Senate classifies a vote on arming syrian rebels ? Transparency ?
Senate Committee Classifies Votes on Approved Syrian Rebel Arms Plan
John Glaser, July 31, 2013
Here’s a riddle: How do you make it easier to push through legislation in Congress that is overwhelmingly opposed in the public without any political consequences?
Answer: Keep the votes secret.
That’s exactly what’s happened to an Obama administration plan to provide weapons directly to the Syrian rebels. The Senate committee that approved the plan was, unusually, allowed to classify their votes, presumably in order to insulate themselves from any repercussions from their constituents. Because really…why should elected representatives have to tell the people they supposedly represent how they are doing the job they were elected to do!?
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reportedly gave its approval last week to an Obama administration plan to provide weapons to moderate rebels in Syria, but how individual members of the committee stood on the subject remains unknown.There was no public debate and no public vote when one of the most contentious topics in American foreign policy was decided – outside of the view of constituents, who oppose the president’s plan to aid the rebels by 54 percent to 37 percent, according to a Gallup Poll last month.In fact, ask individual members of the committee, who represent 117 million people in 14 states, how they stood on the plan to use the CIA to funnel weapons to the rebels and they are likely to respond with the current equivalent of “none of your business:” It’s classified.Those were, in fact, the words Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the committee, used when asked a few days before the approval was granted to clarify her position for her constituents. She declined. It’s a difficult situation, she said. And, “It’s classified.”She was not alone. In a string of interviews over days, members of both the Senate intelligence committee or its equivalent in the House were difficult to pin down on their view of providing arms to the rebels. The senators and representatives said they couldn’t give an opinion, or at least a detailed one, because the matter was classified.It’s an increasingly common stance that advocates of open government say undermines the very principle of a representative democracy.“It’s like a pandemic in Washington, D.C., this idea that ‘I don’t have to say anything, I don’t have to justify anything, because I can say it’s secret,’” said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank.
In our increasingly Orwellian country, it’s getting hard to tell the difference between parody and reality. But this is very real. And Harper is correct: it is a pandemic.
Everything is secret in Washington. Who are we at war with? That’s classified. Who is the government spying on? That’s classified. Are we bombing multiple countries on a regular basis with remote-controlled airplanes? That’s classified. Which senators voted for an incredibly unpopular and dangerous plan to give weapons to unaccountable Syrian militias as they fight in a chaotic civil war that should have nothing to do with us? None of your god damned business.
The US government in 2012 rejected public requests for documents more often than at any time since President Barack Obama took office, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
“The administration cited exceptions built into the law to avoid turning over materials more than 479,000 times, a roughly 22 percent increase over the previous year,” The Associated Press reports.
“The government cited national security to withhold information at least 5,223 times – a jump over 4,243 such cases in 2011 and 3,805 cases in Obama’s first year in office. The secretive CIA last year became even more secretive: Nearly 60 percent of 3,586 requests for files were withheld or censored for that reason last year, compared with 49 percent a year earlier.”
According to Information Security Oversight Office, the Executive Branch alone made 92,064,862 classifications decisions in 2011. In the same year, it cost the federal government $11 billion just to keep its own secrets.
The trend towards reckless classification in government will prove to be one of the most pernicious in the very near future. The one opportunity for Americans, in our ostensibly three branched government, to challenge the absurd levels of secrecy are the courts. Unfortunately, they have given the state incredible deference when it comes to state secrets privileges.
| |
Even with the Election of a " moderate " Iranian President , sanctions blitz continues from the US - is there desire to negotiate with Iran in a meaningful way ?
House Approves More Iran Sanctions Ahead of Rohani Inauguration
Timing Seen as Deliberate Attempt to Sabotage Talks
by Jason Ditz, July 31, 2013
In an overwhelming 400-20 vote, the House of Representatives has approved yet another round of sanctions against Iran. The vote sends the bill to the Senate, which is also expected to approve it with little to no opposition.
The bill will further limit Iran’s ability to export oil abroad, cutting into the amounts of oil India and China are allowed to buy at a particularly inopportune time, with the price of crude oil around it’s near-term high.
The timing of the bill appears deliberate, however, coming just days ahead of the weekend inauguration of Iranian President Hassan Rohani. Many analysts say that the vote is an attempt to sabotage any potential talks with the Rohani government.
