Ending the Gang of Eight

This is welcome news:

In a move that could spark another fight with the GOP over CIA intelligence and secrecy, House Dems are quietly preparing to make major changes to the ways the CIA briefs Congress on covert actions, by broadening the pool of members of Congress who will have access to such private briefings, a source familiar with deliberations says.

Dems on the House Intelligence Committee have drafted a new bill that would strip the President of his authority to limit such briefings to the so-called “Gang of Eight” — the leaders of the House and Senate from both parties, and the leaders of the Congressional Intelligence committees — and allow a larger group of members of Congress to attend.

The move, which is being championed internally by House Intel chair Silvestre Reyes, would also compel the CIA to keep a far more detailed record of these briefings, though these details still need to be worked out.

Greg predicts a partisan fight over this. But I’m actually more interested in how the Obama Administration will respond. After all, it has repeatedly defended the Bush Administration’s interpretation that the Executive has fairly unlimited power to decide how to treat classified information and seems to be stonewalling any new legislation limiting state secrets. Eliminating the stupid Gang of Eight rule would be a significant check on the President’s power to limit both the policy and political discussions on its secret programs. It would not surprise me all that much if the Administration opposed this bill–and with Greg’s predicted opposition from Republicans, it would make it hard to override a veto.

Nevertheless, this measure–had it been in place before the Bush Administration–might have limited some of the illegal measures Obama claims to oppose: the Iraq War, warrantless wiretapping, and torture. Eliminating the Gang of Eight brings a very manageable transparency to Executive Branch decisions–the kind of transparency that would do some real good.

So while I look forward to a bunch of hypocritical whining from Republicans about this, I’m much more interested in what response it elicits from the Obama Administration.

image_print
27 replies
  1. dakine01 says:

    At a minimum – a MINIMUM, ALL members of the Intel committees for both the House and Senate plus the Speaker, President Pro-tem, Majority/Minority leaders and whips of both the House and Senate.

  2. WilliamOckham says:

    I wonder if this will make through the Senate. The Senate Dems much less likely to take on the IC than the House Dems.

  3. BoxTurtle says:

    I predict a congress/whitehouse fight, not a partisan fight. We’ll find out who Obama’s congressional tools are for sure with this, they’ll likely be the only supporters.

    Boxturtle (Bet Holy Joe leads the fight against this)

  4. emptywheel says:

    WO

    I’ll bet it makes it through SSCI, in any case. DiFi’s making similar complaints (after all, she’s investigating their own briefing on torture). Plus, SSCI is amazingly loaded up with real fighters: Feingold, Whitehouse, Levin (ex oficio), and Wyden. Plus, Jello Jay seems pissed about the non-briefings he got.

    So I think it may well get through there.

    And we should be welcoming Senator Franken any day now.

    • Arbusto says:

      FiFink is cut from the same cloth as Lieberman and Spector, lots of rhetoric, then acting in another direction, or more likely no action at all. I don’t expect anything from her Committee on torture.

      The way CIA briefs Congress makes the Administration happy as pigs in shit, because they can obfuscate to a fare-thee-well.

      Does the gang of eight get briefed as a group (same material)or separately (potentially different material and/or detail) and does the gang discuss these briefs among themselves (I doubt it)?

  5. Mary says:

    My response elsewhere I’ll put here too.

    It’s like upgrading from a Taurus to a Mercedes before you hand off the keys to a two year old. Until you have someone who is competent to operate the vehicle, it doesn’t matter how nice the vehicle is.

    We had all kinds of legislation after the Church commission – a little something called FISA, and look what happened.

    We also have an explicit written record from CIA acknowledging that they violated the National Secuirty Act with some “Illegal Gang of 4″ approach and MSM has been printing that for years too, without pointing out that it is illegal. If Reyes et al aren’t worried about the violation of law in the Gang of 4 briefings, already not authorized (or the failure to give a covert action finding to the 4 briefed, or the other violations of the NSA) by law, then how is not authorizing a gang of 8 briefing some “fix”?

