CIA director nominee Leon Panetta gave startling testimony in his confirmation hearings this week by retracting a statement critical of the Bush Administration’s rendition policy and proclaiming that CIA employees will not be punished for any war crimes that they committed. I discuss the testimony on this segment of Countdown.
Panetta made the statements before the Senate Intelligence committee and in an interview with AP. He stated that
“[i[t was my opinion we just can’t operate if people feel even if they are following the legal opinions of the Justice Department.” While he did not address the prosecution of those who ordered the war crimes, he categorically dismissed the idea that you could be prosecuted for just following orders. Of course, that is precisely the defense that we rejected after World War II and executed those who made the “just following orders defense.” We do not apply the same standard to terrorism: we will prosecute the head of Al Qaeda or Libyan intelligence service in a terrorism case but not the individuals who carried out the orders. Like other crimes, you are not allowed to commit torture and you are expected to refuse. Some did refuse in this country and those who did not committed a war crime.
None of this means that low-level CIA employees were likely to be prosecuted or that they had no defense. As I have said before, these employees can make an estoppel defense argument. However, such defenses are made in the course of an investigation. No reasonable leader should state that there is some irrebuttable presumption that an alleged torturer cannot be prosecuted if he was just following orders. The harm done from such careless statements to international law is incalculable. Moreover, by starting with such statements, you remove any leverage of investigations in seeking the cooperation of low-level individuals, who are less likely to cooperation if they know that they cannot or will not be prosecuted for their roles. President Obama and now Panetta have created a new American rule that, so long as a lawyer tells you to commit a war crime, you are immune from prosecution.
Finally, there is the problem of a future CIA director making such an announcement. While Panetta said he would “leave to others” the question of whether high-ranking officials might be prosecuted for war crimes, he could assure the committee that the actual torturers would be given immunity. It is a dangerous and presumptuous claim for an agency head to make. Even an attorney general nominee would be unwise to make such a categorical claim. A CIA director has no part in the decision whether one of his people should be charged as a war criminal — a legal question.
On the renditions question, Panetta was equally baffling. When pressed by Sen. Kit Bond (R., Mo.) on his prior statement that there was a policy to rendition individuals for torture, Panetta conceded that he was “not aware of the validity of those claims” and retracted the statement. Bond then publicly spanked him for “making statements or making judgments based on rumors and news stories,” saying that this was just rumors put out by “liberal blogs” and journalists.
However, it was not liberal blogs and journalists who put out these statements. Various people involved in the case admitted that they routinely used rendition for this purpose and many such cases show precisely this pattern. Panetta should have said that we can debate the meaning of an “official policy.” However, where there is such a pattern and understanding, many would view it as a policy. Policies are not formed like legislation or regulations with a record of committee reports or federal register events to mark its creation. Many an administration routinely renditions individuals, who are tortured, there is ample reason to call it a de facto policy.
For the story, click here
I hear an echo…
Mike S.’ assessment is very insightful. Jill decided months ago that Obama is a scumbucket and has been on a mission collecting ‘evidence’ (AND personalities) to support her position. It’s boring!
She needs to ‘get off it’ and apply her energies and criticisms constructively.
ACLU is holding events on Guantanamo and on Human Rights. Why not join them? Get involved.
Otherwise, we’ll be voting on a name change – ‘Jillimbaugh’ 😉
FFLEO,
You are extending the olive branch and I accept. There are many people on this blog who I respect, like and think the best of. I will never agree with these same people, so mote it be!
Jill,
I’d think destruction of evidence would explain it all.
Very good points everyone (I will not make lists, right CCD?!)
Jill, I understand your frustration and once Obama selected Mr. Tim Geithner, I lost most of the limited respect I had for him. However, we are stuck with him for at least 4 years—and as you are doing—we must keep him honest. He must succeed or we all fail through no real faults of our own making.
Mr. O. made some very naive promises and now he is changing some of those pledges he made to us, which garnered our votes. He is intelligent enough to use good critical thinking and if he will continue to reason things through, we must support him; we in fact, have no other choice. Buddha’s neat analogies fit the bill for patience, as long as Obama continues to remain open, transparent, and honest with the public.
Buddha,
Please explain how allowing prisoners to be abused aids in the criminal prosecution of GWB and Dick Cheney.
No, mentioning it is fine as long as context is provided. No one should be idolized like Stalin and keeping our Pres in check on that is indeed important. We’ve seen what unbridled ego can do in the office of President and VP. While I agree with the ethical pragmatism of “it stops on a dime”, I think you are missing point as a matter of evidentiary procedure and sound investigative practice. Criminals will run and hide and destroy evidence when the Sheriff is coming. That’s human nature. Is it unjust? Absolutely. But which is worse, a tapering off of torture or just letting the most egregious torturers and those who ordered it go?