President Rohani campaigned on a policy of negotiations and rapprochement with the US, and has made it clear he wants bilateral talks with the US. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear he views US-Iran talks as unacceptable, and these comments have been parroted by Congressional leaders.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-house-passes-tough-iran-sanctions-measure-days-new-president-sworn
* * *
The Nuclear Iran Prevention Act (H.R. 850) passed by a significant margin – 400-20 – rather surprisingly, given that more than 130 members from both parties signed a recent letter urging President Obama to carefully explore the possibility of an opening with President-elect Hasan Rouhani, whose inauguration is scheduled for Sunday.
That letter was co-authored by Rep. Charles Dent (R-Pa.), who voted in favor of H.R. 850 on Wednesday; and Rep. David Price (D-N.C.), who voted no.
H.R. 850 aims to tighten the noose around Iran’s oil revenues by compelling buyers of Iranian crude to reduce their combined purchases by one million barrels per day, within one year.
The legislation also seeks to expands the list of sectors of the Iranian economy that are blacklisted (currently energy, shipping and shipbuilding) by adding the automotive and mining sectors.
Other provisions include the barring of entry to U.S. ports of any ship registered in a country that also registers Iranian vessels; and the tightening of existing penalties on Iranian human rights abusers.
And the bill requires the secretary of state, within 30 days of enactment, to determine whether Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) should be designated a “foreign terrorist organization.” If the finding is positive, designation must follow, and if not, the secretary of state is required to provide a “detailed justification” to relevant congressional committees.
Blacklisting the IRGC as a terror group is a step that has been opposed in the past by Obama, Vice-President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and national security advisor Susan Rice.
In a recent letter to House GOP and Democratic leaders, liberal Democratic Reps. James McDermott (Wash.), John Conyers (Mich.), Keith Ellison (Minn.) and James McGovern (Mass.) argued that voting on H.R. 850 before Rouhani was sworn in on August 4 “would be counterproductive and irresponsible.”
Others who advised against toughening sanctions legislation now included Center for a New American Security senior fellow Colin Kahl and RAND corporation Iran specialist Alireza Nader, who contended that although Rouhani supports the nuclear program he is a “relatively pragmatic and sober politician” and “could play an important role in convincing Iran’s supreme leader to change Iran’s nuclear course before it is too late.”
“If President Rouhani truly has the will and authority to make a bold gesture on Iran’s nuclear program – such as suspending enrichment – he has a small window of opportunity before this bill becomes law,” Engel said in the House. “I think all of us would welcome such a gesture, but until that point we will continue to pursue a path of diplomatic pressure on the Iranian regime.”
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf declined several invitations Wednesday to comment on the bill or its possible implications, saying merely that the administration would “continue working with Congress on all legislation concerning Iran.”
She expressed the hope that Rouhani and the government in Tehran “will engage substantively with the international community to reach a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program. We and our international partners remain ready to meet at the earliest opportunity once Iran is prepared to do so.”
Afghanistan massacre - another cover up by the US ?
Afghanistan: If a White House Report on a Massacre isn’t Released, did the Massacre Happen? (Currier)
Posted on 08/01/2013 by Juan Cole
Cora Currier writes at ProPublica
Soon after taking office, President Obama pledged to open a new inquiry into the deaths of perhaps thousands of Taliban prisoners of war at the hands of U.S.-allied Afghan fighters in late 2001.
Last month, the White House told ProPublica it was still “looking into” the apparent massacre.
Now it says it has concluded its investigation – but won’t make it public.
The investigation found that no U.S. personnel were involved, said White House spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden. Other than that, she said, there is “no plan to release anything.”
The silence leaves many unanswered questions about what may have been one of the worst war crimes since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, including why previous American investigations were shut down, and how evidence was destroyed in the case.
“This is not a sufficient answer given the magnitude of what happened here,”said Susannah Sirkin, director of international policy for Physicians for Human Rights, the organization that originally uncovered mass graves where the prisoners were buried.
The long saga began in November 2001, when Taliban prisoners who had surrendered to Northern Alliance commander Abdul Rashid Dostum were transported in shipping containers without food or water. According toeyewitness accounts and forensic work by human rights investigators, hundreds of men died of suffocation while others were shot, and their bodies buried at the desert site of Dasht-i-Leili.
Dostum was working closely with U.S. troops at the time. Surviving prisoners alleged that Americans were present at the loading of the containers – but the Pentagon has said repeatedly that it had no evidence that U.S. forces participated or were even aware of the deaths. (Dostum has denied any personal involvement, and claims that roughly 200 men died in transit, from battlefield wounds.)
