Just Foreign Policy News
June 16, 2011
Support the Work of Just Foreign Policy
Go Straight to the News Summary
Upcoming hiatus of the Just Foreign Policy News
As Robert Naiman, the editor of the Just Foreign Policy News, will be a passenger on the US boat to Gaza, there will be a hiatus in the Just Foreign Policy News, starting Monday, June 20. Due to the uncertainty over what may happen to us if the Israeli authorities attack our boat, it is not possible to say exactly when the News will resume. But the editor has a return ticket from Athens to New York on July 6.
How to follow what’s happening with the flotilla:
We arrive in Athens on June 21, we will be in Athens at least 3 days, and sometime in the days following that, we will set sail from somewhere in Greece. You can check for the latest news about the boat using Twitter. You do not need to be a Twitter user to do this; any web browser will do.
Updates from the US Boat to Gaza feed will be here:
http://twitter.com/#!/USBOATTOGAZA
Updates from Just Foreign Policy will be here:
http://twitter.com/#!/justfp
Updates from Robert Naiman will be here:
http://twitter.com/#!/naiman
You can also see all the news people are posting about the flotilla using the #flotilla hashtag:
http://twitter.com/#!/search/flotilla
I) Actions and Featured Articles
U.S. Boat to Gaza Passenger Hedy Epstein on why about why she is going aboard the US Boat to Gaza with the Stay Human Flotilla
You can also find Kathy Kelly, Medea Benjamin, Ray McGovern and others at the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLZx5NULSzo
*Action – Help Just Foreign Policy Get to Gaza:
Urge Hillary to Act to Protect the Passengers on the Flotilla
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/audacityofhope/hillarypetition
Donate to support our participation:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate/audacityofhope
Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy
The opponents of peace and diplomacy work every day. Help us be an effective counterweight.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
II) Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) Speaker Boehner on Thursday said the Obama administration failed to answer all his questions about the U.S. mission in Libya and raised the possibility that the House would move to cut off funding for the operation, The Hill reports.
In response to demands from the House, the administration released a report arguing the Libya mission does not need congressional authorization because the U.S. military engagement there doesn’t amount to "hostilities." Boehner said that explanation doesn’t fly with him.
"The White House says there are no hostilities taking place, yet we’ve got drone attacks under way, we’re spending $10 million a day, part of the mission is to drop bombs on Gadhafi’s compound," Boehner said. "That doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities."
The Speaker said the White House did not answer one of his questions – outlined in a letter he sent this week – as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel, an advisory entity within the Justice Department, agrees with its analysis of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. He said he wanted an answer to that query by Friday.
The White House report met fierce opposition Wednesday from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who spearheaded a bipartisan lawsuit contending Obama violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution in Libya, The Hill says. "The White House claim that the war is not war is not a legal argument," Kucinich said in a statement. "It is a political argument."
2) House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Thursday hinted that the House could take up a bill to defund U.S. military intervention in Libya as early as next week, The Hill reports. Speaking on the House floor, Cantor outlined next week’s House schedule, which he said could include "potential legislation related to the ongoing military conflict in Libya."
3) Nearly half the Senate Democratic Conference, including 10 committee chairmen, sent a letter to President Obama pressing him to shift his strategy in Afghanistan and begin a major drawdown of troops, The Hill reports. Those 24 senators were joined by one Independent and two members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the second- and third-ranking members of the leadership, signed the letter. The 27 signatories include a mix of liberals and centrists as well as Republicans Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.). The centrists who support it include Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.), The Hill says.
Most of the Republicans hoping to challenge Obama next year are also pushing for a rapid troop withdrawal, The Hill says.
4) On Friday, the U.S. Conference of Mayors will introduce a resolution calling for a quicker end to the war and a speedier withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, the Huffington Post reports. If it passes — a vote will come on Monday — it will be the first time the body has formally called for an end to an military engagement since Vietnam
5) Some in Congress are pushing legislation that would require a tally of the true financial and human costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, John Hanrahan writes for Nieman Watchdog. President Obama would be required to publicly tally the long-term "true costs" – financial and human – of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya under an amendment adopted by the House as part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, by Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), is similar to bipartisan legislation introduced in March by Braley and Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) as the "True Cost of War Act."
