This has been a brewing controversy for several years, because military psychologists are sent in to ensure that "detainees" aren't driven insane. The profession has been in turmoil about this for some time.

One would hope that these people realize that if they make case notes during interrogations using torture that they leave themselves open to prosecution for "medical experiments" that violate statutory law. Not that anyone is ever likely to be prosecuted under US torture or war crimes statutes (unless they're foreigners).

No disrespect intended, I just don't have any appreciation for how much power is wielded by the psychologists' association to dictate the top leadership of the American intelligence apparatus.

It just seems awful thin to me, guys.

Frankly, my dear, you know the punchline---more or less---of the joke I'm dying to make ... !

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2008/11/24/open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-break-with-the-dark-side-do-not-nominate-john-brennan-as-cia-director/

or click on signature.

A group of about 200 psychologists and allies has created an Open Letter to President-Elect Obama expressing concerns regarding his rumored consideration of John Brennan to be Director of the CIA.

Thanks. Some credit to Coldplay, for "Viva La Vida" and "Lovers In Japan," playing on a loop in my ears tonight.

Glenn should have noted the sly way that asshole Mazzetti slides from "the CIA's secret detention program remains a particularly incendiary issue for the Democratic base" -- because, of course, only those wacko lefties worry about war crimes -- to the completely bogus assertion that said concerns have made it "difficult for Mr. Obama to select someone . . . who has played any role in the agency’s campaign against Al Qaeda since 9/11. " (emphasis mine)

So, according to the New Pravda (sometimes known as the New York Times) to criticize crimes against humanity is to oppose the entire campaign against the people responsible for 9/11. Dick Cheney couldn't have put it better.

Now THAT'S some sleazy journalism we can believe in.

The fight inside the APA was pretty big news, it coincided with California ordering all medical professionals to be informed they could lose their licenses and New York banning medical professionals licensed in the state from participating in interrogations.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/09/18/psychologists_vote_against_role_in_interrogation/

It's connected to the calls to prosecute Mitchell and Jessen (who were kinda exposed by Mark Benjamin on Salon).

I'm in no position to assess it either. I guess in my scheme, we have on one hand, the crowd of noisy protest kids being covered by the TV cameras. More and more camera crews arrive.

And on the other, we have the adults calling---the parents. People who have knowledge, if not experience, of torture. People who have money and are respected professionals, and who would focus on torture in an entirely different way than the kids. We're talking interviews with intimate head shot above the fold in the Style section. And they're all saying the same thing the kids are.

The combination is powerful, more than the sum of its parts.

No disrespect intended, I just don't have any appreciation for how much power is wielded by the psychologists' association to dictate the top leadership of the American intelligence apparatus.

It just seems awful thin to me, guys. -- Paul Daniel Ash

The APA seems a little less thin than "liberal blogs", however. They're a certification body for experts in the assessment of human thought.
"Liberal bloggers" seem like the smallest of fig leaves. They'd hardly cover a brazilian wax job.

Still, congrats Glenn.

If Brennan/Obama had been ideological, Brennan would not have even been part of the transition team.

----

Brennan writes: Indeed my criticism of these policies[preemptive war in Iraq, coercive interrogation tactics] within government circles was the reason why I was twice considered for more senior-level positions in the current Administration only to be rebuffed by the White House.

And at least here,

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/brennan-withdra.html

bloggers are not mentioned. It is "strong criticism in some quarters".

I must be the only one who reads that line as a tacit admission that the entire CIA operation against "terror" is corrupt and tainted and illegal.

But maybe that's just because _I_ think that.

The APA can make a noisier public racket about torture if they choose to, or are pushed to.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was aware of the protest of the APA, as many of us were who were revolted by the acts done in our name at Guantánamo and elsewhere.

My question is how much influence the APA has to dictate the appointment, made by an incoming president with considerable political capital, to leadership positions in the awesomely powerful intelligence establishment. As Glenn noted, this is the first appointment where there was so much as a hiccup.

You accept that the blogs and psychologists explain it. That's fine. I'm just not persuaded that the Daily Kos and the APA stood up against AIPAC, the DLC, the rest of the mainstream political establishment, as well as Obama's own reported preference, and prevailed.

25 November 2008

Dear President-Elect Barack Obama:

I am honored to have been involved in leading your Transition Team for the Intelligence Community, and I am deeply committed to ensuring that your Administration is well-prepared to deal with the many challenges facing our Nation. My transition responsibilities have led to speculation that I am under consideration for a senior intelligence position in your Administration. Quite unfortunately, this speculation has led to strong criticism in some quarters prompted by my previous service with the Central Intelligence Agency.

etc.

----

One had to deduce that the certain quarters are bloggers and not, e.g., some folks in Obama's team.

I'm not sure. If you're thinking of the title of a certain movie by Sydney Pollack, I'm pretty sure that saying it out loud would be a violation of 18 USC § 879.

A former senior intelligence official familiar with the matter said that Brennan made his decision after he received signals from senior Obama transition officials that they were reconsidering his nomination because of the criticism of his tenure at the agency by liberal commentators, bloggers and others.

"The decision not to fight would not have been Brennan's," said the former senior intelligence official, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the issue. "He's not the kind of guy who would run away from a fight."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/244/story/56489.html

The backlash against Brennan's prospective nomination, either to lead the CIA or become the director of national intelligence (DNI), began on Saturday with a letter to Obama signed by nearly 200 practicing psychologists and academics involved in the field.

Brennan's letter did not specify whether the psychologists' letter or criticism from the liberal blogosphere was the primary reason for his withdrawal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/25/obama-white-house-cia-brennan

Mr Brennan's role in preparing wildly erroneous intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction before the war in Iraq was expected to come up at confirmation hearings. He was also an advocate of "enhanced interrogation techniques," which human rights advocates have branded as torture. Mr Brennan has also drawn criticism for his role in the secret wiretapping of US citizens....

Melvin Goodman, a retired CIA intelligence analyst, had lambasted Mr Obama for relying on "discredited cronies" such as Mr Brennan who was chief of staff and deputy executive director under the former CIA chief George Tenet. [The Independent]

http://tinyurl.com/5nptw9

Regardless...it means no one should stop fighting. Yes, congratulations.