What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• Light Sweet Crude is up $7.87 to $94.07 today on the New York Mercantile Exchange.


• The UN Security Council has gone into a closed session to address Libya. No word on results of that meeting yet.


• The 40 year old Iranian frigate and support ship passed through the Suez today. The Israelis are staying mum after making quite a lot of noise last week.


• Raymond Davis, the American being held by Pakistan over the killing of two Pakistanis, looks to be a private security contractor hired (though not employed) by the CIA. Color me unsurprised. 


• Protests continue in Wisconsin. The Dropkick Murphys have released early a song off their forthcoming album in solidarity with the Workers.
  

Looking at Revenue

House Republicans rejected an amendment to their spending bill that would have corrected an error that will cost taxpayers $53 billion over 25 years.  Matthew Steinglass breaks down the situation more here, but the issue is leasing rights on public land for deepwater drilling.  An oil company would pay royalties to a private landowner, typically, for the rights to drill on their land.  The government decided to grant free leases on otherwise commercially nonviable lands.  The commerical viability of the land was contigent on the price of oil, and thus the leases should not have been given out after the price of oil reached a certain point. Through a Minerals Management Service error, free leases were given when they shouldn't have been.


The amendment, offered by Rep. Markey, would have corrected the lease free error going forward.  It would not have sought payment for passed royalties.  According to GAO, it would netted the government $53 billion in revenue over 25 years.  You can mock the original error, but to use the error to exonerate the oil companies from paying the leases in the future seems like a stretch.  We have been hearing constantly about how we have to cut spending, but there are two sides to the ledger.  Passage of this amendment would have done very little to help the deficit, but the revenue collected would have fully funded USAID every year, according to figures taken from the Republican Study Committee.  If Speaker Boehner and his House Republican colleagues were truly serious about addressing the deficit, you would think they'd support an amendment that collects royalties from oil companies, especially since these same oil companies pay royalties to use private land.

The Short List

• Libya remains embroiled in protests and it appears Qaddafi's rule is growing increasingly tenuous.  Earlier this morning the Libyan Ambassador to the U.S. was on Good Morning America calling for Qaddafi to go(video).


• Midlevel Taliban leaders admit to a rift between themselves and top Taliban commanders.  The midlevel leaders have grown weary of a fight that the top commanders don't personally participate in.  In Kabul, there are reports that Gen. Petraeus offended the Karzai government.  Ahmed Rashid sits down with The Economist to discuss Pakistan's multi-facted crisis(audio).


• Scores have been killed in an earthquake in New Zealand.

Libya, Briefly

Former British Foreign Minister David Owen today called for a UN No-Fly Zone to be adopted and imposed on Libya. Owen’s call came in the wake of the defection of two senior Libyan air force pilots and reports of the state’s use of airstrikes against protesters in Tripoli. Along with the defection of the two pilots, several Libyan diplomats resigned in protest over the state’s use of force against protesters. At the same time, protesters in Benghazi have declared their city liberated from the regime.

Targeted Killing Justifications and Revelations

Recent revelations about the procedures used by the United States in its targeted killing program indicate that the U.S. views individuals selected for targeted killing as legitimate targets at all times. That is, once identified, a targeted individual may be subject to the use of force at any time thereafter. However, such continuous targetability calls into question the ability of the United States to rely on self-defense as one of its two legal justifications for its targeted killing program. Strikes against these continuously targetable individuals would then only be lawful within the context of an armed conflict. Any targeted killing outside of an armed conflict or valid self-defense would be an illegal, extrajudicial execution.

The United States defends the legality of its covert targeted killing program on the basis that those killings fall within the paradigms of armed conflict or self-defense. Both justifications afford a state the right to use force against another state, non-state actor, or arguably an individual. Both justifications are subject to strict requirements and limitations.

International law admits only two categories of armed conflict: international and non-international. International armed conflicts occur whenever there is a resort to force between two states. Non-international armed conflicts occur between states and non-state actors, or among non-state actors, and are distinguished from riots or domestic disturbances by the level of organization of the non-state actor and the intensity of the hostilities between the parties. When engaged in an armed conflict, a state may lawfully use force against enemy combatants or civilians who directly participate in hostilities.

