You know what could have stopped them Pelosi.

Impeachment.

I’ve read it – I’ve been hammering away for a long long long time on the lack of adherence to the NSA on a lot of different fronts. That’s why in my 98 I said that, unlike what Aeon said, “A Covert Action is not intelligence collection, by fact and by definition” the Act approached it from the other way, not with a definition of intelligence collection that excludes covert actions, but with a definition of covert action that excludes intelligence activities.

So I’m not sure what your response is?

As to your 101 -nope, a question now and then doesn’t cut it. The statute deals with primary purpose. The establishment of blacksites was not for the primary purpose of gathering intelligence, it was for the primary purpose of disappearing people. The budget for the building and sites (Panetta says he “saved” us 4 mill by closing the contracts on the sites) aren’t primarily for intelligence gathering – indeed, someone will have to point to where any intelligence was gathered vis a vis Khalid el-Masri – but running gulags for the purpose if disappearing people is under any analysis an activity separate and apart from gathering intelligence.

I could do a much longer brief on it, but I think that’s very clear. [And I realize you’re playing devil’s advocate, but the primary purpose language is there for a reason and being able to wash all sins with one question is it]

You 105 is what I’ve been teeth grindy about forever and no one ever asks this. There are reference and hints all over that such a finding exists, that the CIA required it at a point in time, not being content with just the OLC opinions.

And as I keep hitting (apologies to the dead horse) Members of Congress (esp now that the full committees have been involved and since some staff were involved from the get go) have to have known that either:

there was a finding, in which case, if the CIA/Pres took the position that the program was a covert program, perhaps they can get around not briefing the full committees up front but they are admitting intell gathering wasn’t the primary purpose and they are still not getting around the failures to do gang of 8 briefing and they also have to come up with a statement from the time of the full committee briefing on what where the reasons and extraordinary circumstances as to why the full committees were not included in the original briefings, or

there was no finding and the failure for years to keep the committees fully informed on the CIA’s disappearance-assault-battery-human experimentation-interrogation programfor years was purposefully in violation of the Act

Again, on either front some of the Intel committee heads out to be swinging with something. As I’ve been trying to say, if some CIA guys walk in an brief Pelosi as intel chair on something, there’s no reason for her to not discuss it with the full committee unless there is something else – that something else is someone or some entity, somehow, telling her that she couldn’t do that. And no one is poking the whens, wheres and howfors on that. Because that is where there is going to be a rock meet hard spot place for the briefers (and maybe Pelosi, maybe not) who briefed her.

If she was told it was a covert op, there are all the other issues.

If she was told it wasn’t a covert op, there was no Presidential finding, but she just couldn’t tell the committees (even though a staffer was also being briefed) it puts a very different light on what people should or should not have done.

As used in this title, the term “covert action” means an activity or activities of the United States Government to influence political, economic, or military conditions abroad, where it is intended that the role of the United States Government will not be apparent or acknowledged publicly, but does not include—

(1) activities the primary purpose of which is to acquire intelligence,
traditional counterintelligence activities, traditional activities to improve
or maintain the operational security of United States Government programs, or administrative activities;

(2) traditional diplomatic or military activities or routine support to such
activities;

(3) traditional law enforcement activities conducted by United States Government law enforcement agencies or routine support to such activities; or

(4) activities to provide routine support to the overt activities (other than
activities described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3)) of other United States
Government agencies abroad.

This is simply a message from the boss to the employees: stop gabbing around the water cooler and get back to work.

It’s ludicrous to read any more into it than that.

(Reminder: when sourcing material, links to pages that provide the full, unedited version are far more useful than links to rehashes or excerpts.)

I appreciate that, as does my minder; I really shouldn’t be let out in public.

But even if you put that aside and say that somehow there is a argument of holding people in physical assault programs is primarily an intelligence operation, there is something that isn’t getting the direct attention it should and that is a covert activity IMO. That was creation of blacksites and of a program to disappear people. And lets face it, the disappearances continued long after any intell gathering ops in respect of the people ceased, but the program to open and run gulags and disappear people was very separate and apart from intell gathering. Becoming the long term jailor is not intelligence gathering. It is also the big elephant in the room

The problem is, all CIA would have to do is question the detainees every once and a while, and they could claim the detention was part of the intelligence gathering program.

And the mindset of CIA lawyers is to ask: what can we do that is literally consistent with the statutory language, regardless of what the spirit of the statute is? So, becoming the long-term jailor could plausibly be intelligence gathering, if they ask the detainees questions.

Obviously, I think it’s wrong, but I’m just arguing what I can imagine CIA lawyers arguing.

We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people. My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe. What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward.