EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 5, 2017 18:40:03 GMT -5
Respectfully Ed, I practiced law before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for 6+ years, worked for the CIA, and spent 4 years as a Naval Intelligence Officer. I began every single morning at the National Security Division with a review of the daily intelligence briefs from 3 different IC sources. I have a full understanding of the process to obtain a FISA warrant, how the Standard Minimization Procedures operate, and the protections in place to disclose the identity of a US Person. This is not "spin" but actual applying the law regarding "incidental collection" under either 702 or under a FISA order, and the SMPs to the known facts. Do you have anything substantive to offer? An opinion based upon knowledge, training or experience. I know you didn't vote for Trump but do you have an opinion upon Trump's wild accusations premised upon facts? Please provide a reasoned opinion about this President and his actions. I have much less knowledge of how this kind of intelligence information is supposed to be handled so I bow to you on this account. However, what I do know is that bad people are around and sometimes bad people don’t follow the legal rules. See Iran-Contra. See Watergate. At least one name has been leaked. So some bad person leaked it. He was unmasked by someone and, once unmasked, his name was known through various intelligence and other agencies so I don’t know who leaked his name. Susan Wright, two weeks ago, said she knew nothing about any of this but now admits she did and has unmasked one or more persons who (my words) may or may not have been associated with the Trump campaign or incoming administration. Susan Wright has gained a reputation as not being a reliable spokesperson. See Benghazi. See Sgt. Bergdahl. So, to me, you are putting a spin on this whole affair by including only what supports your position. There are rules in place which you addressed. You did not address what bad people can do to circumvent the rules.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,903
|
Post by EtomicB on Apr 5, 2017 18:52:48 GMT -5
Respectfully Ed, I practiced law before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for 6+ years, worked for the CIA, and spent 4 years as a Naval Intelligence Officer. I began every single morning at the National Security Division with a review of the daily intelligence briefs from 3 different IC sources. I have a full understanding of the process to obtain a FISA warrant, how the Standard Minimization Procedures operate, and the protections in place to disclose the identity of a US Person. This is not "spin" but actual applying the law regarding "incidental collection" under either 702 or under a FISA order, and the SMPs to the known facts. Do you have anything substantive to offer? An opinion based upon knowledge, training or experience. I know you didn't vote for Trump but do you have an opinion upon Trump's wild accusations premised upon facts? Please provide a reasoned opinion about this President and his actions. I have much less knowledge of how this kind of intelligence information is supposed to be handled so I bow to you on this account. However, what I do know is that bad people are around and sometimes bad people don’t follow the legal rules. See Iran-Contra. See Watergate. At least one name has been leaked. So some bad person leaked it. He was unmasked by someone and, once unmasked, his name was known through various intelligence and other agencies so I don’t know who leaked his name. Susan Wright, two weeks ago, said she knew nothing about any of this but now admits she did and has unmasked one or more persons who (my words) may or may not have been associated with the Trump campaign or incoming administration. Susan Wright has gained a reputation as not being a reliable spokesperson. See Benghazi. See Sgt. Bergdahl. So, to me, you are putting a spin on this whole affair by including only what supports your position. There are rules in place which you addressed. You did not address what bad people can do to circumvent the rules. Susan Rice Ed, not Wright.. Figures the ghosts of Bengazi would bring the right leaning folks back to the thread.. Why talk about the pesticides being approved for use against scientific research asking that they be banned.. Or how about allowing folks who are deemed too mentally ill to handle their own finances but are now allowed to purchase firearms.. Nothing to see with either of those issue or the myriad of other things happening @ the WH but one mention of Susan RICE and it's on & poppin'..