    Not that there will be one MSM question to Reyes about that – that the schedules the CIA produced have shown that the law, even under the Gang of 8 loophole was violated and everyone has known it for the last years of the BUsh Admin from reports of the “gang of 4″ briefings and Congress under Republicans and Democrats have failed to demand accountability for the existing violations of existing law – so what will “more law” do when Congress is dysfunctional and worthless? Pelosi knew when she moved from Gang of 4 to now unbriefed member of Gang of 8 that the law was being violated – and what happened?

    A nice way to follow up – Rep Reyes, you have now supposedly, with the briefings of the full committees, been briefed on the CIA torture killing in Nov of 2002 — so now that you’ve been briefed, now what? What does it do for the nation and for torture victims and for the rule of law to have had you and the rest of the committee briefed? Just asking.

    • drational says:

      I am with you Mary.

      There is simply no evidence that any law requiring congressional oversight will be ever be followed if the President decides unilaterally it does not need to be.

      The only thing this will do is create a novel fight to distract people from the illegality that has already been done.

    • WilliamOckham says:

      One thing that they could do is put some real teeth into this law. There no penalties for violating the Gang of Eight law. Sure, this is the sort of thing we should impeach the President over, but everybody knows we’re not going to do that. Before you say there were penalties for violating FISA and what good did that do, I’ll say I think that FISA was reasonably successful until the Bush coup. I still have hopes that they’ll be held to account for that. Not expectations, mind you, just hopes.

      • drational says:

        Teeth are no good when the dog won’t bite.
        We are now stuck with the precedent for consequence-free:
        1. Blatant executive disregard of law.
        2. Complete abdication of Congressional oversight responsibility.
        3. Judges who permit circumvention of law (FISA head judge “special tracking”.)
        4. Complicit media.

        WTF good is a new law going to do for us when the executive knows they can violate it without consequences and the overseers don’t really care when it comes down to brass tacks and opinion polls?

        Regardless of whether Obama embraces this or defends the meaningless “Gang of Eight” line, the whole maneuver is just another way to evade having to take account of the past.

  6. alabama says:

    Once briefed, isn’t a member of Congress prohibited, or at least inhibited, from seeking information in public? If so, this is an excellent way to silence members of Congress…

  7. Sara says:

    I don’t think the proposal gets at the true underlying issue here, namely the manner in which any security briefing of a Senator or Congressperson, proper committee or not, can be used to gag or silence a member. Let me just illustrate this with an old story…

    Back in the mid 1970’s, just before the last of the Americans were about to be lifted off the Embassy in Saigon, it suddenly appeared that the Khemer Rouge were on a tear in Cambodia. Congress had already cut deeply into the budget for Vietnam and/or Cambodia, putting Gerald Ford on a very short leash for how to remove American Assets from those countries. But with the sudden success of the Khemer Rouge — Ford suddenly asked for a supplemental to support the then government of Cambodia. If I remember rightly, it was chump change — something like 500 million, but the money wasn’t the object. The point was to release the President from the controls that had been put on his policy by use of the appropriations process.

    At the time, my then Congressperson was Don Fraser, first elected in 1962, and a fairly senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — chair of two subcomittees, including one dealing with the appropriations. Don had been absolutely critical in executing the “get the hell out of nam by taking away or restricting the funds” process that had been successfully executed beginning in 1972. Don had been one of the early congresspersons to oppose the war, by 1966 he was taking leadership in Congress to grow the opposition.

    Anyhow, when the Cambodian matter came up just as we were finally departing Vietnam, a proposal came from the Pentagon and the Ford Administration that the committees in both the House and Senate create a travel group, and go to Cambodia to “see for themselves”. On the House side, Don headed that delegation.

