CIA's John Brennan Refuses To Tell Senate Who Okayed Spying On The Senate
from the constitutional-crisis dept
As you may recall, over the past few months, there's been a rather big story brewing, concerning how the CIA spied on Senate staffers. Specifically, after having explicitly promised not to do so, the CIA snooped on a private network of Senate staffers who were putting together the giant $40 million report on the CIA's torture program. The CIA tried to spin the story, claiming that they only spied on that network after realizing that those staffers had a document that the CIA thought it had not handed over to the staffers (they had), believing that perhaps there had been a security breach. However, when read carefully, the CIA's spin actually confirmed the original story: the CIA, against basically all of its mandates and the basic concept of the Constitutional separation of powers, had spied on the Senate. While both the Senate and the CIA asked the DOJ to investigate, eventually the DOJ said the matter was closed and there would be no prosecutions.At the end of July, the CIA finally came out and admitted that it had spied on the Senate, and effectively admitted that CIA boss John Brennan had flat out lied about it back in March. The CIA's inspector general then revealed that the spying went even further than people had originally believed. This raised even more questions, but with Brennan "apologizing" and Senator Dianne Feinstein saying that she was satisfied with the apology, it seemed like this unfortunate incident may have been over and done with.
Apparently not. Last week, in the latest meeting concerning the torture report redactions, apparently some Senators asked Brennan to reveal who authorized the spying on the Senate staffers, and Brennan refused to tell them, leading to a bunch of very angry Senators -- which may create some further issues, given that the Senators are supposed to oversee the CIA.
Tensions between the CIA and its congressional overseers erupted anew this week when CIA Director John Brennan refused to tell lawmakers who authorized intrusions into computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee to compile a damning report on the spy agency’s interrogation program.Multiple Senators spoke out angrily about the situation:
“I’m concerned there’s disrespect towards the Congress,” Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who also serves as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told McClatchy. “I think it’s arrogant, I think it’s unacceptable.”The CIA's response to all of this is typically maddening, in that it shows how they try to underplay what really happened:
“I continue to be incredibly frustrated with this director,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M. “He does not respect the role of the committee in providing oversight, and he continues to stonewall us on basic information, and it’s very frustrating. And it certainly doesn’t serve the agency well.”
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said he was “renewing my call” for Brennan’s resignation.
CIA spokesman Dean Boyd said that Brennan declined to answer the committee’s questions because doing so could have compromised an investigation into the computer intrusions by an accountability board headed by former Sen. Evan Bayh.The McClatchy report suggests that in the meeting, Brennan "raised his voice at Feinstein." Senator Levin noted that the CIA's response to this whole thing is bogus, because even if there is an independent investigation (set up by the CIA) going on, it doesn't mean that Brennan himself gets to shirk his responsibility to answer questions coming from the Senate committees that oversee his activities.
“It may or may not be appropriate for the (CIA) IG to answer, but it’s not appropriate for Brennan to refuse to answer. If he doesn’t know the answers, he can say so,” said Levin.Of course, the big question is, what will the Senate do about this other than make a lot of noise? Brennan seems to be banking on "absolutely nothing," and he may be right.
Levin continued, “He either knows the information or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t know the answers, OK, tell us. It’d be kind of stunning if he didn’t know the answers to those questions, but if that’s what he wants to say, he should tell us.”
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: carl levin, cia, dianne feinstein, john brennan, mark udall, martin heinrich, senate, senate staffers, spying, torture report
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cut their mission.
Cut their access.
Dismantle the fing thing and see when they want to start talking. Perhaps if the result of lying to those who you are supposed to answer to is you ass in a sling and an out of control agency dismantled and prosecutions happening maybe just maybe the other agencies might stop withholding things.
The country is already screwed, might as well use this as a fine time to undo much of the bad and clean house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is amazing to me that...
I suspect the reason they're not is because CIA has leverage of some sort so that there'd be a degree of retaliation.
...so doesn't that mean that CIA rules the country the way the Church ruled Europe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But perhaps most importantly, they certainly don't like having their authority challenged. If there's one thing that can get them to look past partisanship, it's a challenge to their power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They need to pursue a criminal investigation or something. If there are no legal remedies they need to go on TV and ask the president to replace him. Something like this, where the president must decide if he will no longer obey their wish or that he will fire him. Something that forces a very public show down.
Also:
I thought the CIA wasn't allowed to operate in the United States.
If the CIA doesn't know who authorized the spying is it possible to fire the director for being incompetent.
America has become a very shady place to live. The things I was taught about the balance of power no longer seem to apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The President can fire him, but he won't do that unless it becomes politically expedient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a fucking shocker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the point?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
cant one be held in contempt of congress or some such?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: cant one be held in contempt of congress or some such?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CIA Spying on the Senate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brennan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously, is anyone surprised?
