C. I. A-hole.

And the guys...

Fucking A.

This morning on Morning Edition, Tom Gjelten (whose reports I generally respect) opined that the opposition to Brennan's appointment resulted from his position in the CIA. Gjelten implied that Obama would not be able to find a qualified candidate, because everyone qualified has worked in post 9/11 CIA. No mention whatsoever was made of Brennan's vocal support of both rendition and torture (other than waterboarding). Somehow, over the past eight years, we have lost a fundamental value in this nation without discussion -- we no longer have a belief that holding people without charge is morally wrong, and we seem to believe that torture is justified. Those who believe that rendition and torture are not only wrong, but also clearly illegal, are dismissed as part of the "left-wing." We are marginalized, and our views are not even discussed as perhaps legitimate. It is amazing that the media in this country believe that no national discussion needs to occur regarding rendition and torture.

NPR's Tom Geltan (sp?) spins essentially this same line today on Morning Edition

e.g. "that association with Tennant at that time was apparently enough to provoke loud complaints from critics of the agency,"

and

"It would be hard to find someone with recent CIA experience who is more acceptable to critics of the agency."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97502074

(The listeners commenting on the web cite are much more in tune with what the real issue is).

How about that!

... Valerie Plame for CIA Director?

We put German "journalists" to death as war crminals for propagandizing before and during WWII.

Pretty well typical for these days. I see the letters column at WaPo are about 4:1 against the article....

...for the villagers.

especially as regards the 2-tired justice system. the media's defense of this should prove interesting. circumvention of legal frameworks indeed,

Glenn:

Many of your observations of the mainstream media and the breakdown of the rule the law in this country are quite accurate. However, I just don't see you getting to the roots of the problem. Ceaseless carping, although better than no criticism, is hardly a solution. Blaming Republicans and illiberal Democrats for everything doesn't help much either. What is needed is a spirit of cooperation and a sense that we MUST move forward as a nation with a new and clear sense of purpose. And that we must do so together (as much as possible, anyway).

Happy Thanksgiving.

I'm withholding my judgment of the Obama administration until Obama's actually been in office for a while and shows his true colors, but the more "centrist" (read: middle Right) folks he appoints, the more he appears to be nothing more than an appeaser of the Bush war criminals.

The crimes of the Bush administration (illegal war based on lies, torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions (even unto death, multiple times), violations of the Constitutional rights of American citizens, etc, etc.) are so heinous that, if Obama pardons the top Bush officials, he's complicit in mass murder, torture, and all the rest. If he pardons these criminals (the biggest in US history), he should be anathema to all of us; there can be no moral compromise on these issues for anyone claiming to be a civilized human being.

Btw, I'd like to hear more discussion of what constitutes torture, rather than simply referring to waterboarding every time the subject arises. Stress positions, for instance, are often downplayed as being on the level of mere "fraternity pranks," but it should be made very clear that one can be EXECUTED via stress positions (e.g., crucifixion with cable or rope, without any breaking of the skin). Merely hanging a person by the arms will result in the most unbearable torture imaginable in a matter of mere minutes to hours, and will lead to respiratory arrest and death as painful as that of crucifixion with nails. The same is true of many other "stress" techniques.

It's been readily established that torture is ineffective for extracting meaningful information. Those who nevertheless doggedly and irrationally claim it is necessary and effective in extreme scenarios but downplay waterboarding, stress positions, and other such techniques as mere "fraternity pranks" must be immediately asked why such techniques would ever be used if they aren't exquisitely painful?

What would Alberto Mora do?

I am a 67 year old retired guy. All my life I have heard other guys talk about "the system is rigged" and "all the political parties are really the same." . . . I always figured the guys who said stuff like that were just stupid and could not tell the difference between most things. . .

Well, this Bush Administration criminal activity - now coupled with the Wall Street mess - kind of shows how close to the truth those guys were all along. The Democrats are very interested in protecting the Bushies and both parties are very interested in protecting the Wall Street guys. . . (Recommended reading: Michael Lewis' piece in Portfolio.com)

Thanks very much to Glenn Greenwald - for the clarity he brings.

I caught the news on NPR at 10AM and they continued to use the terms "enhanced interrogation techniques," when discussing Obama's reversal on the Brennan appointment. NPR does not use the word "torture." The tone was sympathetic to Brennan and included his own assertion that he was passed over for promotion in the CIA due to his opposition rendition and harsh interrogation, which would appear to belie his public statements supporting them.

Reminds me of PBS's refusal to air the documentary "Torturing Democracy," saying they had no time slots open until after Bush and Cheney left office. I guess the word torture is just too strong for those ever-so-polite-proper folks at PBS. Perhaps if they had named it "Enhanced Interrogation Democracy" they would have aired it.

Government lawyers should be cautious, not reckless, in advising what can be done.

That's another wild concept that the media lepat to embrace over the past eight years: that the President's advisors should never be held to account for their advice... because that might cause them to think about what they say in the Oval Office.

The question of why that'd be a bad idea has never been addressed.