Daily Kos

The gutting of the Intelligence Oversight Board

Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:49:30 AM PDT

George Bush's Feb. 29 Executive Order is quite obviously another important step in his project to dismantle the oversight of intelligence activities, especially the oversight mechanisms instituted as a result of the Church Committee hearings in the 1970s. The Executive Order essentially neutered the Intelligence Oversight Board, which previously had considerable powers to expose illegal intelligence activities.

The EO has been discussed extensively on-line (see here and here). Yet the traditional media has all but ignored the story until now. On Monday, for example, Peter Baker referred to it as "a little-noticed executive order" without however taking the trouble to describe what it actually entailed. And that's the only time a Washington Post reporter has so much as mentioned the EO. The near silence of the traditional media has been overwhelming.

So today's report in the Boston Globe by Charlie Savage is welcome. In fact, Savage provides considerable background on the issues, describing the most important ways in which Bush's Executive Order hollows out the IOB; the historical background to the Board's creation under Gerald Ford; and the series of steps George Bush has taken to undermine the intelligence oversight reforms instituted during the 1970s.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., the former chief counsel to the Senate committee that undertook the 1975-76 investigation into intelligence abuses, said that by rolling back the post-Watergate reforms, the Bush administration had made intelligence abuses more likely to occur.

"What the Bush administration has systematically done is to try to limit both internal oversight - things like the Intelligence Oversight Board - and effective external oversight by the Congress," Schwarz said, adding, "It's profoundly disappointing if you understand American history, and it's profoundly harmful to the United States."

Savage also provides us, finally, with a White House response to the charge that it has just neutralized the IOB's ability to blow the whistle on illegal intelligence activities. And the WH justification turns out to be a duesie:

But Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman, denied that the order reduced the authority and independence of the panel.

Fratto pointed to a federal statute that makes it a general duty of all government officials to report lawbreaking to the Justice Department. Because of this, he said, there is still a "widely understood background presumption" that the board can contact the attorney general even though Bush deleted the authority to make criminal referrals from its list of core responsibilities.

Yes indeed, George Bush eliminated an explicit provision (under the previous EO) requiring the IOB to report violations of the law to the Attorney General because there's nothing in the new Executive Order actually prohibiting the IOB from blowing the whistle. That's really just as good, isn't it?

  • ::

Tags: Intelligence Oversight Board, Charlie Savage (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 35 comments

  •  That's like saying . . . (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Overseas, moosely2006, JML9999

    . . . even if we overturn Roe v. Wade, you can always have a back-alley abortion. . . .

    @#%_@%ing morons.

  •  Ignorance is bliss, except (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Overseas, moosely2006, JML9999, oyibo

    in this case where it is bullshit.

    Everybody eats, nobody hits.

    by upperleftedge on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:53:17 AM PDT

  •  That's "imperial order", not executive (6+ / 0-)

    You know, from The King.

    The King can do whatever he wants.  

    What happened to America?  Where'd it go?

    Dude, who stole the Constitution?

  •  Already Seeing abuses (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    ER Doc, moosely2006

    Saying the Iraq "Surge" worked is like saying Thelma & Louise had a flying car.

    by JML9999 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:55:10 AM PDT

  •  F.A.O. Schwarz, like the toy store? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, upperleftedge, ER Doc

    Any relation? If not, I think I'd change my name.

  •  I dunno about this, sure am ready for the movie (1+ / 0-)

    about John Adams though.

    Reminds me of going to google Ron Paul after walking across my kid's campus.

    "OUR time has come. Our MOVEMENT is real. CHANGE is coming to America" - Sen. Barack Obama, Super Tues. night

    by tmeyer on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:58:42 AM PDT

  •  Nothing to see here, (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    CParis

    move along, move along.

  •  We need progressive broadcast networks (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    CParis

    with fully-funded news organizations so that stories like this are front-paged and lead the evening news.

    The way it is now, Bush vetoes an anti-torture bill and all we hear about is that a Governor got a little on the side.

