Josh Marshall is covering opposition to Obama's choice of Leon Panetta to head the CIA, both from within the CIA and from the outgoing and incoming Democratic chairs of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein. What is this all about?

It is not about Panetta's qualifications. Panetta served with distinction in the Army (including intelligence work), served 8 distinguished terms in Congress, then served as OMB Director and Chief of Staff to President Clinton. As Chief of Staff, he routinely handled the most secret intelligence. In 2006, he served on the Iraq Study Group with foreign policy heavyweights like James Baker, Lee Hamilton, William Perry, Chuck Robb, and Lawrence Eagleburger. Panetta is universally respected as a smart and capable manager, in total contrast to Porter Goss. And his close ties to Obama mean the CIA's work will be taken seriously.

So what is it about? Simple: fear of accountability for torture.

Thanks to Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin and honest Pentagon brass, we know a lot about torture by the regular military. But we know very little about torture by the CIA because of the coverup by Jay Rockefeller and the corrupt CIA brass.

The CIA brass desperately want to keep everything secret because they tortured people to death, which is a war crime under U.S. and international law, and is punishable by death. JRock and DiFi want to protect the CIA brass, either out of blind professional loyalty or because they approved the torture and share in the guilt.

Leon Panetta would come in "clean" and therefore cannot be blackmailed by those who committed or approved torture. He could fire people, even refer them for prosecution. This terrifies the insiders.

That's what this is all about.

Update 1: Ryeland nails it

I don't believe for a second that Senators Feinstein and Rockefeller are objecting to the Panetta nomination out of concern for U.S. intelligence policy, or even more laughably because they feel left out of the process.

They're not just unhappy, they're worried. And they have good reason to be.

In this case, being a Bush-Enabler just might turn out to be an indictable offense. It's been clear for a while that members of the Democratic congressional leadership may share culpability for illegal acts committed by the Bush Administration.

And, really, we know enough about the Obama transition to recognize that the lack of consultation with Lady Feinstein wasn't an oversight. Her heart must have skipped a beat when she heard about Panetta. Government officials who were aware of illegal acts, who may have even expressed consent, are in deep doo-doo if somebody outside of the intelligence community, outside of the closed loop of those who know better, takes the helm of the CIA. And Feinstein must be wondering just why Obama didn't discuss the Panetta nomination with her. Well, he probably didn't discuss it with Cheney either.

Panetta's prior statements about torture and wiretapping make me hopeful that accountability is on the way. But Feinstein and Rockefeller's reactions make me downright optimistic.

Update 2: Jane Hamsher agrees:

If someone truly does come in from the outside and try to find out what happened at the CIA with regard to torture and illegal spying, the complicity and ensuing silence of this entitled crew risks exposure, and they've demonstrated they'll do just about anything to keep that from happening.  That's how we got retroactive telecom immunity.

Update 3: Spencer Ackerman is right to point out that some CIA officials opposed torture, so we shouldn't tar everyone inside the CIA with the same brush. Of course the problem for outsiders is we don't know who supported it and who opposed it because they won't tell us. Ackerman wants a Congressionally-mandated investigation, but the 9/11 Commission specifically refused to play the blame game so we never learned who screwed up. The only sure way to identify the torturers within the CIA is through a Special Prosecutor.

Update 4: Ben Smith says what the Corporate Media refuses to say:

But the move drew jitters from members of the intelligence community who worry that the Justice Department could indict CIA case officers for torture.

Update 5: Scott Horton says DiFi and JRock were excluded on purpose:

So why would the Obama team, which has been so careful and thoughtful in approaching the nominations process, have failed even to consult the two Democratic senators who have the most to say about intelligence? I don’t think this was accidental. I read something else into it. The bottom line is that Jay Rockefeller was an abject failure when it came to intelligence oversight. His term as ranking member and then chair of the Senate intelligence committee was one in which Congress generally, and the Senate in particular, failed to live up to their Constitutional mandate. The intelligence community was steered by the Bush Administration into a series of criminal escapades. Effective congressional oversight would have exposed these failings and brought them to heel. But the Rockefeller-Feinstein record was little short of disastrous. I’m delighted that the Obama team didn’t consult them.

And I suspect that Panetta was chosen principally for his managerial skills, but secondarily because Obama wanted someone who would have a more powerful voice in Washington generally, and in Congressional circles in particular, than either Rockefeller or Feinstein.

Panetta’s task will be to put the agency back on firm ground in terms of policy; he will not want to micro-manage. He needs to put an end to the abuse of the agency at the hands of political hacks and ensure that its operatives go about their jobs as professionals, calling the facts as they see them and not telling the White House what it wants to hear. For eight years, while Rockefeller and Feinstein stood by, the agency was pressured by the Cheney shogunate to validate its fairy tales. This did not serve the nation’s security interest. Sober analysis that does not fear political meddling needs to be restored.

And Panetta has one other key trait. When he tells the nation and the world that the torture and mistreatment of prisoners and the program of torture by proxy has ended, people will believe him.