In the fall of 2002, the U.S., U.N., and even Dostum himself expressed support for an investigation. But none got underway. In the summer of 2009, prompted by a New York Times report that Bush administration officials had actively discouraged U.S. investigations, President Obama ordered a new review of the case.
Hayden, the White House spokeswoman, said the new investigation “was led by the intelligence community,” and found that no Americans – including CIA officers, who were also in the region – were involved.
She declined to answer the following lingering questions:
- What was the scope of the investigation? Former Bush administration officials who had been involved in the initial U.S. response to Dasht-i-Leili told ProPublica that they had not been contacted for a new inquiry. Physicians for Human Rights said it received only tepid responses to its queries from the administration over the past several years.
- Did the investigation cover the allegations, reported in the New York Times, that Bush administration officials had discouraged inquiries by the FBI and State Department?
- Did the U.S. help with related inquires by the U.N. or the Afghan government? Even absent direct involvement of U.S. personnel, government documents make clear that the U.S. knew about the allegations early on. The U.S. was in an alliance with Dostum, and was the de facto power in the country after the invasion. An Afghan human rights official told ProPublica last month, “I haven’t seen any political or even rhetorical support of investigations into Dasht-i-Leili or any other investigation into past atrocities, from either Bush or Obama.”
- Did the new investigation cover revelations that graves were disturbed and evidence removed as late as 2008? What, if anything, did the U.S. do to help protect the site over the years?
A parallel investigation began by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 2010 also never made headway. The committee staffer leading that investigation was former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who is currently serving time in federal prison for revealing the name of an undercover officer to a reporter.
In letters from prison to ProPublica and an interview published recently in Salon, Kiriakou said that Secretary of State John Kerry, who was then chairman of the committee, personally called off the investigation. The State Department declined to comment, but a former Senate aide to Kerry called Kiriakou’s account “completely fabricated.”
Egypt in focus.... Muslim Brotherhood vows to continue defiance of Government decrees to stop protests - who blinks ?
Egypt: Muslim Brotherhood Defiant as Government Mulls Dispersing Crowds in Cairo, Giza
Posted on 08/01/2013 by Juan Cole
There are two places the Muslim Brotherhood is emulating the revolutionary youth of 2011 and occupying a public square– the place in front of the Rabi`a al-`Adawiya Mosque near Nasr City and the Nahda Square in Giza. This is a stupid thing to do, not to mention probably illegal in current Egyptian law, and it will cause Egypt a great deal of bloodshed and heartbreak if they go through with it.
The interim Egyptian cabinet ominously directed the Interior Ministry on Wednesday morning that it intended to disperse these crowds.
The crowds in those two places have been largely peaceful, though over the weekend some Muslim fundamentalist from Rabi`a tried to occupy 6 October Bridge using molotov cocktails and stone-throwing, and the army pushed them back way too violently, massacring over 70 people.
In the absence of more such attempts to use Rabi`a to paralyze Cairo city traffic, there doesn’t seem an obvious reason why the government doesn’t just let them demonstrate. The crowds don’t seem to be growing or gaining support, so even just on a political calculation, why not let them gradually dwindle?
The Egyptian police and military are not good at crowd control, and have committed many massacres since Jan. 25, 2011– at Tahrir, Maspero, the Ministry of Defense, etc., etc. The Muslim Brotherhood appears to be relatively unpopular at the moment, and it would be foolish to make them martyrs.
So far, the Egyptian officer corps has not behaved wisely. Their increasing witch hunt against the Brotherhood as a “terrorist” organization makes them look paranoid and foolish to the outside world. Morsi may have been arrogant and high-handed, but he isn’t a terrorist.
Meanwhile, the Arabic press says that the interim government is looking into the sources of the wealth of high Brotherhood officials, implying that they are paid foreign agents or at least getting kickbacks from someone.
In the provinces, clashes are still breaking out between nationalist peasants and Muslim Brotherhood members. Near Mansura, Morsi supporters demonstrated and blocked a main road, infuriating the other villagers, who attacked them but discovered that the Brotherhood members had firearms. The security forces were intervening after hours of hard fighting.
In the meantime, April 6, the Revolutionary Socialists and other left-liberal youth organizations central to the Jan. 25, 2011, revolution have set up a protest at a “Third Square.” They reject both theocratic Brotherhood rule and military rule.
No comments:
Post a Comment