    They departed from DC on a military flight, stopped in San Diego for additional members and fuel, and then left the US bound for Thailand, where they would be shifted to smaller aircraft, and go on to Cambodia. At some point on long leg of the flight, the CIA rep handed around the pre-written secrecy agreements, agreements that treated any and all information provided on the trip as compartmentalized top secret, meaning that the congressional members could not discuss any of it, nor could they confirm or deny anything that might appear in the press about the subjects of the trip. In effect, all members of this Codel (Congressional delegation) were gagged, just at the time the question of the supplemental appropriation was to move up in Congress — and indeed the very reason why they were on the trip in the first place. Of course it so happened that the leadership for defunding the operations in SE Asia in congress were part of this Codel.

    Don liked to tell the story when he was Mayor of Minneapolis. (He was elected mayor in 79, and served for 12 years.) It all happened when Cheney was, along with Rumsfeld, in the inner circle around President Ford, and Fraser always thought it was their brainy idea as to how to shut up the Congressional critics of Vietnam War Policy.

    I don’t know how to clean up a dirty trick like this — but I assume it happens all the time, or at least it did during the Bush/Cheney years. CIA is clearly within it’s rights to place some limits on what a briefed member of congress can say about the content of a briefing, particularly if it is in reference to ongoing operations, sources, methods, etc., — but we need to understand that the system can also be used to gag congressional opposition — and has been used that way. Nothing about letting a broader field of members to be briefed prevents this dirty trick — this gagging of your congressional opposition. The real irony is that so many of the agreements specify not discussing something on the front pages of the Times or Post or what not.

    • bmaz says:

      Why didn’t Fraser refuse to sign and/or be bound by the bogus gag? The worst that happens is they boot him off the trip and he comes back and tells about the experience and makes them look like authoritarian fools.

      • Sara says:

        Fraser called it the worst mistake he made during his Congressional Career. But I suppose he signed because at the time they were at 40 thousand feet over the Pacific, and while Don took lots of principled positions during his career, he wasn’t much for jumping out of planes.

        He got a little revenge in 1977 — it was Don who outed several members of Congress for taking plain envelopes filled with money from the KCIA (Korean CIA) via odd Moonies who showed up on the hill handing out favors, he did the hearings that eventually resulted in the conviction of one of the Korean Lobbysts who was part of the scheme, and lied to congress about the point of handing out cash.

        He also did some very important work outing some agents from Chile who were working against the Chilean Junta resistance in the US — before other agents blew up some from the opposition with a car-bomb in broad daylight on a DC street. A little later, when Don had been elected Mayor, the Chilean agents tried to blow up the house of a professor of Latin American Literature here at the University — with the professor in the house. He was objectionable because he had edited and published a volume of poetry from Junta Resistors. Don flooded the scene with Minneapolis Cops in well marked squad cars, who stayed on duty for months — and kept the reason for it in the paper.

        • Nell says:

          OT: Sara, does Minneapolis have a large or significant population of Chilean exiles/refugees? Your story about Fraser and the professor made the light go on for me about a possible reason why the center for treatment of torture survivors is in the Twin Cities (or nearby).

          • Sara says:

            “OT: Sara, does Minneapolis have a large or significant population of Chilean exiles/refugees? Your story about Fraser and the professor made the light go on for me about a possible reason why the center for treatment of torture survivors is in the Twin Cities (or nearby).”

