Cheney kept CIA program from Congress, source says

[Sqrl]

TheRealMafoo said:

outlawauron said:

TheRealMafoo said:

Sqrl said:
I vehemently disagree with allowing all of congress to be briefed on every aspect of TS/S affairs. There is certainly an oversight and policy requirement but this is balanced against national security issues. And as much as people like to roll there eyes at the scare phrase "National Security" it is naive to think it is always illegitimately used (thus the need for oversight).

As for the article from what I can tell congress was simply not briefed on the program in question right? So why are they claiming th ey were misled (other than their penchant for dramatics)? Not being privy to information is not that same as being given misinformation.

We have thousands of people with very high level clearances. 535 more would not be that much. Plus, these should be the people you trust the most. If not, why the hell did you elect them?

I do think we, as a nation, should do a lot better job electing people with character, but I also think once we do, they should know all the information needed to do there jobs.

I personal think everyone in Washington cares deeply for the US, and would go out of there way to keep us safe. I just argue about there methods and what they think America stands for, but never there dedication to the country.

I disagree vehemently. I do not trust Congress at all. Politicians are corrupt enough as is.

 

I think everyone here knows I don't trust government. But if government is doing something (good or bad), it is the custodians of the government's responsibility to manage it.

 

How do you expect them to do there job, if the don't have all the facts? Plus, I bet things would go a lot different in Washington, if none of them could ever use the excuse "I didn't know".

 

The answer to "I didn't know" in Washington, should always be "It's your responsibility to know. Not good enough".

 

By the way, everyone in congress holds a clearance high enough to be privy to the information we are talking about (I used to as well). The issue is not if they can be trusted, but that information at that level is always on a "need to know" basis. I think they all need to know.

@TheRealMafoo,

Thousands of people with high level clearances? Yes.  Thousands of people with high level clearance and direct knowledge of the majority of our nation's TS/S information? Most definitely not. It's called compartmentalization and is an essential element to protecting sensitive information both in the effort to limit its potential for exposure (particularly in regards to a breadth of information) as well as to restrict the scope of any necessary investigation into a leak.

I would agree we could do better than our current set of elected officials where it concerns character but that really just makes my point that much more important.  But beyond that the issue is that these people do not actually need to know the detailed information about what is going on in order to do their job. That's not to say that high ranking committee members can't have specific information on cases relevant to their committee's current work, but that only in those situations should that detailed info be shared and under no circumstances should the detailed info be shared to the entire congress. Keep in mind that most of these operations have non-TS/S info that all of congress is made aware of but that specific operational, structural, and sensitive policy information is what is classified TS/S.

I would say your view of everyone in washington being genuine in their concern for the nation is fairly naive but there is really no way to tell for sure.  And the fact that there is no way to tell for sure means that we must err on the side of caution when dealing with TS/S information.  More to the point these people are among the largest security risks to TS/S info because they have the exact wrong personality type for a clearance, even with the best of intentions they are high risk.

@outlawauron,

That's the thing, it's not like congress is completely in the dark, there are members from the appropriate comittees (both parties) who are briefed and know what is going on in order to guide policy (where possible), provide oversight, and to provide guidance to members of their party without having to spread detailed information throughout the entireity of congress. 

Having the required clearance is not by itself sufficient reason to be given access and the argument that they "need to know" doesn't apply here as there has to be a specific need for a piece of information in order for it to be shared.  Need to know doesn't apply generally...thats exactly how it doesn't apply actually.  The current state of information sharing is the proper extent of the need to know policy balanced against the need for oversight.