<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Paul is exactly right here, on all points. I'll just add that this administration is happy to leak 'classified' information when it's politically helpful. I don't think that makes them different from other administrations; what does make them different is their zealous willingness to prosecute people for leaks.<br><br>Sunil<br><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2012 22:44:19 -0800<br>From: godshatter@yahoo.com<br>To: thansen@moscow.com<br>CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy<br><br>
<div class="ecxmoz-cite-prefix"><br>
Snarkiness aside, the question at hand is: why is the President
running an assasssination-by-drone op that he denies even exists
and that any information concerning is classified so top secret
that it has to be walked from office-to-office by hand because
email within the intelligence community and the White House is not
secure enough for it?<br>
<br>
It sounds pretty Orwellian to me. It almost makes me think they
understand that it's probably wrong to be running this program,
hence the over-the-top secrecy. At least that's something.<br>
<br>
And for the record, there is a lot of information out there that
is classified that should be made public record by now.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 11/25/2012 11:11 AM, Tom Hansen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D547B3C-E397-485A-99E2-D686163290D6@moscow.com">
<div>That's right, V-Peeps.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Mr. Rumelhart is suggesting that everybody should have
unfettered access to classified information.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>We'll jus' shut down all the intelligence branches of our
armed forces and simply have unit commanders post this
information to Facebook.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Oh, yes. I feel so much safer now. <br>
<br>
<div>Seeya round town, Moscow, because . . .</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Moscow Cares"</div>
<div><a href="http://www.MoscowCares.com" target="_blank">http://www.MoscowCares.com</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Tom Hansen</div>
<div>Moscow, Idaho</div>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Nov 25, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div>
<div class="ecxmoz-cite-prefix"><br>
Why didn't they start trying to codify this *before* the
first drone strike, instead of waiting until Romney was
possibly about to take over?<br>
<br>
There is so much wrong here, I don't know where to begin.
Why didn't our constitutional scholar of a president
question this "signature" assassination thing? Why didn't
he question the idea of assassination as a military tool, to
begin with?<br>
<br>
Oh, and I loved this bit:<br>
<br>
"The draft rule book for drone strikes that has been passed
among agencies over the last several months is so highly
classified, officials said, that it is hand-carried from
office to office rather than sent by e-mail."<br>
<br>
So much for his promises of an open and transparent
government.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 11/25/2012 08:12 AM, Art Deco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAB8VJX4iLwvqY80O71Temp9e6W0e4SnJfTiuw6Ub2GQb=h-fiA@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="ecx">
<div class="ecx"> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/" target="_blank"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a> </div>
<div class="ecx"> </div>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="ecx">November 24, 2012</div>
<h1>Election Spurred a Move to Codify U.S. Drone Policy</h1>
<h6 class="ecx">By <span> <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/scott_shane/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by SCOTT SHANE" target="_blank"><span>SCOTT
SHANE</span></a></span></h6>
<div id="ecxarticleBody">
WASHINGTON — Facing the possibility that <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama" class="ecx" target="_blank">President
Obama</a> might not win a second term, his
administration accelerated work in the weeks before the
election to develop explicit rules for the targeted
killing of terrorists by unmanned <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/unmanned_aerial_vehicles/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier" title="More articles about unmanned aerial vehicles." class="ecx" target="_blank">drones</a>, so that a new president would
inherit clear standards and procedures, according to two
administration officials. <BR>
The matter may have lost some urgency after Nov. 6.
But with <a title="The Long War
Journal Web site" href="http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php" target="_blank">more
than 300 drone strikes and some 2,500 people killed</a>
by the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/central_intelligence_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the Central Intelligence
Agency." class="ecx" target="_blank">Central Intelligence Agency</a> and
the military since Mr. Obama first took office, the
administration is still pushing to make the rules formal
and resolve internal uncertainty and disagreement about
exactly when lethal action is justified. <BR>
Mr. Obama and his advisers are still debating whether
remote-control killing should be a measure of last
resort against imminent threats to the United States, or
a more flexible tool, available to help allied
governments attack their enemies or to prevent militants
from controlling territory. <BR>
Though publicly the administration presents a united
front on the use of drones, behind the scenes there is
longstanding tension. The Defense Department and the
C.I.A. continue to press for greater latitude to carry
out strikes; Justice Department and State Department
officials, and the president’s counterterrorism adviser,
<a title="Times Topics - John O.
