What the heck is going on down there? Posted by Ken Gude

I fail to understand how the Bush administration could have screwed up its detainee policy so badly. Yes, their record is a long catalog of catastrophic failures, from the grossly flawed strategy in Iraq to the complete indifference during Katrina. But the issue of detaining and interrogating suspected al Qaeda terrorists is different--they cared as much or more about it as they did getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but they gave the job to a whole bunch of Brownies, and they sure have been doin' a heck uva job.

The latest evidence comes from a story in today's Washington Post and a book excerpt that ran in the Guardian last Saturday. The Post story details allegations from Guantanamo detainees that they were forcibly drugged during interrogations, transfers, and to restrain them in their cells. While it seems unlikely (though not impossible) that there was widespread use of drugs during interrogations, the most plausible explanations for the consistent accounts from detainees is that they were given chemical restraints to subdue them and those administering the drugs had no idea what they were doing.

Philippe Sands, in his new book Torture Team, portions of which were re-printed in the Guardian over the weekend, uncovered more stories of mind boggling inexperience and incompetence. Topping the list was the revelation that the source of greatest inspiration during the development of interrogations techniques at Guantanamo was none other than Jack Bauer. Yes, the guy from 24, and no, I am not kidding. The junior staff lawyer responsible for approving the list of techniques told Sands that Bauer "gave people lots of ideas."

The Bush administration believed that interrogating terrorist suspects was so important that bedrock principles which formed the basis of our military culture for decades were "obsolete". The reason why they thought it was so important was that they feared we were all going to die in another al Qaeda attack and information gained from interrogations was in some cases our first and only line of defense. But instead of bringing in experienced interrogators and knowledgeable regional and al Qaeda experts, we got Dr. Quinn and Jack Bauer. This is the nature of my confusion.

Un-tortured past at root of CIA's interrogation problems? Posted by Adam Blickstein

Newly minted national-security correspondent for the newly minted Washington Independent, Spencer Ackerman, has an insightful piece on the CIA’s role in interrogating detainees since 9/11. He examines how the agency’s lack of institutional knowledge on interrogations has, in-part, led to the flaunting of international law and dubious interrogation methods that have been exposed over the past several years. Ackerman also points to how the Bush Administration’s insistence that the CIA take a lead role on interrogations—historically outside the CIA’s purview—has been central to why unlawful and unreliable methods such as waterboarding have been utilized:

Yet, until 9/11, the agency had limited experience with interrogation, and had few people on staff who had even conducted one. Most of the CIA’s experience had involved consulting with partner intelligence agencies on how to torture, …But 9/11 changed all that. Despite having nearly no off-the-shelf experience, the CIA was tasked by President Bush to come up with a     robust interrogation program for the most important al-Qaeda captives. So the agency turned to its partners for assistance in designing its interrogation regimen: Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia—all countries cited by the State Department for using torture—among others. Additionally, as Mark Benjamin has reported for Salon, two psychologists named Bruce Jessen and James Mitchell, who worked as contractors for CIA, helped the agency "reverse-engineer" the military and CIA training on resisting torture for use on detainees. Suddenly, waterboarding, an illegal practice of simulating or in some cases inducing drowning, became an American-administered practice.

Now the big question is why did the Administration direct the CIA to lead interrogations when they had neither the capabilities nor personnel nor experience to do so. Perhaps the fact the agency doesn't fall under the auspices of the Army Field Manual provides at least a partial explanation.

Military and Academe: the Anthropology Question Posted by Lorelei Kelly

There is an important new debate raging right now between academic anthropologists and "in the field" anthropologists who are working to bring more cultural knowledge to the federal government--and to the forces fighting in the field. There are some really great blogs out there discussing this issue. Kings of War is one of them...it is a group out of Kings College in London. Some of the links on this peacebuilding blog and this civil-military blog, too. are really worth bookmarking....

