Kathianne
04-25-2009, 07:36 AM
Probably not, just more distraction on the way to 'leveling the playing field.' Hope everyone that voted for the new administration enjoys where it's heading. On the other hand, all the leaking that came from the analysis section of CIA during the Bush years, makes it difficult to feel too sorry for the agency. The 'operatives' though, that's different:
Power Line - Dennis Blair's not so assuring assurances (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023385.php)
DENNIS BLAIR'S NOT SO ASSURING ASSURANCES
Share Post PrintApril 22, 2009 Posted by Paul at 9:15 AM
Below is the text of a letter of April 16, 2009 from Dennis Blair to members of the "intelligence community." The letter deserves comment, which I hope to provide later today.
Dear Colleagues:
Today is a difficult one for those of us who serve the country in its intelligence services. An article in the front page of the New York Times claims that the National Security Agency has been collecting information that violates the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens. The release of documents from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) spells out in detail harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on suspected al Qaida terrorists.
As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I am trying to put these issues into perspective. We cannot undo the events of the past; we must understand them and turn this understanding to advantage as we move into the future....
Analysis:
Power Line - Wounds that a letter and a visit cannot repair (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023398.php)
R AND A VISIT CANNOT REPAIR
Share Post PrintApril 23, 2009 Posted by Paul at 8:24 PM
Yesterday, I posted the text of a letter from Dennis Blair to members of the "intelligence community." The letter is an extraordinary document. Indeed, the very fact that it was written is extraordinary.
Blair cites two developments that prompted his letter: (1) President Obama's decision to release Justice Department documents that "spell[] out in detail harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on suspected al Qaida terrorists" and (2) an article in the New York Times about surveillance by the National Security Agency. The letter purports to be an effort to prevent these developments from further demoralizing the intelligence community....
In any event, Blair is quite clear about the problem of demoralization, going so far as to compare the status of intelligence community members to that of military personnel returning from Vietnam in the early 1970s.
What does Blair offer to alleviate their situation? Not much beyond his own kind words and his assurance that the president supports them. Obama himself saw the need to travel Langley to provide the same assurance.
But Blair understands that general assurances ring hollow, especially with the threat of criminal prosecutions hanging over members of the intelligence community. So Blair says he "will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given." But he can provide no assurance that they won't be prosecuted. Rather, he implicitly acknowledges that these individuals may be in jeopardy; if they weren't there would be no need to defend them.
But what will be the defense? Blair acknowledges that the legal memoranda Obama released were written in response to requests by CIA personnel to use harsh interrogation techniques instead of being limited to traditional ones that weren't working. Who is more culpable -- the intelligence officer who asked for permission to engage in enhanced interrogation tactics or the lawyer who, without saying whether the techniques should be used, provided a legal opinion that they lawfully could be?
The question should answer itself. In any case, whatever merit the "I was just following orders" defense has as a general matter disappears when the defendant requested the "orders" he was following....
Power Line - Dennis Blair's not so assuring assurances (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023385.php)
DENNIS BLAIR'S NOT SO ASSURING ASSURANCES
Share Post PrintApril 22, 2009 Posted by Paul at 9:15 AM
Below is the text of a letter of April 16, 2009 from Dennis Blair to members of the "intelligence community." The letter deserves comment, which I hope to provide later today.
Dear Colleagues:
Today is a difficult one for those of us who serve the country in its intelligence services. An article in the front page of the New York Times claims that the National Security Agency has been collecting information that violates the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens. The release of documents from the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) spells out in detail harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on suspected al Qaida terrorists.
As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I am trying to put these issues into perspective. We cannot undo the events of the past; we must understand them and turn this understanding to advantage as we move into the future....
Analysis:
Power Line - Wounds that a letter and a visit cannot repair (http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/04/023398.php)
R AND A VISIT CANNOT REPAIR
Share Post PrintApril 23, 2009 Posted by Paul at 8:24 PM
Yesterday, I posted the text of a letter from Dennis Blair to members of the "intelligence community." The letter is an extraordinary document. Indeed, the very fact that it was written is extraordinary.
Blair cites two developments that prompted his letter: (1) President Obama's decision to release Justice Department documents that "spell[] out in detail harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on suspected al Qaida terrorists" and (2) an article in the New York Times about surveillance by the National Security Agency. The letter purports to be an effort to prevent these developments from further demoralizing the intelligence community....
In any event, Blair is quite clear about the problem of demoralization, going so far as to compare the status of intelligence community members to that of military personnel returning from Vietnam in the early 1970s.
What does Blair offer to alleviate their situation? Not much beyond his own kind words and his assurance that the president supports them. Obama himself saw the need to travel Langley to provide the same assurance.
But Blair understands that general assurances ring hollow, especially with the threat of criminal prosecutions hanging over members of the intelligence community. So Blair says he "will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given." But he can provide no assurance that they won't be prosecuted. Rather, he implicitly acknowledges that these individuals may be in jeopardy; if they weren't there would be no need to defend them.
But what will be the defense? Blair acknowledges that the legal memoranda Obama released were written in response to requests by CIA personnel to use harsh interrogation techniques instead of being limited to traditional ones that weren't working. Who is more culpable -- the intelligence officer who asked for permission to engage in enhanced interrogation tactics or the lawyer who, without saying whether the techniques should be used, provided a legal opinion that they lawfully could be?
The question should answer itself. In any case, whatever merit the "I was just following orders" defense has as a general matter disappears when the defendant requested the "orders" he was following....