White House

Why Obama Should Roll Heads at the CIA

It’s one thing to let ‘patriots’ get away with torture. It’s another to condone the cover-ups.

Add to Briefcase
Ron Fournier
Aug. 4, 2014, 5:54 a.m.

Heads should roll at the CIA, but not for the ob­vi­ous reas­ons. Let’s re­view the ca­co­phony of is­sues raised by the bru­tal post-911 in­ter­rog­a­tion pro­gram, in­clud­ing the CIA’s lies, cov­er-ups, and a Con­sti­tu­tion-bend­ing spy­ing op­er­a­tion against Sen­ate staffers.

1. An ex­haust­ive Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee in­vest­ig­a­tion has de­term­ined bey­ond reas­on­able doubt that the CIA’s in­ter­rog­a­tion meth­ods amoun­ted to tor­ture. The re­port does not re­com­mend new pun­ish­ment or fur­ther crim­in­al in­quiry, which may be an ac­know­ledge­ment of the fact that CIA agents were car­ry­ing out or­ders of su­per­i­ors, and the su­per­i­ors were act­ing ur­gently, al­most des­per­ately, to pro­tect the coun­try from fol­low-up at­tacks.

2. Most Amer­ic­ans are likely to agree with Pres­id­ent Obama, who said Fri­day that the tac­tics went too far (“We tor­tured some folks”), but that those who ordered and com­mit­ted tor­ture did so out of dire pub­lic in­terest. He called them pat­ri­ots. “It’s im­port­ant for us not to feel too sanc­ti­mo­ni­ous in ret­ro­spect about the job that those folks had.”

3. The CIA it­self is torn. In a com­pre­hens­ive story out­lining the pending re­port, The Wash­ing­ton Post said there were in­stances of CIA headquar­ters de­mand­ing con­tin­ued use of severe in­ter­rog­a­tion tech­niques even after agents were con­vinced that sus­pects had no more in­form­a­tion. In one case, a CIA em­ploy­ee left one of the agency’s secret over­seas pris­ons in protest of in­ter­rog­a­tion tac­tics there.

4. The CIA misled the pub­lic and gov­ern­ment (in­clud­ing, pre­sum­ably, the pres­id­ent and Con­gress) about the pro­gram, The Post re­por­ted, “con­ceal­ing de­tails about the sever­ity of its meth­ods, over­stat­ing the sig­ni­fic­ance of plots and pris­on­ers, and tak­ing cred­it for crit­ic­al pieces of in­tel­li­gence that de­tain­ees had in fact sur­rendered be­fore they were sub­jec­ted to harsh tech­niques.” The Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee re­port con­cludes that the pro­gram had little, if any­thing, to do with find­ing and killing Osama bin Laden—or with dis­rupt­ing and in­vest­ig­at­ing oth­er acts of ter­ror­ism.

5. The minor­ity re­port writ­ten by Re­pub­lic­ans would “ab­so­lutely” doc­u­ment the in­tel­li­gence value of the con­tro­ver­sial tech­niques, said Sen. Saxby Cham­b­liss, R-Ga., the top Re­pub­lic­an on the Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee. That seems du­bi­ous. Everything I’ve heard from Re­pub­lic­ans as well as Demo­crats in­volved in re­view­ing the pro­gram tells me that the com­mit­tee’s main re­port is over­whelm­ingly con­vin­cing. But Cham­b­liss’s state­ment is an im­port­ant re­mind­er of why Obama must press for trans­par­ency. When the com­mit­tee is al­lowed to re­lease its find­ings, open-minded Amer­ic­ans will be able to judge for them­selves.

6. The CIA has ag­gress­ively fought the re­lease of even a sum­mary of the com­mit­tee’s con­clu­sions. The agency has de­man­ded and re­ceived au­thor­ity to edit the re­port. Who wouldn’t want to edit his own in­dict­ment? This feels like in­sti­tu­tion­al butt-cov­er­ing.

7. The CIA hacked in­to the com­puters used by Sen­ate in­vest­ig­at­ors to con­duct their wa­ter­shed re­port. Agency spies were ap­par­ently at­tempt­ing to re­trieve and de­lete a damning in­tern­al CIA doc­u­ment (the so-called Pan­etta re­view). This could be crim­in­al. It’s il­leg­al for the CIA to spy in­side the United States. The CIA is part of the ex­ec­ut­ive branch of gov­ern­ment. The Sen­ate is part of the le­gis­lat­ive branch, one of the few checks against the CIA’s ex­traordin­ary power.

8. CIA Dir­ect­or John Bren­nan had flatly denied that his agency was spy­ing on Sen­ate staffers. If Bren­nan know­ingly misled the pub­lic, he’s a li­ar. If he denied the charges be­fore check­ing them out, he’s care­less with the truth. Pick your pois­on. Bren­nan ordered an in­tern­al re­view after deny­ing the charges, then apo­lo­gized when the spy­ing was con­firmed.

9. “I have full con­fid­ence in John Bren­nan,” Obama said Fri­day. This is the where I strongly dis­agree with the pres­id­ent. It is one thing to give the CIA a pass for heat-of-the-mo­ment de­cisions to tor­ture sus­pects, es­pe­cially know­ing the pres­sure ap­plied from the Oval Of­fice un­der Pres­id­ent Bush and Vice Pres­id­ent Dick Cheney (Nos. 2-3 above). It’s an­oth­er to im­pli­citly con­done in­sti­tu­tion­al­ized de­cep­tion, lies, and cov­er-ups. (Nos. 4-8.)

10. Obama needs to hold high-rank­ing CIA of­fi­cials ac­count­able for mis­lead­ing the White House, Con­gress, and the people, and for spy­ing on Sen­ate in­vest­ig­at­ors. Pat­ri­ots may get away with tor­ture. Not with ly­ing about it.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.