Feingold Calls For New Leadership At Intelligence Agencies

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:16:31 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

It appears I am not alone in my concern about John Brennan. Now, according to HuffPo, Russ Feingold is a "concern troll" too:

"For eight years, the current Administration has shown contempt for the rule of law, including in intelligence-related matters, while repeatedly refusing to work cooperatively with Congress. . . . New leadership is needed to move our intelligence policies in the right direction," Feingold's statement concludes.

Feingold -- perhaps the Senate's most indefatigable civil libertarian -- has been a stalwart opponent of the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, as well as extensive searches of Americans' laptops and other property at airports by the TSA. It would be practically impossible to read his statement as anything but a reaction to a Wall Street Journal report earlier this week that claimed Obama is "unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies."

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< How Hillary Would Have Done | Six Convicted of Murder in Nebraska Exonerated By DNA Testing >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Feingold Calls For New Leadership At Intelligence Agencies | 55 comments (55 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I've always hated ... (5.00 / 6) (#2)
by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST

the term "concern troll." Just seems to be a ham-handed way to quiet descent. And it possesses a distinctly McCarthyite whiff.

It suggests there's no middle-ground between blind support, and utter rejection.

In short, a STFU or SYFPH by other means.

Not to mention (5.00 / 5) (#8)
by oldpro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:50:55 PM EST

patronizing and dismissive.

"There, there...don't worry your pretty little head about it."

Women are used to this.

Or used to be.


Yep (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Pepe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:52:16 PM EST

And it has a childish tinge to it also.


: Bloggers childish? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:11:42 PM EST

Surely you jest!
;)
Of course, many of them can be forgiven for this since they are in fact ... um ... children.

fiengold (none / 0) (#34)
by Salo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:29:56 PM EST

a bit over rated imho always speaks up after something crap happens and then he never organizes like minded people to get things done. But he's right here


BTD quoted in the New York Times' blog (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by barryluda on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:01:35 PM EST

I just thought it was cool that one of the staff editors for The New York Times Op-Ed page reads TL and wrote on our very own BTD and his thoughts on Brennan.

: Yikes! (none / 0) (#13)
by nycstray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:08:21 PM EST

from the comments:

my only question is when, not if, the campaign begins to ratify the 28th amendment, rescinding the 22nd amendment.
president elect obama is a young man and we will need his voice for change longer than the mere eight years that the constitution now mandates.
that would be real change we can believe in!

Snark, perhaps?

Yes (5.00 / 6) (#14)
by lilburro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:15:58 PM EST

See folks, this is how it's done.

We don't just wait around while Obama picks his transition team and then selects his staffers for his White House. We spend the transition time forming our own "dream" transition teams and preparing conditions for our support. We say this is what we want, not this.

If someone is making a meal, I tell them what I want and what I don't want. I don't just wait for them to come to the table and then say hey, that's not it!

We funded Obama. We elected Obama. Obama owes us.

I'm glad BTD is ringing the alarm (none / 0) (#39)
by barryluda on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:14:50 PM EST

I've not read enough about Brennan to say he's definitely a mistake (I know several of you including BTD think it's so obvious, but not it's not to me yet). But I have learned enough that we should be sounding the alarm. I would want Brennan to state unequivocally his opposition to torture before Obama includes him on his team.

I did read in an interview from PBS some things that, again, cut both ways:

But at the same time, there is a question about how aggressive you want to be against terrorism in terms of, what does it mean to take the gloves off? There was a real debate within the agency, including today, about what are the minimum standards that you want to stoop to and beyond where you're not going to go, because we don't want to stoop to using the same types of standards that terrorists use. We are in this business, whether it be intelligence or the government, to protect freedom, democracy and liberty, not to violate that.
When it comes to individuals who are determined to destroy our nation, though, we have to make sure that we take every possible measure. It's a tough ethical question, and it's a question that really needs to be aired more publicly. The issue of the reported domestic spying -- these are very healthy debates that need to take place. They can't be stifled, because I think that we as a country and a society have to determine what is it we want to do, whether it be eavesdropping, whether it be taking actions against individuals who are either known or suspected to be terrorists. What length do we want to go to? What measures do we want to use? What tactics do we want to use?
Hopefully, that "dark side" is not going to be something that's going to forever tarnish the image of the United States abroad and that we're going to look back on this time and regret some of the things that we did, because it is not in keeping with our values. ...
Sometimes there are actions that we are forced to take, but there need to be boundaries beyond which we are going to recognize that we're not going to go because we still are Americans, and we are supposed to be representing something to people in this country and overseas. So the dark side has its limits.

