steve bannon and the National Security Council

Today, right now as I am writing, my insides are very jittery.  The feelings of fear and anger are palpable, they are real.  This morning I learned about trump's, or should I say bannon's shake up of the National Security Council (NSC).  I am ashamed that I did not find out about this until first thing this morning, it occurred Saturday night.

This morning I woke up and the first thing that I usually do is check my phone for anything that might be important.  I was alerted to activity on Facebook, so I opened up the application to find a message from my niece.  Because I was not aware of the action, which was in the form of an executive order, I was shaken.

I drove to work and was listening  to the BBC & then NPR, but heard nothing. I got to my desk and searched for the subject & found an New York Times (NYT) article informing me that this happened Saturday night.  I was infuriated.  I was frightened.  I feel like I've had enough.  I feel my resolve to fight is strengthened exponentially.  I continued to read the article in the New York Times, but the gravity and danger of bannon being on the NSC was already clear to me.

The article first noted that an executive order was signed on Saturday night giving bannon "a full seat on the “principals committee” of the [NSC]". At the same time a White House memorandum was issued noting that "the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National Intelligence will only sit on the Principals Committee as and when matters pertaining to them arise, but will remain part of the full National Security Council."  I choose not to stir the pot, but the NYT noted that bannon is a "rumpled right-wing agitator".  This comment lighted my mood a little but not for long.  Next, I looked up the principals committee in the NSC.  I found the following in a wikipedia article:

On January 29, 2017, President [d]onald [t]rump restructured the Principals Committee (a subset of the full National Security Council), assigning a permanent invitation to [s]teve [b]annon, White House Chief Strategist, while at the same time altering the attendance of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National Intelligence.  According to a White House memorandum, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Director of National Intelligence will only sit on the Principals Committee as and when matters pertaining to them arise, but will remain part of the full National Security Council.  However, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus clarified the next day that they still are invited to attend meetings.  (By the way, Priebus's "clarification" gives me zero sense of security).

Although I cannot find information on the specific duties of the principals committee, I will make an assumption that it is a powerful part of the NSC due to the fact that it is a subset of the NSC.

The Facebook posting from my niece noted that the NSC had the authority to order killings of individuals identified as threats to America, including Americans. I was skeptical, but  read the following in the same wikipedia article which deeply disturbed me:

A secret National Security Council panel pursues the killing of any individual, including American citizens, who has been called a suspected terrorist   In this case, no public record of this decision or any operation to kill the suspect will be made available.  The panel's actions are justified by "two principal legal theories": They "were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself."

National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who has helped codify targeted killing criteria by creating the Disposition Matrix database, has described the Obama Administration targeted killing policy by stating that "in order to ensure that our counterterrorism operations involving the use of lethal force are legal, ethical, and wise, President Obama has demanded that we hold ourselves to the highest possible standards and processes".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Security_Council


If this isn't scaring the shit out of you (please excuse my language) I don't know what will or as a sign I saw at The Woman's march read "if you're not mad, then you're not paying attention"

Here are some quotes from former government officials who have experience with the NSC, from the same NYT article:

- Leon Panetta, a former White House chief of staff, defense secretary and C.I.A. director in two Democratic administrations said, “The last place you want to put somebody who worries about politics is in a room where they’re talking about national security. I’ve never seen that happen, and it shouldn’t happen. It’s not like he has broad experience in foreign policy and national security issues. He doesn’t. His primary role is to control or guide the president’s conscience based on his campaign promises. That’s not what the National Security Council is supposed to be about.”

- President George W. Bush’s last chief of staff, Josh Bolten, who barred Karl Rove, Mr. Bush’s political adviser, from NSC. meetings told a conference in September that a President's decisions, which are informed by the NSC, “involve life and death for the people in uniform [and should] not be tainted by any political decisions.”

- Susan Rice, President Barack Obama’s last national security adviser, called the arrangement “stone cold crazy” in a tweet posted Sunday.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-national-security-council.html?_r=0

WE MUST, WE MUST CALL OUR REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS AND THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY LEADERS IN CONGRESS AND DEMAND, DEMAND THAT THIS ACTION IS REVERSED. THIS MUST NOT STAND