More important than anything Dennis Blair and Leon Panetta said at their rollout this morning as intelligence chiefs — it’s a rollout, after all, so you’re not getting anything controversial — were two things President-elect Obama said that directly repudiate the intelligence regime of the previous administration. First, among the "tough lessons" of the last eight years is "to insist on assessments based solely on facts, and not to seek information to support any ideological agenda" and to receive thorough information, "even if it’s not always the information we want." (Do Obama’s intelligence picks still have the support of Doug Feith and Richard Perle now?)
Second, and more important from a human-rights perspective, was what he said about torture and interrogations: "We must adhere to our values diligently and with no exceptions." No exceptions. None of this ticking-bomb crap that doesn’t exist in the real world, none of these Jack Bauer distortions. Sullivan up, Krauthammer down.
Blair and Panetta reflected both of those statements in their own. Blair said he had been charged by Obama to give policymakers "timely accurate, relevant intelligence" and reflective of "different perspectives." He pledged, like Adm. Mike McConnell before him, to tell Obama "how well we know what we know, and what we don’t know." Some at CIA might be upset by Blair’s remark that CIA is "one of the key agencies in the intelligence community," instead of the key agency, but, you know, c’mon.
Panetta, predictably, publicly buttered up the two constituencies he needed to sweettalk: the intelligence professionals who might think he’s a lightweight, and Congress. He lauded CIA’s "rich and proud history" and the bravery of its operatives, particularly those who serve "often undercover, and sometimes under fire." Hear that, National Clandestine Service? If not, he even called out John Brennan, whom several at CIA wanted to have the job that Panetta’s getting. And even if the Feinstein beef is squashed, Panetta looked forward to "consulting closely with my former partners in Congress."
Yeah, he’s got this job. Reps. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), who agree on practically nothing, just put out a joint statement backing Panetta:
“We support President-Elect Barack Obama’s choice of Leon Panetta to serve as Director of the CIA. Mr. Panetta has a 40-year record in public service – notably as a member of Congress, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Chief of Staff under President Clinton, and recently as a member of the Iraq Study Group. A consumer of intelligence for years, he consistently has demonstrated an ability to lead in a bipartisan fashion and always see the big picture – attributes that would benefit the CIA and our nation.”
Login Here




31 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Which “rich & proud history” would that be? I’ve read quite a few books about CIA’s escapades, none of which should make them proud.
Guess they keep all the good stuff secret. /s
Fixed it for you — there’s no snark at all to that statement.
Are they angels? Hardly. But have they also done good work in the cause of peace and done it in nonviolent ways? Absolutely. There are both things to regret in the history of the CIA and things of which they can be justifiably proud.
The latter — the tricks that work — are the ones they want to be able to use again sometime, and you don’t put those on the front page.
Actaully, I’m provisionally looking favorably on the Panetta appointment. Not being an insiders is a big plus, and he gets good reviews from his prior positions.
Please do tell me some of the good things the CIA has done.
No.
That’s kind of the point of security clearances. Granted, mine was back in the early 80s and not terribly high level as a State Department intern, but still.
The public stuff is rarely something any of the intelligence community is proud of. Generally speaking, it became public because it didn’t work — or “worked” in such a destructive manner (assassinations, for instance) that it was counterproductive.
I will say this, though: I have met people who owe their lives to quiet, under-the-radar, and completely peaceful and honorable work done by CIA agents.
By training killers around the globe, they’ve helped open new markets for arms merchants, who undoubtedly think of it is a good thing. It’s just a matter of perspective, see?
They paved the way for Libya’s nuclear disarmament.
When did Libya have nukes?
Well … eCAHN, he COULD tell you, but then …
Actually, it works like this; you say ‘good things’.
Good things – “things we are proud of …”
Now, listen carefully … “The latter – the tricks that work – are the ones they want to be able to use again sometime, …”
So, no, we can’t go into those things.
It is “trust” … a matter of faith.
After all, they mean well.
;~D
They had a nuclear-weapons program that a CIA team, led by Steve Kappes, negotiated a way to dismantle. It was in 2003.
In defense of the CIA, the terrible things they have done were nearly always while implementing the terrible policies of government leaders. We should put the blame where it belongs.
Thanks for this, has an angle I can blog.
Diggable.
Here here. For more on that, see here. Also, to the list of successes: the fall 2001 campaign that dislodged the Taliban was CIA-designed and led. Subsequent failures in Afghanistan don’t erase that.
Thanks for the link. Have to run now but I will read it later. Love the photo. A dart-gun (sans poison) could add a uniquely American twist to the English pub tradition
Bet there is a big “exception” for the illegalities already done by BushCo. I will believe “no exceptions” when I see prosecutions.
Is anyone reading the entrails of the rollout whether repudiation is a stake in the ground on 1.20.09 or is there accountability for past lawlessness?
Why do you prosecutions will be of any value?
Whose past lawlessness?
i’d really like to know what exactly obama means by “our values” because i’m pretty sure he’s not talking about my values.
for example, exactly who’s values do dennis blair’s actions in indonesia re east timor represent?
