Comment: Is CIA Director Nominee a Hypocrite?

On January 6, I wrote that the President’s nominee for CIA Director, Leo Panetta, draws many of his intellectual positions from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party –most notably in the case of torture, of which he is a strong opponent. It is for this reason that many in the CIA hesitate to embrace Panetta, who is seen as representing “the left flank of the Democratic Party”. It is worth bearing in mind, however, that what passes as “left” in the eyes of the CIA is not necessarily –and should not be– considered “left” in the real world of politics. Leo Panetta’s stance on the practice of extraordinary rendition might be a case in point.

A few days ago, The Washington Times revealed that Republican lawmakers on the Hill are preparing to quiz Leo Panetta about his role in that controversial practice, which was institutionalized in the mid-1990s under former US President Bill Clinton. The practice involves extrajudicial kidnappings of wanted terrorism suspects by CIA or FBI paramilitaries, often abroad, followed by extrajudicial transfers of same suspects to third countries, such as Egypt or Syria, where they are usually tortured. The extracted information is then utilized by US law enforcement and intelligence agencies in their pursuit of the “war on terrorism”.More...


The conservative paper correctly noted that the notorious practice, which became widespread under the first George W. Bush Administration, was first implemented under Clinton. What is more, there is ample evidence that the extradition of prisoners to countries known to practice institutionalized forms of torture bore the seal of approval by the highest authority at the Clinton White House. After carefully examining all of the known early cases of extraordinary rendition, Human Rights Watch has concluded that “[t]he Clinton policy in practice meant torture”. Michael Scheuer, a former CIA official who was involved in extraordinary rendition cases during the Clinton Administrations, logically speculated that “[t]he Egyptians were not stupid. When we asked, they would not say they tortured our people. But everyone knew what was going on. The White House must have known”.

The question is, did Leo Panetta know? And if he did, what was his personal stance on the subject? The Washington Times cites numerous Clinton Administration insiders who assert that, in his role as aide to President Clinton, Panetta was “a consumer of intelligence at the highest level”. Would it not be hypocritical of Mr. Panetta to publicly affirm that the US “cannot and [...] must not use torture under any circumstances”, after failing to object to several cases of renditioned torture under Clinton?

The paper is correct in raising this important issue. Republican lawmakers –and the left of the Democratic Party, which has remained largely silent on this case– should probe any and every inconsistency in Leo Panetta’s administrative record. However, three parameters must be considered in evaluating this issue.

First, as the paper itself notes, “Mr. Panetta’s role in setting the overall [extraordinary rendition] policy is less clear” than one may expect. It quotes Richard A. Clarke, counterterrorism coordinator for the National Security Council under President Clinton, who says “Panetta was not in the [Oval Office] when individual cases [of rendition] were discussed”. He goes on to state that “Panetta would not have been involved in extraordinary rendition cases, which were handled by [a lower-level interagency panel called the Counterterrorism Security Group], which I chaired”.

Second, it is possible that Panetta did object to the practice, which even at that early stage must have been controversial among members of the Executive, but failed to stop it. His political role as aide to the President was one of importance, yet with clear limits when it came to decision-making. Still, one would expect from a committed humanitarian like Mr. Panetta to have resigned his post in protest against the practice or, at the very least, dutifully expose it to the American public. If he decided that, having failed to stop it, he would try to remain close to the President in an effort to convince him to terminate it, we should be told.

Thirdly, it is likely that Panetta did once approve of the ethical compromise that is extraordinary rendition, but has since changed his mind. It is only reasonable to permit a government administrator the privilege that all of us indiscriminately exercise daily, namely the right to review our stated positions on various subjects and –either publicly or privately– revise them.

Leo Panetta’s purported role in the practice of extraordinary rendition during Bill Clinton’s Presidency does not automatically render hypocritical his stated condemnation of torture. Nevertheless, the CIA Director nominee should be expected to clarify this potential inconsistency at his Congressional hearings later on this month. Ultimately, The Washington Times revelation and subsequent editorial, though politically loaded, raise the important issue of double standards of many Democrats. It is indeed hypocritical to condemn certain intelligence procedures as unethical when practiced by a Republican Administration, and remain silent when these very same procedures are exercised under Democratic rule. Leo Panetta and his colleagues in the new Administration would do well to remember that their occasional remarks on ethical matters inevitably become part of the public record, and will come back to haunt them should they fail to uphold the moral standards they so fervently proclaim.
Complete Original Article