Micah Zenko for the Council on Foreign Relations: “It’s fair to say that, in the first couple of years of my presidency, the architecture — legal architecture, administrative architecture, command structures — around how these were utilized was underdeveloped relative to how fast the technology was moving …
“The decision-making was, was not ad-hoc, but it was embedded in decisions that are made all the time about, you know, a commander leading a military operation, or an intelligence team trying to take out a terrorist. And there wasn’t enough of an overarching structure,” President Obama said earlier this month about drone strikes.
This means that for four years, four months and three days, Obama authorized drone strikes based on what he believed were poorly developed structures and decision-making processes. That military and intelligence officials were applying to unmanned platforms the doctrine and principles that they applied to all other weapons platforms, which ignores the wholly unique capabilities that drones provide, which makes their use far more likely.
This also suggests that the final authority was further down the chain-of-command than the White House was selectively claiming with its “kill-list” …
But more consequentially, between Jan. 20, 2009, and May 23, 2013, the United States conducted 377 drone strikes in non-battlefield settings, which killed 2,741 individuals, 334 of whom are believed to be civilians.
How can the White House today stand behind those operations and the deceased victims when Obama admits that there were inadequate processes in place? This is yet another reason why there must be a systematic retroactive assessment of U.S. counterterrorism strikes in non-battlefield settings, resembling one study that examined the detention and interrogation of terrorist suspects.
If those 119 detainees deserved such a study, why wouldn’t the 2,741 drone strike victims deserve the same?
The climate targeting of Exxon Mobil
William O’Keefe for Economic Policies for the 21st Century: Massachusetts and the Virgin Islands recently joined New York in its investigation into whether Exxon Mobil misled the public and its investors about climate change. This brings the total number of state attorneys general to have initiated similar investigations to 20. Additionally, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced that she had referred the matter to the FBI.
While the named target is Exxon Mobil, it has been made clear that the investigatory net is going to be thrown over other oil companies and, by implication, the so-called skeptics who have been involved in the climate debate.
The targeted companies can and will defend the actions they have taken on the issue of climate change. Some may be tempted to consider the equivalent of some sort of plea bargain that would involve greenmail payments and promises to behave more responsibly in the future. That would be a serious mistake and would weaken First Amendment protections.
The crux of the allegation is whether these organizations and others who may have been associated with them knowingly engaged in deception. To be guilty, the weight of evidence would have to show that: climate change was a serious risk, that the risk was significantly increased by Exxon Mobil’s actions and that Exxon Mobil failed to support programs and policies that reduce CO2 emissions.
None of the articles written about these allegations have provided evidence that any company has denied that climate change is real or that human activities have an influence on climate.
Banks have too much influence with the Fed
Dean Baker for the Center for Economic Policy Research: Under the Federal Reserve System’s current structure, the banks largely control the 12 Federal Reserve district banks. This matters because the presidents of these banks are part of the Federal Reserve Board’s Open Market Committee, which determines monetary policy …
There is no obvious reason that the banking industry should have special input into the country’s monetary policy. That would be comparable to reserving seats on the Federal Communications Commission’s board for the cable television industry …
This is an especially important issue because the Fed’s policies are central to the health of the economy. If the Fed’s fears over inflation lead it to raise interest rates to slow the economy and reduce the rate of job creation, there is little that Congress would be able to do to counteract the Fed’s actions. For example, if the Fed wants to prevent the unemployment rate from dropping below 4.5 percent unemployment, there would be little that Congress and the president could do to get unemployment lower.
In that case, the Fed may needlessly be keeping millions of people out work, disproportionately minorities and less-educated workers, because of a possibly mistaken view of the economy’s limits. Furthermore, by deliberately weakening the labor market, the Fed would be keeping tens of millions of workers from having the bargaining power they need to secure wage gains.
While governors who are appointed by democratically elected officials are likely to recognize the importance of reducing unemployment and balance it against the risk of inflation, the district bank presidents are likely to be less concerned about unemployment.
It is worth noting that all the dissenting votes calling for a more hawkish stance since the start of the recession have been cast by bank presidents.
It is likely that the need to maintain the support of the bank presidents on the Fed’s rate-setting committee has prevented the central bank from being more aggressive in trying to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
