The CIA Request

Stripper has child, sues
Father (a Catholic Priest)
for child support.

Am I missing something, perhaps a brain? No less than seven (7) former directors of the CIA have written a letter to President Obama insisting he instruct Attorney General Holder to cease and desist investigating torture. Why would they do such a thing? The answer would seem perfectly obvious to me. They know that Holder’s investigation will not be able to restrict itself only to those cases where the torturers went beyond even the illegal parameters set forth by the Bush/Cheney toady lawyers. They are, I am sure, quite right about this. Such an investigation will inevitably have to become focused on just who it was that authorized the torture in the first place. The current Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, also does not want to see an investigation. It seems perfectly obvious to me these directors are fearful they themselves (with the exception of Panetta) might be found guilty of illegal activities in the past and they want to protect themselves and those who worked under them. Three of the directors, at least, are known to be quite vulnerable, the others most probably know of all sorts of illegal acts perpetrated by the CIA over the years. Indeed, secret acts of various illegal or at least very questionable kinds have obviously been carried out by the CIA and the directors (this was their job, however “dark” the assignments). They obviously do not want these things to be made public. And if the American public were to find out about such things it is likely the case they would be horrified, demand more accountability, and even more terrible from the point of view of the CIA, cut their obscene budget. Their arguments against the investigations are the usual ones they have relied upon (pretty successfully) in the past. If the CIA is investigated, officers of the agency may be loath to perform their duties. If there is an investigation it will compromise state secrets and undermine security. Whittaker Chambers put it rather succinctly during the Alger Hiss trial, “For there is some music the world should not hear.”

What makes this all the more interesting and puzzling to me, is, can seven previous directors of the CIA all be ignorant of the law? Or at least what I have been led to believe is the law? I think U.S. law, and also international law, actually demands that an Attorney General pursue investigations into any cases of torture. Thus if Attorney General Holder does not pursue these investigations he will be guilty of breaking the law, and the directors will be guilty of trying to convince him to break the law. Similarly, it is my understanding that the Office of the Attorney General is by design completely independent of the White House and the President, as it is to be kept completely free of politics and partisanship. Thus when the directors demand that the President intervene and order Holder to stop the investigations, they are demanding that he, too, break the law. We have every reason to believe that the CIA has never been shy about breaking the law in the past, so I guess they aren’t concerned with that possibility in this case. If I am wrong about this I apologize, but I don’t believe I am wrong. If I had been a director or even lower level employee of the CIA I am sure I would not want CIA (possibly illegal and even rather horrible secrets) revealed. Of course, just as in the case yesterday of Israel’s Bibi warning against accepting evidence of Israeli war crimes, because others would also be guilty, if none of these questionable CIA activities are ever revealed they will just continue, just as war crimes in general will continue. I am quite certain that many terrible things have been covered up in the name of national security. Judges should have much greater leeway in determining what is vital for security and what is not, and it should not be merely what the CIA desires it to be.

The Republicans are now claiming that Obama’s health care plan is going to tax tampons, along with contact lens cleaners and other such “medical” items. I dunno. When it comes to taxes I’m not against them, necessarily, I’m only against them being used for building more nuclear bombs and stuff like that. Can you believe that the State of Idaho still taxes groceries, the basic foods that people have to eat? Now that is a really bad tax. Personally, I think beer and wine should be considered food items and, as such, should not be taxed, just as no other food items should be taxed. However, when it comes to soda that really does relate to obesity, maybe it should be taxed, along with double bacon burgers. Be of good cheer, or at least try to be.

LKBIQ:
If you reveal your secrets to the wind you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees.
Kahlil Gibran

TILT:
A large female codfish lays up to five million eggs in mid-ocean but most do not survive (if they did we’d all be up to our ass in codfish?).