(UPDATE: Thanks to the New York Times for this editorial.)
If you want to make certain that the Central Intelligence Agency won’t torture anymore, the obvious thing to do is to hire somebody to run the CIA who opposes torture in strong terms.
According to the New York Times, the President-elect is about to appoint former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta to run the CIA. Some top Democrats are now choosing to stab their president-elect in the back by publicly making the absurd assertion that Panetta was qualified to be former President Clinton’s top staffer, but somehow isn’t qualified to run one government agency.
I believe now is an important time for those of us who hate torture and want changes in the CIA to send a loud and clear message to the complainers: SHUT UP!
Regarding Panetta: Here is what he had to say last year about torture, as reported in the New York Times:
“Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values,” he wrote in The Washington Monthly last year. “But that is a false compromise.” He also wrote: “We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.”
The article continues:
Some human rights groups praised the choice. Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First, said it was important that the new C.I.A. director be someone “who recognizes that torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive.”
Sounds good. But apparently Panetta’s background troubles some Democrats:
Among the lawmakers who expressed skepticism about the choice was Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and the new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Ms. Feinstein, who would oversee any confirmation hearing for Mr. Panetta, issued a statement that signaled clear disapproval and said she had not been notified about the choice.
“My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time,” she said.
A second top Democrat, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the departing chairman of the Intelligence Committee, shares Ms. Feinstein’s concerns, Democratic Congressional aides said.
Ms. Feinstein’s Republican counterpart on the Intelligence Committee, Senator Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, said he would be “looking hard at Panetta’s intelligence expertise and qualifications.”
It was not clear whether the skepticism would become an obstacle to the nomination of Mr. Panetta, who would succeed Michael V. Hayden, a retired Air Force general with decades of intelligence experience.
Let’s make it clear that this skepticism will NOT become an obstacle to the nomination of Panetta. And furthermore, I think the Obama administration should make it a rule to avoid notifying Senator Feinstein of anything whatsoever from now on. Maybe then she’ll have no choice except to consider what’s best for the country, rather than what’s best for her own political stature, when she evaluates matters this important.
I also have two words for the intelligence “experts” who want to perpetuate the self-serving illusion that their work is shrouded in magic and mystery:
But some intelligence experts called the selection underwhelming, given the important role the C.I.A. plays in disrupting terrorist attacks against the United States.
“It’s a puzzling choice and a high-risk choice,” said Amy Zegart, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written extensively on intelligence matters.
“The best way to change intelligence policies from the Bush administration responsibly is to pick someone intimately familiar with them,” Ms. Zegart said. “This is intelligence, not tax or transportation policy. You can’t hit the ground running by reading briefing books and asking smart questions.”
As C.I.A. director, Mr. Panetta would report to Mr. Blair. Neither choice has yet been announced.
How many American and Iraqi lives have been lost in just the past eight years (not to mention the countless millions who have lost their lives in recent decades) due to stupid, inexcusable blunders by the CIA? The difference between intelligence policy and tax or transportation policy is that intelligence officials are never held accountable until their stupid mistakes become so outrageously destructive that they can’t be concealed any longer. (Whereas bad tax policy and bad transportation policy are often publicly apparent.)
Remember George Tenet’s “slam dunk” rationalization for invading Iraq? Did he “hit the ground running?” If so, I’m desperate for a different metaphor. I’m also desperate for a CIA cheif who reads breifing books and asks smart questions … and answers to the president.
Those who find the choice “puzzling” should consider the New York Times’s explanation for the appointment:
The choice of Mr. Panetta comes nearly two weeks after Mr. Obama had otherwise wrapped up his major personnel moves. It appears to reflect the difficulty Mr. Obama has encountered in finding a candidate who is capable of taking charge of the agency but is not tied to the interrogation and detention program run by the C.I.A. under President Bush.
Aides have said that Mr. Obama had originally hoped to select a C.I.A. director with extensive field experience, especially in combating terrorist networks. But his first choice for the job, John O. Brennan, had to withdraw his name amid criticism over his alleged role in the formation of the agency’s detention and interrogation program after the Sept. 11 attacks.
In other words, all the “qualified” candidates for the job are so tainted by their willingness to go along with Bush’s idiotic torture policy that appointing any of them would only reinforce the idea that our intelligence officials care more about emulating Jack Bauer than about protecting this country. To make a break with our disgusting past — and restore public trust in the CIA — Obama had to pick someone outside the intelligence community. So they picked a former White House Cheif of Staff — which is a very serious job.
Here is how the Times describes Panetta’s background:
As President Clinton’s chief of staff for two and a half years, Mr. Panetta regularly attended daily intelligence briefings in the Oval Office, and he has a reputation in Washington as a skilled manager and power broker with a strong background in budget issues. But he has little direct intelligence experience, and did not serve on the House Intelligence Committee during his 16 years in Congress.
Screw the House Intelligence Committee, which has not served us well. Screw “direct intelligence experience,” which recent history proves is not what it’s cracked up to be.
Now is a moment when Democrats have to decide whether they want real change, or more of the same. And to coin a phrase from Stephen Colbert, Sen. Feinstein is on notice.
UPDATE: Here is some more about Sen. Feinstein:
Talking to reporters earlier on Tuesday, Feinstein had said that failing to seat Burris would call into question the validity of “gubernatorial appointments all over the country.”
…Feinstein votes overwhelmingly with her party, but she has broken with her Democratic colleagues on some controversial issues. In 2007, she infuriated liberals back home by helping the GOP advance the nomination of Leslie Southwick for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. And she drew wrath again from the left when, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, she joined Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in voting to confirm Michael Mukasey as attorney general despite his equivocations on whether waterboarding is torture.
With Obama in the White House and Democrats holding a big majority in the House, Republicans may need help from centrists such as Feinstein to stop Democratic legislation from moving through the Senate. Republicans say Feinstein is at the top of their list of potential Democratic defectors.
“She’ll take political heat to find common ground,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “I think she’ll be one of the key players in this Congress, quite frankly.”
….
On Tuesday, as Reid and other Democratic leaders were struggling to contain the spectacle of Burris’ arrival at the Capitol, Feinstein seemed to criticize the Illinois secretary of state for refusing to sign Burris’ appointment papers — and Senate Democrats for acting as if the lack of a signature actually mattered.
“I can’t imagine the secretary of state countermanding a gubernatorial appointment,” Feinstein said. “The question, really, is one, in my view, of law. And that is, does the governor have the power to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? And the answer is yes.
“Does that affect his appointment power? And the answer is no, until certain things happen.”
Feinstein has communicated her views to Reid, who reminded Politico that Feinstein previously signed a letter saying that the Democratic Caucus would not seat anyone appointed by scandal-plagued Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Why would Feinstein sign a letter saying the Democratic Caucus wouldn’t seat a Blogojevich appointee, and then turn around and make ridiculous arguments for allowing a Blogojevich appointee to take his seat? Why would she say anything newsworthy and/or controversial about the absurb Blogojevich scandal when the Senate is about to begin work on saving the global economy, withdrawing from two wars, etc? And why did she vote to confirm Michael Mukasey?
There’s a simple explanation: Because she’s an incompetant longtime incumbent Senator who should be removed. I’d like to start sending money to a woman who can challenge her in the Democratic Senate Primary when it comes around again? Anybody know of someone to whom I should be sending my checks?