Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
My comment to NY Times article on CIA's admission of spying on Senate Intelligence Committee
Here is the text of my comment (I will provide a link and an excerpt below, followed by a few additional thoughts):
[font size=3]Mark Kessinger[/font]
If any citizen had illegally hacked his or her way into a government computer, or even a computer of a corporation, that citizen could expect to be prosecuted, and quite aggressively so, by the Feds or the state (as determined by the statute under which the citizen had been charged). Will these CIA hackers be held to the same standard of legal accountability? Of course not.
Government agencies -- ALL of them, even those dealing with matters of intelligence and national security -- must remain accountable to the elected government of the people they serve. The Senate, through its Intelligence Committee, is the body charged with oversight of the CIA; therefore, the very idea that the CIA can, of its own accord and in the midst of a Senate investigation into its own conduct, determine what its overseers are permitted to see is itself anathema to any notion of representative government. While it is true that providing such unfettered access to the Senate Intelligence Committee could result in an incremental increase in the potential for an intelligence breach, the desire, or even the need, to maintain secrecy in the interest of national security must never be permitted to become so paramount that the agency becomes effectively free of oversight. An unaccountable agency is, by definition, a rogue agency.
If any citizen had illegally hacked his or her way into a government computer, or even a computer of a corporation, that citizen could expect to be prosecuted, and quite aggressively so, by the Feds or the state (as determined by the statute under which the citizen had been charged). Will these CIA hackers be held to the same standard of legal accountability? Of course not.
Government agencies -- ALL of them, even those dealing with matters of intelligence and national security -- must remain accountable to the elected government of the people they serve. The Senate, through its Intelligence Committee, is the body charged with oversight of the CIA; therefore, the very idea that the CIA can, of its own accord and in the midst of a Senate investigation into its own conduct, determine what its overseers are permitted to see is itself anathema to any notion of representative government. While it is true that providing such unfettered access to the Senate Intelligence Committee could result in an incremental increase in the potential for an intelligence breach, the desire, or even the need, to maintain secrecy in the interest of national security must never be permitted to become so paramount that the agency becomes effectively free of oversight. An unaccountable agency is, by definition, a rogue agency.
Here is an excerpt of, and link to, the article:
[font size=6]C.I.A. Admits Penetrating Senate Intelligence Computers[/font][/BR]
By MARK MAZZETTI and CARL HULSE JULY 31, 2014
WASHINGTON — An internal investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency has found that its officers improperly penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee to prepare its damning report on the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program.
The report by the agency’s inspector general found that C.I.A. officers created a fake online identity to gain access on more than one occasion to computers used by members of the committee staff, and tried to cover their movements as they rooted around the system, according to an official with knowledge of the investigation’s findings.
< . . . . >
The Justice Department has already declined to investigate the matter, so the inspector general report brings a degree of closure to the issue — and vindication for Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the committee who excoriated the C.I.A. in March when the matter became public.
< . . . . >
The White House publicly defended Mr. Brennan on Thursday, saying he had taken “responsible steps” to address the situation, including suggesting an investigation, accepting its results and appointing an accountability board. Asked whether the results of the investigation present a credibility issue for Mr. Brennan, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said, “Not at all.”
< . . . . >
By MARK MAZZETTI and CARL HULSE JULY 31, 2014
WASHINGTON — An internal investigation by the Central Intelligence Agency has found that its officers improperly penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee to prepare its damning report on the C.I.A.'s detention and interrogation program.
The report by the agency’s inspector general found that C.I.A. officers created a fake online identity to gain access on more than one occasion to computers used by members of the committee staff, and tried to cover their movements as they rooted around the system, according to an official with knowledge of the investigation’s findings.
< . . . . >
The Justice Department has already declined to investigate the matter, so the inspector general report brings a degree of closure to the issue — and vindication for Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic chairwoman of the committee who excoriated the C.I.A. in March when the matter became public.
< . . . . >
The White House publicly defended Mr. Brennan on Thursday, saying he had taken “responsible steps” to address the situation, including suggesting an investigation, accepting its results and appointing an accountability board. Asked whether the results of the investigation present a credibility issue for Mr. Brennan, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said, “Not at all.”
< . . . . >
So General Keith Alexander lies to Congress, and suffers no repercussions as a a result. And now the director of another agency lies to Congress, and this Administration remains behind him 100%. Absolutely unconscionable! And once again, the promises by this President, when he was a candidate, to hold the intelligence community accountable for misconduct and overreach are revealed to be nothing more than cant. I am beyond disgusted by this.
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Another reader ("02Pete"
, in a comment that acknowledged the problem of accountability the CIA's action s present, nevertheless closed his comment by posing the following question:
Who watches the watchers, though? Who, if anyone, is keeping track of whether Senate investigators complied with federal law in conducting their investigation?
Here was my response:
Mark Kessinger
02Pete, the 'watchers,' in the concept of "who watches the watchers," is most often, and most appropriately, construed to mean those agencies of the government charged with law enforcement, intelligence-gathering and espionage, such as the CIA, NSA or the FBI. To define a committee of the elected body charged with oversight of one of these agencies as 'watchers' is to turn the very notion of government accountability into a legal Möbius strip under which any investigation into possible misconduct by a particular agency can be undermined by that very agency through an illogical, and very misguided, application of the "who watches the watchers" concept. Ultimately, in theory at least, in a representative democracy, all agencies of the government are accountable to the people. The people hold their elected representatives in government accountable through elections. The elected representatives, or some subset of them, hold by proxy agencies of the federal government accountable. At a certain point, despite any security concerns, the body charged with oversight of these agencies must be permitted complete access, even if it may not disclose everything it sees to the electorate, to information regarding the conduct of those agencies. If the CIA, or any other agency, is permitted to subvert that chain of accountability, and thus enabled to intimidate those charged with investigating its own potential misconduct, is to virtually guarantee the agency will do precisely that.
02Pete, the 'watchers,' in the concept of "who watches the watchers," is most often, and most appropriately, construed to mean those agencies of the government charged with law enforcement, intelligence-gathering and espionage, such as the CIA, NSA or the FBI. To define a committee of the elected body charged with oversight of one of these agencies as 'watchers' is to turn the very notion of government accountability into a legal Möbius strip under which any investigation into possible misconduct by a particular agency can be undermined by that very agency through an illogical, and very misguided, application of the "who watches the watchers" concept. Ultimately, in theory at least, in a representative democracy, all agencies of the government are accountable to the people. The people hold their elected representatives in government accountable through elections. The elected representatives, or some subset of them, hold by proxy agencies of the federal government accountable. At a certain point, despite any security concerns, the body charged with oversight of these agencies must be permitted complete access, even if it may not disclose everything it sees to the electorate, to information regarding the conduct of those agencies. If the CIA, or any other agency, is permitted to subvert that chain of accountability, and thus enabled to intimidate those charged with investigating its own potential misconduct, is to virtually guarantee the agency will do precisely that.
