Spying, Lying, and Torture

CIA Director John Brennan admitted his agents spied on senators. Then the president said he still has confidence in Brennan.


CIA News & Intelligence/Wikimedia Commons

In some respects, the recent admission by CIA Director John Brennan that his agents and his lawyers have been spying on the senators whose job it is to monitor the agency should come as no surprise. The agency's job is to steal and keep secrets, and implicit in those tasks, Brennan would no doubt argue, is lying.

Yet in another respect, this may very well be a smoking gun in the now substantial case against President Barack Obama that alleges that much of his official behavior has manifested lawlessness and incompetence. It is hard to believe that the president did not know about this but not hard to believe he would look the other way.

About four months ago, California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, went to the Senate floor and accused the CIA of committing torture during the presidency of George W. Bush and of spying on the committee that she chairs as it was examining records of that torture. Brennan responded by denying both charges and leveling his own—that investigators for the Senate Intelligence Committee had exceeded their lawful access to CIA records and that that constituted spying on the CIA.

Brennan even got his predecessor, George Tenet, under whose watch Feinstein claimed the torture had occurred and the attacks of 9/11 took place, to deny vehemently that his agents had committed torture. With this mutual finger-pointing, both the CIA and the Senate Intelligence Committee reported each other to the Department of Justice, which promptly punted.

How did all this come about? Under federal law, the CIA gets to do what the president permits and authorizes only when it reports its deeds and misdeeds truthfully to two congressional committees, one of which is the Senate Intelligence Committee. (The other is the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.) None of this is constitutional, of course, seeing as the CIA fights secret wars; the Constitution mandates that only Congress can declare war, and Congress cannot delegate its constitutional authority to committees. This system of secret government is so secret that 90 percent of our elected congressional representatives are kept ignorant of it.

But last week, on a sleepy Friday afternoon in the middle of the summer, Obama admitted that the CIA had tortured people, and shortly thereafter, Brennan admitted that the CIA had spied on the Senate. Then the president said he still has confidence in Brennan.

This is approaching a serious constitutional confrontation between the president and Congress. Can the president's agents lawfully spy on Congress? Of course not. Can the CIA lie to Congress with impunity? Only if Congress and the Department of Justice let it do so.

Yet this administration thrives on lies. Brennan's boss, James Clapper, who is the director of national intelligence, lied to the same Senate Intelligence Committee when he denied that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting massive amounts of personal data on hundreds of millions of Americans. And now we have the CIA director lying in secret to his congressional monitors, who were formerly his congressional protectors, and a Justice Department unwilling to do its legal duty by enforcing the law.

Do you remember former Yankee great Roger Clemens? He was indicted and tried twice for lying to a congressional committee about the contents of his urine. He was acquitted, yet this should tell you about the government's priorities. It is more interested in chastening a baseball player about a private matter than it is in being truthful to the American people about torture. It apparently thinks that government employment is a defense to lying.

So where does all this lead us? The president's agents have lied to Congress and have spied upon it. If Brennan did not know about this, he should be fired for incompetence and for failing to control his agents. If he did know about this, he should be indicted for lying to Congress, because he denied it at a time when he had a lawful obligation to be truthful, and he should be fired for his failure to communicate a violation of the Constitution to the president. If he did tell the president that his agents were about to spy on Congress and the president failed to stop it, the president has committed a serious violation of his oath to uphold the laws and violated the separation of powers by invading the privacy of a coequal branch of the government—and that is an impeachable offense.

So, what shall we do about this? House Speaker John Boehner will say, "Let's sue the president." That's a joke. How about subpoenaing the president to testify under oath and asking him what he knew and when he knew it? Now you're getting warmer. How about impeaching him and calling him as the first witness in his own impeachment trial? His Department of Justice has argued that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies only in criminal cases. Now you're getting hot.

But wait. All this requires moral courage, righteous indignation and fidelity to the rule of law; and the Congress has none of those traits. In the post-9/11 world, Congress has become a potted plant, ready to give any president whatever he wants, lest it appear less than muscular in the face of whatever danger the president says is lurking in the dark. And presidents know that if the kitchen gets hot, all they need to do is foment a foreign crisis in the dark, and the country will unite behind them.

I am not so sure that unity behind the president will happen this time.

NEXT: Like a Good Neighbor

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This is approaching a serious constitutional confrontation between the president and Congress,

    No. Congress will remain supine and take it, just like everything else.

