Mr. Brennan noted in his publicly released note to the President-elect that he had "been a strong opponent of many of the policies of the Bush administration such as the pre-emptive war in Iraq and coercive interrogation tactics, to include waterboarding...the fact that I was not involved in the decision-making process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored." Well, he might have opposed the Iraqi War, but his own statements, amply documented, contradict his plea that he opposed coercive interrogation techniques. At No Comment, Scott Horton gives a good analysis of Mr. Brennan's credibility problem:
As a company man, Brennan was quick to justify and support what was done. As an “independent” analyst for broadcast journalists, he also provided support and cover for practices from waterboarding to the use of psychotropic drugs. As an adviser to the Obama campaign, Brennan experienced an unconvincing epiphany and came to reject President Bush’s “program” along the same lines as his boss. The timing and circumstances of Brennan’s conversion suggest that it was dictated by political expedience and not ethics.Perhaps Mr. Brennan is trying to salvage a portion of his legacy and credibility in the era of "teh Google." Maybe he decided that staying in business securing (or not) the passport records of U.S. citizens is much more lucrative than running the CIA. Whether Mr. Brennan pulled the plug on himself, or whether the plug was pulled for him as a result of the advocacy of psychologists, bloggers and activated, concerned citizens, his withdrawal from consideration is but a small step towards righting the horrifying wrong of detention policies in the so-called War on Terror. Either way, this is far, far from a tragedy. If you don't believe me, take some time to watch Torturing Democracy and tell me why any advocate of current policies should get a paycheck from the taxpayers.
Glen Greenwald discusses this development much more eloquently than I can -- It's a good thing that "the C.I.A.’s secret detention program remains a particularly incendiary issue" and that anyone associated with it -- let alone someone who defended it -- will have a difficult time being appointed to a position of high authority. Now let's hope that no other retreads (John McLaughlin) or morally compromised politicians (Jane Harman) get the nod to lead any portion of our intelligence community.
And that, my friends, is some change I can believe in.
(This - Gates Staying on as Defense Chief - not so much.)
.svg.png){kind=small}
Posts
2 comments:
Patrick Lang has put his oar in for prosecuting the torture bastards, but says Obama probably won't pursue it. That it's up to the people.
I've asked him, as have others, how to get the ball rolling. This topic should not be allowed to die.
Glenn Greenwald is doing what he can. He made his case well on Bill Moyers program recently.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Arrington et al are guilty of crimes against humanity and should be in the dock at the Hague. Short of that they should answer to good old US Justice, under a fair AG. Hopefully that's coming with the new administration.
Leanderthal,
I agree with you but am not so sure as others are that the new administration will not pursue accountability on torture.
That said, its also not clear to me how "dear" this issue is to the new leadership when compared to others like fixing the economy, helping workers, winding down Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.
I have little doubt though that if accountability is passed once again, these guys and the philosophy they advocate will return to power (and even respectability) in the future.
SP
Post a Comment