BTW the Reserve Officers Association and the Foreign Policy Research Institute convened a conference on Monday on the state of American civil-military relations---amidst two ongoing wars. The whole webcast will be posted here soon. I watched as much as possible on a broken down old modem at my mom's farm, but look forward to listening to the whole thing soon.

Why is this stuff important for DA readers? Because if we don't assert the need for a long term beneficial policy discussion now, and keep our eyes on the prize of a new strategy for security and a government reformation to deal with it--all the important lessons of the Iraq and Afghanistan war will drown in election 08 rhetoric (Just watch Giuliani ratched up the insanity barometer on national security, I listened to POTUS 08 satellite radio on the long drives in New Mexico this week...and heard one too many of his rants. He seems to insist genuinely on knowing nothing. And I rarely say that about anyone who tries to engage)

That small group of people who work in between politics and policy take note: the civil-military relationship is the cornerstone of US democracy---wither this relationship is wither our governing system. That is why it will benefit all of us who care about both, who sit at this intersection, to get really, really good on these issues. The center-right is already on top of it. So we'll miss out if we don't grab it for ourselves soon.

Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice Posted by Rosa Brooks

Edward Luttwak of CSIS has a piece in this month's Harper's called "Counterinsurgency warfare as military malpractice." Luttwak begins with a critical analysis of the Army's new counterinsurgency field manual, FM 3-24 DRAFT, written by David Petraeus, among others, then moves on apply this to Iraq. He concludes that the new counterinsrgency manual's "prescriptions are in the end of little or no use and amount to a kind of malpractice. All its best methods, all its clever tactics, all the treasure and blood that the United States has been willing to expend, cannot overcome the crippling ambivalence of occupiers who refuse to govern, and their principles and inevitable refusal to out-terrorize the insurgents...."

Read it (it's not available online-- you'll have to buy the magazine! Sorry).

Negroponte: Benched, or Deep Relief? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

I was waiting for The Washington Note to weigh in on what to think about John Negroponte stepping down as Director of National Intelligence to go be Rice's deputy at State.  But Steve Clemons seems to be trapped at some garden spot without a hard drive -- so let's think for ourselves:

Two-word comment:  Systemic Failure.  There's some amusing gossip/inside baseball/Kremlinology on this move, some of which I note below.  But fundamentally, the idea that a holder of the intelligence position could even consider leaving it for a lower-ranking government job suggests to me that the effort to reform how we manage intelligence has, ummm, not yet succeeded.  Something is very wrong if our senior intelligence job is less attractive than being the waterboy for ANY Secretary of State.

Three word comment:  Staying the Course:  Last May, Steve seemed to see Negroponte in his intel position as a key opponent of then-Secretary Rumsfeld.  Interesting that Rumsfeld's departure didn't make Negroponte want to stay/able to stay.  One should conclude, as if there wasn't enough evidence pouring in from other quarters, that this Administration is not planning to change in any fundamental way.   

Gossipy question: Jumped or Pushed?  That's how NPR framed it this morning. Negroponte told C-SPAN just last month that he was in it through this Administration.  I thought I heard someone on NPR say that Negroponte had also clashed with Rice in the past, but perhaps I hallucinated that in a pre-caffeine haze. 

I'll even leave you with a Thursday morning conspiracy theory:  what if this were a preliminary move because Rice is planning to leave State?  I don't expect that myself, but one could see Negroponte, a career foreign service officer, hoping to do a Lawrence Eagleburger and become Secretary briefly at the end of this Administration.   

Tortured Metaphors Posted by Michael Signer

You know that old PR saw about you're losing when you're repeating your opponent's message?  (e.g. "Congressman X defended himself today against allegations that...")  You'd think Tony Snow would know better, but then, really, what's he supposed to do?  This is what he actually said in a press conference yesterday:

"Somehow I think there's this construct in people's minds that we want to restore the rack and start getting people screaming, having their bones crunching," Snow said. "And that's not at all what this is about."

