|
13 Dec 07 - 02:17 PM (#2214684) Subject: BS: Whose Job? From: beardedbruce Intelligence Oversight In Free Fall By David Ignatius Thursday, December 13, 2007; Page A35 Whatever else one might say about America's accident-prone intelligence agencies, it seems clear that the system of congressional oversight that was established in the mid-1970s to supervise them isn't working. Right now, we are getting the worst possible mix -- a dearth of adequate congressional scrutiny on the front end that could improve performance and check abuses, and a flood of second-guessing at the back end, after each flap, that further demoralizes and enfeebles the spies. Congress silently blesses the CIA's harsh interrogation tactics, for example, and then denounces the practices when they become public. It's supposed to be the other way around: When the Senate and House intelligence committees were created in 1975 after expos¿s of wrongdoing, the premise was that Congress would provide an independent but discreet arm of accountability. Elected officials were to be briefed on the dirty business, with the understanding that they would maintain the same bonds of secrecy as the intelligence community itself. The intelligence committees were meant to be bipartisan. And to avoid the usual congressional logrolling, they weren't permanent committees at first. Back then, the congressional leadership expected it would be difficult to get anyone to serve very long on the intelligence panels, because the members wouldn't be able to talk about what they did. Congressional oversight of intelligence was a radical idea. Some experts questioned whether it was realistic to ask elected officials to sign off on the work of intelligence agencies -- which, when you strip away all the high-minded language, basically involves the systematic violation of other countries' laws. Intelligence agencies steal other nations' secrets, bribe their officials into committing treason, intercept their most private conversations. And that's just the easy, noncontroversial stuff. We haven't gotten to interrogation techniques. Reading the newspapers over the past week, you would have to conclude that this oversight system is broken. It was intended to set clear limits for intelligence activities and then provide bipartisan political support for the operatives who do the dirty work. Instead, the process has allowed practices that are later viewed as abuses -- and then, once the news leaks, it has encouraged a feeding frenzy of recrimination against the intelligence agencies. That misfiring of oversight was described in The Post on Sunday by Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen. Their article described some of the background to last week's congressional uproar over the CIA's destruction of "terror tapes" made during harsh interrogations of captured al-Qaeda terrorists. It turned out that in September 2002, four top members of the intelligence committees -- including Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who is now House speaker -- were given a "virtual tour" of CIA interrogation facilities overseas. They heard descriptions of some of the harsh techniques that would be used, including the now-infamous practice known as waterboarding. "Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing. And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement," former representative Porter Goss told the Post reporters. He attended the 2002 briefing, along with Pelosi, as chairman of the House intelligence committee. He later served, from 2004 to 2006, as CIA director. The Post article quoted sources as saying that CIA officials gave the intelligence committees about 30 briefings on interrogation techniques before waterboarding became public in 2005. To her credit, Rep. Jane Harman filed a classified letter protesting aspects of the interrogation program when she replaced Pelosi in 2003 as the committee's top Democrat. Congressional review should have prevented waterboarding, a form of torture the CIA should not have been using. But in the feverish atmosphere of 2002, even liberal members of Congress apparently could listen to briefings without sounding an alarm. That should be a caution against any easy, retroactive finger-pointing. The oversight process has broken down in a deeper way: The intelligence committees have become politicized. Members and staffers encourage political vendettas against intelligence officers they don't like, as happened when Goss brought his congressional aides with him to the CIA. The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran has become a political football; so has negotiation over legal rules on intercepting foreign communications, one of the nation's most sensitive activities. The bickering has turned the intelligence world into a nonstop political circus, to the point that foreign governments have become increasingly wary of sharing secrets. The CIA makes too many mistakes. It is too cautious and bureaucratic. It tolerates too much mediocrity. But looking at the process of oversight -- the retroactive blame game masquerading as accountability -- is it any wonder the CIA needs help? This process is broken, and the next administration should think creatively about how to fix it. |
|
13 Dec 07 - 02:34 PM (#2214692) Subject: RE: BS: Whose Job? From: Joe Offer I worked for the Federal Government for 25 years, from 1970-96, doing intelligence and investigative and personnel work. Because of the Civil Service Act of 1883 and the Hatch Act of 1939, the federal bureaucracy was largely independent from political influence. I suppose there were some drawbacks to this, because this independence could also make an elitist bureaucracy unresponsive to the "will of the people," as conveyed through Congress. There were a lot of good things about this independence, however, and many government employees showed real expertise and dedication and integrity. Congress passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and government changed. The Reagan Administration took advantage of this act in the 1980's, and placed political commissars in all of the regional offices of all of the agencies, to ensure that the agencies carried out the wishes of the politicians. There always had been political appointees heading every agency, but the Civil Service Reform Act led to a large influx of political appointees who were not subject to the scrutiny of Senate confirmation. So, the bureucracy became more subject to the "will of the So, you have a government that does the wishes of the politicians. I think you can blame the recent intelligence blunders and coverups on the political commissars, not on the experts who actually do the work. -Joe Offer- |
|