    Priority one next year is to unfetter the media!

    Change the media ownership laws and reinstate the Fairness Doctrine

    by moosely2006 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 09:59:34 AM PDT

  •  s/Bush/Cheney/g (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    moosely2006

    Why anyone would suggest the junior has anything to do with this is a mystery. This is just another step in Cheney & co.s project to roll back everything that was gained post-Nixon.

    "They're telling us something we don't understand"
    General Charles de Gaulle, Mai '68

    by subtropolis on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:00:09 AM PDT

  •  Whether a requirement to blow the whistle (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    AllanTBG

    exists or not can make a difference in whether an individual is covered by whistleblower protections. The IOB is not paid, but potentially the Board's activities include paid workers.

    Paid workers who blog the whistle have been denied protection from retaliation if reporting the wrongdoing was a requirement of their work.

    •  Just out of curiosity (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Overseas, Deep Harm

      Has any whistleblower ever done well by himself? It seems most whistleblowers not only lose their positions but their careers and professions as well as livelihoods.
      In some cases, I have seen attorneys advise clients against whistleblowing simply because of the incredible risk of blowback.

      •  Rare as hen's teeth (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE, kurt

        ...if one considers only those whose whistleblowing went public.

        The answer depends, too, on how you define "done well by himself."  Martin Luther blew the whistle on his church and sparked a religious revolution that changed the world. After years of retaliaiton, Dutch whistleblower Paul Van Buitenen, forced the resignation of the entire  European Commission, was knighted by Queen Beatrix and later won election to the European Parliament.  Reportedly, he's still giving the Commission heartburn.

        Although most whistleblowers appear to lose out financially, I think many would admit that they have a different standard of "success" than those around them.

  •  From his first day in office.... (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    smintheus, Overseas, CParis, kurt, pelagicray

    He has gutted virtually every law, procedure, judgment , or oversight that took great effort to put into place.  Within hours of his inauguration, he relaxed the rules on arsenic content in drinking water. He has virtually dismantled "...of the people, by the people and for the people..." every waking hour since.

    What a great sigh of relief when a non-sociopathic adult takes over the office and this band of gangsters is gone.

    "Act as if what you do makes a difference. It does." -- William James

    by AllanTBG on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:03:24 AM PDT

    •  1st order of business for President BarackHillary (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      smintheus, AllanTBG

      is to rescind all of Shrub's BS executive orders. That will keep the new WH busy for a week tracking down all of the crap Bu$h larded into these orders.

      What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is. ~ Dan Quayle

      by CParis on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I figured that once we gave them license to (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    smintheus, kurt, AllanTBG

    torture, the next thing we needed was less oversight.

  •  So? What is new? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    smintheus, kurt

    This is a part of an across the board assumption of Executive power over law--a lawless Executive. Exactly what the founders created impeachment and removal to cure. That makes it all the more distressing that a dishonorable minority, composed of Republican's putting the party and their president before their oath to uphold the Constitution, block realistic impeachment and removal.

    Other recent examples:

    Mystery Loophole Wouldn't Require Reporting Fraud While Abroad:

    Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher originally requested the new rule last May to "require that contractors establish and maintain internal controls to detect and prevent fraud in their contracts, and that they notify contracting officers without delay whenever they become aware of a contract overpayment or fraud, rather than wait for its discovery by the government." Such controls, which would apply to contracts worth more than $5 million, would affect almost all contracts, regardless of location.

    But somewhere along the line the language was changed, and in November the proposed rule was published with the exemption.

    The Justice Department wrote the OMB a letter in January asking that the exemption be removed.

    So, the organ of the White House OMB exempted overseas contracts from what the Justice Department was to require. Yep, the business plan being executed in GWOT must be protected from FAR clauses that might require some self exposure.

    In Ozone Rules Weakened at Bush's Behest we see see OMB acting again:

    Carol M. Browner, who served as EPA administrator under President Bill Clinton, also encountered objections from the OMB when she established new ozone standards in 1997. In that instance, the president backed the EPA over White House budget officials.

