As an ex-intelligence guy, I’m particularly sensitive to intel’s uncomfortable place in American politics. Because the intelligence community is — by design — inherently secretive, it’s an easy punching bag for politicians looking to score cheap points because they know it can’t publicly respond. Who’s at fault for the Christmas Day bombing? Blame the intelligence community! Need to justify a hard line on Iran in the face of a lukewarm 2007 National Intelligence Estimate? Blame the intelligence community! Who should have stopped the Fort Hood tragedy? … I think you know where I’m going.
The point is that though the intelligence community needs continued reform, in each of the above cases, it assumed an undue share of responsibility for each incident.
Naturally, then, I got a bit nervous reading that the Gang of Eight — the group of leading members of Congress who are regularly briefed on sensitive intelligence matters — is about to be widened. It follows that increasing Congress’s access to highly classified national security activities will lead to a greater risk of premature public disclosure for political motives.
However, Gang of Eight disclosure reform was necessary in the wake of the post-9/11 dual domestic eavesdropping and torture scandals. If in those cases the Bush administration had informed a wider congressional audience, perhaps the respective congressional oversight committees could have better done their jobs. Because what’s the point of having oversight if there’s nothing to oversee?
It appears as though this deal, which has been worked out but still needs to be passed in the intelligence authorization bill, strikes the right balance between politics, oversight, and national security. In broad strokes, the president would have to notify both intelligence committees that there had been an intelligence disclosure to the Gang of Eight, and provide the full committees with “general information on the content of the finding.” Of course, the devil is in the details — the White House’s interpretation of “general information” will probably differ from the Hill’s.
Even so, here’s the kicker: any one of the eight (theoretically acting on behalf of another committee member) could register opposition to the proposed intelligence operation with the Director of National Intelligence, thereby (hopefully) preempting unnecessary press disclosures.
The end result should create better oversight that pressures the intelligence community to remain within the law, while removing incentive for Congress to go public. Fingers crossed.