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 5, 2017 19:14:08 GMT -5
I have much less knowledge of how this kind of intelligence information is supposed to be handled so I bow to you on this account. However, what I do know is that bad people are around and sometimes bad people don’t follow the legal rules. See Iran-Contra. See Watergate. At least one name has been leaked. So some bad person leaked it. He was unmasked by someone and, once unmasked, his name was known through various intelligence and other agencies so I don’t know who leaked his name. Susan Wright, two weeks ago, said she knew nothing about any of this but now admits she did and has unmasked one or more persons who (my words) may or may not have been associated with the Trump campaign or incoming administration. Susan Wright has gained a reputation as not being a reliable spokesperson. See Benghazi. See Sgt. Bergdahl. So, to me, you are putting a spin on this whole affair by including only what supports your position. There are rules in place which you addressed. You did not address what bad people can do to circumvent the rules. Susan Rice Ed, not Wright.. Figures the ghosts of Bengazi would bring the right leaning folks back to the thread.. Why talk about the pesticides being approved for use against scientific research asking that they be banned.. Or how about allowing folks who are deemed too mentally ill to handle their own finances but are now allowed to purchase firearms.. Nothing to see with either of those issue or the myriad of other things happening @ the WH but one mention of Susan RICE and it's on & poppin'.. Thanks for correcting me on Susan Rice. Senior moment. And thanks for a great reply to my post.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 5, 2017 19:17:41 GMT -5
Respectfully Ed, I practiced law before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for 6+ years, worked for the CIA, and spent 4 years as a Naval Intelligence Officer. I began every single morning at the National Security Division with a review of the daily intelligence briefs from 3 different IC sources. I have a full understanding of the process to obtain a FISA warrant, how the Standard Minimization Procedures operate, and the protections in place to disclose the identity of a US Person. This is not "spin" but actual applying the law regarding "incidental collection" under either 702 or under a FISA order, and the SMPs to the known facts. Do you have anything substantive to offer? An opinion based upon knowledge, training or experience. I know you didn't vote for Trump but do you have an opinion upon Trump's wild accusations premised upon facts? Please provide a reasoned opinion about this President and his actions. I respect your experience and assume that everything you've said is legally correct. You clearly know a lot more than I do about any of this. But legalities aside, do you really think that Susan Rice requested the unmasking of the US Persons for national security purposes? Yes. There appears to be an implicit assumption that if the National Security Adivser asks for a US Person identity the FBI/NSA simply salutes smartly and unmasks the identity. That is simply not the case. The hated "government bureaucrats", i.e., the career intelligence professionals make an assessment and there are many hoops to go through whether to decide to unmask a US Person identity in response to a request. It is not a decision taken lightly because, believe it or not, the IC DOES take the privacy interests of US Persons seriously. I volunteered as part of my collateral duties as an attorney at NSD for compliance trips in which we formed a team along with attorneys from the Compliance & Oversight section of NSD. The sole purpose was to review FBI/NSA practices on obeying SMPs and court orders in order to protect privacy interests of US Persons. The Compliance & Oversight section periodically visited every FBI Field Office that requested FISA applications and had FCI or CT investigations to comb through their files to ensure each was in compliance with all privacy guidelines, much like an Inspector General. Re: Rice. 1) Remember that Director Comey testified that the FBI opened a foreign counterintellience investigation into the Russian hacking in July 2016. 2) Open source reporting disclosed that Carter Page was in contact with an SVR intelligence officer as early as 2013, per his own admission, whether wittingly or unwittingly. His contact was with an employee (Buryakov) of a sanctioned Russian bank (VEB). Page unmasked himself by admitting he was Male #1 in a heretofore sealed FBI affidavit. Buryakov bank did not have immunity as he was under NOC and is just now being released from federal prison. The other two Russians involved with Page were under official cover and beyond prosecution. 3) Trump subsequently identified Page as a foreign policy adviser on his campaign I believe in an interview with the NY Times editorial board. 4) The activities of Paul Manafort was no doubt under US scrutiny prior to his association with the campaign given his work in Ukraine on behalf of the pro-Russian Presidential candidate. 