter, is to be extinguished and that individual is then killed?

What does it say about American democracy today, in 2013, if Executive branch claims of legal authority to act extra-judicially to kill citizens of the U.S. or other countries are tacitly accepted, when the legal justifications for such actions are held in secret from the public and the Congress as a whole?

What does it say about American democracy when the constitutionality and legality of such actions, purportedly authorized by secret legal memoranda, are not subject to judicial review as a result of the Executive’s’ invocation of the “state secrets privilege”, whose broad interpretation by the Bush and Obama administrations the courts have not yet had the courage to strike down?

Can the American Democracy be said to be based on the rule of law, in 2013, under these circumstances?

Mr. Brennan is by all accounts the chief architect under Mr. Obama of the targeted killings programs of the Obama administration. In all likelihood, he is the single person who has done the most to persuade Mr. Obama, a former President of the Harvard Law Reviw and a former adjunct professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School, to go over to “the dark side”.

He did so in part by offering Obama moral justifications based on so-called “just war theory” going back to St. Thomas Aquinas, while ignoring the last century of developments in international law and the historical lessons they embodied.

In addition, Mr. Brennan has a deep association with the torture and extraordinary renditions programs of the Bush administration. He was unable, at his February 7, 2013 confirmation hearing before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, to state clearly that “waterboarding” constitutes torture. Throughout his testimony he referred to acts of torture as “enhanced interrogation technicques” or, in even more Orwellian shorthand, as “EITs”.

Further, if one examines carefully the transcript of the Frebruary 7 confirmation hearing, one finds that he is a master of circumlocution and verbal legerdemain, and of telling political superiors what they want to hear.

Will he be able to enforce U.S. and international legal obligations prohibiting torture within the Central Intelligence Agency?  This appears hardly likely in view of his past, and his unwillingness to admit that even waterboarding is torture.

He has also said that the Bush torture program of enhanced interrogation techniques “saved lives”.  If he believes that to be the case, and the efficacy of torture is the standard to be applied, it is hard to see how he might avoid giving others in the CIA the impression he would give a wink and a nod to any aberrant behavior they felt they had to do.

Nor is Brennan likely to reestablish the human intelligence capabilities of the CIA, with his history of being the chief architect of the “killing lists” and the Obama policy of “targeted killings”–which is merely a euphemism for the words “extrajudicial executions” or “targeted assassinations” whenever they are conducted in  violation of international law (which may be much more often than Obama claims.)

The fact that he is extraordinarily skilled at telling political authorities exactly what they want to hear, and has other Obama officials willing to assert (on background, to be sure) that he is a voice of moral restraint within the White House, or is determined to improve the Agency’s human intelligence capabilities, should not be taken at face value. He is, after all, a spook, a trained expert in deception.  We should look at his history, his actions, and not just what he says today, in reaching any judgment about whether he should be confirmed.

Do we know yet today, for example, what role if any he played in the strange evolution of the Benghazi talking points?  His colleague, acting CIA Director Michael Morrell, could not even get his version of testimony to Congress on the talking points straight in a single day.

Can a democracy kill people on the basis of secret legal memoranda purporting to find legal authority for the Executive for such actions?

Can a democracy conduct extrajudicial killings in other countires without publishing its interpretation of international law that would authorize such killings, without subjecting its legal arguments to evaluation and responses by impartial experts from other countries, other states, and eventually the judges of international tribunals?

Can the Executive in a democracy kill individuals on the basis of secret legal justifications which are are shielded from judicial review and from the public?

That is the question. It is time that Senators take a stand on these issues, and there is no better opportunity or place to take such a stand than on the vote to confirm John Brennan.

By their votes, each Senator will incur individual moral responsibility for the actions he or she condones or rejects, and responsibility before history for the answers each gives  regarding the nature of democracy in America, in 2013.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, debate over the efficacy of torture, Dictatorship, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, History, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Justice Department, Libya, Mali, Niger, Pakistan, self-defense, Somalia, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Security Council, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes, Yemen | No Comments »

The vote on John Brennan’s confirmation to be CIA Director: Opinion and Commentary

Wednesday, February 27th, 2013

Recent Commentary and Opinion

“It is not going too far to say that American foreign policy has become completely subservient to tactical domestic political considerations.”

This stern verdict comes from Vali Nasr, who spent two years working for the Obama administration before becoming dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. In a book called “The Dispensable Nation,” to be published in April, Nasr delivers a devastating portrait of a first-term foreign policy that shunned the tough choices of real diplomacy, often descended into pettiness, and was controlled “by a small cabal of relatively inexperienced White House advisers.”

–Roger Cohen, “Beltway Foreign Policy,” New York Times,
February 18, 2013

Shaun Waterman, “Vote on Brennan for CIA post put off; On Benghazi attack, questions remain, “The Washington Times, February 27, 2012.

