General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama, the CIA, and the Limits of Conciliation
Obama, the CIA, and the Limits of ConciliationBy Charles P. Pierce
Esquire
Friday 14 March 2014
It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that, in one very important way, the president has lost control of his own government. The current constitutional crisis between the CIA and the Senate committee tasked with investigating its policies regarding torture during the previous administration has only one real solution that is consonant with the rule of law. Either CIA director John Brennan gets to the bottom of what his people were doing and publicly fires everyone involved, or John Brennan becomes the ex-director of the CIA. By the Constitution, this isn't even a hard call. The Senate has every legal right to investigate what was done in the name of the American people during the previous decade. It has every legal right to every scrap of information relating to its investigation, and the CIA has an affirmative legal obligation to cooperate. Period. The only way this is not true is if we come to accept the intelligence apparatus as an extra-legal, formal fourth branch of the government.
That is the choice that the president should give Brennan. Right now. This morning. Nobody is asking for the release of tracking data regarding the current operatives of al Qaeda. This information is being withheld because, during the late Avignon Presidency, the CIA repeatedly broke the law in its treatment of captives and it did so with the blessing of the highest reaches of the American government. That the president has not done this yet -- indeed, that he seems to have thrown his support behind Brennan -- is not merely a mistake, it is a demonstration of the practical limits of the political appeal that got him elected in the first place.
Increasingly, the election of Barack Obama seems to have functioned more as an anesthetic than as an antidote to the criminality of his predecessor's government. His message of conciliation allowed the American people to forget what they had allowed a cabal of bureaucrats and fantasts to hijack their government in the chaos and terror following the attacks of September 11. The president offered the country, as I wrote at the time, absolution without penance. And he put that philosophy into action by declining right at the outset to prosecute, or even to thoroughly investigate, what had been done. What we are seeing today is the final limit to looking forward, and not back. The CIA, and the rest of the intelligence apparatus of the country, was not reconciled to democracy. They were not brought properly to heel and the American people were not forced to confront the consequences of the terrible abandonment of self-government that, at its worst, the intelligence community represents.
The rest: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/obama-cia-john-brennan-031414
Emphasis mine.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,534 posts)I would say I agree except that he should have started it at the start of his Presidency. He is more than overdue in starting.
And I doubt that he will do it. It doesn't fit the pattern that he has laid down.
We have been betrayed.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)One president broke the law, the next, for all practical purposes, said it was completely ok. Torture is not a petty crime, either, and now the intelligence "branch" of government has been given enormous power to do what it wants without repercussions. Being president is no longer the highest position of power.
It was really important to face the illegality of the past president and set it right. Unfortunately, that opportunity is now gone.
840high
(17,196 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
dotymed
(5,610 posts)
Solly Mack
(90,758 posts)
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)with additional blue links and smiles which had a totally different spin and left out the importatnt part you emphasized.
The president offered the country, as I wrote at the time, absolution without penance. And he put that philosophy into action by declining right at the outset to prosecute, or even to thoroughly investigate, what had been done. What we are seeing today is the final limit to looking forward, and not back. The CIA, and the rest of the intelligence apparatus of the country, was not reconciled to democracy. They were not brought properly to heel and the American people were not forced to confront the consequences of the terrible abandonment of self-government that, at its worst, the intelligence community represents.
So I'll guess I'll niominate this one....LOL
bobduca
(1,763 posts)xocet
(3,871 posts)Your post made me curious about that other post and its spin. I looked it up, went partway down the rabbit hole and found the author of that blue-linked chain was self-kicking its own posts to try to keep them relevant. Is that ego or desperation? Either way, it is pretty sad. Oh well, hopefully, it is the end of the reign of blue-linked terror.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Most of us shy away from propaganda central and as a result...the self kicks. Sad yes, but totally expected.
Response to xocet (Reply #22)
cui bono This message was self-deleted by its author.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Neither, it's programming
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
malaise
(268,724 posts)They should have been investigated, purged from every institution and sent to the Hague for war crimes' trials.
Brennan should have resigned by now.
The problem is that all American Presidents are hawks (sadly so are most of the members of both chambers of the legislature) and the empire is dependent on the CIA.
Obama was terrified of being accused of being weak in relation to 9/11.
Meanwhile Christie is giving away 9/11 debris as memorabilia - it means nothing to them - except a means to achieve power.
freebrew
(1,917 posts)That was one of the most difficult things to overcome(and we never really did) during the Vietnam protests.
And there's a bit of me that still resents the unions for their pro-war stance. But, it was the PTB that used the unions for the purpose of the hawks.
Most people were convinced that the US went there for good reasons. At first.
When some of their friends started dying, When the draft was intensified, when THEY started getting drafted
some of them started looking and asking questions. The middle-class kids started resisting. These were the kids that took advantage of being able to attend college, they were a bit smarter because of it. A few of us were even taught critical thinking.
