This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/11/cia-spying-congress-john-brennan-dianne-feinstein

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The CIA likes to write its own rules, but spying on Congress crosses a new line The CIA likes to write its own rules, but spying on Congress crosses a new line
(6 months later)
Inside the lobby of the CIA are inscribed Inside the lobby of the CIA are inscribed words of scripture:
words of scripture: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
And ye shall know the It could just as easily have been part of the pledge that CIA director John Brennan made in wooing the Senate Intelligence Committee to confirm him just over a year ago. Tantalizing as the promise of truth may have been, transparency has never been a virtue of the CIA, especially when it comes to fessing up.
truth, and the truth shall make you free. And now members of the same committee that confirmed Brennan, among them a fiery Sen Diane Feinstein, are accusing the CIA of lawlessness and blatant intimidation of Senate staffers, spying on them and threatening criminal prosecution for their pursuit of documents related to the post-9/11 detention and interrogation programs.
It could just as easily have been part of The spy chief’s response to the growing crisis has been a vintage Agency mix of denial and defiance – and yet John Brennan’s is a new kind of defiance for threatened architects of the CIA’s dark arts, an unflinching brand of outright denial. On Tuesday, he labeled some of Feinstein’s allegations about the torture program “entirely fiction”, sloughing off accusations with his own Langley-style intimidation. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said of accusations that his agents had accessed Senate computers.
the pledge that CIA director John Brennan made in wooing the Senate This isn’t just another Washington turf war or a real-life episode of Homeland. This is more like the old Mad Magazine cartoon Spy v Spy writ large, with so many egos involved it’s near impossible to know who has the upper hand. But Langley, as ever, is writing the rules. Or at least trying to.
Intelligence Committee to confirm him just over a year ago. Tantalizing as the promise The confrontation between that Senate Intelligence Committee and the Agency began as a fight over an internal CIA report said to be sharply critical of Langley’s record on those torture programs – hardly an anomaly in the annals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, when it comes to penning the history of the CIA, it is the CIA which has always insisted on holding the bluntest of instruments.
of truth may have been, transparency has never been a virtue of the CIA, If you study that history as I have, you’ll realize the stakes for Langley bosses are always highest when programs have gone awry or legacies hang in the balance. Both are at issue in this dust-up, and both explain why Brennan and his minions appear to have decided that the best defense is a good offense.
especially when it comes to fessing up. What’s different now, in the age of WikiLeaks, Edward Snowden and a much-emboldened Senate, is that the CIA no longer has the same control over its message, that decades of earlier revelations and denials have left the Agency both less potent and less persuasive in cowing its critics.
And now members of the same committee that
confirmed Brennan, among them a
fiery Sen Diane Feinstein, are accusing the CIA of lawlessness and blatant
intimidation of Senate staffers, spying on them and threatening criminal
prosecution for their pursuit of documents related to the post-9/11 detention
and interrogation programs.
The spy chief’s response
to the
growing crisis has been a vintage Agency mix of denial and defiance – and yet
John Brennan’s is a new kind of defiance for threatened architects of the CIA’s
dark arts, an unflinching brand of outright denial. On Tuesday, he labeled some
of Feinstein’s allegations about the torture program “entirely fiction”, sloughing
off accusations with his own Langley-style intimidation. “Nothing could be
further from the truth,” he said of accusations that his agents had accessed
Senate computers.
This isn’t just another Washington turf war
or a real-life episode of Homeland. This
is more like the old Mad Magazine cartoon Spy v Spy writ large, with so many
egos involved it’s near impossible to know who has the upper hand. But Langley,
as ever, is writing the rules. Or at least trying to.
The confrontation between that Senate
Intelligence Committee and the Agency began as a fight over an internal CIA
report said to be sharply critical of Langley’s record on those torture programs
– hardly an anomaly in the annals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Indeed, when it comes to penning the
history of the CIA, it is the CIA which has always insisted on holding the bluntest
of instruments.