Judging a state’s reliance on self-defense is more difficult—particularly when it is invoked as a justification for a covert or unacknowledged state action. Self-defense must be predicated on an imminent or ongoing armed attack. The force used must be necessary to disrupt that armed attack and the force used must be proportionate  the need to repel or deter that armed attack. Moreover, to be invoked against an imminent armed attack, that attack must be more than a mere threat. This difference in threat versus imminent armed attack is the difference between the 1967 Israeli strike against the Egyptian air force—valid as self-defense—and the 1981 Israeli strike against the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor—not valid as self-defense.

Here, then, lies the particular difficulty of evaluating the lawfulness of a targeted killing justified by self-defense. These attacks are covert and are based on classified intelligence information. How are those of us outside of government to adjudge whether a targeted killing satisfied the requirement that the United States faced an imminent armed attack? The question is impossible to answer directly, so we are forced to rely on public characterizations of the targeted killing program and the procedures on which it is based.

Public characterizations of the United States’ targeted killing program suggest that there are in fact two distinct programs: one operated by the U.S. military and the other by the Central Intelligence Agency. Public characterizations have further indicated that the CIA’s program, at least, maintains a list or bullpen of individuals who are targeted and remain targetable until killed. It is this continuous targetability that calls into question the United States’ reliance on self-defense.

This is not to say that a state, a non-state actor, or an individual cannot be continuously responsible for imminent or ongoing armed attacks. However, such a scenario better describes armed conflict and its attendant intense hostilities than self-defense. Of course, armed conflict provides the authority to use force against these individuals. Moreover, those hostilities would be observable to the general public and would likely look a lot like what is going in Northwest Pakistan—such frequent resort to targeted killings that hostilities between the United States and non-state actors likely place the United States in an armed conflict there.

The same cannot be said for U.S. involvement in Yemen and Somalia, for instance. The United States reportedly uses force in those locales only sporadically. The individuals it targets there may be continuously plotting against the United States. They may be continuously recruiting potential attackers. And they almost certainly present a significant threat to the United States. However, it is unlikely—given both the sporadic use of force by the United States and the sporadic publicly known actual or attempted attacks against the United States—that these individuals are continuously responsible for imminent armed attacks within the meaning of self-defense.

Without the ability to rely on self-defense as a justification for a targeted killing, the United States’ must rely on the existence of an armed conflict for the authority to employ force. If no armed conflict exists where and when the United States employs a targeted killing, and that targeted killing does not satisfy self-defense, then such action can only be described as an extrajudicial execution—a gross violation of international law and human rights norms.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• A bloody one in Bahrain where the government continued to crackdown on protesters and protesters remained defiant. Protests also continued in Libya and Yemen.


• And the U.S. vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution that would have accurately described Israeli settlements in the West Bank as illegal. The other 14 members of the Security Council voted in favor of the resolution.


• The U.S. Government shutdown appears more likely.


• Sen. Bingaman out. Democrats in the Senate appear bound and determined to retire themselves into the minority.


• Wisconsin. **Editorial Note: Solidarity, Brothers and Sisters.**

Public Sector Unions in Wisconsin

I'm afraid I don't have time to properly break the situation in Wisconsin down fully.  I'm hoping to find some time over the weekend, but here's an aggregation of posts out there and then some brief commentary.

• Will Wilkinson on the situation.  I'm disappointed he fails to address how collective bargaining will be affected if the law passes, as that seems to be the most objectionable part of the legislation.


• Ezra Klein on what the bill would actually do if passed.


• The Washington Post with today's article on the situation.


• Harold Meyerson writing at The American Prospect yesterday.  This is the piece that drew me into the issue.


• Will Wilkinson and Matt Steinglass actually discussed this issue about a week and a half ago.  Here is WW's and MS's pieces respectfully.

Commentary:  This is a very specific issue that has led to a major debate over the role of unions, the role of public sector unions, political favoritism, and addressing fiscal crises.  Some bulleted thoughts:

• Unions serve a valuable purpose in our economy, and while the private sector has largely eliminated unions I would suggest that has not been a net positive for workers.


