« A forgotten incident before the Iranian elections | diachronic's Blog | Mousavi More Dangerous than Gitmo Inmates? »
A promising development in Congress
It seems the Congressional Democrats are going to force the CIA and White House to broaden the scope of oversight over 'secret' programs.
This is excellent- it will (potentially) put Congresspeople on the hook, politically, for what happens secretly and later tumbles out- hence, the Intelligence Committee members have an incentive to constructively monitor proceedings, and can't plead helplessness or ignorance quite so easily.
More broadly, this is the start of a trend I have been waiting for for a long time- the reinstatement of the post-Watergate limits on the executive branch and its array of spy agencies.
Advertisement
"A promising development in Congress."
That is such a bizarre and rare statement, I had to read it twice just to make sure it said what I thought it said.
On this issue, I don't know what increasing the "gang of eight" to the "gang of twelve" or the "gang of "twenty four" really accomplishes if we allow the CIA, or any government agency, to destroy evidence with impunity.
I'm all for transparency but without prosecutorial consequence for criminal actions, all it means is we can better view the government breaking the law, but not have the ability to do anything about it.
And we know that just because what happened over the last eight years has become transparent, it hasn't deterred those who continue to support torture.
June 15, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
To put this in perspective the country is waiting for some real accountability to take place and it is being drug out so that if anyone suggests the statute of limitations just gets run out and isn't that just too bad you might see some of the fury you see in Iran today.
I think it is outrageous for our government to expect us to be so patient on this issue. They should be reporting to us daily on what they are doing about this. I am furious about the snail's pace and little action taking place. The Cheney's aren't on TV as much.. that must mean that they feel that they've distorted the discourse sufficiently in their favor so they can back off. Now, I am even more pissed off!
Without accountability we cannot regain any integrity.
So, this is good news but it seems an important but small thing considering the current abuses that need to be addressed.
June 15, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, just a few thoughts:
The disclosure of secrets to Congress is in itself worse than useless, because it becomes incriminating for Congress to know, for example, that the President is torturing someone, and to do nothing; but the knowledge is itself classified and can't be acted on.
I think the solution is along the lines of FISA, in its intact state (before Obama got his hands on it and colluded with Bush to turn it into a travesty). FISA worked because the judicial power checked the executive, and it is fine that this process was secret; secrecy and lawfulness are no contradiction. So I mean that the Intelligence Committees must be given veto power over the secret activities.
Our secret agencies must satisfy two urgent and necessary conditions: The activities must be secret; and they must express the will of the American people and its commitment to the rule of law. This can only be done if Congress is given the staff, the resources, and the ability to play the same role in our intelligence activities that the courts played with respect to searches and seizures, before Obama and friends destroyed it.
June 15, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is quite so, diachronic. The gang of eight or twenty four or more are charged with oversight. The executive and agencies (DNI, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc.) are required to report to them on every new action and they have input into any programs. They also hold the purse strings and can effectively stop programs regardless of their reasons. But illegal programs can be in no way protected from oversight. When these congressional leaders say their hands are tied by state secrets they're blowing smoke.
If nothing else, any Congressperson for any reason (especially knowlege of illegal or questionable programs) can reveal absolutely anything that is part of their work as a Senator or Rep. without fear of punishment or reprisal. They have immunity in order to preserve the separation of powers. That they chose to applaud these programs instead of opposing them to posture as tough on terrorists is just that- a political choice they make.
Of course, most cases of wrongdoing can be revealed without revealing dangerous secrets or even sent to an independent entity for investigation. But any one of our elected representatives could have made the torture or illegal spying programs, just to take two, public and not have been penalized or injunctioned. All they had to do was say something. That's all.
June 16, 2009 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, political posturing drives what our elected Reps do- they are trying to get reelected, after all.
But it is the cost-benefit ratio to applauding appalling programs that needs to be fixed. There needs to be some inducement for Congress to do its job, to keep the executive in line. The problem is, there doesn't seem to be one.
A signal example is the case of Sen. Frank Church, who conducted the hearings post-Watergate that resulted in the most substantial curtailing of abuse of executive power in the last century. After completing this work, he could not win reelection.
The conclusion apparently was, there's nothing in this kind of work that is of benefit to a legislator.
June 16, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Church was also an early opponent of the Vietnam War. I don't think his committee work had anything to do with his defeat. According to wiki, he ran for presidential nomination and was almost appointed VP by Carter. Republicans targeted him for proposing return of the Panama canal (which Carter would carry out). Reagan's victory was announced early in Church's state causing many Dems to stay home and he lost by less than 1%. I go to lengths to explain this because I really believe that, in spite of push-back and demonization by the opposition, intellectual and political courage is usually rewarded in American politics, especially when on the side of the angels.
June 16, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are right that Church lost because (in part) Dems were demoralized by news of Carter's impending defeat, that is one of those ironies of history, because Church would have done much to mitigate the fallout from the Reagan Administration (which we are still struggling with).
Unfortunate for America too, and for the world.
June 16, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Yes, Church, like many others in and out of politics, was a substantial loss to the civilly-responsible body politic. Political courage is rewarded, but only in the context of a public awareness of what is really going on. There was a post-Watergate blow-back from conservatives and an apathy, a weariness, with confrontaional multicultural interest-group politics.
I remember marching against Reagan's policies (especially FP) and there were many who came out. But it wasn't the same as demonstrations in the late '60s and early '70s. There was little press support (there but without headlines) and little alternative media. Protests seemed to be passive statements, not blatant demands.
Most of America was asleep to what was going on in their name. It may have been 'Morning in America' but America kept the shades down and didn't let the sun shine in. We certainly can't claim ignorance anymore; not with 24/7 media, both established, grassroots, and the WWW free-for-all.
June 17, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink