Obama's "Drip, Drip, Drip..." Intelligence Problem

President Obama has always said he wants to look forward, not backward. This, when it comes to the actions of the previous administration, means Obama is content to just identify any problems with George Bush's (and Dick Cheney's) methods on security and intelligence matters, rectify any abuses and correct any mistakes, promise we'll never do it again, and move on. Obama has never advocated -- and, indeed, done what he could to discourage -- any sort of investigation into Bush's actions in response to 9/11 (some of which continued throughout Bush's two terms). Obama's opposition to such investigations has been steadfast and unwavering. He has even (now that he leads the executive branch himself) strongly argued in the courts against any examination of how executive branch power was used under Bush.

This is all understandable. In the first place, presidents always see executive power differently when they arrive in the White House. It's the nature of the job. So we shouldn't be all that surprised when a Justice Department lawyer argues in court in favor of secrecy in the executive branch -- even under President Obama. In the second place, this is a political loser for Obama, and he knows it. He does not want to look like a "sore winner" by digging through all the dirt Bush and Cheney left in their wake. Obama would prefer it if we could all just sweep it under the rug, and trust him when he says he's stopped doing all that bad stuff. "Nothing to see here, folks -- move along," in other words.

But by refusing to tackle the issue at all, Obama faces a steady drip, drip, drip of stories leaking and becoming public. Wiretapping stories, torture stories, and secret CIA covert stories were all in the news in the past week alone. I didn't feel that any of these stories were worth exploring today in depth, mostly because there isn't all that much depth yet. Details are slowly coming out. Until we know a lot more about each of them, it's impossible to draw any conclusions at this point.

Except for a few peripheral comments. Attorney General Eric Holder was the source for one of these stories, saying he is leaning towards appointing some sort of prosecutor to look into detainee abuse. There are several points worth making about this, without going in to too many details (since it was more of an offhand comment, details will be doubtlessly be forthcoming, but mostly don't exist yet).

The first point is that this is how things are supposed to work. Our last few Attorneys General may have caused everyone to forget how the system is supposed to work, so allow me to run it down. The Attorney General is, in essence, the chief prosecuting attorney in the country (a local equivalent would be a District Attorney, or "D.A."). Once appointed, he is supposed to work independently of the White House. The president can give his A.G. broad outlines (such as "Are we doing enough to police Wall Street?" for instance) but cannot order him to do specific things ("Prosecute Senator Beelzebub for corruption, now!"). If the president ever steps over this line (and they do, almost regularly), the A.G. either resigns or threatens to resign. If the president is a lunatic (see: Richard Nixon), then he fires his A.G. for not following his inappropriate orders (see: "Saturday Night Massacre"). The removal of the A.G., either by resigning or being fired, then becomes a political fracas for all to see. But, in normal times, the A.G. is independent. President Obama reminded everyone of this a few months ago, when asked whether he would tell Holder to investigate Bush's excesses, by basically responding: "That's the A.G.'s job, he makes those decisions."

This is the way it is supposed to work. The Justice Department looks into all kinds of criminal wrongdoing, including throughout the executive branch of the government. And it is up to the Attorney General to decide how to investigate such wrongdoing, and whether to prosecute it. Now, Obama has laid down his marker, and said that people (in the C.I.A., for instance) who were following what they considered legal orders will not be prosecuted for doing so. In other words, "I was just following orders" will be an acceptible legal defense (which is problematic in its own way, but understandable politically). Speculation began, after Holder's recent remarks, that what he was talking about were agents and other government officials who had overstepped even the lax guidelines which came out of Bush's Justice Department. But to date, this is merely speculation. Again, though, this is how it is supposed to work -- it's the Attorney General's decision to prosecute or investigate, not Barack Obama's.

The second incidental issue which arose from recent news stories came from the report that Leon Panetta, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, just heard about a program which reported directly to the office of Dick Cheney, and had not been briefed to Congress. Panetta, if the timelines are to be believed, found out about the program a few weeks ago, immediately shut it down, and then briefed Congress the next day. This is all well and good, but raises a very important question (actually, it raises a whole flood of questions), which is mostly being ignored (except for this article on Time magazine's website) -- why was Panetta kept in the dark for four months? As D.C.I., Panetta is supposed to know everything his agency is doing. That's his job. And it took him four months to dig this out. Reportedly, this was because the program was "dormant," which is a partial excuse, but not much of one. As I said, the program itself will raise a flood of questions, and Congress is already expressing an interest in investigating this in both the House and Senate intelligence committees, but it also leads to one very important question -- what else has the C.I.A. been hiding from Panetta (and everyone else, apparently, not named "Dick Cheney")?

Which brings me back to my main point. Before everyone learned the definition of "waterboarding," playschool children talked of (often with an Asian country's name attached at the front) the "water torture." A prisoner would be strapped down, and a huge bucket suspended over their head. This bucket had a very slow leak in it, which resulted in a drop of water hitting the prisoner's forehead every couple of seconds. Its purpose was to drive the prisoner crazy waiting for the drops to hit, to the point where his will would break and he'd spill his guts.