5) Throw in Flynn's Russian associations which also predated the campaign along with Page and Manafort's activities which also predated their associations with the campaign. Connect the dots. I assume some CIA/FBI/NSA analyst may have generated report(s) based upon some or all of this. Example: "An identified US Person (US Person #1) who worked as a consultant had been retained by Ukrainian Presidential Candidate X who is a known Putin supporter. US Person #1 is now associated with a Presidential candidate." Unmasked = Paul Manafort Sometimes, the mere context of a report would give you an inkling of who the US Person may be. Example: "In the month of December 2016, a retired military officer (US Person #2) discussed sanctions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak." You pretty much could figure out who that was. If I were Rice and knew, 1) that the Russians were attempting to interfere in the US election in July 2015, and 2) that several individuals associated with the Trump campaign had these previous associations, and 3) a series of intelligence reports contained information such as hyothesized above, she'd be derelict in her duty (in my opinion) in not inquiring further and seeking the unmasking to determine the importance of the foreign intelligence information, which is an exception to the SMPs. The authorities who receive the unmasking request make the final determination, not Rice. And you wouldn't believe how many lawyers would have to review such a request for unmasking. And if you believe that Rice is so crassly political do you really think she is dumb enough to seek the identities and leave a paper trail that identifies her as the one seeking the identities? In one of my earlier posts I recommended a book by Charlie Savage, NY Times reporter called "Power Wars" about the Obama Administration approach to counterterrorism. You'll see how lawyered the Obama Administration was for good and ill. (N.B. I recount my experience not out of ego but merely to demonstrate a foundation for my opinions. You'll rarely, if ever, see me opine on health care reform or the economy). I was in the CI section of NSD and worked on matters very similar to the above. None of which I have discussed here is classified. I am not so cynical that I see everything through a political lens. Having worked extensively with FBI and NSA as an attorney, none of this is taken lightly. The leaks Edited me off. The President's reliance upon Russian reports, Fox News commentators Edited me off. My father was a retired CIA officer and one of the last Americans out of Saigon in 1975. A CIA colleague of his from Vietnam is on the CIA Memorial Wall. Trump's speech in front of that wall REALLY Editeded me off. I commend this article to anyone who is concerned about the damage Trump is doing to the country when he goes off on Twitter rants re: the IC: www.lawfareblog.com/grand-bargain-risk-whats-stake-when-president-alleges-politics-intelligenceNow, do you believe Nunes keystone kops attempt at tradecraft with Eisenberg and Ellis a bona fide disclosure or merely a sham to support Trump's unfounded tweet of March 4th? Do you believe anything that Nunes said at any of his press conferences? And now that Bannon is off the NSC, would you concede that his appointment to the NSC was "political"? www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/stephen-bannon-trumps-most-controversial-adviser-exits-the-nsc/522015/?utm_source=nl-atlantic-daily-040517
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,633
|
Post by DallasHoya on Apr 5, 2017 20:02:22 GMT -5
I respect your experience and assume that everything you've said is legally correct. You clearly know a lot more than I do about any of this. But legalities aside, do you really think that Susan Rice requested the unmasking of the US Persons for national security purposes? Yes. There appears to be an implicit assumption that if the National Security Adivser asks for a US Person identity the FBI/NSA simply salutes smartly and unmasks the identity. That is simply not the case. The hated "government bureaucrats", i.e., the career intelligence professionals make an assessment and there are many hoops to go through whether to decide to unmask a US Person identity in response to a request. It is not a decision taken lightly because, believe it or not, the IC DOES take the privacy interests of US Persons seriously. I volunteered as part of my collateral duties as an attorney at NSD for compliance trips in which we formed a team along with attorneys from the Compliance & Oversight section of NSD. The sole purpose was to review FBI/NSA practices on obeying SMPs and court orders in order to protect privacy interests of US Persons. The Compliance & Oversight section periodically visited every FBI Field Office that requested FISA applications and had FCI or CT investigations to comb through their files to ensure each was in compliance with all privacy guidelines, much like an Inspector General. Re: Rice. 1) Remember that Director Comey testified that the FBI opened a foreign counterintellience investigation into the Russian hacking in July 2016. 2) Open source reporting disclosed that Carter Page was in contact with an SVR intelligence officer as early as 2013, per his own admission, whether wittingly or unwittingly. His contact was with an employee (Buryakov) of a sanctioned Russian bank (VEB). Page unmasked himself by admitting he was Male #1 in a heretofore sealed FBI affidavit. Buryakov bank did not have immunity as he was under NOC and is just now being released from federal prison. The other two Russians involved with Page were under official cover and beyond prosecution. 3) Trump subsequently identified Page as a foreign policy adviser on his campaign I believe in an interview with the NY Times editorial board. 4) The activities of Paul Manafort was no doubt under US scrutiny prior to his association with the campaign given his work in Ukraine on behalf of the pro-Russian Presidential candidate. 