By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Cheney kept CIA program from Congress, source says

Sqrl on 13 July 2009
Kasz216 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.

If senators traded in our nations secrets we'd find out about it.  Then they'd be screwed.

It's not the trading that I'm most worried about, not that it would be unprecedented.  The biggest risk is carelessness and even plain ignorance of basic protocol. 
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 13 July 2009
Sqrl said:
akuma587 said:

You trust bureaucrats who aren't directly accountable to the voters more?

I'm not sure I would classify CIA agents as bureaucrats but I trust them to keep information secret more than I do the entireity of congress.  More to the point these people aren't given the entire breadth of information but instead agents only have information specific to a specific area and even then only as it is directly relevant to their ongoing work.

So the head of the CIA should not be privy to whatever information he thinks he needs (within the CIA)? Some CIA TS/S stuff, he does not need to know?



Sqrl on 13 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:

@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. 

Give me an example of something that could be classified TS/S, that Congress does not need to know.

I'm not saying that nobody in congress should be allowed to know and that is not how it is currently handled either.  It is that not everyone in congress needs to have specific detailed knowledge of every aspect of our nations TS/S affairs. I can easily think of examples but thats not the point because your question assumes I'm contending something that I'm not. 

Or to put it another way we agree that congress needs to be briefed, but we disagree on how many of them need to be briefed and to what level of detail.  Advocating full briefings to every member is just as insane as advocating no briefings...actually its probably more so.  Information can later be divulged but you can never un-tell or un-leak a piece of information.  Once it's out it's out for good.
To Each Man, Responsibility
TheRealMafoo on 13 July 2009
Sqrl said:

I'm not saying that nobody in congress should be allowed to know and that is not how it is currently handled either.  It is that not everyone in congress needs to have specific detailed knowledge of every aspect of our nations TS/S affairs. I can easily think of examples but thats not the point because your question assumes I'm contending something that I'm not. 

Or to put it another way we agree that congress needs to be briefed, but we disagree on how many of them need to be briefed and to what level of detail.  Advocating full briefings to every member is just as insane as advocating no briefings...actually its probably more so.  Information can later be divulged but you can never un-tell or un-leak a piece of information.  Once it's out it's out for good.

I would agree with you if we voted that way.

if congress was setup so only 10 people voted on things related to the CIA, then only 10 people would need to know. But all 535 vote on these things.

In a country with 300 million people, reducing the number who need to know to to 535 seems pretty damn secure to me.

And I am not saying they need to know everything. I mean they don't need to know the names of all the people who are agents. But they might need to know what those people did, so they can decide to vote on if they should be allowed to continued to do it.



Sqrl on 13 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:

I'm not saying that nobody in congress should be allowed to know and that is not how it is currently handled either.  It is that not everyone in congress needs to have specific detailed knowledge of every aspect of our nations TS/S affairs. I can easily think of examples but thats not the point because your question assumes I'm contending something that I'm not. 

Or to put it another way we agree that congress needs to be briefed, but we disagree on how many of them need to be briefed and to what level of detail.  Advocating full briefings to every member is just as insane as advocating no briefings...actually its probably more so.  Information can later be divulged but you can never un-tell or un-leak a piece of information.  Once it's out it's out for good.

I would agree with you if we voted that way.

if congress was setup so only 10 people voted on things related to the CIA, then only 10 people would need to know. But all 535 vote on these things.

In a country with 300 million people, reducing the number who need to know to to 535 seems pretty damn secure to me.

And I am not saying they need to know everything. I mean they don't need to know the names of all the people who are agents. But they might need to know what those people did, so they can decide to vote on if they should be allowed to continued to do it.

The policy-shaping vote actually does occur on that small-scale level in the comittees. 