Dana Milbank, “‘Trust me’ is not enough on drone warfare,” The Washington Post, February 8, 2023 (02:38 PM EST)

Glenn Greenwald. “Debating Zero Dark Thirty and John Brennan; Both the critics’ favorite film of 2012 as well as Obama’s nominee for CIA Director are supporters of torture,” The Guardian, January 8, 2013 (18.01 EST)

See also the following articles by the Trenchant Observer:

What difference does it make if John Brennan is confirmed?
February 27, 2013

Brennan’s wristbands, McCain’s hold, and assertions of legality under international law based on secret operations and secret legal memoranda (with links to Brennan confirmation hearing video, transcript, and written questions and answers)
February 25, 2013

Secret Laws, the John Brennan vote, and the rule of law
February 24, 2013

Imagine: The Collapse of International Order, Syria, and Berlin in 1945
February 20, 2013

Brennan unclear in confirmation hearing as to whether “waterboarding” constitutes “torture” (with transcript)—The John Brennan File #2
February 14, 2013

Drone Killings, the Constitution, International Law, and the John Brennan File
February 7, 2013

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, Chile, CIA, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, History, human rights, Intelligence, International Law, Libya, Mali, Pakistan, self-defense, Somalia, State Department Legal Adviser, syria, Taliban, targeted assassinations, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | No Comments »

Brennan’s wristbands, McCain’s hold, and assertions of legality under international law based on secret operations and secret legal memoranda (with links to Brennan confirmation hearing video, transcript, and written questions and answers)

Monday, February 25th, 2013

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
–Lord Acton (1834-1902)

A remarkable photo of John Brennan at his Senate testimony on February 7, 2013, shows him wearing yellow and black plastic bands on his right wrist.

What are they, and what do they signify? Was he sending secret messages to certain people regarding his testimony? It is hard to know, but his appearance with those two hospital-like wrist-bands at his testimony was exceedingly strange.

Is he a member of the Knights of Malta, and was he signalling them something?

In the meantime, Senator John McCain has indicated that until he gets better answers about Benghazi and Brennan’s knowledge of CIA harsh interrogation techniques, he may place a “hold” on his nomination.

John McCain is distinguished in one particular respect, which gives him a unique perspective and great moral authority: he is the only U.S. Senator who has actually been tortured (in seven years of captivity in Vietnam).

See the photograph of Brennan (Alex Wong/Getty Images) and the story about McCain’s possible hold in:

Karen DeYoung, “McCain renews threat to hold up Brennan confirmation to CIA post,” Washington Post, February 24, 2013 (07:49 PM EST).

There was one notable attempt at humor during the February 7 confirmation hearing:

SENATOR BURR: Thank you, Chairman.

I’m going to try to be brief, because I’ve noticed you’re on
your fourth glass of water, and I don’t want to be accused
of waterboarding you.

(Laughter.)

How members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence can laugh at such an obscene joke surpasses understanding.

Torture is no laughing matter. Their laughter shows they are uncomfortable with torture. Their use of euphemisms such as “enhanced interrogation techniques” or “EITs” shields them from grappling, on an emotional and psychological level, with the terror they are referring to.

Worth noting in connection with international law and drone strikes are the following written question from the Chairman and answer by John Brennan:

[Committee Chairman] Could you describe the geographical limits on the Administration’s conduct drone strikes?

[John Brennan]As I noted in my speech at Harvard Law School in September 2011, and as the Attorney General stated publicly in March, we do not view our authority to use military force against al-Qa’ida and associated forces as being limited to “hot” battlefields like Afghanistan. Al-Qa’ida and its associates have in the recent past directed several attacks against us from countries other than Afghanistan. The Government has a responsibility to protect its citizens from these attacks, and, thus, as the Attorney General has noted, “neither Congress nor our federal courts has limited the geographic scope of our ability to use force to the current conflict in Afghanistan.”

This does not mean, however, that we use military force whenever or wherever we want. International legal principles, such as respect for another nation’s sovereignty, constrain our ability to act unilaterally. Using force in another country is consistent with these international legal principles if conducted, for example, with the consent of the relevant nation – or if or when other governments are unwilling or unable to deal effectively with a threat to the United States. (emphasis added)

–U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, “Open Hearing: Nomination of John O. Brennan to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency,” February 7, 2013, Responses to Posthearing Questions.

The material on the Committee’s website now includes the following:

Opening Statement
Responses to Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees
Responses to Additional Prehearing Questions
Responses to Posthearing Questions
Transcript
Archived Video

How can independent international lawyers form judgments about the legality of specific drone attacks when their very occurrence is officially held as a secret, and the legal interpretations of international law governing the use of force the Obama administration advances to justify their legality are also held in secret, both in terms of general authorization and in terms of authorized use in the specific targeted killing under examination?

How can any credence be given to such assertions of legality under international law when the legal justifications are themselves held in secret, from the Congress, from the American public, and from independent international legal experts outside the government in foreign countries, in foreign governments, and indeed in international tribunals?

The effectiveness of international law depends on the obligation of states to offer legal justifications for their actions. When the right of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter is invoked, there is a specific requirement that they report actions taken in self-defense to the Security Council.

Here, the U.S. government does not acknowledge it is the author of drone strikes. It does not offer public legal justifications for its targeted killing activities, either under domestic or international law. It does not report such actions to the U.N. Security Council as specifically required by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.

The government claims the right to execute U.S. and other citizens on the basis of secret legal memoranda and in the total absence of any public legal justifications for specific targeted executions.

John Brennan is the author of that policy under President Obama, and has served as its principal coordinator and implementer for the last four years.

To the extent these targeted executions cannot be justified by international law, they constitute assassinations and probably war crimes.

In the absence of public justifications of such actions, they cannot be viewed as legitimate under international law, which by its very nature requires public justifications of public actions permitting reactions by leading international scholars, other countries, and international tribunals.

Any claim of legality under international law based on secret operations and secret legal memoranda is by definition illegitimate and lacking in any persuasive force whatsoever.

The Trenchant Observer

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Afghanistan, Barack Obama, CIA, debate over the efficacy of torture, extrajudicial execution, extraordinary rendering, extraordinary rendition, History, human rights, International Law, self-defense, State Department, State Department Legal Adviser, targeted killings, Torture, U.N. Charter, U.N. Convention Against Torture, U.N. Torture Convention, U.S. Congress, U.S. Military, United States, use of force, war crimes | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries