SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
gary hart
Three Hearings, Nine Hours, and One Accurate Statement: Why Congress Must Begin a Full Investigation into NSA Spying
Regaining Congressional Oversight
Something is very wrong when Congress and the public learn more about the NSA's activities from newspaper leaks than from the Senate and House intelligence committees. The committees are supposed to oversee the intelligence community activities on behalf of the public, but more often--as the New Yorker describes it--"treat[] senior intelligence officials like matinee idols."
It's time for Congress to reassert its oversight role and begin a full-scale investigation into the NSA's surveillance and analytic activities. The current investigations--which aren't led by Congress--are unable to fully investigate the revelations, Congressional committees' hearings have added little, and Congress cannot rely solely on mandating more reports from the NSA as a solution.
Hearings Inside Congress
So far, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy is valiantly attempting to shine more light on the NSA's activities, but the hearings have only served as venues for administration officials to parrot talking points and provide non-answers to important questions. This is very similar to what happened after the New York Times released the first reports of warrantless wiretapping in December 2005.
The hearings' ineffectiveness are shown by the fact that it took three hearings--nine hours--for Senator Leahy to clarify just how many terrorist attacks the collection of all Americans' calling records stopped. In the first hearing (July), government witnesses said the program stopped "54 terrorist attacks." By the third hearing (October)--and after much pressure by Senator Leahy--General Alexander corrected his statement: it turns out the program had only stopped "one, perhaps two" terror plots, one of which involved "material support." Aside from this, there are still two sets of questions from the hearings by Senator Richard Blumenthal and Senator Ron Wyden that the intelligence community has still left unanswered.
It shouldn't take three hearings over several months for a member of Congress to obtain accurate and understandable information from the Director of the NSA.
A Congressional Investigation is Needed
Congress must initiate a full-scale, targeted, investigation outside of its regular committees. Such an investigation would normally fall under Congress' intelligence or other oversight committees. But any investigation into the NSA's activities must include a review of the current Congressional oversight regime. Since the creation of the intelligence committees in 1978, there has been no external audit or examination of how the system has performed.
A review is needed when the Senate intelligence committee's own chair, Senator Dianne Feinstein, admits how extraordinary difficult it is to obtain information from the intelligence community. Members of Congress have complained that briefings are like "playing a game of 20 questions" and other members have even noted how the House intelligence committee may have neglected to pass information to members before a key vote.
Current members of Congress aren't the only ones complaining: former Vice President Walter Mondale and Senator Gary Hart--two former members of Congress who were instrumental in creating the Senate intelligence committee--have also said that the intelligence committees are not operating as they were originally intended.
Increasing Reports is a Start
So far, Congress favors increasing reporting requirements or asking for an investigation by an Inspector General (IG). Transparency bills--like bills brought by both Senator Al Franken and Representative Zoe Lofgren--are a fantastic start. But such reports won't uncover the secret law the NSA is using or the secret collection of ordinary people's information. It also won't tell us about the use of Executive Order 12333. The bills will only provide a numerical range regarding the orders the government sends, companies receive, and the number of users or accounts the orders impact.
What's worse, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community--who reports directly to the very officials who authorized the spying--told Senators he is unable to carry out a review of the programs due to a lack of resources. And even if such an investigation were to occur, the IG is unable to even request documents without the approval of the Director of National Intelligence.
Time for a New Investigation
The NSA leaks are ushering in a new day regarding Congressional oversight of the intelligence community. And it's why Congress must dedicate the resources to a full-scale investigation by a special committee. Such a committee will allow Congress to delve into what other data the NSA may be collecting en masse about Americans, to learn about how the surveillance laws it passed are being used, and to inform the American public--all while protecting national security. It's a tough balancing act, but Congress was able to do it in the 1970s with the Church and Pike Committees. And it should have the courage to do it again today.
_________________
Obama's Real Political Program
Why Are Democrats So Defeatist?
The Politics and Insanity of the US Embargo on Cuba
Mainly because of internal political considerations, both countries have chosen the path of antagonism. While the influence of the Cuban lobby in Florida dictates US policy towards the island country, keeping alive the antagonism with the US agglutinates the Cuban people's support for the Castro brothers.
The commercial, economic and financial embargo imposed by the US on Cuba has been the US response to Cuba's nationalization of US citizens and corporations' properties in that country. The US which now holds $6 billion worth of financial claims against the Cuban Government, states that this is the appropriate response to these claims. This is a position that is not universally accepted.
As you know, Mr. President, the trade embargo against Cuba, the most enduring in modern history, has been strongly criticized not only by those sympathetic to the Cuban regime but also by many leading US officials and legislators. In 2005, George P. Schultz, Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, called the continuing embargo "insane."
