US Predators Based in Pakistan

[ORAC]

Oops - and she chair's the Senate Intelligence Committee - at least for the moment.... :ouch:

Feinstein comment on U.S. drones likely to embarrass Pakistan (http://blogs.herald.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/02/11/calvinhobbs.jpg)

The Predator planes that launch missile strikes against militants are based in Pakistan, the senator says. That suggests a much deeper relationship with the U.S. than Islamabad would like to admit.

Reporting from Washington -- A senior U.S. lawmaker said Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator aircraft operating in Pakistan are flown from an air base in that country, a revelation likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counter-terrorism collaboration with the United States.

The disclosure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, marked the first time a U.S. official had publicly commented on where the Predator aircraft patrolling Pakistan take off and land.

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Islamic extremist targets along Pakistan's northwestern border. "As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counter-terrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad, the capital, and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country...............

Many counter-terrorism experts have assumed that the aircraft take off from U.S. military installations in Afghanistan and are remotely piloted from locations in the United States. Experts said the disclosure could create political problems for the government in Islamabad, which is considered relatively weak...........................

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, said Feinstein's comments put Pakistan's government on the spot.

"If accurate, what this says is that Pakistani involvement, or at least acquiescence, has been much more extensive than has previously been known," he said. "It puts the Pakistani government in a far more difficult position [in terms of] its credibility with its own people. Unfortunately it also has the potential to threaten Pakistani-American relations."

As chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Feinstein is privy to classified details of U.S. counter-terrorism efforts. The CIA does not publicly acknowledge a campaign against Pakistan-based extremists using remotely piloted planes, making Feinstein's comment all the more unusual.

Feinstein's disclosure came during testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee by U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair on the nation's security threats. Blair did not respond directly to Feinstein's remark, except to say that Pakistan was "sorting out" its cooperation with the United States...............



The CIA declined to comment, but former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, confirmed that Feinstein's account was accurate.

[OFBSLF]

Oops - and she chair's the Senate Intelligence Committee - at least for the moment.
She'll stay in that position. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid would never try to remove her.

[brickhistory]

Jeezus.....

[ZH875]

There are probably hundreds of predators against the US based in Pakistan.

[brickhistory]

Just remind us all, brickhistory, of what you were saying a few days ago about unauthorised release of classified..

That it is inexcusable.

While your point is well made, I did caveat between a military member and our respective political masters. One should definitely be more professional than the other.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

Was that the clunk of reverse gear being selected :p

[brickhistory]

Err, no.

As a previous poster in the "Brit Lt Col thread" gave numerous examples of British politicians leaking classified with no consequences, that poster asked why should the Lt Col?

I held in that previous 'classified info' thread that military officers (but all actually) should be held to a higher standard than politicians which is the same point made here.

Surely, even you can see that?

Not to mention the disgust "jeezus" post in this thread.

[MrWomble]

If the clunk wasn't reverse being selected then it must've been the steering wheel turning full lock to make that u-turn!

[glad rag]

For sure :D!!

[brickhistory]

Not the keenest on following a point then?



Why especially to "us across the pond?"

Given the very imprecise but emotive hundreds of thousands figures tossed around for Iraqi civilian deaths (most caused by insurgents and not US/Coalition actions, but that's a digression that doesn't play well), what's 1,600-ish? Not meaning to be callous, but why would one cause angst and not the other?

I would agree with your second point.

Someone in the Lt Col's chain of command decided the information was classified.

You are unable to answer any of your posed questions including, especially, the two quoted above.

Perhaps the Lt Col's seniors actually do know better then he and thee? Perhaps not, but it was not his or your place to make that judgement. I'm pretty sure it says something like that in the fine print of an enlistment or commissioning oath.

Selective leaking of classified by a military member is not an option I would think.



pba, while I would agree (What would be the odds of finding something nice in Afghanistan?) that it is one of the oldest tricks in the book, no pun intended, does it matter if it was malicious or not?

He, apparently, knowingly divulged classified information

Do you not hold a military officer to a higher standard than a politician?

I think it's common on both sides of the Atlantic that we hold the latter in disdain due to their many failings, including that of keeping state secrets.

I would have thought it different for the former.
4 Feb 09 13:30


For the US military, it is the same.

If it says anything other than "Unclassified" on the top and bottom, it's the start of a very bad day for the individual divulging the material, intentionally or otherwise. Similarly, it is NOT up to the individual to decide if something is or is not classifed according to his whims.

"Due process?" By all means, but even then, the US military rules (UCMJ) are different than in the civilian code.

In the case of this British Lt Col, I would think that only if the officers are in either his direct chain of command or on his court martial proceedings would be 'predjudicial (sp?)' to the defendant.

Again, if interesting, your argument about the 'embarrassment' factor or 'keeping in with the Americans' is moot. The officer either did or did not divulge classified information to one not authorized to have that information.

The FOIA, whether the information should be classified at all, etc, etc, is fine for discussion, but at the time the officer divulged the information, it was. That seems to be the merits of the incident.



Does the phrase/concept of "Bingo!" translate in the UK?


Was the information classified? Yes/no. If yes, proceed.[/font]

Was the Lt Col authorized to release the information to the woman? Yes/no. If no, proceed.

Did the Lt Col violate the law/British military law? Yes/no. If yes, proceed to court martial.

All the bashing, all the drama over whether the information should or should not be classified are completely unrelated to the basic questions listed above.

Why is that concept so hard to fathom?



Which is exactly the point. The military individual does not have the right/luxury/certain knowledge that 'it's alright to talk about it' what he knows is classified (whether it should be or not) as a matter of personal discretion.


Unless, of course, one is a politician:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has appointed controversial former CIA Director John Deutch to serve on an advisory panel reviewing the intelligence community's technical capabilities.

