Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bad62bug

David Kay

Recommended Posts

Guest Deuces Wild

This cite (& there are plenty of others) indicates that the legislative branch does not seem to think that the information they get is the same as is available to the president.Legislatue wants to see intelligence on 9-11

If they had/have access to the same information why is the legislature battling the president for release of or access to the intelligence information available to the executive branch?

 

That was a 9-11 Committee, not the intelligence committees I previously spoke about. ;)

 

A case can be made that the faulty intelligence information should have been scrutinized further by the Intelligence Committees in Congress. To think that those Congressional committees see different intelligence reports than what the President sees is pretty far fetched.

 

As I said the blame can be spread around if you like, but it is far better to demand that the alleged problem gets reviewed and fixed.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I learned that one of my best friends here in Myrtle Beach is a die hard Republican. I did not know this at the time, and then he went on a tirade about the Democrats. It went something like "All democrats do is to continue to TAX TAX TAX and then SPEND SPEND SPEND. Democrats are fiscally irresponsible, and should have nothing to do with running any goverment of any size." I tried to point out that this is not universally true, and that the current Republican administration and Congress was creating the largest deficit in the history of the country. His only response was to get red in the face, and say that it would have been far worse a situation if a Democrat was in power.

 

I wanted to ask "How do you know things would have been worse?" "Would things be worse economically?" "Security wise?" "Our individual freedoms?" "Our privacy?"

 

I of course did not ask because I already knew the answer. He feels that things would have been far worse in every imaginable and conceivable way if a Democrat had been elected president in 2000. He does not need to rationalize this opinion. He feels it with every fiber in his body. Nothing, absolutely nothing will change his views.

 

So I dropped it. He is a good friend, and to be honest, he really does not care about my views on these issues. Although it interests me, I have learned a valuable lesson. I do not knowwhat percentage of the population he represents but no matter what happens, he will always feel that good things are attributed to the republican party and all bad things to the democratic. And there is nothing that can be done to change this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wholeheartedly agree with Kylie in that it's our responsibility to remain until there is some semblance of order in Iraq regardless of why we there in the first place. however, to turn tail and spout the 'bad guy theory' is an insult and should not be accepted. an apology would be understood, explaining where the mixup occurred about what was where and how much though this really isn't something that can be "fixed"

 

the damage is done and i, for one, don't particularly take too kindly to watching the US be put in a position of having to take out all the 'bad guys' because of precedent. what must be determined, IMO, is how and what intelligence info is filtered to whom and when....what the flow chart looks like, if you will. but there's no doubt in my mind that at the top of that chart is a box for the President. He is the military leader and responsible for whatever actions are taken.

 

as they say....the bucks gotta stop somewhere :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say go after Bin Laden now!!! Drop a one of those bunker buster straight on his sorry head. That sorry POS might be hooked up on his dialysis machine LHAO at Bush and the coalition as we posting here. :angry:

Edited by Intratech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say go after Bin Laden now!!! Drop a one of those bunker buster straight on his sorry head. That sorry POS might be hooked up on his dialysis machine LHAO at Bush and the coalition as we posting here. :angry:

didn't think we ever stopped goin' after that sorry excuse :huh:

 

i'll drop one on him myself, just show me where :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CIA Mission & Value Please note that there is nothing in here about legislative oversight. You can look at NSA and FBI websites and they do not mention the Legislature.

 

How Legislative Oversight Works Note that information flows threw the President

 

 

How the legislature gets classified information Again note the reliance upon the President

 

I cited the 9-11 committee to show that the President does not share information with the legislative branch except as he/she sees fit

 

I do not know if the president shared relevant intelligence or not. We know that he does not generally share information.

 

The White House today stated that there is no reason to have an independent review of the intelligence and intelligence gathering in the Iraq WMD issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The White House today stated that there is no reason to have an independent review of the intelligence and intelligence gathering in the Iraq WMD issue

does the White House have a final say whether there's an investigation ?? to me, that's quite scary :yikes: especially since the Prez doesn't want anyone to see what he was privy to....so of course that would be his position :rolleyes: meaning no need for anyone to have a 'look-see' :mrsgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

From your own link CDave:

 

U.S. intelligence agencies are required by statute to furnish to the oversight committees of Congress "any information or material concerning intelligence activities . . . which is in their custody or control and which is requested by either of the intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities." Other laws require the Executive Branch to provide reports to the Congress on specific subjects, which regularly involve classified information. (While the Executive Branch frequently objects to these reporting requirements on the grounds that they are a burden, it very rarely objects on the grounds that constitutionally Congress has no right to the information.) These laws may be understood as specific implementations of the constitutional right of the Congress to obtain information.

