National Security and Intelligence

Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest was online Thursday, Dec. 22, at 12:30 p.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: Hello everyone. Let's begin.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: Love your work.

The founding fathers warned against men such as we have in power today, who are depriving us of our hard-earned liberties through such things as the disgracefully misnamed "Patriot Act", which makes patriots roll over in their graves.

Just so you know where I'm coming from...

The Bush administration's argument in favor of this Act seems to be as follows:

1. We need it to fight terrorism.

2. We can't tell you how it has helped fight terrorism. That would help the terrorists.

3. We need this. Trust us.

I will trust them when they show me WMD.

Dana Priest: Okay, so I'll play the devil's advocate. The Bush administration declares a state of war. The Congress acquiesces (until it become politically unpopular) and lets the administration proceed without much protest or even debate. The administration lawyers, rightly or wrongly, tell the prez that his commander-in-chief powers trump even the Constitution in times of war (lots of historical examples) and everything is covered in secrecy. So he does what he thinks is necessary, egged on by federalists who are looking to regain power for the office anyway. We find out, little by little (and not thanks to Congressional oversight mind you but through the treasonous news media), just exactly what this means. And now we are in the middle of the debate that--one could argue--should have taken place two years ago. So let's debate and see what's really been going in the name of the war on terrorism.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: How tenuous do you think Afghanistan's government is at this point? Should we expect increased violence if the government attempts to step up opium eradication? What is your best-case vision of Afghanistan as we go forward?

Dana Priest: Very tenuous and it will cause a huge uproar and many tiny wars within to clamp down on opium crop. That's why, I think, the USG basically let their warlords grow the stuff after the Taliban's fall. It was too much to take on. I hate to say it, but more international troops are needed and more economic alternatives. Speaking of nation-building, democracy-exporting, I hope you all saw David Finkel's amazing series last week on Yemen. Here's a link if you missed it.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: David Finkel's Series on Yemen: U.S. Ideals Meet Reality in Yemen , ( Post, Dec. 18, 2005 )

A Struggle for Peace in a Place Where Fighting Never Ends , ( Post, Dec. 19, 2005 )

In the End, a Painful Choice , ( Post, Dec. 20, 2005 )

_______________________

Tallahassee, Fla.: What is the talk within the CIA about the monitoring of U.S. citizens in the United States? Also, to what extent do current employees of the agency feel that they are resolving some of the problems that came to light after Sept. 11? Thanks.

Dana Priest: Split, like elsewhere in the intelligence community. Some view it has necessary, some as overreaching and not useful. As for the problems? I have no good answer, which is not a good sign. I think if there had been real progress, it would be easier to find. This is a very unstable time inside the community, still.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I'm one of the administration's defenders, but I was surprised by the President's lashing out at the warrantless-surveillance story itself (essentially criticizing those who broke/reported the story as damaging national security). Can you, either as a national security expert or as a reporter, recall any such similar incident? I have to go back to Nixon's comments on the Pentagon Papers stories.

Dana Priest: Nothing recent. Usually someone (Republicans in Congress or friendly editorial writers) do it for him. I do believe this administration wants to make the media the enemy and is very nervous that more and more of its secrets are unraveling. Look at Glenn Kessler's fine piece today in The Post on that Washington Times story Bush cited as having caused so much damage. If they think it was a surprise to UBL that the US might be listening to his cell phone, even in 1998, they are grossly underestimating the enemy.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: File the Bin Laden Phone Leak Under 'Urban Myths' , ( Post, Dec. 22, 2005 )

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: Why isn't "Where is Osama bin Laden" part of our ongoing public national security discussions?!?! Perhaps more appropriately, why isn't anyone making it part of the discussion?

Dana Priest: We revisit this issue every couple of weeks. First, the reporting is difficult. Second, he's much less important know to terrorism (unfortunately). But it's good to get nudged, thanks.