He should shutter Gitmo as soon as possible while retaining the evidence required to prosecute war criminals. Successful prosecution is key. That’s the truly pragmatic solution. Otherwise, it’s all academic – our standing will never be restored internationally. If that means an “inefficiency” now, that’s the cost of doing business as the saying goes. Sometimes justice delayed ends in a truer justice, but letting “it slide” isn’t going to happen, Obama or not. Is it sad some are still in Unca Dick’s torture gristmill? Yes, it is, but not all systems are 100% efficient. Otherwise, thermodynamics would be called thermostatsis. Optimal function is the goal, perfection impossible.
Yes, this pitch could go wild, but keep your eye on the ball. Don’t charge the mound until it’s time. Sometimes it’s RBI’s that win the game, not home runs.
Mike,
It was never my intention to insult you and I am sorry for hurting your feelings. I do remember that you have said you may be wrong about Obama (as have I). So, what evidence do you base your conclusion on that Obama is an inflitrator? Is it acceptable to you that detainees under Obama are being abused? Is his recent position taking during the court argument acceptable to you? Is his faith based initative acceptable? What about the monetary policy? What about the war in Afghanistan? Do you think sending in troops there is a good idea?
“But there is a danger of a cult of personality developing around Obama, that supporters could, in all this adoration, confuse the man with his mandate.” from JT in his latest column.
I am not spouting memes. I am worried. When good, intelligent people stop being critical of things they used to be critical of under a different president I am worried. What would you call this situation?
Buddha, are you also telling JT he should not mention anything about a Cult of Personality? Is it a “poor word choice at best and inaccurate when JT uses it as well”?
I do not think any time of allowing for torture is acceptable and I do not know where you ever got that impression from what I said. In fact, it is very upsetting to me that so many Obama supporters are staying silent, giving him time, while the detainees in Gitmo are suffering and people who have experience rendition and torture are being denied justice in the name of “state secrets”.
Careful with memes, Jill. They’re like a virus. It’s a hazard often created by word selection and their intrinsic “value load”. Using the term Cult of Personality is a disservice to the man and those who elected him by creating a false association with Stalinism, not only the definition of CoP, but the founding example of said definition.
No, Obama isn’t the Cult of Personality. You could make the case that Bush was/is, because most of his votes were based on “people wanting to have a beer with him”, not sound policy and adherence to the rule of law. Is there a bit of cultishness to some Obama supporters? Perhaps, but no more so than to be expected for a truly historic figure: the first black President. I’m sure Jefferson had groupies too. And although he was never President, it’s a well known fact Franklin had groupies. The get naked and chase you type too. But that’s a long way from giving Obama carte blanc ala the Cult of Personality, Jill.
If your argument is based on giving him time to stop torture and if three weeks isn’t an acceptable time frame, exactly what would be? This isn’t a nuclear reactor. You don’t need time to shut it down. You simply stop. One is torturing or one is not. There is no “try”. Or is there? The staggering is most likely caused by trying to sort out the criminals from those compelled to obey orders. Or do you think that no one would destroy evidence if the hammer was visibly coming down and they were facing war crimes trials? Sun Tzu advises the destruction of your enemies before they know you are coming. That often takes the form of planning and preparation, not outright conflict. Obama is a big boy, he knew what the heat was like when he wanted in the kitchen. And I, like many of his supporters hold this simple value: Fix the crimes and punish the criminals of the Bush Administration or be a one term President – If you won’t bring back justice and the rule of law as promised, We the People will. Angering We the People is risky. These cases against the Neocons and successful prosecutions are his litmus tests with the Vox Populi. If he doubts that, I hope he enjoys having someone else head the ticket next time should he drop the rule of law ball. But don’t get your hopes up Neocon GOP, you won’t be seeing the inside of the White House any time soon except as visitors. Or on television from a cell. In the mean time Jill, you might want to back off that Cult of Personality comparison. It’s poor word choice at best and inaccurate.
Jill,
I like and respect you as well and that will never stop, but please understand while we can always disagree amiably, you are putting me and others down by your implications. Debate me on the merits of each issue, but the merits are not expressed by:
“I feel that people are following a cult of personality”
Your are only expressing a meme. It is not only insulting, it ignores the body of statements I’ve (and others) made both before and after the inaugural disagreeing with some of Obama’s policies and admitting the possibility that I could be wrong about him. I would also point out to you that you have written about never being an Obama supporter, so by the same token if I accused you of only looking for things to support your opinion and ignoring everything else, I too would be insulting your open-mindedness and intelligence.
