tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4/tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.20921- 2009-11-03T22:13:43Z Comments for Clash With Congress: Obama Threatens Veto Of Intelligence Funding Bill Movable Type 4.24-en tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.20921 2009-07-08T20:47:08Z 2009-07-09T22:40:50Z Clash With Congress: Obama Threatens Veto Of Intelligence Funding Bill 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... Marc Ambinder
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.
]]>
"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.
]]> tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.20921-comment:221953 Comment from Paul William Tenny on 2009-07-08 Paul William Tenny How about posting the memo? I'd like to read it for myself.

]]> 2009-07-08T23:45:22Z tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.20921-comment:222110 Comment from Blake on 2009-07-09 Blake 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

]]> 2009-07-09T14:13:51Z tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.20921-comment:222113 Comment from Blake on 2009-07-09 Blake The bill section in question can be seen at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c1119c8tkb:e43297:

]]> 2009-07-09T14:14:43Z tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.20921-comment:222141 Comment from Dredd on 2009-07-09 Dredd There seems to be less "open" and more "government" in this "open government" concept the administration keeps talking about.

]]> 2009-07-09T14:56:23Z tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.20921-comment:222205 Comment from msully on 2009-07-09 msully 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.

]]> 2009-07-09T15:52:36Z tag:politics.theatlantic.com,2009://4.20921-comment:224392 Comment from Sidney Gendin on 2009-07-12 Sidney Gendin 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.

]]> 2009-07-12T06:58:05Z