• I agree with much of Mr. Wilkinson's description of exceptionalism as it relates to public sector unions, but does that mean they should be broken up?  I'm unconvinced at this point.


• It is unsurprising, but also unseemly, that Wisconsin's Gov. Walker has put in an exemption in the bill for firemen and law enforcement unions.  I think it undermines the governor's ability to be serious about the fiscal crisis when he leaves out the unions it is most political treacherous to confront, and who tended to support him.


• Clearly many states need to get their fiscal houses in order.  They can't finance debt like the federal government can.  However, I've heard that Gov. Walker did not approach the unions to re-negotiate terms.  This, again, undermines his credibility in my eyes.  If you go to the table and people say "no" then you need to explore other options.  I think he's trying to do this quick and dirty which seems to make it more about politics then fiscal responsibility.

One final thought:  I see something happening in the political discourse surrounding public budget and fiscal crises.  I see the debate being framed by two principles, "Any new public spending is wasteful and reckless," and "Any spending cuts are virtuous and necessary."  This framing concerns me, because it's not true.  Do municipalities, states, and the federal government need to tighten their belts?  Yes.  But we can't forget to invest in the future.  Likewise, many proposals to cut spending are thoughtful and necessary, but many are punitive and seek to cut to a magic number not based on campaign promises.

My feeling to this point, without really diving into the issue, is that Gov. Walker's proposal is overly punitive.  I also believe some concessions will likely need to be made by the public sector unions and if they prove intransigent, then alternatives would need to be offered.

The Short List

• The funerals for slain protesters in Bahrain became part of the protests in the small country.  There are concerns that the protesters will respond to government violence with violence of their own, escalating the situation.  Additionally, there is a Sunni/Shiite aspect to the protests that makes the outcomes all the murkier.


• In Egypt, there a concerns that the military is consolidating its already substantial economic interests, which could stymie any economic liberalization.  Human rights groups are confronting the Egyptian military for a series of detainments of civilians, some emerging with signs of torture.  Some have not been released.


• The Economist discusses protests in Iran and if the Green Movement has been revitalized.  As previously reported, opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi remains missing.


• The U.S. is trying to head off a UN Security Council vote that would declare Israeli settlements in the West Bank to be illegal.  The Economist considers the mood in Israel as the Arab Spring continues.


• President Obama has waded into the Wisconsin union showdown.  Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker introduced legislation that would eliminate collective bargaining for anything beyond pay.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• Workers, Unions, and Democrats in Wisconsin stood up for workers' rights.


• Politico says that Speaker Boehner is playing chicken with a government shutdown.


• The horror show that is the Palin 2012 Presidential run continues to lurch towards reality.


• Mir Hussein Mousavi, Iranian opposition figure and leader of the Green Movement, is missing.


• Sec. Def. Gates admitted to the Senate Armed Forces Committee today that if Bin Laden (or others) are captured outside of acknowledge battle fields (say, Yemen or Pakistan or Somalia), the United States does not have a legal framework under which to work--some 10 years after 9/11.


• Iran may or may not be sending a 43 year old Alvand class frigate and a supply ship through the Suez Canal.


• The City of Baghdad is suing the United States for damage inflicted on the city.

The Short List

• The Bahraini police attacked sleeping protesters in Manama's Pearl Square with shotguns, concussion grenades, and tear gas.  Five people were reportedly killed and over 200 are reported injured.  CIA World Factbook entry on Bahrain.


• In Basra, in southern Iraq, hundreds protested and demanded the ouster of the local governor.  The protests centered around a lack of jobs and government services.


• Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas has declared elections will not go forward unless the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip is included.


• The Economist discusses commerce in Mogadishu, neglects to mention Somaliland at all.


• The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reports that cyber-attacks suffered by the Canadian Finance Department and Treasury Board originated in China.  China's Foreign Ministry dismissed the allegation.


