bush further weakens espionage oversight - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

roachboy · 03-14-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

President weakens espionage oversight
Board created by Ford loses most of its power

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff | March 14, 2008

WASHINGTON - Almost 32 years to the day after President Ford created an independent Intelligence Oversight Board made up of private citizens with top-level clearances to ferret out illegal spying activities, President Bush issued an executive order that stripped the board of much of its authority.

The White House did not say why it was necessary to change the rules governing the board when it issued Bush's order late last month. But critics say Bush's order is consistent with a pattern of steps by the administration that have systematically scaled back Watergate-era intelligence reforms.

"It's quite clear that the Bush administration officials who were around in the 1970s are settling old scores now," said Tim Sparapani, senior legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union. "Here they are even preventing oversight within the executive branch. They have closed the books on the post-Watergate era."

Ford created the board following a 1975-76 investigation by Congress into domestic spying, assassination operations, and other abuses by intelligence agencies. The probe prompted fierce battles between Congress and the Ford administration, whose top officials included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and the current president's father, George H. W. Bush.

To blunt proposals for new laws imposing greater congressional oversight of intelligence matters, Ford enacted his own reforms with an executive order that went into effect on March 1, 1976. Among them, he created the Intelligence Oversight Board to serve as a watchdog over spying agencies.

"I believe [the changes] will eliminate abuses and questionable activities on the part of the foreign intelligence agencies while at the same time permitting them to get on with their vital work of gathering and assessing information," Ford told Congress.

The board's investigations and reports have been mostly kept secret. But the Clinton administration provided a rare window into the panel's capabilities in 1996 by publishing a board report faulting the CIA for not adequately informing Congress about putting known torturers and killers in Guatemala on its payroll.

But Bush downsized the board's mandate to be an aggressive watchdog against such problems in an executive order issued on Feb. 29, the eve of the anniversary of the day Ford's order took effect. The White House said the timing of the new order was "purely coincidental."

Under the old rules, whenever the oversight board learned of intelligence activity that it believed might be "unlawful or contrary to executive order," it had a duty to notify both the president and the attorney general. But Bush's order deleted the board's authority to refer matters to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation, and the new order said the board should notify the president only if other officials are not already "adequately" addressing the problem.

Bush's order also terminated the board's authority to oversee each intelligence agency's general counsel and inspector general, and it erased a requirement that each inspector general file a report with the board every three months. Now only the agency directors will decide whether to report any potential lawbreaking to the panel, and they have no schedule for checking in.

Suzanne Spaulding, a former deputy counsel at the CIA who has worked as a congressional staff member on intelligence committees for members of both parties, said the order "really diminishes the language that calls on the Intelligence Oversight Board to conduct independent inquiries," leaving the panel as potentially little more than "paper pushers."

And Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, a former general counsel at both the CIA and the National Security Agency who is now the dean of the University of the Pacific law school, said it was unwise for the Bush administration to undermine the Intelligence Oversight Board at the same time that the administration has been pushing for fewer restrictions on its intelligence powers.

"An organization like this gives some level of comfort that there is an independent review capability," Parker said. "Changes like this appear to water down an organization that contributes to the public's confidence."

But Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, denied that the order reduced the authority and independence of the panel.

Fratto pointed to a federal statute that makes it a general duty of all government officials to report lawbreaking to the Justice Department. Because of this, he said, there is still a "widely understood background presumption" that the board can contact the attorney general even though Bush deleted the authority to make criminal referrals from its list of core responsibilities.

Fratto also said the changes merely updated the board's responsibilities after Congress in 2004 created a director of national intelligence to run the intelligence community. The order says the director is the person responsible for making any criminal referrals to the Justice Department.

Still, critics contend that the director of national intelligence cannot play the same watchdog role as the oversight board because he is part of the intelligence world, not independent from it, and so there may be occasions in which he has signed off on an activity whose legality might be questioned by outsiders.

Some analysts said the order is just the latest example of actions the administration has taken since the 2001 terrorist attacks that have scaled back intelligence reforms enacted in the 1970s.

In his 1976 executive order, for example, Ford also banned foreign intelligence agencies, such as the National Security Agency, from collecting information about Americans. The Bush administration bypassed that rule by having domestic agencies collect information about Americans and then hand the data to the NSA, The Wall Street Journal reported this week.

Ford's order also banned assassination. But Bush authorized the CIA to draw up a list of Al Qaeda suspects who could be summarily killed.

The administration decided that such targeted killings were an exception to the rule because it was wartime.