5) Throw in Flynn's Russian associations which also predated the campaign along with Page and Manafort's activities which also predated their associations with the campaign. Connect the dots. I assume some CIA/FBI/NSA analyst may have generated report(s) based upon some or all of this. Example: "An identified US Person (US Person #1) who worked as a consultant had been retained by Ukrainian Presidential Candidate X who is a known Putin supporter. US Person #1 is now associated with a Presidential candidate." Unmasked = Paul Manafort Sometimes, the mere context of a report would give you an inkling of who the US Person may be. Example: "In the month of December 2016, a retired military officer (US Person #2) discussed sanctions with Russian Ambassador Kislyak." You pretty much could figure out who that was. If I were Rice and knew, 1) that the Russians were attempting to interfere in the US election in July 2015, and 2) that several individuals associated with the Trump campaign had these previous associations, and 3) a series of intelligence reports contained information such as hyothesized above, she'd be derelict in her duty (in my opinion) in not inquiring further and seeking the unmasking to determine the importance of the foreign intelligence information, which is an exception to the SMPs. The authorities who receive the unmasking request make the final determination, not Rice. And you wouldn't believe how many lawyers would have to review such a request for unmasking. And if you believe that Rice is so crassly political do you really think she is dumb enough to seek the identities and leave a paper trail that identifies her as the one seeking the identities? In one of my earlier posts I recommended a book by Charlie Savage, NY Times reporter called "Power Wars" about the Obama Administration approach to counterterrorism. You'll see how lawyered the Obama Administration was for good and ill. (N.B. I recount my experience not out of ego but merely to demonstrate a foundation for my opinions. You'll rarely, if ever, see me opine on health care reform or the economy). I was in the CI section of NSD and worked on matters very similar to the above. None of which I have discussed here is classified. I am not so cynical that I see everything through a political lens. Having worked extensively with FBI and NSA as an attorney, none of this is taken lightly. The leaks Edited me off. The President's reliance upon Russian reports, Fox News commentators Edited me off. My father was a retired CIA officer and one of the last Americans out of Saigon in 1975. A CIA colleague of his from Vietnam is on the CIA Memorial Wall. Trump's speech in front of that wall REALLY Editeded me off. Now, do you believe Nunes keystone kops attempt at tradecraft with Eisenberg and Ellis a bona fide disclosure or merely a sham to support Trump's unfounded tweet of March 4th? Do you believe anything that Nunes said at any of his press conferences? Interesting background. I believe very little of what Trump or Nunes (or Rice for that matter) says, based on their history and motives. They're all politicians. I do not believe that Rice is is dumb enough to seek the identities and leave a paper trail that identifies her as the one seeking the identities. I do believe that she is smart enough to have a colorable claim for requesting the unmasking - for the exact reasons you state in your email. But I also believe that she made those requests to unmask with the full intention that someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy would disclose the names to the press because it would damage and undermine the Trump administration. I'm curious - based on your experience, where do you think the leaks came from?
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 5, 2017 22:20:40 GMT -5
[/quote]Interesting background.
I believe very little of what Trump or Nunes (or Rice for that matter) says, based on their history and motives. They're all politicians.
I do not believe that Rice is is dumb enough to seek the identities and leave a paper trail that identifies her as the one seeking the identities. I do believe that she is smart enough to have a colorable claim for requesting the unmasking - for the exact reasons you state in your email. But I also believe that she made those requests to unmask with the full intention that someone, somewhere in the bureaucracy would disclose the names to the press because it would damage and undermine the Trump administration. I'm curious - based on your experience, where do you think the leaks came from?
[/quote] Fair enough. However, the fact that Rice may have sought the unmasking of US Person identities does NOT mean that those identities become generally disseminated throughout the IC. The actual identities would be considered "close hold" and the "need to know" principle would apply. Thus, the identities would be known to a very limited set of investigators and officials especially in an obviously politically sensitive case of this type. Thus the names would not appear "somewhere in the bureaucracy" as a grand plan to have it leaked. And Trump has seem to have done an excellent job at damaging and undermining his own administration. Not many would argue with that assertion. Remember who started this whole thing? Trump's unfounded tweet.
Who might have leaked? The only real leak we are dealing with right now is Flynn's name. Perhaps someone within the IC who fashioned him or herself a whistleblower and truly believed that Flynn was a Russian agent or a co-optee and could not be trusted with national security matters. I would say subsequent events have demonstrated that Flynn IS untrustworthy. Flynn's failure to disclose all the sources of his foreign income (payments from RT et al) and his ex post facto registration as a foreign agent for Turkey tell me he is an untrustworthy individual. I have also speculated that perhaps is the basis for his request for immunity. Moreover, his lawyer says Flynn filed "amended" financial disclosure forms to the Office of Government Ethics in which he disclosed the foreign sources of income. I filled out the exact same form (every year) and never had a "draft" submitted before a final is filed and don't recall an opportunity to file an "amended" disclosure form.