 

The Intelligence Oversight Act has been amended several times in the past two decades to clarify and strengthen the language requiring disclosures of classified information relating to intelligence activities to Congress. The Act currently provides in part:

 

"Section 501. (a)(1) The President shall ensure that the intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title.

 

* * *

"The President shall ensure that any illegal intelligence activity is reported promptly to the intelligence committees, as well as any corrective action that has been taken or is planned in connection with such illegal activity.

 

* * *

"(d) The House of Representatives and the Senate shall each establish, by rule or resolution of such House, procedures to protect from unauthorized disclosure all classified information, and all information relating to intelligence sources and methods, that is furnished to the intelligence committees or to Members of Congress under this title.

 

* * *

Section 502. To the extent consistent with due regard for the protection of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters, the Director of Central intelligence and the heads of all departments, agencies and other entities of the United States Government involved in intelligence activities shall --

 

 

(2) furnish the intelligence committees any information or material concerning intelligence activities, other than covert actions, which is in their custody or control and which is requested by either of the intelligence committees in order to carry out its authorized responsibilities."

 

It should be noted that information about intelligence activities is only one kind of classified information. Other statutes require reports on foreign affairs, military readiness, weapons systems, and law enforcement capabilities, all of which may involve classified information.

 

In addition to statutory requirements, the Congress sometimes adopts rules concerning congressional access to information. For example, the Senate rule (S. Res. 400) establishing the Intelligence Committee in the Senate provides that:

 

Sec. 11 It is the sense of the Senate that the head of any department or agency of the United States involved in any intelligence activities should furnish any information or documentation in the possession, custody, or control of the department or agency, or person paid by such department or agency, whenever requested by the select committee with respect to any matter within such committee's jurisdiction.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been there, Actually that is where I started. "Works closely with" does seem to me to mean share same information with. I may be wrong but the FBI, CIA, NSA websites all refer back to the executive branch. As I say if thay have the same information why does the congress complain that they do not have acces to the information.

 

"Intelligence Oversight Act requires the President to keep the oversight committees "fully and currently informed" of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity and any significant intelligence failure"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually if you read this description of what the oversight committee does it does not even necessarily have access to the intelligence gathered What the Oversight Committee does

 

This from the CIA website clearly indicates that the daily briefings the president gets are not the same information that the oversight committee gets. What the Congress Gets

 

"The separation of power between the executive and legislative branches requires an adversarial relationship in most cases. It is vitally important to maintain that adversarial relationship when overseeing the activities of an intelligence community with known tendencies to disregard law, and who's budget is secret. The institutional model of oversight may have some use, but without coupling it with an aggressive investigational model there really can be no oversight." from Sharing Intelligence

 

Case of Oversight in Iran-Contra This is not detailed but it does talk about how information is shared.

 

 

Looking at the statutory authority there is no requirment to share intelligence findings only methods and means. Statutory Authority

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether the opinions here at PC Pitstop are reflective of the nation as a whole, but this thread has shown remarkable progress from prior threads.

 

CD, as opposed to focusing on the areas of disagreement, there is now remarkable agreement on many of the core issues. This is a fantastic sign!

 

1. We agree that WMD was the reason that we waged war on Iraq, and the fact that there are no WMD is a problem that somehow we must address.

 

2. We agree that Saddam was/is a bad guy.

 

3. We agree that we waged war on faulty information.

 

The only disagreement is whether the president has any culpability in the matter. Independent of your view of the issue, the president is in a precarious situation. I do not believe that Bush can adopt DW's view that Congress said it was OK. It would make him appear weak. He also cannot adopt my view and say "My Bad". That would make him look weak and also error prone.

 

So I suspect that he will do neither. He will most likely continue to reiterate our new reason for going to war - that the world is better off without Saddam. To Republicans, he will seem strong and a man of conviction. To Democrats, he will seem a little sneaky, irresponsible and dishonest. That's probably the best he can do from a political damage control standpoint.