Yes, that's exactly what was in my mind -- "having their bones crunching."  More likely, it's that the Administration is so haunted by how desperately, crazily wrong their whole approach is on torture and the Geneva Conventions, and how utterly they've lost touch with Congress, not to mention mainstream America, that it feels like torture.  Hence the ready metaphors.

This was a big deal yesterday.  Senator McCain has gone out of his way to cozy up to the President, yet he led a very principled charge, along with Senators Warner and Graham, to buck the Administration on their attempt to eviscerate (sorry, to interpret) Article III of the Geneva Conventions.  Amazing.  Even in an election year -- even from the Party that showed no hestitation about staging the original vote three weeks before the 2002 midterm elections -- the Senate leadership saw certain things as beyond the pale.

Answer: in the Watergate Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Question:  Where are the weapons of mass destruction?

This blog is far too high-tone to get into the down and dirty of what seems to have pushed Porter Goss out of the CIA in a big hurry.  But Laura Rozen over at warandpiece has great reporting on the first ripples of implications across the rest of the national security community.  And if you must have the juicy stuff, start with this primer from thinkprogress.

After you've stopped laughing, think about how hard the Iranians are laughing.  That's a real buzz-kill, isn't it? 

Fixing What Isn't Broken Posted by Morton H. Halperin

This week the Senate Judiciary Committee is conducting another round of hearings on the NSA warrantless surveillance program.  I appeared before the committee today (you can read my testimony here) and I applaud Chairman Specter for conducting this series of hearings.

But the very fact that these hearings are required is disturbing.  As I have mentioned in earlier posts, this warrantless program is a clear violation of the law and all surveillance that is needed to protect national security can be effectively pursued under FISA.  It is even more mind-boggling that Congress is discussing granting far reaching new powers to the President in bills drafted by Specter and Senator DeWine.  Until the Bush Administration publicly makes its case as to why it needs additional powers to conduct surveillance, there is little reason to change FISA.  Instead of stretching FISA to accommodate vague power usurpation by the President, the actions of the President and the NSA must be brought within the law.

What NSA Program? Posted by Morton H. Halperin

The Senate Judiciary Committee today held its second hearing on the NSA warrantless surveillance activity.  There is increasing evidence that there is more than one NSA program and that the program(s) not yet discussed publicly are far more extensive than the "terrorist surveillance program" described by the President and the Attorney General.

On the eve of the hearing Senator Specter released a draft of his proposed bill to give the FISA court a role in the process.  Rather than just trying to find a way to have the court rule on the existing program, the proposed bill would authorize a sweeping surveillance program under a general warrant to be issued by the court. NSA would be permitted to intercept millions of phone conversations and other communications of people who came into contact with any foreign power, including even a friendly government.

One can only assume that whoever drafted this text is aware of what is really going on and is seeking to have Congress authorize all of the new NSA programs without the administration ever describing and defending what it is doing. This underscores the need for a full inquiry by the Congress. Congress must also insist that it would not provide any additional authority unless the President agrees to conduct all surveillance under the amended FISA rules.

Answers on Spying? Talk to the Hand... Posted by Lorelei Kelly

VICE CHAIRMAN Rockefeller’s STATEMENT on the SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE’s failure to vote on whether to AUTHORIZE an investigation into the NSA surveillance program  Washington, DC -- Feb 16

Today, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was scheduled to debate and vote on whether to authorize a committee investigation into the legal and operational aspects of the NSA warrantless surveillance program.  Unfortunately, using a procedural maneuver, the Chairman prevented the Vice Chairman from offering and voting on his proposal which outlined key questions before the Committee.   Prior to today’s meeting, all Committee members had an opportunity to review the Vice Chairman’s proposal and the Chairman had assured the Vice Chairman his proposal would be voted on. (Committee Investigation Proposal Attached.) The following is Senator Rockefeller’s statement:

Not Telling the Truth Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Leon Sigal begins his essential book on the government and the press (Reporters and Officials: The Organization and Politics of Newsmaking) by quoting from a high official of the Foreign Office (and I paraphrase):  If you think we lie to the public you are mistaken; but if you think we tell the truth you are equally mistaken.

