As Congress
prepared to grill John Brennan, Obama’s appointment to lead the CIA, protesters
from Code Pink and other organizations lined up outside in preparation to
protest the hearings. As they waited, Code Pink cofounder, Medea Benjamin, was
interviewed by KPFA’s Brian Edwards Tiekert (Thursday, 2/7/13, KPFA’s “Up
Front”). In the interview, Benjamin listed numerous perfectly good reasons why
Brennan should be on trial, rather than being rubber-stamped to head the CIA (e.g.,
he was rejected for the position four years ago because of his support for
torture and “extraordinary rendition,” plus his continued to support for the
use of drones to assassinate anyone he sees fit).
However, when
Tiekert asked her who she would rather have running the CIA, instead of stating
the obvious (i.e., Nobody should run the CIA because the CIA should not exist),
she proposed Dennis Kucinich.
Of course
Kucinich is no longer an option, having accepted a media job with Fox News. But
the fact she named anyone at all implies she is okay with the existence of an
organization that exists primarily to promote the interests of America’s
largest corporations through the neutralization or elimination anyone or
anything that stands in the way. She also suggested in the interview that she
takes issue with the CIA’s current tendency to act like a “death squad,” as if
this were something new. The CIA has always engaged in assassinations or
trained its proxies to do it for them. The only thing new is the candor and
brazenness of the President, members of Congress, cabinet members and media in
their discussions of assassinating “enemies,” foreign or domestic. That is, in
the past the CIA carried out its assassinations in secret because it was
assumed the American public would find it distasteful. Today, in the era of
endless war against terrorism, the right (indeed obligation) to assassinate is
portrayed as so vital that it trumps all individual liberties and rights,
including those for American citizens and those etched into the
Constitution—and many Americans embrace this logic.
Benjamin has
been an outspoken critic of the drone program since its inception, particularly
because it has resulted in so many civilian deaths. Thus, it was strange to
hear her argue that drones, because they are a military weapon, should be left
in the hands of the military, not Brennan or the CIA. Does this mean she is
also okay with the use of drones to slaughter people, so long as it is
soldiers, rather than spies, who are pushing the buttons, or is she so naïve
that she believes the military will use drones “responsibly,” and somehow miraculously
avoid civilian casualties?
It might be
argued that Benjamin is just not that quick on her feet; that these were simply
bloopers coming from an activist who was not sufficiently prepared for her
interview. It is true that she was being interviewed outside Congress as she
prepared to enter and disrupt it, so perhaps her train of thought was disrupted
by adrenaline. However, one would think that someone in her position, who has
spent years being critical of U.S. foreign policy and jingoism, would have a
stronger critique and mistrust of the CIA and the military. Likewise, as an
activist famous for her street theater and disruptive tactics, one would expect
her to be well-prepared for addressing the media.
