National Security and Intelligence

Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, Oct. 20, at 12:30 a.m. ET to discuss the latest developments in national security and intelligence.

Dana Priest covers intelligence and wrote " The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace With America's Military " (W.W. Norton). The book chronicles the increasing frequency with which the military is called upon to solve political and economic problems.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Dana Priest: Hi everyone. let's chat!

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: After reading yesterday's article about the problems at the CIA, I was wondering how John Negroponte is doing (what's his official title again?).

Dana Priest: The Director of National Intelligence is keeping a particularly low profile while he goes around scarfing up very talented people from existing intelligence agencies: I'm thinking of Tom Fingar from State's INR, a half-dozen lawyers from the CIA's Counterterrorism Center, Mike Hayden from NSA, Mary Margaret Graham from CIA, etc. He's still pushing to get the lines of reporting and the functions clear. I'm not sure how hard he is pushing yet on what will be his hardest target to pin down--The Pentagon's burgeoning new humint section. Nor do I know, really, what his thought about that are.

_______________________

Salt Lake City, Utah: Thanks for taking time to chat.

What does the CIA's new Human Intelligence coordination mandate mean for other humint services like DIA?

Dana Priest: It means they have to inform the humint manager of operations, and the manager would seek to deconflict things and make sure there's no redundancy. I do not believe the Humint manager has the authority to stop a DIA program unilaterally though. There was also an idea that someone should be in charge of choosing the agency best suited for a particular future operation. That could be one of his jobs as well, although I believe the DNI's humint section would have a say-so in that too.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Dana:

I'm curious. When you write stories or say stuff in chats that might be considered harsh about people like Porter Goss do you ever hear back from their staffs saying: "He is not a nincompoop! Here's why you are wrong..."

Or do they just ignore you and respond by planting favorable stories with obscure newspapers, conservative think-tank OPED writers and the like?

Dana Priest: Well, I have heard back from the agency from time to time about my chats ever since I began them several years ago. I think they treat these like newspaper articles and if they think you get something wrong, sometimes they let you know. If it's an interpretation, rather than a factoid, then I always offer them the chance to prove I'm wrong, not just to say I'm wrong. I'm all ears, all the time.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What's the current buzz on Judith Miller's security clearance? Her description of her clearance, and why she has it, seems a bit muddled and confused. What's the general policy on reporters who are also undercover? And what's the general policy for handling agents who run a wee bit amok?

Or are we risking another scandal by discussing it? "No comment" is a fine answer...

Dana Priest: Good question. The Washington Post would never allow a reporter to have a security clearance and I back that 1000 percent. A clearance means that it's the government who decides what you publish and being independent is the whole point of having a "free press" and a constitutional protection of it as well. The Post policy is also that reporters never "go undercover." Most papers, I believe, adhere to that. Television often has hidden cameras and, therefore, different standards. As for "handling agents who run amok"??? We aren't agents. And anyone who might be--which I doubt--should be publicly chastised and never allowed to work as a journalist again. How's that for a "no comment?"

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: If anything, the Baltimore Tunnel closures earlier this week demonstrated that intelligence obtained in the field is finally being communicated to both state and local law enforcement agencies.

How much do you believe the recent intelligence reforms contributed to this increased communication, if any?

Dana Priest: Not much. I think it's time, pressure from the president (or perhaps, yes, the DNI). But more likely it's just time to get the system to work better, for people to get to know and trust one another and to complain hard when things are going right.

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: Are the IC's watching the "Plame Case" with any interest? What is there viewpoint about all of this? Most surprising to me is that Bush 41 has been quiet. I would have thought with his background with the CIA, someone would have asked his feelings about all of this. Also, I'm surprised no one has asked Tenet, now that he's retired, about his feelings. After all... an agent is an agent is an agent. No matter if it's the CIA, FBI, or NSA.

Dana Priest: Lots of questions in there. First, I do not believe there's a lot of national security concern about the actual breach. Valerie Plame's past work did not require a roll back of lots of people and programs when her identity was disclosed. That said, I think people who serve and served in the CIA are incredibly miffed at the White House for believing that agency officers are somehow traitors because mild dissent was expressed (too late, I might add) about the wisdom of invading Iraq. Many are totally insulted to think the White House sees them in political terms (that the CIA is made up of Democrats--what a laugh!). So, I think there's a certain satisfaction in seeing that the political machine at the White House may be held accountable for these alleged dirty tricks.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: One question I have never understood about the Plame case. Why did anyone outside the CIA know she was an operative anyway, especially people in the White House that don't seem to have a strong connection to National security issues? I always presumed that information would have been heavily protected.

Dana Priest: Well you would assume that, but the fact is, Washington is a small town, people mingle at dinner parties, in neighborhoods, etc. Also, there are people in several other national security agencies (State, NSC, Energy, DOD) who are part of the interagency process and they come to learn such things in the course of their business.

