Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama's CIA Pick Leon Panetta Strongly Against Torture

Posted by Digby, Hullabaloo at 3:30 PM on January 5, 2009.


'I've had my problems with Panetta over the years, but he's a much better pick for this job than I might have hoped for.'
ciaseal250x200

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Rights and Liberties in your
mailbox!

 

I've had my problems with Panetta over the years, but he's a much better pick for this job than I might have hoped for. Here he is, just this year on the torture regime:

 

Fear exacts a terrible toll on our democracy. Five years ago, America went to war in Iraq over the false fear that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

 

Even though we now know that there were intelligence officials who questioned the assertion, few leaders were willing to challenge this argument for war because they knew it might undermine public support for the president's decision to invade Iraq.

More recently, President Bush vetoed a law that would require the CIA and all the intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual.

The president says the rules are too

But all forms of torture have long been prohibited by American law and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents alike.

Our forefathers prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment" because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.

 

But then there's this:

The same rationale is used to justify eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The president has made clear that the failure of the Congress to pass this authority could jeopardize our security. Instead of trying to negotiate a compromise with Congress that would meet both our intelligence and privacy concerns, it is easier to threaten with fear.

Luckily the wiretapping is not a purview of the CIA and torture is, so he's on the right side of what I consider to be the most important issue pertaining to his job.

I'll have to do some research on the rest of Panetta's ideas on intelligence. He's an extremely annoying bipartisan fetishist, but I'm not sure how that would affect him in this position. I would guess that the most important constituency here is the CIA itself, and I have no idea what they think of him.

My first instinct is to be relieved about this appointment. Panetta is smart and he has a reputation for being an excellent manager, so at least we won't be dealing with another Porter Goss debacle.

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, cia, torture, obama, california, saddam hussein, waterboarding, panetta

Digby is the proprietor of Hullabaloo.


What Sarah Palin's "Jewish people will be flocking to Israel" prediction really means
Palin's associated with a religious tendency whose leaders promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theory
Post by Bruce Wilson. November 21, 2009.
Considering a Faux Turkey for the Holidays? Better Read This First
A review of four "birds" -- and it's not pretty.
Post by Tara Lohan. November 21, 2009.
Tea-Parties so Diverse, They Had to Use the Same Black Guy in 5 Different Scenes of Tea-Bagger Movie
Really, you know a black tea-bagger named Nate?
Post by Oliver Willis. November 20, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
this is out of the box thinking
Posted by: weathered on Jan 5, 2009 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Last time we saw Leon, he was on his farm tractor?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: this is out of the box thinking Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
» RE: this is out of the box thinking Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson
But for most Americans, 9/11 made torture seem ok.
Posted by: pfgetty on Jan 6, 2009 4:30 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Torture is bad. Most of us know that. But most Americans are on the fence or definitely FOR torture for anyone connected with 9/11, or possibly so. It is actually reasonable, although I am against torture personally. Still I can see how torture, to save the lives of thousands or even millions, could be considered a rational tool.
The trouble isn't that the present administration used torture. The trouble is they brought us 9/11. They conspired to bring us this "New Pearl Harbor", so that wars for resources, wars to help Israel, torture, wiretapping, increased powers of the state over individual liberties, could all come about.
If Panetta cares about torture, or wiretapping, or freedom, then Panetta should expose 9/11, the official story, for the fraud that it is. We would almost instantly reverse all of the horrors that have come upon the American people and the rest of the world, and bring about a nation we could be proud of, instead of one hated by the people of the world.
Panetta could "out" the 9/11 story, but so could Alternet. Alternet, and the rest of the so called alternative press, has decided to censure itself about 9/11. Maybe it has been threatened, or maybe it is afraid of losing some big contributors, like corporate money, or money coming from Zionists. I don't know why Alternet has decided to ignore the huge amount of information that the 9/11 official story is a con job, but it has. And because it has, our country has been suffering from the reaction after 9/11, the taking of our freedoms, the massacring of hundreds of thousands of people, thousands of Americans killed, torture, the loss of respect for America around the world.
Alternet has decided not to tell us about the real story of 9/11, and has also decided not to tell us WHY it has made this decision.
Alternative media was our last hope to bring down the forces that have brought us imperial wars, torture, loss of freedoms, etc. We have no hope as long as the journalists at Alternet maintain their silence on the huge lies and contradictions about 9/11.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not everyone is on the fence
Posted by: Cordier on Jan 6, 2009 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
regarding torture. I suspect now that we see the end of the drama that is the Bush administration, TV shows like 24 which have glorified the use of torture will begin to disappear. At least that is my hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tired of 'Bipartisian'
Posted by: Andie927 on Jan 6, 2009 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hallabalou! Repugs. definition of 'bipartician' is if they get 60 to 80% of what they and their 'corporate, lobbist buds' want and the Dems. and the People get the remaining crumbs! You Can't compromise with 'extremists, fanatics'. It's like trying to compromise with a spoiled child that's use to getting what it wants by having temper tantrums!

Dems, & Obama: Needs to tell the Repugs. who's in charge, elections count, No More then 5 'fake' filabusters; or we'll use the Nuclear Option!
Remember: That threat???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tired of 'Bipartisian' Posted by: VZEQICVA
OK, we have an anti-torture CIA chief
Posted by: willymack on Jan 6, 2009 11:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about our new Attorney General? Are the bush crime family going to be indicted for their manifold crimes, including torture? What are we going to do about our corrupt "supreme" court? Is there a legal way to cut the rot out of it? Are we going to get out from underneath the boot of corporate criminals? Are we going to explore new ways of conducting the affairs of state? Are we going to save the enviornment before it's too late for us? There's a very steep and slippery mountain to climb in our immediate future. Are we up to it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What I like about the Panetta pick is...
Posted by: Quannah on Jan 6, 2009 6:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the fact that it pissed off Diane Feinstein and Jay Rockefeller. As incoming chairman (Feinstein) and outgoing chairman(Rockefeller) of the Intelligence Committee in the Senate, they were allegedly supposed to be briefed on this pick BEFORE it happened. They found out about Panetta the same way we all did... through the media. THEY WERE SNUBBED by Obama.

Perhaps this is what happens when you conspire with the opposition party to strip citizens of their constitutional rights.

Perhaps this is what you get for not conducting oversight when you're chairpersons of a powerful committee -- a committee that requires the citizens to TRUST YOU TO DO THE RIGHT THING because much of what happens in the committee isn't made public because of "national security."

NOT ONLY DID OBAMA NOT CONSULT WITH THESE TWO... he also told them today, basically, to sit down and shut up. They had the balls to publicly state they wanted the CURRENT Deputy CIA director to get the job. One of the people that is responsible for the CIA torture policy, and the renditions, INSTEAD OF Leon Panetta. But, suddenly, today, after being "briefed" by the President-Elect, they withdrew their opposition to Panetta.

Sit down and shut up.

Perhaps things will be different after all?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]