 

Although some may disagree, I can see nothing in Mr Kay's comments that benefits the president's position or his chances for re-election. This makes me question the president's choice of Kay as the weapons inspector. If you think about, all Kay needed to do was to continue looking for WMD until after the election. He didn't need to find any WMD, just to keep looking. Why come out before the election with all of this crap? $600M was already allocated to the continued search of WMD. All our country asked him to do was to look for WMD, and he couldn't even do that right. The best spin on this situation is to paint Kay as an incompetent traitor. It will be interesting to see how it will all go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chen I am genuinely interested in the issue of what constiutes oversight. I had always understood that it meant the congress could know what the CIA was doing and how they were doing it not what they find. I don't know the answer but as can be seen I looked hard and i see nothing that says that the congress knows what the intelligence reports are/were. Having said that I agree that it is more important that we are there and that we are there under false pretences.

 

The question remains wether the false pretences are a failure of intelligence, a failure of analysis, a failure to accurately convey the intelligence provided to the executive branch or even a failure of the congress to demand justification forthe assertions.

 

I agree with your analysis. GWB has never acknowledged responsibility for any adverse action or activity. This dates back to his govenorship and some would say as far back as his DUI and unusual military career during Nam. I do not think that he will suddenly say "yes I was wrong" no matter the evidence. I personally think it is wonderful that he is always correct :lol: Historically when the evidence is overwhelming he has simply refused to respond (the cocaine use allegations).

 

I agree that he is likely to continue to site labored reasoning as justification, Saddam is evil, Saddam killed his own people, Saddam had torture and rape chambers, Saddam may have WMD that we haven't found, Saddam did have plans to start programs that could lead to WMDs, etc. I think this is safe. some people will believe that there are WMD that are found (some people posted here recently that the weapons had been found) Chaney says that trailers are proof of biological WMDs, so obfuscation should serve to preserve many supporters.

 

I know that Kay was the hand picked man and I agree that he is an embarrassment but I am not sure that is a long term problem. Unless he continues to agitate for an independent investigation I don't think annyone will remember David Kay. His successor is already hard at work and that will eventually grab the headlines. I think it is possible that there will be an attempt to discredit Kay just as the administration leaked the identity of a CIA agent that was not supporting the administration position. I think that is overkill for Kay at this point. Kay is in 75% agreement with Bush. He said we need to to have taken out Saddam, that he could build weapons, that there is no proof that they don't exist etc. I just don't see Kay as that big of a threat/embaressment. But as you say we will see soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that Kay is a minor character in the story but I view the WMD issue as a potential lightening rod for Bush's reelection. I have talked to numerous people that supported Bush in 2000 that feel misled regarding the WMD issue.

 

I believe that Bush has played the issue in the best way possible. Changing the fundamental reason for the invasion to Saddam was a bad guy, while still maintaining that the WMD still exist. The problem is that Kay shoots a pretty whole in the basic strategy.

 

I just finished reading this article on Yahoo.

 

Parting company with many of his fellow Republicans, Sen. John McCain said Thursday he wants an independent commission to take a sweeping look at recent intelligence failures.

 

This is smart to paint McCain as a rebel Republican and hence his idea is a fringe idea and not a mainstream idea.

 

The White House has dismissed the proposal

Again, very smart, give absolute no creedence to the idea. The idea is so far out there.

 

The Bush administration also argues that the weapons search is not yet complete.

 

This is perhaps the most critical point in the article. They should push this point even further. They should get a senior official (Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney) to come out and say that they still believe that WMD will be found and urge patience from the American public and Congress. This needs to be done quickly and obviously is a subtle slam on Kay's competence.

 

In an interview with The Associated Press, McCain said he believes the public needs an assessment that won't be clouded by partisan division

What the hell is McCain doing talking to the AP? Clearly not a team player. They need to paint McCain as not representing the wishes of the American people. DW, note that no one is saying "McCain had access to the same intelligence as the president, and he voted for the war too." Independent of the accuracy of the statement, it simply does not play well for the president.

 

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice reiterated the administration's position Thursday, saying that efforts to learn the extent of Saddam's weapons arsenal are sufficient.