: I think it's most important (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by lilburro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:33:34 PM EST

that we demand to know more about Brennan and anyone who could be involved in a national security job. The status quo right now is just terrible.
Interview Shane Harris:

Q: How does the next president go about doing that?
Brennan: It's going to be a real tough job. Even though people may criticize what has happened during the two Bush administrations, there has been a fair amount of continuity. A new administration, be it Republican or Democrat -- you're going to have a fairly significant change of people involved at the senior-most levels. And I would argue for continuity in those early stages.
You don't want to whipsaw the [intelligence] community. You don't want to presume knowledge about how things fit together and why things are being done the way they are being done. And you have to understand the implication, then, of making any major changes or redirecting things. I'm hoping there will be a number of professionals coming in who have an understanding of the evolution of the capabilities in the community over the past six years, because there is a method to how things have changed and adapted. My advice, to whoever is coming in, is they need to spend some time learning, understanding what's out there, inventorying those things, and identifying those key issues or priorities that they have -- FISA or something else. They need to make sure they do their homework, and it's not just going to be knee-jerk responses.
Q: In other words, don't come in and do a housecleaning?
Brennan: Right -- not just in terms of people, but also programs. You don't want to create upheaval, because it will create a disruption in the system. There are still a lot people who say we have to implement all of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. I have problems with some of those, because they're not really anchored in reality. Sometimes a superficial understanding of a problem leads one to making superficial decisions.
IMO, that is a problematic attitude when we want to escape the policies of the Bush administration. I think part of the problem is that the "intelligence community" is going to view Obama as an outsider. I'm sure they are as loath to give up power and excess as the right wing politicans we are so familiar with who enabled and appointed them.

: This equivocating concerns me (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by BackFromOhio on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:43:46 PM EST

to say the least. Don't all those truly in the know say that torture never begets credible evidence? And, aren't we are party to treaties that prohibit torture? And... when has there been an instance in which there the security of our nation was sacrificed for lack of torture? Was the Aug 6 2001 memo that went unheeded by the Bush admin the product of torture?
It seems to me, a competent intelligence operation does not need to torture.
Why are we always being told that we have to make choices between failure to torture and puting our national security at risk? Or between risking national security and protecting Americans from unwarranting intrusions on privacy (eavesdropping)? These are straw 'men' or false dichotomies designed to stir up fear and deflect us from asking whether the means lead to the professed ends, and what more effective ways are there to get to the means.
That Sen. Feingold seems to be alone among elected officials in speaking out is alarming.
What we need is a government that attracts individuals with the highest levels of competence to provide effective intelligence, etc. There is every reason to believe that the administration of the President Elect can attract such individuals.

god bless him (5.00 / 3) (#16)
by txpublicdefender on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:45:15 PM EST

Thank goodness someone like Russ Feingold is in the Senate. That is someone who always stands up for what he believes is right, no matter what the potential political consequences.

I still have hope that Obama will do the right thing. I agree, though, that it is right for those who are concerned about these issues to make our voices heard now before some horrible policy ends up in place. Wait and see is an incredibly bad idea. I just don't like it when people preemptively trash Obama. Let's make sure he understands how wrong it would be for him to capitulate on this stuff and how we will loudly express that dissatisfaction. But, we don't need to accuse him of having already done something that he hasn't to express our concern. JMHO.

CNN/Hillary for Secretary of State (5.00 / 4) (#19)
by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:11:11 PM EST

Do you believe it?

I hope so (5.00 / 4) (#21)
by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:12:07 PM EST

That would be awesome


My exact feelings! (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by snstara on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:21:23 PM EST

She'd be a damn good one!

Then again, is this the role she wants? She went through hell, and campaigned like crazy for Obama - so if she is going to work for this administration, it should be in a role that is worthy of her talents.


: I was thinking about this too... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by Thanin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:23:33 PM EST

but SoS, well the effective ones, are generally considered pretty powerful, arent they? 4th in line isnt anything to sneeze at.

Wow, stellaa! (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:13:40 PM EST

Currently speculation only... (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by CST on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:16:42 PM EST

Still, I would love to see the look on Kerry's face if that get's announced :)


A face coupled with ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:18:06 PM EST

a Homer Simpson "DOH!" seems likely.


