The Book, Spy Watching Intelligence Accountability in the United States, by Loch K. Johnson, is just what America needs now that much of our country is becoming keenly aware of how out-of-control our Intelligence Agencies are. Chapter 12, in particular, should help provoke the kind of discussion we need about increasing Accountability in our Intelligence Agencies. Below are some notes I took in reading the chapter.
We looked at our intelligence operations as having a special status apart from checks and balances required of the rest of government. COINTELPRO and other abuses indicated this was misguided.
There have been steps forward in oversight – Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 – followed by backsliding.
Poor quality of intelligence briefings to intelligence committees with, at times, efforts to mislead.
“…lawmakers only know about intelligence activities to the extent that the president and the attorney general, plus the DNI, the D/CIA, and other intelligence agency managers, keep them informed.” - “this basic requirement is often absent” – with “evasiveness and stonewalling” in its stead along with refusal to testify before relevant committees, lying, misleading and all manner of obstructionism.
“Open lines of communication between intelligence overseers and the nation’s spy leaders – especially, the DNI, D/CIA, D/FBI, and D/NSA – are of utmost importance for effective accountability."
“…both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have tried to turn the Gang of Eight rule – meant to apply only in emergencies – into the normal reporting requirement, informing only eight lawmakers (if that many) instead of the required full memberships of “ the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
What works best - All important intelligence activities should be reviewed 37 members of intelligence committees and their staffs as prescribed by the Intelligence oversight Act of 1980.
There is a “92 percent delinquency rate” in the Intelligence Community’s prescribed by law reporting to Congress.
Who is Responsible for Reporting to Intelligence Overseers in Congress?
When Should Intelligence Agencies Report to Congress?
“release of classified information (with proper adherence to the procedures of the Senate)"
What Thwarts Adequate Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Activities?
“full responsibility for FISA court oversight could be lodged in SSCI and HPSCI with greater jurisdictional clarity"
“…it would be valuable for both SSCI and HPSCI to have dedicated oversight Subcommittees."
Intelligence Committees should enact charters for each of the intelligence agencies and then “knit them together into one whole.” Agency managers need to understand what society expects of them.
More public hearings by intelligence committees to help “inform a national debate” on intelligence subjects.
“Sensible, too, would be the establishment of a separate Terrorist Targeting Court (or TTC) along the lines of the FISA Court, but dedicated to a review of presidential requests for the targeted killing by drone(or other method) of specific Americans abroad suspected of engaging in terrorist activities against the United States"
“Moreover, the judicial branch will have to improve its FISA Court procedures for the review of warrant requests for intelligence collection operations, with less of an inclination to defer automatically to executive branch attorneys"
Academia has a role in educating the public about intelligence activities.
“…creation of a ‘congressional intelligence office,’” – “’permanent, nonpartisan watchdog modeled after the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office.’” – “It’s job would be to augment SSCI and HPSCI by providing ‘security and vigilance regarding the substantive use and misuses of intelligence, including politicization.’"