_______________________

Tampa, Fla.: Last week I saw a former Reagan administration official whose name I forget claim on C-Span "aggressive" interrogation techniques yielded actionable intelligence after non-aggressive techniques failed. Yet on a recent PBS Frontline show I saw an FBI counter-terrorism official involved in these matters claim just the opposite, that "aggressive" techniques have NOT yielded actionable intelligence. Who's right?

Given the propaganda value of torture claims to Al Qaeda and its allies and sympathizers, shouldn't we require torture to be truly effective before we use it? Otherwise, it seems we're just pouring gasoline on the fire.

Dana Priest: Great question. Aside from the morale and legal questions (torture is prohibited by US domestic law and in international treaties which the US has signed), there's the question of effectiveness. Unfortunately, no one in the government has been willing to show me--or anyone else for that matter that I know of--any evidence that supports either side. I'd love to see it.

_______________________

Malvern, Pa.: Hi Dana,

Has the earthquake in Pakistan and ensuing aid provided any new opportunities to uncover the whereabouts of bin Laden?

Dana Priest: I've asked that question here (to the foreign staff) and to my sources. I don't have anything decent to share, but I think it's a great question.

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: I would like to know why the U.S. and our allies don't shut down terrorist Web sites. It would not be difficult to do technologically and it would destroy their marketing capabilities.

Dana Priest: Mainly because they would rather find the people who put them up, so I assume they are working on that through some technological means that would be lost if the site were to be taken down.

_______________________

Ottawa, Canada: The recent PBS Frontline documentary, in which you took part, left me wondering how these extreme techniques could be exported from Gitmo to Iraq given the fact that they didn't provide useful intelligence? Why weren't these methods evaluated before they were exported to Iraq where they have only succeeded in making a bad situation much worse?

Dana Priest: Mainly because no one was thinking methodically like that. They were in a panic, being pushed from above. I still don't believe DOD could produce any evidence that the rough measures have produced anything worthwhile. The Frontline producer, Mike Kirk, did a question-and-answer yesterday here. I'll see if they can post the link.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: PBS Frontline's "The Torture Question" Live Online-Producer Michael Kirk

_______________________

Anonymous: Did you just imply Valerie Wilson's job was a topic of dinner party conversation prior to July 2003?

Dana Priest: Not specifically. I implied that it could have been, just like the names of other clandestine people might come up that way. But here's something important: you need two parts to make the connection. You would need the person's name (many CIA covers do not require a false name), but you also need to know what that person does exactly. That's the hard part because that usually would not come up in dinner conversation.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: The one aspect of the Plame case I wonder most about is the Robert Novak factor. He's obviously rolled on someone and I can't wait to find out who (if ever). Any thoughts?

Dana Priest: Speaking as a reader, because I no longer cover this story, maybe Judy Miller was his original source and he got two officials to confirm a name he already had. It's just a guess.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hi Dana, and thanks so much for hosting these chats.

A few weeks ago, I went for a nice Saturday drive to Ocean City. Along the way in that hot target area of U.S. 50 East were numerous roadside alerts to "Report Suspicious Activity." I guess they are meant to safeguard an area that could be used as a staging point for an attack on the Bay Bridge, but the signs just seemed kinda ridiculous when the only thing in sight was an Applebee's. Is there any evidence that these requests for tips have yielded any results of any kind? Where did this idea come from? Do you know if decision makers ever consider citizen quality of life (i.e., enough fear already) vs. what has to be a minuscule chance that this tactic would work out to actually stop an attack?

Thank you.

Dana Priest: Well, maybe there's something about that particular Applebee's that you don't know (just joking!). Raising citizen awareness has provide the USG with tons and tons of tips, most of them completely worthless. Nevertheless, it's a new source of surveillance that didn't exist before and it probably makes it harder, overall, for another attack to be hatched here. On the other hand, it makes it harder to have a peaceful drive to Ocean City. It makes it harder for an Arab-looking person to stroll down Main St. in middle America. My hope is that law enforcement learn to sift quickly through the garbage and get down to something real. In the meantime...

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: Would the DNI structure necessarily stay in place when Bush leaves the White House?

Dana Priest: Yes, its a law passed by Congress. Another president would have to get Congress to change the law. I don't see that happening. The Dems mostly supported it. So did the Repubs.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I am applying for an SCI clearance. I already have a TS. Will the fact that I am currently enrolled in a credit counseling plan (to pay of debt) going to affect this process?

Dana Priest: Not sure. Probably deepens on how much and what the money was spent on.

_______________________

Dana Priest: I'm sorry to say but I'm out of time. The volume of questions was really high today. That's great. I'll have to figure out a way to get to more of them next time. Thank you for your interest. I bet by next chat we'll have many more twists and turns from Washington to consider. Best, Dana

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.