Mike,
I must stand behind what I said. I do think Obama supporters are not looking at the facts, not just of the past 3.5 weeks but of Obama’s voting record. I do not see any facts to back up your idea that Obama is inflitrating the establishment. I do see facts to back up that he is the establishment. I am not quoting Glenn Greenwald as a god, he has laid out quotes from the courts’ own questions showing that the Obama DOJ had itself considered its position and supported it of it’s own accord. While supporters are giving him the benefit of the doubt things are going crazy at Gitmo, detainees are being abused and will most likely die. Obama signaled his bent by his own actions. He was busy lunching with the telecom lobbyists while the reporter from ABC was roughed up during the Democratic convention. He received only 1/3 of his hugh campaign war chest from small donors, the rest came in large part from the defense and telecom companies. So yes, I am very frustrated by the refusal of his supporters to deal with the reality that is Obama. I feel that people are following a cult of personality just as JT mentioned in his column. Meanwhile our detainees are suffering. He doesn’t deserve a break while others are denied justice. Of course he’s imperfect, that’s exactly my point. He will not be accountable to “we the people” unless we realize this and act accordingly. To do otherwise is being naive. And I like and respect you as well and that will never stop, but I can’t get behind this program.
“I am especially concerned that Obama supporters, many of whom are very intelligent and have a good will towards other people, are turning away from the facts because it’s hard to face that Obama may not be the person they hoped he would be.”
Jill,
You know I love your stuff and personally like the “you” I’ve seen on this site. In the interests of the honesty with which we have engaged in back and forth discussion, I must say that the above few lines from you piss me off considerably. Partly because this is not worthy of the open-minded person that you have shown yourself to be.
The MSM meme that played out in this election, first put forth by Hillary supporters was that somehow those people supporting Obama have been mesmerized by his charisma, charm and eloquence. The meme continues that because of this rapture his supporters failed to recognize that he was not all he was made out to be. Your paragraph patronizes me and other Obama supporters on this site because its’ essence is that we are naive.
I’m sorry to resort to this but I find I can’t fully express my thoughts without providing the context to them. In the 60’s and 70’s one might define me as a “Movement” person although my participation was not in leadership but on the fringe. I was able,
however, to glimpse some of the leaders in action. Where I was more a direct participant was in a NYC Civil Service Union from 1967 to 1972, that was arguably the most radical union in the US, of its’ time. This for me was between the ages of 23 & 28. I was politically for all intents and purposes what people called a “Hippie,” although my roots were really in the “beat generation.”
While engaging in both civil rights and Viet Nam War protests I was able to engage against what I then saw as the “Evil Right,” fascists trying to prevent the people from gaining power. Being of a “bohemian” nature though I found all “ism’s/political theories” to be bogus, whether right, left or center. This was because when one adopted an “ism” one had to adopt the “party line” that went with it. Once you adopted a “party line” you became locked into being the problem, not the solution. The fallacies of the Right were easy to see, but the fallacies of the left were less clear since on the surface I agreed with so many of their aims.
It was my union activism that showed me that the left had its’ own problems. Without ego, given my current decrepit state, I was young, handsome and a stirring public speaker. As a Union Delegate (Shop Steward)I led a Welfare Center that was among the most militant. I was just the kind of person that the various political factions wanted to recruit to their cause. At the time besides your normal liberals and conservative this union had all factions of the left in strong representation. Communist Party (Marxist supporters of the USSR), Progressive Labor Party (Maoists), Trotskyites, Socialists, et. al. All of these groups tried to recruit me to their banner and I rejected all of them because in each I would had to have adopted their party line/groupthink that I abhorred. It became apparent that in their belief in an “ism,”
following leaders who interpreted the dogma, they were no better than the authoritarian Right wingers that I despised.
Coming to that conclusion I dropped out of union activism and began to look inward to first change myself and then worry about changing the world. That happened, led to my becoming a Psychotherapist/Social Worker and so forth.
So Jill, when you imply naivete’ among Obama supporters I do take umbrage. I’ve been there, done that for the last 50 years and I am very far from being a political naif. While in their current iterations those on the right march in lockstep and as I have said elsewhere are really faux conservatives, cum fascists, who give real conservatives a bad name.
However, many on the left are the antithesis of “lockstep” marchers, since they take pride in not following the “herd.” I have watched the analysis of every move Obama’s made since the election and it is a hodge-podge of the MSM punditocracy, mixed in with the pessimism of those whose candidates didn’t prevail and with the “hipper than thou” left wingers, who don’t trust anyone in political power. As I’ve said elsewhere there are some Obama moves that I’m not happy with, but I give him the benefit of the doubt, not because I’m a star struck follower, but because he is trained in the wisdom of Saul Alinsky. The tactics he learned as a CA in chicago are invaluable to promoting change and as was true in Alinsky’s lifetime he received much disdain by more orthodox leftists, who never accomplished even a quarter of what he did.
I’m not making judgments 3.5 weeks into Obama’s administration and those who do I thnk are not only missing the big picture, but are truly pessimistic of the possibility of any effective change.