Moi too! (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by Dr Molly on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:18:34 PM EST

Also, she really deserves it - not because of the work she did to help get Obama elected, but because of her long-term work on women's and children's rights around the world (something that many do not even know about).


Yes... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
by Thanin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:21:10 PM EST

if its truly offered and she really wants it, I think HRC would be great. I may be wrong but I think the Clintons have a great rep around the world, right?


: Heck ya they do. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:22:06 PM EST

Silliness from the MSNBC ... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:17:09 PM EST

website:

Other Democrats known to want the State Department post are Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Bill Richardson. A possible compromise choice would be former Sen. Tom Daschle.

Daschle a compromise? Poke me when I stop laughing.


Richardson done himself in (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Stellaaa on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:20:17 PM EST

What politician would take a Judas:)?

I wonder if she would do it?


A comprise? No. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:34:01 PM EST

A compromiser? Yes.


: Heh. (none / 0) (#56)
by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 10:58:14 PM EST

No. n/t (none / 0) (#43)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:34:19 PM EST

Why no? (none / 0) (#44)
by Thanin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:40:57 PM EST

Given the degree to which. . . (none / 0) (#48)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:51:31 PM EST

Clinton has been snubbed since the end of the primaries (I'm thinking particularly about the VP nomination process) I'd be surprised if they considered her for a secretarial position, much less a Secretarial position.

I think we have to face the fact that neither Obama nor most of the other Democrats in DC want to see Clinton in any forward position in the Democratic party.

Unless the unthinkable happens and Obama is either not able or not interested in running in 2012, I think it most likely Clinton will enter (a well deserved) retirement after the end of her current Senate term.


I agree with everything but the last point. (none / 0) (#49)
by tigercourse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:56:28 PM EST

I don't think Clinton is going to retire in 2012. Yes the Senate was meant as a stepping stone, but I think she genuinely likes the job.


: She may. (none / 0) (#50)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:00:53 PM EST

Obviously, I have no idea. But I kind of hope she take some time out for herself. At least, that's what I'd do.

If you think it's impossible (none / 0) (#51)
by lilburro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM EST

then maybe this is just to show their uh...belated respect. Newsweek recently published that snippet about how every advisor had to tell Obama over and over how bad she was for the ticket. Although their feelings are well known by now.

She can run in 2016 if she wants to.


: Yes... (none / 0) (#55)
by Thanin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 09:25:07 PM EST

I heard this too, how Obama was constantly asking if it was the right decision to keep her off the ticket. It seems it was his advisors against the idea.
...But then I guess the counter to this is thats the perception they want to portray. Not sure if Newsweek is so far "in the tank" that they would just make this stuff up for them, but maybe they are.

Maybe after the primary (none / 0) (#45)
by lilburro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:41:08 PM EST

Obama thinks she is the only person who can take on the toughest world leaders! ;)


Not for one second. (none / 0) (#47)
by tigercourse on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:51:08 PM EST

Sorry to go off topic... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Thanin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:18:39 PM EST

but I just heard HRC as a possible SoS. Could Jeralyn, BTD, TChris or someone give some insight into how this might work out?

: Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Thanin on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:19:15 PM EST

nm didnt see the above posts.

The problem isn't (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:04:58 PM EST

whether or not to hold Obama's feet to the fire. No question, pressure is going to be needed to keep him to some of the progressive positions he's promised once the opposing pressures really start to get underway and the costs of doing what he's promised start rising for him. The problem is how to apply that pressure without undermining your own goals. How to do it without helping all the malicious actors and the tide of crazy that are gearing up against him and the fulfillment of progressive policies. Narratives that indiscriminately undercut those who defend the incoming Democratic administration, for instance by labelling them cultists, hurt for times when he'll rightly need to be defended. They're already using this little skirmish to set that narrative in place.

Other than that, I'm all for preemptive critiques. If this was a trial balloon to test how keeping any of the torture and surveillance regime going might play, it's worth shooting down. Though I think that WSJ story was pretty clearly informed by someone in the current administration trying to forge some GOP-helpful CW going forward.

bull (none / 0) (#37)
by Salo on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:06:42 PM EST

papal bull


: If that was meant to be (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Alien Abductee on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:09:42 PM EST

some kind of argument against what I wrote, it seems a little, um, lacking.

