BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
Showing posts with label Code Pink. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Code Pink. Show all posts
26 May 2026
08 February 2013
5 Crucial Questions Senators Failed to Ask During Brennan Hearings & Brennan Welcomes 'Discussion' About Drones, Defends Policy on Strikes 7&8FEB13
john brennan reflects the sorry state of affairs in the Obama administration concerning civil liberties, the US Constitution, torture, extraordinary rendition, war powers, international law, human rights, gitmo, drones and the cia. Unfortunately he will be approved by the Senate because there aren't enough of them with the morality to challenge the President on brennan. A very good read from AlterNet follwed by a PBS NewsHour report on brennan's confirmation hearings on 7FEB13. You may also be interested in On Civil Liberties, A Tale Of Two Obamas 6FEB13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/on-civil-liberties-tale-of-two-obamas.html
and Exploring Technology, Effectiveness, Consequences of Drone Warfare & VIDEO: RISE OF THE DRONES 23JAN13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/exploring-technology-effectiveness.html
" title="Read Margaret Warner's recent post, "Brennan Beyond Drones" here."/>
and Exploring Technology, Effectiveness, Consequences of Drone Warfare & VIDEO: RISE OF THE DRONES 23JAN13 http://bucknacktssordidtawdryblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/exploring-technology-effectiveness.html
February 8, 2013 |
During John Brennan’s confirmation hearing for CIA director, the architect of Obama’s drone program unapologetically defended targeted assassinations—even of American citizens. Given his adamant defense of the program, there’s still a lot the America people deserve to know.
But the Senate Intelligence Committee failed us. Rather than asking the tough questions, senators battled Code Pink protestors, kissed a lot of ass, and even told a waterboarding joke.
Several journalists andbloggers listed important questions for Mr. Brennan prior to his hearing. Most went unasked and unanswered. Here are some questions for Brennan that we still don’t have answers to:
1. Will You Please Recite the Fifth Amendment?
Brennan and Sen. Diane Feinstein engaged in a lengthy exchange over Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who was killed by way of drone strike in 2011. The U.S. citizen, accused of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, did not get a chance to stand trial before the Obama administration pulled the trigger. Yet, Feinstein fed Brennan everything he needed to defend the administration’s complete disregard for due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. If al-Awkali was such a “bad guy,” as Feinstein repeated over and over, why couldn’t we indict him? Writer Jeremy Scahill put it best in a tweet: “The faux trial that Feinstein & Brennan gave Anwar Awlaki today (with no evidence) was the only trial they gave him--and it was posthumous.”
2. Why Did the President Kill an American Teenager?
While we heard Anwar al-Awlaki’s name numerous times through the hearing, another drone target of the Obama administration didn’t get a single mention: al-Awlaki’s son, 16-year-old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. The Denver-born teenager waskilled in an airstrike two weeks after his father died. We know hardly anything about his death, and the administration has not been eager to give answers.
3. Are there ANY Qualifications for Authorizing Death Sentences?
Mr. Brennan described waterboarding as “reprehensible” and “something that should not be done,” but refused on multiple occasions to call it torture. Why? Because, as Brennan reminded us over and over, he is “not a lawyer.” While Senator Carl Levin, pressed him on torture, no one took the opportunity to question the drone architect on the broad language used to justify targeting U.S. citizens, as revealed by a leaked DOJ white paper this week. The memo made headlines. In particular, civil liberties advocates took issue with a section detailing how “informed, high-level officials” get to decide if a target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States.”
Blogger Marcy Wheeler notes the absurdity of Brennan appealing to legal ignorance to deflect on torture, while claiming the authority to give out death sentences: “In other words, according to the guy who has been acting as judge and jury for the last four years, the guy who has been acting as judge and jury is completely incompetent to act as judge and jury.”
4. Why did the Obama administration wait until election season to codify rules for assassinating people?
The New York Review of Books’ David Cole raised this excellent question before Brennan’s hearing took place. While committee members did grill Brennan on transparency with the drone program, we didn’t get a clear picture on why “Terror Tuesdays” went on for so long without some set rules. As Cole put it, “Don’t you think there should have been clear rules and fair procedures in place before the Obama administration ordered the killing of hundreds of human beings?” Furthermore, Cole adds that any rules that are adopted won’t apply to Pakistan.
