rssFor the Record, I Am Not on the CIA Payroll
Thursday, December 17, 2009 at 9:52 am
- 2 Comments
Charlie Savage and Scott Shane have a great story today about U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies improperly spying on constitutionally protected activities of American citizens. Overcollection, as it’s euphemistically known in the intelligence business, has, unsurprisingly, occurred for years, despite official denials in the Bush administration. One American Muslim confab in March 2008, Savage and Shane report, became the subject of a Department of Homeland Security report. An internal review found the division producing the report “did not have any evidence the conference or the speakers promoted radical extremism or terrorist activity.”
But there’s much more, as Marcy Wheeler hones in on. Check out this letter from George Tenet, then the director of the CIA, to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, shortly after the 2002 murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl by extremists in Pakistan. Tenet tells the group that Pearl was not a CIA asset or operative. But then he declines to issue a firm denial that the agency is not having its assets or operatives pose as journalists. “A blanket statement that we would never use journalistic cover would, I know, be preferable to the members of ASNE,” Tenet writes. “The kinds of people who kidnap and murder reporters like Daniel Pearl, however, are unlikely to believe a policy statement by the U.S. government no matter how firmly it is made.”
So Tenet hides behind Omar Saeed Shaikh, Pearl’s most likely murderer. (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s confession to killing Pearl is rather dubious.) As someone who occasionally reports from war zones, I don’t appreciate the non-denial denial of something that could endanger my life. It’s one thing to say that fanatics won’t believe the denial. It’s quite another not to issue it for that — alleged — reason.
Follow Spencer Ackerman on Twitter
2 Comments
Comment posted December 17, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Isn't there enough documentation of Operation Mockingbird-like programs that, “[a] blanket statement that we would never use journalistic cover would,” be more likely to generate laughter than any sense of security of relief?
The Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence Authorization conference
report provided, in section 309, as policy of the Untied
states, that the Intelligence Community would not use as an
agent or asset for intelligence collection purposes any
individual who is a member of the news media. However, the
conference report allowed the President or the Director of
Central Intelligence to waive the prohibition in a particular
case if he or she determines in writing that the waiver is
necessary to address the overriding national security interests
of the Untied States.
http://fas.org/irp/congress/1997_rpt/s105_001.htm
Comment posted December 17, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
Isn't there enough documentation of Operation Mockingbird-like programs that, “[a] blanket statement that we would never use journalistic cover would,” be more likely to generate laughter than any sense of security of relief?
The Fiscal Year 1997 Intelligence Authorization conference
report provided, in section 309, as policy of the Untied
states, that the Intelligence Community would not use as an
agent or asset for intelligence collection purposes any
individual who is a member of the news media. However, the
conference report allowed the President or the Director of
Central Intelligence to waive the prohibition in a particular
case if he or she determines in writing that the waiver is
necessary to address the overriding national security interests
of the Untied States.
http://fas.org/irp/congress/1997_rpt/s105_001.htm
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