13 Dec 07 - 04:02 PM (#2214748) Subject: RE: BS: Whose Job? From: Bill D And I have a close friend who in quite high up at EPA who tells me almost the same story as Joe lays out. He has been told that his 'opinon' is not required on certain subjects that he has spent 35 years becoming an expert on......When I asked him if he had any recourse or way to complain, he said essentially that, "we try to do our job as best we can under the circumstances and maintain our integrity as employees who follow the rules, so that when a new administration comes in, we can be trusted to effect needed change under the NEW rules". It is a difficult line he walks, but he heads one department, and everyone relevant KNOWS he has the right answers and information if & when anyone is ready to hear it. |
|
13 Dec 07 - 04:27 PM (#2214770) Subject: RE: BS: Whose Job? From: Barry Finn "So, you have a government that does the wishes of the politicians. I think you can blame the recent intelligence blunders and coverups on the political commissars, not on the experts who actually do the work" I think that the blame rather lies with the political atmosphere (ot the present & the past)that's pourposefully created by the administration that's in power. You can trace the present climate's cause back to Reagan but then it should have been rectified by the following gang (of course that was close to trhe CIA too) but it's very hard to put a fix in after a climate has been created & taken advantage of. If I'm correct then the following administration will have a mountain of errors to climb. We now have a shadow government that acts in private even amongst themselves. One group not only allowing another group to work it's own agenda but asking the same in return, this is also now the play of the 3 branches of government. The responsibility of each gets passed on or taken over by another so much so that even the president no longer can tell who's responsible for what & what's required of each branch (of course not much is not beyond him). We act in secret & when the acts are exposed it's shark time & a feeding frenzy. But this is the climate that's been set by those that have the power to set it. They should not have the power to set the climate, that's the people's job but when we give that power away of let those in government take that power away from us it's only human nature that it will eventually be used against us to further the means of those that wield it, until we eventually become enslaved to those that are supposed to serve us. We have more than the power of just the vote, we have the right to assemble & protest, we have the right to free speech, we have the right to bare arms against those that would rise up against us, we have the right to form a militia, we have the right to strike, nationally if need be, at the heart of our own weakness. We were given all the tools that we needed by our forefathers. But the less we act & use our tools the less skilled we become & the less rights we'll have & when the time comes that we all realize that we now need the skills to act we won't have any rights left. There has never been a government that has used torture that in the end hasn't use it on it's own people. This I heard recently & can't reember the woman's name but it's all to scary when you look at where we are heading. We are watching our rights & powers dwindle & as they dwindle we also watch the world decline into decay becaue it's only the people that care, governments have no sympathy when it comes to all things living only disdan for those that try to harrness it to do the good will of those that live under it. It is our job not to allow them to do as they will but to will them to do as we want. We cannot continue to allow, justify, excuse & not question & scrutinize the every act & move our government makes, takes or approves & we cannot continue to not stand up to stop, hinder, question or call on our officials to explain & justify their actions. We cannot rely on our own branches of government to investigae themselves without public oversight, government oversight of themselves works only when they work for US, we are way beyond that now. Barry |
|
13 Dec 07 - 04:39 PM (#2214783) Subject: RE: BS: Whose Job? From: beardedbruce Let me see... 1978: "The United States Senate election, 1978 was an election for the United States Senate in the middle of Democratic President Jimmy Carter's term. The Democrats lost a net of three seats to the Republicans, leaving the balance of the chamber 58-41 in favor of the Democrats." "The U.S. House election, 1978 was an election for the United States House of Representatives in 1978 which occurred in the middle of President Jimmy Carter's term. The country was going through an energy crisis and was still suffering from rapid inflation and as in many midterm elections, the President's Democratic Party lost seats to the opposition Republican Party, in this case a net of 15, but the Democrats still retained a rather large majority." Yep, them Republicans are responsible for everything... "Congress passed the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, and government changed." With a Democratic President, a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic House, how can anyone complain about the consequences of what they did???? |
|
13 Dec 07 - 06:41 PM (#2214871) Subject: RE: BS: Whose Job? From: Barry Finn "Yep, them Republicans are responsible for everything..." Ultimately, it is "we the people" who are responsible for the actions that those in government do "in our name". There are plenty on both sides of the aisle that do mostly for themselves & their own & would do squat for US if left to their own devices. That being said, the present administration, IMHO, has done more for themseves & less for US than any before them & therefore we'll have horrific cleanup in the coming decades, if it can be cleaned up at all. At this point whose to say weither or not we should can it & start from scratch? Are we worth saving? We sure don't fighht very hard to keep what our forefathers gave us, we were/are supposed to improve upon what we started with. I'd say we're a far cry from what they planned & envisioned for US. Barry |
|
13 Dec 07 - 06:44 PM (#2214875) Subject: RE: BS: Whose Job? From: Rapparee Easily. My Uncle-In-Law, working for GSA, spent some weeks without pay because he was given the choice of "do it politically or find a new job after 25 years". He was convicted of "doing it" and everyone involved knew the whole procedure was a farce, but he lost a few weeks pay anyway. This was in 1981. A cousin-in-law is reasonably high up in EPA. She's been told to effectively shut down the Superfund Sites program, among other things. Since she has a troubled kid, she and her husband need what money they can gather. If you want to fix the mess in the intelligence community, you'd better be ready to fight long and hard -- 'cause this is the same damned turf war that was fought and effectively lost by Harry Truman et al. |