Feds Say It's Classified Info To Say Who We're At War With

[KoKo]

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 06:43 PM - Edit history (2)

Back in May, we noted the oddity of the charges in Bradley Manning's trial, in which he was accused of aiding three different "enemies," with the last one being classified. Specifically, he was accused of aiding Al-Qaida, Al-Qaida of the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP, which is different than AQ itself) and... mystery enemy. Back at the beginning of July, the government quietly dropped the charge against the classified enemy, so that's no longer in play in that case. That said, apparently this concept of classifying who we're at war with wasn't just limited to the Manning trial. ProPublica has the ridiculous and frightening tale of finding out that the answer to the simple question of who the US is at war with, is apparently classified as well.

At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates.

The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it. Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman for Levin, would say only that the department’s “answer included the information requested.”

The Pentagon also went on to tell ProPublica that revealing who we're actually at war with would do "serious damage to national security." The main reason? They think those groups would use the info as good publicity and allow them to recruit more. But that's ridiculous, since those groups are already being targeted by the US:

Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law who served as a legal counsel during the Bush administration and has written [6] on this question [7] at length, told ProPublica that the Pentagon’s reasoning for keeping the affiliates secret seems weak. “If the organizations are ‘inflated’ enough to be targeted with military force, why cannot they be mentioned publicly?” Goldsmith said. He added that there is “a countervailing very important interest in the public knowing who the government is fighting against in its name."

[n]It really goes beyond that when you think about it. This lack of transparency out of some silly fear that these groups would use it to build up their own reputation is just wacky. It leaves open such massive loopholes for abuse by the government.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130727/23333223971/feds-say-its-classified-info-to-say-who-were-war-with.shtml

--------------------------------------------------


Who Are We at War With? That’s Classified
by Cora Currier
ProPublica, July 26, 2013, 10:13 a.m

The White House tied Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and “elements” of Al Shabaab in Somalia to Al Qaeda in a recent report to Congress on military actions. But the report also included a classified annex.

Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law who served as a legal counsel during the Bush administration and has written on this question at length, told ProPublica that the Pentagon’s reasoning for keeping the affiliates secret seems weak. “If the organizations are ‘inflated’ enough to be targeted with military force, why cannot they be mentioned publicly?” Goldsmith said. He added that there is “a countervailing very important interest in the public knowing who the government is fighting against in its name."

The law underpinning the U.S. war against Al Qaeda is known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, and it was passed one week after the 9/11 attacks. It doesn’t actually include the words “associated forces,” though courts and Congress have endorsed the phrase.

As we explained earlier this year, the emergence of new or more loosely-aligned terrorist groups has legal scholars wondering how effectively the U.S. will be able to “shoehorn” them into the AUMF. During the May hearing, many lawmakers expressed concern about the Pentagon’s capacious reading of the law. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., described it as a “carte blanche.”

Obama, in his May speech, said he looked forward “to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.” But he didn’t give a timeframe. On Wednesday, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., introduced an amendment that would sunset the law at the end of 2014, to coincide with the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was voted down the same day, 185 to 236.

The AUMF isn’t the only thing the government relies on to take military action. In speeches and interviews Obama administration officials also bring up the president’s constitutional power to defend the country, even without congressional authorization.

http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-thats-classified

[Savannahmann]

1. Since we're struggling to spy on everyone in the world.

I'd have to say, everyone.

[Waiting For Everyman]

2. I know why -- because these groups would look so small and piddly

that the MIC couldn't justify the tremendous loads of money it's spending.

This shit is insane, and it needs to stop. This and the surveillance state both need to go. What we really need, and where a sizable chunk of those funds should be re-directed, is into prosecutions of our real enemies -- the 1% criminals who created this mess and profited from it.

[DJ13]

5. Probably the right answer

Trillions to "fight" pissant groups with memberships of 100 wouldnt go over well with the unemployed.

[Junkdrawer]

12. Could be just the opposite. China and Russia come to mind. n/t

[Catherina]

3. At war with the 99% n/t

[gollygee]

4. Either Eurasia or Eastasia

Pick either.

[KoKo]

7. The original had "war with Eurasia"...I cut it out to add another line in post.

But ....YEAH...take your pick for Endless War...and MIC/Media Industrial/Wall Street Enterprise.

[roamer65]

16. Double plus ungood.

It's Eastasia...

No hang on... It's....

[Triana]

6. Then you can probably safely assume it's us. n/t

[KoKo]

8. But, Triana...It's ALL OF US!

Like Both Parties are doing the "Inquisition!" in the new 21st Century...when kids aren't exducated about the "Grand Inquisition" in History these days.and how hard civilization fought against this ever happening again...even though we even went through Nuremberg Trials after WWII when CIVILIZATION WOKE UP and TRIED to make changes..

History is not taught the way it even was to us poor COLD WAR Propagandized Students by Courageous Teachers and Professors who tried to explain WHY Senator McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were WRONG. I had courageous teachers ...even though I grew up in South Carolina ....at that time...very long ago. TODAY kids are taught LESS by cowered Educators.

[msongs]

9. according to the constituion (remember that?) we are not at war with anybody, since their is NO

congressional declaration of war currently in effect

[Junkdrawer]

10. How can you stab another country in the back if they KNOW it ahead of time....

We're from America and we're your friend! (tm)

[Octafish]

11. That way, when we go to war with Eastasia, we'll always have been at war with Eastasia.

Then, when we go to war with Eurasia, it's just a matter of semantics or semaphors or semiotics or some such lettery thingy. What were we talking about?

In all seriousness: We are so far past democracy, the roads are no longer paved. 185-236? Wonder how that breaks down when contributions from the MIC are factored in?

[woo me with science]

13. K&R

[Th1onein]

14. How can you be charged with aiding an enemy that you didn't know was an enemy?

This really is getting weirder and weirder.

[KoKo]

15. I wonder that, also. Clever Lawyers for Human Rights..might use that one! n/t

[KoKo]

18. Yes...it's a puzzle...and to their advantage...they know the "Big Picture,"

we are still out here trying to piece it together...I think...

[kenny blankenship]

17. If they said it was "X", but then later they wanted to say it was "Y" instead

and you remembered X, because it was written down somewhere and you could go back and check on it to make sure you were remembering correctly -- well, you can easily see the bind that would put them in.

Now compare that onerous burden to the following formula.
We have ALWAYS been at war with (fill in the blank).

See how much more convenient that is? No recourse to the past statements of government agencies or officials, no written declarations of hostilities, just a pat statement that the situation today is unchanged from the situation yesterday, and so the fight continues as the Enemy remains implacably Evil.

This is what is known as making government more efficient.

The Enemy can be anybody and the whole globe is the Battlefield now, and it will stay this way -if our Dear Leaders have aught to say about it- forever.

[KoKo]

19. Kick...I still think this is ABSURD...and CRAZY! Tell me WHY it Isn't? n/t