The likely status quo path is closed or no hearings, and maybe some kind of FISA-like secret court. The question on the table is whether a little activism could change the likely status quo path.
A public hearing is intrinsically different, because it will generate press and attention and surface some issues. As you say, not all public hearings are the same, it depends who is invited to testify and what everyone says. But one thing that public hearings have in common with each other is that they are open to the press. It is likely that if there is a public hearing on the drone strikes, the dispute about low-balling civilian casualties will surface, and if this gets play in the press it will drive down public and media support for the status quo policy. And that could save the lives of innocent people who would continue to be killed under the status quo policy, so it's worth fighting for. Right now there is an opening in print media for criticism of the policy, something that was illustrated by the press coverage of the Brennan hearing. The version of the hearing that appeared in a lot of print media was: "Brennan grilled on drone strikes." If you actually watched the hearing, you just had to laugh. More like "lightly toasted." So if there is friction in a public hearing around the issue of counting civilian casualties - which is intrinsically linked to the question of who is being targeted - it is likely that press would significantly amplify that. On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't bet. Not all hearings are alike. Some are real, but it's more > likely to be either a closed hearing or a kabuki hearing. It's quite > likely that what will come out of any hearings and legislation is that > drone-based assassinations will be subject to review (or preview) by a > secret court (like FISA) that's responsible to nobody. Thus, instead > of being on Obama's shoulders, the responsibility will be shared by > the "usual suspects" of the Washington elite. > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Robert Naiman > <[email protected]> wrote: >> We're not asking her to set herself on fire, we're just asking her to >> hold a public hearing. She's already moved from where she was four >> weeks ago. Wyden is having a good influence on her. >> >> Here is a little gentlemen's wager: I claim that if we could get 400 >> phone calls from Californians into her California offices in the next >> two weeks, that would be enough. > > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your > own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
