You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Bill would boost congressional oversight of covert spy programs
2009-06-21
Washington -- Criticized for failing to challenge the intelligence operations of the Bush administration, key lawmakers have endorsed a bill that would force the president to make fuller disclosure of covert spy programs.
Not necessarily a bad idea as long as the representatives who are entrusted to hear the information can keep their mouths shut and not blab confidentially to the New York Ti ... oh, what am I saying?
The legislation approved by the House Intelligence Committee late Thursday would eliminate the president's ability to keep classified operations secret from any member of the panel, according to Democrats who described the provision. The measure was included in a broad intelligence spending bill that also would expand funding for spy agencies and require the CIA to videotape its interrogations of terrorism suspects.
Because the CIA can trust the all the members if the House of Representatives to guard their backs.
Democrats described the measure as an important effort to bolster congressional oversight of intelligence activities. Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas), chairman of the intelligence panel, said the bill would "have wide-ranging consequences for the way the committee conducts its business." But Republicans voted against the measure.
Good move, House Republicans!
Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the panel, said he favored a proposal last year that would have allowed the president to restrict briefings on sensitive topics with the permission of the top Democrat and Republican on the committee.

The debate centers on the controversial practice of restricting intelligence briefings to the "Gang of Eight," a group that includes the party leaders of the House and Senate, as well as the ranking Democrat and Republican on each intelligence committee.

The language adopted by the House committee Thursday would strike a provision in the nation's main intelligence statute that allows restricted briefings. Instead, the president would be obligated to inform all 15 members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, as well as their 22 counterparts in the House. The bill calls for the committee to draft procedures that would allow restricted briefings under special circumstances.

"If this provision becomes law, Gang of Eight briefings will either be eliminated or very much restricted," said a Democratic congressional aide familiar with the legislation. The measure has yet to be considered by the full House.

Lawmakers complained bitterly that the Bush administration routinely withheld information from members as a way of reducing their ability to scrutinize or challenge controversial programs, including CIA interrogations and electronic surveillance of U.S. citizens.

Even so, records indicate that lawmakers who were informed of controversial operations raised few objections. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) was accused of hypocrisy by Republicans this year for criticizing the CIA's interrogation methods, because even though she did nothing appears to have done little to intervene after she was briefed on aspects of the program in 2002.
Posted by:Steve White

#15  ". Rep. Silvestre Reyes "....

This would be the guy who didn't know the3 difference between Sunni & Shi'ite.... oh yeah, let's give him more oversight responsibilities.....
Posted by: Heriberto Glomorong1155   2009-06-21 23:19  

#14  I would support this bill if it included a clause that specified the immediate death penalty for any member of the congress, their staff, acquaintances, or whatever, if they leaked even a hint of any of the programs.
Having the story published in the New York Times would be prima facie evidence that the crime had been committed. Anyone on the list of those briefed on the program would be suspect.
Who am I kidding? They would probably read the details of any program they didn't like into the Congressional Record, or maybe an op-ed in the NYT.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia   2009-06-21 22:23  

#13  Still in the 9/10 world, the lot of them.
Posted by: OldSpook   2009-06-21 21:43  

#12  Sounds like a Frank Church moment.
Posted by: JohnQC   2009-06-21 17:21  

#11  Handcuffs and shackles weren't enough to restrain the CIA, balls and chains are needed.
Posted by: Willy   2009-06-21 12:05  

#10  I remember (all quotations below paraphrased), in the Clinton days, that Bill was anguishing over a proposed CIA op to pinch someone (can't remember who, but he was a turban of some kind). Back and forth, back and forth went the arguments in the Oval Office. Bill couldn't decide.

Al Gore walks in, they brief him, and Bill asks Al what he would do.

Al says, "Approve the op. Let the CIA grab him."

Some staffer says, "But that would be illegal under international law!"

And Al replies, "That's why you have the CIA grab him."
Posted by: Steve White   2009-06-21 10:33  

#9  Quite correct Snakes. Official project 'termination' can rarely be attributed to the oversight bureaucrats. Endless delays and re-looks just run out the clock and make render the entire effort meaningless.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-21 08:43  

#8  Another lesson of 9/11 unlearned.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-06-21 08:35  

#7  Why not simply disband the CIA's operations bureau? It would be a lot more direct and accomplis the same thing.

Clearly that is the ultimate intention. But done this way when the negative consequences become apparent, no one can be held responsible for having shut Ops down. But then, I'd just shut the whole thing down and let the DoD do the job.
Posted by: Snakes Glase2906   2009-06-21 08:20  

#6  Congressional "oversight" is a minsnomer. What actually happens is the oversighters generally end up in the chop-chain either directly or indirectly approving, delaying with endless questions and deposition, or terminating projects as reported to them by 30 year old tweeb, aspiring staffers. All sense of urgency is lost and after a few skirmishes the initiating agency or department backs off, assumes benign role, and waits to be blamed for the next intelligence failure.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-21 07:52  

#5  IMO, given who's the President, it's all smart.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-06-21 04:27  

#4  Insecure lot, aren't they?
Posted by: gorb   2009-06-21 03:38  

#3  There goes any incentive to run any sort of risky op.

1) Congress leaks like a sieve so it will be compromised.

2) If you manage to hide it from Congress you are probably going to break the new law.

Why not simply disband the CIA's operations bureau? It would be a lot more direct and accomplis the same thing.
Posted by: OldSpook   2009-06-21 01:47  

#2   a bill that would force the president to make fuller disclosure of covert spy programs.

I like it when the articles are self-snarking, but it does seem a bit like cheating.
Posted by: SteveS   2009-06-21 00:30  

#1  I'm sure that the New York Times will be happy. Covert operations make good page one stories.
Posted by: DMFD   2009-06-21 00:21  

00:00