Feinstein And Chambliss Let James Clapper Talk Them Out Of Requiring Transparency On The Administration's Drone Strikes
from the editing-the-pre-edited-version dept
It looks like the American public won't be getting any answers on the government's extrajudicial killings any time soon. An intelligence bill that passed the Senate late last year contained a stipulation requiring the administration to provide statistics on drone strikes, including number of combatants and noncombatants killed or injured in these strikes. That requirement has now been excised, thanks to the efforts of Sens. Feinstein and Chambliss and their buddy at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, as Spencer Ackerman reports.
[T]he Guardian has confirmed that Senate leaders have removed the language as they prepare to bring the bill to the floor for a vote, after the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, assured them in a recent letter that the Obama administration was looking for its own ways to disclose more about its highly controversial drone strikes.CC'ed on the letter are the heads of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger. This decision wasn't in their hands, but even if it was, it wouldn't have played out any differently. Rogers, in particular, is a huge fan of the administration's drone work and has publicly lamented the fact that the slowly-turning wheels of bureaucracy are keeping the US from killing even more people.
“The executive branch is currently exploring ways in which it can provide the American people more information about the United States’ use of force outside areas of active hostilities,” Clapper wrote to the leaders of the Senate committee, Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, on 18 April.
Feinstein's relationship with drones is, of course, somewhat hypocritical. She feels there should be stricter regulations on commercial drone usage (partially prompted by a non-commercial drone appearing outside her house during a Code Pink anti-NSA protest) and seems generally opposed to drone surveillance. However, she does stand strongly behind the nation's counterterrorism efforts and believes killing people with drones (rather than just watching them) is more acceptable.
Even more oddly, despite her very public battle against the CIA over control of the so-called "Torture Report" (a battle also marked by a bouts of Feinstein hypocrisy), she's been very supportive of the agency's weaponized aircraft.
Feinstein has long been a defender of the CIA’s drone strikes. During a February 2013 confirmation hearing for CIA Director John Brennan, Feinstein stated that the CIA’s targeting procedures kills only “single digits” of civilians annually, an assertion that cannot be independently confirmed because of the official secrecy surrounding the strikes.Even some intelligence officials have grudgingly agreed some transparency on this issue would be a positive step for the administration to take. But that number doesn't include James Clapper, whose unintentionally humorous letter asserts that the self-proclaimed "most transparent administration" is actively seeking ways to publicize drone strike numbers. Only in recent months has the administration even acknowledged there might be a downside to its drone strike program. There's been a rollback in the number of strikes and the administration did express its hesitance to kill American citizens with drones, even if they clearly were associating with known terrorists. But this hand-wringing was mostly about public relations and less about the reality of the situation -- that the US would have to piss off yet another country by blowing past its agreement with them to not engage in military strikes on its soil.
So, there's that. And all of that is indeed very little. For years, it's been even less, as Ackerman points out.
The sharing of even basic information about drone strikes has run into a wall of official secrecy. Several independent groups attempt to track the numbers of people killed in the strikes, but no official US confirmation has been possible.For one obfuscation artists (Clapper) to claim another (the administration) will be taking the lead when it comes to transparency borders on farcical. Now that Senate intelligence heads have complied with Clapper's request, the intelligence community's accountability has been removed. This puts the whole thing in the administration's hands, which isn't really an improvement. I'm sure the current president has no desire to publicly announce his regime has been more deadly than his predecessor's, especially given Bush's proclivity for pushing military/surveillance solutions to the world's problems.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dianne feinstein, drone strikes, james clapper, saxby chambliss, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's Frankenstein, not Feinstein.
Because she's a horrible, horrible monster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...Franken-spy-failstein.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The executive thinks they are the rulers of the world and nothing should even slow them down. The legislative agrees. The justice system show very feeble efforts to question the Executive. Heck, close them all and go back to the monarchy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That was a close one
Can you imagine what would have happened if that bit of the bill had been left in? The ones in charge of 'releasing' that information would have been insensible for likely minutes, laughing at the idea that they answered to the people, before ending with a chuckle and a response of 'National security, you get nothing.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That was a close one
MAJOR GARRETT: "The Obama administration came to Washington promising transparency. In your view, has the administration fallen short of this goal?"
