New national intelligence director? This has so much potential for abuse.

[icarus]

Bush retaliates against the CIA for revealing his Iraq BS signs new executive order concentrating enormous amounts of authority to a national intelligence director. This persone will oversee all info from all our intelligence agencies and handle our contact with foreign intelligence agencies.

This looks like way too much power in one person's hands.

What I want to know is who appoints this director, how long do they stay in authority, and who does this director report to? I see an extraordinary potential for abuse.

Comments

[lherelenfeline.livejournal.com]

Right, this smells fishy...

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Something to keep a very close eye on.

[cat-77.livejournal.com]

He really truly is trying to screw over both the US and the world in general before he leaves office, isn't he?

Each time I think he's done, or can't get any worse, he proves me wrong.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Each time I think he's done, or can't get any worse, he proves me wrong.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Is there any way we can have him frozen for his last hundred or so days in office? Is that too much to ask?

[magic-8ball.livejournal.com]

This is one of those issues where there's really no right solution.

On the one hand, I can't help but agree that this is WAY too much power for any one person to have. We live in an age where, perhaps more than ever before, information is power. I'd argue that this is far more power than Hoover ever had, and we all know how that turned out.

But on the other hand, we have to accept that a result of the information age is that there is just endless amounts of data to collect, track, organize, and utilize. To make matters worse, anyone with half a brain realizes that our "War Against Terror" is fundamentally a conflict in which intelligence agencies (rather than the military) should take the lead. i.e., Destroying organized groups of ostensibly non-state actors requires gathering of intelligence across countless state borders, requiring a sophisticated intelligence system and the help of foreign nations. Groups need to be identified and, when necessary, eliminated quietly (as opposed to invading countries for no reason in particular). (And as a side note, I acknowledge your inevitable opposition to such an idea. I respect your values and simply ask that you respect my belief that assassination is simply one of many tools of statecraft and is generally far more preferable to ill-advised invasions with no exit strategies.) Additionally, funds -- often in electronic form -- need to be located and seized/frozen. No one agency could, or even should, be placed in charge of foreign intelligence, military intelligence, and domestic counter-intelligence. But as the 9/11 Commission rightly pointed out, it doesn't do the country a whole lot of good if the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Someone has to be in charge of collating data gathered by 16 different agencies. I suppose that a small group (inevitably a star chamber) would be ideal, so at least there's the hope that the interests of the individuals would balance each other out, but small groups aren't as efficient as one person; and if there's a serious threat (I hate to sound like Cheney, but there are plausible scenarios wherein non-state actors could smuggle a nuke within our borders), having one person in charge might help catch it and react in time.

What I guess I really want to know is this: 1) what kind of Congressional oversight is provided for by the order, and 2) if there's another crisis like 9/11, is Congress going to have the balls to step up and do its damned job in the face of any future administrations that loudly equate questions to either cowardice or a lack of patriotism?

Like I said, I agree that this isn't a really good thing, but I don't see many great alternatives, either. Any thoughts?

(As an additional matter, this actually concerns me less than when Hayden was appointed as director of the CIA. I abhorred the idea of yet another active-duty military man overseeing what is ostensibly an independent, civilian agency. And while he's turned out to be quite good, and he has finally retired from active duty, I'm still uncomfortable with so many voices in the national intelligence briefings having similar military backgrounds that color their world-views and shape their responses to threats/crises. Then again, if Michael Brown is the kind of civilian Bush is going to tap for critical directorships, maybe we're far better off to have a bunch of generals running intelligence.)

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Yes. I immediately thought of Hoover, and my first draft of this post mentioned him.

To make matters worse, anyone with half a brain realizes that our "War Against Terror" is fundamentally a conflict in which intelligence agencies (rather than the military) should take the lead

Thank you. I've been saying this since 2001. These terrorist cells have no central authority and so the only way to deal with them is to infiltrate them.

(And as a side note, I acknowledge your inevitable opposition to such an idea. I respect your values and simply ask that you respect my belief that assassination is simply one of many tools of statecraft and is generally far more preferable to ill-advised invasions with no exit strategies.)

Funny that I hadn't taken that second logical leap to "what do we do" once we've infiltrated them. Shit.

and is generally far more preferable to ill-advised invasions with no exit strategies

I've always wondered if the invasion of Afghanistan was simply saving face because we couldn't point to real CIA progress without blowing our cover.

I should point out that I know people at Langley (and in the NSA), so I don't have the usual objections to the CIA. The Dalai Lama is alive today because the CIA, operating under Eisenhower, got him out. Most of the Tibetans in exile are alive today because the Tibetan Khampa militia, Chushi Gandrak, sacrificed their lives protecting their escape route. They were also supplied by the CIA.

But as the 9/11 Commission rightly pointed out, it doesn't do the country a whole lot of good if the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Someone has to be in charge of collating data gathered by 16 different agencies.

I'd be more supportive of a group with a committee chairman who could fulfill the same role.

1) what kind of Congressional oversight is provided for by the order, and

Hear, hear. You heard about Bush creating a competing CIA-type intelligence agency under the auspices of the pentagon, where they wouldn't face the same congressional oversight as the CIA. Ten times worse than Hayden's background. I'd like to know how this new position relates to that effort.

2) if there's another crisis like 9/11, is Congress going to have the balls to step up and do its damned job in the face of any future administrations that loudly equate questions to either cowardice or a lack of patriotism?

Unlikely. :)

Then again, if Michael Brown is the kind of civilian Bush is going to tap for critical directorships, maybe we're far better off to have a bunch of generals running intelligence.

LOL. You're not the first person to mention Michael Brown.

[bramble-rose.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, I can just see the current administration putting someone with all the skills and knowledge of the previous FEMA director into that incredibly sensitive and powerful position. Or even worse, using Monica Goodling's hiring criteria to fill it.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

And are we stuck with this cat if he is another Michael Brown? How do we get rid of him?

I think we should have a committee of the intelligence agencies with a chairman rather than a single head.

[mad_maudlin]

You know, I really wish more neocons would follow a simple test before doing these kinds of things: before appropriating massive new authorities to yourself or your minions, imagine for a moment whether you'd want Janet Reno to have the same powers. (Liberals can do the same test, but substitute Cheney.)

Of course, that would require Bush to know who Janet Reno is...