Brennan." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/john_o_brennan/index.html?8qa" target="_blank">John
O. Brennan</a>, have argued for restraint, officials
involved in the discussions say. <BR>
More broadly, the administration’s legal reasoning has
not persuaded many other countries that the strikes are
acceptable under international law. For years before the
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the United States routinely
condemned targeted killings of suspected terrorists by
Israel, and most countries still object to such
measures. <BR>
But since the first targeted killing by the United
States in 2002, two administrations have taken the
position that the United States is at war with Al Qaeda
and its allies and can legally defend itself by striking
its enemies wherever they are found. <BR>
Partly because United Nations officials know that the
United States is setting a legal and ethical precedent
for other countries developing armed drones, the U.N.
plans to open a unit in Geneva early next year to
investigate American drone strikes. <BR>
The attempt to write a formal rule book for targeted
killing began last summer after <a title="Times article on
"kill list." " href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html" target="_blank">news
reports on the drone program</a>, started under
President George W. Bush and expanded by Mr. Obama,
revealed some details of the president’s role in the
shifting procedures for compiling “kill lists” and
approving strikes. Though national security officials
insist that the process is meticulous and lawful, the
president and top aides believe it should be
institutionalized, a course of action that seemed
particularly urgent when it appeared that Mitt Romney
might win the presidency. <BR>
“There was concern that the levers might no longer be
in our hands,” said one official, speaking on condition
of anonymity. With a continuing debate about the proper
limits of drone strikes, Mr. Obama did not want to leave
an “amorphous” program to his successor, the official
said. The effort, which would have been rushed to
completion by January had Mr. Romney won, will now be
finished at a more leisurely pace, the official said. <BR>
Mr. Obama himself, in little-noticed remarks, has
acknowledged that the legal governance of drone strikes
is still a work in progress. <BR>
“One of the things we’ve got to do is put a legal
architecture in place, and we need Congressional help in
order to do that, to make sure that not only am I reined
in but any president’s reined in terms of some of the
decisions that we’re making,” Mr. Obama told Jon Stewart
in an <a title="Video of
"The Daily Show" appearance by President
Obama, Oct. 18." href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-october-18-2012/exclusive---barack-obama-extended-interview-pt--1" target="_blank">appearance
on “The Daily Show”</a> on Oct. 18. <BR>
In an interview with Mark Bowden for a new book on the
killing of Osama bin Laden, “<a title="Times review of "The Finish." " href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/books/review/the-finish-the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden-by-mark-bowden.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">The
Finish</a>,” Mr. Obama said that “creating a legal
structure, processes, with oversight checks on how we
use unmanned weapons, is going to be a challenge for me
and my successors for some time to come.” <BR>
The president expressed wariness of the powerful
temptation drones pose to policy makers. “There’s a
remoteness to it that makes it tempting to think that
somehow we can, without any mess on our hands, solve
vexing security problems,” he said. <BR>
Despite public remarks by Mr. Obama and his aides on
the legal basis for targeted killing, the program
remains officially classified. In court, fighting
lawsuits filed by the <a title="A.C.L.U. Web site." href="http://www.aclu.org/" target="_blank">American
Civil Liberties Union</a> and The New York Times
seeking secret legal opinions on targeted killings, the
government has refused even to acknowledge the existence
of the drone program in Pakistan. <BR>
But by many accounts, there has been a significant
shift in the nature of the targets. In the early years,
most strikes were aimed at ranking leaders of Al Qaeda
thought to be plotting to attack the United States. That
is the purpose Mr. Obama has emphasized, saying in a <a title="President Obama
discusses drones on CNN." href="http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/05/obama-reflects-on-drone-warfare/" target="_blank">CNN
interview in September</a> that drones were used to
prevent “an operational plot against the United States”
and counter “terrorist networks that target the United
States.” <BR>
But for at least two years in Pakistan, partly because
of the C.I.A.’s success in decimating Al Qaeda’s top
ranks, most strikes have been directed at militants
whose main battle is with the Pakistani authorities or
who fight with the Taliban against American troops in <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/afghanistan/index.html?inline=nyt-geo" title="More news and information about Afghanistan." class="ecx" target="_blank">Afghanistan</a>. <BR>
In Yemen, some strikes apparently launched by the
United States killed militants who were preparing to
attack Yemeni military forces. Some of those killed were
wearing suicide vests, according to Yemeni news reports.
