The Obama administration has threatened to veto the funding
bill for US intelligence agencies because the House included a provision that would increase the number of
members who receive briefings on highly secretive covert operations.
The
provision, section 321 of the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010, would require intelligence agencies to brief
all members of the House and Senate intelligence committees virtually every sensitive classified project, including "special access programs" that
have traditionally been orally briefed to the "Gang of 8," the chairs
ranking members of the intel committees, the Speaker and Minority
Leader of the House of
Representatives, and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate.
The same provision allows Congress, not the administration, to restrict the briefings in extraordinary circumstances.
This seemingly small change to the law is what's
provoked the veto threat. The Obama administration, like all previous
administrations of the modern era, believe that the president, and only
the president, has the power to determine what constitutes national
security information and, even more vitally, what safeguards ought to
be in place to protect the information.
Section 321 chips away at that
power and simultaneously expands the scope of the briefings that the
administration would be required to give.
The Gang of 8 process
is much derided by critics who argue that intelligence oversight cannot
be effective unless full oversight committees are fully briefed, and
unless the balance of power between the executive and legislative
branches over control of classified information shifts in Congress's
favor.
"There is a long
tradition spanning decades of comity between the branches regarding
intelligence matters, and the Administration has emphasized the importance of
providing timely and complete congressional notification, and using "Gang of 8"
limitations only to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting the vital
interests of the United States," the administration writes. "Unfortunately, section 321 undermines
this fundamental compact between the Congress and the President as embodied in
Title V of the National Security Act regarding the reporting of sensitive
intelligence matters - an arrangement that for decades has balanced
congressional oversight responsibilities with the President's responsibility to
protect sensitive national security information. Section 321 would run
afoul of tradition by restricting an important established means by which the
President protects the most sensitive intelligence activities that are carried
out in the Nation's vital national security interests."
The administration also objects to language that would subject internal
executive branch legal deliberations over intelligence policy to the
congressional oversight process.
Elsewhere in the statement, the
administration chides Congress for its proposal to establish an
inspector general with oversight responsibilities for the entire
intelligence community. Why? It might constraint the president's "constitutional
authority to review and, if appropriate, control disclosure of certain
classified information."
The theme of this memo, and of the administration's defense of the
state secrets doctrine, is that President Obama believes that the
executive branch, and only the executive branch, controls the release
of classified information. The bright line they've drawn here is not
a-historical, but given recent history, it will provoke a clash with
Congress, and, down the line, trigger a major Supreme Court case.
Congressional sources say that the White House veto threat will be sufficient to persuade House Democrats to remove the provision from the bill, which was scheduled to be debated tomorrow.







How about posting the memo? I'd like to read it for myself.
Found it. Wasn't easy; I'm not a fan of the White House website's layout. The search function blows. I used Google, site:www.whitehouse.gov "spanning decades of comity" to come up with it:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/sap_111/saphr2701r_20090708.pdf
The bill section in question can be seen at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c1119c8tkb:e43297:
There seems to be less "open" and more "government" in this "open government" concept the administration keeps talking about.
Given my general low opinion for the Congress, I'd rather see a default to the "Gang of 8" with an option for the "Gang of 8" to request an expanded briefing on a case-by-case basis. I fear that leaks will grow exponential to the number of briefed Congresscritters.
I am unaware, as all of us must be, of any secrets the government maintains to keep our nation secure. Nor, given the fact that the threats themselves are kept secret, is it easy to imagine what secrets are needed to counter these threats. Thus, we must take these claims about security on faith. About the last secret we had that we could have granted beforehand was vital to our security was the precise day, time and place of the D-Day invasion.