Text: Charles Freeman's Letter Withdrawing His Nomination

Related Post: How Israel Limits US Foreign Policy - The Not-so-Curious Case of Charles Freeman
Related Post: Charles Freeman’s Speech on the Middle East and Israel (October 2006)
Related Post: Coming Next in the Intelligence-Policy Battle - Iran’s Uranium

Reprinted from Mondoweiss:

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

To all who supported me or gave me words of encouragement during the controversy of the past two weeks, you have my gratitude and respect.

You will by now have seen the statement by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair reporting that I have withdrawn my previous acceptance of his invitation to chair the National Intelligence Council.

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country. I agreed to chair the NIC to strengthen it and protect it against politicization, not to introduce it to efforts by a special interest group to assert control over it through a protracted political campaign.

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.” I was mindful that no one is indispensable; I am not an exception. It took weeks of reflection for me to conclude that, given the unprecedentedly challenging circumstances in which our country now finds itself abroad and at home, I had no choice but accept the call to return to public service. I thereupon resigned from all positions that I had held and all activities in which I was engaged. I now look forward to returning to private life, freed of all previous obligations.

I am not so immodest as to believe that this controversy was about me rather than issues of public policy. These issues had little to do with the NIC and were not at the heart of what I hoped to contribute to the quality of analysis available to President Obama and his administration. Still, I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

The outrageous agitation that followed the leak of my pending appointment will be seen by many to raise serious questions about whether the Obama administration will be able to make its own decisions about the Middle East and related issues. I regret that my willingness to serve the new administration has ended by casting doubt on its ability to consider, let alone decide what policies might best serve the interests of the United States rather than those of a Lobby intent on enforcing the will and interests of a foreign government.

In the court of public opinion, unlike a court of law, one is guilty until proven innocent. The speeches from which quotations have been lifted from their context are available for anyone interested in the truth to read. The injustice of the accusations made against me has been obvious to those with open minds. Those who have sought to impugn my character are uninterested in any rebuttal that I or anyone else might make.

Still, for the record: I have never sought to be paid or accepted payment from any foreign government, including Saudi Arabia or China, for any service, nor have I ever spoken on behalf of a foreign government, its interests, or its policies. I have never lobbied any branch of our government for any cause, foreign or domestic. I am my own man, no one else’s, and with my return to private life, I will once again – to my pleasure – serve no master other than myself. I will continue to speak out as I choose on issues of concern to me and other Americans.

I retain my respect and confidence in President Obama and DNI Blair. Our country now faces terrible challenges abroad as well as at home. Like all patriotic Americans, I continue to pray that our president can successfully lead us in surmounting them.

The Inaugural Enduring America Award for Global Irrelevancy (Part 2)

Our Inaugural Irrelevant Laureate, Mr John Bolton, is at it again. Here is his sure-fire recipe for glorious American triumph in Iraq:



"I think President Obama should declare victory. That would be the smart thing to do." Where have I heard that before? Maybe....

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFijzDyJnVE&feature=related[/youtube]

Engaging Iran: The Obama Administration, A Think Tank, and An Israel-First Policy?

Last week the Washington Institute for Near East Policy released its latest report on Iran, "Preventing a Cascade of Instability: U.S. Engagement to Check Iranian Nuclear Progress" . At its heart is a wonderful if dangerous (and unacknowledeged) tension. The influential think-tank thunders:

An Iran on the brink of possessing, or actually possessing, nuclear weapons would create a multitude of problems in the Middle East. Not only would the United States have to deter and contain an emboldened Iran, it could also have to forestall a cascade of destabilizing reactions by other states, whether they were to accommodate Iran, attack it, or match its capabilities. Preventing Iran’s acquisition or development of a military nuclear capability is therefore a vital national priority.

Yet, in the next breath, WINEP declares that the purpose of blocking Iran's "nuclear progress" (not "nuclear weapons" but "progress" towards any nuclear energy capability) is not defensive but ensure Washington remakes the region in its desired image:

Confronting the Iran nuclear program also offers other opportunities to advance U.S. interests: to demonstrate U.S. commitment to multilateral diplomacy, to deepen U.S. relationships with its Middle East friends, and to strengthen the global nonproliferation regime.

To do this, the report advocates a two-stage process. The Obama Administration can initially pursue diplomacy, but "time is short if diplomatic engagement is to have a chance of success":

If the international community appears unable to stop Iran’s nuclear progress, Israel may decide to act unilaterally. Whatever Americans may think, Israeli leaders seem convinced that at least for now, they have a military option....Israel...may feel compelled to act before the option disappears.

Thus, the US has to "use deterrence as an instrument of dissuasion", in other words, give a lot of weapons to Arab states and Tel Aviv: "The enhancement of the modern missile defenses already being deployed in Israel and purchased by several GCC states may introduce uncertainty into the minds of Iranian leaders about the military utility of Iran’s nuclear and missile programs." It also should "use the risk of cascading instability to produce more action now", which is none-too-subtle coding for more aggressive economic sanctions.