Then came the Pentagon Papers...
malaise
(268,724 posts)All the papers show the same things ...but few people learn.
dotymed
(5,610 posts)used as an excuse to commit the atrocities...all for capitalism.
icarusxat
(403 posts)The "memorabilia" is all fake anyway. The evidence of the crime (presence of thermite) was all shipped to China swiftly. The crime scene was intentionally scrubbed.
Autumn
(44,986 posts)It's not going to change now.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)more powerful than the other branches and the Pres couldnt fire Brennan if he wanted to. Clapper lied to Congress because he could and can. He knows who is running the government.
albino65
(484 posts)I added WilliamPitt to my ignore list and I still see his shit. Go figure.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)
...and thanks for kicking my thread.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)If you don't hear anything else from me...
Rex
(65,616 posts)Add me too while you are at it. 
albino65
(484 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Saves me time weeding through the dumb
neverforget
(9,436 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)WillyT
(72,631 posts)
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Dick Durbin on Brennan:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024662567
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)
lark
(23,065 posts) 
malthaussen
(17,175 posts)Funny how the easy calls transmute into "tough choices."
-- Mal
pragmatic_dem
(410 posts)and quickly went to work pouring cement around Washington's most corrupt institutions.
jsr
(7,712 posts)swilton
(5,069 posts)On the origins of the CIA in the aftermath of WWII - much worth a listen
Other interviews with Prouty, captured in Oliver Stone's JFK as the Donald Sutherland character, are also worthwhile...but the origins of the CIA are directly relevant here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Fletcher_Prouty
fbc
(1,668 posts)I think it's something that should be considered.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
Zorra
(27,670 posts)problem, because an unfettered network of spooks whose job it is to protect the worldwide interests of 1% global capitalists is basically unchallengeable and untouchable without successful revolution.
The biggest mistake you can make is to believe these people work for you and your interests.
The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . .
The only solution is world revolution.
“Our strategy should be not only to confront empire, but to lay siege to it. To deprive it of oxygen. To shame it. To mock it. With our art, our music, our literature, our stubbornness, our joy, our brilliance, our sheer relentlessness – and our ability to tell our own stories. Stories that are different from the ones we’re being brainwashed to believe.
The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability.
Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them.
Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing.”
― Arundhati Roy
Rex
(65,616 posts)ALWAYS a bad idea to ignore gross violations to the laws of the land, even if done by the guy before you...ignore at your own peril. THIS CIA scandal is all the making and doing of the BFEE...sadly their shit is so foul...that even all these years later, it is coming up through the trap out back AND making a BIG STINK for everyone to notice!
I HOPE the POTUS is learning a lesson from all this - DON'T IGNORE criminal acts by the former WH, they might comeback to haunt you! I WON'T accept the CIA being above the law...and neither should Congress or the POTUS imo.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)This seems to be true in many areas including Wall Street, Trade Agreements, Energy Policy, Labor Relations, Education, &c. The "left" (as in left of batshit) was given a mascot and then told they must stfu, go along, and be grateful, a brilliant move to crush dissent. Good soldiers have taken it to heart and now feel the need to defend the indefensible in order to save face.
A charismatic candidate, camera-ready, well-written speeches, brilliant graphics, and an easily-digested message. After the hellish previous years, it felt like our country had come to its senses and would right itself. And yet, while the administration has thrown a bone on social issues that have no financial bearing when forced to, the neo-liberalism has only been increasing in speed, gliding on greased tracks. There is no effort to define a vision of the future and then fight for it. No plan for what the federal government should do or how it should operate under a Democratic administration. Instead we must witness a bumbling parade of what on the surface seems like mismanagement and disorganization. But look behind the news dumps and mixed messages, and the agenda is as clear as day. I suppose that was the price of winning, to have your name in the history books. I suppose it would take a much stronger person than I or Barack Obama to say no.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Instead we must witness a bumbling parade of what on the surface seems like mismanagement and disorganization. But look behind the news dumps and mixed messages, and the agenda is as clear as day.
LuvNewcastle
(16,838 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 15, 2014, 08:12 AM - Edit history (2)
He picked Wall Streeters to run the Treasury Dept. Would a man who wants to bring us change choose his people to run the economy from among the people who drove it in the ground?
If you wanted real change for America, would you allow Wall Street to help write the legislation that would govern their activities? Would you allow insurance companies and Big Pharma to write your signature health legislation?
Does it sound like "change" when you allow the very people who have been the root of the problem all along to advise you on your most important decisions? If we can use Obama's history as a guide to predict the future, we'll have the CIA and NSA writing any future legislation that might curb some of their activities.
From what we've seen so far, I think we have to conclude that there was never any intent to give us any significant change in the way this country is run. You know, at this point, I'm not even sure it was possible. We saw the death of democracy in the 1960's or 70's, I believe. I think that's when the intel agencies took over our government, maybe as early as the Kennedy assassination. When that happened, it didn't matter anymore who we elected; the CIA et al. would keep things humming right along on the same course. That's why I think that the next revolution won't begin at the ballot box. How could it, when the people we elect aren't really in control?