5. Don't you see a problem with “signature strikes?”
Committee members failed to ask why the Obama administration should have the power to kill people under the doctrine of “signature strikes.” As the New York Times puts it:
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.
In other words, Obama can order drone strikes on people who look suspicious in the wrong place at the wrong time. As The Nation’s George Zornick points out, the “vast majority” of drone targets aren’t senior-ranking Al Qaeda terrorists, but “low-level militants.”
Of course, this list could go on. As Brennan gets inevitably sworn in, Americans should keep these questions on their minds, and lawmakers need to make sure the new CIA Director is at least held accountable to the few answers they got from him yesterday.
Brennan Welcomes 'Discussion' About Drones, Defends Policy on Strikes
Protesters hold signs as John Brennan arrives to testify at his confirmation hearing Thursday. Photo by Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images.
As President Obama's choice to be the next director of the CIA, John Brennan faced tough questions Thursday at his confirmation hearing from members of the Senate Intelligence Committee frustrated with the administration's approach to fighting terrorism.
And lawmakers weren't the only ones troubled by aspects of the administration's terror-fighting strategy. Brennan was repeatedly interrupted during his opening statement by protesters voicing their displeasure with the administration's targeted killing of American citizens abroad suspected of joining al-Qaida.
Brennan said he supported "public discussion" of the administration's efforts, but at the same time he gave a staunch defense of the use of drone strikes.
"We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there is no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat," Brennan said. "So we need to make sure that there's an understanding. And the people that were standing up here today, I think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths."
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., asked Brennan to square comments he made in 2007 that harsh interrogation methods had "saved lives" with other statements that the CIA should not be in the "detention business."
"I clearly had the impression, as you said, when I was quoted in 2007 that there was valuable intelligence that came out from those interrogation sessions. That's why I did say that they saved lives," Brennan responded.
But Brennan added that a recently completed intelligence committee report that found enhanced interrogation techniques were not effective "raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time."
"Now I have to determine what -- based on that information as well as what CIA says what the truth is. And at this point, senator, I do not know what the truth is," Brennan said.
Senators also pressed Brennan on issues such as waterboarding and national security leaks. NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman reported on the hearing Thursday. You can watch the segment here or below:
As of Thursday Brennan's confirmation appeared likely, despite the close examination of his record and administration policies. If installed as director, the tough questions will most certainly continue for Brennan, as lawmakers continue their push for greater oversight of the administration's terror-fighting practices.
JEFFREY BROWN: The man picked by President Obama to lead the Central Intelligence Agency was called today to defend his positions in the war on terror.
John Brennan's Senate confirmation hearing revolved around several hotly debated policies.
NewsHour congressional correspondent Kwame Holman has our report.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-Calif.: It will stop again.
KWAME HOLMAN: Even before the hearing got truly under way, protesters from CODEPINK disrupted John Brennan's opening statement, signaling that passions were running high on the targeted killing of terror suspects.
WOMAN: They won't even tell Congress what countries we are killing children.
" title="Read Margaret Warner's recent post, "Brennan Beyond Drones" here."/>
Read Margaret Warner's recent post, "Brennan Beyond Drones" here.
KWAME HOLMAN: The interruptions continued, and the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, ordered the room temporarily cleared.
DIANNE FEINSTEIN: We're going to halt the hearing. I am going to ask that the room be cleared and that the CODEPINK associates not be permitted to come back in.
KWAME HOLMAN: Once the hearing resumed, Brennan defended U.S. actions in the war on terror, but he acknowledged the CIA is not immune from scrutiny.
JOHN BRENNAN, CIA Director Nominee: I have publicly acknowledged that our fight against al-Qaida and associated forces has sometimes involved the use of lethal force outside the hot battlefield of Afghanistan.
Accordingly, it is understandable that there is great interest in the legal basis, as well as the thresholds, criteria, processes, procedures, approvals and reviews of such actions. I have strongly promoted such public discussion with the Congress and with the American people, as I believe that our system of government and our commitment to transparency demand nothing less.
KWAME HOLMAN: Late Wednesday, Mr. Obama directed that members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees be shown a classified memo on drone strikes abroad.
It lays out the legal rationale for targeting American terror suspects. Mr. Brennan helped manage the program. Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden had pressed for release of the memo. He went directly to the issue during his first pass at questioning Brennan.
