The Dumpster Fire of Obama's Moral Authority

[bigtree]

47. as most regular readers here already know, I couldn't agree more

. . . kudos for calling it a 'cover-up'.

Kudos for highlighting the conflicts of interest in the editing of the report. Note the participation of three Bush CIA heads and others allowed access to the report before the American public to rebut the charges and assist in the editing (much of that in question as to whether we'll see it all or not.

Kudos for calling attention to the reason for the defensiveness from the administration over the report.

Kudos for highlighting the CIA obstruction, intimidation of Senate investigation staffers, surveillance of their work product, theft of their documents, and overall interference and foot-dragging in their investigation. Note that Brennan is Tenet's former chief of staff.

Kudos for pointing out that there aren't ANY justifications for torture.

Kudos for declaring that you're done with listening to any more platitudes from the President.

A few things unmentioned in this much-appreciated article of yours . . .

Several of the things which are likely in the report address practices and contrived authority which this administration still relies on to justify some of their own prerogatives to practice what the President rightly noted are what most Americans would call torture, and also used to justify his own administration's renditions and what has been termed 'extra-judicial killings' or summary executions from armed drones.


Some things I would like to hear from President Obama:

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025329957

You point out that it is still mostly about the actions of the previous administration. That's correct, but there's obviously some institutional reason for resisting disclosure of their activities in court and in outright refusal to comply with information requests from interested parties in the legislature. Most notably is the President's drone program which has the same authorization structure for killing that the Bush-era actors practiced and are presently defending against this report.

That's an area (and several others like GITMO) where I believe, and many others believe, is where the President's desire to protect his prerogative is influencing his foot dragging on a complete accounting of the previous administration's conduct. If that speculation seems obtuse and hard to confirm, it's because it's designed to by the administration, many believe, to hide the fact that it is his own order (or refusal to rescind all of Bush's (note that he said he outlawed only 'some' of the practices) which allows these objectionable, and possibly illegal, programs to operate or continue).

Note, as well, that there are still over 200 CIA employees who were involved in the torture program still employed at the CIA.

Certainly, as well, all of those policies can be debated and resolved in some way through making those actions available to the legislature to mitigate and judge. That's not a course this administration has chosen to take on a number of remnants from Bush's 'war on terror;' like renditions, torture-friendly nations, 'extra-judicial killings, and the like. Authorization on all of these may well be successfully mitigated through Congress, but the President has made a determination to hold back accountability for whatever authority he's assumed to carry out these policies and actions(to order them).

Those are areas where the Bush-era abuses and the present activities of the Obama CIA collide. Those are the prerogatives of President Obama which he shares with the former administration that he's fought to obscure and keep secret through many questionable moves.

That obstruction, that collusion with the prerogatives of the Bush administration's 'war on terror' may well have withstood legislative attempts to delve deeper and demand more public accountability, but the Senate was spurred to investigate the CIA activities under Bush because of deliberate, and admitted destruction of key evidence. Having been confronted about that by Congress, the agencies involved agreed to provide dual paperwork which they claimed contained the same evidence that had been discarded. That's where the present investigation took over, first under Jay Rockefeller, then under Sen. Feinstein in 2009.

In the course of that investigation, there was systematic and blatant interference, obstruction, surveillance, and intimidation of committee staffers by the Brennan/Obama CIA. It was first denied by the director when confronted in March; later admitted to (as you say) last week.

What did the President know about the CIA's obstruction, interference, and intimidation of Senate Intelligence Committee staffers investigating the agency's activities?

What role did the President have in what Sen. Feinstein terms 'eliminating or obscuring key facts that support the report’s findings and conclusions?'

I'm asking DUers, at what point do we conclude that there's enough evidence that the Obama White House is unlawfully obstructing the Senate investigation's report? Do we wait for the Senate committee members to say so? (they've come very close to that conclusion)

I'm all for waiting to see what the White House ultimately decides to leave in and leave out of it's 'executive summary' of the investigation's findings, but there's already enough interference, obstruction, intimidation, and 'redacting' on the record for me to conclude that something major is being perpetrated - even if someone in or out of the WH can rationalize us away from calling it a 'cover-up.'

I would further ask or seek to uncover, what role the Obama CIA has played in not only protecting or defending the prerogatives of the Bush-era abuses, but how many of those have been continued or perpetuated in this administration and into the future for other Presidents to advantage their own actions?

In all of that, I see serious questions of obstruction of justice; violations of the Fourth Amendment; violations of the separations of powers, including the Speech and Debate clause; and as Sen. Feinstein put it, actions which may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function.

What most people are asking for is due process of law, and a responsiveness to the oversight responsibilities of our legislature. that is the area where this administration has, I believe, inserted itself in an overt and questionable manner. I wonder why?

What is is about the prerogatives of the present Obama CIA that is preventing them from being as open as the Senate Intelligence Committee desires and expects? That's the pretext the President is giving critics and investigators to tie him to the abuses and activities of the Bush-era tortures; the cover-up. That's what has been the sticking point in most 'scandals' involving the Executive Branch. I happen to believe that most of the obstruction is unnecessary, but obviously, this administration, this President, feels there's something in that process for him to defend.

The manner in which it's being defended by the administration is the subject of debate, as it should be. This isn't inadvertent obstruction, it's deliberate and highly questionable behavior which is trampling on more than a few laws. I happen to think the President would be better served to order all relevant information be revealed. I think he would disagree with that. So, there we are.

Let's see how far President Obama is willing for his CIA to bend to the wishes of the Senate investigators in the coming weeks, but I don't think we should lose sight of, or refuse to seek accountability for the obstruction from those offices, over which he has ultimate authority, that's already occurred.