"CIA observer", when Wyden does speak up it's ineffective. He "spoke up" about barring John Rizzo -- Bush's nominee for CIA general counsel -- from being confirmed to his post earlier this year, but Rizzo's been acting general counsel for most of the Bush administration, he was involved in the torture tapes discussions, and he's still in his position. Wyden spoke but nothing happened. Oh, except he for some press for doing it.

People on the Intelligence committee have known about the tapes for years. Maybe not Wyden, but certainly Jay Rockefeller has. And Wyden would have to be an idiot not to have suspected that there were tapes of torture sessions; even the Abu Ghraib people made videos. But what did they do in the past year to ensure that the evidence didn't get destroyed? Nothing. That's some oversight for you.

Now Wyden wants us to believe that a special prosecutor isn't needed and that Intelligence should get first crack at it? That's exactly the line taken by Rockefeller, the guy who definitely knew about the tapes.

Thanks Darrel. CIA Observer, the rap on IndyMedia is supposed to be that protest politics is ineffective, right? What is it but ineffective protest if elected Dems occasionally "speak up" but don't do more?

The rap on Gordon Smith about opposing the war is that he "spoke up" at times and places convenient to him, but didn't act in accordance with his words. Congressional Dems need to be held to the same standard when they "speak up"

Speaking up is better than silent complicity, but saying that speaking up and leaving it there is the only alternative to silence, and that criticizing both is somehow contradictory is obviously wrong & a diversionary sleight of hand. What's needed is speaking up followed by action. By speaking up Wyden has given us some of what we need, but not enough.

Darrel is right that the CIA (or DNI) can't be trusted to investigate this. I'm not sure about an independent prosecutor vs. congressional investigation, but something else is needed.

What does everyone make of the charges that Nancy Pelosi knew about CIA torture since at least 2003 and seems to have given at least tacit approval to it?

It would certainly help explain her declarations that impeachment for Bush & Cheney is off the table.

Thoughts?

the rap on IndyMedia is supposed to be that protest politics is ineffective, right?

No, the rap on IndyMedia is that it's overwhelmed with crazy conspiracy theory nutjobs.

John Kennedy lives! On the moon! With Elvis! And they're plotting the overthrow of the Fascists in the White House! With rayguns!

You criticize Wyden for making a public show of denying Rizzo the nomination but failing to achieve anything because he didn't get Rizzo fired from his civil service job.

Civil service jobs aren't subject to Senate confirmation, CIA Observer. The CIA general counsel position is a political appointment, which is why Rizzo had to go through the Intelligence committee in the first place.

If, as you say, Wyden can't actually do anything about Rizzo -- who he said he opposed because of his positions on torture -- then presumably he couldn't do anything about investigating the torture tapes, either.

Which raises the question of exactly what the Intelligence committee is supposed to be doing and why Wyden thinks the matter doesn't require a special prosecutor immediately. If he's powerless to do anything, perhaps he ought to advocate for the appointment of someone who has the investigative strength that the Intelligence committee seems to have lost.

It's not as if the issue oif torture and the CIA have suddenly come out of nowhere. There have been allegations for years of CIA involvement in renditions, including planes linked to Oregon. Where are the investigations into those matters?

You may know a little something about the CIA, but then so does Larry Johnson, and he thought my article on Wyden and Rizzo the other day was interesting enough to post links to it at his blog, No Quarter, as well as TPM Cafe, and elsewhere. So pardon me if I take the name of someone with a real identity over someone with a pseudonym that claims to be associated with the CIA.

Quote from Tom C.'s Nation article:

"In the days after Mohammed's arrest, an unnamed official told the Wall Street Journal that US interrogators may authorize 'a little bit of smacky-face' while questioning captives in the war on terrorism."

"Smacky-face." As I recall, the upswing in violence against our troops in Iraq roughly coincided with revelatins about Abu Ghraib, but perhaps I'm conflating events? Somebody once said "you reap what you sow;" universal hostility is what you reap from this kind of macho posturing. "Smacky-face," indeed.

Your point about "the whole world knew" is a good one to remember, Tom. Thanks for the reality check.

I might add that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence does not require 60 votes to do anything. There is a simple majority of Democrats on the committee and the agenda is under the control of the Democratic chairman of the committee.

I wrote to Wyden asking whether Rizzo would be continuing in his role as acting CIA general counsel. This was the end of his response (dated Halloween):

I am pleased the the President has withdrawn Mr. Rizzo's nomination, and I am hopeful that the President will now pick somebody who will ensure that our national counterterrorism programs have the solid legal foundation they need.

So the guy sits in as the CIA's top legal authority for most of the period between 9/11 and early 2007, while all of the stuff in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and everywhere else is going on, then he gets nominated to fill the seat permanently, Wyden puts a hold on him, the nomination is withdrawn, and Wyden hopes that George Bush will pick someone else to serve out a portion of the next year out of the goodness of Dick Cheney's heart? You've got to be kidding me.

Wyden is representing us in Washington DC not Middle Earth.