Now here's a good team player. If Bush gets reelected, there will certainly be a nice position for Rice.

 

Rice replied, "The president's judgment to go to the war was based on the fact that Saddam Hussein for 12 years had defied U.N. resolutions" regarding his stock of weapons."

Now we're talking. This is one powerful statement. This has been building up for 12 years. We've been patient with Saddam but finally we had to say enough is enough. It breaks the tie between Saddam and 9/11, but that subtlety will be lost on most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem seems to be that people are trying to make this a Republican vs. Democrat thing . They don't get it ! I's a right or wrong issue . We all need to quit thinking politicaly and think moraly.

 

 

PEACE:

rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I agree that it is a right or a wrong issue and not a Rep vs. Dem thing. But we are now in an election cycle and if Ms. Bush caught a cold people would say it is because the Republicans don't have universal health care coverage. That is just the way of an election year.

 

I have for the longest time said this is just another example of duplicity and treating the American public as though they are stupid ( which I am sad to say I am beginning to believe is a correct analysis). Bush was elected on a kinder gentler conservatism platform. Except for kindness and gentleness to the rich I don't think people could argue he has done that. He argues for gatting tough with law breakers and corpoaret malfeasance.

 

He attempted to put a few truly radical judges in place and when opposed by Democrats he reframes the issue as race/ethnic/gender politics and claims that republicans never held up nominations of qualified candidates. Even if this were true , which it isn't, it escalates the divisiveness in a congress that he claims to be "a uniter not a a divider". He passes a prescription drug bill that can only be seen as a financial boon to drug companies and is not expected to help seniors that much. While claiming to be fiscally conservative he underestimates the cost of the prescription drug bill by 30% (revised estimates released 1-29-04). He refued to release estimates on the cost of the war going into the war. He does not allow competitive bids on post war contracts. Does this sound like a fiscal conservative.

 

I could go on but the point must surely be made. This is a person that has a pattern of claiming one thing and then doing something entirely different but claiming it is what he said. It is Orwellian double speak come to life. In the cold war days this was derided as a communist system flaw. One could say it was night in the middle of the day and after awhile people start to redefine night as meaning midday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't get it ! I's a right or wrong issue

yep......

 

And as now (In the UK ) even our Rt Rev Blair has even admitted that "some" of the intelligence reports "may" be "somewhat erroneous" ,there should be a public enquiry over the factors that got us to our current position ...... (a political)

 

Apparently this has been the first time the UK has entered a war solely on the indications taken from intelligence reports ......

 

Lessons have to be learnt before our next conflict ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Well I agree that it is a right or a wrong issue and not a Rep vs. Dem thing.

Great. Glad to see you finally see it that way. :)

 

The problem seems to be that people are trying to make this a Republican vs. Democrat thing . They don't get it !

Lessons have to be learnt before our next conflict ...

Exactly. We have to fix the problem rather than trying to lay blame for the sake of doing so. That is far more important that silly partisan politicking, election year or not.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may very well be beaten about the head with a stick for saying this but I still think "we" did the right thing. If only the powers that be hadn't used the WMD as an "excuse" all they had to tell was what was fact and what they already knew, why on earth didn't they? The atrocities that this man was directly accountable for are I HAVE NO WORDS FOR IT :(

 

Read and weep...

 

- Information from the Human Rights Watch, U.S. State Department, Times files, BBC News, Associated Press and New York Times -

 

Attacks on Iraqi Kurds

 

From 1977 to 1987, between 4,500 and 5,000 Kurdish villages in northern Iraq were destroyed and the population placed in "resettlement camps." As many as 50,000 Kurds died. In the spring of 1987, thousands of Kurds were killed by chemical and conventional bombs. In at least 40 cases, Gen. Ali Hasan al-Majid, "Chemical Ali," used chemical weapons to kill or chase Kurds from villages. In 1988, as many as 5,000 Kurds were killed and 10,000 injured in Halabja. During the Anfal campaign, from February to September 1988, Iraqi soldiers rounded up more than 100,000 Kurds, mostly men and boys, and executed them. More than 1-million Kurds fled and tens of thousands were killed or imprisoned when Iraq crushed an uprising after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Kurdish officials say that around 200,000 have been forcibly evicted from areas that were under Hussein's control.

