Obama Picks Anti-Torture Advocate for CIA Chief
| Mon Jan. 5, 2009 12:31 PM PST
News outfits are reporting that Leon Panetta has been tapped by President-elect Barack Obama to take over the Central Intelligence Agency.
It's an unusual choice, for Panetta, a former Democratic congressman who became President Bill Clinton's budget chief and then his White House chief of staff, has no direct intelligence experience, and the CIA in previous decades has been rather unwelcoming to outsiders. (Obama's first pick for the spy chief slot, John Brennan, a career CIA officer, withdrew his name, after bloggers and others raised questions about his involvement in the agency's post-9/11 detention and interrogation programs.) Panetta, if confirmed, will work closely with retired Admiral Dennis Blair, Obama's choice to be director of national intelligence.
Panetta is an even-tempered and highly regarded Washington player--kind of a Mr. Fixit in a nice suit. He is also a zero-tolerance critic of the use of torture, and he considers waterboarding--a tactic used by the CIA--to be torture. A year ago, he wrote in The Washington Monthly:
Continues Below
Continued From Above
According to the latest polls, two-thirds of the American public believes that torturing suspected terrorists to gain important information is justified in some circumstances. How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear.
Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what's wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock?
The simple answer is the rule of law....
Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground.
We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances..
It doesn't get much clearer than this. (Take that, Jack Bauer!) By picking Panetta, Obama is repudiating the waterboarding ways of the Bush-Cheney administration.
As a member of the Iraq Study Group, Panetta joined with other Establishment poohbahs to criticize George W. Bush's prosecution of the Iraq war. And in a newspaper op-ed, he noted that the Iraq war "could give al-Qaeda a base for terrorism throughout this critical region."
Panetta's views on torture and the Iraq war are unlikely to pose any problems for him during his Senate confirmation. But he has tangled with the agency in the past--and these tussles could emerge as confirmation issues. As Clinton's budget chief, he sought to cut the CIA's budget and clashed with then-CIA director R. James Woolsey. A 2007 study produced by the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence described this confrontation:
Leon Panetta, the Clinton administration's first director of OMB, had indicated to Woolsey early in 1993 that OMB was considering providing the DCI with top-line guidance, perhaps with a publicly disclosed figure, and seeking sizable out-year cuts in intelligence spending....
....From [the Office of Management and Budget's] perspective, [Woolsey] came across as confrontational in his efforts to keep OMB from examining, and possibly cutting, his budget. One of Panetta's senior staff officers commented on Woolsey's approach in dealing with Panetta: "I've never seen a more graceless stonewall…." [CIA official] Richard Haver...recalled an episode in which the DCI and [Pentagon] leaders, in a personal meeting with President Clinton, gained the president's agreement—over OMB objections—to a program and budget Woolsey had worked out in concert with DOD. [Woolsey] was almost euphoric about his success as he returned to CIA headquarters, but he soon received a message from Panetta that Woolsey would "pay" for his budget victory.
Will CIA veterans strike back at Panetta for his efforts to reduce their budget 16 years ago? Will GOPers in the Senate try to embarrass Panetta by bringing this up?
And there's this: in 1990, then-Representative Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced legislation that would have required the president to seek approval from the congressional intelligence committees before mounting most covert operations. (Under this legislation, the president could still stage secret ops to save American lives or rescue American hostages without asking permission from the committees.) The measure failed miserably. Only 70 members voted for it, but one was Panetta. Will that vote come up during his confirmation hearings? One wonders if Panetta still supports the idea of greater congressional oversight of CIA clandestine activities.
A CIA director who has denounced torture, advocated intelligence cuts, and backed greater congressional control of covert operations--that would be....different. This appointment certainly has the potential to spark opposition from inside and outside the agency. But if Panetta manages to make it to Langley without much fuss, that would indeed signal real change in Washington.
Comments
Submitted by Ari Rutenberg (not verified) on Mon Jan. 5, 2009 2:02 PM PST.
Yeah, and apparently the pro-eavesdropping Diane Feinstein doesn't like this pick. That can only be a good sign. Can we get her out of office during the next cycle? She seems to be an enabler and defender of unconstitutional intelligence gathering practices and as such no longer represents the positions the people of California.
Submitted by Camilo Santana (not verified) on Mon Jan. 5, 2009 5:08 PM PST.
XXXX, what part of, "We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances.." did you not comprehend? We see in many conflicts how violence breeds violence in escalating expressions.
I think it brave of Obama to appoint the guy. CIA has failed to protect us.
Drop the tired "left vs right" argument. That's too simple-minded.
It's beyond time for diplomacy and civility to be attempted before clandestine operations and military force.