Come on now, the size of the country is irrelevant, we both know it only takes one.  The thing is that those 535 congressmen are only the start as we add in the aides who are the ones who actually do the work (and in many cases even sit in briefings already).  We are talking about over 1000 new people. Briefing even 100 people is a sizeable exposure for a single sensitive piece of information, several hundred or even a thousand gaining access to the breadth of our intelligence information is the exact opposite of secure..it is a massive security weakness and would require a massive increase in security around all of the people being briefed.  It's an all-around terrible idea to fully brief everyone, both for the integirty of the information divulged and the safety of the individuals briefed.  Even if we were going to enact this plan the program itself would have to be classified TS.

Now you need to realize that the vast majority of sensitive information reviewed currently is given the 'OK' and moved passed very quickly.  When a specific policy issue is raised in a briefing more people can be, and typically are, brought in as necessary.  Even then the detail is restricted by relevance to the specific policy issues they are addressing on a strict as-needed basis. This is "need to know" in action.  Only a handful of people need to know in order to raise the issue and from there things progress slowly to keep information exposure to a minimum while allowing those who truly need to know ..to know. 

 

 

 

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
TheRealMafoo on 13 July 2009
Sqrl said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:

I'm not saying that nobody in congress should be allowed to know and that is not how it is currently handled either.  It is that not everyone in congress needs to have specific detailed knowledge of every aspect of our nations TS/S affairs. I can easily think of examples but thats not the point because your question assumes I'm contending something that I'm not. 

Or to put it another way we agree that congress needs to be briefed, but we disagree on how many of them need to be briefed and to what level of detail.  Advocating full briefings to every member is just as insane as advocating no briefings...actually its probably more so.  Information can later be divulged but you can never un-tell or un-leak a piece of information.  Once it's out it's out for good.

I would agree with you if we voted that way.

if congress was setup so only 10 people voted on things related to the CIA, then only 10 people would need to know. But all 535 vote on these things.

In a country with 300 million people, reducing the number who need to know to to 535 seems pretty damn secure to me.

And I am not saying they need to know everything. I mean they don't need to know the names of all the people who are agents. But they might need to know what those people did, so they can decide to vote on if they should be allowed to continued to do it.

The policy-shaping vote actually does occur on that small-scale level in the comittees. 

Come on now, the size of the country is irrelevant, we both know it only takes one.  The thing is that those 535 congressmen are only the start as we add in the aides who are the ones who actually do the work (and in many cases even sit in briefings already).  We are talking about over 1000 new people. Briefing even 100 people is a sizeable exposure for a single sensitive piece of information, several hundred or even a thousand gaining access to the breadth of our intelligence information is the exact opposite of secure..it is a massive security weakness and would require a massive increase in security around all of the people being briefed.  It's an all-around terrible idea to fully brief everyone, both for the integirty of the information divulged and the safety of the individuals briefed.  Even if we were going to enact this plan the program itself would have to be classified TS.

Now you need to realize that the vast majority of sensitive information reviewed currently is given the 'OK' and moved passed very quickly.  When a specific policy issue is raised in a briefing more people can be, and typically are, brought in as necessary.  Even then the detail is restricted by relevance to the specific policy issues they are addressing on a strict as-needed basis. This is "need to know" in action.  Only a handful of people need to know in order to raise the issue and from there things progress slowly to keep information exposure to a minimum while allowing those who truly need to know ..to know. 

 

The concept of aides is not really part of it in my opinion. Only congress, get briefed, and if they tell there aid, they break the law, just the same as if they told anyone else.

And most of what we care about as a country getting out, would never get to congress. I don't think they care what the formula is for the B2 bomber, how directed energy weapons work, or what Obama is going to eat for dinner.

Things like this story however, they should know about.



Sqrl on 13 July 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Sqrl said:

I'm not saying that nobody in congress should be allowed to know and that is not how it is currently handled either.  It is that not everyone in congress needs to have specific detailed knowledge of every aspect of our nations TS/S affairs. I can easily think of examples but thats not the point because your question assumes I'm contending something that I'm not. 

Or to put it another way we agree that congress needs to be briefed, but we disagree on how many of them need to be briefed and to what level of detail.  Advocating full briefings to every member is just as insane as advocating no briefings...actually its probably more so.  Information can later be divulged but you can never un-tell or un-leak a piece of information.  Once it's out it's out for good.