            No the reason why the center for the treatment of torture survivors is here has to do with former Governor Rudy Perpich’s interests in the first such hospital which was established in Kobenhavn, Denmark in the 1970’s. Rudy served two full terms as Governor, but it was divided by a one term Republican — during which time Rudy converted himself into an international businessman, worked out of Vienna for IBM, and proceeded to wander all over Europe picking up interesting ideas, and suggesting that Minnesota consider doing something similar. It just happened that two mansions along the river, about a block from the medical school and the University Hospitals became vacant while Rudy was out looking for ideas, so he raised the money to convert those into living facilities, and the actual therapy part of the hospital shares space with the rest of the 4 block square massive facility. In fact the mansions were, for many years, the International Student Center (I had an office there once for 3 months) and the Foreign Student Advisor’s offices and all. They got a new facility, and the mansions were restored to former glory, and are now residences for torture survivors. A lot of what they do these days is train staff for various NGO’s that actually run programs in places with recent torture problems. They did a huge program for Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia. They have also trained staff for Afghanistan. Since 9/11 it has been quite difficult to bring many torture survivors to the US for treatment. They have a quite close relationship with the American Refugee Committee, which is headquartered here.

            But the key person in getting the center going was Rudy Perpich. Rudy and his brother George, were second generation Croatians, sons of the Iron Range, sons of hard rock miners, who used the GI Bill to go to Dental School, and set up their dental practice on the Range — and based on their contact with patients, and their family’s role in the United Steel Workers Union, and dedication to the fortunes of the DFL — both brothers were elected to the State Senate (huge margins), and Rudy eventually became President of the Senate, and then Lt. Governor — and when Mondale became VP in 77, the then Governor Wendell Anderson resigned in a deal where Rudy became Governor and appointed Wendy to the US Senate. Wendy did not survive the next election as Minnesotans don’t particularly care for such games. But Rudy survived, and became a true character as Governor. He still did teeth to stay in practice, he used to get away from his State Patrol guards, and drive around in the small towns visiting cafes and talking politics with the locals — at least one day a week, but he also fell in love with Austrian and London Tailors, and became one of the best dressed men in America during his 4 years out of office when he was selling computers in Europe. He was one of the few public figures to predict the fall of the Communist Regimes in E. Europe — his prediction was based entirely on his experience flogging IBM PC’s in Europe.

            In addition to the Hospital for torture victims, Rudy and his wife also imported art schools. We have residential schools at the High School level for Theatre, Dance, graphic and plastic arts, music — etc., all based on the French and Austrian Academy traditions. Rudy’s last brainstorm — which he did not bring to fruition — was to go in with the University in Vienna, buy an old estate (16th century in part) east of Vienna but about where the Czech, Hungarian and Austrian borders come together, to establish an international center to study major world river basins undergoing Global Warming. (That was in the late 80’s — Rudy was a little ahead of his time.) He just thought that with Minnesota having its major University on both banks of the Mississippi — it would be a good fit to grow state leadership in the study of major river basins. Anyhow, Rudy lost his last election over the joke of buying an Austrian Castle. (Evil Republicans with no imagination.) He lost in 1990, and died two or three years later of cancer, which killed him in a matter of weeks after diagnosis. But when Rudy was in his second term, and trying to get the legislature to dream about a Castle on the Danube — I was in Austria, and took an afternoon to search out this castle, and it was fascinating. It was built on a Roman Ruin that was being excavated by Archeologists, and was close to the airport — and within an hour of Vienna. Asking around, I discovered from the caretaker that I was the only person from Minnesota who had ever come to take a look. In the meantime the papers were crucifying Rudy on his desire for an Austrian Castle.

            Maybe you can tell — I rather like progressive office holders who are a little bit colorful. Didn’t vote for him, but I liked Ventura too in the same sort of way.

            By the way, tomorrow, Tuesday, is decision day for the Minnesota Supremes — knock on wood, cross fingers, that they are about finished polishing their awaited opinion.

    • prostratedragon says:

      These are very interesting and enlightening stories about Dan Fraser.

      don’t know how to clean up a dirty trick like this — but I assume it happens all the time, or at least it did during the Bush/Cheney years.