Reflecting on what is now widespread sentiment former US Senator Gary Hart stated in March 2011, "Future students of American history will be scratching their heads about this case for decades to come. Our embargo and refusal to normalize diplomatic relations has nothing to do with communism. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, with China since Nixon, and with Vietnam despite our bitter war there. No, Cuba was pure politics. Though it started to be a measure of an administration's resistance to Castro's politics, it very soon became a straight-jacket whereby first-generation Cuban-Americans wielded inordinate political power over both parties and constructed a veto over rational, mature democracy."
By overwhelming majority, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned the embargo as a violation of international law every year since 1992. On November 13, 2012, for the 21st time, that same Assembly again condemned the embargo, 188 to 3 with 2 abstentions. Only Israel and Palau sided with the US.
The embargo against Cuba has proven to be one the most inefficient political measures ever taken by the US against any country. It has only gained the US universal condemnation and has not forced the Castro brothers to change any of their policies. At the same time, the new generations of Cuban-Americans see the embargo as an anachronistic measure that brings them no positive return.
During one of my visits to Cuba on UN-sponsored health-related missions, I had the opportunity to talk to a 22-year-old Cuban who opposed the Castro regime. "Americans don't get it," he told me, "they can get much more with Levy jeans than with the embargo or with the military invasion of our country."
This, I found later, is the opinion of many Cubans who, despite the embargo, are very fond of Americans. They consider the embargo a political measure that doesn't respond to the wishes of the American people. I found their attitude very surprising, because they didn't seem to be equally fond of Russians, even at the time the Soviet Union was substantially helping them.
Mr. President, with your renewed mandate, this is the time to change paradigms, too. Your administration could spearhead a movement to re-establish normal relations with Havana. The world today, besieged by violence and war, will welcome a change of policy that until now has only hurt the Cuban people, alienated US allies, and drastically curtailed US commercial opportunities with that island nation.
Petraeus Scandal is Reported with Compelled Veneration of All Things Military
Gen. Petraeus is the single most revered man in the most venerated American institution: the National Security State and, specifically, its military. As a result, all the rules are different. Speaking ill of David Petraeus - or the military or CIA as an institution - is strictly prohibited within our adversarial watchdog press corps. Thus, even as he resigns in disgrace, leading media figures are alternatively mournful and worshipful as they discuss it.
On MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell appeared genuinely grief-stricken when she first reported Petraeus' resignation letter. "This is very painful", she began by announcing, as she wore a profoundly sad face. Her voice quivered with a mix of awe and distress as she read his resignation letter, savoring every word as though she were reciting from the Dead Sea Scrolls. On the Rachel Maddow Show later that night, Mitchell began her appearance by decreeing that "this is a personal tragedy" and said she was particularly sorrowful for "the men and women of the CIA, an agency that has many things to be proud about: many things to be proud about" [emphasis in original].
Christiane Amanpour of CNN and ABC made Mitchell look constrained by comparison as she belted out this paean on Twitter:
For good measure, she then added:
What does all that even mean? From which glorious "battlefield" is the CIA Director now absent, and how and why are we "at a time when we need them most"? But Amanpour is reciting something akin to a prayer here, and it's thus insusceptible to rational inquiry of that sort.
Meanwhile, Michael Hastings - whose Rolling Stone cover story ended Gen. McChrystal's career by including numerous intemperate quotes and, in doing so, revealingly prompted widespread animosity among his media colleagues for the crime of Making a General Look Bad - was on MSNBC yesterday with Martin Bashir. Hastings explained how the media has been devoted to Petraeus' glorification and thus ignored all the substantive reasons why Petraeus should have received far more media scrutiny and criticism in the past. In response, Bashir - who has previously demonstrated his contempt for anyone who speaks ill of a US General - expressed his anger at Hastings ("That's a fairly harsh assessment of a man who is regarded by many in the military as an outstanding four-star general") and then quickly cut him off just over two minutes into the segment.
Then there's the Foreign Policy Community, for which David Petraeus has long been regarded with deity status. Foreign Policy Magazine Managing Editor Blake Hounshell, under the headline "The Tragedy of David Petraeus", gushed that "Petraeus's downfall is a huge loss for the United States," as "not only was he one of the country's top strategic thinkers, he was also one of the few public figures revered by all sides of the political spectrum for his dedication and good judgment." He added: "He salvaged two disastrous wars, for two very different presidents."
Also at Foreign Policy, Thomas Ricks, formerly of the Washington Post, argued that Obama should not have accepted his resignation: "So the surprise to me is that Obama let him go. But the administration's loss may be Princeton's gain." Like most people in the media, Ricks has long been an ardent admirer of Petraeus, even turning his platform over to Paula Broadwell in the past for her to spread her hagiography far and wide.
