The torture memos -- glad we know, but now what?

I still haven't read the four "torture" memos President Obama released on Thursday. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe even later tonight, though it's getting later and they don't strike me as cheeful bvedtime reading. Meantime, here's part of the post I did for the Register's Orange Punch blog, which includes links to the memos themselves if you're interested in downloading theem, and to quite a few comments from people who have read them:

The ACLU’s news release. A 8/8/02 memo from Jay Bybee (18 pp, pdf.). A 5/10/05 memo from Steven Bradbury (46 pp. pdf.). Another 5/10/05 memo from Steven Bradbury (20 pp, pdf.). A 5/30/05 memo from Steven Bradbury (40 pp., pdf.).

I’m not sure what to think about Obama/Holder’s announcement that there would be no further investigation/prosecution of CIA people who acted in good faith in reliance on the legal advice contained in these memos. You could argue that it’s like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commissions — better to get the truth out than to worry about prosecution. Or you could argue that failure to prosecute is justice denied. I can see a case either way.

I understand that some of this stuff is pretty graphic. Comments from people I generally respect here, here, here, and here. And from some I don’t respect so much here and here and here.

More on Obama's CIA blunder -- I think

I wrote a bit more on what I consider the mistake of putting Leon Panetta in charge of the CIA for my Antiwar.com column this week. The political establishment seems reconciled to it now, and everybody hopes Panetta is shrewd enough to master the spook bureaucracy. I'm indebted to Amy Zegart at UCLA, author of the recent book, "Spying Blind," (which I haven't read yet but it's now on my list) for talking with me at some length on the phone. She has made something of a specialty of intelligence policy and organization, so she's quite knowledgeable. She is just plain baffled at this decision by Obama, as am I.

Obama's CIA pick absurd

I think Obama's choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA is the first utterly ridiculous misstep of his transition, though there have been other mistakes as well (hello, Bill Richardson, hello Rahm talking to Blago's people repeatedly). This one is virtually incomprehensible, suggesting he knows nothing and cares nothing about the CIA. Too bad. There might have been a chance to depoliticize it slightly. Here's the Register's editorial on the pick. There wasn't room to mention that the last pick who was more political then professional, the former GOP congresscritter Porter Goss, was disastrous, but he was. It's likely the CIA will remain ineffectual and probably become a more hidebound bureaucracy. Although I'm not sure how badly I would want a really effective CIA, considering its past of having an expansive notion of what it could be doing inside the U.S.