The NYT Caucus blog is reporting that former Clinton White House chief of staff (and Congressman) Leon Panetta will be named CIA director.

This is a fascinating choice — as far as I know, Panetta’s only direct foreign policy/national security experience comes as a result of his membership on the Iraq Study Group.  Here’s the Obama team’s argument as reported by the NYT:

In disclosing the pick, officials pointed to Mr. Panetta’s sharp managerial skills, his strong bipartisan standing on Capitol Hill, his significant foreign policy experience in the White House and his service on the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that examined the war and made recommendations on United States policy. The officials noted that he had a handle on intelligence spending from his days as director of the Office and Management and Budget.

I can see the argument — both the Chief of Staff and (to a much lesser degree) the OMB do play a role in foreign policy.  And Panetta certainly knows how to run a bureaucracy — he is largely credited with bringing a semblance of order to the Clinton White House.  But I wonder just how much the mandarins in Langley will listen.

Last March, Panetta published an op-ed in The Monterrey [CA] Herald that outlines his views on secrecy, the political use of intelligence, torture, and the politics of fear.  It’s worth quoting at length:

Unfortunately, fear remains an appealing weapon in the modern political arsenal. In a tight battle, the temptation is to scare the hell out of the public in order to win an issue or beat an opponent. Consultants design campaigns to get voters to vote their guts and not their brains. This appeal to the lowest common denominator afflicts both the way this nation elects its leaders and ultimately the way these leaders govern.

Fear exacts a terrible toll on our democracy. Five years ago, America went to war in Iraq over the false fear that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  Even though we now know that there were intelligence officials who questioned the assertion, few leaders were willing to challenge this argument for war because they knew it might undermine public support for the president’s decision to invade Iraq.

More recently, President Bush vetoed a law that would require the CIA and all the intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual.  The president says the rules are too   But all forms of torture have long been prohibited by American law and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents alike. restrictive, implying that the use of some forms of torture just could help avoid another Sept. 11.Our forefathers prohibited “cruel and unusual punishment” because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.

The same rationale is used to justify eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The president has made clear that the failure of the Congress to pass this authority could jeopardize our security. Instead of trying to negotiate a compromise with Congress that would meet both our intelligence and privacy concerns, it is easier to threaten with fear. . . .

The good news is that the American people appear to have rejected the tactics of fear. They really do want change and a nation unified by a can-do spirit that will confront problems and give our children a better life. They do not want patriotism defined simply by fear of terrorism, the prospect of perpetual war and the historic prejudices against race and gender.

Oddly enough, the purpose of the op-ed was not to criticize the Bush Administration, but to encourage the Presidential candidates to conduct a more open and civil debate.  In fact, it outlines several specific steps — public financing and a series of Lincoln-Douglas style debates — subsequently rejected by the Obama campaign.

Nonetheless, the piece makes it clear that Panetta wanted to see the country move away current policies on torture, rendition, indefinite detention, and the politicization of intelligence.   That leads me to conclude that he’s taking this job because he wants to clean out the stables and end the current stain on America’s record as a human rights advocate and champion.  It certainly isn’t careerism: moving from White House chief of staff to a position that no longer holds cabinet rank certainly seems odd from the Washington-insider perspective.

But that’s exactly why I think it could be a great choice:  a savvy political operator who knows how to operate in byzantine bureaucratic settings.  He may not know the puzzle palace, but he sure knows palace politics.

Combined with the appointment of Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan as Solicitor-General and Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel, the Panetta appointment bodes well for those seeking to overturn the current torture regime.

Now the only question is whether Obama will allow for a grand jury investigation into the role of Cheney, Addington, Yoo, and others in systematically violating U.S. laws against torture.

Related posts

• Sorry Folks, But John Yoo Did Not Throw Liz Cheney under the Bus
• Power Corrupts. Unenumerated Powers. . .
• Here Come the Torture Memos: Ten Thoughts (UPDATED)
• Full Text of Torture Memos
• A Few Additional Thoughts on the Panetta Pick