I would agree with you if we voted that way.

if congress was setup so only 10 people voted on things related to the CIA, then only 10 people would need to know. But all 535 vote on these things.

In a country with 300 million people, reducing the number who need to know to to 535 seems pretty damn secure to me.

And I am not saying they need to know everything. I mean they don't need to know the names of all the people who are agents. But they might need to know what those people did, so they can decide to vote on if they should be allowed to continued to do it.

The policy-shaping vote actually does occur on that small-scale level in the comittees. 

Come on now, the size of the country is irrelevant, we both know it only takes one.  The thing is that those 535 congressmen are only the start as we add in the aides who are the ones who actually do the work (and in many cases even sit in briefings already).  We are talking about over 1000 new people. Briefing even 100 people is a sizeable exposure for a single sensitive piece of information, several hundred or even a thousand gaining access to the breadth of our intelligence information is the exact opposite of secure..it is a massive security weakness and would require a massive increase in security around all of the people being briefed.  It's an all-around terrible idea to fully brief everyone, both for the integirty of the information divulged and the safety of the individuals briefed.  Even if we were going to enact this plan the program itself would have to be classified TS.

Now you need to realize that the vast majority of sensitive information reviewed currently is given the 'OK' and moved passed very quickly.  When a specific policy issue is raised in a briefing more people can be, and typically are, brought in as necessary.  Even then the detail is restricted by relevance to the specific policy issues they are addressing on a strict as-needed basis. This is "need to know" in action.  Only a handful of people need to know in order to raise the issue and from there things progress slowly to keep information exposure to a minimum while allowing those who truly need to know ..to know. 

 

The concept of aides is not really part of it in my opinion. Only congress, get briefed, and if they tell there aid, they break the law, just the same as if they told anyone else.

And most of what we care about as a country getting out, would never get to congress. I don't think they care what the formula is for the B2 bomber, how directed energy weapons work, or what Obama is going to eat for dinner.

Things like this story however, they should know about.

Go back to the Pelosi VS CIA story a few weeks ago.  Pelosi was letting her aide sit in on briefings in her place.  I was surprised to hear it myself as I would have thought it illegal... but apparently it is fairly common practice.

And the things they care about can be flagged by the committee members and handled through the current process without ever putting the majority of info they don't care about at any uneccessary risk. 
To Each Man, Responsibility
akuma587 on 13 July 2009

Frankly we could use a bit less secrecy in our government. I don't really understand how conservatives can be pro-government keeping secrets from the people. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it, because there is no other way to spell that except big government.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Kasz216 on 13 July 2009
akuma587 said:
Frankly we could use a bit less secrecy in our government. I don't really understand how conservatives can be pro-government keeping secrets from the people. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it, because there is no other way to spell that except big government.

It makes my head hurt how your always talking about conservatives and liberals when the person CURRENTLY fighting for all this secrecy is in fact Obama.

 



Sqrl on 14 July 2009
akuma587 said:
Frankly we could use a bit less secrecy in our government. I don't really understand how conservatives can be pro-government keeping secrets from the people. It makes my head hurt just thinking about it, because there is no other way to spell that except big government.

So are you trying to say that you can't be against Big Government and for a strong Military?

It's called a nuanced position.  Something liberals are very quick to paint as a positive for their own candidates (ala Obama) but disengously mock when held by an opponent.

You and I both know that in the process of providing security for the Nation some secrets are required. We can debate what qualifies to be a secret all day long but don't stand there and claim there is some sort of conflict in thinking based on what is a disengously superficial appraisal. Conservatives have always been against government intrusions but not against strong national defense. Just because the two areas overlap and require the nuances of each position to be sorted out doesn't mean they are being disengenous in their beliefs or even that they all agree on where one ends and the other begins.

Now for the record I do agree there can and should be less secrets but I don't think military and intelligence operations are where the majority of that problem comes from.  Most of the problem exists behind closed doors in congress and in other various government agencies and entities, and it exists on both sides.

 

 
To Each Man, Responsibility