With the reaction to the choice of Leon Panetta coming fast and furious, a story in the New York Times about Muhammad Saad Iqbal illustrates why it is so important that we have a CIA Director who is firmly and unequivocally against torture. Iqbal was held by the government for six years until he was finally released without charges. He claims he was tortured in Egypt, Afghanistan and Guantanamo, including by the CIA.
Also, even newspapers that endorsed Norm Coleman are telling him to take his own advice and give it up - for the sake of your constituents, Norm. Remember them?
And, what is the big mystery today surrounding Washington Governor Christine Gregoire?
Before I get to the reaction to the pick of Leon Panetta for CIA Director, I wanted to mention this story that jumped out at me this morning. The New York Times tells the story of Muhammad Saad Iqbal, who was held for six years in U.S. custody, even though his original interrogators thought he was nothing more than a "braggart" and should be released. He was never charged with any wrongdoing and he claims he was repeatedly tortured in Egypt, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.
Mr. Iqbal was never convicted of any crime, or even charged with one. He was quietly released from Guantánamo with a routine explanation that he was no longer considered an enemy combatant, part of an effort by the Bush administration to reduce the prison’s population.
Iqbal was originally arrested in Indonesia after supposedly bragging that he knew how to make a shoe bomb, a claim he now denies. He was flown to Egypt by the CIA, and he also spent time in American prisons at Bagram Air Base and Guantanamo Bay.
Mr. Iqbal said he had been beaten, tightly shackled, covered with a hood and given drugs, subjected to electric shocks and, because he denied knowing Mr. bin Laden, deprived of sleep for six months. “They make me blind and stand up for whole days,” he said in halting English, meaning that he had been covered with a hood or blindfolded.
A CIA spokesman responded to the charges of torture by saying "I have no idea what he's talking about."
Iqbal plans to sue the United States government for his detention and he is also suing for the release of his medical records from Guantanamo to prove his allegations of torture. Kind of illustrates why it is so important to have a CIA Director against torture, huh?
::::::
Even though the choice of Panetta was somewhat surprising, given his lack of intelligence experience, the overwhelming reaction is that this pick represents a clean break from the Bush administration's policies. The San Jose Mercury News editorial board sums up that reaction:
If anyone doubted that Barack Obama will end America's use of torture, his selection of Leon Panetta to head the CIA should put it to rest.
In March 2008, Panetta wrote a column for the Monterey County Herald about the culture of fear created by the Bush administration and exploited by opponents of Obama's presidential bid. Panetta talked about Bush's rationale for the use of torture and his refusal to accept reasonable limits on government's ability to eavesdrop on citizens. Both positions, in Panetta's view, were abhorrent.
"Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive," he wrote.
Panetta also wrote the following in an article for The Washington Monthly:
Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.
We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.
::::::
As usual, there are varying reactions. There are those who are pleased:
Some human rights groups praised the choice. Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First, said it was important that the new C.I.A. director be someone “who recognizes that torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive.”
And some who are not so pleased:
“It’s a puzzling choice and a high-risk choice,” said Amy Zegart, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has written extensively on intelligence matters.
“The best way to change intelligence policies from the Bush administration responsibly is to pick someone intimately familiar with them,” Ms. Zegart said. “This is intelligence, not tax or transportation policy. You can’t hit the ground running by reading briefing books and asking smart questions.”
To the second category, you can also add Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller. Joan Walsh wasn't sure what to make of the choice - until she heard Feinstein and Rockefeller were against it:
The two Democrats' pique -- they say Obama didn't vet Panetta with them -- is a good sign that Panetta's not viewed as an insider who will simply roll over for what the intelligence establishment wants, since Feinstein and Rockefeller did little or nothing to stand up against Bush policies (and Glenn Greenwald agrees with me.)
::::::
It seems that most in intelligence circles didn't really see this one coming. Michael Scheuer thinks there might be a lack of talented people who want the job:
"Kind of a mystifying pick, isn't it? ... There's no experience there that suggests he has any talent in the field of intelligence work," said Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA who once headed the agency's Osama bin Laden unit and is now a vocal critic of the organization.
