In Senate-CIA fight on interrogation report, another controversy

[unhappycamper]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/27/237763/in-senate-cia-fight-on-interrogation.html?sp=/99/200/111/

In Senate-CIA fight on interrogation report, another controversy
By Ali Watkins and Marisa Taylor
McClatchy Washington Bureau
August 27, 2014

WASHINGTON — The background of a key negotiator in the battle over a Senate report on the CIA’s use of interrogation techniques widely denounced as torture has sparked concerns about the Obama administration’s objectivity in handling the study’s public release.

Robert Litt, the general counsel for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, is a former defense lawyer who represented several CIA officials in matters relating to the agency’s detention and interrogation program. Now he’s in a key position to determine what parts of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 6,300-page report will be made public.

Litt’s involvement doesn’t appear to be an ethics issue, at least by the legal definition. But experts say that while it may be acceptable on paper, his involvement in the review should have been a red flag.

“It does not cross the very low bar that the profession sets for an impermissible conflict of interest,” said Jack Marshall, the president and founder of ProEthics Ltd., a national ethics consulting and training company that has provided seminars to government lawyers, including those employed by the CIA. “But it is the kind of conflict of interest that should be avoided at all costs. The government has to be held to a higher standard.”

[merrily]

1. What can we do to raise that very low bar?

[unhappycamper]

2. Vote. n/t

[merrily]

3. I have voted since I reached voting age, but, per the OP, that bar is still very low.

So I don't think that, in reality, my voting is either the problem or the solution.

I don't think only one party is totally responsible for the current state of the ethics rules, either.

But, thank you for the suggestion.