Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
"The Obama administration says any member of Congress could look at these documents." (June)
What You Should Know About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)
By Ezra Klein
Here’s one takeaway from the NSA revelations: Nobody really trusts the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
The chairs of both committees have aggressively defended the Obama administration. The Obama administration has repeatedly pointed to oversight from Congress. But few seem comforted. And even on the committees themselves, there was considerable dissent. The New York Times today reported on the strange, long campaigns Sens. Mark Udall and Ron Wyden mounted to bring these programs to public attention.
The problem for Udall and Wyden was they couldn’t tell the American people anything about the programs they were worried about. They couldn’t even tell most of their staffs. “Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to have your boss ask you to get reporters to write about something he can’t tell you about?” wrote Jennifer Hoelzer, who served as Wyden’s communications director. So I asked Hoelzer: How effective can the intelligence committees be if they can’t tell anyone what they know? And if no one trusts the intelligence committees to be effective, is their oversight really enough?
<...>
EK: All this would seem to make the intelligence committee very weak as an oversight vehicle.
JH: When things are public, you in the press can conduct oversight. But can you imagine if the administration said we won’t tell you how the Affordable Care Act is working? You just have to trust us? There’d be an uproar. But the intelligence committee is one of the only bodies in government with the authority to conduct oversight over the intelligence world. And since 9/11, there’s an understandable fear that terrorist attacks happen. Nobody wants to have done anything to be responsible for that. Every time TSA says they don’t want to look for knives anymore because it slows them down, no member of Congress wants to be on the record for voting for something that might someday help someone hijack a plane. Because of that fear members of Congress often abdicate their oversight role.
The Obama administration says any member of Congress could look at these documents. Yes, the intelligence committee knew, and members could go into the intelligence committee room and read the documents. But they couldn’t bring staff, they couldn’t take notes, they couldn’t consult outside legal scholars. They could only talk to the government which would, surprise, tell them it was great.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/07/the-intelligence-committee-cant-tell-you-what-theyre-not-telling-you/
By Ezra Klein
Here’s one takeaway from the NSA revelations: Nobody really trusts the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
The chairs of both committees have aggressively defended the Obama administration. The Obama administration has repeatedly pointed to oversight from Congress. But few seem comforted. And even on the committees themselves, there was considerable dissent. The New York Times today reported on the strange, long campaigns Sens. Mark Udall and Ron Wyden mounted to bring these programs to public attention.
The problem for Udall and Wyden was they couldn’t tell the American people anything about the programs they were worried about. They couldn’t even tell most of their staffs. “Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to have your boss ask you to get reporters to write about something he can’t tell you about?” wrote Jennifer Hoelzer, who served as Wyden’s communications director. So I asked Hoelzer: How effective can the intelligence committees be if they can’t tell anyone what they know? And if no one trusts the intelligence committees to be effective, is their oversight really enough?
<...>
EK: All this would seem to make the intelligence committee very weak as an oversight vehicle.
JH: When things are public, you in the press can conduct oversight. But can you imagine if the administration said we won’t tell you how the Affordable Care Act is working? You just have to trust us? There’d be an uproar. But the intelligence committee is one of the only bodies in government with the authority to conduct oversight over the intelligence world. And since 9/11, there’s an understandable fear that terrorist attacks happen. Nobody wants to have done anything to be responsible for that. Every time TSA says they don’t want to look for knives anymore because it slows them down, no member of Congress wants to be on the record for voting for something that might someday help someone hijack a plane. Because of that fear members of Congress often abdicate their oversight role.
The Obama administration says any member of Congress could look at these documents. Yes, the intelligence committee knew, and members could go into the intelligence committee room and read the documents. But they couldn’t bring staff, they couldn’t take notes, they couldn’t consult outside legal scholars. They could only talk to the government which would, surprise, tell them it was great.
- more -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/07/the-intelligence-committee-cant-tell-you-what-theyre-not-telling-you/
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Yes, by administration (and previous administration) design. 