Braley noted that in the last 10 years, "Congress has appropriated over a trillion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and most recently in Libya. But what we don’t account for in that figure is the more than 6,000 U.S. Service members who’ve been killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or the more than 40,000 who’ve been wounded and who will spend the rest of their lives treating injuries like PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], severe burns and amputated limbs. These are not just costs that our troops and their families bear – these are also significant costs for the Department of Veteran Affairs and all American taxpayers."
Braley’s amendment would require the President to provide the numbers of military personnel killed and wounded (combat and non-combat), as well as estimates of future anticipated deaths and injuries, from which to calculate current and estimated future costs of providing health care for veterans of the three wars.
6) The ACLU, along with more than 50 other groups, called on the U.S. to stop deportations to Haiti, the ACLU reports. The joint statement condemning the deportations came as the U.N. Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, Michel Forst, repeated his serious concerns about deporting individuals to Haiti because of the unsafe environment there. Since January, the U.S. has sent four deportation flights carrying dozens of people to Haiti. The most recent flight was Tuesday, and more are expected soon. At least one of the deportees died of cholera after being deported to Haiti.
7) A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on Juan Cole in order to discredit his criticism of the Iraq war, the New York Times reports. Glenn Carle, a former CIA officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the Bush administration, said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted "to get" Cole. Since Watergate, the C.I.A. and other spy agencies have been prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the activities of American citizens inside the United States.
Saudi Arabia
8) Saudi activists are preparing to test a traditional ban on women driving by getting behind the wheel, AFP reports. Their Facebook campaign, dubbed Women2drive, says the action will start Friday and keep going "until a royal decree allowing women to drive is issued" in the kingdom, the only country in the world where women face such a ban. Manal al Sherif, a 32-year-old mother, found herself behind bars for two weeks last month after defying the ban more than once and posting a video on the internet showing her driving around Eastern Province.
Honduras
9) Formerly exiled ex-Honduran President Zelaya is criticizing the country’s current leader for allowing his ex-chief of staff to be prosecuted on corruption charges, AP reports. Zelaya says a judge’s order to place Enrique Flores under house arrest violates the terms of an internationally brokered agreement that allowed him to return. Under the international accord, Honduran courts suspended all detention orders for Zelaya and his former aides, including Flores.
Colombia
10) Human rights leaders have said they continue to receive death threats from gangs of "decommissioned" paramilitaries and are calling on the Colombian government for protection, says Colombia Reports. A National Movement of Victims of State Crimes said the current government protection was not sufficient. Since October, when the administration of President Santos announced a law that would regulate the return of stolen land to displaced people, 16 leaders of these displaced communities have been killed.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Boehner says House could move to cut off funding for Libya
Russell Berman, The Hill, 06/16/11 10:40 AM ET
http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/166817-boehner-says-house-could-move-to-cut-off-libya-funding
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday said the Obama administration failed to answer all his questions about the U.S. mission in Libya and raised the possibility that the House would move to cut off funding for the operation.
In response to demands from the House, the administration released a 32-page report arguing that the Libya mission does not need congressional authorization because the U.S. military engagement there doesn’t amount to "hostilities."
Boehner said that explanation doesn’t fly with him.
"The White House says there are no hostilities taking place, yet we’ve got drone attacks under way, we’re spending $10 million a day, [and] part of the mission is to drop bombs on [Libyan dictator Moammar] Gadhafi’s compound," Boehner said. "That doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities."
The Speaker said the White House did not answer one of his questions – outlined in a letter he sent this week – as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel, an advisory entity within the Justice Department, agrees with its analysis of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. He said he wanted an answer to that query by Friday.
[…] Boehner said the House was considering its options to exert authority over the administration and that next week the chamber "may be prepared to move on those options." The "ultimate option," Boehner said, is that "Congress has the power of the purse" and could cut off funding for the mission. "Certainly that is an option as well," he said.
[…] Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a former Speaker, offered her support for Obama’s interpretation of the War Powers Resolution at a Thursday press conference. "The limited nature of this engagement allows the president to go forward," Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. "I’m satisfied that the president has the authority he needs to go ahead."