This is exactly the sort of torture President Obama has chosen. If an independent "Truth Commission" had been set up (as Senate leader on the issue Patrick Leahy has been fighting for), it would have accomplished a few things politically -- it would have distanced Obama from the investigation ("The independent commission is looking into that, I am not going to comment until they have finished their work"); it would have been bipartisan, which would have avoided the cries of "Partisan witchhunt!" from across the aisle; it could have offered immunity to lower-level agents in exchange for honest testimony (avoiding the whole "I was only following orders" problem); and it would have gotten the whole story out there in one chunk. Sure, there would have been public hearings of the commission, and it would have generated a story now and then, but one of the reasons for appointing any commission in Washington is to distance yourself from the work of that commission, which would have been possible for Obama.

Since Obama didn't choose this route, one has to wonder if his entire presidency will be distracted by these stories over and over again throughout his term in office. Because things will leak. Journalists still occasionally do their job. This stuff does get out eventually. And, by assuring that each one will be a separate event, complete with its own small-scale media circus, these revelations will happen over and over again, instead of being tied into one all-encompassing investigation. Obama, by trying to politically avoid some of the stickier problems in dealing with his predecessor, may in fact suffer politically by the method he has chosen.

Because the result of the path Obama has charted was on display for all to see last week.

Drip, drip, drip.

 

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

 

 

 

Comments

[JohnHKennedy]

"If you see no reason for government officials to obey the law
you have no basis for complaint about any illegal action by anyone, government official or John Q. Public."

IF our government officials whether elected or appointed are not prosecuted for obvious violations of Federal Laws
IT then is certain that Attorney General Holder and President Obama
favor a Separate System of Justice for Politicians and Government Officials, one where they are protected from prosecution by their successors (Obama and Holder and their appointee lawyers) and the common voters have to obey all laws or have the book thrown at them. This is intolerable!

Torture, Deceiving Congress, WMD Lies...
what more does Attorney General Holder need? Insist On Enforcement of Our Federal Laws.

IT Will Not Happen Unless WE
make lots of noise.

SIGN THE PETITION

Demanding both a
Commission of Inquiry
and a Special Prosecutor at ANGRYVOTERS.ORG.

http://ANGRYVOTERS.ORG

Forward this url to your friends
We can't let them bury these crimes.

You should also contact AG Holder directly and demand a Special Prosecutor
Department of Justice Main Switchboard - 202-514-2000
Office of the Attorney General - 202-353-1555

or by email: [e-mail]

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

[Mildmannered]

Obama has only so much political capital. He has already postponed immigration reform. Passage of cap-and-trade is not looking that promising. Health care public option is not looking strong. And now the "intelligence problem."

The blue dog democrats are killing him on every front.

[standard]

"Obama would prefer it if we could all just sweep it under the rug, . . . which is "problematic in its own way, but understandable politically".

It's more than that: It's illegal. It's the opposite of acting to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (in particular, the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which include "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures"). It violates the requirements of international law (including the Third, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which, in part, establish "a right to . . . liberty and security of person [and] an effective remedy [in court] for acts violating . . . fundamental rights" and render illegal arbitrary arrest or detention and torture or "degrading treatment or punishment".)

No one becomes the Democratic Party's nominee for President without the acquiesence of its progressive wing. Obama campaigned promising to restore adherence by the White House to the Constitution and must act on that promise and keep to his oath of office--or risk being a disgraced, one-term President his own party won't renominate.

The U.S. has survived--as a representative democracy--a civil war, great depression, two world wars and a recent ten-fold increase in its national debt. No country can survive as a representative democracy without civil liberty and law.

"Drip, drip, drip" is the sound even the largest dam makes before it bursts.

[Nutcase]

Chris, your conclusion is on target but Obama began to confuse the AG issue before Holder was confirmed. Even now he continues to cause problems by stating who will not be prosecuted. That is not a decision to be made in the Oval Office.

Someone needs to quickly organize some history seminars for every government official in the District. It seems that no one is familiar with the Nuremberg Trials. Following orders is no excuse. In this instance, it is even worse. The VP has no authority whatsoever to give orders to the CIA. They followed the orders of someone unauthorized to give orders. The VP has two Constitutional duties: preside over the Senate and stand by.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, as chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, stated that the standards we were holding the NAZIs to were standards to which we must also adhere. Otherwise, it was simply a case of the victors getting revenge on the losers.

The Nuremberg courts and rules were set up in the London Charter, a treaty we signed. According to the Constitution, any treaty signed and confirmed by two-thirds of the Senate becomes the supreme law of the land. Such a treaty has the same standing as the Constitution.