The other "leak" is the one actually done by Messrs. Eisenberg and Ellis, in which they attempted to use Nunes as a vehicle for the "leak" that Rice unmasked names collected through incidental collection, which even Nunes in his incoherent press conferences conceded is likely legal. Correct me if I'm wrong but no other US Person has been identified by name as being unmasked but there only have been ague references to those unmasked were in the Trump transition team, speculating that it may be Manafort and Page, which seems likely given their activities overseas and admitted contacts with Russians.
Another possibility is that someone in the White House (not part of the IC) who somehow learned of Flynn's name leaked his name. The WH and National Security Council cannot be described as models of efficiency and seem to have been setup to have competing power centers. Who knows, maybe someone within the WH/NSC had it in for Flynn -- remember he was fired from DIA because of his "management style", which typically means someone who rubs someone or everyone the wrong way.
And if Trump truly believes that Rice has committed a crime it is incumbent upon him to have his useless White House Counsel Don McGahn gather the evidence that supports that assertion and make a criminal referral to the FBI.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 6:15:31 GMT -5
Event: DNC and Podesta illegally hacked by the Russians RW Media: Who cares that a crime was committed look at the content of the emails. These people deserve to be in jail. Glad we found out the truth. Event: News of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians RW Media: Who cares that the Trump Campaign may have illegally colluded with the Russians. The real issue is, how do you know, and who leaked the information... Witch Hunt! Schiff who has seen the documents has steadily asked the WH to release the info. The WH is refusing... Doubtful that happens if they had a smoking gun in their hand www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/politics/adam-schiff-white-house-documents/index.html
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 6, 2017 10:04:34 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 17:49:39 GMT -5
It's been 11 weeks, we're already teetering closer to war with 1) Iran 2) North Korea 3) Syria along with our other wars and when they're not tring to lie their way out of their latest controversy this is what the White House is spending their time on?? LOL... You can't make this stuff up...
How long until we discover the twitter user is........ Susan Rice O-o
Good thing Trump is well studied, experienced, and level headed...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 6, 2017 20:19:10 GMT -5
Trump attacks Syrian airbase. Can we trust him? Was Mattis, McMaster et al fully in? Assume a tactical success but what is the overall strategy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2017 20:37:02 GMT -5
Trump changed his Syrian policy in 48hrs. Not sure which one of those tweets represent Trumps real thoughts and that's pretty scary tbh....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 1:19:33 GMT -5
Section 20 of the SF-86 is quite clear on what it asks. No mistaking that Kushner's foreign meetings were REQUIRED to have been reported. Some of the meetings (Multiple) were a month before he signed the paperwork.
He clearly lied and in a normal Admin he would lose his clearance for sure, possibly his job and face possible charges However.. President can overrule security officers. Never heard of it happening before, but with this President, sigh, I'd expect it.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 7, 2017 7:14:19 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 7, 2017 7:41:49 GMT -5
Trump attacks Syrian airbase. Can we trust him? Was Mattis, McMaster et al fully in? Assume a tactical success but what is the overall strategy? Make no mistake about the Syria strike, this was primarily about sending a message to North Korea.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 7, 2017 9:02:12 GMT -5
Trump attacks Syrian airbase. Can we trust him? Was Mattis, McMaster et al fully in? Assume a tactical success but what is the overall strategy? Make no mistake about the Syria strike, this was primarily about sending a message to North Korea. Ed, agreed that while the Syria strike can stand on its own, it also sends message to N. Korea AND China. Mattis/McMaster influence greater than Bannon/Miller isolationist view. Now we need to see longer term strategic plan for both Syria and N. Korea. Obama blew it in Syria by his failure to act after his red line comments (and I said so in comments many months ago). Tillerson's comment that Assad's continued hold on power up to the Syrian people just like week was viewed by some (McCain for one) as a greenlight to embolden Assad to use chemical weapons. The 2014 agreement on Syrian chemical weapons brokered by Kerry with the Russians failed obviously since it did not remove all chemical weapons from Syria. As many commentators have mentioned, the policy choices in Syria are between bad choices and perhaps worse choices. But I'd rather have Mattis/McMaster in charge than Bannon/Miller.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 7, 2017 9:46:00 GMT -5
The strike also sends a message to Iran.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,393
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Apr 7, 2017 11:08:17 GMT -5
Make no mistake about the Syria strike, this was primarily about sending a message to North Korea. The strike also sends a message to Iran. I hope we don't have to bomb them all at the same time...