[…] The White House report met fierce opposition Wednesday from Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), who spearheaded a bipartisan lawsuit contending Obama violated both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution in Libya. "The White House claim that the war is not war is not a legal argument," Kucinich said in a statement. "It is a political argument."
[…]
2) Rep. Cantor hints at bill as early as next week to defund US mission to Libya
Pete Kasperowicz, The Hill, 06/16/11 02:58 PM ET
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/166897-cantor-hints-at-libya-defunding-bill-next-week
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on Thursday hinted that the House could take up a bill to defund U.S. military intervention in Libya as early as next week.
Speaking on the House floor, Cantor outlined next week’s House schedule, which he said could include "potential legislation related to the ongoing military conflict in Libya."
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said earlier in the day that the House could move to cut off funding for Libya based on inadequate answers from the Obama administration about the U.S. intervention.
[…]
3) Democratic senators press Obama on Afghanistan pullout
Alexander Bolton, The Hill, 06/15/11 08:25 PM ET
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/166679-democratic-senators-press-obama-on-afghan-pullout
Nearly half the Senate Democratic Conference, including 10 committee chairmen, sent a letter to President Obama pressing him to shift his strategy in Afghanistan and begin a major drawdown of troops.
Those 24 senators were joined by one Independent and two members of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, all of them urging the president to make significant policy changes as Obama’s self-imposed July deadline for a troop drawdown approaches.
"We write to express our strong support for a shift in strategy and the beginning of a sizable and sustained reduction of U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011," the lawmakers wrote Wednesday. "There are those who argue that rather than reduce our forces, we should maintain a significant number of troops in order to support a lengthy counterinsurgency and nation-building effort. This is misguided," they argued.
Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the second- and third-ranking members of the leadership, signed the letter. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did not.
The 27 signatories include a mix of liberals and centrists as well as Republicans Sens. Mike Lee (Utah) and Rand Paul (Ky.). Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), who caucuses with Democrats, also signed on. The centrists who support it include Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).
At a time of massive budget debts and angry partisan fights over spending cuts, Democrats senators are getting tired of spending $2 billion a week on a conflict that has shown mixed results.
That’s to say nothing of what they feel regarding the more painful cost of 1,500-plus American fatalities and nearly 12,000 service members wounded.
Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Lee were the leaders behind the letter. "Within the administration they’re having a robust policy debate, and I think it’s important they know that a significant number of senators weighed in on this," Udall told The Hill.
Udall said senators would begin "contacting all of our friends" within the administration to influence their decisionmaking process.
Lee’s leading role in the letter-writing effort and the support of Paul – two of the Senate’s most ardent conservatives – show that many Tea Party voters have come to see Afghanistan as a wasteful exercise in nation-building.
The lawmakers appeared to call for a bigger withdrawal than that advocated by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who did not sign the letter.
Levin has recommended withdrawing 15,000 of the 100,000 American troops serving by the end of this year.
[…] Outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates has recommended a modest reduction of forces, but some of the president’s national security advisers see an opportunity to dramatically scale down U.S. military involvement after the death of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The senators argued the nation’s military goals of destroying al Qaeda’s safe haven in Afghanistan and removing the Taliban government have largely been met.
"Those original goals have been largely met and today, as CIA Director Leon Panetta noted last June, ‘I think at most, we’re looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less’ al Qaeda members remaining in Afghanistan," they wrote.
"We will never be able to secure and police every town and village in Afghanistan. Nor will we be able to build Afghanistan from the ground up into a Western-style democracy," they added.
[…] Paul Kawika Martin, political director of Peace Action, a group that helped organize support for the letter, said Obama could face political repercussions in 2012 if he fails to respond. "In 2012, voters will want to see that President Obama is ending the war in Afghanistan by quickly bringing troops home in very large numbers," Martin said in a statement.
Most of the Republicans hoping to challenge Obama next year are also pushing for a rapid troop withdrawal.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said at a GOP presidential debate Monday that "it’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can."
4) U.S. Mayors To Push For First Anti-War Resolution Since Vietnam
Sam Stein, Huffington Post, 06/15/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/us-mayors-to-push-for-ani-war-resolution_n_877817.html
Washington — As the Obama administration readies plans for U.S. offices in Afghanistan, it’s not just national office-holders who are demanding an expedited drawdown.