In 1978, Congress enacted a law requiring warrants for all wiretaps on domestic soil. But now spies are free to monitor Americans' international calls and e-mails without court supervision if the wiretaps are aimed at targets overseas.

In 1980, Congress enacted a law requiring that the full House and Senate intelligence committees be briefed about most spying activities. The Bush administration asserted that it could withhold significant amounts of information from the committees, briefing congressional leaders instead.

Finally, executive orders were once widely understood to be binding unless a president revoked them, an act that would notify Congress that the rules had changed. But the administration has decided that Bush is free to secretly authorize spies to ignore executive orders - including one that restricts surveillance on US citizens traveling overseas - without rescinding them.

Some critics of the post-Watergate era have contended that its investigations and reforms went too far. For example, Cheney, who was Ford's chief of staff, said in December 2005 that "a lot of the things around Watergate and Vietnam . . . served to erode the authority, I think, the president needs to be effective, especially in a national security area."

But Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., the former chief counsel to the Senate committee that undertook the 1975-76 investigation into intelligence abuses, said that by rolling back the post-Watergate reforms, the Bush administration had made intelligence abuses more likely to occur.

"What the Bush administration has systematically done is to try to limit both internal oversight - things like the Intelligence Oversight Board - and effective external oversight by the Congress," Schwarz said, adding, "It's profoundly disappointing if you understand American history, and it's profoundly harmful to the United States."

source:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...age_oversight/

sometimes it appears that the political legitimacy of the bush administration is so shot to hell that they've already begun to fade away.

sometimes it appears that most of us are simply so weary of these clowns that we prefer to look forward or elsewhere and avoid the simple reality that in american "democracy" the fact that "we the people" are political free one day every four years has consequences and central among these consequences right now is that this foul and incompetent administration is still in power.

but while we are perhaps wishing that the situation were otherwise, the bush people continue to do things. this is an example: an even further reduction in oversight, an even further undermining of transparency in the area of surveillance/espionage. now obviously, the figleaf for this is the same as the wiretapping, the same as many other such actions--the fictional "war on terror" which is, if you think about it, not a whole lot different structurally from the stalinist war on the hitlero-trotskyite wrecker--except less deadly.

i cannot for the life of me figure out how conservatives of the economic-to-libertarian stripe--the folk who support smaller government because (presumably) smaller institutions are more transparent (perhaps because they are simply less complex) continue to support this administration. i really cannot--the bush administration has nothing to do with these politics--it is an authoritarian-style conservatism, one with a kind of disconcerting disregard for the law.

what do you link this to and what do you think these people are up to?
one reading is that of the aclu rep in the article itself--as a settling of old scores on the part of the nixon-period old farts inside the bush administration. do you think that explains what is happening?

dc_dux · 03-14-2008, 09:09 AM

Cheney, rather than Bush, is at the heart of this transformation of executive powers.

Throughout his political career, he has held the belief that the Executive Branch has "inherent" powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and as a result, the president has the right to defy Congress and the courts.

He believed much of the Watergate investigation was illegal (particularly Congressional subpoenas for the White House tapes). While in Congress, he defended Reagan actions, re: Iran/Contra by insisting on the floor of the House that the Boland Amendment was unconstitutional. While Sec of Defense under GHW Bush, he routinely bypassed Congress.

A story about Cheney in the Boston Globe lays it out pretty well: Hail to the Chief.

So when the opportunity arose in 2000, particularly with a supportive Republican Congress, he jumped on the opportunity to "restore and expand" the powers of the Executive Branch at the expense of the Constitutional system of checks and balances.

The result? Historic numbers of Executive Orders and signing statements, expanded use of executive privilege in response to Congressional investigations, warrantless wiretaps, etc.

The dangers from Bush/Cheney will pass in 10 months. The greater danger is that they have created a new standard of "unchecked" executive powers for future presidents of either party.

The question is if those future presidents follow the uncharted trail blazed by Bush/Cheney or restore the vision of the Constitution.

The Boston Globe conducted a survey of the candidates' positions on executive power.

But you never know until they have the power.

SirSeymour · 03-14-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

He believed much of the Watergate investigation was illegal (particularly Congressional subpoenas for the White House tapes). While in Congress, he defended Reagan actions, re: Iran/Contra by insisting on the floor of the House that the Boland Amendment was unconstitutional. While Sec of Defense under GHW Bush, he routinely bypassed Congress.

So when the opportunity arose in 2000, particularly with a supportive Republican Congress, he jumped on the opportunity to restore and expand the powers of the Executive Branch at the expense of the Constitutional system of checks and balances.

