![Eyes on Spies](https://img.perlego.com/books/RM_Books/inde_pub_group_sqonxaw/9780817912864_300_450.webp)
eBook - ePub
Eyes on Spies
Congress and the United States Intelligence Community
Amy B. Zegart
This is a test
- 144 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Eyes on Spies
Congress and the United States Intelligence Community
Amy B. Zegart
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
Amy Zegart examines the weaknesses of US intelligence oversight and why those deficiencies have persisted, despite the unprecedented importance of intelligence in today's environment. She argues that many of the biggest oversight problems lie with Congressâthe institution, not the parties or personalitiesâshowing how Congress has collectively and persistently tied its own hands in overseeing intelligence.
Frequently asked questions
How do I cancel my subscription?
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Eyes on Spies an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Eyes on Spies by Amy B. Zegart in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Politique et relations internationales & Intelligence et espionnage. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
Ten years after 9/11, the least reformed part of Americaâs intelligence system is not the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), but the United States Congress. The September 11th terrorist attacks sparked major efforts to transform executive branch intelligence agencies. These include the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the most sweeping intelligence restructuring since the establishment of the CIA in 1947; the formation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which combined twenty-two agencies and two hundred thousand employees to provide âone face at the border;â dramatic initiatives to transform the FBI from a law enforcement to domestic intelligence agency; and the proliferation of more than seventy regional, state, and local fusion centers to integrate terrorist threat reporting across the country.
Although reforms have generated some major successesâincluding the May 2011 capture and killing of Osama bin Ladenânot all intelligence improvement efforts have actually produced improvements.1 Some reforms have failed. Many have not gone far enough, fast enough. Others have proven counterproductive, creating more red tape and fatigue than results. Recent terrorist plots, including the 2009 Fort Hood shootings, the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber, and the May 2010 Times Square car bomb plot, remind us all too well that serious weaknesses in the American intelligence system remain. Indeed, the confessed Times Square bomb âmastermind,â Pakistani-American Faisal Shahzad, was too dumb or too poorly trained to construct a workable explosive or park his car bomb inconspicuously (he abandoned his Nissan Pathfinder with its engine running and hazard lights flashing, which immediately attracted the attention of nearby street vendors). Yet Shahzad still managed to outsmart his FBI surveillance team, losing them somewhere between Connecticut and John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. And despite being placed on the âno-fly list,â he was able to board a Dubai-bound flight and was just minutes from takeoff when Customs and Border Patrol agents realized he was on board and apprehended him. Shahzad later pleaded guilty to all ten terrorism-related charges against him.
Despite this record, it is clear that the seventeen agencies that comprise the United States Intelligence Community are expending considerable energy attempting to adapt to ever-changing terrorist threats.2 As one senior FBI official put it, âThis is all I do, okay? 24/7, 365 days a year. I donât have a wife. I donât have kids. Itâs all I think about.â3 The same is true in the field. âThe burn out rate in my Al Qaeda squad is terrible,â noted one FBI agent in May 2010. âAnd these are agents who have done other CT [counterterrorism] work, where the pace is already tough. Theyâre just getting crushed by the load.â4 Just above the doorway that leads to the CIAâs Counterterrorism Center hangs a sign that reads, âTodayâs date is September 12, 2001.â Spend any amount of time there, or in a military unit in Afghanistan, the New York Police Department, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, or any of the other federal intelligence agencies charged with collecting and analyzing intelligence, and you will quickly realize just how many people are working feverishly to adapt to what they call, simply, âthe mission.â
Congress is another story. While Congress has been instrumental in many post-9/11 executive branch reforms, Congress has been largely unable to reform itself. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission called congressional oversight âdysfunctional,â and warned that fixing oversight weaknesses would be both essential to American national security and exceedingly difficult to achieve.5 One year later, the Commissionâs report card gave efforts to improve intelligence oversight a âD.â6 That same year, a second blue-ribbon commission (chaired by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Senator Chuck Robb), which was tasked with examining what went wrong with estimates of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD), joined the call for oversight reform. That commissionâs final report concluded that âMany sound past proposals for intelligence reform have withered on the vine. Either the Intelligence Community is inherently resistant to outside recommendations, or it lacks the institutional capacity to implement them. In either case, sustained external oversight is necessaryâ (emphasis mine).7 Although many of the Silberman-Robb Commissionâs executive branch reforms were adopted, its congressional reforms were not embraced.
By the fall of 2007, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence grew so deeply concerned that it held a hearing on itself. I testified at that hearing, along with Lee Hamilton, who served as the 9/11 Commissionâs vice chairman and earlier as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Pointing his finger at all the senators around the room, Hamilton delivered an ominous warning:
To me, the strong point simply is that the Senate of the United States and the House of the United States is [sic] not doing its job. And because youâre not doing the job, the country is not as safe as it ought to be.⊠Youâre dealing here with the national security of the United States, and the Senate and the House ought to have the deep down feeling that weâve got to get this thing right.8
Hamiltonâs words prompted vigorous nods of agreement across the aisle, but never made headlines or produced major changes.9 Instead, the committeeâs own oversight-reform centerpieceâconsolidating appropriations and authorization powersâquickly and quietly died. In May 2009, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared in a press conference that oversight had become so feckless, the only way to change Bush administration intelligence policies was to oust Republicans at the polls.10 And in January 2010, eight years after 9/11, a third blue-ribbon commissionâthe Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorismâconcluded that congressional intelligence and homeland security reform efforts were still failing. Notably, nearly all of the proposed oversight changes required simply modifying internal congressional rules and committee jurisdictions, not passing new laws.11
This book examines the roots of weak intelligence oversight and why deficiencies have persisted for so long, despite the clarion call for change after 9/11 and the unprecedented importance of intelligence in todayâs threat environment. As many have noted, during the Cold War the Soviet adversary was easy to find but hard to kill, making military firepower the key to success. Today, the situation is reversed; our terrorist enemies are hard to find but easy to kill. It is now the weak who threaten the strong. Driven by fanaticism, hidden from view, and armed with Internet connections and deadly weapons that can fit into a suitcase or vial, small bands of transnational terrorists can wreak catastrophic damage as never before. In the twenty-first century threat environment, intelligence has eclipsed military firepower as the nationâs most important line of defense. Nowhere was the importance of intelligence more prominent than in the May 1, 2011 operation to kill Osama bin Laden at his Pakistani hideout. Success required no tanks, massive aerial bombardment, or invasion. The âboots on the groundâ did not number in the hundreds of thousands, or even the hundreds. Instead, the operation to nab the worldâs most dangerous terrorist came down to just two critical elements: a small, elite Navy SEAL team and actionable intelligence that had been painstakingly collected and analyzed over a period of years.