On Friday, the U.S. Conference of Mayors will introduce a resolution calling for a quicker end to the war and a speedier withdrawal of troops. If it passes — a vote will come on Monday — it will be the first time the body has formally called for an end to an military engagement since Vietnam.
The mayors’ formal address of the conflict — which is still being debated, politically, at the federal level — illustrates how widespread skepticism about Afghanistan has become.
[…] [resolution text:] 1. WHEREAS, the severity of the ongoing economic crisis has created budget shortfalls at all levels of government and requires us to re-examine our national spending priorities; and
2. WHEREAS, the people of the United States are collectively paying approximately $126 billion dollars per year to wage war in Iraq and Afghanistan; and
3. WHEREAS, 6,024 members of the US armed forces have died in these wars; and at least 120,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since the coalition attacks began.
4. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors supports efforts to speed up the ending of these wars; and
5. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors calls on the U.S. Congress to bring these war dollars home to meet vital human needs, promote job creation, rebuild our infrastructure, aid municipal and state governments, and develop a new economy based upon renewable, sustainable energy.
5) A cold calculation: How much is too much to spend on Afghanistan?
John Hanrahan, Nieman Watchdog, June 15, 2011
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00554
Some in Congress are pushing legislation that would require a tally of the true financial and human costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. It’s clear that even the enormous appropriations – $1.28 trillion over the past ten years – are dwarfed by the actual costs. If the real costs were known, would that prompt Congress to demand the speedier removal of American troops?
President Obama would be required for the first time to publicly tally the long-term "true costs" – financial and human – of the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya under a little noticed amendment adopted late last month by the House of Representatives as part of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
The amendment, offered by Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), is similar to bipartisan, stand-alone legislation introduced in March by Braley and Rep. Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) as the "True Cost of War Act." That stand-alone bill has been referred to three House committees, where it could be acted on if the amendment does not survive in the Senate or if the authorization bill is vetoed by the President.
The issue is much more than one of accurate bookkeeping. With public opposition to the war solidified at a high level, costs that far exceed what have been made public until now – perhaps by trillions of dollars – could be a major factor in prompting Congress to demand a more rapid drawdown to the war. "As a nation, we have a right to know what these conflicts will actually cost us," Braley said.
The three-term congressman noted that in the last 10 years, "Congress has appropriated over a trillion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and most recently in Libya. But what we don’t account for in that figure is the more than 6,000 U.S. Service members who’ve been killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or the more than 40,000 who’ve been wounded and who will spend the rest of their lives treating injuries like PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], severe burns and amputated limbs. These are not just costs that our troops and their families bear – these are also significant costs for the Department of Veteran Affairs and all American taxpayers."
[…] Braley’s amendment was passed by a voice vote as part of a package of amendments. It would require the President, with input from the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to submit a written report to Congress within 90 days of the NDAA being signed into law. The report would take into account war costs already incurred and would make estimates of future costs through at least 2020. The estimates would be derived from three scenarios – one in which there would still be 60,000 total troops in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2020, and another projecting 30,000 troops. The third scenario would be determined by the President "based on current contingency and withdrawal plans," taking into account "expected force levels and the expected length of time" that armed forces members will be deployed in support of those two wars.
The wide-ranging amendment would cover not only the regular armed forces, but also reserve components and the costs of equipping and training Iraqi and Afghan forces. It also would require the President to report the "past, current and future costs" of contracts with the ubiquitous contractors and private military security firms that supplement U.S. military operations.
In addition, the amendment covers current and future costs "for reconstruction, embassy operation and construction, and foreign aid programs for Iraq and Afghanistan," as well as the amount of money borrowed to pay for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and the amount of interest payments on past borrowing and estimated interest payments on future borrowing. It also covers "payments to other countries for logistical assistance in support of such operations."
Braley’s amendment would require the President to provide the numbers of military personnel killed and wounded (combat and non-combat), as well as estimates of future anticipated deaths and injuries, from which to calculate current and estimated future costs of providing health care for veterans of the three wars. It also would require reporting of statistics for "the number of veterans currently suffering and expected to suffer from [PTSD], traumatic brain injury, or other mental injuries," as well as the number of veterans "currently in need of and expected to be in need of prosthetic care and treatment because of amputations."
