Obama on Civil Liberties

Obama on Civil Liberties
By Jerome Grossman

In January I was watching the Senate confirmation hearing of President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Leon Panetta. How did we ever keep informed before C-SPAN?

As a passionate civil libertarian, I was so proud of Panetta as he denounced torture without any reservations stating that the CIA would follow the rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. Then he said that the U.S. would no longer engage in rendition, the secret shuttling of detainees and prisoners to foreign nations who torture.

I was so happy that I had voted for Obama and had sent him a fat check. And Panetta became my hero, boldly changing the positions of the Bush administration and the secret activities of the CIA.

A couple of days later, quite by accident, I caught Panetta on C-SPAN again, before the same Senate committee, a surprise because the first hearing seemed to have covered all the questions. A senator asked Panetta a leading question on torture: “What would you do if you knew that a bomb, maybe nuclear, was about to be exploded and your prisoner knew when and where?” Panetta replied that he would ask for “additional authority”, that is, to torture in exceptional circumstances.

Panetta's position has moral and operational flaws. How can he be sure that the intelligence about a bomb is accurate? How does he know that the prisoner has the information sought and even if he does that he will tell the truth? If the exception is built into the system, won't it be used more and more to justify torture, to break down a prisoner by claiming the most extreme danger whether or not it is present?

Then another senator asked Panetta to expand his views on rendition. He replied,” I'm glad you asked”, and proceeded to modify his initial statements: The CIA might continue its “extraordinary rendition”, transferring prisoners to third countries even those known to torturer, relying on their assurances of humane treatment. Just what the Bush administration claimed for eight years while the contracting countries routinely tortured. The senator may have asked: Why send prisoners or detainees abroad at great expense for mere interrogation? Wouldn't that jeopardize later judicial prosecutions? How can the interrogators’ actions be controlled from another faraway continent? Is it a good idea to farm out aspects of our legal system?

The Obama administration has decided “not to change the status quo immediately” on these issues according to Gregory Craig, the White House Counsel. Civil libertarians ought to take notice and express their disappointment about these matters as well as the continuation of electronic eavesdropping of phone calls without a warrant.


It was clear that the White House was having second thoughts about the very important changes in civil liberties described as Obama policy by Panetta in his first appearance. That is unfortunate and unwise. In the election, the American people repudiated the way the Bush administration operated. There needs to be a dramatic change of direction, especially on civil liberties, and without hesitation. That is the prime reason why Barack Obama was elected president.

Leon Panetta and the CIA

Leon Panetta and the CIA

By Jerome Grossman

President-elect Obama stunned the national intelligence community by selecting Leon Panetta to serve as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Panetta has been a US Representative, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Chief of Staff in the Clinton administration.

While Panetta is a longtime Washington insider with serious management experience, he is not an expert on intelligence or on past operations of the CIA. Obama has been criticized by CIA specialists and high ranking senators for appointing a director without direct experience in the field.

But that is exactly why Panetta was appointed. Obama has criticized the agency for using harsh interrogation methods and has openly objected to the use of such methods, some of which have been used for generations under Democratic as well as Republican administrations. Obama had to find a director who was absolutely clean on waterboarding, other tortures, secret renditions of prisoners to other countries for torture, kidnappings, assassinations, etc.. The only safe appointment was a manager who had never been in the CIA, who did not have the experience of breaking US law and violating the Geneva Conventions on Treatment of Prisoners of War. The Clinton administration made extensive use of rendering suspects to Egypt without formal charges to be tortured. Was Panetta involved? Will the question be asked at his confirmation hearing?

Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia immediately complained about the appointment citing lack of experience and Obama's failure to notify them in advance. However, their position is weakened by their failure to use their influence as powerful members of the Senate Intelligence Committee to expose the hideous practices and to arouse the nation of the crimes committed in the name of the United States.

It will not be easy for Panetta to reform the CIA and to change established patterns of conduct. Who becomes second in command of operations will supply a clue about the chance of success in changing the culture of the agency. The action levels are often hidden from the view of the Director at the helm. Obama is trying, and so will Panetta. The illegal procedures must be eliminated. They offend other nations, tarnish US reputation, and produce incorrect information. Modern intelligence techniques avoid torture and violence, rely on psychological approaches and obtain more accurate information faster without alienating the rest of humanity.