Our Military, Ourselves

Our Military, Ourselves - By Micah Zenko and Amelia Mae Wolf | Foreign Policy:

Why Americans are to blame for the Pentagon's outrageous sex scandals.

BY MICAH ZENKO, AMELIA MAE WOLF | MAY 21, 2013

Ongoing rampant sexual assault within America's armed forces is a tragedy. The 2012 Workplace and Gender Relations Survey of Active Duty Members (WGRA) found that an estimated 26,000 active-duty servicemembers were sexually assaulted last year, and recent allegations of sexual assault by officers assigned to prevent that very crime have lent the situation a sinister irony. The U.S. military is clearly facing, in the words of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, "a crisis."

Last week, Gen. Mark Welsh, the Air Force chief of staff, declared that confronting the problem was his "No. 1 priority." Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno went further, saying: "The Army is failing in its efforts to combat sexual assault and sexual harassment." He said that fighting the crime is now "our primary mission." Repeating the claims of his two predecessors, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel vowed to solve the chronic problem of sexual assault and stated that "every option is on the table."

The estimated incidents of "unwanted sexual contact" within the military have increased since the previous survey in 2010 despite internal reforms. When reviewing the Pentagon and service websites dedicated to preventing sexual assault, it is difficult to comprehend the vast number of new directives, memoranda, instructions, policies, and awareness-raising campaigns that have been introduced over the past three years -- none of which seems to be having an effect. Nancy Parrish, president of Protect Our Defenders, referred to these efforts as "half-hearted, half-measured reform Band-Aids."

Unfortunately, however admirable the recent condemnations of sexual assault in the military, they're unlikely to have much impact, because sexual assault in the military is not a military problem. It is anAmerican problem. Scholars, retired officers, and others have longed warned of the creeping militarization of American society. However, as the Pentagon yet again renews its sexual assault prevention efforts, it must not discount the socialization of the American military.

The data suggest that one servicemember is sexually assaulted every 20 minutes and that one American citizen is sexually assaulted every two minutes, but it is difficult to directly compare military and civilian sexual assault rates. The WGRA defines "unwanted sexual contact" as "completed or attempted sexual intercourse, sodomy (oral or anal sex), penetration by an object, and the unwanted touching of genitalia and other sexually-related areas of the body." Survey participants were asked to report incidents occurring in the past 12 months. Meanwhile, the Department of Justicesurvey used to calculate sexual assaults nationwide asks participants if anyone has "attacked" or "threatened" them by "grabbing, punching, or choking" or by "any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual act" over the course of the past six months. ......

Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes

U.S. Acknowledges Killing 4 Americans in Drone Strikes - NYTimes.com:

Khaled Abdullah/Reuters

The rubble from a strike by a United States drone in southeastern Yemen in February.

By CHARLIE SAVAGE and PETER BAKER

WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to open a new phase in the nation’s long struggle with terrorism on Thursday by restricting the use of unmanned drone strikes that have been at the heart of his national security strategy and shifting control of them away from the C.I.A. to the military.

In his first major speech on counterterrorism of his second term, Mr. Obama hopes to refocus the epic conflict that has defined American priorities since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and even foresees an unspecified day when the so-called war on terror might all but end, according to people briefed on White House plans.

As part of the shift in approach, the administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged for the first time that it had killed four American citizens in drone strikes outside the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that its actions were justified by the danger to the United States. Mr. Obama approved providing new information to Congress and the public about the rules governing his attacks on Al Qaeda and its allies.

A new classified policy guidance signed by Mr. Obama will sharply curtail the instances when unmanned aircraft can be used to attack in places that are not overt war zones, countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The rules will impose the same standard for strikes on foreign enemies now used only for American citizens deemed to be terrorists.

Lethal force will be used only against targets who pose “a continuing, imminent threat to Americans” and cannot feasibly be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a letter to Congress, suggesting that threats to a partner like Afghanistan or Yemen alone would not be enough to justify being targeted.