The medical costs for veterans will go on for decades after the Afghanistan and Iraq wars end, and the older the veteran, the higher the medical costs. As Bilmes told Nieman Watchdog, medical care costs for veterans of the Vietnam war still haven’t reached their peak, more than three decades after that war ended. For World War II veterans, the biggest total dollar figure for claims paid out to veterans didn’t come until 1996 – more than 50 years after that war ended.
In the ongoing Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the survival rate for wounded soldiers is much higher than in previous wars, which means proportionally greater costs today and in decades to come for disabilities payments and health care than was the case for veterans of previous wars. In Vietnam, for example, for every troop killed there were three wounded. For troops in the current two wars, for which the total death toll now stands at more than 6,000, the ratio is roughly eight wounded in combat for every death, Bilmes said.
Stiglitz told Nieman Watchdog in May that one in every two troops returning from these wars requires some physical or psychological medical treatment – many of them for decades to come.
This means that the $114 billion cost of the war in Afghanistan for fiscal year 2012 substantially understates the true cost, as healthcare costs for the war’s veterans will continue to increase as each veteran gets older.
Braley’s amendment also would require the president to report the "average annual cost for each member of the Armed Forces deployed" in the three wars – "including room and board, equipment and body armor, transportation of troops and equipment (including fuel costs), and operational costs." The current estimate of the annual cost for one soldier serving in Afghanistan is $1 million.
[…].
6) Report from U.N. Human Rights Expert Expresses Grave Concern over Deportations to Haiti
ACLU and Dozens of Other Groups Call on U.S. to Change Policy Due to Dangerous Conditions
ACLU, June 16, 2011
http://www.aclu.org/human-rights/report-un-human-rights-expert-expresses-grave-concern-over-deportations-haiti
Geneva, Switzerland – The American Civil Liberties Union, along with more than 50 other groups, at a meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Council today called on the U.S. to stop deportations to Haiti. The joint statement condemning the deportations came as the U.N. Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Haiti, Michel Forst, repeated his serious concerns about deporting individuals to Haiti because of the unsafe environment there.
Since January 2011, the U.S. has sent four deportation flights carrying dozens of people to Haiti. The most recent flight was Tuesday, and more are expected soon. At least one of the deportees, Wildrick Guerrier, died of cholera after being deported to Haiti. In a policy statement issued April 1, the government said that it was deporting only individuals with criminal records who pose a danger to the public, and that it would take into account additional factors such as family ties and medical conditions that place individuals at particular risk. However, the government has established no procedure for making these determinations, and recent deportees include people with only nonviolent and minor crimes as well as people with extensive family ties to the United States and serious medical conditions.
[…]
7) Ex-Spy Alleges Bush White House Sought to Discredit Critic
James Risen, New York Times, June 15, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16cole.html
Washington – A former senior C.I.A. official says that officials in the Bush White House sought damaging personal information on a prominent American critic of the Iraq war in order to discredit him.
Glenn L. Carle, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was a top counterterrorism official during the administration of President George W. Bush, said the White House at least twice asked intelligence officials to gather sensitive information on Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who writes an influential blog that criticized the war.
In an interview, Mr. Carle said his supervisor at the National Intelligence Council told him in 2005 that White House officials wanted "to get" Professor Cole, and made clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to collect information about him, an effort Mr. Carle rebuffed. Months later, Mr. Carle said, he confronted a C.I.A. official after learning of another attempt to collect information about Professor Cole. Mr. Carle said he contended at the time that such actions would have been unlawful.
[…] Since a series of Watergate-era abuses involving spying on White House political enemies, the C.I.A. and other spy agencies have been prohibited from collecting intelligence concerning the activities of American citizens inside the United States.
"These allegations, if true, raise very troubling questions," said Jeffrey H. Smith, a former C.I.A. general counsel. "The statute makes it very clear: you can’t spy on Americans." Mr. Smith added that a 1981 executive order that prohibits the C.I.A. from spying on Americans places tight legal restrictions not only on the agency’s ability to collect information on United States citizens, but also on its retention or dissemination of that data.