I actually think this is a very large part of the reason he picked himself to be the VP on a Bush topped ticket. He knew he could influence W and reverse a lot of things he viewed as bad for the Presidency from the #2 spot. I frankly find it a bit odd for a guy with this much history in the Congress to be so pro Executive Branch but he is.

I have thought for a long time now that the people around W are more the problem than W is. I miss Powell as SecState and having Cheney and Rumsfeld involved in the administration was a mistake from the very beginning. I really think the last 7 years would have been very different if W had done a better job of picking his top advisory team.

aceventura3 · 03-14-2008, 11:49 AM

"Espionage oversight" - isn't that an oxymoron?

If those conducting espionage are any good how would you monitor what they do? Isn't all you really know about what they do is what they tell you?

By definition isn't espionage in foreign lands "illegal"? A) Assuming no country would make it legal to be spied against or B) Espionage against a foreign country could be considered an act of war in some circumstances, and unless a declared war, illegal by our standards?

By definition isn't espionage, even if "properly" authorized purely subjective or a violation of a persons right to privacy and a persons Constitutional Right against unreasonable searches and seizures? If it is subjective and the government picks the judges to give authorization, isn't the authorization a pretense? and if the government doesn't want to take the risk of getting authorization, they would do it anyway, and not tell anyone?

In reality isn't "oversight" of espionage just a charade to make people "feel" good?

girldetective · 03-14-2008, 12:29 PM

Big Girl lived downstairs from me years ago and I would run aground of her sometimes. Talking the political talk, she relayed to me her radical thoughts in a very thorough and hand-talkin' way. She was spitting. She was passionate in her views and I see those views sometimes. I don't know that I believe them because it is seems so unreal, but sometimes I see them :

Big girl believed that there are Those with an agenda. Those are weakening our education system, our unions, our wages, and so forth. You know, the social structures that have been in place in this country to better our humanity; the good stuff. Big Girl believed it was a concerted effort of epic proportions on the part of Those. She believed one of the reasons for this was to make the military more attractive and all the other cynical pops we have heard forever since. It was the first time I had heard a view different than that of my peer group, and it has set me apart from them. I became more rebellious.

I don't know what Those are up to, but anything that is "kept mostly secret" needs to looked at under the magnifying glass. You know there is more there and I think everyone should be reminded to - look sharp! I am going to start to bring it up in every conversation I have in one way or another.

It intrigues me and i want to be a detective, or maybe a spy.

roachboy · 03-14-2008, 01:05 PM

well, ace, thing is that in other contexts you'd likely be about "accountability" and seem like the sorta feller that thinks the rule of law is at least in some way important. or maybe you are committed to some realpolitik idea, so long as it effects other people, preferably far away...i also imagine that you, like alot of folk, find themselves very committed to the rule of law when you are affected, but that's another matter. anyway, much of the import of the above comes from the pattern you fit it into. i think dc is right and what he says about it is more or less what i was thinking about when i put the op up. i'm a little less blase about the remaining months of this execrable regime because i think they can, and probably will, do more damage. you, ace, seem to not connect it to any pattern.

but i just dont understand how it is that this acceptance of opacity at the level of state squares with your free marketeer views in other areas.
i just dont get it--do you compartmentalize your political views in such a way that entirely contradictory positions can operate side-by-side?
it seems like you'd have to, given your economic positions and your "war on terror" positions--libertarian except when there's a threat, real or imagined, in which case authoritarian.
it really makes no sense to me.
please explain.

aceventura3 · 03-14-2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

well, ace, thing is that in other contexts you'd likely be about "accountability" and seem like the sorta feller that thinks the rule of law is at least in some way important. or maybe you are committed to some realpolitik idea, so long as it effects other people, preferably far away...i also imagine that you, like alot of folk, find themselves very committed to the rule of law when you are affected, but that's another matter. anyway, much of the import of the above comes from the pattern you fit it into. i think dc is right and what he says about it is more or less what i was thinking about when i put the op up. i'm a little less blase about the remaining months of this execrable regime because i think they can, and probably will, do more damage. you, ace, seem to not connect it to any pattern.

but i just dont understand how it is that this acceptance of opacity at the level of state squares with your free marketeer views in other areas.
i just dont get it--do you compartmentalize your political views in such a way that entirely contradictory positions can operate side-by-side?
it seems like you'd have to, given your economic positions and your "war on terror" positions--libertarian except when there's a threat, real or imagined, in which case authoritarian.
it really makes no sense to me.
please explain.

I am a realist.

I respect the "rule of law" and like living in a lawful society.

I like the fact that in most cases those in power at least go through the motions and attempt to make us "feel" good.

I am just tired of people taking a self righteous stance on "espionage", I think in the current context it is just political grandstanding against the current administration and the war against terror. Past administrations have done far worse than what we know Bush has done, yet we ignore all of that. we pretend that a Democrat in the White House would make a difference. It is getting hard for me to take the issue as serious as it is.

Ustwo · 03-14-2008, 01:33 PM

Congress proved their idiocy in the recent baseball hearings if you happened to listen to it live. I do not trust them with sensative information, and we do not need more leaky Leahy's.

The issue is who do you distrust more, and shockingly I trust the executive branch to have the best interests of the country at heart. I know I'm silly like that, not hating our system and all.

dc_dux · 03-14-2008, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I know I'm silly like that, not hating our system and all.

Could you be any more contradictory? Our system provides for checks and balances, not an expansive, unilateral Executive branch.

matthew330 · 03-14-2008, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Congress proved their idiocy in the recent baseball hearings if you happened to listen to it live.

Not to derail the thread, but my favorite part of this was when chuck rangle asked one of those guys for grandfathering advice...

"if you were me, how would you explain your behavior to my grandson". What the hell???

sprocket · 03-14-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

source:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...age_oversight/

sometimes it appears that the political legitimacy of the bush administration is so shot to hell that they've already begun to fade away.

sometimes it appears that most of us are simply so weary of these clowns that we prefer to look forward or elsewhere and avoid the simple reality that in american "democracy" the fact that "we the people" are political free one day every four years has consequences and central among these consequences right now is that this foul and incompetent administration is still in power.

but while we are perhaps wishing that the situation were otherwise, the bush people continue to do things. this is an example: an even further reduction in oversight, an even further undermining of transparency in the area of surveillance/espionage. now obviously, the figleaf for this is the same as the wiretapping, the same as many other such actions--the fictional "war on terror" which is, if you think about it, not a whole lot different structurally from the stalinist war on the hitlero-trotskyite wrecker--except less deadly.

i cannot for the life of me figure out how conservatives of the economic-to-libertarian stripe--the folk who support smaller government because (presumably) smaller institutions are more transparent (perhaps because they are simply less complex) continue to support this administration. i really cannot--the bush administration has nothing to do with these politics--it is an authoritarian-style conservatism, one with a kind of disconcerting disregard for the law.

I dont think many do. Of all the conservatives have talked to recently, most are religious who care more about social issues, and see fit to let government do what it wants, just as long as their guys in power promise to do something (or pretend to do something) about abortion, or gays, or prayer in public schools. I dont think most libertarian minded conservatives support Bush at all.

That also doesnt mean they support or will vote for the left... As for me? We can go broke funding a war, or go broke funding the lefts endless entitlement plans, its all the same to me. I'll probably be going third party.

What you are describing to me, sounds like the neo-cons... and yea, I'd like my party back.

The people who are left supporting Bush are the people who think that by ending abortion, homosexuality, premarital and teen sex, and putting the ten commandments up in schools the rest of America's problems will take care of themselves, because God will look favorably upon us again.

aceventura3 · 03-15-2008, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Could you be any more contradictory? Our system provides for checks and balances, not an expansive, unilateral Executive branch.

The only "check and balance" to espionage is getting caught.

Our only real safe guard is the trust we place in the people making the decision. And as we know from Hoover's tenure at the FBI, even the executive branch may not endorse or know what is going on.

roachboy · 03-15-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

And as we know from Hoover's tenure at the FBI, even the executive branch may not endorse or know what is going on.

do you have a problem with that?
i would think you would...

aceventura3 · 03-15-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

do you have a problem with that?
i would think you would...

Yes, I do. The reason I like politicians like Bush is because he says what he is going to do, he is a straight talker. People like Bill Clinton can not be trusted in my view, he says one thing and will do another. I think Hilary is the same way. I think Obama would be in over his head.

Bush clearly said he would do everything in his power to defeat terrorist. I understood this to mean that he was going to do some things some people would not like. However, I trust his judgment and don't feel he would do things I would not be willing to do.

dksuddeth · 03-15-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Yes, I do. The reason I like politicians like Bush is because he says what he is going to do, he is a straight talker. People like Bill Clinton can not be trusted in my view, he says one thing and will do another. I think Hilary is the same way. I think Obama would be in over his head.

Bush clearly said he would do everything in his power to defeat terrorist. I understood this to mean that he was going to do some things some people would not like. However, I trust his judgment and don't feel he would do things I would not be willing to do.

does that mean that you're totally willing to overlook violations of laws so long as bush does what he says to protect you?

