CONGRESSIONAL INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT IN JEOPARDY
In a "shocking and inexcusable" action that may threaten the institution of congressional intelligence oversight, an anonymous Senator yesterday blocked Senate consideration of the pending
Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 2007. No intelligence
authorization bill has been passed by Congress for the past two years.
If Congress remains unable to legislate an intelligence authorization act, which is the principal product of the intelligence oversight committees each year, then the committees themselves could be rendered irrelevant, officials say.
"The Senate's failure to pass this critical national security legislation for the past 2 years is remarkably shocking and inexcusable," said an angry Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
"The result of this continued obstruction will be diminished authority for intelligence agencies to do their job in protecting America. I hope the [anonymous] Senator involved takes satisfaction in that," Senator Rockefeller said. See his March 6 floor statement:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2007_cr/s030607.html
The Senator who is holding up the bill is Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), according to Tim Starks of Congressional Quarterly.
Sen. DeMint "is said to be concerned about provisions of the bill that require the Bush administration to report to Congress on its detention policies, such as those pertaining to its secret CIA prisons, as well as a provision to declassify the total intelligence budget," CQ reported on March 6.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
Apparently, the Republicans are far more interested in avoiding Congressional reporting requirements, than protecting our Nation, our troops, or winning the war on terrorism.
As his remarks draw to a close, Senator Rockefeller says: "Is this bill perfect? No. But it is largely the same bill as last year, and we have changed provisions that were objectionable. On the good side, it would ensure that the exemption of Freedom of Information Act requirements carries over to operational files...What I am afraid of is that people are objecting to the bill without knowing what is in the bill, without knowing the changes we have made, the accommodations that have been made by the chairman and by the vice chairman to make this bill acceptable."
Despite the Committee's willingness to address any objections people had to the bill, the Republicans insisted on pulling the same stunt as last year by having one Senator object to and obstruct the bill. One can't help but wonder if this act was direct retaliation for the comments Chairman Rockefeller made in his Opening Statement at the Worldwide Threat Hearing on January 11, 2007:
"I am also troubled by what I see as an Administration counter-terrorism policy which, in certain respects, may be complicating if not worsening our ability to win the war on terrorism. To be specific, I have serious misgivings about the soundness and the effectiveness of the CIA's secret detention program and the NSA's warrantless surveillance program, both publicly acknowledged by the President.
I am concerned that the very existence of a separate CIA prison program established to interrogate high value detainees under a different set of rules than those outlined in the Army Field Manual and repudiated by the FBI has undermined our moral standing in the eyes of the world.
How many millions of moderate Arabs and Muslims around the world, having seen the photos of Abu Ghraib, heard stories about abuses at Guantanamo, and who are now aware that the CIA operates a secret prison, believe that America tortures detainees? How does this perception help foster extremism around the world and how do we weigh this fact, combined with the lasting damage done to America's image, against the putative intelligence benefits of operating a separate CIA program in lieu of single Pentagon program that is subjected to greater scrutiny?"
Among other things, the Intelligence Authorization bill includes steps to:
* Enable the DNI (Director of National Intelligence) to fund information sharing efforts that span the Intelligence Community;
* Establish a pilot program to encourage and improve information sharing between the Intelligence Community and non-intelligence agencies for the purposes of collecting intelligence on counterterrorism or weapons of mass destruction;
* Elevate the directors of the National Security Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to require Senate confirmation for these positions;
* Create a National Space Intelligence Center to better understand threats facing our extensive investment in space technology;
* Enhance the DNI's authority to manage access to human intelligence information;
* Create a strong, independent Inspector General for the Intelligence Community.
Since 2003, Senator Rockefeller, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has worked on improving and reforming our nation's intelligence capabilities. It is a sad day when our elected officials (Republicans) put their own interests, in the guise of "National Security", above the interests of the citizens they are elected to represent.
Oversight is especially important at a time when the intelligence community is undergoing the biggest restructuring we've seen in 50 years. Without this oversight our National Security, and with it, our exposure to terrorism, is in jeopardy.
How could that be?
In October video clips were released of Chinese border guards picking off Tibetian pilgrims with AK47's as they plodded through the snow toward India to visit the Dali Lama.
The world reaction -- a collective yawn.
The Abu Gharib story last for months in the world press, this barely made the news. Clearly, "the world" is not interested in moral standing at all, it is primarily interested in politics.
How could that be?"
Actually, my point was that by alluding to the Committee's position on "the very existence of a separate CIA prison program established to interrogate high value detainees under a different set of rules than those outlined in the Army Field Manual and repudiated by the FBI has undermined our moral standing in the eyes of the world", Senator Rockefeller may have tipped off the Republicans to the Committee's view that certain intelligence practices were harming America's global reputation. These practices are what the administration would have to report on to Congress, if the Intelligence Authorization bill had passed.
However, in response to your point regarding the Chinese border guards, there was a lot of international press generated by the video you referenced. I wouldn't call that "a collective yawn".
According to The Washington Times article
Tibetans recount being shot at by China guards, written on October 28, 2006, "The activist group International Campaign for Tibet said in a written statement that the video proves the Chinese troops opened fire on unarmed Tibetans and not in self-defense...Every year more than 2,500 Tibetan refugees attempt the arduous trek, said Tenzing Norgay of the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy, which arranged the press conference on Monday...There have been instances of refugees being shot at by border guards in the past, but this was the first time in recent years that troops killed any, said Mr. Tenzing of the human rights group. 'This is the first time that the world has seen evidence of what Tibetans are subjected to by the Chinese,' he said. 'Kelsang's death cannot go in vain. We will use this incident and the video footage to bring international pressure on China and press for Tibetan freedom.'"
There have been allegations of this sort in the past, but according to the activist group International Campaign for Tibet, this was the first time they had proof, which they intended to use to bring international pressure on China regarding the Tibentan's situation. A huge difference exists between the US's actions at Abu Ghraib, supposedly justified in the name of a "war on terrorism" and the Chinese situation, where China lodges protests against the Nepalese government's practice of turning the fleeing Tibetans over to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees office. China wants them to be turned back to Tibet instead. Usually, the Nepalese government arrests the Tibetans after they enter Nepalese territory and then hands them over to the office of the UNHCR, who in turn facilitates their passage to India.
I agree that shooting people for visiting their religious leader is atrocious; but, it is not in the same league as torturing prisoners.
"Clearly, "the world" is not interested in moral standing at all, it is primarily interested in politics."
This is a sweeping generalization. Two people (out of 70) were killed in the Chinese border incident versus numerous incidents of torture at Abu Gharib, which resulted in twelve soldiers being convicted of various charges relating to the incidents. This is what accounts for the difference in international media attention, not lack of concern for moral standing.
With a global perspective, I would say that some people put politics above moral standing. Others put moral standing above politics. And, many use "morality" as a basis for politics (and to justify atrocities).
As I see it, all this does is stop the Committee from being stupid. It has no impact in our intelligence agencies.
Bin Laden must be laughing in his cave, or wherever he is now, because the U.S. has done it to itself even worse than if it had been planned by Al Quaida.
They used to have something that was followed by all nations, including the U.S.
It was called the Geneva Convention.
Yeah, Like boiling a child alive... Does it get you off Nancy?