Mr. Smith and several other experts on national security law said the question of whether government officials had crossed the line in the Cole matter would depend on the exact nature of any White House requests and whether any collection activities conducted by intelligence officials had been overly intrusive.
The experts said it might not be unlawful for the C.I.A. to provide the White House with open source material – from public databases or published material, for example – about an American citizen. But if the intent was to discredit a political critic, that would be improper, they said.
[…] In 2005, after a long career in the C.I.A.’s clandestine service, Mr. Carle was working as a counterterrorism expert at the National Intelligence Council, a small organization that drafts assessments of critical issues drawn from reports by analysts throughout the intelligence community. The council was overseen by the newly created Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Mr. Carle said that sometime that year, he was approached by his supervisor, David Low, about Professor Cole. Mr. Low and Mr. Carle have starkly different recollections of what happened. According to Mr. Carle, Mr. Low returned from a White House meeting one day and inquired who Juan Cole was, making clear that he wanted Mr. Carle to gather information on him. Mr. Carle recalled his boss saying, "The White House wants to get him."
" ‘What do you think we might know about him, or could find out that could discredit him?’ " Mr. Low continued, according to Mr. Carle.
Mr. Carle said that he warned that it would be illegal to spy on Americans and refused to get involved, but that Mr. Low seemed to ignore him.
"But what might we know about him?" he said Mr. Low asked. "Does he drink? What are his views? Is he married?"
Mr. Carle said that he responded, "We don’t do those sorts of things," but that Mr. Low appeared undeterred. "I was intensely disturbed by this," Mr. Carle said.
He immediately went to see David Gordon, then the acting director of the council. Mr. Carle said that after he recounted his exchange with Mr. Low, Mr. Gordon responded that he would "never, never be involved in anything like that."
Mr. Low was not at work the next morning, Mr. Carle said. But on his way to a meeting in the C.I.A.’ s front office, a secretary asked if he would drop off a folder to be delivered by courier to the White House. Mr. Carle said he opened it and stopped cold. Inside, he recalled, was a memo from Mr. Low about Juan Cole that included a paragraph with "inappropriate, derogatory remarks" about his lifestyle. Mr. Carle said he could not recall those details nor the name of the White House addressee.
He took the document to Mr. Gordon right away, he said. The acting director scanned the memo, crossed out the personal data about Professor Cole with a red pen, and said he would handle it, Mr. Carle said. He added that he never talked to Mr. Low or Mr. Gordon about the memo again.
In an interview, Mr. Low took issue with Mr. Carle’s account, saying he would never have taken part in an effort to discredit a White House critic. "I have no recollection of that, and I certainly would not have been a party to something like that," Mr. Low said. "That would have simply been out of bounds."
[…] Mr. Gordon, who has also left government service, said that he did not dispute Mr. Carle’s account, but did not remember meeting with him to discuss efforts to discredit Professor Cole.
Several months after the initial incident, Mr. Carle said, a colleague on the National Intelligence Council asked him to look at an e-mail he had just received from a C.I.A. analyst. The analyst was seeking advice about an assignment from the executive assistant to the spy agency’s deputy director for intelligence, John A. Kringen, directing the analyst to collect information on Professor Cole.
Mr. Carle said his colleague, whom he declined to identify, was puzzled by the e-mail. Mr. Carle, though, said he tracked Mr. Kringen’s assistant down in the C.I.A. cafeteria.
"Have you read his stuff?" Mr. Carle recalled the assistant saying about Professor Cole. "He’s really hostile to the administration."
The assistant, whom Mr. Carle declined to identify, refused to say who was behind the order. Mr. Carle said he warned that he would go to the agency’s inspector general or general counsel if Mr. Kringen did not stop the inquiry.
[…]
Saudi Arabia
8) Saudi feminists unafraid of breaking driving ban
Agence France-Presse, Jun 16, 2011
http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/saudi-feminists-unafraid-of-breaking-driving-ban
Riyadh Unfazed by fear of being arrested, Saudi female activists are preparing to test a traditional ban on women driving by getting behind the wheel, despite stern warnings.
Their Facebook campaign, dubbed Women2drive, says the action will start tomorrow and keep going "until a royal decree allowing women to drive is issued" in the kingdom, the only country in the world where women face such a ban.
