Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan Celebrate "Exceptional News": John Brennan Won't Be CIA Director
| Tue Nov. 25, 2008 12:51 PM PST
John Brennan, a top adviser to Barack Obama on intelligence issues who had been widely rumored to be the President-elect's top choice for CIA director, has taken himself out of the running. Bloggers, including Salon's Glenn Greenwald and the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, had vociferously opposed Brennan on the grounds that he had reportedly supported the torture of terrorist detainees and the governments extraordinary rendition program. In his letter to Obama, Brennan writes that he "was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies," but Greenwald emphasizes that being involved with the decision-making process was never the issue. It was the fact that Brennan supported those decisions that was the problem, whether or not he actually had the decision-making power himself. And the evidence is pretty clear that Brennan did not draw a bright line on torture. Brennan was onetime CIA director George Tenet's chief of staff (which is a bad sign on its own), and the estimable Jane Mayer described him in New Yorker as a "supporter" of the Bush administration's "interrogation and detention" program. Brennan told Mayer that drawing the line on how to treat detainees "all comes down to individual moral barometers." No, it doesn't.
It's true that Brennan did oppose some of the most heinous Bush administration techniques—waterboarding, for example. But his past support for parts of the torture program is well-documented. And even if waterboarding didn't pass Brennan's "individual moral barometer" test, other torture techniques apparently did. It's not just waterboarding that is the problem. And if Obama is going to make a clean break from the Bush administration's interrogation policies, it's probably for the best that Brennan will not be along for the ride.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by Dr. Lumplevin (not verified) on Tue Nov. 25, 2008 2:42 PM PST.
Even though pouring water up the nose of Abu Zubayda or Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably saved American lives, even numerous lives, we cannot let that fact sway us from the moral high ground.
Personally, even though we would lose a large amount of our Democratic base support, I would rather Chicago, NYC, LA or SF get obliterated from the map, rather than have one drop of water poured into a terrorist's nose.
Torture has been shown to most effectively produce the "information" that the torturer wants to hear.
Such coerced "testimony" has resulted in dismissal of many court cases built upon such unreliable "evidence", and has NOT been shown to avert disasters of any kind.
Think about it, Dr. Lumlevin.
Submitted by Dr. Lumplevin (not verified) on Wed Nov. 26, 2008 6:16 AM PST.
Mrr. David and Sydney....Now that our campaign for Change and against Yankee imperialism and capitalist enrichment has been gloriously won, we can afford to be a little bit honest about this. Just google any report (I already tried to post it here but the People's MJB Komitee nixed it) the on the waterboardings of the two brave freedom fighters I mentioned, and you can see that evryone said it worked and saved many attacks from happening.
But you can pour water up my nose and I will still stubbornly and heroicallly agree with you - I'd rather see all of America completely obliterated and humiliated, before one single drop of water pass through the glorious nostril passageway of Khalid or Zubayda, with the all terrible, inhumane, tragic fear they would have to pass through.
If you're citing google reports as your proof then it serves to reason that you're ignorant of intelligence gathering techniques and interrogation methods.
Torture doesn't work but this entire neocon affair was never about getting information.