It isn't a matter of just looking back. Such egregious flouting of the law becomes a precedent for future presidents, vps, et al. Our legal system loses. It is amazing that a professor of Constitutional law could treat our legal system so cavalierly.

[ChampLessFuzzy]

I admit I'm naive on CIA goings on, however I have a basic understanding of constitutional limits on the VP and frankly Cheney has always repulsed me. Identifying him as the most dangerous VP in U.S. history is fitting.

What is your suggestion for the president/­administra­tion at this point so that the country understands what is expected of Obama and Holder? I ask in all seriousness. Is it best for Obama to make a clear statement on Holder's role then take a step back and out, or, starting now, go mum and let Holder take appropriate lead?

I didn't know Cheney was a professor of Constitutional law.

[Nutcase]

I share your repulsion with Cheney. You rank him correctly and your understanding of the limits for a vp is solid.

Obama's behavior is particularly egregious because he, not Cheney, was a professor of Constitutional law. He isn't showing any knowledge of the role of the AG and limits on his own office.

Because of the rampant partisanship that corrupts every act and distorts every issue in DC, whatever Obama or anyone else does will be seen in that light. Obama helped complicate the problem by laying out the parameters and direction of any inquiries before Holder was confirmed. He continues to go beyond his authority.

He should make a clear statement that he has no control of the situation and that the AG must enforce the law equally, regardless of party or position. Any investigation must go wherever it leads. Due to the factors I pointed out in the previous paragraph, that will not be sufficient for most people.

The next best route would be for a bipartisan, independent committee of Congress to be appointed. Even this will not satisfy many, if not most. It is truly bad that any effort to bring justice to bear will be seen as partisan but, for the sake of our legal and Constitutional systems, it is not optional.

Sad to say but politics trumps law.

[Emerald1943]

Fanned!

When the story of the assassination squads broke last week, it was reported the it "shocked even the Republicans". Somehow, I cannot believe that a program designed to capture and/or kill AQ leaders would have "shocked" them. After all, isn't that what we were doing all along?

No, this program is much more, and the lame cover story just does not hold up to the smell test.

Unfortunately, at this point in time, there are few details out there, but enough to make us sit up and take notice of the fact that we had an administration in power for eight years that held our laws and treaties in total contempt. If there was any question about that prior to this story leaking out, it should be crystal-clear to everyone now.

Where is Cheney's list? Who was on that list? Foreign heads of state? Diplomats? American citizens? Cheney's political enemies?? What were the criteria that he used to make up that list? AQ leaders would have been understandable targets....the rest, not so much!

Attorney General Holder, do your duty!

[SparkyDash]

Ditto!

[daddychow]

A secret (shhhhh!) plot to assasinate Usama Bin Laden and top al Qaeda operatives?

And this flabberghasting proposition was kept from Congress? I'm frankly shocked and appalled at the level of secrecy at the CIA.

[DaveVentura]

This latest CIA thing seems like a complete loser for the Democrats - like Rove pulled a Braier Rabbit with the leak. So far the Congressional Democrats are screaming and the program has been cancelled, but that can all blow up in the mid-term elections. If the reports on the program are true, it was something designed to get Al Queda while reducing the collateral damage from Predator drone bombs...two good things. Cancelling an anti-Al Queda program designed to reduce civilian casualties looks really bad. I also don't see why Congress would have to be told in the first place. It's not like a Marine Corps Sniper has to call Congress whenever the sniper goes for a target. Bullets are fired on battlefields and there is sniping done, so stomping year feet and yelling about it just makes the Democrats look weak on national security while concurrently providing a distraction from healthcare reform at a crititcal time. The Democrats are so interested in Cheney they'll kill their own agenda. If the Democrats were smart they wouldn't take Rove's bait of making them look simultaneously weak while de-railing their own agenda, but Congressional Democrats seem pretty dim.

[Nutcase]

I had no idea it was possible to be so wrong.

First, try one of the accepted spellings: B'rer, Br'er, Bre'r or simply Brer Rabbit.

This secret plan preceded by years any expression of concern for collateral damage by drones. The problem has more to do with operations in several countries, friend and foe, without permission from local authorities or even notification of our own military or diplomatic personnel.

You may not see any reason why Congress should be told but I do. The very law that created the CIA expressly requires Congressional notification of any such operations or even any plans to do so. If you see no reason for government officials to obey the law you have no basis for complaint about any illegal action by anyone, government official or John Q. Public.

Having worked in military intelligence and with the BIR, your simple-minded characterization of the program is laughable. Although you may claim otherwise, from reading your comments I have no doubt that any understanding you have of military or intelligence operations was derived from movies and/or comic books.

Only those naive enough to believe Rove's version of reality consider the Bush Administration to have any credibility on the subject of national security. Their claims of competence in that area are as justified as their claims of competence in dealing with Katrina.

[peterg76]

Republican temper tantrums are not a valid reason for the president to ignore war crimes.