And so we have the Bush Administration's dealings with what it now refers to as the NSA program which the President has described.  Before the program was revealed in the New York Times, the President and the Attorney General, in discussing the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance, may not have lied, but they certainly did not tell the truth.

No fair-minded listener open to the arguments of each side could reach any conclusion but that they were following the requirements spelled out in FISA.  We now know they were not.

More on FISA Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Michael Signer and I seem to have reached agreement. Progressives need to make clear that they recognize the serious terrorist threat and the need for surveillance; the lawless program needs to be condemned, but we should recognize that there might be a case to permit more surveillance.

Before we can decide that, however, we need to know more about precisely what the administration is doing.  It is now increasingly clear that there are two different programs: One, which administration officials refer to as the program which the President described, and the other, which we still know almost nothing about.

The program which the President described and which General Hayden explained in some detail does not, as he said, involve any new technology or reviewing masses of data for key words  - that is the other program. So first, what more is there to say about the program the President described?

More on NSA and Posner Posted by Michael Signer

This is a response to Mort's response to my discussion of Richard Posner's sort-of defense of the NSA wiretapping.  One of the benefits of the Democracy Arsenal crowd is we have folks like Mort who can write things like the following:

I worked hard to get FISA passed in the 1970s because I believed that the government needed to conduct electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes and that it should be done pursuant to a statute and with the court involved as appropriate.   The Ford and Carter administrations identified four situations in which a warrant should not be necessary (emergency, war for 15 days, certain embassy taps, and testing) and they were all included in the bill.

The most I could say along these lines is that, while in my short pants, I considered the implications of the downfall of a President whose second inauguration occurred in the month of my birth.  Mort concludes:

It is impossible to tell if some additional authority is needed since the administration not only did not ask for, but affirmatively said it did not want it.   If after 9/11 NSA needs more authority under FISA or even some additional emergency warantless authority it should say so and we should have that debate.

We cannot have it until we know what they want.  In the meantime we must insist that the law and the constitution be obeyed.

Well, I agree.  I was citing Judge Posner's argument, really, for the sake of argument.  Obviously, laws can't be broken -- and you don't even have to add the modifier "with impunity."  They just can't be broken.  That's what the rule of law is all about. 

Perhaps even more powerfully, you cannot have the executive branch of government making decisions about when the rule of law applies unilaterally, without judicial review or legislative pre-approval.  It's a gross violation of almost every principle of American constitutionalism.  So, yes, it appears to be against the law.  This may well rise to the level of impeachability.

However.

No Trust? No Effective Government Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Co-Authored with Michael Fuchs

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll reveals that 47% percent of the country does not believe that Bush is “honest and trustworthy,” against 46% that believe he is.   

Forget for a moment that the Bush administration has broken the law by disregarding FISA in its domestic spying program.  The efficacy of government is being threatened because we can no longer believe the administration when it speaks in public.

Effective policies can only be maintained when the public and Congress trust the government.  On Iraq’s WMD, on torture and now on domestic spying, Bush administration officials have been caught lying again and again, eroding that trust. 

Response to Another View Posted by Morton H. Halperin

One would have expected a federal judge to be able to distinguish between what is lawful and what one might want to ask Congress to make lawful if the constitution permits.

I worked hard to get FISA passed in the 1970s because I believed that the government needed to conduct electronic surveillance for intelligence purposes and that it should be done pursuant to a statute and with the court involved as appropriate.   The Ford and Carter administrations identified four situations in which a warrant should not be necessary (emergency, war for 15 days, certain embassy taps, and testing) and they were all included in the bill.

It is impossible to tell if some additional authority is needed since the administration not only did not ask for, but affirmatively said it did not want it.   If after 9/11 NSA needs more authority under FISA or even some additional emergency warantless authority it should say so and we should have that debate.