_______________________

Long Beach, Calif.: My intelligence network reports that you will be a few minutes late. How could I have guessed?

Do you have any idea as to the amount of money that was involved in regards to the secret prison facilities located in Eastern Europe? Was it foreign aid/military assistance, and can it be determined?

Dana Priest: Ha! Pattern analysis no doubt! There was millions placed in the first supplemental for the Afghan war in 2002 to start it up.(it's mentioned in the story, I'm quoting from memory). I would guess it would run into the mid-tens of millions. But there would be other monies going to the countries involved for intelligence capacity building, bribes (not called that I'm sure) to country or intel chiefs, and other goodies not connected to the facilities themselves.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Hello, Dana, Thank you for the work you do and for submitting to these chats. What are the prospects for hearings on the admin's warrantless eavesdropping? Will there be a serious debate in Congress? How far do you think Senator Specter will go in, say, the Alito hearings on this subject? Also, do the Feds really have the resources to chase down college kids who order Mao's Little Red Book? How does that make me safer?

Dana Priest: I'd look for a certain probing in public, since Specter said he would do so. But because of the classified nature of the program, much will be behind closed doors so you will have to read about it in the newspaper the next day rather than watch it on C-Span (if we're lucky, able, you know). I would like they could probe the question of "how the government concluded this was legal" in public.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: What single thing do you think the U.S. should do to improve national security?

Dana Priest: Refocus on the WMD threat and not take the kitchen sink approach.

_______________________

Lahore, Pakistan: Hi Dana,

How permanently do you think the post-9/11 impact will be felt in terms of the DO's mission? How much of a priority is it still for the United States government to collect secret information from other states versus the "new" issues of counter-terrorism, counter-proliferation, etc?

Has the shift been only in where numbers of case officers are being placed, or does it include different training methods, different organizational culture, and more deep-rooted things of that nature?

Thank You

Dana Priest: I believe it is permeating the entire DO mission. The DO is basically becoming a paramilitary organization in the service of the Counterterrorism mission. So the traditional "FI"-- foreign intelligence-- job (stealing state secrets) is taking a back seat in every area. Is that good or bad? There are probably many geographic areas that could be covered by better open source analysis than traditional spying, then augmented carefully in certain areas. My concern would be relying too heavily on the paramilitary function and not developing sources that can spy on and penetrate terrorist networks (which is probably one of the hardest things to do). Also, as we've seen, the paramilitary approach has lots of costs and unintended consequences--like having the world turn against the CIA because they believe all they do is torture people.

_______________________

Munich, Germany: I think that your articles on the secret CIA prisons and the CIA mistake regarding the wrongful rendition of Khaled Masri are the best pieces of investigative journalism that I've read in the last while.

Mr. Khaled wrote an op-ed about his experience in the LA Times, and I agree with him that something like that shouldn't have happened under any circumstances.

In the past, I've thought that a person subjected to torture will always give up their secrets. It's only a matter of time. But the reasoning behind this "ticking bomb" argument has got me a bit perplexed. If a terrorist knows that a major bomb is going to go off in an hour, and he knows that he only has to hold out for an hour under extreme pain, I would think that the chances of getting him to divulge where the bomb is are almost nil (after all, paradise awaits). But this "ticking bomb" argument is being used to prolong the debate and even exonerate the use of torture during interrogation.

What are your thoughts on heavy handed interrogation techniques? Has there ever been any irrefutable proof that they work?

Dana Priest: The problem is, the ticking time bomb scenario is not applicable to most of the terrorist suspects picked up these days. But let's stick with it anyway--I suppose the answer is, if you've exhausted everything else, why not try torture. It might work. And it might not. But if it's a true emergency, then why not try everything. That said, there's an argument that the government still should not enshrine this as policy (because everything can become a ticking time bomb if the interrogators are pressured enough), but to "forgive" those who use torture under this scenario as a last resort.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: What is your opinion on the NY Times holding the domestic spying story for a year?