      Aside from pointblank refusal (which as noted can have their, um, pitfalls), I suppose after it’s been pulled once on a person, they could anticipate it publically the next time such a situation comes around: “…and they’ll send me somewhere so I can get all the ‘facts’ —only I won’t even be able to share the ‘facts’ with all of you afterward, my fellow citizens, because they will be secret ‘facts.’ …”

  8. kimocrossman says:

    points well taken regarding enforcement of existing law…:-(

    Nonetheless, with cheap and portable webcams and digital recorders @ Radio Shack, I certainly hope that both are required for any briefing – many closed sessions are recorded in government and I would recommend two technologies be used (maybe one analog and one digital) – to accomodate when someone is unclear on one recording or when the Record button is not pressed on accident.

  9. Mary says:

    @9

    Why do you think FISA was reasonably successful before the coup? I don’t think there were any consequences much to the Townsend/FBI fibbified applicatons to the FISCt before 9/11, other than Lamberth kicking Townsend out of his court once he finally was wised up to what had been going on.

    There was never any oversight mechanism on what NSA was collecting and there are stories of Clinton also having a warrantless interception program for US citizen’s calls in connection with his Latin American drug war efforts – and I don’t think anything much happened with that either.

    We may be thinking down differnt lines, but I’m not seeing the efficacy and in large part it has to do with the reliance of all laws, and in particular laws involving these “secrecy” issues, upon a DOJ that pursues Exec branch criminals.

    You can’t fix any of this with what we have as a Dept of Justice. It’s nothing worth having on this issue, whether you are looking at Ashcroft or Goldsmith or Holder or McNulty or Clement or Kagan or …

    • WilliamOckham says:

      I think it was reasonably effective because of the great decrease in spying on ordinary Americans after FISA was enacted. Yes, there were probably some violations, but the situation was nothing like it was pre-FISA. Laws set a standard of conduct and give decent people the opportunity to resist.

      That’s not to say I think FISA was perfect. I argued at the time that it was a mistake to allow the NSA to continue dragnet surveillance of satellite communications. Most of all, it was a mistake to enshrine that level of secrecy in a court system. You’re right on target when you point out that the main issue is “secrecy”.

      • Mary says:

        I guess my poin on the “great decrease in spying on ordianry Americans” is a “says who” response that goes to the lack of real oversight under FISA.

        Congress knows about the FISA applications made, but not about the spying that took place, whether it was Clinton’s warrantless Latin American program or Bush’s al-Qaeda calling program, unless someone with NSA is more honest than Hayden and has an outlet for that honesty. That’s what doesn’t exist under FISA – oversight of what NSA is actually doing or outlets for honesty.

        Case in point – Tamm is still be persecuted and prosecuted by the Obama administration – decent people didn’t really have an out under FISA and Obama will happily take the gain offered him politically by the sacrifices of whistleblowers, but then crucify them to keep himself enshrined in power and on the right footing with the guys he really wants to schmooze – the Brennans and Kappes and Gates, not the Tagubas and Tamms

        imo ymmv

  10. Mary says:

    @13
    @15

    Both good points. And both indicate that without an enforcement mechanism for Exec crimes involving classified into that is outside the DOJ, you are really up a creek

  11. dustbunny44 says:

    As I read the recaps of the intelligence train wrecks, it’s not just who gets the briefing, it’s what they are allowed to do with the knowledge afterward. I believe Pelosi and/or others argued that they disagreed with what they were told, but because of the secrecy of the information they couldn’t bring it up for discussion anywhere, they couldn’t challenge it.
    Is that an accurate description of part of the problem, and will these changes address that if true?

  12. bmaz says:

    No, I think that is right. And remember, the evidence is that many of the applications (most?) made to FISC were made for programs/investigations/for extended periods of time so the breadth of what went through FISC is really not known (and that is what the knew about).

  13. orionATL says:

    sara

    i appreciate so much this historical background, and the many others you have provided over time. i was thinking recently of you in the midst of reading all this cia discussion, given your interest in the history of the agency.

    history stories of this sort give a problem depth and focus – and serve as a counter to blind “hope” or simple optimism.

Comments are closed.