| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Slow Roll Time At Langley |
| 2009-04-23 |
| At the Central Intelligence Agency, it's known as "slow rolling." That's what agency officers sometimes do on politically sensitive assignments. They go through the motions; they pass cables back and forth; they take other jobs out of the danger zone; they cover their backsides. Sad to say, it's slow roll time at Langley after the release of interrogation memos that, in the words of one veteran officer, "hit the agency like a car bomb in the driveway." President Obama promised CIA officers that they won't be prosecuted for carrying out lawful orders, but the people on the firing line don't believe him. They think the memos have opened a new season of investigation and retribution. The lesson for younger officers is obvious: Keep your head down. Duck the assignments that carry political risk. Stay away from a counterterrorism program that has become a career hazard. Obama tried personally to reassure the CIA workforce during a visit to Langley on Monday. He said all the right things about the agency's clandestine role. But it had the look of a campaign event, with employees hooting and hollering and the president reading from his teleprompter with a backdrop of stars that commemorate the CIA's fallen warriors. By yesterday, Obama was deferring to the attorney general whether to prosecute "those who formulated those legal decisions," whatever that means. Obama seems to think he can have it both ways -- authorizing an unprecedented disclosure of CIA operational methods and at the same time galvanizing a clandestine service whose best days, he told them Monday, are "yet to come." Life doesn't work that way -- even for charismatic politicians. Disclosure of the torture memos may have been necessary, as part of an overdue campaign to change America's image in the world. But nobody should pretend that the disclosures weren't costly to CIA morale and effectiveness. Put yourself in the shoes of the people who were asked to interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners in 2002. One former officer told me he declined the job, not because he thought the program was wrong but because he knew it would blow up. "We all knew the political wind would change eventually," he recalled. Other officers who didn't make that cynical but correct calculation are now "broken and bewildered," says the former operative. For a taste of what's ahead, recall the chilling effects of past CIA scandals. In 1995, then-Director John Deutch ordered a "scrub" of the agency's assets after revelations of past links to Guatemalan death squads. Officers were told they shouldn't jettison sources who had provided truly valuable intelligence. But the practical message, recalls one former division chief, was: "Don't deal with assets who could pose political risks." A similar signal is being sent now, he warns. One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called "risk of capture" interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and "pocket litter" were exploited quickly. Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I'm told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn't even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military. Agency officials also worry about the effect on foreign intelligence services that share secrets with the United States in a process politely known as "liaison." A former official who remains in close touch with key Arab allies such as Egypt and Jordan warns: "There is a growing concern that the risk is too high to do the things with America they've done in the past." If Obama means what he says about protecting the CIA workforce and its operational edge, he must give up the idea that he can please everyone on this issue. He should recommend limits on any congressional inquiry and resist demands for a special prosecutor. Instead, he should push the White House's preferred alternative -- a commission that can review secret evidence behind closed doors, then report to the nation. America will be better off, in the long run, for Obama's decision to expose the past practice of torture and ban its future use. But meanwhile, the country is fighting a war, and it needs to take care that the sunlight of exposure doesn't blind its shadow warriors. |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #8 Front room is not back room, and do not talk about fight club. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-04-23 23:37 |
| #7 I suspect there's a good many folks at Klingon Main that voted for Barry. They certainly had little good to say about President Bush. I say....Chickens home to roost. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-04-23 21:16 |
| #6 The CIA are good people. I know this. And they are pissed off. Crossword puzzle time from one of the worlds premier risk manager. I wonder what the DNI has to say? Throttled am I. Red light, Red Light, Red Light! |
| Posted by: newc 2009-04-23 21:05 |
