Sunday 10 June 2012

The White House and drones


White House denies 'political' drone leaks
THE White House is battling claims that national security leaks to the US media about drone strikes and cyber attacks authorised by Barack Obama have been politically motivated to make the President look strong in an election year.


10 June, 2012

A bipartisan congress group including senior members of Mr Obama's Democratic Party yesterday promised a legislative crackdown on the disclosure of classified information after identifying a "damaging and intolerable" problem.

The push was led by Democrat Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the US Senate's select committee on intelligence, who argues the "avalanche of leaks" could put the lives of US military and intelligence personnel in danger.

Senator Feinstein said she had sent a classified letter to Mr Obama outlining her deep concerns about the release of classified information. She said she made it clear that "disclosures of this type endanger American lives and undermine American national security". The FBI has launched its own investigation into the matter.

Senior Republicans and Democrats in the US congress are deeply concerned about two articles in particular published in The New York Times over the past week detailing Mr Obama's deliberations on drone strikes against al-Qa'ida terrorists and cyber attacks against Iran's nuclear facilities.

One report said the President had a secret terrorist "kill list" and related counter-terrorism discussions held in the White House situation room as Mr Obama considered possible targets.

Another detailed how he secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's nuclear facilities. It said Mr Obama had decided to accelerate an operation codenamed Olympic Games that began under the Bush administration, and confirmed that the US and Israel were behind the so-called Stuxnet computer worm that was accidentally spread globally on the internet after wreaking havoc on Iran's Natanz nuclear plant.

John McCain, who faced Mr Obama in the 2008 election as his Republican presidential opponent, blames the White House for leaking sensitive information and wants prosecutions for breaches of national security if perpetrators inside the administration can be identified.

Senator McCain claims the leaks "have a deeper political motivation" to make Mr Obama look strong and decisive on national security in the middle of an election campaign while his standing among voters on economic issues remains shaky.

Suspicions about White House involvement in leaking material have been heightened by the Obama administration's apparently declining to lodge complaints with the New York Times despite vigorously pursuing past leaks.

Mr Obama's national security council spokesman, Tommy Vietor, said "any suggestion that the White House has leaked sensitive information for political purposes has no basis in fact, and has been denied by the authors themselves".

Mr Vietor's comments followed a vigorous denial by White House spokesman Jay Carney, who insisted "any suggestion that this administration has authorised intentional leaks of classified information for political gain is grossly irresponsible".

Republican senator Lindsay Graham told Fox News this week that he did not think the President was calling reporters, but he suggested someone in the White House was orchestrating leaks of classified information.

"Look at the stories," he said. "They talk about people inside the Situation Room, talking to reporters on background, that were in a meeting with the President: a blow-by-blow description of how you decided which targets to hit."

New York Times managing editor Dean Baquet yesterday dismissed claims that the articles were based on leaks, saying they were commissioned by the paper and had followed strenuous reporting.

"I can't believe anybody who says these are leaks," Baquet said. "Read those stories. They are so clearly the product of tons and tons of reporting."


According to the New York Times, its story on drones by reporters Jo Becker and Scott Shane followed a lengthy investigation including interviews with many former and serving administration officials.

The article was moved forward for publication after a similar one appeared in Newsweek by Daniel Klaidman, who has been working on a book about Mr Obama's national security policy. In an email to Huffington Post, Shane said he and Becker were commissioned to write an article on Mr Obama's national security policy in February and followed a "completely normal reporting process" that included speaking to some people given permission to speak, and others not.

The article on the Stuxnet virus was written by New York Times reporter David Sanger, extracted from his new book Confront and Conceal.

In his book, Sanger says he discussed with senior government officials the political risks of publishing sensitive information and agreed on request to withhold some details that were considered to jeopardise current or planned operations.


Obama Endorses Another Escalation of CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan
Official: 'What Do We Have to Lose?'


By Jason Diaz

26 April, 2012

As officials express public outrage at the Pakistani government for various perceived slights, President Obama has been authorizing more and more aggressive levels of drone strikes against the tribal areas, further escalating the war in the area.

A top US official quoted in McClatchy but unnamed said that the administration’s attitude toward Pakistan’s opposition to the strikes is “what do we have to lose?” UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay has called for a UN probe into the indiscriminate killing of civilians in the strikes.


The US has claimed that the strikes are extremely accurate and based on the best intelligence possible. Despite this, the drone strikes in Pakistan have killed well over 2,000 people since President Obama took office, and fewer than 50 of the victims have ever been conclusively named by officials.


Officials familiar with the situation say that the escalation is a result of the NATO summit in Chicago, during which Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari was supposed to agree to reopen the supply routes into Afghanistan. No deal was ever finalized, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has said that US patience toward Pakistan is running out.




No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.