Dana Priest: Well, first: I don't have a clue why they did so. But I would give them the benefit of the doubt that it was for a good reason and, as their story said, they do more reporting within that year to satisfy themselves about certain things. Having read the story and the folo-ups, its unclear why this would damage a valuable capability. Again, if the government doesn't think the bad guys believe their phones are tapped, they underestimate the enemy!

_______________________

Tallahassee, Fla.: Are the recent trips by the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President to the Middle East a way to shore up secret prison arrangements and torture policies?

Dana Priest: Nope

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: What does "DO" stand for? Thanks.

Dana Priest: Sorry. It's the CIA's Directorate for Operations, the branch that does all the spying and covert operations.

_______________________

Waldorf, Md.: With regard to Kessler's excellent story, help me understand why Bush would go to the trouble of talking about an "intelligence leak" that within 48 hours would be exposed as an urban myth, using little more than a good Lexis-Nexis search (no offense meant to Kessler). Was it not obvious to whoever wrote the speech and had the data that it wouldn't withstand more than one or two news cycles? What was the point? Carelessness, or they just don't care? I just don't get it.

Dana Priest: It wouldn't be the first time. Remember all those "plots foiled" in his big counterterrorism speech several months back? Not. They were all old stuff. I think this must be a "made for TV" punchline thing. Get it on the evening news and picked up as the bumpersticker among pundits, and it becomes reality. all administrations do that kind of thing.

_______________________

Boca Raton, Fla.: Dana,

What impact, if any, has Robert Baer's "See No Evil : The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War" had the HUMINT collection at the CIA?

Thanks

Dana Priest: Given everyone an interesting bedtime reading experience??

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: Dana:

Beyond the President's claim and his critics' countering arguments about his domestic spying, Bush's actions seem to me to raise another point. If we had good intelligence on the actions of terrorists and their supporters, we wouldn't have to act this rashly. Is this a sign that our intelligence work in this area is still very poor?

Dana Priest: yep.

_______________________

Prague, Czech Republic: Hi Dana,

The 'quote of the day' in one of the papers here Monday was Colin Powell saying - roughly - that he'd be very surprised if European governments were not aware of what the U.S. was doing with terrorists in their countries. Can you comment on what you found - did the U.S. have at least a wink and a nod from elected officials here in Eastern Europe?

Dana Priest: The CIA got approval for everything they did in Europe, including the Milan rendition. But typically, this approval would be only from the head of the foreign intel service involved. It would be up to them to let their political leadership know and my understanding is that would probably be only one or two other people (like the prime minister and national security adviser type). So it's also true that the "European governments" didn't know, in that the wider elected or appointed members were left clueless.

_______________________

Ashland, Mo.: The judicial canons of ethics prohibit judges from commenting on cases that are pending before them or may come before them in the future. Why do some judges on the FISA court believe it is appropriate to speak publicly about their concerns about Mr. Bush's program? Shouldn't any judge who speaks anonymously resign?

Dana Priest: There's no pending case before them. If this were to be challenged legally, it would not be challenged in the FISA court, but probably in the regular federal court system.

_______________________

Santa Ana, Calif.: Dana what is your opinion on the failure of The Post to poll on the question of impeachment re: Secret prisons, secret spying, violating the fourth amendment, cherry picking of intelligence in the rush to war?

Mr. Morin seems bent against it... but we're all discussing it.

Is their a fear of harming national security vis-a-vis the legitemacy of the "wartime administration" if such a poll was published?

Dana Priest: Gosh, I'm not sure that's true. Impeachment seems like a loaded question right now, though. By "everyone," I bet you mean the blogger community, right?

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: I wondered if you had any thoughts on Judge Robertson's resignation from the FISC. What jumps out at me is the FISC's record. Apparently, it has refused a warrant application only once in its entire history. There may be any number of good reasons to oppose the NSA program, but it seems like a stretch to suggest that that program will harm the credibility of the FISC, when that court is already essentially a rubber stamp.