We cannot have it until we know what they want.  In the meantime we must insist that the law and the constitution be obeyed.

Wiretapping -- Another View Posted by Michael Signer

One gets the feeling of a rising hysteria on both sides of the NSA debate -- yes, Democrats are right that a rule of law has probably been broken, and that legal and political consequences should follow.  This analysis, however, is separate from the issue that unfortunately is the sword upon which the American left is impaling themselves again and again -- a failure to evince sufficient conviction on most matters of national security and homeland protection. 

On the other hand, the President's audacious Rove-led political offensive of the last week or so affirms, as always, the essential shamelessness of this team's willingness to politicize issues of national security.  Not only does politics not stop at the water's edge -- it takes over the entire ocean, as we saw when they staged the Iraq vote three weeks before the 2002 midterm elections.   

Politics or Security? Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Of all the ways in which the Bush administration's actions actually reduce American security, none is more dangerous or more irresponsible then its effort to turn legitimate debates about how to combat terrorism into political campaign issues.

Starting with the Patriot Act right after 9/11 and continuing with its belated support of a Homeland Security Department and now with its response to reports of warrantless NSA surveillance,  President Bush has allowed Karl Rove to set the tone and to use the issue to attack Democrats rather than to seek a consensus about how to deal with terrorist threats while protecting civil liberties.

The administration response to the New York Times account of the NSA warrantless surveillance program is a textbook case of irresponsible behavior.  After conducting the program in secret, the President lashed out at the Times for publishing the story. He first said that any debate would harm national security.  Now he says he welcomes a debate.  He asserts that he only wants to listen to al Qaeda talking to Americans and his critics object to that.

This is of course total nonsense.

Why Not Just Pass a Bill? Posted by Michael Signer

Kevin Drum reasons through the Administration's current rationale for the NSA program and finds it unpersuasive, to say the least:

Administration apologists have argued that the White House couldn't seek congressional approval for this program because it utilized super advanced technology that we couldn't risk exposing to al-Qaeda. Even in secret session, they've suggested, Congress is a sieve and the bad guys would have found out what we were up to.

But now we know that's not true. This was just ordinary call monitoring, according to General Hayden, and the only problem was that both FISA and the attorney general required a standard of evidence they couldn't meet before issuing a warrant. In other words, the only change necessary to make this program legal was an amendment to FISA modifying the circumstances necessary to issue certain kinds of warrants. This would have tipped off terrorists to nothing.

So why didn't they ask Congress for that change? It certainly would have passed easily. The Patriot Act passed 99-1, after all. Hell, based on what I know about the program, I probably would have voted to approve it as long as it had some reasonable boundaries.

So there must be more to this.  But what?

Can anyone say "unitary executive"?

Scare Tactics Posted by Michael Signer

On the President's claim that disclosure of the NSA's domestic spying hurts national security, I couldn't agree more with Atrios:

No one has yet managed to explain how revealing that the administration illegally spies on American citizens without obtaining warrants, instead of legally spying on people after obtaining such warrants, damages national security.

I'm less disturbed by the blunt-object nature of the President's claim than by the notion that the tortured logic hasn't raised more ire, more outrage.  You CANNOT use fear this overtly as a tactic to suppress valid inquiry about governmental practices vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights. 

Libertarians RIP Posted by Lorelei Kelly

With all the discontent among conservatives--and among Republicans on Capitol Hill--you would think that libertarians would feel emboldened to take a stand for the rule of law and excoriate the administration's domestic surveillance policy that allows listening in on Americans' phone conversations.  Libertarians have provided a key ally to the right over the past 30 years.  Yet this self-appointed administration policy violates a key libertarian value, that of privacy rights.  You would think these lovers of individual freedom would be bug-eyed. Not so, for the most part.  The mothership of libertarians is CATO--where the surveillance issue rates below Alito.  Ten years ago, Michael Lind wrote about this peculiarity in Up From Conservatism,

Libertarian ideologues, true to their classical liberal principles, wish to abolish government subsidies both for corporations and for poor Americans.  Yet  Republican strategists have selectively raided this body of thought, looking for ways to reduce government programs that benefit wage earners and the poor, while leaving the interests of the rich and US corporations unscathed. (With the tragedy in West Virginia in mind, check out this labor site on the Bush administration's cuts in the Mine Safety and Health Administration) Meanwhile, organizations like Cato play down the unconservative views of its intellectuals on drug policy, gay rights and abortion.  Now, it seems, we can add privacy rights to that list.

