PDA

View Full Version : Ally Warned Bush on Keeping Spying From Congress



Nickdfresh
07-09-2006, 10:31 AM
July 9, 2006
Ally Warned Bush on Keeping Spying From Congress
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, July 8 — In a sharply worded letter to President Bush in May, an important Congressional ally charged that the administration might have violated the law by failing to inform Congress of some secret intelligence programs and risked losing Republican support on national security matters.

The letter from Representative Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, did not specify the intelligence activities that he believed had been hidden from Congress.

But Mr. Hoekstra, who was briefed on and supported the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program and the Treasury Department's tracking of international banking transactions, clearly was referring to programs that have not been publicly revealed.

Recently, after the harsh criticism from Mr. Hoekstra, intelligence officials have appeared at two closed committee briefings to answer questions from the chairman and other members. The briefings appear to have eased but not erased the concerns of Mr. Hoekstra and other lawmakers about whether the administration is sharing information on all of its intelligence operations.

A copy of the four-page letter dated May 18, which has not been previously disclosed, was obtained by The New York Times.

"I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed," Mr. Hoesktra wrote. "If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies."

He added: "The U.S. Congress simply should not have to play Twenty Questions to get the information that it deserves under our Constitution."

Frederick Jones, a White House spokesman, declined to comment on the concerns raised by Mr. Hoekstra but said that "we will continue to work closely with the chairman and other Congressional leaders on important national security issues."

A spokesman for Mr. Hoekstra, Jamal D. Ware, said he could not discuss the activities allegedly withheld from Congress. But he said that Mr. Hoekstra remained adamant that no intelligence programs could be hidden from oversight committees.

"Chairman Hoekstra has raised these issues with the administration to ensure that the Intelligence Committee is able to conduct its job of oversight," Mr. Ware said. "Intelligence officials have committed to being forthcoming with Congress, and Chairman Hoekstra is going to hold them to their word."

Mr. Hoekstra's blunt letter is evidence of a rift between the White House and House Republican leaders over the administration's perceived indifference to Congressional oversight and input on intelligence matters. Mr. Hoekstra wrote that he had shared his complaints with House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and that the speaker "concurs with my concerns."

A spokesman for Mr. Hastert declined to comment.

The letter appears to have resulted at least in part from the White House's decision, made early in May, to name Gen. Michael V. Hayden to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, with Stephen R. Kappes as his deputy. The letter was sent the day of General Hayden's confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Hoekstra (pronounced HOOK-stra) complained publicly about the choices when they were announced, but his private letter to Mr. Bush was much harsher. He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of a group at the C.I.A. that "intentionally undermined the administration," sends "a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over."

Mr. Hoekstra also expressed concern about the intelligence reorganization under John D. Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, who he said was creating "a large, bureaucratic and hierarchical structure that will be less flexible and agile than our adversaries."

Mr. Hoekstra's views on oversight appear to be shared by some other Intelligence Committee members.

"I think the executive branch has been insufficiently forthcoming on a number of important programs," Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said in an interview. She would not discuss any programs on which the committee had not been briefed, but she said that in the Bush administration, "there's a presumption that if they don't tell anybody, a problem may get better or it will solve itself."

Ms. Wilson said she shared "deep concerns" about the pace and direction of intelligence reforms overseen by Mr. Negroponte's office. "We have some troubled programs," she said.

American intelligence agencies routinely conduct many secret programs, but under the National Security Act, the agencies are required to keep the Congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." Even in the case of especially sensitive covert actions, the law requires briefings for at least the leaders from both parties of the committees and the House and Senate.

As the administration has asserted broad presidential authority to fight terrorism, concerns about Congressional oversight and checks and balances between the branches of government have become increasingly heated. Democrats complained that the administration's failure to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the N.S.A. warrantless eavesdropping, which focuses on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States, was a violation of the National Security law. Some members of Congress said they had been briefed on the Treasury Department's bank monitoring program, which examines international money transfers through a Brussels-based consortium, only after The New York Times began making inquiries in recent months.