 

1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War

As early as 1983, Iraq used poison gas against Iranian troops. In 1988, Hussein reportedly used chemical weapons in a lightning attack to retake the vital Faw Peninsula. An estimated 20,000 Iranians were killed by Iraqi mustard gas or by the nerve agents tabun and sarin during the war.

 

Expulsion of minorities from Kirkuk

Beginning in 1991, more than 120,000 Kurds, Turkmen and Assyrians were expelled from this oil-rich northern city, to be replaced by Arab families resettled from southern Iraq.

 

Repression of Marsh Arabs and other Shiite Muslims

During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq's Sunni-dominated regime arrested thousands of Shiite Muslims on charges of supporting the 1979 Iranian Revolution; many have never been accounted for. Nearly 500,000 Shiites fled to Iran. After the Gulf War, Iraqi forces shelled and shot thousands of Shiites who were hiding in the country's southern marshlands after a failed revolt. Hussein also razed towns and drained marshlands. Thousands of Shiites, including hundreds of clerics and their students, were imprisoned without charge, "disappeared" or were executed. Many Shiite shrines and institutions were demolished. Again, thousands of Shiites fled the area, some to Iran. In 1999, Ayatollah al Sayyid Mohammad Sadiq al Sadr, the most senior Shiite cleric in Iraq, was assassinated.

 

In May 2003, a mass grave was discovered near Mahaweel, 60 miles south of Baghdad. Most bodies appear to have been killed after a 1991 Shiite revolt. The remains of other Shiites killed after a 1999 rebellion have been discovered near Basra.

 

Large-scale "disappearances' and torture

An estimated 300,000 Iraqi citizens have vanished without a trace, many presumed dead. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights condemned the Iraqi regime in 2001 for "widespread, systematic torture and the maintaining of decrees prescribing cruel and inhuman punishment as a penalty for offenses." Torture methods have included hanging, beating, rape and burning alive. The 2001 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report says the government "killed and tortured persons suspected of - or related to persons suspected of - economic crimes, military desertion and a variety of other activities. Security forces routinely tortured, beat, raped and otherwise abused detainees." It accused the regime of killing inmates to reduce prison overcrowding and executing prostitutes.

 

1990 invasion of Kuwait

Hussein invaded Kuwait in August 1990 over an oil and land dispute and then annexed the country. Occupying forces brutalized civilians; they tortured and summarily executed detainees. Retreating Iraqi troops looted Kuwait City and seized hundreds of Kuwaitis, taking them back to Baghdad. Iraqis also destroyed more than 700 oil wells and opened pipelines to let oil pour into the Persian Gulf and other water sources. The spill damaged water desalination plants and Kuwaiti fishing grounds and has left areas of Kuwait lifeless a decade later. The U.S. military maintains that Hussein's tactic of using human shields during the Gulf War was part of a strategy that included putting military arsenals beneath schools, mosques, orphanages and cultural sites so that an attacker would also kill civilians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I have to say I have enjoyed this discussion and the way it has been conducted. I have been voting for many years now since I came home from Vietnam. (Didn't have a chance before I went at 18) The thing I don't understand is the reaction of so many to what the political establishment has always manifested and continues to manifest which in my opinion is that they can say and do whatever is needed to accomplish their goal with confidence that the majority of us will forget it if they get it wrong. Our anger is usually just at what is being done to us at the present and then something else comes along and our attention shifts or something happens that effects us personally and garners all our attention.

 

I am a firm believer in debate and in getting involved in change for the good of the people. I am basically a republican but have never in my life voted a straight ticket. I have a lot of respect for people in both parties and believe our country's greatness lies in freedom of choice. It also lies in people willing to speak up and to actually be a participant of effective solution. Unfortunately for most of us, all we can do is vote and pray we have made the best choice.

 

Keep up the good work pitsters!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kylie,

 

It seems that those now calling Saddams use of chem & bio weapons 'monstrous' (which they were) sanctioned, aided and assisted him back then :mrsgreen: The hypocrisy is incredible isn't it. The major coalition members also use depleted uranium weapons which can also be labelled as bio weapons. These things cause major increases in cancer related deaths and birth defects for years after they are used. Depleted Uranium

 

There are no good guys in this war. Just different sides of the same coin IMHO.

