Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the top Democrat in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, tells reporters that Congress has too much critical, unfinished work to be leaving for a five-week recess, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, Aug. 2, 2013. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo
Having been, at one place or another in my career, on each side of the perennial debate in Washington about "who knew what and when," I knew it was a matter of time before we started hearing it about the leaked NSA operations.
Since leaving government, I have written before about the weird dynamics of "briefing" Congress on sensitive operations, e.g., Nancy Pelosi's claim that she didn't know about CIA's program of "enhanced interrogations" during the Bush Administration. Now, and perhaps ironically, we have a spate of Republicans saying they knew little or nothing of the NSA operations
So, what's the real story behind this typical Washington play to the media?
The media, of course, has a field day because on any day, they can get someone in Congress who wants to get their face on TV to say most anything – this whips up the hysteria that gives the story legs.To them, it's media Nirvana – it's the Trayvon Martin case of national security, and the best thing since the "torture" scandal.
Here is what's behind all this political smoke:
So, who (probably) knew what and when about the compromised NSA program?
Some relevant background: Ever since Watergate, the Church and Pike Committees, the creation of the intelligence committees and the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (by the Democrats, FYI) in the 70's, there have been various legal requirements for the intelligence community to keep the Congress informed about what they are doing. And the Congressional Seniors, often called the "Gang of Eight" (majority and minority leaders of each house and majority and minority members of the intelligence committees), get briefed in more detail on the most sensitive intelligence activities and operations.
Now, put yourself in the place of the directors of the various intelligence agencies. If you have any political sense at all (and you wouldn't be a director if you didn't), you are going to tell all about your agency's various activities and operations, including all the risks - at least to the gang of eight. This way no one can later accuse you of withholding information when one of these sensitive programs goes south or is compromised. And, because the most sensitive activities and operations are often the most risky, the odds of failure or compromise are correspondingly high.
So, we can assume that - at the very least - the gang of eight was fully briefed on the NSA operations. And we can also assume that any other member of the intelligence committees who expressed interest in the programs would have likewise had a complete briefing, including on-site briefings by agency technicians, if such were requested.
How about an ordinary member of Congress who was interested in these programs? They can also get briefings if they request them, and should approach their own party leaderships if they want additional information, or go to the leaderships of their house's intelligence committee. Are these briefings often complex, technical and time consuming? Yes, for sure.
However, the suggestion that information is somehow being withheld from them is, frankly, silly, just as it was for Pelosi, a 10-plus year member of the gang of eight and a former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, to say that she didn't know about the CIA's enhanced interrogation program.
They know. They may wish they didn't when the story hits the news, but they know. In fact, it's to the administration's advantage – whether Republican or Democrat – that they know all the details. In short, they are all in this boat together, whether they like it or not.
Daniel Gallington is the senior policy and program adviser at the George C. Marshall Institute in Arlington, Va. He served in senior national security policy positions in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of Justice, and as bipartisan general counsel for the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Recommended Articles
Editorial Cartoons on Hillary Clinton
June 16, 2014
Editorial Cartoons on Donald Trump
May 31, 2012
Trump's Recipe for More Addiction
Feb. 14, 2017
Donald Trump could destroy the Obamacare reforms essential to people with substance use disorders.
You Aren't Wrong About Wine
Feb. 14, 2017
No, you can't taste wine like an expert – and that's OK.
Daily Cartoons: February 14, 2017
Feb. 13, 2017
Singing Out About Race at the Grammys
Feb. 13, 2017
What everyone's saying about Adele winning the Grammy for album of the year over Beyonce.
The Technology-Trade Tension
Feb. 13, 2017
How can we reconcile hating free trade and loving technological progress?
Piecing Together the Trump Team
Feb. 13, 2017
5 trends that tell us who – and what – Donald Trump will prioritize in his administration.
Saturday Night Hypocrisy
Feb. 13, 2017
Where's the liberal outrage over 'Saturday Night Live's' portrayal of Kellyanne Conway?
What Comes Next for Mexico City Policy
Feb. 13, 2017
Families in developing countries are still at risk even after Trump reinstated the ban on tax dollars supporting abortion overseas.