Two weeks ago, the House passed the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act. For the first time, the bill contained oversight measures calling for an inspector general, and strict restrictions on the use of contractors in interrogations. Unfortunately, the very reform measures that I sponsored are cited by the Administration as examples of why they would veto the bill. Currently, the bill is languishing in the Senate, and serves as a reminder of not only why we need to elect a Democratic President, but how important it will be to elect members of the House and Senate to help key progressive legislation from getting scuttled.
No sooner did the House of Representatives pass the 2009 Intelligence Authorization Act, the Administration threatened to veto it. As a member of the Intelligence Committee I found the “Statement of Administration Policy” a rather tidy compilation of all the reasons that I was able to vote for it.
The bill passed on July 16 by a voice vote and was the product of bi-partisan agreement in the committee.
First on the list of reasons that the President’s senior advisors “recommend[ed] that he veto the bill” was a provision that I wrote prohibiting the interrogation of detainees by private contractors. It seemed to me, as it did to Democrats and Republicans on the committee, that the individuals carrying out the intensely sensitive role of interrogating detainees in the “War on Terror”, minimally ought to be CIA employees, wearing the badge of the United States of America, part of the chain of command, and held strictly accountable for their actions. I even included a waiver that would have allowed the use of contractors in situations that required a special skill not available from a U.S. employee. Yet the Administration “strongly object[ed]” and said that “even with the waiver authority, this provision would impose a significant impediment to the timely and effective collection of critical intelligence.”
I have been focusing much of my work in Congress on the use, or rather, misuse of private contractors, and have introduced legislation, the SOS or Stop Outsourcing our Security Act to phase out their use. Blackwater is, of course, the poster child for misconduct (outright murder?), but it is not alone. Many of the most critical and sensitive functions are being conducted by private, for-profit companies raising the question of who is really in charge in a combat zone – the Combatant Commander or the CEO? But more on that at a later date.
Number two on the Administration’s list of egregious provisions in the Intelligence Bill is one to create an Inspector General for the Intelligence Community. Heaven forbid!
Next they objected to the requirement that the CIA Inspector General conduct an audit of each covert action program at least every 3 years and submit those audits to the Intelligence Committees. Among other things, this rationale was offered: “This provision conflicts with the President’s authority to control dissemination of classified information…” Yes, that’s their attitude, and that’s why I often learn more from CNN or the New York Times and definitely more by reading Sy Hersh than from our closed and classified hearings.
They really hated one of my favorite parts of the bill. Our committee voted to “withhold 75% of the funding for covert action programs until the Administration provides much greater access to highly sensitive national security information to all members of the congressional intelligence committees.” Providing such information to our committee, they whined, would “undermine the fundamental compact between the Congress and the President on reporting highly sensitive intelligence matters.” Problem is, the President’s view of that “compact” appears to be that he doesn’t have to tell us anything, ever.
Along the same lines, the Administration objected to a section of the bill asking them to provide information about “pre-decisional legal opinions, risk assessments, and cost estimates” of various intelligence activities. This might include legal opinions on issues like the use of torture -- er I mean, “enhanced interrogation techniques” or domestic spying. Our interest in such information they describe as “micromanagement.”
Those were the principle objections, but they had “other concerns” such as requiring a comprehensive report on compliance with the Detainee Treatment Act and semiannual reports on the nuclear programs of Iran, Syria and North Korea. They don’t want to have to tell the committee about intelligence information relating to North Korea or China and they don’t want to have to prepare a National Intelligence Estimate on Syrian WMD programs. And, as usual they did not want to report annually on contractor levels for each element of the Intelligence Community.
At the end of the day, the Administration believes that it can do anything and everything it wants to without informing the Congress of the United States, much less seeking the authority to do it. As you can imagine, being on the Intelligence Committee can be a very frustrating which is exactly what the President is aiming for.
It will be refreshing to have a President who respects the Constitution and the Rule of Law. We can count on President Obama to do just that. I am counting the days and working to make that happen.