Intelligence agencies cannot go it alone. Legislative oversight, done well, ensures that the Intelligence Community gets the resources it needs and deploys those resources to maximum effect. Good oversight sets agenciesâ strategic priorities and pushes them to improve by asking tough questions and demanding better answers. Good oversight also maintains accountability by ensuring compliance with the law and generating public trust and support for agencies that must, by necessity, hide much of what they do.
Oversight done poorly, however, can hurt our national intelligence effort. Congressional micromanagement of intelligence activities serves no oneâs interests well, distracting agencies from their missions and miring legislators in the day-to-day rather than focusing attention on the bigger and more important questions of what American intelligence agencies should be doing, how well they are doing it, and where they should be heading in the future. Accountability efforts can and do often go awry, saddling intelligence officials with onerous reporting requirements that sap time and attention from their day jobs to answer queries, write letters, and produce reports that no one reads.12 In 2009, for example, the Department of Homeland Security spent 66 work years responding to congressional questions, giving 2,058 briefings, and sending 232 witnesses to 166 hearings. âItâs disgraceful,â said Representative Peter King (R-NY), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee. âThereâs no good reason.â13
In addition, too often oversight consists of blaming agencies when things turn ugly and the cameras are rolling rather than partnering with them to prevent mishaps in the first place or working constructively to address weaknesses when no one is watching. Responsiveness can also be a double-edged sword, either keeping unelected intelligence officials from running amok or making them run in too many directions at once. Intelligence oversight, in short, is a critical component of national security in the twenty-first century. Getting it right is hard, and getting it wrong is dangerous.
Since 9/11, most explanations of Congressâs weak intelligence oversight have blamed the executive branch. Critics have focused particularly on the Bush administration and the extent to which officials withheld information from Congress about secret and controversial programs such as the National Security Agencyâs warrantless wiretapping, the CIAâs use of harsh interrogation methods, and the establishment of CIA black sites to detain suspected terrorists abroad. In a particularly charged episode, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA in May 2009 of âmisleadingâ Congress âall the time,â both about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists.14 Pelosiâs charges ignited a firestorm. The CIA produced records showing the Speaker had, in fact, been briefed about waterboarding and other controversial interrogation methods on 4 September 2002, and again in early 2003. The Speaker, in turn, claimed that the September briefing said the techniques were not yet being used when in fact they were.
While the Pelosi episode had a particularly partisan and political cast to it, it is important to note that many others, including Republican staffers and career intelligence officials, have acknowledged that the Intelligence Community often does not fully, proactively, or clearly disclose what it knows or does. Even after 9/11, Congress has had recurring problems gaining access to FBI documents. As one legislative staffer lamented in 2008, âRepublicans and Democrats alike cannot get [FBI] reports. The silver lining with the FBI is that at least theyâre nonpartisan in their non-cooperation with Congress.â15 Veteran CIA clandestine operative Robert Baer noted a similar pattern with the CIAâs overseers. âI used to joke that we treat Congress like mushrooms: keep them in the dark and feed them shit.â But, he quickly added, Congress also did not want to know much. âI knew [House Intelligence Committee Chairman] Gossâs chief of staff, but no one ever called me,â he said.16 A former intelligence official recounted the delicate task of briefing the congressional intelligence committeesâin this case, about the secret destruction of nearly a hundred videotapes showing harsh CIA interrogations of top Al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. âI went to the Hill and told them the tapes no longer existed,â the official noted. âNow, I said they no longer exist[ed]. I did not say we crushed them up. It was up to them to figure out the rest. But I did not bury it.â17
As these examples suggest, executive branch secrecy is an important and complicated part of the oversight story. But it is by no means the...
Table of contents
Citation styles for Eyes on Spies
APA 6 Citation
Zegart, A. (2013). Eyes on Spies (1st ed.). Hoover Institution Press. Retrieved from https://www.perlego.com/book/970622/eyes-on-spies-congress-and-the-united-states-intelligence-community-pdf (Original work published 2013)
Chicago Citation
Zegart, Amy. (2013) 2013. Eyes on Spies. 1st ed. Hoover Institution Press. https://www.perlego.com/book/970622/eyes-on-spies-congress-and-the-united-states-intelligence-community-pdf.
Harvard Citation
Zegart, A. (2013) Eyes on Spies. 1st edn. Hoover Institution Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/970622/eyes-on-spies-congress-and-the-united-states-intelligence-community-pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2022).
MLA 7 Citation
Zegart, Amy. Eyes on Spies. 1st ed. Hoover Institution Press, 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2022.