For Congress, 'It's classified'

Lawmakers faulted for using secrecy to avoid accountability

Share with others:


Print Email Read Later

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reportedly gave its approval last week to an Obama administration plan to provide weapons to moderate rebels in Syria, but how individual committee members stood on the subject remains unknown.

There was no public debate and no public vote when one of the most contentious topics in U.S. foreign policy was decided -- outside the view of constituents, who oppose the president's plan to aid rebels by 54 percent to 37 percent, according to a Gallup Poll last month.

In fact, ask individual committee members -- who represent 117 million people in 14 states -- how they stood on the plan to use the CIA to funnel weapons to rebels, and they are likely to respond with the current equivalent of "none of your business": It's classified.

Those were, in fact, the words committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., used when asked a few days before the approval was granted to clarify her position for her constituents. She declined. It's a difficult situation, she said, and "it's classified."

In a string of interviews over days, members of both the Senate intelligence committee and its House counterpart were difficult to pin down on their view of providing arms to rebels. The lawmakers said they couldn't give an opinion, or at least a detailed one, because the matter was classified. It's an increasingly common stance that open-government advocates say undermines the very principle of a representative democracy.

"It's like a pandemic in Washington, D.C., this idea that 'I don't have to say anything, I don't have to justify anything, because I can say it's secret,' " said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank.

"Classified" has become less a safeguard for information and more a shield from accountability on tough subjects, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "Classification can be a convenient pretext for avoiding difficult questions," he said. "There's a lot that can be said about Syria without touching on classified [information], including a statement of general principles, a delineation of possible military and diplomatic options and a preference for one or the other of them. So to jump to 'national security secrecy' right off the bat looks like an evasion."

Syria is not the only topic where public debate has been the exception because a matter was classified. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., spoke last week about the frustration he felt because he could not tell constituents that he believed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court secret rulings had expanded collection of phone and Internet data far beyond what many in Congress thought they had authorized.

"Months and years went into trying to find ways to raise public awareness about secret surveillance authorities within the confines of classification rules," Mr. Wyden said at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Had it not been for a leak of a secret court order about cellphone metadata collection by former National Security Agency contract worker Edward Snowden, the program might still be beyond discussion, he noted.

But the classification barrier may not be as watertight as committee members make it out to be. Senate Resolution 400, which established the intelligence panel in 1976, has a section specifically devoted to committee oversight of the classification system, which is directed by the executive branch. If a committee member feels that classified information is of valid public interest, he or she can ask that it be declassified.

When Mr. Wyden was asked if he ever used that provision in a bid to get information declassified during his committee tenure, he said, "I don't know which specific provision you're talking about."

The Cato Institute's Mr. Harper said, however, that the tendency for lawmakers to cite classification to keep mum also reflects a pattern of legislative deference to the executive branch, which determines what is classified, that undercuts the concept of checks and balances.

By Ali Watkins

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reportedly gave its approval last week to an Obama administration plan to provide weapons to moderate rebels in Syria, but how individual committee members stood on the subject remains unknown.

There was no public debate and no public vote when one of the most contentious topics in U.S. foreign policy was decided -- outside the view of constituents, who oppose the president's plan to aid rebels by 54 percent to 37 percent, according to a Gallup Poll last month.

In fact, ask individual committee members -- who represent 117 million people in 14 states -- how they stood on the plan to use the CIA to funnel weapons to rebels, and they are likely to respond with the current equivalent of "none of your business": It's classified.

Those were, in fact, the words committee chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., used when asked a few days before the approval was granted to clarify her position for her constituents. She declined. It's a difficult situation, she said, and "it's classified."

In a string of interviews over days, members of both the Senate intelligence committee and its House counterpart were difficult to pin down on their view of providing arms to rebels. The lawmakers said they couldn't give an opinion, or at least a detailed one, because the matter was classified. It's an increasingly common stance that open-government advocates say undermines the very principle of a representative democracy.

"It's like a pandemic in Washington, D.C., this idea that 'I don't have to say anything, I don't have to justify anything, because I can say it's secret,' " said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank.

"Classified" has become less a safeguard for information and more a shield from accountability on tough subjects, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "Classification can be a convenient pretext for avoiding difficult questions," he said. "There's a lot that can be said about Syria without touching on classified [information], including a statement of general principles, a delineation of possible military and diplomatic options and a preference for one or the other of them. So to jump to 'national security secrecy' right off the bat looks like an evasion."

Syria is not the only topic where public debate has been the exception because a matter was classified. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., spoke last week about the frustration he felt because he could not tell constituents that he believed Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court secret rulings had expanded collection of phone and Internet data far beyond what many in Congress thought they had authorized.

"Months and years went into trying to find ways to raise public awareness about secret surveillance authorities within the confines of classification rules," Mr. Wyden said at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Had it not been for a leak of a secret court order about cellphone metadata collection by former National Security Agency contract worker Edward Snowden, the program might still be beyond discussion, he noted.

But the classification barrier may not be as watertight as committee members make it out to be. Senate Resolution 400, which established the intelligence panel in 1976, has a section specifically devoted to committee oversight of the classification system, which is directed by the executive branch. If a committee member feels that classified information is of valid public interest, he or she can ask that it be declassified.

When Mr. Wyden was asked if he ever used that provision in a bid to get information declassified during his committee tenure, he said, "I don't know which specific provision you're talking about."

Trying to determine how individual committee members feel about Syria policy can be frustrating. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mark Warner, D-Va., refused to state a clear opinion, citing classification. Others expressed general opinions, though they

world


Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here