Judy Miller, Barabara Starr, and an Influx of Intelligence

I’m going to disappoint Jim by not dedicating a full post to Judy Miller’s graceless rant about the AP’s Pulitzer win, in which she whines that the AP hasn’t taken Ray Kelly’s insistence that his NYPD’s spying is legal seriously enough. I already had to fisk Miller’s credulous regurgitation of Ray Kelly’s defense of the NYPD here and then remind her that journalists should be in the business of sorting out false claims from true ones here. Given her past failures to write credibly on the AP’s NYPD series, I trust no one will make the mistake of doing anything but dismissing everything she has to say about the AP series.

But since I’ve already started a post about mouthpieces for those in power, maybe I should take a look at what Miller’s close kin, Barbara Starr, had to say about expanded drone strikes in Yemen.

The lead in Greg Miller’s story on this emphasized how little intelligence we would have on the expanded drone strikes.

The CIA is seeking authority to expand its covert drone campaign in Yemen by launching strikes against terrorism suspects even when it does not know the identities of those who could be killed, U.S. officials said.

Securing permission to use these “signature strikes” would allow the agency to hit targets based solely on intelligence indicating patterns of suspicious behavior, such as imagery showing militants gathering at known al-Qaeda compounds or unloading explosives.

Compare that with the headline and lead in Barbara Starr’s version.

Intel influx leads to increased U.S. strikes in Yemen

The increased pace of counterterrorism strikes in Yemen by U.S. drones and aircraft is a result of what U.S. military and intelligence officials describe as improved intelligence about the leadership of the al Qaeda movement in that country.

Now, Starr doesn’t mention the term “signature strikes” at all in this piece. and technically, she seems to be addressing only the increased pace of strikes that has already happened, not the plans to increase them still more. At that level, this story appears to be a shiny object, one designed to respond to Williams’ story, to try to assert we engage in “surgical targeting” (a term that appears in both stories; it is attributed to a senior Administration official in Miller’s), without addressing the possibility we’ll be targeting based solely on patterns of suspicious behavior soon.

Which leaves the one piece of actual  news in Starr’s report: the claim that we’ve found the new targets as a result of the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki.

The target list of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula terrorists the United States has developed has emerged since an American drone killed Anwar al-Awlaki last year in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was identified as a key operative, and the United States has focused on trying to determine the leadership structure that has emerged since his death.

Now, the entire premise of the Awlaki strike is that he was the guy in AQAP who kept insisting on launching attacks outside of Yemen, targeted at the US (though the government occasionally admitted that Ibrahim al-Asiri liked to do that too, which is good since source have said he was more central to the toner cartridge plot that targeted the US).

Awlaki. The guy.

The claim was you kill him and those in AQAP who want to focus on establishing control over parts of Yemen will have ascendancy. And yet … Starr’s sources still insist that we’re only hitting those with “a ‘direct interest’ in attacking the America.” [sic]

In short, in addition to the debate in the Administration over whether to start killing bearded men with guns in Yemen because they look dangerous, Starr seems to have unwittingly documented how the goalposts on “direct interest in attacking the America” [sic] have moved.

And that, my friends, is apparently what constitutes an influx of intelligence.

Update: Edited for clarity.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

15 Responses to Judy Miller, Barabara Starr, and an Influx of Intelligence

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @gregorydjohnsen Q: can you think of any instance of "side payment" strike? Something done for Hadi or even KSA as part of drone permission?
35mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Esquiring In Tsarnaev trial. Lots of journos live tweeting it. https://t.co/ZczkDdwOjn
38mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Dear defense attorneys. The government just asserted that AT&T location data is not a reliable indicator of where their AT&T phones are.
46mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @JimArmstrongWBZ: C: if you had training, you would've known AT&T data is not a reliable indicator of where a phone is at any time. G: I…
46mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @nickmanes1 Maybe if I combine it w/ill-informed opinion abt terrorism? I can charge extra bc I don't speak arabic, apparently. @p2wy
51mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @p2wy Twittering is hard work. I wonder if i could get paid $450/hour because I spend too much time on it?
53mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade This is why you're such trouble. If you don't like stories how will they make you obey?
57mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @firetomfriedman I DO think they might not get death. They want it SO badly though. @onekade
58mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Govt whose Twitter witness didn't even click through links on Twitter now trying to discredit defense witness w/o "special Twitter training"
59mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade Because everyone likes a good story.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @draperha I had to compete 2 years ago from the bottom of a KY holler w/absolute no Toobz. No consideration given.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @onekade It's such an easy guilty verdict, but govt had to write its little story.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
April 2012
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930