Nitpicking CIA’s Leon Panetta
Aug 7th, 2009 | 5 responses
Leon Panetta, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, wrote a positive, forward-looking Op-Ed in the Washington Post this past weekend.
It was titled, “Congress and the CIA: Time to Move On.”
In his Op-Ed, Panetta rightly commends the men and women of the CIA for the crucial work they are doing to protect our country—for being “America’s first line of defense.”
Panetta acknowledges that in the emotional aftermath of Sept. 11, some wrong judgments were made. But he correctly says, “That should not taint those public servants who did their duty pursuant to the legal guidance provided.”
Panetta also implicitly acknowledges that some of those mistakes—”controversial practices” such as the operation of black sites and the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” (some call these “techniques” torture)—are no longer in practice.
Finally, Panetta tells us that he cancelled “a highly classified program that had been brought to [his] attention…” A program “never fully operational” and one that had not, in seven years, “taken a single terrorist off the street, and information about it had not been shared appropriately with Congress.”
All well and good.
But, then, Panetta, still referring to the cancelled program and perhaps also to the broader scope of CIA operations, says:
For me, this was more than just a simple question of law or legal requirements. Rather, it was a reflection of my firm belief that a straightforward and honest partnership with Congress can build support for intelligence.
Call me nitpicky, but I would have felt much better if Panetta had switched his emphasis, perhaps his priorities, and, addressing not only the CIA-Congress relations, but, more important, the broader nature and scope of CIA activities, had said, instead:
“For me, this was more than just a simple question of having a straightforward and honest partnership with Congress in order to build support for intelligence. Rather, it was a reflection of my firm belief that I and my agency must and will unequivocally abide by the Constitution, the law and legal requirements.”
I also understand Mr. Panetta’s desire to let bygones be bygones, to “move on,” so that the CIA can focus on its essential mission of collecting good intelligence—legally—and of protecting our nation. But that shouldn’t prevent other branches of our government from learning why some of the judgments made were wrong, and by whom they were made. This, in order that our dedicated CIA men and women will never again be faced with having to chose between doing their duty “pursuant to the legal guidance provided,” and doing it in accordance with our Constitution and the law.
As Mr. Panetta concludes, our “nation deserves no less.”
5 Responses to “Nitpicking CIA’s Leon Panetta”
The highest and best act we could do to protect our country and standing in the world would be to show that same world that we can keep a clean house here in the US. That house-cleaning hasn't been done. We need a good-faith Cheney prosecution. That alone would protect more citizens abroad than anything the CIA could come up with.
Mr. Panetta is operating under the assumption that what Cheneyco did to the world was forgiveable or even understandable. It isn't. It wasn't. Killing people for BigOil has no excuse whatsoever and if we want the respect and good treatment for our citizens we must show the world that we will punish the bad done in the name of America.
It just makes sense. We'd demand the same of another country that did likewise. We did in fact in WWII demand that the senseless killers be put on trial. Then the world put it behind them and forgave Germany. But if Germany refused to cooperate and stil harbored the killers of innocent people they'd get a very different reception for their citizens worldwide. Just put the shoe on the other foot and see how it feels.
Yada Yada—
I will NEVER second guess Leon Panetta. Such is my faith in this man's integrity. There are extremely few people that I could say the same about….and I would, but they are dead and thus irrelevant in war.
Let me just say that I have evolved over time on the prosecution of Cheney and CIA bigwigs over the excesses that occurred after 9/11.
Previous to and immediately after the 2008 presidential race, I hoped that the Obama administration and Congress would investigate the previous administration and prosecute if necessary. This would, true, demonstrate that we believe in rule of law and that we will not tolerate those who do not.
But, negatively, it would immediately galvanize every conservative interest group into motion– and uber-partisanship would destroy any chance that Obama has to push his agenda through Congress. It also must be said that there is literally no chance that the prosecution of Bush/Cheney would be viewed as a mere exercise of legitimate power- instead it would be seen as forcing through the radical agenda of the far left.
Although I believe that potential prosecutions are probably justified, I don't know whether they would be practical or fruitful–or whether we have the stomach and the backbone for it.
But I certainly would want us to investigate what happened and how it happened, so that it will be more difficult for such travesties to happen again
I don't think it does any good to investigate. So many of these people in uniform have gone before a CM and walked free or with a slight face slap on charges of murdering entire families. I just don't get it. The world friggen hates us over this crap and justifies every atrocity committed by our adversaries because of it. However, my respect is so solid for Leon Panetta, if says drop it, then his reason must be critical to our nation.