The standard could signal an end to “signature strikes,” or attacks on groups of unknown men based only on their presumed status as members of Al Qaeda or some other enemy group — an approach that administration critics say has resulted in many civilian casualties. In effect, this appears to be a step away from the less restricted use of force allowed in war zones and toward the more limited use of force for self-defense allowed outside of armed conflict.

In the speech he will give on Thursday at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama will also renew his long-stalled effort to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Officials said they would make a fresh push to transfer detainees to home countries and lift the ban on sending some back to Yemen. The president plans to reappoint a high-level State Department official to oversee the effort to reduce the prison population.

The combined actions constitute a pivot point for a president who came to office highly critical of his predecessor, George W. Bush, yet who preserved and in some cases expanded on some of the counterterrorism policies he inherited. Much as Mr. Bush did in 2006 when he acknowledged and emptied secret overseas C.I.A. prisons, Mr. Obama appears intent on countering criticism of his most controversial policies by reorienting them to meet changing conditions.

In his speech, Mr. Obama is expected to reject the notion of a perpetual war with terrorists, envisioning a day when Al Qaeda has been so incapacitated that wartime authority will end. However, because he is also institutionalizing procedures for drone strikes, it does not appear that he thinks that day has come. A Pentagon official suggested last week that the current conflict could continue for 10 to 20 years.

Yet even as he moves the counterterrorism effort to a next stage, Mr. Obama plans to offer a robust defense of a continued role for targeted killings, a policy he has generally addressed only in passing or in interviews rather than in a comprehensive speech. A White House official said he “will discuss why the use of drone strikes is necessary, legal and just, while addressing the various issues raised by our use of targeted action.”.....

Sharp rise in jail terms for Afghan rape and abuse victims

Sharp rise in jail terms for Afghan rape and abuse victims - Telegraph:

The number of Afghan women and girls jailed for fleeing sexual abuse, domestic, violence and forced marriage has increased dramatically, according to new official figures.

An Afghan solider, center, stands guard outside of the main prison in Kandahar, south of Kabul, Afghanistan Photo: AP

By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor

11:24AM BST 21 May 2013

Statistics obtained from Afghanistan's Interior Ministry by the campaign group Human Rights Watch reveal the number of women and girls convicted of 'moral crimes,' which include running away from home has increased by 50 per cent in the last year from 400 to 600.

Many of the 600 women jailed in the last year are victims of sexual assault and domestic abuse whose only crime was to run away from their assailants, the group said.

It called on the Afghan government to enforce its own Elimination of Violence Against Women (EVAW), and to stop its judges punishing female victims.

Although it is not a crime in Afghanistan for women to run away, the group said the country's judges, including members of its Supreme Court, regard women who run away from their homes as criminals. Many of them who flee rapes and other assaults have been charged with seeking sex outside marriage, known as Zina in Afghanistan.

Those jailed for Zina include women and girls who have been raped or forced into prostitution, the group said.

Earlier this year Human Rights Watch released its report I had to Run Away, which revealed that half of all women and 95 per cent of girls in Afghan jails had been convicted of 'moral crimes' of running away or sex outside marriage.

A report by Oxfam found that 87 per cent of Afghan women had suffered sexual and physical abuse and been forced into unwanted marriages.

Earlier this year a 22 year old woman, Gulnaz, who was jailed for Zina after she was raped and impregnated by her cousin's husband decided to marry her attacker to spare her daughter the stigma of being born out of wedlock. She had been 'pardoned' for her crime by President Karzai and released following an international outcry.

"Four years after the adoption of a law on violence against women and twelve years after Taliban rule, women are still imprisoned for being victims of forced marriage, domestic violence, and rape. The Afghan government needs to get tough on abusers of women, and stop blaming women who are crime victims," said Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch.

The group called on President Karzai to issue a decree clarifying that 'running away' is not a crime and other crimes, like Zina should not be used to punish runaways.

The 2009 Elimination of Violence Against Women law, which was inctroduced by a presidential decree, has yet to be passed by the Afghan parliament which voiced its opposition once again on Saturday. Islamic conservatives in the parliament are opposed to provisions which make it illegal for a father to stop his daughter marrying a man of her choice.