Dana Priest: We have too little information to go on here. Hopefully that will change over time.

_______________________

Sacramento, Calif.: The fundamental task of intelligence operations is to surveil, infiltrate, and penetrate terror networks. Do you think it is probable that we had absolutely no inside information concerning the 9/11 planning, or do you think it is probable that we had inside information but failed to act upon it?

Dana Priest: We had no information about it. That's the record.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Brutal story about Islamic fundamentalists in Indonesia blaming the sins of women for the tsunami and subjecting them to humiliating treatment for going without headscarves ( Tsunami was God's revenge for your wicked ways, women told ). If the battle is against fundamentalism, where are we winning?

Dana Priest: No, we're not winning on that score.

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: Dana, you wrote the following and I understand where you are coming from on this but you point out some glaring problems with what has happened over the last four years:

Dana: Okay, so I'll play the devil's advocate. The Bush administration declares a state of war. The Congress acquiesces (until it become politically unpopular) and lets the administration proceed without much protest or even debate.

Problem #1 - The Constitution says only Congress can declare war, not the President. There is a lot of history in this regard, but the current problems point out why Congress should be the branch to declare war.

Dana continues: The administration lawyers, rightly or wrongly, tell the prez that his commander-in-chief powers trump even the Constitution in times of war (lots of historical examples) and everything is covered in secrecy. So he does what he thinks is necessary, egged on by federalists who are looking to regain power for the office anyway.

Problem #2 - I agree this is likely what happened, but breaking a law is just that. Shouldn't the Courts be a bit upset that a law (probably more than one) has been violated?

Dana continues: We find out, little by little (and not thanks to Congressional oversight mind you but through the treasonous news media), just exactly what this means. And now we are in the middle of the debate that--one could argue--should have taken place two years ago. So let's debate and see what's really been going in the name of the war on terrorism.

Problem #3 - As you point out there seems to be little to no Congressional oversight even after the President declared he had broken the FISA law.

Considering that Gonzales backs him up with some pretty flimsy legalism it is unlikely the Justice Dept will take any action. What if anything can the Courts do. The Judicial Branch has been pretty silent, except for Judge Robertson.

Dana Priest: A response:

_______________________

Oklahoma City, Okla.: Re the whole "who is listening to phone calls" flap, a lot of my neighbors here in Oklahoma City sure wish someone had been listening to Timothy McVeigh's calls shopping for detonator cord, fertilizer and fuel oil and rental trucks back in the months before he killed 168 of us. Jefferson listed "life" first among rights in the Declaration of Independence for a reason; hard to enjoy much liberty when you have been murdered. And don't you think that if Bush did not do all he could to prevent attacks, the same people lambasting him today would be howling for his impeachment for "failing to protect us?"

Dana Priest: McVeigh would have been surveiled by the FBI under a court order (which they could have gotten if they had suspected him of something in the first place). If do believe your point about Bush is exactly why he took the actions he did. He believed they were appropriate, necessary and legal. Others disagree.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: You state that the CIA got approval for everything they did in Europe. Does that include dropping the (innocent?) German guy off do die in the mountains in Afghanistan? I hope that the CIA will stand up for me a little more than that when I get renditioned somewhere (rended?).

Dana Priest: In that case, they got approval from Macedonia to take him from their hands, and approval from Albania to drop him back to earth. It's a limited approval. Nothing more.

_______________________

Bethesda, Md.: There needs to be a fact checking show on every night that deciphers what is true and what is not that politicians and reporters and talk show hosts have recently said. Politicians can say something untrue that supports their claims and then a few days later when it is proven to be untrue nobody cares because the message is already out there.

Dana Priest: I agree

_______________________

Dana Priest: I have to sign off now. Thanks for all the questions and I hope you have a relaxing holiday week (season? do we do that in Washington, a whole season? no.) Until next year...

_______________________

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.