Ignatius: We Must Cover Up CIA Misdeeds to Ensure the Viability of Future Misdeeds

[babylonsister]

Ignatius: We Must Cover Up CIA Misdeeds to Ensure the Viability of Future Misdeeds
Matthew Yglesias


Reporting on the intelligence community is very interesting to read. Since intelligence activities are, by definition, secret, there’s a lot of interest in journalism that pierces the veil of secrecy. But this leads to frustrating situations. To do intelligence reporting you need intelligence sources. And to have intelligence sources, you need to be pretty kind to the institutional interests of the intelligence people who are serving as your sources. What’s more, since the whole thing is supposed to be shrouded in secrecy, there’s an incredibly low bar for what constitutes a journalistically viable level of sourcing.

Which is how you get things like this David Ignatius column warning darkly of the pernicious impact on CIA morale of the release of the torture memos and the even more dire impact that further pursuit of legal accountability would have. His main example is, however, pretty unconvincing:

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.

Lets get real here. Guatemalan security forces killed hundreds of thousands of people. I would like to see David Ignatius go visit the mother of someone killed by a death squad in Guatemala and explain to her why it is that making the CIA feel good about taking “political risks” was more important than making the CIA feel bad about killing her kid. He could do it tomorrow. Then visit another mom the following day. Then another the following day. It would take him well over 400 years to finish explaining himself to everyone.

By “political risks,” in other words, we’re talking about the risk of complicitly in mass murder and it strikes me as eminently reasonable to want the CIA to be wary of that kind of thing. And to be wary about torture, too! A lot of commentary sort of regrets that the torturing happened, but says you have to understand what a tough position the torturers were in, and so we should let them off the hook. But what about the next time a CIA operative is asked to torture someone? If he can say “sorry, boss, that’s illegal the last guys who tortured people on the basis of flimsy and absurd legal reasoning went to jail” then he’ll be in a strong position to avoid following illegal and immoral orders. But if he can’t say that, if his boss can say to him “look, everyone knows this isn’t really illegal; nobody’s ever been punsihed for anything” then he’s really in quite a pickle.

more...

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/04/ignatius-we-must-cover-up-cia-misdeeds-to-ensure-the-viability-of-future-misdeeds.php

[sampsonblk]

1. K & R - nt

[tomp]

2. there is no way to rehabilitate the cia.

it is a thoroughly corrupt and criminal organization, whose mission is to make the world safe for corporatism. this is indisputable.

[stillcool]

3. Political risks = Cover Your Ass...

I'm glad the CIA returned time and time again to question the legality of what they were doing. It seems to me that the Bush Administration would have learned from their Iran/Contra endeavor that these kinds of illegal operations need to be done way outside the usual channels of government.

[Supersedeas]

4. the misdeeds were based on a flimsy premises (posited by Al Gonzo) that Geneva

did not apply.

The Supreme Court of the US makes clear that Geneva definitely applies, applies now, applies in the future, applied when Gonzo and Yoo falsely and negligently claimed that it didn't apply.

[flyarm]

5. black ops in CIA=shadow government!! Read "BARRY AND THE BOYS"

WE WERE ALL WARNED ABOUT THE Military

But who we should have been equally wanred about was the CIA

Kennedy wanted to basically stop the CIA ..Nixon wanted to take control over the part of the CIA involved with Drug running and personally control that faction of the CIA..how did it work out for them??

Watergate was pretty much a CIA opps to get rid of Nixon..because he was fumbling and almost exposing papa Bush..and would have destroyed papa Bush from his ambitions.

No one is above the law..and we need only look at the past nhistory of the CIA to know some of the worst criminals in our nation did so under the cover of the CIA.

To not hold these people accountable ..will only see them rear their ugly heads again somewhere in our future.These people are re-cycled and they are repeated on us over and over again.

Porter Goss is the perfect example!