SEN. RON WYDEN, D-Ore.: What should be done next to ensure that public conversation about drones, so that the American people are brought into debate and have a full understanding of what rules the government is going to observe when it conducts targeted killings?
JOHN BRENNAN: I think there is a misimpression on part of some American people who believe that we take strikes to punish terrorists for past transgressions. Nothing could be further from the truth. We only take such actions as a last resort to save lives when there is no other alternative to taking an action that's going to mitigate that threat.
So we need to make sure that there's an understanding. And the people that were standing up here today, I think they really have a misunderstanding of what we do as a government and the care that we take and the agony that we go through to make sure that we do not have any collateral injuries or deaths.
KWAME HOLMAN: Brennan is a 25-year veteran of the CIA, and now the president's counterterror adviser. His name first surfaced as a candidate for director in 2008, but he withdrew amid questions about his past statements on enhanced interrogation, especially water-boarding.
Michigan Democrat Carl Levin took up that issue today.
SEN. CARL LEVIN, D-Mich.: My question is this. In your opinion, does water-boarding constitute torture?
JOHN BRENNAN: The attorney general has referred to water-boarding as torture. Many people have referred to it as torture.
And, as you well know and as we have had the discussion, Senator, the term torture has a lot of legal and political implications. It is something that should have been banned long ago. It never should have taken place, in my view. And, therefore, if I were to go to CIA, it would never in fact be brought back.
KWAME HOLMAN: But Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia wanted to know if Brennan stood by previous comments he had made asserting harsh interrogation methods produced results.
SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, R-Ga.: In a Nov. 2007 interview, you said that info from the interrogation techniques -- quote -- "saved lives" -- close quote. But you also say that CIA should be out of the detention business.
Your view seems to be that even if we could save American lives by detaining more terrorists using only traditional techniques, it would be better to kill them with a drone or let them go free, rather than detain them. Can you explain the logic in that argument?
JOHN BRENNAN: I respectfully disagree with, Senator. I never believe it's better to kill a terrorist than to detain him. We want to detain as many terrorists as possible so we can elicit the intelligence from them in the appropriate manner so that we can disrupt follow-on terrorist attacks.
I clearly had the impression, as you said, when I was quoted in 2007 that there was valuable intelligence that came out from those interrogation sessions. That's why I did say that they saved lives.
I must tell you, Senator, that reading this report from the committee raises serious questions about the information that I was given at the time and the impression I had at that time. Now I have to determine what -- based on that information as well as what CIA says what the truth is. And at this point, Senator, I do not know what the truth is.
KWAME HOLMAN: North Carolina Republican Richard Burr zeroed in on CIA leaks, pressing Brennan for his position on publicly sharing covert operations.
SEN. RICHARD BURR, R-N.C.: Do you think that there is any situation where it's legal to disclose to the media or the public these tales of covert action programs?
JOHN BRENNAN: I do not think it is ever appropriate to improperly disclose classified information to anybody who doesn't have legitimate access to it and has the clearances for it.
RICHARD BURR: Could you provide to the committee any times that you were given the authority to release classified information?
JOHN BRENNAN: I have never provided classified information to reporters. I engage in discussions with reporters about classified issues that they might have had access to because of unfortunate leaks of classified information.
And I frequently work with reporters, if not editors of newspapers to keep out of the public domain some of this country's most important secrets. And so I engage with them on those issues. But after working in the intelligence profession for 30 years and being at CIA for 25 years, I know the importance of keeping those secrets secret.
KWAME HOLMAN: There was no indication that the security of administration policies has hurt Brennan's chances. He's still expected to win confirmation by the Intelligence panel and the full Senate.
RAY SUAREZ: Online, find Margaret Warner's blog post about the impact Brennan has had on the nation's counterterrorism policy.
21 August 2010
COURAGE TO RESIST E MAIL NEWSLETTER 20AUG10
MORE and more people are taking a stand against the bush era wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here is the latest e mail newsletter from Courage To Resist.
|
 | |
| |
 |
Muslim objector facing deployment 
Friends of PFC Nasser Abdo. 
By the UXO Collective. 
Courage to Resist and the Bradley Manning Support Network are calling on individuals and organizations around the world to take action in support of accused Wikileaks whistle-blower Army PFC Bradley Manning September 16-18. With dozens of local actions taking place during the same time frame, we hope to take the next step in building an international movement to free Bradley. Events will include public events, film screenings, discussion meetings, house party fundraisers, vigils and rallies.