• IBM's trivia-trouncing computer, Watson, crushed legends Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter on Jeopardy last night on the final day of a three day exhibition.  Mr. Jennings had the best line of the night though, when answering the final Jeopardy question adding on "I for one welcome our new computer overlords."  A magnificent play on the Simpsons line embedded below.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• A Federal District Court in Manhattan sentenced a Somali pirate to 34 years incarceration. He is the only survivor of the April 2009 hijacking of the Maersk Alabama--not to be confused with the November 2009 attempted hijacking of the Maersk Alabama. Somali piracy continues to grow as a threat to international security.


• The Fed revised its 2011 US economic growth projections upwards.


• The House of Representatives voted 233-198 to cancel an alternate engine for the F-35. Tea Partiers broke with the GOP who, led by Speaker Boehner, sought to preserve the $3 billion expenditure, as it provides 1,000 jobs in his home state. In contrast, yesterday, Speaker Boehner reacted with ambivalence to the possibility of federal employees losing their jobs due to federal budget cuts.


• Sen. Kerry asked that the U.S. and Pakistan move beyond the diplomatic flap arising from last month's shooting. Friend of DCExile, CHUP!, fleshes out that story.

Egypt - Different Obvious Lessons

Matthew Yglesias, writing in The American Prospect online, advocates for the United States to be on “the right side of history” and reconsider our support of at least un-democratic and at worst authoritarian regimes in the Middle East.  “The status quo in the Middle East is not sustainable and won’t be sustained,” Yglesias declares.  I think the sentiment is right, but the rose-colored glasses with which he reviews the region and revolution gives an incomplete picture.

The first issue is a matter of perspective.  I agree, the status quo is not sustainable and the U.S. concern is what comes next.  Don’t we still fear what will happen in Egypt?  Aren’t we still concerned that of an Islamist emergence a la Iran 1979 will take hold?  I think Yglesias discounts those concerns because he believes, “the longer the U.S. government stays in bed with kleptocrats, the more severe popular discontent against the United States becomes.”  I would contend there are limits to enmity, and a few decades of support to Middle Eastern autocrats builds a level of enmity that takes a long time to erase.  I subscribe to the “in for a penny, in for a pound” approach.  This would seem to conflicts with my post on reevaluating our alliances in the Middle East, but as I said in that post, we can’t turn our backs on these alliances.  From the perspective of the United States, autocrats give stability until they don’t. If the situation changes we will need to recalibrate our allegiances.  I would argue our most recent experience in Egypt is a strong example of the recalibration we can execute if we find a country at its tipping point.

Secondly, we have to work with the countries that are in power now.  Mr. Yglesias would have us side with the dissidents, causing immeasurable harm to our national security projections in some of the hottest corners of the world.  Mr. Yglesias might argue that it is our patronage of the governments in the region that makes them so hot, and I would not entirely disagree, but to my first point, ceasing that patronage would create good will, yes, but also undermine current stability, and limit our force projection in the region.  The cost-benefit analysis just doesn’t add up to a full-scale reversal of decades of U.S. foreign policy.

I’ll end by saying this: what happened in Egypt over the past three weeks may prove to be the turning point for the land of the pharaohs, but the jury is still out.  It’s a momentous thing to see people break the shackles of authoritarianism.  Regardless of the brotherhood I feel with the Egyptian people, from the perspective of the United States we can’t hop on the bandwagon of every protest or every dissident group.

The United States, by most accounts, managed the revolution in Egypt quite well.  I actually have confidence we can manage a similar situation as well, if not better, in the future.  I would like nothing more then to stick it to all the strongmen and monarchs that limit the freedom of their people in the Middle East, but the ideal and the practical are not one in the same.

The Short List

• The New York Times covers the internet shutdown in Egypt during the protests that failed to stop a revolution, but perhaps precludes the future of government response.  The Economist released a podcast on the same topic.


• Republicans were largely unhappy with the Presidents FY 2012 budget proposal, but many indicated a willingness to work with the White House.  The Economist considers the utility of a budget proposal that doesn't seek to address entitlements.  **Editorial Note: I wonder if the same spirit of cooperation will be there in January 2013, if Obama wins a second term?**


• The infamous CIA source code-name "Curveball," Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janadi, admitted to The Guardian that he lied about bioweapons technology in Iraq prior to the invasion.


• In North Korea, reports indicate Kim Jong-il's son, Kim Jong-un, has been elevated to second most powerful position in the government.  The move, if confirmed, would seem to remove all doubt that Kim Jong-un will succeed his father.


