Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Intelligence Abuse Deja Vu

By Gary Hart, Huffington Post. Posted December 23, 2005.


Here we are again, 30 years later, and once again willing to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security expediency.
122305_story2
Intelligence Abuse Deja Vu
Advertisement

Three weeks after I took the oath of office in the Senate in 1975, then-Majority Leader Mike Mansfield appointed me to a newly created committee -- the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, which soon came to be known as the "Church Committee," after its chairman, the late Sen. Frank Church of Idaho. Out of 11 members, I was by far the youngest.

The Senate had impaneled the committee because of increasing reports of abuse of authority by the country's myriad intelligence agencies under the Nixon administration as well as previous administrations. For two years, the committee investigated broadly -- the CIA, FBI, DIA and NSA were all within its purview -- and finally, in 1976, it issued a series of recommendations designed to prevent future abuses.

Today, one has only to consider the behavior of the Bush administration during the Iraq war to appreciate how soon we forget, how little we learn and how pervasive is the tendency to violate civil and constitutional liberties in the name of war. Virtually all of the reforms recommended by the Church Committee -- many of which were passed into law -- have been evaded, ignored or violated in the name of the "war on terrorism."

It is often said that the first victim of war is the truth. In fact, the first victim of American war is the liberty of Americans.

During our investigations of intelligence abuse, we discovered that the government had engaged in widespread surveillance of a very large number of American citizens. Civil rights leaders were monitored. Antiwar groups were under surveillance. Domestic phones were tapped. Mail was opened. The FBI conducted warrantless "black bag" break-ins of private residences and offices. We wrote an entire report on warrantless electronic surveillance by the FBI -- exactly what the NSA has now been authorized to do by the president.

One particularly egregious program, code-named COINTELPRO, went beyond the mere collection of intelligence on domestic groups to actually trying to "disrupt" or "neutralize" target groups. The excuse given by the FBI and others was, "We are at war, and we need to do everything we can to defeat our enemy." Sound familiar?

In some cases, the intelligence services even turned violent. The CIA, for instance, conducted the infamous Phoenix program that resulted in the systematic assassination of thousands of Vietnamese villagers accused of collaborating with the Viet Cong. This was the 1970s version of Abu Ghraib. During the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations we tried (with obsessive insistence in the case of Fidel Castro) to assassinate at least six foreign leaders. Too bad we didn't have the Predator then. It would have been much simpler.

Our committee's work resulted in many reforms. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 required special intelligence courts to approve national security wiretaps. The Bush administration, however, has found that statute inconvenient and, predictably, has ignored it.

Our committee also recommended presidential "findings" before extraordinary covert operations were undertaken. This was not designed to undermine the CIA but to protect it; until then it had been left dangling in the wind when misused by presidents who wished to claim "plausible deniability."

That reform surfaced during another period of political abuse -- the infamous Iran-Contra affair, involving Bible-shaped cakes, trading with the enemy, lying to Congress and avoidance of accountability. It turns out that President Reagan, contrary to his own memory, had signed a "finding" authorizing the whole bizarre episode.

Again to support the CIA, our panel laid the groundwork for the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act that prevented identification of CIA operatives. This was the act that now appears to have been violated by at least half of the Bush White House in its demented efforts to punish Ambassador Joe Wilson by "outing" his undercover wife.

So what goes around, comes around. Here we are again, 30 years later, in yet another unwise war, no wiser and once again willing to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security expediency. If there was one lesson all of us who served on the Church Committee learned, it was that there are no secrets, that everything comes out and that the sacrifice of liberty is almost never justified by improved security.

If the U.S. is to prevail, it must grow up. It must learn from its mistakes, and not repeat them. It must finally understand that our security cannot be ensured by sacrifice of our own liberties.

Digg!

Gary Hart is a former U.S. Senator for Colorado who twice ran for the Democratic nomination for president.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
the 30-year shuffle
Posted by: vespasian01 on Dec 23, 2005 12:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good to see Senator Hart on the board. The differences between now and 30 years past are pronounced. During the Nixon years there was an alert force of citizen activists, a media with at least some traits of the functioning male and a forceful Democrat opposition. Even Nixon was relatively moderate in his policies ref. China and some enviro stuff. If it had not been for his Kissinger-inspired slaughter of a million Cambodians, the old Trickster might actually have found some empathy on the other side.

