28
Sep
Reforming Intelligence Oversight
Amidst the discussion of the ACLU Aulaqi lawsuit - both the procedural moves made in court and the underlying debates over the lawfulness of targeting - as well as new revelations from the Woodward book about the size of the CIA's proxy ground forces in Afghanistan, cross-border "overt" raids made by US military forces into Pakistan, and finally reporting in today's papers of CIA drone strikes intensified in Pakistan for the specific purpose of disrupting a feared terrorist attack presumably in Europe ... well, there's a lot going on. I will comment on several of those issues at some point, but for now I wanted to add yet another item to the ferment - this being the matter of covert activities oversight by Congress. (This thanks to Jeff Stein (Spytalk blog) writing in the Washington Post newspages today, September 28, 2010, A4). Stein reports that the Senate has reached agreement on revisions to Congressional oversight and reporting on covert activities by the intelligence community under USC 50; it now goes to the House, but the article seemed to think that something like this version would finally emerge. The net effect is to widen the group of legislators that has to be notified of covert activities; the compromise involves giving the White House more time in which to do so (including the ability it already has to do so after the fact):Under a bill approved by the Senate on Monday night,the White House would be required to notify the full membership of both congressional intelligence committees of presidential directives to conduct covert action, known as "findings." At present, the administration is required to notify only the "Gang of Eight": the chairmen and ranking members of each committee and the party leadership in both chambers. But the new language still gives the White House flexibility, including a 180-day period in which to notify all 22 House and 15 Senate intelligence committee members of a finding. The White House can defer full notification even longer, according to the bill, if it provides "a statement of reasons that it is essential to continue to limit access" because of "extraordinary circumstances affecting vital interests of the United States."The Senate bill also contains a couple of specific provisions of interest in today's environment, including a new cybersecurity element of reporting, and a provision requiring that the "White House provide the legal grounds for certain intelligence operations and estimates of whether "significant" costs or a "significant risk of loss of life" might be involved." My own general view is that Congressional oversight of covert activities needs to be strengthened and reformed - not because I think the CIA is out doing rogue stuff with, say, targeted killing, but instead because I think it is the only way to ensure that the political branches are on the same page on policy, what is acceptable and lawful and what is not. It is an essential element in protecting intelligence agency personnel from actions by courts or, for that matter, Congress itself claiming that they overstepped their authority. Likewise it is a crucial element in ensuring that the political branches retain their role - Steel Seizure cases-style - in foreign policy and the conduct of self-defense operations abroad and armed conflict.