There are several revealing lessons about this media swooning for Petraeus even as he exits from a scandal that would normally send them into tittering delight. First, military worship is the central religion of America's political and media culture. The military is by far the most respected and beloved institution among the US population - a dangerous fact in any democracy - and, even assuming they wanted to (which they don't), our brave denizens of establishment journalism are petrified of running afoul of that kind of popular sentiment.
Recall the intense controversy that erupted last Memorial Day when MSNBC's Chris Hayes gently pondered whether all soldiers should be considered "heroes". His own network, NBC, quickly assembled a panel on the Today Show to unanimously denounce him in the harshest and most personal terms ("I hope that he doesn't get more viewers as a result of this...this guy is like a - if you've seen him...he looks like a weenie" - "Could you be more inappropriate on Memorial Day?"), and Hayes then subjected himself to the predictable ritual of public apology (though he notably did not retract the substance of his remarks).
Hayes was forced (either overtly or by the rising pressure) to apologize because his comments were blasphemous: of America's true religion. At virtually every major sporting event, some uber-patriotic display of military might is featured as the crowd chants and swoons. It's perfectly reasonable not to hold members of the military responsible for the acts of aggression ordered by US politicians, but that hardly means that the other extreme - compelled reverence - is justifiable either.
Yet US journalists - whose ostensible role is to be adversarial to powerful and secretive political institutions (which includes, first and foremost, the National Security State) - are the most pious high priests of this national religion. John Parker, former military reporter and fellow of the University of Maryland Knight Center for Specialized Journalism-Military Reporting, wrote an extraordinarily good letter back in 2010 regarding why leading Pentagon reporters were so angry at WikiLeaks for revealing government secrets: because they identify with the military to the point of uncritical adoration:
"The career trend of too many Pentagon journalists typically arrives at the same vanishing point: Over time they are co-opted by a combination of awe - interacting so closely with the most powerfully romanticized force of violence in the history of humanity - and the admirable and seductive allure of the sharp, amazingly focused demeanor of highly trained military minds. Top military officers have their s*** together and it's personally humbling for reporters who've never served to witness that kind of impeccable competence. These unspoken factors, not to mention the inner pull of reporters' innate patriotism, have lured otherwise smart journalists to abandon - justifiably in their minds - their professional obligation to treat all sources equally and skeptically. . . .
"Pentagon journalists and informed members of the public would benefit from watching 'The Selling of the Pentagon', a 1971 documentary. It details how, in the height of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon sophisticatedly used taxpayer money against taxpayers in an effort to sway their opinions toward the Pentagon's desires for unlimited war. Forty years later, the techniques of shaping public opinion via media has evolved exponentially. It has reached the point where flipping major journalists is a matter of painting in their personal numbers."
That is what makes this media worship of All Things Military not only creepy to behold, but downright dangerous.
Second, it is truly remarkable what ends people's careers in Washington - and what does not end them. As Hastings detailed in that interview, Petraeus has left a string of failures and even scandals behind him: a disastrous Iraqi training program, a worsening of the war in Afghanistan since he ran it, the attempt to convert the CIA into principally a para-military force, the series of misleading statements about the Benghazi attack and the revealed large CIA presence in Libya. To that one could add the constant killing of innocent people in the Muslim world without a whiff of due process, transparency or oversight.
Yet none of those issues provokes the slightest concern from our intrepid press corps. His career and reputation could never be damaged, let alone ended, by any of that. Instead, it takes a sex scandal - a revelation that he had carried on a perfectly legal extramarital affair - to force him from power. That is the warped world of Washington. Of all the heinous things the CIA does, the only one that seems to attract the notice or concern of our media is a banal sex scandal. Listening to media coverage, one would think an extramarital affair is the worst thing the CIA ever did, maybe even the only bad thing it ever did (Andrea Mitchell: "an agency that has many things to be proud about: many things to be proud about").
Third, there is something deeply symbolic and revealing about this whole episode. Broadwell ended up spending substantial time with Petraeus when she, in essence, embedded with him and followed him around Afghanistan in order to write her biography. What ended up being produced was not only the type of propagandistic hagiography such arrangements typically produce, but also deeply personal affection as well.
This is access journalism and the embedding dynamic in its classic form, just a bit more vividly expressed. The very close and inter-dependent relationship between media figures and the political and military officials they cover often produces exactly these same sentiments even if they do not find the full-scale expression as they did in this case. In that regard, the relationship between the now-former CIA Director and his fawning hagiographer should be studied in journalism schools to see the results reliably produced by access journalism and the embedding process. Whatever Broadwell did for Petraeus is what US media figures are routinely doing for political and especially military officials with their "journalism".
Most Popular