Feingold doesn't mention Brennan (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST

I read the HuffPo article and Feingold doesn't mention Brennan. I think he meant McConnell and Hayden. I Googled Feingold and Brennan and nothing came up. Do you have a source that suggests that Feingold has a problem with Brennan specifically?

Full disclosure: I am an Obama-loving moron.

The statement was very general. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by lilburro on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 08:18:12 PM EST

Do you think he meant, we need new intelligence leadership, with the exception of John Brennan, whose in-depth involvement with the higher levels of the CIA and knowledge of torture separates him from... the people in the higher levels of the CIA who knew about torture?

Our saying no to these people will help Obama say no to them. I really don't want someone from the most shameful years of the Bush administration kick-starting our next four and possibly getting a top role in the administration.


HuffPo has a viewpoint (none / 0) (#57)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 11:31:43 PM EST

and you have one.


: If you are talking to me BTD (none / 0) (#59)
by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 09:34:15 AM EST

I wasn't expressing any kind of viewpoint, I was pointing out that your post was unsupported by the link you provided. I don't mind you trying to make a point, but back it up with citations - you're among lawyers and judges here.

That's the problem (1.00 / 2) (#1)
by bluegal on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:25:08 PM EST

This isn't based on any information that Russ Feingold actually knows of first hand but rather a "report in the WSJ" that includes unnamed sources.

Until Obama actually goes on record about this, I think we should all just wait and see.

Ok why? (5.00 / 7) (#3)
by Faust on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST

WHY wait and see? I see no reason to wait and see. What is the benefit of waiting and seeing? Why not just say option a) is good and option b) is bad? Why wait until option b) is chosen and THEN complain?

I do not understand this wait and see approach.

Hey lets give Bush broad authority to use force against Iraq and then "wait and see" what he does with it?

Straw man? maybe. But wait and see is a ridiculous argument. If you think someone MAY do something you disagree with it there is no reason not to say so in advance.


: And what's wrong with ... (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:40:01 PM EST

saying, "No, no, no!" to Obama having people in his team that supported torture and illegal wiretapping.
One would think that's the obvious progressive stance.

: When training dogs (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by nycstray on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:49:44 PM EST

one technique is to interrupt/preempt unwanted behavior and redirect to desired behavior. Praise and reward. Much easier to direct them to do the right "thing" then having to correct bad behavior, especially if it becomes habitual. Works great with people too ;)

Trial balloons (5.00 / 8) (#4)
by Demi Moaned on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:36:15 PM EST

Read Digby on trial balloons to understand why.

One purpose of vaguely-sourced stories in prominent publications is for policy makers to test the waters before committing themselves. In such a case, silence implies consent, and waiting 'til later can be waiting until too late.


"Silence Implies Consent" ... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 05:41:29 PM EST

would make a nice T-Shirt logo.


The New Word Out (none / 0) (#10)
by Pepe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM EST

is that Obama is going to retain Gates at Defense more than short term. Of course Defense has their own intelligence operatives that were key in getting us into Iraq - some still there.


: Yeah, that's equally ... (5.00 / 4) (#17)
by Robot Porter on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 07:09:54 PM EST

troubling.
Expect crickets from most Obama supporters on it, however.
But I really, honestly don't want my concerns about Obama to be justified. And would much prefer him to surprise me and be a great president.
I'm always happy to be wrong if things turn out better than I expected.
But, when it comes to politicians, my concerns are usually justified.

Unnamed Sources (none / 0) (#12)
by Pepe on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:05:36 PM EST

seem to be fine with O-bots when they tilt things in Obama's favor. Not one O-bot complained about them in the primaries when they benefited Obama.

For instance the unnamed source in a UK newspaper (which Team Obama planted) that started the whole Race Baiting thing that without Obama would have not won the Black vote and the Primary.


Trial Balloon - (none / 0) (#15)
by ding7777 on Thu Nov 13, 2008 at 06:18:06 PM EST

used by politicians who deliberately leak information on a policy change under consideration... to assess public opinion.

Um... (none / 0) (#58)
by DancingOpossum on Fri Nov 14, 2008 at 09:28:06 AM EST

Really? He wanted was your votes, and your money, and he got those. You don't have anything else he wants now, so he's done. Sorry but that's the cold reality of both dating and elections... The time to exert leverage on someone is when you have something they want, not after you've given it up.
Obama is the guy who promised he'd call you the next day but you'll go old and gray sitting by that phone muttering "but he owes me..."