If you study that history as I have, you’ll
realize the stakes for Langley bosses are always highest when programs have
gone awry or legacies hang in the balance. Both are at issue in this dust-up,
and both explain why Brennan and his minions appear to have decided that the
best defense is a good offense.
What’s different now, in the age of WikiLeaks,
Edward Snowden and a much-emboldened Senate, is that the CIA no longer has the
same control over its message, that decades of earlier revelations and denials
have left the Agency both less potent and less persuasive in cowing its
critics.
An Agency history of its own making – and maskingAn Agency history of its own making – and masking
This is hardly the first time that the CIA has This is hardly the first time that the CIA has steadfastly refused to contribute to the writing of history, even as it defines its own legacy – all masked failures and hints of secret triumphs, a dangle of endless usefulness in fending off criticism.
steadfastly refused to contribute to the writing of history, even as it defines The editors of the Foreign Relations of the United States at the State Department have for decades wrestled with the CIA, trying to persuade them to release documents so that the official history of US foreign policy is not glaringly incomplete.
its own legacy – all masked failures and hints of secret triumphs, a dangle of Time and again, the CIA has refused to cooperate: a 1990 history of US-Iranian relations failed to note the CIA-engineered coup in that country four decades earlier. Volumes on the Philippines, Greece and the Congo also bear witness to the Agency’s stranglehold on history.
endless usefulness in fending off criticism. And no one need remind Brennan of the fate of former Director William Colby, reviled for turning over what became disparagingly known as “The Family Jewels” to Senate investigators in 1975 during the Church hearings. That list of potential CIA abuses was so named because it was feared exposure would emasculate the Agency. (Many would argue it did just that.) Colby was branded a pariah by many Agency lifers. Brennan, nothing if not a “company man”, has no wish to follow suit.
The editors of the Foreign Relations of the
United States at the State Department have for decades wrestled with the
CIA, trying to persuade them to release documents so that the official history
of US foreign policy is not glaringly incomplete.
Time and again, the CIA has refused to
cooperate: a 1990 history of US-Iranian relations failed to note the
CIA-engineered coup in that country four decades earlier. Volumes on the
Philippines, Greece and the Congo also bear witness to the Agency’s
stranglehold on history.
And no one need remind Brennan of the fate
of former Director William Colby, reviled for turning over what became
disparagingly known as “The Family Jewels” to Senate investigators in 1975
during the Church hearings. That list of potential CIA abuses was so named
because it was feared exposure would emasculate the Agency. (Many would
argue it did just that.) Colby was branded a pariah by many Agency lifers.
Brennan, nothing if not a “company man”, has no wish to follow suit.
Defending a legacy of violence – and its perpetratorsDefending a legacy of violence – and its perpetrators
What John Brennan inherited as CIA director What John Brennan inherited as CIA director is not merely an agency but a narrative, one that he contradicts at the perils of his fellow spies, the citizens he vowed to serve and himself. Those who now serve under him seek assurances that, when asked to undertake a shady or extra-legal action, they will not one day find themselves exposed as policy or administration changes – black sites, interrogation, drones, whatever comes next.
is not merely an agency but a narrative, one that he contradicts at the perils Brennan may be a new director, but he is a 25-year veteran of the CIA and the man who held key positions at Langley during much of the period under scrutiny. He is steeped in that loyal and steadfast culture, and he understands the fallout should he be seen caving to Congressional pressure, his own declarations of Glasnost notwithstanding.
of his fellow spies, the citizens he vowed to serve and himself. Those who now True, some architects of the torture years have moved on – among them, Jose Rodriguez. He’s penned a book called Hard Measures, trumpeting the benefits of enhanced interrogation, and joined a speaker’s bureau. (Ironically, he is billed as a “motivational speaker” – indeed, he has motivated many to speak.) But others remain at Langley. Each cites the “but for” test – absent detention, waterboarding and the like, America would have been vulnerable, its enemies given a free hand. That storyline has been sold hard. It may not have persuaded everyone, but it muddied the waters just enough to leave some unsure and resistant to calls for accountability.
serve under him seek assurances that, when asked to undertake a shady or Still, Brennan doubtless sees the Senate’s demands for the internal report as an invitation to throw his people under the bus. Likewise, the Senate now sees the CIA’s call for potential criminal prosecution of its staffers as a threat to their own, not to mention a frontal assault on the separation of powers. Both sides are dug in, determined to show that they have the backs of those who serve them.
extra-legal action, they will not one day find themselves exposed as policy or
administration changes – black sites, interrogation, drones, whatever comes
next.