Yet the Alito/surveillance nexus does present an opportunity for those who want to fight for American democracy.  The upcoming Alito Supreme Court hearings could provide a much needed showdown with the administration to uphold representative government.

Abuse of Power Posted by Morton H. Halperin

Last week as the administration scrambled to justify its sweeping NSA electronic surveillance directed at Americans, it engaged in behavior which led the usually compliant Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reject a government motion to transfer Jose Padilla from military to civilian custody.   

The panel led my conservative Judge Michale Luttig concluded that the government's unexplained and inexplicable actions "have given rise to at least an appearance that the purpose of these actions may be to avoid consideration of our decisions by the Supreme Court." panel opinion, at page 6).

Only by reading the governments most extensive defense of the constitutionality of its actions in conducting warrantless electronic surveillance can one understand why the administration is in fact desperate to avoid Supreme Court review of the Fourth Circuit's decision in the Padilla case.

Imbalance of Power Posted by Spencer Boyer

Spencer P. Boyer

Season's greetings.  Suzanne Nossel asked me to be a guest contributor while she is in South Africa. By way of background, I am a Fellow to the Security and Peace Initiative of the Center for American Progress and The Century Foundation.

President Bush defends his program of warrantless surveillance of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, by pointing to a 2001 congressional resolution authorizing him to use all necessary force against those responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001. He also makes the case that, as Commander in Chief in a time of war, he has the power do whatever he sees fit, regardless of legal prohibitions, when he believes it is in the national interest to do so. Unfortunately, his actions are indefensible.

To start with, there is no ambiguity when it comes to FISA. Congress made it clear when it enacted the law in 1978 that the President must have a judicial warrant to eavesdrop on Americans. Congress clearly rejected the idea of inherent Presidential authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps in the U.S. and made such actions by the executive branch a crime.

The administration cites Congress’s 2001 use-of-force statute, which authorized the President to use “necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,” as giving him the authority to conduct these warrantless searches on Americans. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attempted to bolster this point by stating that domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency only occurs where there is a reasonable basis to conclude that one of the parties of the communication is a member of al Qaeda or otherwise affiliated. The administration’s points do not, however, make the domestic spying program any more legal.

As a general matter, a declaration of war, which we have not had since World War II, arguably triggers a range of common law-of-war authorities in addition to standby statutes keyed to “declared war,” “war,” or “time of war.” Use-of-force statutes, on the other hand, have less of a domino effect and do not trigger certain standby authorities, such as the power under the Alien Enemy Act to detain alien enemies, keyed to a declaration of war. But nothing in the 2001 congressional authorization, which was specific in its language, gives the President power to ignore the clear statutory prohibitions in FISA. FISA does allow the Attorney General to use warrantless wiretaps for fifteen days after a declaration of war. But even if the 2001 authorization was a declaration of war, which it was not, the surveillance would have been authorized for only that short period of time. 

In addition, in a Washington Post Op-ed on Friday, former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle rejects the notion that Congress intended the 2001 authorization to exempt the President from FISA. Senator Daschle, who helped negotiate the authorization, states that the administration tried, and failed, to insert language allowing for expansive Presidential powers in the U.S.  Thus, there can be no illusion concerning Congress’s intent.