Saudi Arabia has been largely spared the spillover effect of uprisings across the Arab world, after two calls for protests in March went unanswered.
But now "it seems that women, who are the main victims of suppression, will carry the banner of change in the Saudi society", said the columnist and novelist Badriya al Bishr.
There is no law banning women from driving, but the interior ministry imposes regulations based on a religious edict stipulating women should not be permitted to drive.
Women in Saudi Arabia face a plethora of constraints, ranging from having to cover from head to toe in public and needing authorisation from a male guardian to travel, to having restricted access to jobs due to strict rules of segregation.
Because of the ban, women end up having to hire foreign drivers whose wages eat into their salaries. If they cannot afford a driver, they have to rely on male members of their immediate families to give them a lift.
[…] Manal al Sherif, a 32-year-old mother, found herself behind bars for two weeks last month after defying the ban more than once and posting a video on the internet showing her driving around Eastern Province.
King Abdullah was petitioned by 3,345 people to intervene on her behalf, while 24,000 people expressed support on a Facebook page set up to call for her release.
Ms Sharif’s action came a few days after another Saudi woman, Najla al Hariri, drove in the western region of Jeddah over a few days, insisting on her right to drive.
Six other women were detained for hours last week after being caught learning to drive in an empty lot in north Riyadh. They were released after their male guardians were called in by police and signed pledges not to drive.
[…]
Honduras
9) Returned Honduran ex-president criticizes new government for prosecuting ex-chief of staff
Associated Press, Thursday, June 16, 11:22 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/americas/returned-honduran-ex-president-criticizes-new-government-for-prosecuting-ex-chief-of-staff/2011/06/16/AGPDzSXH_print.html
Tegucigalpa, Honduras – Formerly exiled ex-Honduran President Manuel Zelaya is criticizing the country’s current leader for allowing his ex-chief of staff to be prosecuted on corruption charges.
Zelaya says a judge’s order to place Enrique Flores under house arrest violates the terms of an internationally brokered agreement that allowed him to return.
The ex-president tells The Associated Press in an email that he is asking President Porfirio Lobo to resolve the case.
Under the international accord, Honduran courts suspended all detention orders for Zelaya and his ex-functionaries, including Flores.
The government has not yet responded publicly.
[…]
Colombia
10) Human rights leaders continue to receive death threats, call for protection. Colombia Reports
Stephen Manker, Colombia Reports, Wednesday, 15 June 2011 09:02
http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/16985-human-rights-leaders-of-displaced-continue-to-receive-death-threats-call-on-colombian-government-for-protection.html
Human rights leaders have said they continue to receive death threats from gangs and are calling on the Colombian government for protection.
The latest threat was sent by the "Aguilas Negras," or "Black Eagles," via e-mail to members of the National Movement of Victims of State Crimes (MOVICE). According to the MOVICE website, the "Black Eagles" intend to continue the extermination of human rights leaders.
An e-mail sent on June 14, 2011 from the email address "sangrecorre2011@hotmail.com" was posted to the MOVICE website. A section of the e-mail stated:
"Do not ignore this warning. We have asked you many times, on public record, to leave the land. You did not listen, and now you have to pay the consequences. Our campaign: to build the fatherland. To continue to kill the guerrillas. We don’t want more bloodshed but you make us do it."
MOVICE leaders have responded by demanding that "the Colombian government provides political and material guarantees for the MOVICE Sucre Chapter, so they can continue their work defending the rights of victims." They also implored Colombia’s government officials to meet with the human rights group, in order to "ensure the safety of [MOVICE] and to punish the perpetrators and masterminds."
In an interview with Caracol Radio, Mauren Maya, a representative for MOVICE, explained that there are many human rights leaders who receive these threats on a weekly basis.
Maya said that the security provided for them is not sufficient, and "that’s why [MOVICE] requires the state to provide political and material guarantees to continue protecting the rights of victims. They need to address this security threat in order to ensure that MOVICE members do not continue to be buried."
Since October, when the administration of President Juan Manuel Santos announced a law that would regulate the return of stolen land to displaced people, 16 leaders of these communities have been killed.
–
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans. The archive of the Just Foreign Policy News is here:
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews