Despite Reform Pledges, Panetta Enables CIA's Bad Old Habits
Over the past few weeks, Leon Panetta has emerged as an obstacle to real reform and accountability at the CIA. Rather than exerting strong leadership, Panetta is toeing the line on CIA's pet parochial concerns, such as protecting CIA officers and contractors from investigative scrutiny and insisting on suppression of information widely known via media coverage.
When the Obama transition team named Leon Panetta as CIA Director earlier this year, his advocates portrayed him as a no-nonsense Beltway veteran who would 'fix' the CIA, which had been beset by a series of embarrassing intelligence failures and scandals, starting with 9/11, continuing on to the Iraqi WMDs, and a global, mistake-riddled program of torture and extrajudicial detention of terrorist suspects.
Panetta's deeds and words, however, show that he has become a creature of CIA culture.
Several weeks ago, Mark Hosenball of Newsweek reported that Panetta limited CIA information requested by the Senate intelligence committee as part of its probe into detentions and interrogations. Although Panetta had wanted to release all relevant information to the Senate committee, senior clandestine service officers persuaded him to inform the Senate that the CIA would release only redacted documents to investigators. Panetta also indicated to the Senate panel that the CIA would stall, with the excuse that the CIA would have to review over 10 million documents.
Congress isn't the only branch of government to get the brush-off from CIA Chief Panetta.
Last week, Panetta requested that a Federal judge stop the release of documents detailing the interrogation and torture of terrorist suspects held by the CIA in secret overseas prisons. Panetta's filing cited the possibility of inflamed anti-American sentiment, much as President Obama claimed when he stopped the release of a new batch of photos documenting abuse of detainees in US custody in Iraq. Never mind that that much of the content of the documents is already known from press reports and foreign government documents.
Panetta is also helping bolster the CIA's reputation for not getting along with other spy agencies.
Last month, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair informed the intelligence community that the DNI office would choose which senior US intelligence officers to head up US intelligence missions overseas. The move ran counter to a long-standing tradition that CIA station chiefs always act as the senior US intelligence official in a foreign country.
DNI Blair reasoned that in specific cases, placing officials from intelligence community agencies other than the CIA would make more sense. For example, the DNI might want to install a senior Drug Enforcement Agency officer in a Latin American country where counternarcotics is the focus, or put a National Security Agency officer in charge in an allied country that shares eavesdropping information with the US, such as the United Kingdom or New Zealand
In response, Panetta told CIA employees to ignore Blair's directive.
CIA rank-and-file have long felt slighted by the DNI office, which was created in the wake of 9/11 intelligence failures and has effectively diminished the CIA's leadership role in the intelligence community. Panetta's rebuff of the DNI was intended to assuage CIA hallway concerns about decreasing relevancy, but it has had the effect of creating a bureaucratic impasse between the DNI and CIA that is undoubtedly distracting from more substantive intelligence matters, such as finding Osama Bin Laden, or foiling the next terrorist attack.
An expansive New Yorker article by Jane Mayer offers more detail about how Panetta converted from CIA reformer to CIA excuse-maker. Mayer reports that protecting CIA employees from unfair prosecution and career-ending investigations is one motivation for not holding CIA officers more accountable for abuses.
But the main reason for Panetta's switch from supporting a thorough and transparent investigation into CIA abuses is pure Washington politics: the Obama White House thinks a truth commission or prosecutions would appear "vindictive, and possibly, inflam[matory]."
Panetta told Mayer, "It was the president who basically said, 'If I do this, it will look like I'm trying to go after Cheney and Bush'. . . he just didn't think it made sense. And then everybody kind of backed away from it."
Protection of junior and mid-level CIA personnel from politically motivated prosecution is a laudable by-product of Obama administration jockeying for a moral advantage over political rivals. After all, these are the government employees who can least afford to 'lawyer up.'
Unfortunately, Mayer and others have reported that the CIA under Panetta has failed to discipline field officers whose incompetence resulted in some of the most embarrassing and avoidable episodes of the extraordinary rendition program.
Mayer cites the case of the CIA officer responsible for the abduction and imprisonment of Khaled el-Masri, a German national whom the CIA mistakenly took into custody in Macedonia and then airlifted to a dank prison in Afghanistan. Masri spent some five months in CIA captivity, even though the team that abducted him knew almost immediately that they had nabbed an innocent man. Mayer's sources say that the CIA officer in charge has never been disciplined, and indeed has since earned two promotions.
Another rendition-gone-wrong is the now infamous 'Italian Job.' Investigative reporter Matthew Cole reported in the March 2007 GQ how a CIA team kidnapped Abu Omar, a small-time Islamic extremist cleric, from a street in Milan, Italy in 2003. The operation was poorly coordinated between CIA and Italian security services, and as a result, 13 US government employees (presumed by Italian authorities to be CIA) are currently on trial in absentia over the Abu Omar kidnapping. According to Cole, the senior officer in that case, Jeff Castelli, has also been promoted--twice. Italian and US press reports separately identify Castelli as CIA's former Rome Station Chief.
Meanwhile, detainee deaths that occurred on the CIA's watch have also gone uninvestigated, let alone unpunished.
In one sense, Panetta is doing the right thing by his new charges at the CIA. The history of politicians betraying intelligence officers is long and bipartisan, and Panetta is making good on a promise to protect rank-and-file employees from litigation and/or prosecution. Many CIA officers believe that they performed their duties in the War on Terrorism in good faith, with appropriate legal cover from policy makers (read: White House, National Security Council, Department of Justice).
However, Panetta is not protecting the CIA's long-term interests by sweeping homicides, naked incompetence, and knowing violations of human decency under the rug -- or by avoiding a full accounting of the past eight years. His efforts at limiting outside scrutiny in order to preserve morale and discipline must be accompanied by a visible program of self-policing and transparency.
A sustained campaign of shielding the CIA from accountability will ultimately doom the agency to even more marginalization than it has endured since the advent of the Office of the DNI and blistering criticisms of CIA failures related to 9/11 and Iraqi WMDs. Other Federal agencies and foreign governments will become wary of dealing with the CIA, and it will lose out on attracting the best young people to replenish its ranks of operations officers and analysts.
And finally, the CIA's current path is likely to result in extremely troubled relations with Congress. In the past, the House and Senate intelligence committees used the legislative branch's funding and lawmaking power to control or eliminate specific intelligence activities.
It worked on cutting back Contra funding in the 90s, and it could work on renditions and overseas prisons in the 21st century.
Cross-posted from examiner.com
Follow Frank Naif on Twitter: www.twitter.com/frank_naif
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It seems to me that the CIA should get back to what they're good at. Why hasn't someone sent the Grand Ayatollah a nitroglycerin cigar yet? Or perhaps a lethal sting from a "wasp"... They are far more worried about putting notches on their belt with drug busts than taking real steps to clandestinely help our cause.
Panetta , Holder, and this administration are looking more and more complicit everyday. At the least , they appear to be obstructing justice.
The CIA probably doesn't have to rely on Congress for funding since they can deal drugs, and have their own banks.
"...the Obama White House thinks a truth commission or prosecutions would appear "vindictive, and possibly, inflam[matory]."
Panetta told Mayer, "It was the president who basically said, 'If I do this, it will look like I'm trying to go after Cheney and Bush'. . . he just didn't think it made sense. And then everybody kind of backed away from it."
So much for letting the Justice Department decide.
The CIA fails at ethics and even at the simple business of gathering reliable intelligence, but it triumphs at the business of playing the backrooms of Washington DC.
Much like his boss.
I used to respect Leon greatly, nowadays not so much.
The CIA has long been a "nation unto itself." It's an arm of the ruling elite, a tool of those who select presidents, then promote a charade of pseudo-democratic elections. Panetta's been in their camp for a long time.
CIA and its private tentacles have dug or planted dirt under everyone.
that's why no one has spoken out against the evil.
This is pretty much to be expected. Vested interests seem to forever get in the way of progress, and for Christ sake's they are our spys. They are doing the dirty work. They need Independence, and whoever is responsible for their oversight is, frankly corrupt. We are halfway between the Democracy we want and were promised, and the fantasy land Democracy we have been told is acceptable to our National Security. We cannot have transparency cuz the Bad Men will learn about our tactics, and get even Badder. It's not just that the dirty work has to be hidden from us, the results of the bad work have to be hidden as well. We have a whole bunch of grownups who like playing cops and robbers. They are the one's in charge. They stay in charge by telling us that the secrets they have access to simply cannot be divulged. They are grownup and we are just a Nation of little kids. Democracy just slips further and further away from us as the world gets more complicated, and the Grownups get more powerful. And all of this secrecy is just one big lie.
Right. Thank you.
And didn't we support Obama because he led us to believe he would allow investigations to uncover the Bush-Cheney-IntelligenceCommunity-Military crimes? He wanted us to believe that he wanted to show everybody that the U.S.A. isn't really the torturing hypocrite that it's been (especially) the last 8 years. We shouldn't have believed him.
Obama is Panetta's boss. Panetta is covering up what Obama wants covered up.
Disgusting.
Until we stand in Mr. Panetta's shoes, we cannot know what he is up against as the head of the CIA.
why do you consider bush not reading the cia memos and fabricating his own memos to be a failure of the cia?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
