House Intelligence Committee Trying To Block Privacy & Civil Liberties Board From Doing Its Job

from the well-isn't-that-great dept

The House Intelligence Committee is supposed to be providing "oversight" of the intelligence community and preventing it from violating our civil rights. That's why it was formed in the first place, out of the Pike Committee, when Congress actually investigated abuses by the NSA, CIA and FBI. But, over the decades, the House Intelligence Committee has, instead, turned into a cheerleader for the intelligence community and seems to work to better hide its activities from the public, rather than oversee them. That's part of the reason why we now have a Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) who is actually supposed to be investigating these programs and protecting our civil liberties.

Thus, it should come as little surprise that the House Intelligence Committee is trying to stop the PCLOB from doing its job, and has come up with the pettyist of petty reasons for doing so: it's upset about an opinion piece that was written by the PCLOB's chairperson.

Back in April, PCLOB chair David Medine criticized the lack of oversight concerning the use of military drones. That opinion piece argued:

Now is the time to address the questions President Obama has raised. We must seize the opportunity to institutionalize a more transparent and dispassionate process, defend the hallmarks of due process, and affirm that neither the executive branch nor U.S.-born terrorists are outside the law. We recommend a fine-tuned version of the second approach raised by President Obama: an independent, executive branch review panel designated to assess the evidence against proposed targets and make non-binding recommendations to the President as to whether the targeting is appropriate before efforts are made to kill the targets. One candidate for such a panel is the existing Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent, bipartisan agency in the executive branch.

In short, a fairly modest request: if we're going to be droning people -- including American citizens, shouldn't there at least be some oversight? To the House Intelligence Committee, however, apparently this is sacrilege. Thus, punishment in the form of blocking the PCLOB from having the power to review any information concerning covert actions by the US government:

Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, upset by an opinion piece penned by the chairman of a government watchdog on privacy issues, have advanced a measure to block the agency’s access to information related to U.S. covert action programs.

The provision, in the 2016 intelligence authorization bill, takes a jab at the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent executive branch agency whose job is to ensure that the government’s efforts to prevent terrorism are balanced with the need to protect privacy and civil liberties.

In other words, because the chair of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversght Board expressed some concerns about the impact on civil liberties of a "covert" (ha ha) program, the House Intelligence Committee has blocked it from investigating any further. How is this "oversight" by the House Intelligence Committee and not "covering up"? Of course, they're coming up with all sorts of silly excuses about how this is about keeping the PCLOB from straying outside its mandate:

That article “really stirred the pot,” said one congressional aide, who like others interviewed for this article was not authorized to speak for the record. The committee majority saw that suggestion, along with other reviews the board was undertaking, the aide said, as “mission creep.”

The provision, which the committee passed on a voice vote last week, was an attempt by Republicans to make sure the board members “stay in their lane,” as another aide put it. “Covert action, by its very definition, is an activity that the United States cannot and should not acknowledge publicly,” the committee’s chairman, Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), said. “Review of such activity is ill-suited for a public board like the PCLOB.”

Yes, but the drone program has been acknowledged publicly, and why does that even matter when we're discussing the privacy and civil liberties impact of these programs?

And, why have we allowed our elected officials to become the enablers of civil liberties abuses, rather than the protectors of civil liberties?

Filed Under: civil liberties, david medine, drones, house intelligence committee, pclob, privacy

Hey, We Finally Have A Privacy And Civil Liberties Oversight Board... After Being Left Dormant For Almost Five Years

from the about-time dept

With all the efforts to pass cybersecurity legislation, along with all the fears of government violating our privacy (4th amendment? Whazzat?), you might think it would be somewhat useful to have an agency in charge of watching the government -- one which actually has some real power. Well, it exists. Sort of. In 2006, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB) was created, in part as a counterweight to concerns over the Patriot Act. The PCLOB was staffed, but after the White House tried to interfere and stifle some of its work, one member very publicly quit in 2007. Congress responded by actually passing a useful law, which gave the PCLOB more independence and more power (including subpoena power). After it passed, there was a transition period of six months. At the end of that, the existing board (which was a part of the White House) would cease to exist, and a new independent agency was supposed to take its place. Instead, the existing board ceased to exist on January 30, 2008... and that was it. Since then, there has been no board. At times, both President Bush and President Obama have sent some nominations to the Senate, but nothing more had happened. Even back in 2010 people were complaining what a travesty it was that the board remained empty for two years.

Fast forward another two years and change... and the thing still wasn't staffed. The whole thing was such a joke that in a recent discussion with a Congressional Rep (known for being a supporter of civil liberties), when the PCLOB (and its lack of members) was brought up, the Congressional Rep admitted that he'd never even heard of the thing. For all the urgency that was talked about in passing cybersecurity legislation, everyone just sat around twiddling their thumbs while this independent organization tasked with making sure the government didn't abuse our civil liberties sat completely empty.

Until now. Yes, we finally have a staffed PCLOB. The Senate has approved all five nominees: David Medine, James Dempsey, Elisebeth Cook, Rachel Brand and Patricia Wald. It's amazing that it's taken nearly five years to put this board in place (and that there wasn't more outrage over its absence). The real question now is how will the PCLOB wield its power. Hopefully it does some good and actually holds the government to account when it violates the civil liberties of the public.

Filed Under: board, civil liberties, david medine, elisabeth cook, jim dempsey, oversight, patricia wald, privacy, rachel brand