By Cliff Montgomery – Feb. 28th, 2012
“Some lawmakers reportedly have expressed concern that the Pentagon is creating a parallel intelligencecapability independent from the CIA or other American authorities, and one that encroaches on the CIA’srealm,” according to a fascinating federal study released last year.
The little-known report was published in Dec. 2011 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
CRS studies are not officially released to the general public, even though they are unclassified documents -and even though the public’s tax dollars paid for them (making U.S. citizens the actual owners of these reports).
Below, The Spark offers the study’s summary to its readers:
“Published reports have suggested that in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Pentagon has expandedits counter-terrorism intelligence activities as part of what the Bush Administration termed the global war onterror.
“Some observers have asserted that the Department of Defense (DOD) may have been conducting certainkinds of counter-terrorism intelligence activities that would statutorily qualify as ‘covert actions,’ and thusrequire a presidential finding and the notification of the congressional intelligence committees.
“Defense officials have asserted that none of DOD’s current counter-terrorism intelligence activities constitutecovert action as defined under the law, and therefore, do not require a presidential finding and the notificationof the intelligence committees. Rather, they contend that DOD conducts only ‘clandestine activities.’
“Although the term is not defined by statute, these officials characterize such activities as constituting actionsthat are conducted in secret but which constitute ‘passive’ intelligence information gathering.
“By comparison, covert action, they contend, is ‘active,’ in that its aim is to elicit change in the political,economic, military, or diplomatic behavior of a target.
“Some of DOD’s activities have been variously described publicly as efforts to collect intelligence on terroriststhat will aid in planning counter-terrorism missions, to prepare for potential missions to disrupt, capture or killthem, and to help local militaries conduct counter-terrorism missions of their own.
“Senior U.S. intelligence community officials have conceded that the line separating Central IntelligenceAgency (CIA) and DOD intelligence activities has blurred, making it more difficult to distinguish between thetraditional secret intelligence missions carried out by each.
“They also have acknowledged that the U.S. intelligence community confronts a major challenge in clarifyingthe roles and responsibilities of various intelligence agencies with regard to clandestine activities.
“Some Pentagon officials have appeared to indicate that DOD’s activities should be limited to clandestine orpassive activities, pointing out that if such operations are discovered or are inadvertently revealed, the U.S.government would be able to preserve the option of acknowledging such activity, thus assuring the militarypersonnel who are involved some safeguards that are afforded under the Geneva Conventions.
“Covert actions, by contrast, constitute activities in which the role of the U.S. government is not intended to beapparent or to be acknowledged publicly. Those who participate in such activities [therefore] could jeopardizeany rights they may have under the Geneva Conventions, according to these officials.
“In committee report language accompanying…the FY2010 Intelligence Authorization Act, the HousePermanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) expressed its concern that the distinction between theCIA’s intelligence-gathering activities and DOD’s clandestine operations is becoming blurred and called on theDefense Department to meet its obligations to inform the committee of such activities.
“Perhaps in an effort to bring more clarity to the covert action issue, Department of Defense officials early inthe 112th Congress stated that current statute could be updated to reflect U.S. Special Operations Command’s list of core tasks and the missions assigned to it in the Unified Command Plan.
“But in doing so, they also noted that Section 167 includes ‘such other activities as may be specified by thePresident or the Secretary of Defense,’ which, they argued, provides the President and the Secretary flexibilityto meet changing circumstances.