But the assertion that other intelligence activities had been hidden from Congress is particularly surprising coming from Mr. Hoekstra, who defended the administration's limited briefings on the N.S.A. program against Democratic criticism.

An official familiar with recent exchanges between the intelligence agencies and the House committee said Friday that General Hayden had twice briefed the full committee and had addressed Mr. Hoekstra's questions about the intelligence activities referred to in the letter. The C.I.A. director promised "a free flow of information," and Mr. Hoekstra, who initially objected to placing a military officer in charge of the C.I.A., said he would work closely with the agency's new leadership.

The official, who spoke of the briefings only when granted anonymity because they were classified, declined to say anything about what the activities were or which agencies they involved.

Officials with both Mr. Negroponte's office and the C.I.A. declined to comment specifically on Mr. Hoekstra's letter. But Carl Kropf, a spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, said that over the past year his office had "engaged in hundreds of briefings, meetings and discussions with Congressional committees."

He added, "We value this dialogue with Congress, and we will continue to provide the committee with the information they need to fulfill their responsibilities."

Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a spokeswoman for General Hayden, said that "the director believes in the important oversight role Congress plays, and he will continue regular and transparent interactions with members."

Since his appointment as committee chairman in August 2004, Mr. Hoekstra has been a critical ally of the White House on intelligence matters. He has supported the administration's most controversial policies, including its treatment of terrorist suspects, and he has balked at Democratic demands for an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. He has defended the legality and necessity of the N.S.A. program and the bank monitoring.

Mr. Hoekstra has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for a crackdown on leaks of classified information to the media, a cause championed by both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

But in recent months, Mr. Hoekstra has begun to express some disaffection. In March, he joined the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman of California, in a public critique of Mr. Negroponte's performance. He criticized intelligence officials for initially resisting his demand that thousands of captured Iraqi documents be posted on the Web. Like other House Republicans, he bristled when Porter J. Goss, a former House colleague, was forced out as C.I.A. director in early May.

Most recently, Mr. Hoekstra strongly criticized a news briefing arranged by Mr. Negroponte's office on an Army report that 500 pre-Gulf War chemical shells had been found scattered around Iraq. On June 29, Mr. Hoekstra, who had said the finding established that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, made public an angry letter to Mr. Negroponte calling the briefing "inaccurate, incomplete and occasionally misleading" and asserting that "attempts were made to downplay the significance of relevant facts."

A spokesman for Mr. Negroponte's office said he had not yet replied to the complaint.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09hoekstra.html?hp&ex=1152504000&en=31d48c61997af2ce&ei=5094&partner=homepage) Company

Ellyllions
07-09-2006, 10:39 AM
One has to wonder if the fact that Congress is so focused on a Political war that they've failed to have a trustworthy reputation. Which, in turn, would stand to reason why they're "left out of the loop" so often...

I mean if it means more to fight the opposing party by telling the press every little secret than it does to get our troops home....

I'm just sayin...

FORD
07-09-2006, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
One has to wonder if the fact that Congress is so focused on a Political war that they've failed to have a trustworthy reputation. Which, in turn, would stand to reason why they're "left out of the loop" so often...

I mean if it means more to fight the opposing party by telling the press every little secret than it does to get our troops home....

I'm just sayin...

Which "opposing party" do you mean? I only see Republicans mentioned in the above article. And that includes Jane Harmon, who couldn't cast a Democratic vote if her life depended on it.

Which it might if someone doesn't put a stop to this lawless regime. Even the right wing extremists like Hoekstra are starting to see the reality.

Ellyllions
07-09-2006, 01:55 PM
I mean both parties telling the press Classified information to get brownie points for their own political gain.

Both sides of the aisle are guilty in this "lawless regime". There are no clean hands in Congress or the Legislation. Just variying degrees of guilty and long-winded arguments over symantecs.

That's why it's so easy to argue Rep. vs. Dem.

I'm telling ya, it's long overdue that the American public got hold of this government and took it back. Neither party is speaking for the good of anyone other than whomever they chum with on Captial Hill.

I've written letters to all of my Representatives and got responses back with common blather. Almost looked like they all were using the same form letter. And I firmly believe that the majority of the press is involved in the political division.

