On Hill, a question of intelligence intelligence

Individual agencies must keep Congress apprised, official says

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 28, 2009

A top aide to the director of national intelligence said Tuesday that each of the country's intelligence agencies is responsible for keeping Congress informed about its sensitive activities.

"Generally speaking, each individual agency, or each individual component of the intelligence community, is responsible for its own notifications," Robert Litt, general counsel to Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, told two subcommittees of the House intelligence panel.

The hearing was part of a congressional inquiry about how well the nation's intelligence agencies are following the law requiring them to be apprised of key operations. The inquiry was prompted by the disclosure in June by new CIA Director Leon E. Panetta that in 2001 the agency had proposed forming assassination teams to target al-Qaeda leaders but did not Congress.

"What is broken, in your view, that would cause that to happen, and the Congress not ever being informed?" asked Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Calif.).

Litt said that deciding what a "significant intelligence activity" is involves "the exercise of judgment" and that "different people are going to have different judgments."

The criteria for what is significant, he said, involves factors including whether an operation could involve loss of life, its impact on foreign policy decisions, the risk of exposure and the consequences. Another factor is the level of government where the activity originated. For example, White House authorization would show an operation's significance but something authorized at an agency level may not, Litt said.

While the assassination teams were proposed, they were never put into action. "There's not an obligation to brief every time somebody at the agency comes up with an idea, every time even they explore the idea to some extent," he said.

He also said that while Blair has encouraged the 16 agencies under his authority to compare their congressional notification procedures to standards established by his office, he has not required them to follow those guidelines.

Intelligence agencies are legally required to keep Congress "fully and currently informed of any intelligence activities" that include "significant anticipated intelligence activities" and "significant intelligence failures," Litt said. The president also is required to inform Congress of proposed covert activities he has authorized and, except for exceptional circumstances, to do so before they take place.



More in the Politics Section

Campaign Finance -- Presidential Race

2008 Fundraising

See who is giving to the '08 presidential candidates.

Latest Politics Blog Updates

© 2009 The Washington Post Company