Today's electorate is weaker than the previous generation's. Lazy when it comes to pressing candidates for answers, pressing newsmen for truth and lazy when it comes to hardcore activism (peaceful but potent, all that).
Today's voter is getting exactly what he voted for with George W. Bush: a directionless, confused leadership.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the 30-year shuffle Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» RE: orwell's concerns Posted by: vespasian01
George W. walks on water?
Posted by: Bushhater on Dec 23, 2005 4:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some of my co-workers think W. is the second coming of Christ. They still believe that Saddam has buried WMDs under the sand, that body bags is "the price to be paid", and W's domestic spying is legal. They despise Clinton, but think W. is a great, honest man. HELP ME PLEASE! How do I get through to these oblivious idiots that think W. is not the greatest president in history, but our greatest threat?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: George W. walks on water? Posted by: JSquercia
» Have the people read this Posted by: errandchild
THE ENEMY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ....
Posted by: Bushhater on Dec 23, 2005 4:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is not Saddam Hussein, nor even Osama BIn laden, but George W. Bush

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A New Ticket
Posted by: pixiequix on Dec 23, 2005 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again here we stand without a leader...Hey Gary, your numbers were pretty good- when all was said & done- why not give it another go?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wise words
Posted by: pixiequix on Dec 23, 2005 4:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Those who will give up essential liberty to secure a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'

-Benjamin Franklin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

crusade for christ, inc.
Posted by: menckenman on Dec 23, 2005 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's up Gary? They hang liberals like you down in god's Bible belt where they're still trying to figure out evolution.

If you had to live in Mississippi and could only read the Bible you'd probably need a christian crusade to put some meaning into your otherwise impoverished intellectual life. A foreign policy the southern man and woman can understand: kidnapping, a little torture and a good ole lynching, just like the good old days, all in the name of God and the USA (code word: democracy, whatever that is).

What's a little secrecy, spying, murder, torture but the juiciest fun accorded to the poverty of righteousness?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: crusade for christ, inc. Posted by: Skipper
» Grow up! Posted by: errandchild
» RE: Grow up! Posted by: JMorse
Intelligence Abuse
Posted by: dagumpster on Dec 23, 2005 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are going to have to debunk the security threat. Then I hear a comment about "in the name of national security" I cringe. To me it is nothing but a way for the government to hide its mistakes and to bypass the law. The government sets it itself above the law in the name of security and being at war. The government does not have a monopoly on the truth. Many times the truth to them is what they say and think and don't anyone doubt them because we are at war or it is vital to national security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about a non-violent asskicking
Posted by: jeffrey7 on Dec 23, 2005 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
PLATFORM of the People Over Tyrants Party O/K/A The P.O.T. Party

Because of the current trends in National and Foreign Policy and the many and varied forms of tyranny our people are being exposed to,we have formed from the People, a Party, that is For the People. This is our
vision of how we get the Country back for the People,restore our Liberty,Freedom,and Peace,here and now.
NO MORE WARS.
This country has 'made' the enemies we now face through corrupt policy in the name of 'Profits'.
We would cease all weapons sales,development and deployment.
Close all bases on foriegn soils,begin TOTAL DISARMAMENT with pacts of Non- Aggression.
END ALL BLACK PROJECTS FUNDING. Disband the C.I.A., Homeland Security,and the DEA.
All monies would be 'redirected' to Free Education for ALL People, K- Grad School.
PROTECT THE EARTH
Restore the 'Roadless' Laws in perpituity.Ban clear cut forestry operations. End logging in the National Forests. 1,000 year moritorium on mining. Restore the Great Lakes and rivers.
Force Industry to be 'inert' environmentally, Force Auto Industry to make High Mileage Hybred cars and trucks.EXTREME CONTROLS on pesticides and fretilizers and emmissions.
Heavy reliance on Solar,Wind, Hydro Generation, Hemp and other Biomass fuels for charcoal.
STOP DRILLING IN THE ANWR. Force Oil Companies to RESTORE IMPACTED AREAS.
PUT THE MONEY BACK IN THE PEOPLE'S HANDS
Freeze all Transportation Fuels and Utility prices for ten years. Extendable if deemed so by the People.
END COMPOUND INTREST RATES on loans,mortgages and small business loans.
FORGIVE ALL DEBTS. End Property Tax on ALL VETERAN'S personal homes.
CUT DEFENSE 60%, fund FULL HEALTHCARE and ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP
Non Deductable/Refundable 90% TAX The WEALTHIEST PEOPLE and BUSINESSES.
Make SOCIAL SECURITY an ALWAYS FUNDED Program
GIVE food stamps to all Low Imcome Families.
GETTING POWER TO THE PEOPLE
PARDON ALL VICTIMLESS,NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS.
PARDON ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS
MAKE NATURAL DRUGS LEGAL, MAKE MANUFACTURED DRUGS PERSCRIPTIONABLE.
EXPAND THE BILL of RIGHTS PROTECTION TO INCLUDE MARANDA RIGHTS
END WARRANTLESS SEARCHES,DOMESTIC SPYING ON CITIZENS
GUARANTEE THAT PEOPLE CAN DO WITH THEIR BODIES WHATEVER THEY DEEM RIGHT
ALL UNIONS WOULD BE BACKED BY THE GOVT.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Don't forget that corporate America has taken advantage of eroding liberties
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 23, 2005 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember those frivilous lawsuits by big entertainment companies against everyone, from 12 yr olds to 92 yr olds? You don't see these same "conservatives" who used to claim the privacy mantal fighting tooth and nail against these corporate hacks who are sadistic enough to invade everyone's computers beyond a hacker's dream. In fact, the same media that supposedly supports "tort reform" calls people who bring privacy invasion into question "unpatriotic". Never mind the unethical and even illegal business practices of these same companies and the media ilks that support them.

