The Gap in Intelligence Oversight: By NANCY PELOSI (WaPo edit)

[kpete]

The Gap in Intelligence Oversight

By Nancy Pelosi

Sunday, January 15, 2006; Page B07

The uproar concerning President Bush's admission that he authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct certain electronic surveillance affecting people in the United States is a wake-up call for intensive congressional oversight of intelligence activities.

Review of intelligence-gathering and analysis is a critical responsibility of the legislative branch. But as the independent Sept. 11 commission concluded, "so long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need." As one who served on the House intelligence committee for 10 years and who continues to serve in a non-voting capacity, I know that the commission's concerns are justified and require immediate action.


Congress is not an afterthought in assessing intelligence activities; federal law requires that it be kept informed of all such activities. But despite that clear statutory directive, the Bush administration consistently acts as though it alone owns intelligence information.

........

We all recognize that our efforts against terrorism or other threats require new, more flexible approaches. But in a democracy, those approaches cannot be fashioned unilaterally by an administration with a disturbingly expansive view of the powers of the president.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/13/AR2006011301698.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. Throw Diebold and ES&S election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW!

In honor of Martin Luther King Day!

Our loss of our right to vote is the key to it all!

[Grateful for Hope]

2. Excellent article

more...

"But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be shared with no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president's surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more widely. That limitation must change."

I like her approach here. She is not only stating why she could not speak out against the wiretapping, she is stating that the limitation must change.

I think our dem representatives are going to be very active this year proposing new legislature which will, of course, be shot down -- all in the service of expanding the dem platform for the 2006 elections. This is an excellent strategy.

[Solly Mack]

3. This part:

"We all recognize that our efforts against terrorism or other threats require new, more flexible approaches."

"We" do? Because I certainly don't recognize any such thing. I don't consider my civil rights, or the civil rights of others , to be "flexible." And thus far, the "flexible approaches" to terrorism by Bush have been criminal. Besides, there is no being "flexible" with a tyrant. Bush has proven that time and time again. So let's not be flexible.