*Source: DTN News / USA Today
(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON, USA - July 23, 2009: Heard about the latest intelligence "scandal" in Washington? You know, the one about whether an admi
nistration that's no longer in office failed to tell Congress about a CIA program that no longer exists, the purpose of which was to kill top terrorists?
If that doesn't sound like much of a scandal to you, you're right. But some key House Democrats seem to think otherwise. Last week, they went ballistic and began an investigation into the defunct program.
Based on what's known, it's hard to see what the CIA did wrong here; it appears to have carefully assessed the program and shelved it when it was deemed unworkable. And it's hard to think of a better way for Congress to dash hopes of improved relations with the intelligence agencies.
For those who've been tuned out, here's a quick recap: Last month, new CIA Director Leon Panetta learned about a Bush-era program, launched after 9/11 but apparently never put into operation, to assassinate al-Qaeda operatives. Panetta pulled the plug and — fearing a backlash from lawmakers who had been kept in the dark, apparently at the behest of then-Vice President Cheney — quickly and confidentially briefed the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
Was this welcomed as a shot of candor by the new CIA director? Hardly.
It turns out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allies were still smoldering over a bitter dispute this spring in which she accused the CIA of misleading Congress about harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects during the Bush years. Panetta shot back with a May 15 letter saying it is not the CIA's "policy or practice to mislead Congress."
On June 26, after the aborted hit-squad program was disclosed, about a half dozen Democrats on the intelligence panel wrote to Panetta demanding that he, in essence, take back his May 15 comments. That smacks more of a childish tantrum than strict oversight. Last week, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, announced an investigation into whether federal laws were violated by the defunct covert assassination program or failure to notify Congress.
What's to investigate? Perhaps Cheney was wrong to cloak the whole thing in secrecy (though the law is unclear about what level of planning triggers the congressional notification requirement). But the program itself was a far cry from the CIA abuses — attempts to assassinate foreign heads of state and spying on U.S. citizens — exposed in the Church Committee investigations of the mid-1970s. Hunting down Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda leaders is, after all, public policy of the United States, carried out every day by unmanned Predator drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.
Democratic leaders seem oblivious to the danger of public feuding and reliving Bush-era controversies. Pelosi told us Tuesday that Panetta "created his own problems" by insisting the CIA doesn't lie, and she sees the panel's investigation as a "modest approach." We see a bungled opportunity to improve relations between Congress and the intelligence community.
Pelosi rightly describes the oversight system as flawed, in which CIA briefers provide snippets of information to different lawmakers at different times, so none really gains an understanding of the full picture. The remedy is changing the system, as Democrats say they're trying to do with new legislation. That beats political peevishness and probes of programs that were never implemented.
(CIA headquarters: Reported assassination program pulled. Photo by Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images)
nistration that's no longer in office failed to tell Congress about a CIA program that no longer exists, the purpose of which was to kill top terrorists?
If that doesn't sound like much of a scandal to you, you're right. But some key House Democrats seem to think otherwise. Last week, they went ballistic and began an investigation into the defunct program.
Based on what's known, it's hard to see what the CIA did wrong here; it appears to have carefully assessed the program and shelved it when it was deemed unworkable. And it's hard to think of a better way for Congress to dash hopes of improved relations with the intelligence agencies.
For those who've been tuned out, here's a quick recap: Last month, new CIA Director Leon Panetta learned about a Bush-era program, launched after 9/11 but apparently never put into operation, to assassinate al-Qaeda operatives. Panetta pulled the plug and — fearing a backlash from lawmakers who had been kept in the dark, apparently at the behest of then-Vice President Cheney — quickly and confidentially briefed the House and Senate Intelligence committees.
Was this welcomed as a shot of candor by the new CIA director? Hardly.
It turns out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's allies were still smoldering over a bitter dispute this spring in which she accused the CIA of misleading Congress about harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects during the Bush years. Panetta shot back with a May 15 letter saying it is not the CIA's "policy or practice to mislead Congress."
On June 26, after the aborted hit-squad program was disclosed, about a half dozen Democrats on the intelligence panel wrote to Panetta demanding that he, in essence, take back his May 15 comments. That smacks more of a childish tantrum than strict oversight. Last week, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, announced an investigation into whether federal laws were violated by the defunct covert assassination program or failure to notify Congress.
What's to investigate? Perhaps Cheney was wrong to cloak the whole thing in secrecy (though the law is unclear about what level of planning triggers the congressional notification requirement). But the program itself was a far cry from the CIA abuses — attempts to assassinate foreign heads of state and spying on U.S. citizens — exposed in the Church Committee investigations of the mid-1970s. Hunting down Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaeda leaders is, after all, public policy of the United States, carried out every day by unmanned Predator drones in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region.
Democratic leaders seem oblivious to the danger of public feuding and reliving Bush-era controversies. Pelosi told us Tuesday that Panetta "created his own problems" by insisting the CIA doesn't lie, and she sees the panel's investigation as a "modest approach." We see a bungled opportunity to improve relations between Congress and the intelligence community.
Pelosi rightly describes the oversight system as flawed, in which CIA briefers provide snippets of information to different lawmakers at different times, so none really gains an understanding of the full picture. The remedy is changing the system, as Democrats say they're trying to do with new legislation. That beats political peevishness and probes of programs that were never implemented.
(CIA headquarters: Reported assassination program pulled. Photo by Saul Loeb, AFP/Getty Images)
No comments:
Post a Comment