And don't forget that even at the expense of eroding liberties, credit card fraud has actually skyrocketted and from what I'm told though I'll check once more on it, the Bankruptcy Overhaul allows even more loopholes to allow credit card companies to play loose with consumers' confidential records and info.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Guess who first recommended BEFORE THE ATTACK, the Dept Of Homeland Security?
Posted by: Pepper on Dec 23, 2005 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You guessed it, Hart as co chair of the CNR 21st Century with Warren Rudman. And that was before the attack. He also warned, in private, Condolezza Rice that the attacks were coming. How did he know and why didn't he go public with it when they wouldn't listen???

Don't believe me as usual???? Well, as USUAL you have to read the press that isn't the NY Times. Here is the article that tells you what he already knew, passed on, recommended the President create a "dept" to deal with it which became the dept of Homeland Security.

I don't trust him anymore than the others. I told you it doesn't matter which party since they cover both parties, and they work hand in hand. Its way more dangerous out here than you can imagine. Is there anyone we can trust? I say, "if they are a politician, professional, then no"! (Don't forget to cut and paste the link)

http://www.salon.com/news/feature

/2004/04/02/hart/index_np.html

Now here is an excerpt from an interview he did with Buzzflash on that subject, (remember the term "Home land security" was first used by Hitler during his speech when he implemented the gestapo, hmmmm). Why is this important? Because we now know what happened on 9-11 and that means he was privy to those long planned attacks.

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews

Excerpt:

"HART: ................And the first report said that America would be attacked by terrorists using weapons of mass destruction, and Americans would lose their lives on American soil, possibly in large numbers. The date of that report was September 15th, 1999 -– two years, almost to the day, before the attack on the World Trade Center. Furthermore, a second report came out in the spring of 2000, and the third one is the one that you mentioned. The first of fifty recommendations, all of which were eminently doable, was to create a National Homeland Security agency. And if CNN or anyone else was saying that it wasn't feasible, well, two years later, we had one finally created. So the question was: are you going to do it before the terrorists attack, or afterwards? And unfortunately, the Administration waited until well afterwards."

And you guys want to make him President??? Ha, that would really finish us off. I can't believe Arianna has done this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

liberties
Posted by: rafey on Dec 23, 2005 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, those who give up their liberties in exchange for security did not deserve them in the first place. In any case, once our liberties have disappeared, what precisely is left for us to defend? We should learn the lessons of the Alien and Sedition act and all similar concepts that have come and gone in our history. If we cannot do the work without giving up our basic freedoms and expectations, then we are doing it wrong !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush and his cohorts are praying with fingers crossed
Posted by: fdr_vindicated on Dec 23, 2005 4:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Between now and the 2006 elections, there will be a catastrophic attack on the USA making 9/11 look like a meager traffic accident. Then the Bushavichs can blame this on the Democrats for making their life so difficult as they sought to protect America from terrorist danger. Opposition to some parts of the Patriot's Act will be cited as well as the Dem's assault on his Highness's dismantling of American liberty in the name of the Constitution. The electorate will buy this bull crap and vote in an even greater majority of Repulsicans in Congress and in state legislatures across our tortured land. Finally, this messy democracy will be dismantled and George will get his wish: dictators have a much easier time getting things done than democratically elected leaders. For whom will the bell toll? It will toll for you and me and our freedom and liberty.

Ah, that is the prayer of Bush and his buddies, and they may even be working on enabling it to happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]