Panetta is a good man, despite what all the dittoheads that are stalking Progressive blogs pretending to be Dems and trashing this choice are saying. Panetta is both and intelligent and a compassionate human being. He'll probably be the best CIA Director ever.
PLLLLEAASEEEE....His pick has nothing to do with torture, and has everything to do with the fact that Obama is repeating Clinton era mentality and he does not want to get inlvovled with so called terrorism...having a good "manager" at the CIA will leave Obama with more important stuff.
Obama has shown during this transition period that he is a very cautious man and he does not want to rock the boat, HE JUST WANTS TO LOOK GOOD...I am regretting voting for him!
A good first step -- but the problem isn't the highest of the high. Do you think the chief has visibility on everything? Water-boarding? HAHA! What a great concept to revolve around, it keeps your attention off of the other stuff. You would all be shocked if you knew what happens at the lower-echelons. Shocked. The visibility needs to be on the mid-level CIA managers if you really want to support a cause.
amini, you can't fool us. There's no chance that you voted for Obama. Cut the cr*p.
Clinton did far more to fight against terrorism than Dubya ever did. When Condi Rice was briefed in 2001 for her new role as National Security Advisor, her predecessor warned her that her biggest challenge would be Islamic terrorism. She then accused the Clinton administration of being "obsessed" with al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
As we all know, the B*sh regime instead pushed a missile defense system that can't possibly work, because that was the easiest way to shovel taxpayer billions to their defense contractor cronies.
When B*sh was presented with a PDB entitled "Bin Laden determined to Strike the U.S." on August 6, 2001, Dubya dismissed his CIA briefer with, "Alright, you covered your ass, you can go."
We should be so lucky as to have the "Clinton era mentality" of being "obsessed" with fighting Islamic extremism.
Attention should also be paid to the nomination of Adm Blair as intelligence director. His human rights record is poor. Look at his actions concerning East Timor and Indonesia a decade ago. As the Indonesian military and its militias were escalating the violence in 1999 prior to East Timor's independence referendum, Blair went to Indonesia. Instead of delivering a strong message that the Indonesian military should back off and respect human rights, he offered understanding and further U.S. military assistance. He seems locked into the notion that human rights should be secondary in U.S. relations with other countries. The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) describes this here
As a matter of fact Lou, as a former marine, I have been waterboarded several times as part of our training. I can assure you all here that it is not as horrendous as it is made out to be. Yes it is very uncomfortable and scary, however there are a lot worse forms of torture that could be applied that our military doesn't do (but others do...). This is not about right or left - it is what it is. I would think that taking a knife to someones throat and sawing into it - beheading their victims is a lot more inhumane. I don't feel pity for them.
Twisting words. I meant to say as far as "torture" goes it would be pretty lame. Besides torture is rarely if ever used. But, I suppose you think we should just serve them tea and provide them cable t.v. and ask them to please, oh please tell us what we need to know. Get real Pathman. Have you served your country? Have you any military experience?
And by the way if a U.S soldier goes way beyond what he or she should do in interrogating a suspect, I do believe we should prosecute. A U.S. soldier is trained to act with honor, but needs to learn to deal with those who have no honor. Contrary to you all may think most prisoners in military detention centers are treated well and with respect.
I was totally disgusted with the Bush appointment of crony Mike Brown to FEMA while he did not have the proper experience and I am equally pissed off at this appointment of Panetta who has no Intel Experience. Pure Cronyism . Nothing has CHANGED in Washington. Obama lied.
Ever since the Geneva conventions Americans have been tortured in the Korean War, Korea again during the USS Pueblo incident.Francis Gary Powers the U2 Spy pilot tortured in the USSR. Countless Americans during Vietnam. Gulf War etc. There is no benefit to signing non torture agreements
Torture is an ugly fact of war. I am no fan of the use of torture, however to believe it is not going on is naive. The U.S. is not perfect, however as in most instances of things in the world it has the most humane record of all especially with regards to how it treats it's prisoners.
Perhaps the debate on torture is a matter of sanctioned policy or not. I was in the US Army Special Forces (green beanies) during the Vietnam War. During our training, we were given an "eight-hour block of instruction" on torture. Of course, we were informed that we should never use these techniques, but to expect them to be used on us if captured (the Cong liked to nail berets on captives heads). Still, one wonders why it took 8 hours to tell us not to torture and why the torture techniques were explained in great detail. Wink wink nudge nudge. Like the Marine above, we were also subjected to "stress." General Sherman said it best: War is hell and you can't refine it.
I guess my problem with the torture debate is our nation's duplicity. If we're going to use torture, fine, but quit stating publicly that we don't.
Having said that however, expert after expert has lined up to say that torture does not produce good intelligence. It only produces what the torturee thinks the torturer wants to hear.