| #5 As an aside to this discussion, in which I overwhelmingly come down on the side of Jack Bauer in these matters, folks have wondered about the interestin about face that Zero made on this topic. The calculus behind that change of position was precisely what has happened.... The evil Bush-Hitler/Cheney/Halliburton devils remain in the public arean to be flogged, and nobody notices the enormous failures in the making for this bank/auto manufacturer nationalization plan unfolding before our eyes. The government will elect the board of directors for all of our major banks, making the entire credit market a slave to public policy this administration directs... You don't need programs when the only sources of credit make ACORN creditworthy for private deposits. They effectively control the entire economy this way. Think about it, if your proposed housing project isn't green enough, no money. Want to buy a homehave you done enough volunteer service for the right folks?... This is the real threat....the torture debate, sound and fury to feed the media and keep the citizens riled up at the evils of conservatives.... |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2009-04-23 18:21 |
| #4 I think it's a brilliant idea, eltoreverde. I suspect it would be a big hit if offered to college fraternities and after football team practices, for a start. It would have to be run by experts, with a doctor and psychologist standing by for those who really couldn't handle the experience, but it would certainly appeal to the macho of both sexes and all genders. (Actually, I'm not quite sure what all the genders are, but that's ok -- the previous statement covers even my very real ignorance.) BlackCat, I think the Anon4021's facepalm marks frustration with the stupidity of the bit copied to the post. Anon4021 has been posting here since before Mr. Pruitt invented his clever anonymizer with all the wonderful names. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-04-23 17:28 |
| #3 Well put, Black Cat. We are definitely on the same page here. Furthermore, I'd like to add that in the cases where we did waterboard detainees (all TWO of them), the "procedure" some have likened to drowning was only applied between 20-40 seconds at a time. If waterboarding does indeed simulate drowning, couldn't one be reasonably expected to hold their breath for 20-40 seconds at a time to counteract the effects of simulated drowning? And assuming they did so, how is that torture? In any case, this is all nothing but a witch hunt against the very people who were desperately trying to keep us safe during incredibly trying times and demanding circumstances. What the Obama administration is doing here is nothing short of a travesty. It makes my blood boil. And if they really think they can get away with not releasing the memos that detail the intelligence that was gathered as a result of waterboarding, than I believe they will pay a very heavy price for their blatant politicization of a major, nay critical, national security issue. At the least, it will be a price paid at the polling booth and at worst, I fear it may be a price paid in American lives. Shame on you, President Obama. I hoped that you had more backbone than that but I'm glad I never believed you did because it saves me the disappointment. On a related note, I've about had it with this "waterboarding IS torture" nonsense. Give me a break. In fact, I've actually considered offering up myself to be waterboarded on live TV for all the world to see if it would put an end to the whole silly debate. I'm willing to subject myself to a few minutes of gross discomfort and exceeding unpleasantness if it keeps us safer. I mean if Christopher Hitchens can make it through the ordeal alive and no worse for wear, it can't be all that bad, right? Now that I think about it, perhaps this could be the basis for a non-profit, PAC, whatever... that invites people to sign up to get waterboarded in order to show their support for our national security policy during the Bush administration and refute the current administration's stance on the issue. I can see it now, a gathering on the mall, people are all lined up, and after you get waterboarded, you get a free t-shirt or bumper sticker for your pain and suffering, not to mention the satisfaction that you just contributed to the safety and well-being of all Americans. I think we could have a lot of fun with the t-shirts and bumper stickers. So am I crazy or might this actually be a good idea? |
| Posted by: eltoroverde 2009-04-23 15:35 |
| #2 FacePalm, no disrespect, but where do you stand? Do you advocate for ending water-boarding or not? It seems to me that most of the people decrying water-boarding as "torture" are so insulated from the harsh physical realities 99% of the world live under, that they are incapable of understanding or issuing a moral judgment of what torture really is. Starvation, child abuse and slavery, things that would horrify the political class here, are so common in the third world as to not elicit special notice. Sawing off heads is torture, mutilation, the rack, those things are torture. Water-boarding is not torture. Our political elite and their symboligists in the main stream media live lives sheltered by affluence and remote from any real risk or harm, beyond they own self destructive impulses (drugs, etc.). I do not depend upon their opinions or rationalizations for my protection. Nor should you. Wars are bloody businesses. You either win or disappear as a civilization. Asking others to subsidize your presumed moral superiority is cowardice. |
| Posted by: BlackCat 2009-04-23 13:27 |
| #1 America will be better off, in the long run, for Obama's decision to expose the past practice of torture and ban its future use. But meanwhile, the country is fighting a war, and it needs to take care that the sunlight of exposure doesn't blind its shadow warriors. *facepalm* |
| Posted by: Anon4021 2009-04-23 12:11 |