FORD
07-09-2006, 02:28 PM
The majority of the press IS involved, because they are owned by those who directly benefit from the war itself. From defense contractors to CIA fronts to radio networks like Clear Channel, which was literally founded with Bush money.

As far as the so called "classified" information goes, just about EVERYTHING is classified when it comes to these criminals. Except for Valerie Plame's identity, of course. It's not for the security of America, it's to cover their own asses. Because this same gang of criminals have been in power repeatedly since WWII, they have been able to keep records secret long after any precedent which existed before. Again, not in the best interest of the American people, but in the best interests of the Bush Criminal Empire. That's why so much about the Bay of Pigs, JFK's murder, Watergate, and Iran Contra remain unknown, let alone the more recent events.

And yes, the people need to take the government back. Short of violent overthrow though, there has to be a process in doing so. And that process begins by restoring checks and balances to the government. And the only way to do that currently, is to elect a House and Senate that will oppose Bush. It certainly won't solve all the problems, but it will prevent things from getting worse.

Ellyllions
07-09-2006, 03:20 PM
Understand your point and can somewhat agree but I'll put this scenerio out there for consideration...

Family camping. Mom, dad, kids, etc. Wake up one morning and dad is missing. Search the campground and no dad. Contact the Park Rangers...Park Rangers contact local authorities and the search is on.

Later that day, authorities found dad. Drowned in one of the outhouses cess pools on the camp ground. (Family had been relocated to the local authorities station awaiting information) Investigation ensued. Family informed of body found and that he'd drowned...not where. Investigation proved no foul play. Evidence showed that dad had literally broken into the outhouse and crawled into the cess pool willingly. Family still unaware as to where dad drowned. Further investigation showed that dad had a penchant for watching females urinate and defecate. So in essence, authorities believed that dad had snuck out in the middle of the night and crawled into the cess pool to fulfill a sexual desire only to find the hole too deep and dirt walls to slick to crawl back out.

The family was never made aware of the full story of the dad's death. Should they have been? Naw...no child should go through life knowing ALL the deep dark secrets of a parent. Especially one that ended the paren't life.

My point in telling that gross story is that because there are people who have very little common sense or tend to make decisions based solely on emotions...some shit is better left in secret. Especially when it comes to defending and protecting some innocence.

Until it gets to the point where we are being dragged out of our homes and hoarded off to concentration camps or worse yet, being killed in the streets by government officials...I'd say we're not in as much danger as the press would have us believe. Honestly, I can't see one way that my civil rights are being infringed upon even as I type this email on the World Wide Web that has no limitations for me as an American citizen.

In short, the press needs to rethink it's position before we all turn a blind eye to their bullshit and start trusting the National Enquirer for a reliable story.

Nickdfresh
07-09-2006, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
I mean both parties telling the press Classified information to get brownie points for their own political gain.

That's clearly not what's happening. There is a reason that the Intelligence Committee exists in the House, to monitor and to insure checks and balances to prevent scofflaw regimes from doing whatever they what...


Both sides of the aisle are guilty in this "lawless regime". There are no clean hands in Congress or the Legislation. Just variying degrees of guilty and long-winded arguments over symantecs.

That's why it's so easy to argue Rep. vs. Dem.


But who has been in control of the Gov't lately?


I'm telling ya, it's long overdue that the American public got hold of this government and took it back. Neither party is speaking for the good of anyone other than whomever they chum with on Captial Hill.

I've written letters to all of my Representatives and got responses back with common blather. Almost looked like they all were using the same form letter. And I firmly believe that the majority of the press is involved in the political division.

Careful, they might get a "National Security" Letter and begin to check into your background under the Patriot Act©. Hell, someday maybe they'll just have to label you a 'terra-ist' with no evidence so they can whisk you away to a foreign prison outside of US law jurisdiction...

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

Ellyllions
07-09-2006, 04:26 PM
eh, I ain't skeered...I know who I is, and who I ain't...

: )

LoungeMachine
07-10-2006, 02:28 AM
I thought Nick was speaking of Ally_Kat.

I know she has clout, but damn........