Punting the Interesting Answers to the Secret Session

By Dana Milbank
Friday, May 19, 2006

The dictionary tells us that "oversight" can mean either watchful supervision or an omission caused by inattention. As it held a confirmation hearing for CIA nominee Michael Hayden yesterday, the Senate intelligence committee seemed to be operating under the latter definition.

With Hayden's confirmation never in doubt -- "you're gonna be one of America's best CIA directors," proclaimed Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) -- the committee's rare public hearing offered a chance to have an examination of the administration's eavesdropping programs. Instead, senators and the nominee implemented a new "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Democrats, briefed on the secret National Security Agency programs on the eve of the hearing, were now prevented from talking about its classified details other than to cite news reports. Several Republicans limited their oversight responsibilities largely to praising the administration. And Hayden, referring to Congress as "the second branch of government," punted all the interesting answers to a later, secret session.

Is the NSA eavesdropping program that President Bush confirmed the entire program? "I'm not at liberty to talk about that in open session," Hayden said.

Can detainees be held in secret for decades? "Let me give it to you in the closed session."

Is "waterboarding" an acceptable interrogation technique? "Again, let me defer that to closed session."

What does he think of forecasts that Iran is years away from nuclear capability? "I would be happy to give additional detail in closed session."

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) posed as Hayden's lawyer. "Sounds to me like you've made a real effort to try and help members of Congress to be aware of what was going on," he told Hayden. The nominee answered in the affirmative.

"You wanted to protect American citizens from terrorists all over the world?" Hatch pressed.

"Yes, sir," Hayden answered. "Yes, sir. Exactly."

These answers evidently satisfied Hatch. "I want to commend you, because I think you have really protected the American people," he said.

Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) made clear that he knew everything he needed to know. "I can say without hesitation, I believe that the NSA terrorist surveillance program is legal, it is necessary, and without it the American people would be less safe," he said.

When it was his time to question the nominee, Roberts wondered where Hayden would put analysts' dissenting views "on the assumption train." The chairman continued: "In the middle of the train? Front of the train? You might want to put them at the front of the train. Not the caboose."

"Yes, sir," the nominee said. "I couldn't agree with you more."

On the Democratic side, Sen. Ron Wyden (Ore.) tried to get a bit tougher. He asked about an "independent check that can be verified on these programs that the newspapers are reporting on."

Roberts jumped in, defensively. "I am independent and I asked very tough questions," he reported. He paused to check with his staff, then added that oversight was "very independent."

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) broke ranks with her chairman. "The Congress was never really consulted or informed in a manner that we could truly perform our oversight role as co-equal branches of government," she told Hayden.

Hatch fiddled with his BlackBerry. Roberts opened his cellphone.

Unwilling to give substantive answers in public, the CIA nominee resorted to a stream of sporting metaphors. He said one spy program was "throwing deep and we should have been throwing short passes." He said the CIA has had "a permanent one-ball, two-strike count against it."

"Picture CIA's role in the community like a tough player on a football team," Hayden proposed. Moments later, he contradicted that metaphor, saying the "intelligence business has too much become the football in American political discourse."

Roberts liked this theme. When Wyden asked Steelers fan Hayden some tough questions about the lack of oversight, the chairman queried: "Did all this happen because Pittsburgh beat Seattle in the Super Bowl, or what?"

Hayden's written statement said "UNCLASSIFIED" on each page, though it could have been labeled "UNINTERESTING" because little more than a collection of acronyms survived the declassification process.

"As director of NSA, I was the national SIGINT manager," he said. "I would use this important new authority, the national HUMINT manager, to enhance the standards of tradecraft."

This intrigued Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.). "HUMINT is obviously the chief responsibility of CIA. You have been a SIGINT man for most of your career. . . . How will you adjust to HUMINT?"

"I've actually been a HUMINTer," the nominee replied. "I have more HUMINT experience going to CIA than I had SIGINT experience before I arrived at NSA."

Hayden also informed Bond that "they talked about the MOU that had been signed between the DOD and the CIA in terms of how to coordinate and deconflict HUMINT."

Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) wanted to play this game. "Talk to me a little bit about what NASIC has done, the SAVANT program," he charged.

Critics may say that the SSCI -- that's the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- is AWOL these days when it comes to oversight. But, FYI, no one would doubt these guys are A-OK with their ABCs.