The Principals Committee sounds like something a school Superintendent put together to discuss academic and discipline problems at all the schools within a district. But alas it is even more sinister than that.
Yes, I'm supposed to be on a "drive about" headed towards the Very Large Array telescope in New Mexico, and locations West. Family priorities however have delayed the start of such and thus I am here venting about the world I live in.
Yes, the "Principals Committee" is not what it sounds like. Little is these days, at least to these jaded old ears. Irony is of course that principal and principle are homophones (and to my conservative constituency those aren't same sex telephones). The mnemonic, "The Principal is my Pal" has almost always guided me to a correct usage of the two words, but in this case the problem may be that the principals have trouble with the principles.
NYT Monday, Nov. 10
"WASHINGTON — The United States military since 2004 has used broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere, according to senior American officials. "
.............
"In 2006, for example, a Navy Seal team raided a suspected militants’ compound in the Bajaur region of Pakistan, according to a former top official of the Central Intelligence Agency. Officials watched the entire mission — captured by the video camera of a remotely piloted Predator aircraft — in real time in the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center at the agency’s headquarters in Virginia 7,000 miles away."
...............
" The 2004 order identifies 15 to 20 countries, including Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia and several other Persian Gulf states, where Qaeda militants were believed to be operating or to have sought sanctuary, a senior administration official said. "
.............
"Administration officials said that Mr. Bush’s approval had paved the way for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to sign an order — separate from the 2004 order — that specifically directed the military to plan a series of operations, in cooperation with the C.I.A., on the Qaeda network and other militant groups linked to it in Pakistan.
Unlike the 2004 order, in which Special Operations commanders nominated targets for approval by senior government officials, the order in July was more of a top-down approach, directing the military to work with the C.I.A. to find targets in the tribal areas, administration officials said. They said each target still needed to be approved by the group of Mr. Bush’s top national security and foreign policy advisers, called the Principals Committee."
The entire story in context maybe found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/washington/10military.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&th&emc=th
I'm not surprised at this. Only surprise is, that they were able to keep it out of the papers and off the cable news. What I want to know is does it have Congressional oversight. Invading other countries, even the sh** a** ones is an act of war, actually it is: AN ACT OF WAR! Last time I remember reading the Constitution, that was the responsibility of Congress. Now you might say I am quibbling. I mean, I want our enemies attacked and destroyed anywhere in the world, but not necessarily at any cost. If it cost us our Constitution to protect our Constitution then that is not acceptable That is to say, if the Principals destroy our Constitution why then are they any different from others trying to destroy our Constitution? Er, that is, it seems that would be a bad Principle for the Principals to follow. Would it not?
6 comments:
The Principals Committee is just the national Security Council minus the President - basically the foreign affairs cabinet officers (State, DOD, etc/) plus the National Security Advisor. I'm pretty sure that not only does the administration think the authorities for the Afghanistan War include the ability to go after sanctuaries in Pakistan, but that Congress thinks so too, becuase there's not beenan outcry.
The action may be counterproductive (I don't see how you can kill or deter enough folks to be worth the enemies in pakistan you make), but I don't think legality is amproblem. As far as activities in other countries, most would have the consent of the host government and would not constitute an act of war. There's congressional oversight of these covert activities as well, though the committees on intelligence. Again,not to endorse the activities themselves or to disagree that secret activities aren't inherently a risk to open democratic government.
I am SO more moderate than you.
Back when they were approving "torture" they consisted of..."Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft."
TS: "There's congressional oversight of these covert activities as well, though the committees on intelligence."
And yet when people get caught doing this stuff nobody knows nothing. If we had nailed Ollie North's hide to the wall last time a President spat on the Constitution they wouldn't have dared do it again. But I do agree that Congress has not made an outcry. There have been chicken shits all the way around this problem.
I suspect that the Pricipals Committee will also be known as "the list of defendents" at the Hague in the not too distant future.
TS: "I am SO more moderate than you." That's why I'm President of the John Spruce Society and you are just Vice President. :)
Say, is Ollie North on that committee?
He used to be, say 28 years ago.
Ollie North was never a member of the Principals Committee. He was a staffer and not a senior one at that.
Facts and details are so, so, so very gauche.
Post a Comment