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Apr 7, 2017 11:11:00 GMT -5
Make no mistake about the Syria strike, this was primarily about sending a message to North Korea. The strike also sends a message to Iran. I hope we don't have to bomb them all at the same time... I'm glad no one's pretending the strike has anything to do with a commitment to protecting human rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 11:25:17 GMT -5
A Pentagon spokesman, Capt. Jeff Davis, said in a statement that a pre-exiting “deconfliction” channel, set up to keep American and Russian jets from crossing paths in the skies over Syria, was used to disclose the planned attack to Russia. “U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield,” Davis said.
Couple questions:
1) I understand Russia probably would do this anyways but but why would WE warn "Syrian personnel?"
2) Trump previously talked flippantly about Saddam gassing ""Saddam throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, 'oh he's using gas!'"
If it's true he was moved to strike because of the images of the children, are we know planing on helping those same children by accepting refugees? Otherwise what's the point? A million people have died in this conflict and 99% have been through other methods. We (USA) just killed civilians the week prior when we bombed a mosque. For those who have been killed, or have loved ones killed does it matter how that event occurred, probably not.
So are we now planning on actually helping those people in a real way, not a symbolic one?...
3) What happens now? WH is claiming it was a one off...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Post by SSHoya on Apr 7, 2017 11:51:41 GMT -5
A Pentagon spokesman, Capt. Jeff Davis, said in a statement that a pre-exiting “deconfliction” channel, set up to keep American and Russian jets from crossing paths in the skies over Syria, was used to disclose the planned attack to Russia. “U.S. military planners took precautions to minimize risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield,” Davis said. Couple questions: 1) I understand Russia probably would do this anyways but but why would WE warn "Syrian personnel?" 2) Trump previously talked flippantly about Saddam gassing ""Saddam throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, 'oh he's using gas!'" If it's true he was moved to strike because of the images of the children, are we know planing on helping those same children by accepting refugees? Otherwise what's the point? A million people have died in this conflict and 99% have been through other methods. We (USA) just killed civilians the week prior when we bombed a mosque. For those who have been killed, or have loved ones killed does it matter how that event occurred, probably not. So are we now planning on actually helping those people in a real way, not a symbolic one?... 3) What happens now? WH is claiming it was a one off... Off the top of my head: 1. My bet is that the Pentagon spokesman's statement was vetted through DOD or JAG lawyers. There is a legitimate question about the legality of the strike if it had specifically targeted Syrian military personnel. Syrian military personnel are not enemy combatants with respect to the United States. The US military actions against ISIS in Syria have been justified under the 15-year old AUMF and some quarrel even with that. (I once had a robust discussion about this with a former military officer who was a staffer on Obama's National Security Council where all such discussions take place -- the back bar at the Old Ebbitt Grill The old AUMF would not be legal justification in the US to target Syrian military personnel. (Query whether targeting Syrian military equipment makes any difference?) I think I saw Tim Kaine talking about the AUMF this morning as he had been one pushing for a new one back in 2013-14. If the US engages in a more active robust military campaign against Syria, I think Congress needs to pass a new AUMF. The irony of this is that Trump is relying upon Obama's legal justification in order to take action against Syria because it did cross the red line and Obama did nothing: www.lawfareblog.com/constitutionality-syria-strike-through-eyes-olc-and-obama-administration2. Trump, being a creature of TV, I actually think that the visual images did affect him and that his decision to strike was partly an emotional response -- not necessarily a bad thing in a man who heretofore has shown high levels of narcissism and lack of sincere empathy for almost everyone else. There is an inherent conflict in his refugee policy but since when has this President been consistent? Will it alter his refugee policy? I think not but it is still tied up in the courts for awhile. (As an aside, I think Trump may ultimately be successful at the Supreme Court and not only because of Gorsuch's confirmation -- the President's powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act are fairly sweeping when taken in conjunction with his Article II powers as President. And remember, this country had no problem discriminating based upon religion when it gave preferential treatment in immigration to the Soviet Jews). 3. As I mentioned in previous comments, I hope this is not a one off but Mattis/McMaster/Tillerson have to come up with a broad strategic plan that makes sense with clear policy goals. Remember, we currently have approximately 1,000 US military on the ground in Syria and this strike changes the whole context of our presence. A strategy includes not eviscerating the Department of State per Trump's budget because there is no military solution to either Syria or N. Korea, for that matter. If nothing else, hopefully we have learned that from Iraq/Afghanistan.
|
|