Secrecy, Good, Bad, Or Both?

Some of our service users have profound learning disabilities and their level of comprehension and understanding is very limited, however they communicate constantly.

Congress built upon the reforms of the 1970s by passing the Intelligence Oversight Act in 1980. This Act was an amendment to the Hughes-Ryan Act and obligated the IC to report covert actions to both the SSCI and the HPSCI prior to their implementation, unlike the ambiguous previous requirement of a timely manner. The Intelligence Oversight Act was noteworthy in that it constrained the intelligence community more than any previous legislation (Riley 2010). The two biggest shortfalls I see to the system is the number of contributors there are to the system on such a large scale. When I think about all of the redundancy built within the system, I think about all of the possible breakdown in communications that could take place. The second shortfall I see is the legislative leverage that is held over the Intelligence community. I personally believe this to be a mistake because this power could be held in a negative manner and to gain a political stance or agenda. The Congress can withhold money and resources, can leak information to the media and which could cause a mission or operation to

The progression of military intelligence through the years is traced back to the Revolutionary War in 1775, courtesy of George Washington. “Through various re-incarnations, intelligence has played a key role in how the United States shaped their policies towards the armed forces and other countries” (The Evolution of the U.S. Intelligence Community-An Historical Overview). Intelligence collection often waned during peacetime, but made drastic increases during wartime.

Congress has for a long time has tried in various ways to oversee the intelligence community which have shown to be sometime controversial, and a very difficult responsibility. What make this task so hard is the secrecy and sensitivity intelligence information finding, the sources, and the methods in which the information is obtain. Congressional oversight has evolved since the mid-1970s and a lot more since the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. The critics about Congressional oversight by some as being inadequate, ineffective, or worse, while at the same time proposal that was made in the 9/11 commission report was met with challenges from within the Legislature Branch and from the Executive Branch

The CIA’s scandal is closely related to President Nixon’s Watergate scandal. “On June 17, 1972, five men were arrested during a bungled break-in at the Democratic campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel-apartment complex in Washington, D.C.” In June President Nixon and his Chief of Staff, Haldeman, were recorded on tape agreeing to order the CIA to disrupt the FBI’s investigation into the break-in at the Democratic National Committee. The following month the presidential tapes were made aware by the testimony of Alexander Butterfield. After these tapes were released the Watergate scandal was brought to a whole new level because now the white house was officially involved.(Zivich)This made people start to really question the government itself.

Congress started their own investigations into each agency, and their findings were atrocious. In one case going back to the 50’s the CIA gave our own citizens doses of LSD, and in one case was enough for individual to commit suicide (people pg.554.) The CIA was also linked to a plot to kill Fidel Castro, and other leaders of Cuba. The FBI was linked to actions such as tampering with certain political groups/activists, and may have had a role in the murder of Blank Panther leader Fred Hampton (people pg.555) More notably the FBI was involved in COINTELPRO, which included illegal actions such as fraud, and strong arming certain political groups into an agreement. All of these actions turned a sense of trust in our government entities into a hatred, and angst as to what might come to light next (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9905a/jbcointelpro.html. A Harvard University Professor, and advisor to the white house Samuel Huntington produced the report entitle Governability of Democracies. IN this report he cited the now lack of government respect, and authority compared to years past. One figure he points out that in 1960 18% of the public viewed government spending to high, and in 1969 that number rose to around 52%. A few lines he was quoted as saying referring to the time “ People no longer felt the same obligation to obey those whom they had previously considered superior to themselves in age, rank, status, expertise, character, or talents ( people 559). His words optimized what became to be the feeling of the 1970’s, and even still today of our political leaders, and government. No longer do people revere these figures as they did in the days of FDR, or Truman. They are now questioning every decision our leaders

The intelligence community has undergone some major changes in the past thirty years. During the cold war this section of defense had massive funding. There needed to be an ability to predict what the Soviet Union was planning to do and what they were actually doing in order to prevent a nuclear war. After this period in time ended there was again large changes. The budget to the intelligence community was cut astronomically because there was perceived to be less of a threat to the United States (“9/11 Intelligence Failures Report”, 2002). This misperception was actually due to a lack of ability to shift to a new changing threat. This mind set allowed many unwelcomed risks to enter into the United States.

