On intelligence legislation, Congress flies blind

After 9/11 intelligence failures, pre-war intelligence failures on Iraq, and revelations about intelligence officials conducting legally-dubious spying on Americans, Congress was going to be more diligent in its oversight. At least that was the plan.

In reality, lawmakers are not only failing to be more rigorous, they’re not even reading intelligence bills before voting on them.

Nearly all members of the House of Representatives opted out of a chance to read this year’s classified intelligence bill, and then voted on secret provisions they knew almost nothing about.

The bill, which passed by 327 to 96 in April, authorized the Bush administration’s plans for fighting the war on terrorism. Many members say they faced an untenable choice: Either consent to a review process so secretive that they could never mention anything about it in House debates, under the threat of prosecution, or vote on classified provisions they knew nothing about.

Most chose to know nothing.

This wasn’t an isolated incident. The Boston Globe found that most members of the House concede that they “typically don’t read the classified parts of intelligence bills.” The result is a situation in which most lawmakers don’t know the operations they’re approving, and have no idea what the operations are going to cost.

It’s not entirely Congress’ fault. Lawmakers are flying blind because the Bush administration leaves them little choice.

The trick of it is, the administration decides what lawmakers can know, and lawmakers aren’t allowed to challenge or question it. What’s more, if they have a problem with an intelligence-related proposal, lawmakers aren’t even permitted to talk about it.

The rules make open debate on intelligence policy and funding nearly impossible, lawmakers say. While members of Congress said they understood the need for some secrecy, many complained that the administration stamped as “classified” information that should be subject to public debate.

“We ought to be doing a better job of oversight, [but] if you’re not going to be able to question it or challenge it, that makes it difficult,” said Representative Walter Jones , a North Carolina Republican.

The failure of individual members to read the bills or attend briefings puts a far greater onus on the House and Senate intelligence committees’ reviews of secret programs.

But committee members in both parties say the administration gives them too little information, and sometimes waits until a program is about to be leaked before sharing it with the panels.

“Is the administration giving us everything we want or need? Of course not,” said Representative William “Mac” Thornberry , Republican of Texas and chairman of the oversight subcommittee of the House Intelligence Committee, echoing complaints by fellow lawmakers.

The result is a legislative dynamic in which most members of Congress, quite literally, have no idea what they’re voting on when it comes to intelligence legislation. “In the Eastern religion of Taoism they say that those who speak do not know, and those who know do not speak. That sort of characterizes the situation we face,” said Steven Aftergood , director of the Project on Government Secrecy of the Federation of American Scientists.

Congress can just trust the Bush administration to do the right thing, right?

“Congress can just trust the Bush administration to do the right thing, right?” – CB

Ah, NO!

Well, this is literally scary. Can you imagine a congressman not on the intelligence committee cornering one who is and asking “Don’t tell me what’s in it, but can I vote for this bill?”.

Sad way to run a democracy.

  • Congress can just trust the Bush administration to do the right thing, right?

    So, who’s driving the bus? Congress doesn’t read the laws it enacts while the president doesn’t read anything. What are they using to draft these laws? A Ouiji Board?

  • “What are they using to draft these laws?” – JoeW

    General Michael V. Hayden’s personal posse of NSA second rate lawyers.

  • Doesn’t sound like 8th grade civics (“How a bill becomes a law”) to me. Doesn’t even sound like Otto von Bismark (“There are two things you don’t want to see being made—sausage and legislation”). Sounds more like the Inquisitions of the Roman Catholic Church (1184-1834) or England’s Star Chamber (1487-1641) or Stalin’s Kremlin in the 1930s.

    I’m amazed our Solons put up with such Un-American crap. Have they no sense of decency? not even any personal pride? I just lost whatever shred of respect I had for any of them. Cowards and weasels all.

  • Why do they not just go on strike??? Why are they going along with this utterly unconstitutional crap? Could things be any worse if democrats just refused to participate??

    Sickening.

  • So if the Dems take over in this next cycle, can they vote no to all of it, until a package arrives that they can discuss & debate?

    This is not democracy.

    On a side note, does anyone remember when the whole country was a “1st Amendment zone?”

  • > After 9/11 intelligence failures

    You’ve been framed.

    The administration chose to ignore explicit warnings by the intelligence
    community. After the fact, it scapegoated the community for its own
    (the administration’s) feckless blindness.

    Any discussion that begins with “9/11 intelligence failures” implicitly
    buys into the administration’s self-exonerating pravda.

  • ***Many members say they faced an untenable choice: Either consent to a review process so secretive that they could never mention anything about it in House debates, under the threat of prosecution, or vote on classified provisions they knew nothing about.***

    So, it’s either “consent to our double-secret-probation review process” or “vote FOR the provisions?”

    Um…has the House of Representatives ever heard of “The Reagan Option?”

    “Just Say No, Nancy. Just Say No….”

  • Just be a Reagan: “Don’t worry, be happy.” What you don’t know won’t hurt you. The light in the tunnel is a reflection off your appendix.

  • Even with the options as they have been explained, how are these items voted “yes” on???? Read it and vote “no” or read it and vote “yes”. Is blinding voting “yes” protecting anyones constitutional rights? How is this even an option? Why does a Rep have to be able to debate/discuss the bill? Why not just vote yes or no on your reading of the bill? Their constituencies would most likely rather hear that they have read it and agreed or disagreed with it than that they voted it into law without reading it. Insanity!! How does anyone in the government sleep at night?

  • #11- I totally agree. This is just another in a long line of pass the buck attempts by the lazy “do nothing Congress”
    to exempt itself from blame when the govt. collapses. They passed the patriot act w/o reading it. How can any of these spineless idiots trust bush to tell them what day it is., he has lied about everything since day one. They should arrest every member of Congress for theft whenever they show up to accept a paycheck.

  • Comments are closed.