  2. Only if Congress and the Department of Justice let it do so.

    You only have the rights you defend.

  3. He’s missing quite a few *What if’s* in this article.. I demand he go back and rephrase all those sentences in the form of questions.

    1. He’s trying to cut back. Going cold turkey is obviously too much for him to handle right now

  4. Thats when you just have to roll with the punches.

  5. Does the judge not realize that an impeachment, especially this far into Chocolate Nixon’s 2nd term, will just guarantee at least another 4 years of the free shit party?

    Not that the GOP are some saints by any means. But it would be nice to slow down the progs if only a little bit.

    1. Why does impeachment always have to mean the president? There are plenty of cabinet heads out there.

      1. Even then, too. It will be ‘reported’ as the vindictive Tea Party going after the Dems. And if the cabinet head fits any of the divide and conquer criteria you can be sure it will be dressed up as racist, sexist, anti-dentite, whatever.

  6. But last week, on a sleepy Friday afternoon in the middle of the summer, Obama admitted that the CIA had tortured people, and shortly thereafter, Brennan admitted that the CIA had spied on the Senate. Then the president said he still has confidence in Brennan.

    The timing of the two – it leads me to believe there was a quid pro quo of some kind. Admit to the torture and spying. It’s good for the Democratic base to hear because, hey, Bush did it! No consequences for Brennan, and Feinstein is appeased because she wins her public pissing match with the CIA. She gets to look like the good guy.

    Every(DEM)one wins!

    1. The average low level Democratic flunky is more likely to believe that Brennan has dirt on Barry or has threatened to assassinate him. It’s all a conspiracy against the first black president.

    2. Bush, Obama, Brennan, Feinstein, etc. should all be water boarded continuously.

      Then thrown into prison.

  7. come on; did someone expect Obama to have anything other than “confidence in Brennan”? The only person who has left under a cloud of something was Sebelius and I doubt that was at Obama’s urging.

    1. Also the head of the VA. But your point is true, illegal and immoral behavior isn’t punished by the administration, its rewarded. That, in and of itself should be enough to impeach a president regardless of whether or not he new about it . Sadly, that is not the world we live in.

      1. good catch; forgot about Shinseki. Though it is curious that two Cabinet heads have quit amid the fake scandals.

  8. When did Buddy Ryan go from coaching the Eagles to head of the CIA?

  9. I am not so sure that unity behind the president will happen this time.

    I wish I had the Judge’s optimism. But I suspect that most people don’t care enough, and the ones that do care get too much of their news from the MSM, which will fall lock-step behind the president.

    1. I don’t see an impeachment ever being brought against any President. One side will beat their drums and ask for heads to roll, the other side will always rally around ‘their’ leader and insist Side 1 is just ‘out to get us’. Partisan politics will always win out.

  10. I like the impeachment idea – along with calling the president as the first witness. But, as was noted, this would require courage. How many courageous politicians do you know??

  11. I really wish Congress (you know, assuming an opposition party in control of both houses) would go on the offensive with regard to the Executive branch. Don’t just try to defend your existing powers as they dwindle away, steal Executive branch powers to keep as offsets or bargaining chips.

    For example, they could create an agency directly answerable to Congress, basically operating like the DOJ, but explicitly tasked with investigating and prosecuting crimes committed by executive branch officials (and removing such authority form the DOJ).

    For another, they could wholesale revoke statues granting authority over taxation and immigration to the executive branch, and farm those tasks out to state governments. It would be wise to do so with the army as well, as it’s much more problematic than a standing navy or air force. They could also impose retrictions on arms use for executive branch agencies (presumably leaving one agency with the power to use less-than-military force to aid other agencies, and relying on the national guard for anything more serious)

  12. Judge,

    You’re giving Brennan way too much benefit of the doubt.

    Brennan has acted as the Obama handlers’ resident covert action manipulator since the 2008 campaign.

    Not only was he responsible for all the foreign disasters–Egypt, Libya, Benghazi, Syria, Ukraine, and more–but he’s also their political henchman in the bureaucracy.

    Brennan should have been fired the day after he was hired.

    This PC-Progressive administration is built on lies. Brennan is the palace eunuch–doing his masters’ bidding.

    Time for heads to roll.…..-interest/

    Johnny, please where a t-shirt that says:
    Also, you might want to avoid Chuckee; he can be influencing.
    I don’t believe you would ever torture anyone. Please explain the court-approved difference between “harsh interrogations” and polite massacres, such as what the tinman is doing.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.