 

Saddam's Green Light

By Robert Parry, The Consortium. In summer of 1980, the Saudis turned to Saddam, with his Soviet-supplied army, to stabilize the Gulf region and protect the oil fields. At the same time, the U.S. wanted Saddam to counter the new regime in Iran. The result was Iraq's invasion of Iran in September 1980 and eight years of war between the two. Subsequent investigations concerning President Carter's giving Saddam a green light to attack Iran.

The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet

By Jeremy Scahill, Counterpunch, 2 August 2002. The meeting in late December 1983 between Hussein and Rumsfeld paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US as a way to deal with Mideast problems. Gulf nations told to end hostilities toward Iraq and help Iraq defeat Iran. Association of Rumsfeld and Iraq' use of mustard gas and nerve agent bombs. U.S. arming of Iraq after 1982.

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup Trade in Chemical Arms; Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds

By Michael Dobbs, Washington Post, 29 December 2003. Instrumental in tilting U.S. policy toward Baghdad during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war was Donald Rumsfeld, who met in December 1983 Hussein to normalize U.S.-Iraqi relations at at time when Iraq was regularly using chemical weapons. Priot to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, The US provided intelligence, cluster bombs, facilitated Iraq's chemical and biological miltiary technology. U.S. officials saw Iraq in the 1980s as a bulwark against militant Shiite extremism that allied states.

Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas

By Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 18 August 2002. A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war.

U.S. Companies Behind Iraq Weapons Program

By Mitchel Cohen, 23 December 2002. Biological agents shipped by US corporations to Iraq, with George H.W. Bush's approval as head of the CIA and later as Vice President under Ronald Reagan. These included anthrax, brucellosis, gas gangrene, and toxic varieties of E.Coli and Salmonella bacteria.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/index-la.html

Edited by Sir T Fireball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conflicting info everywhere. How do we find out the truth?

 

 

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/dcid1-19.html#leg

 

8.0 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH ACCESS TO SCI

 

8.1 Policy

 

 

8.1.2 As a basic principle, access to intelligence information shall be consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods. Normally, Congressional requests for intelligence information can be satisfied at the collateral (i.e., non-SCI) level, but, in certain instances, there may be a need for access to SCI. In these instances, every effort shall be made to exclude, to the extent possible, data on intelligence sources and methods.

8.1.3 Members of Congress may be provided access to SCI on a need-to-know basis without a security investigation or adjudication after appropriate indoctrination. Heads of organizations within the Intelligence Community or Program Managers providing SCI shall provide indoctrination briefings on the sensitivity and vulnerability of the information, and the sources and methods involved, as required to ensure proper protection. Documentation relative to the passing of clearances should include the fact of, or convey the status of, appropriate clearance/access indoctrination.

 

8.1.4 Access to SCI by staff members of the Senate Select Cormnittee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) are governed by Memoranda of Understanding executed by the Chairmen of these Committees and the DCI. Provision of information and materials to these Committees shall be in accordance with mutually agreed arrangements.

 

8.1.5 Requests for SCI access approvals for other legislative branch personnel shall be referred to the Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs (OCA) for DCI approval. Requests must be in writing by committee or sub-committee chairmen and clearly describe the nominee's need-to-know. Issues arising with regard to particular requests shall be referred to the DCI for resolution. Unless otherwise authorized by the DCI, approval for SCI access for legislative branch staff personnel shall be limited to:

 

8.1.5.1 Permanent staff personnel of appropriate Congressional committees and subcommittees;

 

8.1.5.2 Selected employees of the General Accounting Office and the Library of Congress; and

 

8.1.5.3 Selected members of the staffs of the leadership of the House and Senate, as agreed by the DCI and the leadership.

