It's the CIA's turn

The groundswell of disapproval from his supporters led Barack Obama to withdraw the name of John Brennan in connection with the CIA.  Brennan disappeared into the mist because of his alleged association with the agency's secret prisons and its torture policies.  (Torture.  Euphemisms no longer accepted.)

And now, the New York Times reports, there's a good deal of uneasiness inside the CIA among others who have been part of the imprisonment and torture programs.  But there is also a good deal of uneasiness out here, where many of us aren't sure what kind of actions we can expect from our president-elect with respect to the CIA's disgraceful policies.  The promises are there, but will Democratic leaders in Congress follow through?

"One of the first issues Mr. Obama must grapple with is the future of C.I.A. detention: will the agency continue to hold prisoners secretly, question them using more aggressive methods than allowed for military interrogators, and transfer terrorism suspects to countries with a history of using torture?

"During the presidential campaign, a constant theme for Mr. Obama was the need to restore 'American values' to the fight against terrorism. He pledged to banish secret C.I.A. interrogation rules and require all American interrogators to follow military guidelines, set out in the Army Field Manual on interrogation.

"In a speech last year, Mr. Obama cast the matter as a practical issue, as well as a moral one. 'We cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground and keep the people on our side,' he said. 'But because the administration decided to take the low road, our troops have more enemies.'

"On Wednesday, a dozen retired generals and admirals are to meet with senior Obama advisers to urge him to stand firm against any deviation from the military’s noncoercive interrogation rules.

"But even some senior Democratic lawmakers who are vehement critics of the Bush administration’s interrogation policies seemed reluctant in recent interviews to commit the new administration to following the Army Field Manual in all cases.

"Flexibility" is the new word in Congress for allowing imprisonment and torture in "certain" cases.  But the attitude within CIA as described in the Times report is no less unsettling.  Keep in mind that the CIA is a government agency, an accountable agency.  But damn!  They talk as though they'll make the ultimate choice about whether to go along with the new president.

"Some C.I.A. veterans suggest that the president-elect may have difficulty finding a candidate who can be embraced by both veteran officials at the agency and the left flank of the Democratic Party.

"A. B. Krongard, the C.I.A.’s third-ranking official under Mr. Tenet when the detention and interrogation program was created, called Mr. Brennan a 'casualty of war' and said he believed C.I.A. tactics were being second-guessed for political purposes. The demise of Mr. Brennan’s candidacy, Mr. Krongard said, 'is a huge loss to the country.'

"But Mr. Krongard said he believed that ultimately, under a new director and a new set of policies, the agency would find common ground with Mr. Obama.

"'The C.I.A.’s no different than any other place,' he said. 'Probably 25 percent of the people there really like him, 25 percent don’t like him, and 50 percent are open-minded.'"

Perhaps 25 percent should spend a year in a secret prison in Poland while the "open-minded" get to sit in sound-proof rooms in Langley listening to the Constitution being read at high volume for 24-hours a day for an indeterminate period of time.