That was then:
September 21, 2004
“After much thought and a careful review of the record, I voted today to confirm the nomination of Representative Porter Goss to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (DCI). But I do have some serious concerns – especially about the impact of this nomination on intelligence reform and his record of partisanship in Congress.
I believe the President should have the prerogative to appoint who he wants to be the DCI, or for any other senior position, subject only to the requirement that the person be qualified for the job. As a former CIA officer, a former Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and a former Army intelligence officer, I think he is certainly qualified. If he is confirmed, I would hope that he demonstrates the necessary independence required of the DCI. But there are still some open questions, which gave me some hesitancy in supporting the nomination…
How’s that “qualification” thing working out for you Senator Feinstein?:
Terrorism & Security
posted May 8, 2006 at 11:09 a.m.
…The New York Daily News reported Sunday that a “little known White House advisory board” pushed President Bush to dump Mr. Goss as CIA head. The president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board was reportedly alarmed by the investigation of a spreading corruption scandal that had already looked into the actions of the CIA’s number three official and its executive director, Kyle Dustin (Dusty) Foggo, and may have indirectly touched on Goss himself…
This is now:
…Panetta’s selection was met with criticism on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said she was not consulted on the choice and indicated she might oppose it.
“I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director,” Feinstein said. “My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time….”
Yeah, that Congressional oversight and “advice and consent” is kicking into overdrive after lying dormant for eight years.
I wonder if they all think they’ll be held accountable?
Maybe so (Leon Panetta):
…We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.
We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.
Yes, those responsible and those who enabled this are supposed to be held accountable:
Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.
The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
Somehow I don’t think Leon Panetta is the kind of individual who’ll let certain policies continue.