• The bookstore Borders has filed for bankruptcy, making DCExile happy we didn't upgrade to Borders Rewards Plus.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• A PPP Poll shows that 51% of Republican primary voters nationwide wrongly believe that Pres. Obama was not born in the United States. The poll follows Speaker Boehner's cowardly performance on Meet the Press Sunday, criticized by DCExile and William Saletan. 


• Newsweek has an article providing new details on the CIA's targeted killing program.


• Unrest continued for a second day in Bahrain, while the Green Movement arguably has been reinvigorated in Iran.


• A timely Pew analysis discusses pro-democracy sentiment among Egyptians before their revolution.


• Yet more bad news about food prices.


• Update: Friend of DCExile, Reza Marashi, appears on CBC to discuss Iran and protests

With Friends Like These

Something happened last week, which was not widely reported (though we mentioned it in Thursday’s Short List).  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had a testy exchange with President Obama, cautioning Obama not to humiliate Mubarak.  This part actually has been reported widely, but there was a second part people have not devoted much time to.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pledged to provide $1.5 billion in aid to the Mubarak government if the Obama administration decided to drop its aid.  This pledge may no longer be valid, but it’s worth coming back to because of what it means to the U.S. concept of allies in the Middle East.

It also ties in to a column David Ignatius wrote in Thursday’s Washington Post.  Mr. Ignatius considers the blind spot the CIA has developed because of their reliance on “liaisons.”  Liaisons are members of the intelligence apparatus in foreign countries.  In Egypt, it’s the General Intelligence Service. It goes by a similar name in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.  While in Pakistan, their intelligence service is called Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI.  Basically, Ignatius considers how the CIA has been relying on these liaison relationships to provide intelligence on terror threats.  These relationships have had their ups and downs, but has provided the U.S. with vital intelligence (and often legal cover) in dealing with various threats.  But, the reliance on these relationships has left the CIA blind to the unrest and discontent within the countries of our allies.  Part of the terms of the relationships, often times, makes it nearly impossible for the CIA to recruit its own sources or assets in the country.  The agency is beholden to these relationships.  It is a problem that has plagued our efforts in Pakistan for years.

These two pieces together should necessitate a reconsideration of the terms of these alliances.  That’s a big ask, but we need to learn from history.  In Steve Coll’s Ghost Wars, there is a lot of consideration of the interplay between the CIA, ISI, and Saudi Arabia’s General Intelligence Department (GID), and the more you read the more you get the sense that the ISI and the GID are trying to keep the U.S. on the leash.  The CIA was tossed some red meat, and ISI and GID were tossed some cash, but the larger objectives weren’t the same.  In addition to this lack of alignment in objectives, the Saudi regime routed money to jihadists training in Pakistan and Afghanistan long after the Soviet Union’s withdraw.  It has been widely reported that the money coming from Saudi Arabia was used to found madrases in the hinterlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

We need to reconsider the terms of these alliances for several reasons.  First, what we want and what the intelligence services of our allies want are not in alignment.  Second, the reliance on the foreign intelligence services has made us blind to what’s going on inside these countries, while at the same time perpetuating distrust and anger in the people of these countries against the United States.  Third, even if we are able to disrupt some terror cells, these allies, specifically Saudi Arabia, is more then happy to publicly break with us, while still enjoying the shade of our security umbrella.

It’s impractical to break these alliances.  It’s not in keeping with the nuance of diplomacy to simply withdraw, but perhaps it’s time for the U.S. to take stock.  What is it we want to accomplish in the Middle East?  Are our current allies aligned with what we want to accomplish?  The revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are being called part of an Arab Spring.  If that is true, if these revolutions give momentum to the disaffected within the borders of our Middle Eastern allies, the U.S. will be challenged with the same dance we have had to dance regarding Egypt.  It’s time to consider our dancing partners and if we are taking complimentary steps.

