Should Obama Fire His CIA Chief for Misleading the Public About the Senate Spying Scandal?

[deminks]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/cia-chief-brennan-obama-Senate-spying-scandal

On March 11, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, strode on to the Senate floor and made a shocking charge: the CIA had spied on committee investigators who were examining the CIA's past use of harsh interrogation techniques (a.k.a. torture). She essentially confirmed media reports that the agency had accessed computers that had been set up in a secured facility for her staffers to use—and that this high-tech break-in was related to a CIA memo that the agency had not turned over. The document was far more critical of the CIA's interrogation program than the agency's official response to the still-classified (and reportedly scorching) 6,300-page report produced by Feinstein's committee. As Feinstein described it, the CIA, looking to find out how her sleuths had obtained this particular memo, had been spying on the investigators who were paid by the taxpayers to keep a close watch on America's spies.

Feinstein's public statement—unprecedented in US national security history—caused an uproar. I noted that this clash between the Senate and Langley threatened a constitutional crisis. After all, if the CIA was covertly undercutting and interfering with congressional oversight, then the foundation of the national security state was at risk, for the executive branch, in theory, can only engage in clandestine activity as long as members of Congress can keep an eye on it. Yet the system of oversight appeared to have broken down.

That same day, CIA chief John Brennan was speaking at a previously-scheduled event at the Council on Foreign Relations. After he uttered a few opening remarks, moderator Andrea Mitchell, the NBC News correspondent, asked the obvious question: can you respond to Feinstein's allegations? Brennan assured the crowd that the CIA was not "trying to thwart" the Senate intelligence committee's work on torture. And he said: "As far as the allegations of, you know, CIA hacking into, you know, Senate computers, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, we wouldn't do that. I mean, that's—that's just beyond the—you know, the scope of reason in terms of what we would do."

(snip)

The CIA conducts much of its business in secrecy; and most of Congress' vetting of the CIA likewise occurs out of public view. Effective oversight requires trust and cooperation between the two—and there must be that trust and cooperation for the public to have confidence that the oversight system works. But there also has to be public trust in those who lead the CIA. Brennan's initial public statements about this scandal severely undermine his credibility. He owes the public a full accounting. If he remains in the job, President Barack Obama will owe the public an explanation for why he retained an intelligence chief who misled the public about CIA misconduct.

(end snip)

Remember folks, this is about torture, bottom line, and the CIA's continued efforts to obstruct justice.

So, yes, he should fire his CIA chief, IMHO.

[joeybee12]

1. What if Brennan really didn't know about it?

Not saying he didn't know, but if he didn't, hell then, he's apparently not in control of the CIA so he should be fired over that.

[TwilightGardener]

4. I don't think Eric Shinseki knew the extent of the VA's problems--

he's a good and honorable guy and didn't understand a system that didn't operate on obedience and honor, but rather bureaucratic inertia and bonus-greed. And now he's gone. Brennan used to be a CIA agent, so he knows it from the inside--I don't know how much he's responsible, but between this, and his agents in Germany getting discovered, plus some other things, I certainly wouldn't go out on a limb to defend him. Obama really likes him, though.

[joeybee12]

5. Even if he didn't know, and as you say he's pretty much a career man...

He probably knew there was a possibility that what DiFi accused the CIA of they actually did do, so the odds are he was deliberately misleading.

[TwilightGardener]

11. I would think his agents who did the snooping on the Senate knew what a

big deal it was to do that--it clearly crosses the line, and it was done not for direct/emergent national security reasons. It's hard to believe they would have done it without permission--or even instruction--from the very top. It doesn't look good for Brennan, frankly.

[msanthrope]

2. If Brennan lied, he should be fired. If he was lied to, it should be investigated thoroughly, and

the President should consider whether Brennan can continue at his post.

At the very least, this should be a harbinger of reform at the CIA.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. And, dismantle the CIA while he's at it.

[TheKentuckian]

6. Fire? At the speed of light. He should have never hired the piece of shit at all.

I can't imagine what is supposed to be redeeming or inspires benefit of the doubt about this guy other pure and unadulterated Obamawashing.

Before he was sanctified via selection by Obama nobody in these parts would touch the guy with a 10,000 foot pole.

[kentuck]

7. He should...

And call for an IG or special investigation to examine how much more of this lying and tomfoolery is going on. If there is, then crack the whip on the entire organization.

[blm]

8. LOL - Like any president has any REAL say in the CIA power circle that exists

and in the last 5 decades answers to no one but Poppy Bush and the powerful elite cronies.

Any political change is window dressing. Heck, Obama was as surprised to hear that Merkel's personal phone was being tapped by the CIA as she was.

Never forget that the BFEE exists - and it certainly isn't for the wellbeing of this nation.

[misterhighwasted]

17. My thoughts exactly. Poppy's people run the show. Bush mafia.

[blm]

18. Some DUers waste a lot of time in exchanges not based in that REALITY.

Hard not to find them naive about the last 5 decades and......... tiresome.

[spanone]

9. get. to. the. bottom. of. it. this is serious shit.

[clarice]

13. Agreed. nt

[Swede Atlanta]

10. Yes.....

If the person responsible for the CIA knew or didn't know what his people were doing, he is "responsible".

I don't think we want a system of government where the executive branch through the NSA, CIA, etc. is spying on elected members of Congress. We can call imagine lots of conspiracies that are being worked on via e-mail, text, telephone, etc. between members of Congress, etc. but that is not what we should be doing.

It is one thing to have a public discussion about whether the responsibility of the "spy" agencies, in general, extends to monitoring the communications of elected officials up to and including the President or not.

But if someone comes before Congress and testifies it isn't happening and we later confirm it was, he/she should be fired. Either they were lying under oath to Congress or they didn't know what their people were doing. The person responsible should know EVERYTHING they are doing.

[kentuck]

12. Yep.

Otherwise, why have a Congress?

[Maedhros]

14. He would only do that if he were opposed to the National Security State.

All indications are that Obama is just fine with it.

[mythology]

15. Yes he should and everybody else responsible for this

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's a crime.

Likewise, James Clapper should be fired and arrested for intentionally lying to Congress.

The only way to bring the out of control agencies back under control is to start imprisoning the people who break the laws.

[cloudbase]

16. Misleading is being too kind.

It was an outright lie, and he and the others engaged in this should be canned.