They also oppose for women who have fled sexual abuse and violence and claim they are 'immoral' houses of prostitution and casual sex. Some support amendments which would legalise forced and child marriages and domestic assaults in some circumstances.

Last year just over one in five of 470 violence against women cases resulted in conviction.

Great Article but Better Image

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/16/media-balks-at-band-aid-shield-law.html

Media Balks at Band-Aid Shield Law

May 16, 2013 1:28 PM EDT

A shield law might protect some reporters, but media critics say the one Obama has proposed is deeply flawed—and won’t make up for snooping on AP reporters. David Freedlander reports.

After the Department of Justice revealed this week that federal agents had subpoenaed months of phone and computer records from editors and reporters at the Associated Press, the White House responded on Wednesday with the legislative equivalent of a dozen roses and an “I’m sorry” card for the media: a promise to push for a federal shield law.

The Department of Justice is under fire from journalism organizations after a phone-tapping scandal. (J. David Ake/AP)

Such a law—which was proposed in 2009 but quickly died—would permit journalists who are compelled to give up their sources to appeal to a federal judge. The judge would then decide if there was a compelling public interest for prosecutors to proceed. The burden of proof would be highest in national security matters, and lowest in civil matters. Essentially, it offers protection for journalists—protection the industry has been demanding for decades......

The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth by Mark Mazzetti

On page 100....

Defense official says U.S. has authority to target terrorists anywhere

Defense official says U.S. has authority to target terrorists anywhere - latimes.com:

Some in Congress sharply question how a law that sprang from the Sept. 11 attacks can be applied so broadly. Panel is also told war with Al Qaeda could last 20 more years.

• Michael Sheehan, assistant secretary of Defense in charge of special operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the military was authorized to target Al Qaeda operatives in countries where drone strikes don’t now occur. (Carolyn Kaster / Associated Press / May 16, 2013)

By Ken Dilanian, Los Angeles Times

May 16, 2013, 6:17 p.m.

WASHINGTON — A senior Pentagon official told a Senate committee Thursday that the U.S. would be at war with Al Qaeda for 15 to 20 more years and said the military could target terrorists anywhere under a law passed after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Michael Sheehan, assistant secretary of Defense in charge of special operations, said America's battle with terrorist groups spanned the globe "from Boston to the FATA," meaningPakistan's tribal areas.

He did not explain why he believes the effort could last another generation. During his State of the Union address in February, President Obama called Al Qaeda "a shadow of its former self."

Sheehan and the Pentagon's top lawyers told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the military was authorized to target Al Qaeda operatives in countries where drone strikes don't now occur, including Mali, Syria and anywhere a host government is "unwilling or unable" to prevent Al Qaeda-linked terrorists from operating on its territory.

That expansive view drew sharp criticism from some senators, who questioned how a 2001 law that authorized use of force against the organizers of that year's Sept. 11 attacks is now used to authorize drone strikes against militants in Somalia and Yemenwho played no role in those events.

"This is the most astounding and the most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here," said Sen. Angus King (I-Maine), who caucuses with Democrats. "You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution here today."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a prominent supporter of the Pentagon, called for updating the law to authorize drone strikes and other military operations against a new generation of extremist groups, including those with only tenuous ties to the core Al Qaeda network.

Current law authorizes the president "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

The Obama administration argues that the law allows it to target "associated forces," just as the U.S. waged war against allies of the Axis powers in World War II, such as Romania and Bulgaria, even though Congress had not declared war on them.

Sheehan and the other officials warned that changing the 2001 law could restrict the Pentagon's ability to conduct counter-terrorism operations necessary for national security.

The military has launched drone strikes against militants in Yemen and Somalia, as well as during conflicts in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA, which operates under other laws, has conducted hundreds of drone strikes in Pakistan but is seeking to shift more of the covert operation to the Pentagon.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard professor who was a top lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, urged the committee to update the 2001 law and to exercise more oversight of the targeted killings.

"Congress can and should help the executive branch bring the shadow war out of the shadows, even if it makes the conduct of the war harder abroad," he said.