So if we want to kick a** and punish our foes, torture is probably a good way to proceed. But if we want good actionable intelligence, we should probably go about obtaining it in another manner.
If manipulating oil prices has been a covert operation of the U.S. government/corporations, then it would make sense to have a budget guy at the CIA. Another issue at the CIA has been morale. Times have changed. Doesn't seduction (read kindness if you are of a spiritual bent) beat torture for getting good information? Advice given to customer-service personnel is designed to get information to improve service. Today's major battles are economic. Eisenhower's practical operation for loosening the grip of fear-mongers was a foundation that promotes people-to-people exchanges of information on problems like medical issues. The CIA guys who want to use best-practice would be better off with a guy who understands bean-counting and other mundane but necessary best-practices. Getting at truth should produce greater job satisfaction than forcing out made-up info to chase around after with vehicles supplied by who-knows-whom in who-knows-what condition. If the violence cost isn't bad enough, how about the notion of saving fuel?
What will the writers on 24 do now that the new administration has a more creative adgenda than to torture? Torture is wrong. Using it shows perversion and ignorance. It takes a creative, smart, and well focused person to define and solve problems and gain credible intell. The current administation has none of those quailaties so they act like bruts and turn their head, if not order, torture. What an embarrasment to the country. As for the boiled frog mentality of those who accept it as OK - I'm surprized that there isn't a "torture video game" out there to train the next generation. Maybe there is.
When I read these type of blogs it really saddens me to see the distain for our own country. As a former Marine I do not agree with torture but my definition of torture and most of yours is obviously different. I do not consider making someone uncomfortable with no permanent damage, torture!Beating,raping,mutilating is torure. Waterboarding is not!
Some of you act like if you offer these terrorists a pack a smokes and a cup of coffee they will tell you all you want to know. This is just not the case! These men are trained to resist at all costs and what they want most is for all infidels(Meaning you) to die. Dealing with people like this takes a little more incentive to get information at times.
It is easy to say you do not agree with it when the outcome of the information the person has does not personaly effect you, but look at it from this perspective. You have a loved one in harms way and a terrorist in custody has information that could save there lives, however he refuses to talk. Would you let your loved one die without exhausting all options? If you say yes you are lying to yourself.
The eavesdroping and waterboarding as well as other techniques have kept this country and all of you safe since 9/11 but most of you will not acknowledge this. President Bush may not have been perfect but his main concern has been the protection of the people of this country even those of you who would smear him allthough he has without a doubt protected you.
The people who administer waterboarding generally have had it done to them just like a police officer with a tazer gun so that they know what it is like. Even a reporter had it done to him so he could report what it is like. If waterboarding was that bad they would not do that.
I wish i could sit back with rose colored glasses on like some of you but I can not. There are people out there that want one thing and that is for all of us to die but fortunately for you there are people in our military and government who protect you so you can come on sites like this and smear them for doing what they need to to protect you right to exist.
Semper Fi
"Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share."
Ned Dolan
This is the only report that I've seen on Obama's plans for the CIA. Having just about finished Weiner's Legacy of Ashes I'm wondering - why doesn't he shut the thing down? Has the CIA done anything in 60 years to justify further funding? McCone advised Kennedy to trade the missiles in Turkey for the missiles on Cuba and Kennedy ignored him until the last minute. And apparently McCone based his advice on his own common sense and not on the analysis of his staff. In other words, the one demonstrable success of the CIA was the product of an individual with common sense and not of an agency with thousands of employees and billions in funding. Weiner cites Helms' efforts to be honest with Johnson about Vietnam as another success but again the President ignored what the director had to say. In any case, did it take thousands of analysts and billions in funding to tell Johnson in 1966 that he wasn't going to get what he wanted in Vietnam? That Obama can not get rid of it is an indication of how dependent on it the government has become.
Obama
Submitted by guzel sozler (not verified) on Sat Feb. 28, 2009 4:09 PM PST.
When I read these type of blogs it really saddens me to see the distain for our own country. As a former Marine I do not agree with torture but my definition of torture and most of yours is obviously different. I do not consider making someone uncomfortable with no permanent damage, torture!Beating,raping,mutilating is torure. Waterboarding is not!
It should be obvious to
Submitted by Greg (not verified) on Mon May. 11, 2009 1:42 PM PDT.
It should be obvious to EVERYONE that the #3 man in Al Queda has a lot of information - thank GOD we convinced him to tell us what he knows. Im not sure why the leftists in this country INSIST on losing !! Stabbing female flight attendants in the chest and roasting Americans in the World Trade Center in 3500 temps didnt seem to agitate the libs in this country NEARLY as much as convincing an animal to discuss his evil intents with us. Coming in second place in a nuclear war will NOT be fun.