03-14-2008, 09:09 AM	#2 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Cheney, rather than Bush, is at the heart of this transformation of executive powers. Throughout his political career, he has held the belief that the Executive Branch has "inherent" powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution, and as a result, the president has the right to defy Congress and the courts. He believed much of the Watergate investigation was illegal (particularly Congressional subpoenas for the White House tapes). While in Congress, he defended Reagan actions, re: Iran/Contra by insisting on the floor of the House that the Boland Amendment was unconstitutional. While Sec of Defense under GHW Bush, he routinely bypassed Congress. A story about Cheney in the Boston Globe lays it out pretty well: Hail to the Chief. So when the opportunity arose in 2000, particularly with a supportive Republican Congress, he jumped on the opportunity to "restore and expand" the powers of the Executive Branch at the expense of the Constitutional system of checks and balances. The result? Historic numbers of Executive Orders and signing statements, expanded use of executive privilege in response to Congressional investigations, warrantless wiretaps, etc. The dangers from Bush/Cheney will pass in 10 months. The greater danger is that they have created a new standard of "unchecked" executive powers for future presidents of either party. The question is if those future presidents follow the uncharted trail blazed by Bush/Cheney or restore the vision of the Constitution. The Boston Globe conducted a survey of the candidates' positions on executive power. But you never know until they have the power. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-14-2008 at 09:28 AM..

03-14-2008, 11:49 AM	#4 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	"Espionage oversight" - isn't that an oxymoron? If those conducting espionage are any good how would you monitor what they do? Isn't all you really know about what they do is what they tell you? By definition isn't espionage in foreign lands "illegal"? A) Assuming no country would make it legal to be spied against or B) Espionage against a foreign country could be considered an act of war in some circumstances, and unless a declared war, illegal by our standards? By definition isn't espionage, even if "properly" authorized purely subjective or a violation of a persons right to privacy and a persons Constitutional Right against unreasonable searches and seizures? If it is subjective and the government picks the judges to give authorization, isn't the authorization a pretense? and if the government doesn't want to take the risk of getting authorization, they would do it anyway, and not tell anyone? In reality isn't "oversight" of espionage just a charade to make people "feel" good? __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

03-14-2008, 12:29 PM	#5 (permalink)
girldetective sufferable	Big Girl lived downstairs from me years ago and I would run aground of her sometimes. Talking the political talk, she relayed to me her radical thoughts in a very thorough and hand-talkin' way. She was spitting. She was passionate in her views and I see those views sometimes. I don't know that I believe them because it is seems so unreal, but sometimes I see them : Big girl believed that there are Those with an agenda. Those are weakening our education system, our unions, our wages, and so forth. You know, the social structures that have been in place in this country to better our humanity; the good stuff. Big Girl believed it was a concerted effort of epic proportions on the part of Those. She believed one of the reasons for this was to make the military more attractive and all the other cynical pops we have heard forever since. It was the first time I had heard a view different than that of my peer group, and it has set me apart from them. I became more rebellious. I don't know what Those are up to, but anything that is "kept mostly secret" needs to looked at under the magnifying glass. You know there is more there and I think everyone should be reminded to - look sharp! I am going to start to bring it up in every conversation I have in one way or another. It intrigues me and i want to be a detective, or maybe a spy. __________________ As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons...be cheerful; strive for happiness - Desiderata

03-14-2008, 01:05 PM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, ace, thing is that in other contexts you'd likely be about "accountability" and seem like the sorta feller that thinks the rule of law is at least in some way important. or maybe you are committed to some realpolitik idea, so long as it effects other people, preferably far away...i also imagine that you, like alot of folk, find themselves very committed to the rule of law when you are affected, but that's another matter. anyway, much of the import of the above comes from the pattern you fit it into. i think dc is right and what he says about it is more or less what i was thinking about when i put the op up. i'm a little less blase about the remaining months of this execrable regime because i think they can, and probably will, do more damage. you, ace, seem to not connect it to any pattern. but i just dont understand how it is that this acceptance of opacity at the level of state squares with your free marketeer views in other areas. i just dont get it--do you compartmentalize your political views in such a way that entirely contradictory positions can operate side-by-side? it seems like you'd have to, given your economic positions and your "war on terror" positions--libertarian except when there's a threat, real or imagined, in which case authoritarian. it really makes no sense to me. please explain. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-14-2008, 01:33 PM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Congress proved their idiocy in the recent baseball hearings if you happened to listen to it live. I do not trust them with sensative information, and we do not need more leaky Leahy's. The issue is who do you distrust more, and shockingly I trust the executive branch to have the best interests of the country at heart. I know I'm silly like that, not hating our system and all. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.