Chris Hedges: Monitoring of AP Phones a "Terrifying" Step in State Assault on Press Freedom

Chris Hedges: Monitoring of AP Phones a "Terrifying" Step in State Assault on Press Freedom | Alternet:

The Pulitzer-prize winning columnist calls the revelations "one more assault in a long series of assault against freedom of information and freedom of the press."

May 15, 2013  |  

 

 

 

 

The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges joined Democracy Now! to discuss what could mark the most significant government intrusion on freedom of the press in decades. The Justice Department has acknowledged seizing the work, home and cellphone records used by almost 100 reporters and editors at the Associated Press. The phones targeted included the general AP office numbers in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Hartford, Connecticut, and the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. The action likely came as part of a probe into the leaks behind an AP story on the U.S. intelligence operation that stopped a Yemen-based al-Qaeda bombing plot on a U.S.-bound airplane. Hedges, a senior fellow at The Nation Institute and former New York Times reporter, calls the monitoring "one more assault in a long series of assault against freedom of information and freedom of the press." Highlighting the Obama administration’s targeting of government whistleblowers, Hedges adds: "Talk to any investigative journalist who must investigate the government, and they will tell you that there is a deep freeze. People are terrified of speaking, because they’re terrified of going to jail."

NERMEEN SHAIKH: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder [headed to Capitol Hill on Wed, facing questions] over Justice Department’s decision to secretly seize the work, home and cellphone records used by almost a hundred reporters and editors at the Associated Press. On Tuesday, Holder defended the move as a necessary step in a criminal probe of leaks of classified information.

The phones targeted by the subpoena included the general AP office numbers in New York City; Washington, D.C.; and Hartford, Connecticut; and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery. The records were from April and May of 2012. Among those whose records were obtained were Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman, three other reporters and an editor, all of whom worked on a story about an operation conducted by the CIA and allied intelligence agencies that stopped a Yemen-based al-Qaeda plot to detonate a bomb on an airplane headed for the United States.

AMY GOODMAN: The Associated Press had delayed publication of the story 'til May 7, 2012, at the government's request. One day before the AP story was finally published, a U.S. drone strike in Yemen killed Fahd al-Quso, a senior leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Attorney General Holder, who says he recused himself from the leak probe, defended his department’s actions.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER: This was a very serious—a very serious leak, and a very, very serious leak. I’ve been a prosecutor since 1976, and I have to say that this is among, if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks that I’ve ever seen. It put the American people at risk. And that is not hyperbole. It put the American people at risk. And trying to determine who was responsible for that, I think, required very aggressive action.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking Tuesday. In a letter to Holder, AP’sCEO Greg Pruitt protested the government’s seizing of journalists’ phone records. He wrote, quote: "There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."

AMY GOODMAN: In an  editorial today, The New York Times strongly criticized the Justice Department’s move. The editors wrote, quote: "These tactics will not scare us off, or The A.P., but they could reveal sources on other stories and frighten confidential contacts vital to coverage of government."....

Explosions shake Damascus; Syria blames Israel

Explosions shake Damascus; Syria blames Israel | The Jordan Times:

Reuters | May 05, 2013 | 03:24

BEIRUT - Explosions shook Damascus early on Sunday and Syrian state television said Israeli rockets had struck a military research centre on the outskirts of the capital.

The blasts occurred a day after an Israeli official said his country had carried out an air strike targeting a consignment of missiles in Syria. The research centre hit on Sunday was also targeted by Israel in January.

"The new Israeli attack is an attempt to raise the morale of the terrorist groups which have been reeling from strikes by our noble army," Syrian television said, referring to recent offensives by President Bashar Assad's forces against rebels.

There was no immediate comment from Israeli officials on Sunday's explosions. "We don't respond to this kind of report," an Israeli military spokeswoman told Reuters.

The US State Department had no immediate comment and the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined comment.

Assad is battling a two-year uprising that began with mainly peaceful protests that were met with force and grew into a bloody civil war in which the United Nations says at least 70,000 people have been killed.

Video footage uploaded onto the Internet by activists showed a huge ball of fire rising into the night sky on the edge of the Syrian capital.