Ex-CIA director John Deutch lost his security clearance in the mid-1990s for mishandling top secret documents.

Deutch, who was President Clinton's CIA director for a year and a half in the mid-1990s, lost his security clearance for mishandling classified information.
At the time Deutch left the agency in late 1996, CIA security officials discovered top secret documents on Deutch's home computer, which was a violation of strict CIA policy.
The 74 classified documents included memos to the president and other cabinet officials as well as classified material from the time Deutch served as deputy defense secretary.
CIA Director George Tenet suspended Deutch's (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/john_deutch) security clearance, the toughest action he could take against the former official. Deutch voluntarily gave up his Pentagon clearance.
Deutch had reached an agreement with the Justice Department to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge and pay a fine, but before the case was filed, President Clinton pardoned him.

6 Feb 09 09:50


Did the officer have either the authorization to release the classified information or did he have the authority to make that determination?

If the answer is yes to either of the above, then he's got no worries, I would think.
If the answer is no, then I would think it's time for one of those ultimate "hat on, no coffee chats" y'all refer to them as with several court martial board members.
I'm not arguing the merits on overclassification, whether the material was embarrassing to the US or not, or any other side issue.

Was the information classified? Did the officer divulge it to someone not cleared to possess that information?

Central point I would think. I admit I am surprised by the number of posters in the military aircrew forum defending or rationalizing his alleged actions.

edited to add: Absolutely, it is up to whatever the British military legal procedure is to determine guilt or innocence and, if the former, severity of punishment.


Actually, our positions are very similar. If the officer either had permission or the proper authority to decide that he could release the information, then we agree.
If your position is that he could decide on his own without having said permission or being granted authority to make such determinations, then we disagree.

Regarding the civil investigation and legal proceedings, very interesting. Thanks.
Why is that? Is there not a British UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice - military law/system) equivalent?
Teeth fixing comment? From a Brit?[/font]



Well, it is undoubtedly true, isn't it. We and you did.

Integrity is a personal quality, and personal qualities are absent from this generation of political and military leaders.

I'll give you that regarding politicians.
Regarding British or American military members, I believe you are wrong.

Divulging classified without the proper authority is a bad thing.

One of those black and white issues for me.

As the officer in question is British, I'll leave you to him.

But with the "well, it's ok because he thought the info deserved to be out there" attitude, is troubling.
10 Feb 09 19:08



One surefire "anti-spam" mechanism is to disclose shared classified information, and even worse, to condone that behavior.[/font]



I would have thought that even the very meanest of intelligence could follow the train of thought in the British Lt Col leaking classified information.


Apparently not.

Must be a driving on the opposite side of the road thing.

[GreenKnight121]

Brickhistory...
Trying to reason with those two is futile... they don't comprehend the concept of reason.

They are living in their own world, where whatever impulse passes through their heads becomes "reality"... and anything which contradicts their "reality" ceases to exist. I doubt they even can see what you posted, as it refutes their "gotcha" giggle.

[BentStick]

Bead window :eek:

[TheInquisitor]

That SHOULD have been the response to the idiot lefty moron in the 'house' that let this one out....but hey, you chimps voted for them; now suffer the consequences...

[ORAC]

Washington Times: Did blabbermouth Feinstein spill secrets? (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/16/did-blabbermouth-feinstein-spill-secrets/)

.........This incident reinforces the growing impression that when it comes to national security policy the Democrats are not ready for prime time. The Zardari government has until now demonstrated a very cooperative attitude towards the war against our common terrorist foes. One cannot imagine that Sen. Feinstein's comments will make Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke's job any easier.

If the U.S. is operating Predators out of Pakistan as the senator alleged, al Qaeda and its allies are certain to seek ways to take them out. Terrorists have lately been mounting increasing numbers of attacks inside Pakistan on the coalition support infrastructure. Once they determine where the Predators are based (near Islamabad, according to reports), they will no doubt make destroying them a high priority.

Loose lips sinks ships, as they used to say. Maybe the intelligence committee would do better with someone more circumspect at the helm.

[Wiley]

I find myself hoping this is clever disinformation... otherwise, people on what we like to call our side are going to die because of it.

I would have thought it would be nigh on impossible to disguise the fact to the local populace, many of not most of whom had (to put it kindly) "leanings" towards the other side, that drones were operating out of a Pakistani base. I suppose it might be possible to keep launches and recoveries strictly to the dead of night, but every PAF enlisted man on the base in question would know about "that" hangar that nobody went near with Americans living in it, and you can be sure as you like that there'd be one among them who'd willingly or otherwise spill the beans to Terry Taliban.

Still, the old truism holds true... when it comes to deciding between conspiracy and cockup, cockup wins every time, and it will need to be a major operation with potentially huge rewards to make the embarrassment suffered by the Pakistani government be outweighed by the advantages that might be gained.

John Le Carre, where are you?

[nigegilb]

It is about time the world woke up to the reality of what is happening in Pakistan. If this slip of the tongue brings that day closer it can only be a good thing. As for the individual involved, it is a serious breach of security, but it is maybe for the better that Americans have a better understanding of what is actually happening in the region.

[OFBSLF]

This incident reinforces the growing impression that when it comes to national security policy the Democrats are not ready for prime time.
That's not exactly news.

[coldair]

Big story about this in todays 'Times' newspaper (UK)

Secrecy and denial as Pakistan lets CIA use airbase to strike militants - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5755490.ece)

[cresta10]

Whats the fuss about??? Check out the coordinates ( 27 51 N , 65 10 E) .These are located well within Pakistan....:ok:

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7915/uavsgl4.jpg

[BEagle]

Perhaps they were - in 2006 when that image was taken! Or was it just the local aeromodelling club?

Enjoy your visit from the chaps in the Black Omegas!