Ryan ChartrandWhat world are we living in, where a career political hack, Leon Panetta, can make his way to an Obama appointment as the Director of the CIA? I contend, we are in a nation that has forgotten. Forgotten how far we’ve come and the resolve it takes to defeat Islamic fascist extremists bent on the destruction of Western civilization.
I have argued that one of the many reasons Obama is now our President-elect is because it was a referendum against President Bush and the policies of the past eight years; policies that involved a global war on terrorism, detentions of enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay and increased intelligence capabilities. Most importantly, policies that allowed for interrogations of prisoners. Yet Bush opponents contend that terrorists need to be given civil rights and criminal trials.
As Brian Williams reported Tuesday on NBC Nightly News, Panetta’s appointment is a “big change in direction for U.S. intelligence policy.” Frankly this is not Obama’s first mistake, and it won’t be his last. Panetta is by no means an expert when it comes to intelligence. He served as former President Clinton’s chief of staff and budget director. At a news conference this week, Obama explained, “The intelligence community is no longer geared towards what they think the president wants to hear, but instead delivering what the president needs to hear. [Panetta] brings extraordinary management skills, great political savvy and impeccable integrity.”
First, what evidence is there to suggest that over the past eight years the intelligence President Bush was receiving was both what he wanted to hear, and what he needed to hear? The two are not mutually exclusive. Second, how does having “great political savvy” help you in the CIA? It may help you get more funding on Capitol Hill, but when it comes to the day to day operations of running that agency, Panetta isn’t qualified to be a receptionist, let alone be Director.
The problem is that he has been overly political in the past, and there is no evidence to suggest that he won’t in the future. The CIA, like most government agencies, should be as apolitical as possible. I don’t want to lay awake at night wondering if our government isn’t keeping us safe because an interrogation is no longer politically expedient.
The pundits are suggesting that though Panetta activities, such as rendition, will be halted, Gitmo will be shut down, civil liberties will be restored and the Geneva Convention will be applied.
Having known terrorists in custody away from concentrations of civilians in one centralized location is a good thing. The terrorists are off the streets and we are safer.
Civil liberties shouldn’t matter when it comes to terrorists if they are not citizens. That is not to say we shouldn’t be respectful, but it doesn’t mean that all constitutional rights afforded to citizens of this country should apply to them, regardless of what activist judges decide.
The Geneva Convention-like civil liberties do not apply to terrorists. Terrorists groups did not sign the agreement, and certainly do not treat our shoulders with the same modicum of decency that we do to them. We don’t hear the reports on our nightly news programs of what our enemy does to us. Where they take the scorched bodies of our troops, hang them from the sides of bridges, booby trapped to inflict additional causalities. Is that an enemy we can respect?
The dirty little secret is that lives are saved by not being pansies on the battlefield. Nobody wants to be in favor of torture, or brutal practices. But they work. I am not a Bush apologizer by any stretch of the imagination. However, when it comes to the issue of national security, are we safer today than we were eight years ago? Yes, we are safer.
If we want to maintain that safety we will have to keep taking the fight to them. It may be ugly, and we may not like it, but it is a necessary evil. The American people are OK with such things as long as they are ignorant to the truth. If their safety is secured without knowing how we get it, we the people will accept it.
The bottom line: I protest Panetta’s appointment, and hope the Senate rejects his confirmation. It represents a disastrous change in direction for our national security. However, unlike my liberal counterparts, I will not hold my breath until this happens and I realize that no matter how much I kick, scream, yell or argue, I will not get my way. Panetta will more than likely be the next CIA director, wrong as it may be.
Ian Nachreiner is an agricultural science senior and a Mustang Daily columnist.