Thursday September 16, 7pm23 July 2010
A CALL TO ACTION...WE CAN'T MISS THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR PEACE! from CODE PINK
Almost eight years ago, I made my way to DC to meet up with Medea Benjamin and a few other friends to talk about what we could do to stop the Bush administration's insane push toward invading an innocent country: Iraq. The next morning, eight of us were in front of the White House, on the steps of Congress and in the hearing for the resolution on Iraq; the day ended with two of us in jail. Our message was US Inspectors, Not US War. We had read articles about how the White House had been dreaming the invasion up over the summer and was waiting until September to push it because "you don't launch a new product in August." People's lives were at stake, and they were treating war like the release of a new sports car.
We started CODEPINK in a desperate attempt to try to stop the war in Iraq. We vigiled outside the White House for five months, taking our message and outrage to the halls of Congress, press conferences and every invasion sales pitch we could gain entry to. We met with Nancy Pelosi, who told us she had a briefing with a Florida Senator that convinced her that there were no weapons of mass destruction. As the Democratic Whip she boldly broke with leadership to oppose the war. Sadly, her words were without action. The resolution swept through the committee hearing; we sat and listened with horror to Democrats arguing for the war, their arguments terrifyingly ungrounded in any real facts. Bush wanted to release his shiny new sports car and no one in Congress had the guts to say “This car is dangerous, it’s way too expensive, it doesn’t have any brakes, and it can only end in tragedy.” Congress just sat back and let him have his deadly toy, while we did whatever could to try to keep it off the road.
While we did not succeed in stopping the invasion, we did spend the past eight years organizing, mobilizing, expressing our outrage and exposing the futility, stupidity and enormous cost of this debacle for both Iraqis and Americans. We have countered the constant lies spewing out of the Oval Office, the "think tanks" and the media. We have worked tirelessly to try to bring our resources back home where they're most needed--particularly as millions of Americans are turned out of their homes, people are desperate for jobs, and we need to reconfigure our entire energy system.
By August 31, U.S. troops in Iraq are scheduled to be reduced to 50,000--marking what we hope will be the beginning of the end of this catastrophe. The Pentagon and the war supporters will undoubtedly spin this catastrophic intervention as a success--while Iraq lies in ruins and thousands of our soldiers have died in vain. Worse yet, it seems they have learned nothing from the disaster, as we are repeating it again in Afghanistan. Congress is voting for another $33 billion for the Afghanistan war while our states and cities go bankrupt and EVERYONE knows there is no military solution.
This insanity will have no end--unless we end it. This faulty “product” needs to be recalled.
Will you join with CODEPINK and other peace and justice organizations in sharing your voice during the week of August 25 to 31--the week that most of the US troops will return from Iraq? We need your help getting out the truth that the Iraq war was based on lies, has left Iraq in tatters, has drained our resources and MUST NOT be repeated for years to come in Afghanistan. There are so many who have paid the price of this crime....so many except those who are responsible. Sign up to join our action team for the last week of August; we will help you with tools and inspiration to write letters to the editor and op-eds, to call in to radio shows, to educate your colleagues. We need thousands of voices—yours counts.
15 July 2010
Afghan Envoy Holbrooke and Senate in La La Land 15JUL10 from Alternet
THE deception of the American people on the reasons we are still in Afghanistan continues by the cowardly war pigs in power, and the blood of American and NATO forces and Afghani children, women and men continues to stain the hills and valleys and farms, villages and cities of Afghanistan. The war profiteers of the American military-industrial complex pile their pieces of silver ever higher, not caring about the suffering, pain, death and destruction their greed has wrought.
We are developing a $10 billion a year war machine in Afghanistan, a country with a $14 billion economy. Just imagine if we were investing in schools and hospitals and sewage systems and renewable energy systems and transport systems and in training government officials in modern government and left most of our troops and weapons back home. Would the taliban or al qaeda still be a threat to us from Afghanistan? I doubt it. But it seems we are damned and will have to experience another Vietnam until the waste of thousands of lives and billions of dollars forces us to finally admit defeat and bring our men and women home.