    "We did not allow OMB to push us into a decision we were quite certain was outside the boundaries of the law," Browner said in an interview. The Clean Air Act, she added, creates "a moral and ethical commitment that we're going to let the science tell us what to do."

    Asked for a comment yesterday, EPA spokesman Timothy Lyons said the agency had complied with the Clean Air Act. "The secondary standard we set is fully supported by both the law and the record, and it is the most protective eight-hour standard ever for ozone."

    When asked about Clement's role, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "The White House sought legal advice from the Justice Department and made its decision based on that advice."

    Ah, in the case where Justice pushed for acquisition regulations "that would require U.S. contractors to report waste, fraud or abuse they encounter while doing work for the government" OMB steps in and makes this little inconvenience vanish. In the case where EPA is required by law to base the regulation on science OMB uses the Justice excuse to shelve that legal requirement.

    "Whatever works" is the rule for this gang that supposedly sprang from the "moral absolutist" Republican Party.

    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

    by pelagicray on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:13:56 AM PDT

  •  Intelligence oversight (0+ / 0-)

    Shouldn't Congress be doing that anyway?

  •  Impeach Cheney (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    smintheus, kurt

    All the intel cons, but especially any that involve destroying the Church Committee constraints on Executive abuse of intel, are Cheney's responsibility. All the ways Congress asserted control of imperial presidents after Nixon blew that game by showing his hand, those are the primary targets of Cheney's makeover of government.

    We have to impeach Cheney. He's proven the VP job is the backdoor to tyranny. The next president, and every other, will also have the same (or worse) Cheney Bunker from which to operate an entire secret government over which the visible one is just a mask, a charade.

    Impeach Cheney now. TODAY. While we still can.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:15:38 AM PDT

  •  Referring lawbreakers to the DOJ (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Overseas, pelagicray

    would be like reporting bank and train robberies to the James gang?

  •  Stop Lying About "Maybe" (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    kurt, Patrick B, bornfdup

    Frederick A. O. Schwarz Jr., the former chief counsel to the Senate committee that undertook the 1975-76 investigation into intelligence abuses, said that by rolling back the post-Watergate reforms, the Bush administration had made intelligence abuses more likely to occur.

    They're not "more likely to occur". They're occurring. How does anyone covering the stripping of protections from intel abuses somehow ignore that there's a fight actually raging in the Congress right now over the intel abuses including warrantless wiretapping? Ignore that the FBI blurts out confessions of abusing National Security Letters whenever it's occasionally poked hard enough? Ignore that Bush has been breaking intel control laws any way he pleased, to spy on hundreds of millions of Americans, surely even more foreigners, foreign governments, the UN, political enemies, the Democratic Party, its Congressional members and committee delegations... Everyone.

    How can anyone talk about these unrestrained crimes in the hypothetical, as some abstract risk, when we know it's gone way beyond that, into endless repeated violations of the law, the Constitution, the rights of millions?

    No wonder they're getting away with it.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:20:42 AM PDT

  •  Curious to see.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...if Obama will reinstate...a lot of Nat'l security types with very good press contacts will tell him "No"...from my days of studying the Russell Papers in GA and LBJ papers at Austin, Presidents want to keep as many security operations as close to the vest as possible.

    What the hell's going on out here--Vince Lombardi -6.75/-5.85

    by Patrick B on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM PDT

  •  This is so wrong. I don't know what to say (0+ / 0-)

    except that it is not surprising. Today I hear Bush said soldiers were so lucky to be in a war because it was "romantic" to do so, and a "fantastic experience."

    If barf could kill Bush would be buried under a pile as deep as hades.

    IT TOOK five years, the deaths of 4,100 US soldiers... to make Iraq safe for Exxon. ~ Derrick Z. Jackson

    by Gorette on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 06:19:54 PM PDT

Permalink | 35 comments