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)But it took a long while for many to believe or even comprehend how deep the betrayal. I remember my PUMA coworker trying to point out that Obama, a fairly unknown, first-term senator was walking in with a war chest and who paid for that? I didn't listen. Then there was the flip on public financing and the Telcomm vote which made me squeamish as hell. The words weren't matching the actions. Many deals were made to make his election happen and now he must dance with those that brung him (i.e. not us). It was all a sham, especially the healthcare w/o the public option thing. I wonder how much the healthcare agencies paid for that.
I do keep the rather naive hope in my heart--like a slave waiting for the Messiah to deliver us from what looks like the unbeatable Romans--that there could be a Teddy or a Franklin Roosevelt. It would take someone of that stature and fight to do anything about what's going on. I don't doubt that it would be nothing short of a fight to the death as there is too much money at stake. (And I don't think it's wise to wish people dead, but I do wish both the Kochs would meet their makers). I don't know. I do know that the saying Nature abhors a vacuum is correct. There is so much imbalance in the system. The pendulum will swing or change will come: perhaps not in the way we expect or not in the way we would like. But the social system will adjust somehow.
icarusxat
(403 posts)Corporations can't pray, but they are experts at preying...
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I just read an article earlier today about Brennan - why he should never have been appointed and should now resign - and posted it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024663994
Immediately after the election, Obama appointed one of Tenet’s proteges, John Brennan, to head the transition team at CIA. Brennan, as Tenet’s chief of staff, was part of the corruption and cover-up at CIA. He was slated to become Obama’s director at CIA, but Brennan removed his name from consideration when it became clear that he would have serious difficulty in the confirmation process because of his support for CIA detentions and renditions. Like Robert Gates, who had to withdraw his nomination in 1987 because of his dissembling over Iran-Contra, but then laundered his credentials to become confirmed four years later, Brennan too laundered his credentials for a successful bid to become CIA director in 2013.
It should not be forgotten that, during the Tenet era at CIA, Brennan was the chief of staff and deputy executive director under George Tenet, and provided no opposition to decisions to conduct torture and abuse of suspected terrorists and to render suspected individuals to foreign intelligence services that conducted their own torture and abuse. Brennan had risen through the analytic ranks at the CIA, and should have been aware that analytic standards were being ignored at the Agency. Brennan was also an active defender of the program of warrantless eavesdropping, implemented at the National Security Agency under the leadership of one of Tenet’s successors, General Michael Hayden, then director of NSA.
PorridgeGun
(80 posts)This is the sort of thing the LOTR trilogy was really about. Here we have a well intentioned, idealistic reformer who, to all appearances, genuinely wanted to change things in Washington. His failure to fulfil his promise to close Guantanamo, which he believed correctly to constitute a smear on our civil rights record that needed putting to rest, was a sadly predictable beginning to 6 years of demonstrating that he has been sucked into the military/industrial power vortex Eisenhower warned us against.
Funnily enough, the "ring of power" Obama was gifted by the voters (the wisest and fairest of them, anyway?) is now close enough to being all-seeing and omnipotent in its ability to zap people from the sky that Sauron might have set Sarumans pits at Orthanc to work building drones and mass storage facilities rather than primitive brutes had he been able to foresee late-20th century human technology.
NealK
(1,851 posts)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)"Increasingly, the election of Barack Obama seems to have functioned more as an anesthetic than as an antidote to the criminality of his predecessor's government."
tomp
(9,512 posts)the more i read of pierce the more i like him. and anyone who emphasizes obama's criminal failure to investigate and prosecute the crimes of bush/cheney, inc., as well as highlights the crimes of the intelligence community, is at the forefront of political understanding as far as i'm concerned.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)His blog on Esquire is a several-visits-a-day page for me.
He is also a frequent host on NPR's "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me." A funny bastard to boot. 
tomp
(9,512 posts)I'll have to start listening to WWDTM again.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)See if they do a rebroadcast at some point.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)the situation when he took office.
Yes, he could have devoted his first term to uncovering the crimes of the Bush administration. But that's all he would have accomplished, and he very well might have been a one-term President. The prosecutor President.
He couldn't have done that AND pushed the health care bill through. Congress isn't built that way. So he made the choice to look forward, not backward, and to try to accomplish something good during his own administration. You might not agree with his decision, and that's your right.
But millions of Americans are sleeping better at night because he did.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)on his desk on day one, including the wars, the war on terror, keeping the banks afloat, rescuing the auto industry, pulling the economy out of a nose dive etc. etc.
*Apparently most presidents expect to concentrate on three or four major portfolios.
pnwmom
(108,959 posts)And he wouldn't have gotten any if he was in the process of tearing Bush from limb to limb. (As Bush deserved.)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Much to think about. So many people are coming up to speed.