House and Senate attempt to widen intelligence-sharing beyond 'gang of eight' opposed by WH

[bigtree]

from Jake Tapper at ABC: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/saying-it-will-put-lives-at-risk-white-house-threatens-to-veto-intelligence-bill-over-transparency-a.html


Saying It Will Put Lives At Risk, White House Threatens to Veto Intelligence Bill Over Transparency and Oversight Issues

Congress is proposing that interrogations of detainees or prisoners in CIA custody be videotaped. The Obama administration says that "conditions as they exist in real-time may not allow for the installation and assembly of video equipment, particularly if hostile forces are active at or near the site of the interrogation.” The administration suggests that some interrogations might be conducted when the detainee is in the hands of a foreign intelligence services or “under austere conditions under which recording is not feasible . . . "

Another section of the bill the Obama administration opposes would require the White House to provide information about covert activities and the "legal authority" under which an intelligence activity is being conducted not merely to the "Gang of Eight" - the Speaker of the House, the House Minority Leader, the Senate Democratic and Republican Leaders, and the top Democrat and top Republican in both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees – but to the full House and Senate Intelligence Committees.

"This new requirement would undermine the President's authority and responsibility to protect sensitive national security information," Orszag wrote.

Congress is also trying to bring the intelligence communities under the oversight of the Government Accountability Office, which the administration opposes.

The president also objects to requiring that three administration positions be confirmed by the Senate: the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, the director of the National Security Agency, and the newly-created Intelligence Community Inspector General. The Obama administration argues that were those positions to becomes ones that require Senate confirmation, “critical national security positions would likely remain unfilled for significant periods of time.

read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/03/saying-it-will-put-lives-at-risk-white-house-threatens-to-veto-intelligence-bill-over-transparency-a.html
________________

I recall that there was an issue with the legislators who were briefed by the Bush administration about WMD's in Iraq (or lack of), and there was credible concern that they withheld critical information which might have cast doubt on the administration's assertions of an Iraqi threat. Congress' action in this instance was an attempt to widen the circle of knowledge about administration-generated intelligence and I agree with them.The reflexive opposition to the provision from the administration is troubling.

The WH opposition to the senate confirmation for the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office, the director of the National Security Agency, and the newly-created Intelligence Community Inspector General, is also troubling.

These agencies receive billions in unaccounted for funds which allows them to dodge congressional accountability for their expenditures and their actions. These agencies should be brought into line with other government intelligence agencies which also handle sensitive information, yet, manage to make themselves subject to our democratic process of accountability.

[FBaggins]

1. Why are you posting two-year-old articles?

Surely this is the Bush administration that they're talking about?

[bigtree]

4. that's pretty funny

and pretty sad.

[Echo In Light]

2. "..billions in unaccounted for funds which allows them to dodge congressional accountability.."

k/r

[tekisui]

3. knr.

[Mari333]

5. ah the promise of a transparent govt, yet another promise flushed

down the toilet of hope and change.

[deminks]

6. Anthrax investigation also .

In the OP article, one of the sections that Orszag calls out in his letter is a call for a new anthrax investigation. He says the Obama administration finds this objectionable.

Another unidentified administration source is telling reporters that Obama will veto the bill if this new investigation is left in.

Transparency is in the eye of the beholder.