Pick a Bushco name, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfield, Rice, Fief, McConnell, Hayden, past CIA DI’s during Bush co regime, ad infinitum.
Some truly nasty people on your list, but all of them were acting under color of law.
I gotta believe that inhumanity is punishable… or is this why they want us to have religion-faith-based confidance in the fact that we don’t have to punish but can assume that our god will tell their god what’s right in the great hereafter
The latter — the tricks that work — are the ones they want to be able to use again sometime, and you don’t put those on the front page.
This suggests that the CIA’s public failures were failures of tactics rather than of ethics–i.e. they would have been good programs if they had worked, and then we wouldn’t have heard about them.
Which isn’t the case for a great many of the CIA’s publicly known failures. Many of them ethical or strategic failures–things that shouldn’t have been done even if they would work. So if the CIA actually has a larger collection of tricks that actually work–that’s extremely frightening. The CIA’s dangerous enough when it’s ineffective.
I would also point out that among peaceful, nonviolent, and honorable activities, most of them are in the category of tactics that work better when people know that you’re using them.
Moreover, were you correct that the CIA has been employing peaceful, nonviolent, honorable techniques to honorable ends that nonetheless would stop being effective once people found out about them, one would think there would be a collection of techniques formerly in this category that since became public and are now no longer effective. Or techniques that are so old that the CIA ought to assume they are known by potential enemies. The CIA could then reveal these obsolete techniques and their history of using them, and we could use that to reach a conclusion about the agency’s judgment in employing secret tricks.
To sum up, this explanation for a lack (not a complete absence, but a proportional lack) of publicly known CIA good deeds ends up leaving us with even more things needing explanation that we started with. There are, of course, alternative explanations for this shortage.
It’s really heartwarming to see someone advocating an ethically-upright spy service.
Nope, that’s sophistry. You can assume that most of the players had a high school education. Some high school history classes taught WWII and the war crimes tribunals there after. You can further assume most, if not all of the players at least attended college, where more history of WWII was taught and more information on war crimes. Somewhere along the way a few of these notables may have even attended courses on ethics. Is there some law passed by Congress specifically allowing torture or even “harsh interrogation technique”? Even if none of the above is true, how many of the cast of characters hear the oft repeated “I vas only following orters” (German accent?). Color of law my foot. The opinions, if anyone read them before committing their crime, were and are bad opinions, not law, and that includes calling Geneva Conventions “Quaint.
Though Panetta’s appointment gives me some hope, Blair’s appointment mocks everything PEBO says about torture — and rewards Blair for insubordination (and arguably treason) when he “served” the Executive Branch while in uniform.
Amy Goodman’s been covering Blair since Tuesday – folks who’ve followed Indonesia closely know just what PEBO is choosing in Blair. Pure evil.
The following’s from my epu’d comment about Blair from an earlier post:
“Watch what we do, not what we say” – John Mitchell, 1969
Whatever PEBO and Blair say about torture and death squads, what Admiral Blair actually did was to conspire with Indonesia’s death squads commanders against the express instructions of the US Government: certainly insubordinate, arguably treasonous.
If PEBO wants an intelligence chief whose shown he’ll prioritize continuing torture, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity over a mere trifle like duly constituted Executive Branch authority, than PEBO’s got his man.
Ambitious intel folks take note: now PEBO wants to make him intel chief. Job well done, Admiral Blair! That’s the way to show America won’t tolerate torture, right?
Watch what PEBO does, not what he says.
And watch for the bits of flesh on the walls once Blair’s proteges do the work Blair supports.
You’re misunderstanding what I’m trying to say to you.
I was trying to point out, without being too direct, that you were using the word “lawlessness” incorrectly.
What ? I don’t recall that being a serious proposal. Do you ?
We’re currently in transition between an administration between an administration that has authorised torture and one that has ruled out any prosecutions for those actions internationally recognised as crimes.
What part of that can you describe as “showing America won’t tolerate torture” with a straight face ? I mean FFS, what would “tolerating torture” look like if not this ?
Like I said, we’re in transition now. The mantle that liberals have held of for the past 8 years of strict denial that any such thing ever occurred under their outgoing president (and if it did, that’s all in the past so why bring it up), now passes to the Republicans. Akuna matada.
Dubious invasion, overthrow, counter-insurgency campaign, widespread torture programs, a few low level prosecutions, an investigation designed to result in no high-level prosecutions. This is practically a direct repeat of something you did 100 years ago. Something which everyone carrying on about how “unprecedented” and “un-American” these policies are, conveniently forgot. Surely at this point the memory hole has thoroughly proved its merits at the preferred solution to US tolerance of state-approved torture.
One of us is misunderstanding the other. I didn’t advocate ethically-upright spy agency. Peterr asserted that we already had one. “good work in the cause of peace and done it in nonviolent ways” “completely peaceful and honorable work”.
That said, an ethically-upright spy agency might not be a bad idea. Couldn’t be much worse than the alternative.
Is that the limit before you can legally advertise him as a “low fat” Jew ?
Speaking of which, Rahm looks like he could use a feed.