Nothing is going to happen to anyone beyond a resignation, at the absolute worst. Welcome to what happens when accountability goes out the door and governments choose to obey or disobey anything they want. After all, what the hell can we do? Vote? Oh wait, "voter fraud," now we can't vote.
Europe looks really nice this time of year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seriously, is anyone surprised?
Are you and illegal immigrant by chance?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seriously, is anyone surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing will change by itself.
I don't wish for anyone to die or anything like that, but a massive conspiracy (against politicians... we all know the public don't matter) leaked from one of the agencies would be good right about now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing will change by itself.
6 years ago we had the largest national and worldwide economic disaster since the Great Depression, in which governments and all major financial institutions were intimately involved with and at fault. No change, the same politicians oversee and are bought off by the same companies.
For 10 or 12 years we've had leaks about massive surveillance of practically everyone by every 3 or 4 lettered agency of all the biggest western countries. No change, the same politicians not doing anything resembling oversight of those agencies.
A month ago, we have the latest in a long string of questionable police shootings, and then massive overreaction using military gear against the following protests. No change, most police forces around the country are still getting new military equipment and no oversight from the politicians gladly helping them get it.
There isn't a "massive conspiracy" as Hollywood movies would have against the citizenry or politicians. There is simply illegal and unconstitutional actions, abuse of power, and no punishment or accountability when they happen. If those things aren't big enough to actually get some accountability back into the system - no single outside force or situation is. We have to demand it and keep demanding until it changes. We as societies are ultimately in charge of our governments. It's time we reminded the politicians of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing short of blood and fire...
I'm pretty sure we can protest all we want until the police tear gas everyone away, and until there are casualties, and lots of them, Washington isn't going to care. Even if it's all happening in the district itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing short of blood and fire...
The entire alphabet soup of Washington is seemingly filled with the corrupt and power-mad. If Congress, as our representatives in federal arena, will not toughen up and get to work cleaning house, we citizens need to do so.
What can we do to start organizing this sort of thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first steps of revolution...
This is the tricky part. Organizing is a full time startup-company job (e.g. long hours, low pay).
Even Hitler started out as a "drummerboy" (WWI war hero Goering was going to be the leader of the Nazis) until he was clearly popular to be the front man.
We have a legitimate grievance. But it's so outrageous that people who don't see it will have a hard time believing it.
Protests are good, but as with any defiance of institution they're risky. Ideally our representatives would see the concerns as legitimate and make changes. But more likely, not, and you have to keep protesting until they send the police to disperse the protest. And that's going to be painful. It's also the point, as it demonstrates that peaceful protest is no longer tolerated by the establishment.
I had thought that Occupy did that for us, but maybe that news is too old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing short of blood and fire...
Ukrainians aren't heros, the cops were told not to retaliate at Maidan and just to block entry to parliament. Then they were shot and set and fire. Then that government gets called corrupted while ours are called awesome. Fuck that.
Like the guy below me, although undesirables in many, but not all ways, the NSDAP formed as a political party full of young people.
Trash your ps3, keep a pc but for working purposes (also reading). No more amusement, have compassion for the homeless guy, your age that can't do nothing but shoot himself with heroin into oblivion because he can't fucking endure this society anymore living on a park bench near your apartment. Get him in there, get him on methadone treatment, and educate him just like everyone else.
Seperating each other into groups doesn't work, punks tried in the early 80's to even the mid 90's to work as a no prejudice kind of political force but that failed due to hey industry embraced our music now we can live off it, Nirvana caused this, accidentally, probably why Kurt shot himself.
Lots of rambling but yeah, it's like the 60 and over should all die suddenly and it would be really easier to make a better world NOW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing will change by itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Then a few weeks later several Senators get run over by cars or have heart attacks etc....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gasp! You don't say!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Send a list of questions to the head of a government department, along with a date, time, and location where the head is to present the answers. Order the head of the department to bring his second in command along for the presentation.
2) If the head of the department fails to show up, or fails to answer the questions, fire the head of the department, and revoke any and all security clearances. Promote the second in command to head of the department. Give the new head of the department the same list, a new date and time, and orders to return with a new second in command of the department.
3) Repeat until either the answers are forthcoming, or the department runs out of personnel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think Congress has that authority. They can charge them with contempt of Congress, but who enforces that? If it's the executive branch then it's meaningless. Can the Capitol Police arrest members of the executive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shouldn't that be "congressional observers"? As far as I can see, they don't "overseer" jack shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treat CIA like kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cutting the budget.
But I seriously think congress has not a scruple nor a mettle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]