Brennan may be a new director, but he is a 25-year veteran of the CIA and the man who held key positions at Langley during much of the period under scrutiny. He is steeped in that loyal and
steadfast culture, and he understands the fallout should he be seen caving to
Congressional pressure, his own declarations of Glasnost notwithstanding.
True, some architects of the torture years
have moved on – among them, Jose Rodriguez. He’s penned a
book called Hard Measures, trumpeting the benefits of enhanced
interrogation, and joined a speaker’s bureau. (Ironically, he is billed as a
“motivational speaker” – indeed, he has motivated many to speak.) But others
remain at Langley. Each cites the “but for” test – absent detention,
waterboarding and the like, America would have been vulnerable, its enemies
given a free hand. That storyline has been sold hard. It may not have persuaded
everyone, but it muddied the waters just enough to leave some unsure and
resistant to calls for accountability.
Still, Brennan doubtless sees the Senate’s demands for the internal report as
an invitation to throw his people under the bus. Likewise, the Senate now sees
the CIA’s call for potential criminal prosecution of its staffers as a threat
to their own, not to mention a frontal assault on the separation of powers.
Both sides are dug in, determined to show that they have the backs of those who
serve them.
Don’t mess with the SenateDon’t mess with the Senate
To be sure, the CIA’s foes in this week’s shadow To be sure, the CIA’s foes in this week’s shadow game – the members and staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee – are hardly blameless themselves. Where was all this moral indignation of some when these abuses were actually going on? Either they knew and stayed quiet, or they didn’t know and were derelict.
game – the members and staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee – are hardly The Senate, too, is used to having its way, staging carefully choreographed hearings designed for media consumption as much as fact-finding. Senators do not take kindly to having their people threatened and spied upon, and their disgruntlement is certain to be heard on Sunday talk shows for weeks.
blameless themselves. Where was all this moral indignation of some when these Ultimately, the way out of this standoff may come from some intermediary – the Department of Justice, the White House or some other entity pushing for an end, possibly by way of the release of that too-long-classified Senate torture report. But don’t expect the parties themselves to behave as grown-ups.
abuses were actually going on? Either they knew and stayed quiet, or they And there is something endearingly naïve about a public, much less a Senate, that still imagines a CIA capable of transparency. At Langley, lying is not a sin – it is a form of tradecraft. But in taking on the Senate Intelligence Committee and its staffers, the Agency may well have gone too far in a new age of power. Like Wall Street, the CIA has remained largely beyond the reach of both the law and sunlight. But it’s no longer a given that the Agency can retreat to the shadows.
didn’t know and were derelict.
The Senate, too, is used to having its way,
staging carefully choreographed hearings designed for media consumption as much
as fact-finding. Senators do not take kindly to having their people threatened
and spied upon, and their disgruntlement is certain to be heard on Sunday talk shows for weeks.
Ultimately, the way out of this standoff
may come from some intermediary – the Department of Justice, the White House or
some other entity pushing for an end, possibly by way of the release of that
too-long-classified Senate torture report. But don’t expect the parties
themselves to behave as grown-ups.
And there is something endearingly naïve
about a public, much less a Senate, that still imagines a CIA capable of
transparency. At Langley, lying is not a sin – it is a form of tradecraft. But
in taking on the Senate Intelligence Committee and its staffers, the Agency may well have
gone too far in a new age of power. Like Wall Street, the CIA has
remained largely beyond the reach of both the law and sunlight. But it’s no longer a given that the Agency can retreat to the shadows.