JAY CARNEY: "I think there's no question, I've covered the previous two administrations, and know a thing or two about ones before that, there has never been a more transparent administration..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: That was a close one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really, the Mafia is not more openly cynical than the U.S. administration goodfellas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, he was not under oath -- so he is free to lie with abandon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who would have thought that this would come back after fighting in a world war to prevent it? unbelievable!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exploring ways to provide information
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/17/sen-reid-calls-supporters-nevada-rancher-bundy -domestic-terrorists/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's the US government for you. "Because we are in the middle of determining how to do something, we are forced to disregard the instructions you have provided for how to do it."
I'm pretty sure that is exactly how brand new Ikea furniture sometimes ends up on the curb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dead babies, mutilated children, and other dirty secrets
The US mainstream media, as expected, routinely censors this information, and instead repeats government talking points. (OK, maybe not RT)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All they need is your tax dollars, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What was considered government secrets back then:
* Nuclear weapons: How they are made and delivered to their targets.
* Area 51/Military bases: What projects are hidden inside it? Experimental aircraft or alien conspiracies?
* Stealth technology: Everything about the B-2 stealth bomber, even simply what it looked like.
* Codebreaking: Methods and effectiveness.
* Espionage: Agent identities, missions, locations, and foreign targets.
What is considered a government secret today:
* Treaties: What agreements in the name of trade are being made between nations, even the negotiations themselves.
* Laws and Justice: Secret laws with secret interpretations using secret evidence for secret convictions.
* Lists: No-fly lists, watch lists, threat lists, terrorist lists, who is on them, how they got on them, why they are on them, how to get off of them.
* Senate reports: The results of $40 million dollar investigative reports by our elected representatives of policies and acts committed by government agencies that are most certainly illegal, immoral, and violate international treaties.
* Espionage: Spying and collecting data on American citizens (Cats out of the bag on that one now). Agent's identities, not so much (If they don't support the administration's agenda).
* Military outcomes: Drone stats and effectiveness. Enemy vs civilian vs American losses.
* Embarrassment: Basically anything that would embarrass or make government look bad or hypocritical. Government communications, opinions, or potentially incriminating activities. Anything a whistle-blower might reveal.
Makes me miss the less overtly corrupt times of the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Democracy VS fascism.
In the old days, the fed was not controlled by corporations.... as much. :)
Now days, its more important to "protect the product" and "maintain the image" than to worry about international or domestic stuff, unless there's some money to be made in it.
Wait till you see how the Fed is paying off the Chinese for financing the latest US commercial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're gonna love this secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how is Clapper not a felon and traitor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: how is Clapper not a felon and traitor?
Hell they'll likely get promotions... or retirement mansions in Yosemite at least.
When you're an employee of the fed and following the instructions of the government, you cannot be charged with committing a crime for the government by the government.
For example, assassins who commit murder, or drone operator assassins who commit mass murder and terrorism - FOR the government - would never be charged with such crimes BY the government.
Now YOU on the other hand, if you're not a federal employee, can be charged with both a felony and with treason, simply for breathing air, should the government decide it doesn't like you, or the way you comb your hair.
This is the most common symptom of all fledgling police states. You see, the fed no longer works for you. Its now working against you, because its certain that pretty soon, you and everyone else will be working against it.
Its a sort of siege mentality. After all, they are sort of Occupying a conquered land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its a good paying job and they want to keep it
They are protecting the jobs of Feinstein And Chambliss.
In a corporate structure you can easily be replaced, as minions below simply move on up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why pull the bill?
The Senate was working on a bill to require disclosure of drone-strike numbers.
James Clapper assures them that the administration is already working on such disclosure.
So why should the response not be "Great! Then you'll already be well on the way to compliance with the new requirement!"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]