More Brennan

Adam Serwer isn't so adamant:

it still comes down to how Obama draws the line. I don't have a personal vendetta against Brennan, my issue is with torture itself. If Obama said explicitly that he would force the CIA to stick to the rules outlined in the Army Field Manual, if there were a very specific agenda put forth outlining exactly how this practice would be ended forever, either through legislation or executive order, I wouldn't be completely unsettled by a Brennan appointment. But we haven't seen that, we've seen a lot of broad moral declarations about torture, not so different from those the White House's current occupant has made in the past, and at the very least a mixed message through the language of his reported appointments. But while a Brennan appointment says one thing, the Holder and Jones appointments would send the opposite message. It's far from clear that Obama has capitulated on this issue.

At the end of the day, though, the issue isn't Obama. It's Brennan. I have no doubt Obama thinks torture is appalling. I can imagine him drawing a very clear line and demanding that Brennan stay on the right side of it. I can even imagine that Brennan is a well-behaved servant and will do as he's told. But the problem with torture isn't just the torture itself. It's the international politics of torture, too. For all the good that Obama will do (and has already done) to America's standing in the world, he'll seriously undercut himself if world leaders see that he's willing to put a man who supports torture in charge of a secretive agency that might well apprehend some of their citizens.