So, does this have any significance for policy inside the Obama Administration, rather than advice outside it? WINEP has received attention because, up to early 2009, its leadership and task forces included Obama officials such as Dennis Ross (now envoy for Southwest Asia and "the Gulf") and Susan Rice (Ambassador to the United Nations). This current report draws upon a June 2008 predecessor, signed by Ross and Rice, "Strengthening the Partnership: How to Deepen U.S.-Israel Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge".

Yet, in that context, there is an important between the 2008 and 2009 WINEP approaches, one which may or may not point to the rapid-fire diplomacy of Obama's "engagement" and Hillary Clinton's wild ride across the Middle East last week. The earlier report advocated many of the measures in its 2009 successor, but this was founded on an important starting premise:

"That the president initiate, with the prime minister of Israel, a high-level dialogue on the most urgent security matters on our strategic agenda so as to ensure that common threat perceptions and
common interests translate into policies that are as coordinated as possible."

This dialogue would not be begun by the leaders of the US and Israel or their highest-level representatives --- this might be politically sensitive --- but by "one or two...aides...among the most trusted advisors to the president and prime minister --- officials or emissaries empowered to engage in all manner of discussion with the utmost creativity and maximum discretion."

"Preventing a Cascade of Instability" offers no such recommendation. So, has the starting point of an Iran policy based on discussions with Tel Aviv been dropped, by WINEP or --- more importantly --- the Obama Administration? Or, through an official such as Dennis Ross, has it simply been smuggled in quietly, pending the arrival of a new Israeli Government?

War on Terror: Obama Keeps a Grip on Bush Executive Power (Part 2)

Related Post: War on Terror Watch - Obama Keeps a Grip on Bush’s Executive Powers

Within The New York Times report on its Friday interview with President Obama, obscured by the article's misleading focus on Afghanistan, is a revealing insight into the Obama Administration's approach on the "War on Terror": talk the talk, but no walking the walk when it comes to giving back legal rights.

Obama's answer to the Times reporters was definitive, "We [must] ultimately provide anybody that we’re detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus. to answer to charges."

In fact, it was too definitive. Before the Times published the article on the interview, "Aides...said Mr. Obama did not mean to suggest that everybody held by American forces would be granted habeas corpus or the right to challenge their detention."



Oh.

Apparently, the President was referring "only to a Supreme Court decision last year finding that prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention". He was not referring to the US prison at Camp Bagram, Afghanistan, where there are more than 600 detainees and where the number is expected to double in the near-future.

And, as we noted earlier this morning, he must not be referring to the indefinite detention of a US citizen on US soil, since his Justice Department is refusing to vacate the principle that habeas corpus can be suspended by the President.

Nope, when the President refers to restoring the legal rights of "anybody", what he must mean is "anybody whom the Supreme Court, after years of hearings and attempted blocking and evasion by the Justice Department, rules has legal rights".

Perhaps the unnamed, unseen "aides" can call us to ensure there are no more corrections to be made.

War on Terror Watch: Obama Keeps a Grip on Bush's Executive Powers

Related Post: War on Terror - Obama Keeps a Grip on Bush Executive Power (Part 2)

Here's a case that, because of its complexity, won't make the front page in the War on Terror.

Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri has been held in a US prison for six years. He is suspected of being an Al Qa'eda terrorist, but until last week no charges were brought. Instead the Bush Administration, in an extension of their "unlawful combatant" construction for Guantanamo Bay, had argued that al-Marri was an imminent danger without allowing a criminal trial.

Last week the Obama Administration finally brought criminal charges (two counts of support for terrorism) against al-Marri, remedying the immediate issue of his status. That, however, left the question: was the Bush Administration justified in suspending habeas corpus, the fundamential legal principle that a person cannot be held without formal arrest and arraignment. As of March 2009, the legal precedent was Yes: the U.S. Court of Appeals had ruled last year that the President had legal authority to imprison al-Marri indefinitely without charge.

Obama and advisors could have put money where their mouth is in their commitment to match security and values, supporting the effort to overturn that precedent. Instead, on Friday the Justice Department asked the US Supreme Court to rule the al-Marri case irrelevant, given the filing of criminal charges. The Court denied the request, vacating the Court of Appeals decision. At the same time, it balked at hearing the case to give a definitive ruling on Bush's grab of power.

This is now becoming part of a pattern. The new Administration will announce specific decisions as a change of course from Bush: there is the principle of closing Guantanamo Bay within 12 months and the principle against torture. It has released specific documents showing how and why Bush advisors twisted the law to rationalise an unlimited extension of Executive power.

However, when it comes to repudiating in law, rather than words, that sweeping grab of Presidential authority, the Obama Administration is saying to the courts, "Not your business." Not the courts' business to scrutinise the Bush claim for warrantless surveillance of anyone within the US, not the courts' business to consider the rendition of detainees to other countries, not the courts' business to consider the indefinite imprisonment of a person on US territory.

Last year, we wrote that this would be a fundamental challenge for Obama: could a President willingly surrender the power, which might or might not be used but was always available, claimed by a predecessor? If the answer is No, it appears this will have to come from the courts, not the 44th President of the United States.