This administration’s penchant for increasing executive power in the name of national security – denying prisoners access to lawyers or courts, indefinitely detaining individuals as enemy combatants, rejecting the applicability of the Geneva Conventions – continues to trample on civil liberties. If we are to accept President Bush’s claim, he could ignore any clear law he disagrees with during our war on terrorism, which could last for decades. The Constitution requires the President to take care that all laws are faithfully executed, not just the ones he likes. The Framers of our Constitution guarded against an abuse of power by the President by embedding governmental powers in a system of checks and balances. It is time for Congress and the courts to re-establish the equilibrium.

What WaPo Won't Tell Us... Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Blogger Michael Roston has summarized European press coverage to give us a much better idea of which Central European countries are housing secret CIA prisons.  And how did the enterprising European journalists get this information, considered too potentially dangerous for the Washington Post to publish?  Why, they called up old Tom Malinowski at Human Rights Watch, right there in Washington DC.  Human Rights Watch, recall, has been tracking those "rendition planes" and where they go.

Think maybe the Post was just a bit too deferential here?  Roston raises another excellent point:  Europe loves to criticize US mishandling of detainees; now will there be European investigations of what has happened on European soil?  Can the French physically expel the Poles from Europe?

The Senate and Phase Two Posted by Derek Chollet

Today an unusual thing happened in the U.S. Senate.  The normally well-scripted body, known for Senators inserting “colloquies” into the Congressional Record as though the debates really happened, went off the rails.  The Senate Democrats interrupted normal business and, without forewarning the Republicans, called a rare closed session to discuss intelligence in Iraq, sending the press into a frenzy.  Good for them.

The dispute in question is the so-called “Phase Two” of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s (or SSCI, pronounced in Hill-speak as “sissy”) investigation of intelligence about Iraq’s WMD programs.  “Phase One” of the Committee’s work was completed and released in July 2004, which focused on the collection and analysis of that intelligence.  At the time, the Democrats tried mightily to get the Committee investigators to turn to the more interesting questions – how policymakers in the White House actually used the intelligence they were given, or whether they knowingly manipulated it when presenting the case for war.  The Republicans on the Committee, led by their Chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, pushed back, promising to pursue these issues down the road.  The Democrats knew that this slow-walking was a way to kill the effort, and have tried to pressure the other side to act ever since.

Last week’s Libby indictment provided the pretext they needed.  As Steve Clemons notes, this move was gutsy and important.  Roberts was flushed out (he certainly has been hearing from his Kansas constituents about Iraq, and my guess is that they are not happy), and announced that next week the SSCI will work continuously to “finish” Phase Two, which he claims they have been working on all along.  This is news to the SSCI’s ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, who today placed his relaxed demeanor aside and put on a tough performance.  Is the logjam broken?  Who knows – as the timeline pasted below attests, the Democrats have been trying to get Roberts to move on this for years, to no avail.  As the 9-11 Commission report accurately put it, the Congressional oversight on intelligence is “dysfunctional.”  So we’ll see.

Iraq Intelligence Investigation Timeline

Attached is a chronology prepared by Democratic staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee about Democratic efforts to address the Administration’s misuse of intelligence.

For more than two years, Senate Democrats have pressed Republicans to address the misuse of intelligence.  At every turn, Republicans have blocked efforts to investigate how intelligence was used in the run-up to the war in Iraq.  Below details the long record established by Democrats to investigate this matter.

March 14, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Mueller requesting an investigation into the origin of the Niger documents.

May 23, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to the CIA and State Department Inspectors General to review issues related to the Niger documents.

June 2, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller issued a press release endorsing a statement made of the previous weekend by Senator Warner calling for a joint SSCI/SASC investigation.

June 4, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller issued a press release saying he would push for an investigation.  Senator Roberts issued a press release saying calls for an investigation are premature.

June 10, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts asking for an investigation.

June 11, 2003 – All Committee Democrats signed a letter to Senator Roberts asking for a meeting of the Committee to discuss the question of authorizing an inquiry into the intelligence that formed the basis for going to war.