<BR>
“Unless they were about to get on a flight to New York
to conduct an attack, they were not an imminent threat
to the United States,” said <a title="Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign
Relations." href="http://www.cfr.org/experts/national-security-conflict-prevention/micah-zenko/b15139" target="_blank">Micah
Zenko</a>, a fellow at the Council on Foreign
Relations who is a critic of the strikes. “We don’t say
that we’re the counterinsurgency air force of Pakistan,
Yemen and Somalia, but we are.” <BR>
Then there is the matter of strikes against people
whose identities are unknown. In an <a title="President Obama’s online
video chat, January 2012." href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/30/president-obama-hangs-out-america" target="_blank">online
video chat</a> in January, Mr. Obama spoke of the
strikes in Pakistan as “a targeted, focused effort at
people who are on a list of active terrorists.” But for
several years, first in Pakistan and later in Yemen, in
addition to “personality strikes” against named
terrorists, the C.I.A. and the military have carried out
“signature strikes” against groups of suspected, unknown
militants. <BR>
Originally that term was used to suggest the specific
“signature” of a known high-level terrorist, such as his
vehicle parked at a meeting place. But the word evolved
to mean the “signature” of militants in general — for
instance, young men toting arms in an area controlled by
extremist groups. Such strikes have prompted the
greatest conflict inside the Obama administration, with
some officials questioning whether killing unidentified
fighters is legally justified or worth the local
backlash. <BR>
Many people inside and outside the government have
argued for far greater candor about all of the strikes,
saying excessive secrecy has prevented public debate in
Congress or a full explanation of their rationale.
Experts say the strikes are deeply unpopular both in
Pakistan and Yemen, in part because of allegations of
large numbers of civilian casualties, which American
officials say are exaggerated. <BR>
Gregory D. Johnsen, author of “<a title="The New York Review of
Books article about "The Last Refuge." " href="http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/dec/06/jihadis-yemen/?pagination=false" target="_blank">The
Last Refuge: Yemen, Al Qaeda and America’s War in
Arabia</a>,” argues that the strike strategy is
backfiring in Yemen. “In Yemen, Al Qaeda is actually
expanding,” Mr. Johnsen said in a <a title="Gregory D. Johnsen
participates in discussion at Brookings Institution." href="http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/11/13-yemen" target="_blank">recent talk at
the Brookings Institution</a>, in part because of the
backlash against the strikes. <BR>
<a title="Shuja Nawaz’s
Atlantic Council Web page." href="http://www.acus.org/users/shuja-nawaz" target="_blank">Shuja
Nawaz</a>, a Pakistan-born analyst now at the Atlantic
Council in Washington, said the United States should
start making public a detailed account of the results of
each strike, including any collateral deaths, in part to
counter propaganda from jihadist groups. “This is a
grand opportunity for the Obama administration to take
the drones out of the shadows and to be open about their
objectives,” he said. <BR>
But the administration appears to be a long way from
embracing such openness. The draft rule book for drone
strikes that has been passed among agencies over the
last several months is so highly classified, officials
said, that it is hand-carried from office to office
rather than sent by e-mail. <BR>
<div class="ecx"> </div>
</div>
<br>
-- <br>
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br>
<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="ecxmimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="ecxmoz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="ecxmoz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<div><span>=======================================================</span><br>
<span> List services made available by First Step Internet,</span><br>
<span> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.</span><br>
<span> <a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br>
<span> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br>
<span>=======================================================</span></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
http://www.fsr.net
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
=======================================================</div> </div></body>
</html>