It had been hard to sit through hours of Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke’s storytelling about some far-off land he called Afghanistan. In his Afghanistan, there were new gains in agriculture and a reduction on poppy production for opium. We were empowering women and rebuilding everything from the rule of law to the electrical grid. President Karzai was really intent on tackling corruption. There was an exciting soon-to-be-unveiled program to integrate the lower-level Taliban. We were making significant gains in training the Afghan security forces, and we had real commitments from the Pakistani government to crush Al Qaeda.
We’ve heard this tall tale for the past eight years, which made some of the Senators a bit skeptical—although not skeptical enough to stop funding the war.
The most skeptical were the Republicans, who also happen to be the most anxious to keep fighting there, indefinitely. Senator Bob Corker said that despite more than an hour of testimony by Holbrooke, “I have heard nothing, nothing” about how progress will be measured. “I have no earthly idea what our objectives are on the civilian front.”
Ranking Republican Richard Lugar was also confused about our objectives. Sometimes, he said, it seems that we are trying to “remake Afghan economic, political and security culture”, which is “beyond our resources and powers.” Other times it seems the goal is simply to prevent Afghanistan from being a haven for terrorists. Either way, Lugar didn’t think we could accomplish the President’s desire to begin withdrawal by July 2011.
Holbrooke, while trying to support the President, admitted that he was leery of setting a date certain for leaving. This is, after all, “not where you would choose to defend the American homeland…It’s the most remote and logistically difficult place the U.S. has ever fought in our history,” Holbrooke said, adding that “Fate and destiny have put us there.”
Senator John Kerry, the Committee chair, showed his imperial stripes when he complained that the Afghans weren’t stepping up to the plate. “The problem is that the key element of this strategy is the one over which we have the least control, and that is the willingness and ability of Afghans to assume ownership of the efforts,” Kerry lamented. All the billions and our best efforts are irrelevant, he said, if the Afghans continue to be bystanders in what they perceive as a fight between the West and Al Qaeda.
Holbrooke chided his predecessors who had trained Afghan security forces for years, at enormous costs, without realizing that we had to also teach them to read and write. Literacy, he assured the senators, is now part of our training. No one asked why the Taliban fighters, who are also illiterate, were outmaneuvering both the Afghan security forces and U.S. military.
Referring to the pending U.S. offensive in Kandahar, Kerry admitted that the presence of the U.S. military whips up the insurgency. “Prior to American troops announcing they were going to go in (to Kandahar), there were not assassinations. There was not a level of violence,” Kerry said. “The mere announcement has now brought on the process of assassination and intimidation, and I doubt that we are going to have enough troops to be able to pacify the city.”
Several times during the hearing Holbrooke insisted that Afghanistan was not the unwinnable war of Vietnam, and that we had real security issues in Afghanistan. Ironically, on the very same day of the hearing, Senator Kerry released—for the first time ever—some 1,200 pages of transcripts from private meetings 40 years ago of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Vietnam War. They showed the Senators expressing the same concerns about not having a reliable partner, getting overly-rosy reports from the administration, wondering how much the war would cost in lives and dollars, and having hard time picturing what victory might look like.
“Some of the parallels are almost eerie,” Kerry said, insisting the lawmakers should learn from the past. But that learning has escaped Kerry himself, who continues to support what has now become Obama’s Vietnam and America’s longest war.
The most concrete rationale for staying in Afghanistan emerged when the senators asked about recent reports of enormous mineral wealth such as copper and lithium. Holbrooke said the mineral wealth not a new discovery, but there were now modern techniques that now allowed the minerals to be more easily mined. Holbrooke assured the senators that we are helping Afghans develop their resources and strengthen their economy. Oh yes, he added, we want to make sure that the U.S. has “a level playing field” in getting access to those minerals.
Meanwhile, on the ground in Afghanistan, young soldiers are assuring that “level playing field” with their lives. On the day of the hearing, eight soldiers were killed, bringing to 33 the number of American troops killed this month amid the worst bloodshed of the nine-year conflict.
The young intern who spoke to me about La La Land has more sense than Obama, Holbrooke or the Congress that continues to fund this disaster. Or maybe he is just less jaded than politicians like Senator Lugar who supports the war but remarked, during the hearing, that the U.S. had become stuck in a “slow-motion caravan to ultimate failure.” La La Land, it seems, is not poor Afghanistan, but Washington DC, where politicians send our youth off to fight and die in an endless war they themselves don’t believe in.
Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK (www.codepink.org) and Global Exchange (www.globalexchange.org).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)