June 11, 2003 – Senator Roberts issued a press release saying this is routine committee oversight, and that criticism of the intelligence community is unwarranted.  Senator Rockefeller issued a press release calling the ongoing review inadequate.

June 20, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release laying out the scope of the inquiry.

August 13, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts making 14 points about the investigation, asking to expand the inquiry to address the “use of intelligence by policy makers” and asking for several other actions.

September 9, 2003 – After press reports quoting Senator Roberts as saying the investigation was almost over, Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts urging him not to rush to complete the investigation prematurely.

October 29, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet expressing in strong terms that he should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available.

October 30, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent letters to Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice expressing in strong terms that they should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available.

October 31, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for documents related to the interaction between intelligence and policy makers, including the documents from the Vice President’s office related to the Powell speech.

November 2, 2003 – Senator Roberts made statements during a joint television appearance with Senator Rockefeller claiming that the White house would provide all documents they jointly requested.

December 5, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to National Security Advisor Rice asking for her help getting documents and access to individuals.

January 22, 2004 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents.

February 12, 2004 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release announcing the Committee’s unanimous approval of the expansion of the Iraq review, to include use of intelligence in the form of public statements, and listing other aspects of what became Phase II.

March 23, 2004 – Senator Rockefeller sent yet another letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents.

June 17, 2004 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller joint press release announcing the unanimous approval of the report.

July 16, 2004 – Committee Democrats sent a letter to Bush asking for the one page summary of the NIE prepared for Bush.  The Committee staff had been allowed to review it but could not take notes and the Committee was never given a copy.

February 3, 2005 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts outlining Committee priorities for the coming year and encouraging completion of Phase II.

August 5, 2005 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts expressing concern over the lack of progress on Phase II and calling for a draft to be presented to the Committee at a business meeting in September.

September 29, 2005 – All Committee Democrats joined in additional views to the annual Intelligence Authorization Bill criticizing the lack of progress on Phase II.

Intelligence Manipulation: If at first you don't succeed, you're off the hook Posted by Suzanne Nossel

Check here for my take on the Bush Administration's astounding logic on why people like John Bolton haven't actually manipulated or politicized intelligence.

Bad Intel, Bad Policy Posted by Derek Chollet

We should all pay more attention to the recent report of the bipartisan presidential commission chaired by Laurence Silberman and Chuck Robb regarding U.S. intelligence and WMD threats.  It got a couple of days of buzz when it was released a few weeks ago -- especially for its no-nonsense conclusion that all the pre-war judgments about Iraq's WMD were "dead wrong" – but has pretty much dropped out of sight since.  At over 600 pages, it’s not exactly bedtime reading.

But like the 9-11 commission, this group has produced a rare kind of government report: compelling, hard-hitting, clear, provocative, and actually pretty entertaining.  But it is also really scary.  The commissioners conclude that there is no greater threat than the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (placing special emphasis on the threat from biological weapons, which they describe as the “greatest intelligence challenge”).  Yet they show with great detail that our intelligence community is not sufficiently trained, motivated, equipped, or organized to deal with these threats.  Even if we had an Administration intensely focused on the WMD threat, the limits of our intelligence capabilities would leave still leave us fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. 

Right now, we have the worst of both worlds: an intelligence community that is not up to the challenge, and an Administration that talks a good game but is still not making counter-proliferation the priority it needs to be.  As Ash Carter points out, until we get the policy right, it really doesn’t matter if intelligence is imperfect.   Folks, I gotta tell you, we should be genuinely worried about getting hit with some sort of WMD device (for a very scary illustration of what this might be like, everyone should watch the recent HBO/BBC film “Dirty War”).  The American people understand the problem – according to the recent SPI/Marttila poll, 3 of the top 5 concerns most American have about the world have something to do with the spread of nuclear weapons.  So where's the outrage?  There’s a lot I really don’t understand about the Bush Administration, but not doing more to address the WMD threat – especially when we know what to do about it – is the most perplexing, and I think its greatest long-term failure.