"To give the president the benefit of the doubt, there probably aren't a lot of talented Americans in either party that want to be head of the CIA," he added.
Oh, I'm sure there are a few who wouldn't turn it down! Robert Baer, another former CIA official, believes Panetta is just the type of outsider that the CIA needs:
The only question now is whether Panetta will have the portfolio to do what is absolutely necessary — move the CIA out of Washington, get it away from the politicians, get the CIA out of covert action once and for all, and pay CIA employees what they deserve for the hard work demanded of them.
Meanwhile, Robert Dreyfuss at The Nation is unsettled by the thought of Panetta leading the CIA and thinks he won't last more than a year.
::::::
In other political news today, the Washington Post reports that the Senate will delay seating Al Franken:
Republicans have strenuously protested the seating of Franken without full state certification, and leading Democrats last night reconsidered their plans to have Franken sworn in today, when the Senate formally convenes for the start of the 111th Congress.
"There will not be an effort to seat Mr. Franken" today, Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid, said last night.
The Worthington Daily Globe, which endorsed Coleman in the election, reminds him of his post-election "victory" comments saying that he wouldn't challenge the result if he were in Franken's position. Nick Coleman, a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, says it's time for Norm to take his own advice and give it up. I agree. Give it up Norm! For the sake of your (former) constituents. You lost fair and square and now it is time to move on and go do something else.
::::::
So why did Washington Governor Christine Gregoire cancel a speaking engagement and fly to DC on Sunday? Washington's politicos want to know:
Gregoire's mysterious absence left local political blogs buzzing this afternoon with speculation that she could be in Washington, D.C., preparing to accept a job with the Obama administration.
Gregoire was on a plane to D.C. on Sunday morning. But Marty Brown, Gregoire's legislative liaison, said the governor's trip has nothing to do with a job in the new administration.
Apparently she will be making an announcement this morning in Washington D.C. Her spokesman's repeated denials aside - Commerce Secretary, perhaps? The Northwest Progressive Institute says probably not, but this exchange is interesting:
Q: Is Governor Gregoire going to be Obama's nominee for Commerce Secretary?
A: “We’re not able to speak to that so we’ll do a release in the morning.”
Mmmm... I'm thinking Christine Gregoire will be Obama's runner up for Secretary of Commerce. But then again, maybe not. Joe Turner at PolitickerWA.com claims a source has told him that Gregoire will still be Governor in March, but that she is going to announce "something big" today.
::::::
Pete Souza, a former photojournalist for the Chicago Tribune, will be the official White House photographer - a position he also held under Ronald Reagan. He has been photographing Obama for some time and has an extensive gallery on his website. He has some interesting shots of Obama on foreign trips as a Senator and one shot of Obama strolling through an airport by himself, carrying his bag and talking on a cell phone. Those days are over, huh?
::::::
Eliot Spitzer (remember him?) thinks Obama should spend the money on "transformative projects" rather than the same ol' bridges and roads:
Paving roads, repairing bridges that need refurbishing, and accelerating existing projects are all good and necessary, but not transformative. These projects by and large are building or patching the same economy with the same flaws that got us where we are. Our concern should be that as we look for the next great infrastructure project to transform our economy, we might rebuild the Erie Canal and find ourselves a century behind technologically.
Spitzer thinks the funds would be better spent on smart meters, alternative energy infrastructure, electronic medical records, internet infrastructure, and robotics teams at every school. After witnessing the beauty that is the South Korean internet system, I can say for sure that American internet service sucks.
::::::
Did you know that Mike Huckabee has a radio show now? I know you can't wait to tune in.
::::::
And, over here in the crazy world of Korean politics, the main opposition party has finally ended their "occupation" of the Parliament:
South Korea’s biggest opposition party ended its 12-day occupation of parliament after the house speaker agreed to postpone a vote on a U.S. free-trade deal.
You think our politics are filled with drama! The opposition had literally barricaded themselves in Parliament to prevent Lee's party from passing any legislation, including a vote on the free trade deal. All eyes in the Korean government will be on Barack Obama when he takes office to see what will happen with that agreement. He has already called it "deeply flawed" so it doesn't look promising.
::::::
So what's on your mind this morning? Your reaction to the Panetta pick?