Unlike Gandalf, he cannot wave a wand to destroy any random *Balrog that crosses his path.

Unless and until about ten more Dem senators grow a pair, guys like Wyden, Dodd, Feingold, and a few others are standing up on a whole bunch of our issues including telecom prosecution, administration appointments, torture, and so on.

We're damned lucky to have him. There ain't that many of his peers, Dem or Republican, that come close to his attention to the Constitution.

*I realize, of course that Orcs and Balrogs should have the same rights to self-determination and aspiration to dream realization afforded to all the rest of us, as we unite against the Human/Elf/Hobbity Hegemony that currently plauges our reality.

What "points" did you ask me? You were wrong about the general counsel position being a civil service job. Am I supposed to address whether Nat Hentoff thinks Wyden's producing good oversight on the Intelligence committee? What, exactly, has he done to receive those accolades? I know Jane Meyer at the New Yorker gave him ink about the Rizzo hold, but as you've already acknowledged, that didn't actually accomplish anything. Rizzo's in the same place he's been for six years.

So what other "points" did you have? Wyden could be publicly calling for an investigation into Rizzo. It would seem that in the eleven months since Democrats took control of Congress that he could have focused quite a bit of attention on Intelligence matters -- considering the current state of affairs -- but instead he's talking about biofuels and credit card safety.

Personal grudge? I've met the guy -- in public -- exactly once. If you were "led" to believe that by what I wrote, you could probably be led to believe pretty much anything. No wonder our intelligence services are so screwed up.

Unlike Gandalf, he cannot wave a wand to destroy any random *Balrog that crosses his path. Unless and until about ten more Dem senators grow a pair, guys like Wyden, Dodd, Feingold, and a few others are standing up on a whole bunch of our issues including telecom prosecution, administration appointments, torture, and so on.

Put your Monster Manual back on the shelf, Pat.

The Intelligence Committee doesn't need "ten more Dem senators" to do anything. There are only eight Democrats on the committee in the first place: Rockefeller, Feinstein, Wyden, Bayh, Mikulski, Feingold, Bill Nelson, and Whitehouse. Plus Harry Reid and Carl Levin ex officio.

That's all that's needed to carry out investigations and oversight of intelligence operations by United States agencies. That's what the committee is for. If the chairman isn't doing their job, then the senators who feel that is the case should speak up publicly and say so. If they're being blocked by the administration, then they should speak out and say so. They've had almost a year.

One of CIA Observer's "points" (I guess):

I would argue that it's a very good thing for ambitious people at the CIA who may one day follow in Rizzo's footsteps to know that looking the other way while the law is broken may not only cost you a prestigious promotion, but it might also buy you widespread dishonor across the country.

The thing about Rizzo is, he didn't just "look the other way" while the law was broken. He was the primary legal counsel for the CIA during most of the War on Terror. He was theoretically in charge of making sure the CIA complied with whatever laws applied to it and would have coordinated with people like Yoo and Gonzales on what interrogation methods were permissible. He would have been in charge of the day-to-day implementation of those guidelines. He would have been involved in discussions of rendition flights.

Far from providing a cautionary tale, the hold on his permanent appointment shows that not only can you get away with doing what he did for years but that even if you're blocked from confirmation you can go on doing what you were doing with no consequences. And far from "widespread dishonor", most people will never have heard of you, and many of those who have will probably feel you got a raw deal from some liberal Democratic senator who stuck a knife in the back of a hero in the War on Terror, thank god the dems are so spineless they couldn't set up some sort of kangaroo court.

I'm sure Mr. Rizzo will do just fine. Widespread dishonor didn't seem to hurt Ollie North or G. Gordon Liddy much.

Posted by: darrelplant | Dec 13, 2007 3:44:13 PM Put your Monster Manual back on the shelf, Pat.

LOL.

Darrelplant rolls a natural 20 on the 20d and with a +3 "satire" DM... scores a crit on Pat's "Poltical Analogy" stat leaving Pat with only 2 hit points.

Darrelplant rolls a natural 20 on the 20d and with a +3 "satire" DM... scores a crit on Pat's "Poltical Analogy" stat leaving Pat with only 2 hit points.

This is as it should be. I still have my white boxed D&D set from the mid-70s. My first professional publication was a satire piece in TSR's The Dragon magazine in 1979. And I have a personally-signed letter from Gary Gygax.

many of those who have will probably feel you got a raw deal from some liberal Democratic senator who stuck a knife in the back of a hero in the War on Terror, thank god the dems are so spineless they couldn't set up some sort of kangaroo court.

I'm not understanding you here Darrel. I mean about the luck and spines and the kangaroos.

I got the Gygax thing though. Among Bikers it's always the guy that partied with Sonny Barger.

Well, Pat, "CIA Observer" claimed that the fact that Rizzo didn't get confirmed into the CIA general counsel position he's occupied de facto for most of six years -- and still occupies -- sends some sort of warning to potential malefactors in the CIA, and that was part of my guess at an alternative reading of the situation from the viewpoint of the kind of person who might think torture was a grand idea.