Finally, I read Glenn Greenwald daily and respect him, but his record of being correct is not pristine. I’m an ACLU member but they are not always right. The only person’s viewpoint I follow is my own and my only real heroes are Clarence Darrow and my father, both of whom were very imperfect men.
Friends don’t let friends drive drunk . . . or torture.
rafflaw,
Here’s a link to the Center for Constitutional Rights. I did put this above on Sat. in answer to you and rcampbell, but it probably didn’t show up at the time you checked the blog. At this link type in AFM and also torture under the search.
http://ccrjustice.org/
Please check out what Glenn Greenwald has to say about this rafflaw. I am not trying to disparage Obama as part of some ‘I told you so’ game. I am very worried for this nation. I have been worried about it under Bush and I am worried about it under Obama. I am especially concerned that Obama supporters, many of whom are very intelligent and have a good will towards other people, are turning away from the facts because it’s hard to face that Obama may not be the person they hoped he would be. I understand how that would be difficult. Still we had 8 years of lawlessness because people looked the other way on Bush. They believed in him after 9/11 and he was able to push through a whole set of terrible policies because people assumed he was a good man without checking into what he was actually doing. We don’t have time to wait while Obama continues in some very bad policies. He needs to hear from us that he’s engaging in behavior contrary to the rule of law (please read G. Greenwald on this, he is very clear on that aspect of the administration’s position). I know you respect Obama. Part of respecting another person is not letting them get away with really bad shit.
CCD,
I have never flown out of Mitchell, but I have dropped people off there and they enjoyed the ease of flying out of there. You are right that none of us can sit still for the status quo when the status quo includes torture.
Rafflaw,
If it comes to it we’ll be on the same flight, Mitchel to Reagan.
Jill, PattyC, Mespo, CCD and anyone that I might of missed,
I also agree that if torture is still going on in Gitmo, it needs to be stopped immediately. I also agree that Obama needs to be given time to get his feet under him and his DOJ. I believe that more effective steps will be taken by DOJ down the road. I have said earlier that if the Obama administration does not follow up its words with action that I will be in the front of the line to voice my oppposition. However, we are not even one month into the administration. Jill, which interrogation method(s) still in the Army Field Manual is/are considered torture? I know I have seen articles where there were complaints about multiple tactics being used cumulatively that together might constitute torture, but I wasn’t aware of any individual tactic, that was in the manual that could be considered torture. I have the same concern that Mr. Romero of the ACLU has, but I am willing to give President Obame a reasonable amount of time to lay out his full program for his Department of Justice. I was happy to hear him tonight in his press conference repeat that if there is clear evidence of wrong doing by the prior administration that they should be prosecuted. I will be watching very closely.
Monday 2/9/2009
Patty
“My objections are to the incessant hand-wringing and sweeping implications that Obama has the full intention of keeping George W. Bushes programs in place, despite his statements and short-order demonstrations to the contrary.”
ACLU
“We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course.
It’s early, there will be other opportunities to for President Obama to uphold his Constitutional oath of office. But they were taking the news today instead of making it.
Attacking Obama, in this manner after three only weeks, makes you fair game, as well.He won. Get over it.
Patty he got my vote and my campaign contribution. I was in Grant Park on November 4th 2008, it was electric. I maybe guilty of cyber-bitching whoops my bad.
You ‘worship’ Glenn Greenwald – I don’t.
Rather, what’s more persuasive is that Holder has chosen not to intervene in an ongoing prosecution in this way, after careful and thoughtful review.
That doesn’t mean that’s the end of it.
p.s. I didn’t ‘worship’ Greenspan when it came to financial forecasting, either. Thank goodness!
From Glenn Greenwald,
“Thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration”: that’s about as explicit as it gets. It will be extremely difficult for even the most loyal Obama followers to deny that this was an active and conscious decision on the part of the Obama DOJ to embrace one of the most extreme abuses of the Bush presidency.
It isn’t merely that the Obama DOJ is invoking the privilege for this particular case, which contains allegations of torture that are as brutal and severe as any. That’s bad enough. But worse is that they’re invoking the most abusive parts of the Bush theory: namely, that the privilege can be used to block the adjudication of entire cases (rather than, say, justify the concealment specific classified documents or facts), and, worse still, can be used to prevent judicial scrutiny even when the alleged government conduct is blatantly illegal and, as here, a war crime of the greatest seriousness. They’re embracing a theory that literally places government officials beyond the rule of law. No minimally honest person who criticized the Bush administration for relying on this instrument can defend the Obama administration for doing so here.”
No person should justify torture or the use of state secrets to block justice just because it’s being sanctioned by the person they voted for. People need to keep their moral compass intact, otherwise we are engaging in pure worship of authority. It’s easy to oppose Bush, but harder to oppose Obama. We need to keep our courage and demand this stop.