Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 06/21/2009 View Sat 06/20/2009 View Fri 06/19/2009 View Thu 06/18/2009 View Wed 06/17/2009 View Tue 06/16/2009 View Mon 06/15/2009
2009-06-21 Home Front: WoT
Bill would boost congressional oversight of covert spy programs
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2009-06-21 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [6467 views ]  Top

#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||   2009-06-21 00:21|| Front Page Top

#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||   2009-06-21 00:30|| Front Page Top

#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||   2009-06-21 01:47|| Front Page Top

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

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

#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||   2009-06-21 07:52|| Front Page Top

#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||   2009-06-21 08:20|| Front Page Top

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

#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||   2009-06-21 08:43|| Front Page Top

#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||   2009-06-21 10:33|| Front Page Top

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

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

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

#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">Rambler in Virginia  2009-06-21 22:23||   2009-06-21 22:23|| Front Page Top

#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||   2009-06-21 23:19|| Front Page Top

23:57 trailing wife
23:54 Broadhead6
23:47 Broadhead6
23:39 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:29 Dan
23:23 Thomas Jefferson
23:19 Heriberto Glomorong1155
23:16 Titus Thraque8082
22:33 whatadeal
22:23 Rambler in Virginia
22:13 Mark Espinola
22:11 trailing wife
22:09 trailing wife
22:07 crosspatch
22:02 eLarson
21:58 JosephMendiola
21:58 JosephMendiola
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:43 OldSpook
21:43 OldSpook
21:41 746
21:40 OldSpook
21:32 Barbara Skolaut
21:11 Redneck Jim

Search WWW Search