Did Congressional Intel Committee Withhold Vital Spy Info from Colleagues?
Ahead of Patriot Act renewal vote in 2011, did deference to surveillance community override democratic process?
A key question raised amid the ongoing controversy ignited by NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden is the manner in which US intelligence and law enforcement agencies have interpreted laws put in place by Congress.
Within that debate, a secondary issue has been centered around the manner in which intelligence officials share information with Congress and now--following reporting by The Guardian's Spencer Ackerman--new questions have surfaced about the way some members of Congress, specifically those privileged to sit on the select intelligence committees, share their knowledge about secretive programs and legal interpretations with their own congressional colleagues.
Two separate stories written by Ackerman this week (here and here) tell the story and beg questions about a key vote in the House of Representatives in 2011 when a renewal of the post-9/11 Patriot Act was up for debate in Congress.
According to that reporting, concerns have arisen that the intelligence committee failed to provide a key document with non-committee members, the content of which could have seriously impacted the law's ability to pass.
Republican Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, a leading critic of the NSA following disclosures made possible by Snowden, has driven speculation that the intelligence committee's failure to share the key information with the full House before that Patriot Act vote in 2011 was not an accident.
As Ackerman reports:
The accusations broaden the focus of the surveillance controversy from the National Security Agency to one of the congressional committees charged with exercising oversight of it - and the panel's closeness to the NSA it is supposed to oversee.
Amash told the Guardian on Monday that he had confirmed with the House intelligence committee that the committee did not make non-committee members aware of the classified overview from 2011 of the bulk phone records collection program first revealed by the Guardian thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden. The document was expressly designed to be shared with legislators who did not serve on the panel; it appears that a corresponding document for the Senate in 2011 was made available to all senators.
"Nobody I've spoken to in my legislative class remembers seeing any such document," Amash said.
Amash speculated that the House intelligence committee withheld the document in order to ensure the Patriot Act would win congressional reauthorization, as it ultimately did.
As experts who spoke with Ackerman confirm, the revolving door between the intelligence agencies and the powerful intelligence committee only deepen suspicion about the way disclosures are handled at the congressional level.
"The congressional committees charged with oversight of the intelligence community have long been captive to, and protective of, the intelligence agencies," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.
"Many of the congressional staff, in fact, come from those agencies. This latest revelation demonstrates the harm caused by that conflict of interest. When the congressional oversight committee is more loyal to the agency it oversees than to the legislative chamber its members were elected to serve in, the public's interest is seriously compromised."
______________________________________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
A key question raised amid the ongoing controversy ignited by NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden is the manner in which US intelligence and law enforcement agencies have interpreted laws put in place by Congress.
Within that debate, a secondary issue has been centered around the manner in which intelligence officials share information with Congress and now--following reporting by The Guardian's Spencer Ackerman--new questions have surfaced about the way some members of Congress, specifically those privileged to sit on the select intelligence committees, share their knowledge about secretive programs and legal interpretations with their own congressional colleagues.
Two separate stories written by Ackerman this week (here and here) tell the story and beg questions about a key vote in the House of Representatives in 2011 when a renewal of the post-9/11 Patriot Act was up for debate in Congress.
According to that reporting, concerns have arisen that the intelligence committee failed to provide a key document with non-committee members, the content of which could have seriously impacted the law's ability to pass.
Republican Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, a leading critic of the NSA following disclosures made possible by Snowden, has driven speculation that the intelligence committee's failure to share the key information with the full House before that Patriot Act vote in 2011 was not an accident.
As Ackerman reports:
The accusations broaden the focus of the surveillance controversy from the National Security Agency to one of the congressional committees charged with exercising oversight of it - and the panel's closeness to the NSA it is supposed to oversee.
Amash told the Guardian on Monday that he had confirmed with the House intelligence committee that the committee did not make non-committee members aware of the classified overview from 2011 of the bulk phone records collection program first revealed by the Guardian thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden. The document was expressly designed to be shared with legislators who did not serve on the panel; it appears that a corresponding document for the Senate in 2011 was made available to all senators.
"Nobody I've spoken to in my legislative class remembers seeing any such document," Amash said.
Amash speculated that the House intelligence committee withheld the document in order to ensure the Patriot Act would win congressional reauthorization, as it ultimately did.
As experts who spoke with Ackerman confirm, the revolving door between the intelligence agencies and the powerful intelligence committee only deepen suspicion about the way disclosures are handled at the congressional level.
"The congressional committees charged with oversight of the intelligence community have long been captive to, and protective of, the intelligence agencies," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.
"Many of the congressional staff, in fact, come from those agencies. This latest revelation demonstrates the harm caused by that conflict of interest. When the congressional oversight committee is more loyal to the agency it oversees than to the legislative chamber its members were elected to serve in, the public's interest is seriously compromised."
______________________________________________
A key question raised amid the ongoing controversy ignited by NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden is the manner in which US intelligence and law enforcement agencies have interpreted laws put in place by Congress.
Within that debate, a secondary issue has been centered around the manner in which intelligence officials share information with Congress and now--following reporting by The Guardian's Spencer Ackerman--new questions have surfaced about the way some members of Congress, specifically those privileged to sit on the select intelligence committees, share their knowledge about secretive programs and legal interpretations with their own congressional colleagues.
Two separate stories written by Ackerman this week (here and here) tell the story and beg questions about a key vote in the House of Representatives in 2011 when a renewal of the post-9/11 Patriot Act was up for debate in Congress.
According to that reporting, concerns have arisen that the intelligence committee failed to provide a key document with non-committee members, the content of which could have seriously impacted the law's ability to pass.
Republican Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan, a leading critic of the NSA following disclosures made possible by Snowden, has driven speculation that the intelligence committee's failure to share the key information with the full House before that Patriot Act vote in 2011 was not an accident.
As Ackerman reports:
The accusations broaden the focus of the surveillance controversy from the National Security Agency to one of the congressional committees charged with exercising oversight of it - and the panel's closeness to the NSA it is supposed to oversee.
Amash told the Guardian on Monday that he had confirmed with the House intelligence committee that the committee did not make non-committee members aware of the classified overview from 2011 of the bulk phone records collection program first revealed by the Guardian thanks to whistleblower Edward Snowden. The document was expressly designed to be shared with legislators who did not serve on the panel; it appears that a corresponding document for the Senate in 2011 was made available to all senators.
"Nobody I've spoken to in my legislative class remembers seeing any such document," Amash said.
Amash speculated that the House intelligence committee withheld the document in order to ensure the Patriot Act would win congressional reauthorization, as it ultimately did.
As experts who spoke with Ackerman confirm, the revolving door between the intelligence agencies and the powerful intelligence committee only deepen suspicion about the way disclosures are handled at the congressional level.
"The congressional committees charged with oversight of the intelligence community have long been captive to, and protective of, the intelligence agencies," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.
"Many of the congressional staff, in fact, come from those agencies. This latest revelation demonstrates the harm caused by that conflict of interest. When the congressional oversight committee is more loyal to the agency it oversees than to the legislative chamber its members were elected to serve in, the public's interest is seriously compromised."
______________________________________________