The DefenseDepartment may begetting dangerouslyclose to becominganother CIA.
Is The Defense Department Conducting Its Own Covert Actions?By Cliff Montgomery – Jan. 1st, 2007Is the Defense Department creating something of a covert spy network without a hint of Congressional oversight? Below, we quote from an eye-opening Congressional Research Service (CRS) report dated November 2, 2006:“Some observers assert that since 9/11, the Pentagon has begun to conduct certain types of counterterrorism intelligence activities that may meet the statutory definition of a covert action. The Pentagon, while stating that it has attempted to improve the quality of its intelligence program in the wake of 9/11, contends that it does not conduct covert actions.”Congress in 1990 toughened procedures governing intelligence covert actions in the wake of the Iran-Contra affair, after it was discovered that the Reagan Administration had secretly sold arms to Iran, an avowed enemy that [it] had branded as terrorist, and used the proceeds to fund the Nicaraguan Democratic Resistance, also referred to some as ‘Contras‘. In response, Congress adopted several statutory changes, including enacting several restrictions on the conduct of covert actions and establishing new procedures by which Congress is notified of covert action programs.”But in its most important change, Congress for the first time statutorily defined covert action to mean ‘an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where its intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly’. […]”In 1974, Congress asserted statutory control over covert actions in response to revelations about covert military operations in Southeast Asia and other intelligence activities. It approved the Hughes-Ryan Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 requiring that no appropriated funds could be expended by the Central Intelligence Agency for covert actions unless and until the President found that each such operation was important to national security, and provided the appropriate committees of Congress with a description and scope of each operation in a timely fashion.”The phrase ‘timely fashion’ was not defined in statute.”In 1980, Congress endeavored to provide the two new congressional intelligence committees with a more comprehensive statutory framework under which to conduct oversight.”In 1988, acting on a recommendation made by the Congressional Iran-Contra Committee, the Senate approved bipartisan legislation that would have required that the President notify the congressional intelligence committees within 48 hours of the implementation of a covert action if prior notice had not been provided. The House did not vote on the measure.”Still concerned by the fall-out from the Iran-Contra affair, Congress in 1990 attempted to tighten its oversight of covert action. The Senate Intelligence Committee approved a new set of statutory reporting requirements, citing the ambiguous, confusing and incomplete congressional mandate governing covert actions under the then-current law. After the bill was modified in conference, Congress approved the changes.”[After some wrangling with President George H.W. Bush, a slightly modified version of the measures was signed into law in 1991.]”Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, concerns have surfaced, particularly with regard to the Pentagon’s expanded intelligence counterterrorism efforts. Some lawmakers reportedly have expressed concern that the Pentagon is creating a parallel intelligence capability independent from the CIA or other American authorities, and one that encroaches on the CIA’s realm.”It has been suggested that the Pentagon has adopted a broad definition of its current authority to conduct “traditional military activities” and “prepare the battlefield.” Senior Defense Department officials reportedly have responded that the Pentagon’s need for intelligence to support ground troops after 9/11 requires a more extensive Pentagon intelligence operation, and they suggest that any difference in DOD’s approach is due more to the amount of intelligence gathering that is necessarily being carried out, rather than to any difference in the activity it is conducting.”Why all the syntax mumbo-jumbo? Why the administration’s constant emphasis on its intentions or its self-claimed “needs,” rather than its obvious actions? Perhaps because if we consider the Bush boys by the only legitimate means of judging any administration–its actions–it has clearly failed to follow the spirit, if not the letter, of the law here. It is conducting covert actions, period. Intentions and empty claims of “necessity” are beside the point.And what about those ‘needs’? We should remind the Bush Administration that in all post-WWII battle situations, the CIA has conducted the major “covert actions” before hostilities, including intelligence collection. That, of course, is one of the very reasons for the CIA’s continued existence. So to argue that Defense must take these jobs on its own shoulders, is toessentially argue that the CIA doesn’t exist–by any means, a ridiculous charge.But the CIA–not to mention obvious “covert actions”–has basic Congressional oversight. The only real question is, “Why does oversight scare this administration so much?”