The Short List

• Protests continue around the Middle East, in the wake of Tunisia's and Egypt's revolutions.  Egypt's military rulers have selected retired judge, Tareq al-Bishry, to lead a committee in consider constitutional changes.  The Economist's Lexington columnist reflects on U.S. involvement in the Middle East over the past 20 years and opportunities in the future.  Meanwhile, we're not sure if Roger Simon is trying to be ironic or a twerp with a column that confirms Politico's status as a rag publication.


• As Secretary of State Clinton will lay out a State Department plan to foster internet independence.  Meanwhile, Facebook is less revolutionary force and more corporate bystander.  **Editorial Note:  The juxtaposition of these two articles is exactly the kind of blind cyber-utopianism that Evgeny Morozov warns us about in The Net Delusion (DCExile book review forthcoming).**


• A judge in Ecuador ruled that Chevron needs to pay $9 billion to compensate various groups over pollution to remote parts of the Ecuadorean jungle.  Appeals by both the winning and the losing side are expected.


• Over 200 people were killed in South Sudan, after a renegade militia attacked.


• Marc Grossman has been selected to replace the late Richard Holbrooke as AfPak Special Envoy.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• The Obama Administration released its proposed FY 2012 budget. Mark Halperin gives big billing to Palin's two paragraph response to the 200 page document--which dropped just 5 hours after the budget's release--perhaps saying more about Halperin than Palin.


• Oil continued its month-long slide. WTI is now about $9 off its nearly $93 high at the end of January.


• Shirley Sherrod is suing Andrew Breitbart.


• Moderate unrest in Iran has caught a lot of attention in the Washington Post and the New York Times. The level of interest is interesting when you consider the relative disinterest at the beginning of unrest in Egypt more than three weeks ago or the beginning of unrest in Tunisia in December. Receiving less coverage are the waves being made by the Palestinian Authority, whose cabinet today resigned en masse. In Libya, a joke going around is that Qaddafi has banned Fridays because both the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions culminated on Fridays.

Just the Facts, Speaker Boehner

Speaker John Boehner was on Meet the Press yesterday.  Interviewer David Gregory brought up the persistent notion within Republican circles that President Obama was not born in the United States and that President Obama is a Muslim.  Mr. Gregory points to a clip on Fox News where half or more members of a Republican study group believe that President Obama is a Muslim.  Mr. Gregory challenged Speaker Boehner to decide if he has a responsibility to tell the American people the facts.  Speaker Boehner said it’s not for him to tell people what to think, he then said the state of Hawaii has said President Obama was born in that state.  He also said he will take the President at his word when he says he’s a Christian.

I was flabbergasted by this response.  His answer was not an assertion of the facts, it was a statement of faith.  But the discussion wasn’t a matter of faith, it was a matter of fact.  President Obama was born in Hawaii.  President Obama is a practicing Christian.  These are facts and it’s disappointing that the Speaker of the House, the man who will need to work with the White House to address the policy needs of this country, can’t simply say that.  People will say I’m nitpicking, and maybe I am, but when you watch the video you can see Speaker Boehner trying to rhetorically discredit the position he says he believes in.  It was a pathetic display.  Then again, maybe I should be unsurprised.  Paul Krugman has been spending some time in his columns recently to address the Republican party’s rejection of facts and analysis time and time and time again to score some cheap political points.  Maybe I should be thankful Speaker Boehner even said Obama was a Christian, but his half-hearted defense in the face of blatant falsehoods was pathetic and cowardly.  We should be able to expect more.

You can watch the full exchange to make up your own mind here:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Short List

• Over the weekend, the Egyptian army dissolved Parliament, suspended the Constitution, and call for elections in six months.  The army leadership also sat down with a group of the revolution's organizers.


• Protests continue in Yemen, but some of the key opposition groups did not participate.  Skirmishes also broke out in Bahrain.


• In Iran, security forces were deployed to intimidate members of opposition groups that intended to march in a show of solidarity with the people of Egypt.


• The people of Tunisia begin to deal with life after a revolution, as they try to rebuild their government from scratch.


• President Obama's budget for FY2012 will be unveiled today.  The $3.7 trillion plan would cut or eliminate over 200 federal programs, while also making investments in education, transportation, and research in keeping with the SOTU address.


• China surpassed Japan to become the second largest economy in the world in 2010.