Briefing Congress is not oversight!!!
Great exchange today in the White House press briefing regarding oversight and Congress. If you get a chance, read the entire transcript. Apparently the White House is hoping that by saying members of Congress were notified of the program and that Congress is a separate branch of government, people will think checks and balances were satisfied. If that's not betting on the ignorance of the public, I don't know what is :
Q Congress defines oversight as "the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations, to have access to records or materials, or to issue subpoenas or testimony from the executive." Which of these powers were members of Congress granted with regard to the NSA surveillance program?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as you just pointed out, Congress is an independent branch of government, and they're elected by their constituents. We briefed and informed members of Congress about this program going back to 2001; more than a dozen times since then we've briefed members of Congress --
Q But briefing isn't power to investigate or issue subpoenas to ask questions. And I'm asking you, which of the powers of oversight were they granted?
MR. McCLELLAN: Congress is an independent branch of government. That's what I just pointed out, Jessica.
Q Which has the right to check the functions of the executive. And these are --
MR. McCLELLAN: They have an oversight role, that's
right.
Q Okay, so in what way --
MR. McCLELLAN: That's why we thought it was important to brief members of Congress about this vital tool that we're using to save lives and to protect the American people, and why we talked to them about how it is limited in nature and limited in scope.
Q But as you know, members of Congress who were briefed said that they were informed -- yes, briefed, but given absolutely no recourse to formally object, to push back and say, this is not acceptable.
MR. McCLELLAN: They're an independent branch of government.
Q So in what way were they given oversight?
MR. McCLELLAN: They were briefed. And we believe it's important to brief members of Congress, the relevant leaders --
Q Would you also say they were given full oversight?
MR. McCLELLAN: They're an independent branch of government. Yes, they have --
Q Were they given oversight?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, they have oversight roles to play.
Q So they have oversight. So, in what way could they have acted on that oversight?
MR. McCLELLAN: You should ask members of Congress that question.
Transcript
posted by The Decider @ 12:21 AM
5 Comments:
Wow. I should make it a point not to read such garbage so early in the morning.
First, I was glad to read--especially during the discussion of Iraq--that the reporter (mostly) didn't let him get away with empty answers.
Jessica wasn't so tough on him about the question of oversight--what does he mean by repeating "congress is an independent branch..."? Does that somehow answer her question and I'm missing it?
No. His childish repetition of an isolated and misrepresented fact doesn't answer her question at all.
He's hoping that by merely mentioning that certain oversight functions were fulfilled, i.e. briefing a few members of Congress, you and I will be tricked into thinking oversight, or checks and balances, were satisfied. Informing a few members of Congress is not checks and balances because Congress could not act on the executive actions. The fact that the two branches are separate is important, but does not sufficiently fulfill oversight standards. I think he knows most of us didn't pay attention in Social Studies.
What's sad is that even his dependence on the briefing component is severely flawed, because a) the "briefings" were apparently pathetic and hollow, and b) they only briefed a select group of Congress members.
I share your praise of a courageous reporter.
There were 4 very interesting columns in TWP yesterday about this very subject. W. Kristol argued that FISA was insufficient for surveillance of Zacharais Moussaoui, and in that context, Bush authorized surveillance by the NSA after 9/11.
However, E. Robinson (correctly) points out that if FISA was insufficient, then they should have endeavored to change it, which they've had plenty of time to do. Which is precisely Posner's point today.
The reporter at the WH briefing implied (but didn't make) an important point, and McClellan avoided it like the dickens: any congressman given classified information is required to keep it, and thus cannot insist on their proper oversight capacity without violating the secret classification. So their informing a few congressmen is not sufficient to allow oversight.
That's why I believe George Will got it right on the money when he suggests that John Yoo's briefing on the plenary powers of the the president to take military actions to protect the state, should be declassified and debated, so we can get to the essential question of the nature of this surveillance, because that is still in question.
Interesting and relevant article today in the Post about McClellan's job and how it basically entails him NOT answering questions.
One proposal is to have the House hold public hearings while the Senate concurrently holds classified, private hearings.
As for McClellan, I'm satisfied that politics requires, at times, a certain amount of spin. The line between spin and deception is never clear. In this case, McClellan's narrow and misleading projection of facts may be spin, but in my view misleading and, therefore, wrong. It's time we hold ALL of our government officials to a higher standard. It's silly that we require civil servants to be accountable for the truth but hold no such requirement for elected or politically appointed officials.
Post a Comment
<< Home