 

 

8.2 Verification Requirement. The DCI's OCA will verify, in coordination with program managers and on behalf of the DCI, the need of persons in the legislative branch, other than members of Congress, for SCI access. Verifications shall be based on such persons' job responsibilities in the following areas:

 

8.2.1 Direct involvement in authorization legislation pertaining to IC organizations;

8.2.2 Direct involvement in appropriations legislation for IC organizations;

 

8.2.3 Direct involvement in reviews authorized by law of activities of IC organizations; and

 

8.2.4 Direct involvement in other legislative matters which, of necessity, require direct SCI access.

 

 

8.3 Access Approval Procedures

 

8.3.1 SCI access approvals may be granted to staff personnel in the legislative branch, described above, who possess a Top Secret collateral clearance and who meet the investigative standards set forth in DCID 1/14. Requests for exceptions to this policy shall be referred to the DCI's Director of OCA. The requester of the SCI access approval is responsible for having a DCID 1/14-scope investigation conducted. Security organizations involved in processing requests for investigations on legislative branch staff personnel should be alert to guard against error that could arise from investigative records being held by different agencies or from uncertainty about the clearances/access approvals held by staff personnel. Adequate records of investigations and clearances should be kept and updated. Reports of investigation shall be reviewed by the CIA Director of Personnel Security or successor office to ensure uniform application of DCID 1/14 security criteria. The granting access approvals shall be coordinated with the appropriate program managers, as agreed by the DCI.

8.3.2 Staff personnel in the legislative branch receiving SCI access approvals shall be provided appropriate security briefings by the CIA and shall sign NdAs before receiving SCI access. SCI access approvals shall be recorded in a community wide database. Copies of NdAs shall be provided to program managers who request them.

 

8.3.3 The DCIs OCA shall be notified promptly of employee job changes or terminations to ensure debriefing of employees who no longer require access and to ensure updating of a community wide data base. SCI access approvals for legislative branch employees must be withdrawn if an employee leaves the specific position for which access was authorized. If SCI access is required in the new position, a new need-to-know determination is required.

 

8.3.4 SCI shall be made available to committee and subcommittee members only through or under the authority of the Chairman of the Congressional committee or subcommittee concerned.

 

 

8.4 Handling and Storage of SCI.

 

8.4.1 Any executive branch component that provides SCI to Congress shall ensure that the handling and storage of such information conforms to the requirements of DCID 1/21 (see section 3.1) or successor policy statements. SCIFs shall be accredited by the CIA. Where adequate provisions cannot be made for the handling and storage of SCI, no such information may be provided without the approval of the DCI.

8.4.2 Testimony or briefings involving SCI provided to persons in the legislative branch shall be subject to the following security measures:

 

8.4.2.1 Thorough physical security and technical surveillance countermeasures will be conducted in accordance with DCID 1/21 and DCID 1/22.

 

8.4.2.2 All persons present, other than elected officials, including transcribers and other clerical personnel, must be certified for access to the SCI being discussed. Arrangements shall be made to monitor entrances to the room where the presentation will be given to exclude unauthorized persons.

 

8.4.2.3 All transcriptions or notes that result from briefings or testimony must be handled and stored according to the SCI security requirements as specified in section 8.4.1.

 

8.4.2.4 The room in which a presentation is given must be inspected after the presentation to ensure that all SCI is properly secured.

 

8.4.2.5 Any IC organization that provides SCI to a Congressional committee, other than a committee routinely involved in the oversight and appropriations processes of IC organizations, shall endeavor to provide such information through the SSCI or HPSCI, as appropriate. The SSCI and HPSCI both have facilities that meet the DCID 1/21 requirements and personnel trained in SCI handling procedures.

 

The committee requesting the information should contact the HPSCI or SSCI and obtain permission to use their facilities prior to the transmittal of the information. Where possible, the IC organization concerned should retain custody of the SCI. Where the information must be physically transferred, arrangements shall be made beforehand to eliminate or minimize the risk of exposure of SCI sources and methods. Records of the transfer shall be maintained by the department or agency providing the information.

 

 

8.5 Marking SCI Released to Congress. SCI being prepared for release to members of Congress and Congressional committees shall be marked with all applicable classifications, SCI caveats, codewords, project indicators, and DCID 1/7 control markings. The term "SENSITIVE" may not be used instead of, or in addition to, SCI markings, as it does not convey the nature or extent of the sensitivities involved. Releasing agencies shall ensure, through their legislative offices or comparable elements, that Congressional committee staff employees, through their legislative offices or comparable elements, that Congressional committee staff employees, and employees of the Library of Congress and the General Accounting Office, have clearances and SCI access authorizations appropriate for receipt of the material involved. Releasing agencies also shall ensure that SCI being provided legislative branch components is stored in accredited SCIFs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...