The United States (U.S) Intelligence community has come a long way since the revolutionary war. After winning independence from England, the U.S would not invest much into intelligence or foreign policy until the 20th century. Foreign policy was simply not a priority for our young nation, having an ocean on eastern and Western boarders of the country severely limited potential threats. President Franklin D. Roosevelt would be the first president since Washington to understand the importance of intelligence and lay the groundwork for what we now consider national intelligence. Unfortunately, it has taken two catastrophic failures in intelligence for the U.S to realize the need for good intelligence and take steps to improve itself. The

This is the overall idea of congressional oversight. The problem that will always present itself, is the fact that each organization can affectively perform without direct connection to congress. This can create an example of an organization that can potentially make decisions that infringe on the civil rights of Americans. As seen in the Edward Snowden case, with the disclosure of national secrets, comes the negative exposure of national interest. Congress should continue to play a vital role in strategic intelligence oversight. Despite issues that confront them, congress has delivered on its promise of the intelligence transformation initiative. For example, if there were no director of national intelligence, the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act amendments of 2008, Section 702, which makes up 40% - 60% of the intelligence given to the president every

“My literal responsibility as director of the CIA with regard to covert action was to inform the Congress - not to seek their approval; to inform.” Former CIA Director Michael Hayden said this quote concerning who the CIA reports to. Most American’s think that since the CIA is part of the government, that it held responsible by the rest of the government. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that they are completely wrong. The way the CIA was created caused many atrocities to be committed by them without any ramifications.

Issues pertaining to Intelligence oversight are intricate ; complicated at best and confusing at worst . By the virtue of its very nature , intelligence and open scrutiny do not mix although that is what Congress is mandated to do . Historically , the debate over Intelligence reform & oversight was a bloody uphill battle between the legislative & executive bodies . To further illustrate that point , a study that researched history of 58 of congressional record , titled “ US INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

While there is a need to keep some information in secrecy, if the information is not shared with the right people, then the information does not serves any purposes. When classified information is shared, there will always be a risk that it could be leaked by someone within the USIC. Similarly, if the information is not shared with important members and partners of the USIC, then there will always be a risk that a terrorist attack will not be prevented because some members and partners of the USIC were not aware of the information that was collected. Moreover, the FBI should make aware and provide information to state an local law enforcement agencies whenever they decide to stop an ongoing investigation of a suspect. Doing this can allow state and local law enforcement agencies to be able to monitor these suspects for a while in case that the FBI could not collect enough information and the suspects turn out to be terrorists or terrorist supporters.

The United States has a set of political institutions empowered to, among other things, defend the nation's common good. Defending the common good requires espionage and other forms of state secrecy. In the post-9/11 world — a world in which we know that terrorists, acting independently from governments, will do everything in their power to inflict maximum, indiscriminate harm on the United States and its citizens — defending the common good will require a degree of domestic as well as foreign surveillance. [The Week]

Times were different before WW2 and the Pearl Harbor Attacks. Before the Pearl Harbor attacks our nation did not think much of National Security. After the attacks during WW2 the nation as a collective viewed the Nation’s security as a much higher priority and with a sense of examination. One major result was the National Security Act of 1947. The National Security Act created legal basis to the intelligence community also making the intelligence function permanent. “An Act: To promote the national security by providing for a Secretary of Defense, for a National Military Establishment for a Department of the Army, A Department of Navy, A Department of Air Force: And for the coordination of the activities of the National Military Establishment

a swing in the emphasis and the resources devoted to this activity. Note; In all areas, confidentiality is of critical importance.