(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?
This is the environment within which all of Obama’s decisions are going to be made. Whenever he deviates even slightly from the bipartisan consensus on major issues — such as torture, the war, the economy — he will be attacked and derided not just by Republicans but by members of his own party. We can create a counter force to encourage and reward moves we approve of; and by putting pressure on those who would stand in the way of restoring lawfulness to our government.
Obama’s desire to appoint Panneta is a very positive sign. Obama has also shown an interest in appointing Dawn Johnsen as the head of the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel), the office from which John Yoo issued his infamous torture memo.
At the time, Johnsen wrote this in Slate (h/t Glenn Greenwald):
Comment by Lee — January 6, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
Responding to the comment above, I’ve heard some discussion in the media recently about how to make sure we reclaim the moral ground we lost as a result of Bush’s torture policy. Dawn Johnson’s quote above implies — but does not explicitly state — that the way to do this is through criminal prosecution.
I’m concerned that trying to criminally prosecute Bush Administration officials for war crimes (or other crimes related to Bush’s torture policy) during Obama’s first term could interfere with Obama’s efforts to rally the nation around a new, progressive agenda moving forward.
I would pose this question to those who believe that criminal prosecution may be the only way to appropriately handle this issue: Will it matter, one way or the other, if Eric Holder, Obama’s choice to be the next attorney general, states unequivocally during his upcoming confirmation hearing that waterboarding is torture — thereby doing what his predecessor was unwilling to do?
If Holder is willing to say (what everybody knows) that waterboarding is torture, and if he gives other answers during his confirmation hearing that satisfy a desire for real change — won’t that, in combination with the appointments of Panetta at CIA and Johnsen at the OLC, demonstrate a new consensus about torture? Will criminal prosecution still be necessary, in that case?
The answer may be yes, but a criminal prosecution will not be pretty, and our current situation as a country is a lot different now than it was in 1998 when Congress and the media could waste more than a year on fellatio-related impeachment charges.
Comment by Ian — January 6, 2009 @ 7:45 pm
I think we have to think in the short as well as long term. In the short term, appointing a Kenn Starr-type special prosecutor to investigate and indict those in the Bush administration (as well as complicit Democrats in Congress) who violated the law and trampled on the Constitution would cause strife. There’s no doubt about it.
But absent such an investigation (and if necessary prosecutions) all Obama is doing by appointing Panetta and Johnsen is saying that he is “choosing” to follow the law. Unless there is actual accountability for criminal action, it will only be merely optional for our elected governments to follow the law.
Why should Thomas Tamm, the whistleblower who revealed the illegal wiretapping program, be hounded by the FBI but the illegal wiretappers themselves be immune to investigation? If the law has any purpose, then it’s making it more difficult to let the powerful do what they want with impunity.
I don’t want to have to live through another Bush administration in the 2020s or 2040s or whenever. Making sure it’s harder may have short term consequences, but these are worth it, in my view. Though in any case, we shouldn’t selectively choose to enforce the law in such a way that the powerful get off scott free for whatever they choose to do.
Comment by Lee — January 7, 2009 @ 3:18 pm
We should not assume that criminal prosecution is the only road to justice. Many countries have instead chosen to pursue restoration rather than retribution, especially in times of transition when a government/country’s movement forward is seen as paramount. The most prominent example of this of course is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. Of course, there are many claims that the TRC cheapened the suffering of the victims of apartheid etc etc. Many people agree though that truth telling formed the basis of South Africa’s democratic political order. Interesting to think about a US Truth commission– why not restorative rather than retributive justice, which, as you both pointed out, would likely cause significant strife in a time when the government needs to focus on moving forward.
Comment by stephanie — January 10, 2009 @ 6:27 pm
I’ve heard talk in the media about the possible formation of a Congressional “commission” to investigate our use of torture — and I think it is possible that this commission could provide a sense of “restorative justice,” if the people who participated in the torture were put in a position where they had take responsibility for their actions and acknowledge that what they did was wrong.
The danger is that such a commission would become a way to shove these issues under the rug — a way to deflect any questions about these issues by saying, “oh, well, we have a commission looking into that.” Then, the commission issues an equivocal report on the day before Christmas 2009 when nobody is paying attention and nothing is accomplished. So the question is, how do you take away the threat of criminal conviction and keep the commission in the public eye?
Comment by Ian — January 11, 2009 @ 1:00 pm