Pete Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is normally a reliable ally of President Bush. When The New York Times revealed a National Security Agency program to eavesdrop on communications between the United States and other countries, Hoekstra defended its legality.
So when he turns up on a Sunday morning talk show criticizing the administration for allegedly keeping secrets from his committee, it’s an indication something is out of kilter. More accurately, a couple of things. The administration may have been remiss in holding back information from the congressional intelligence committees. But the White House has good reason to wonder if, when it provides information about secret efforts, those efforts will remain secret.
Back in May, Hoekstra wrote a private letter to the president, telling him the administration may have broken the law requiring it to inform Congress about certain secret intelligence efforts. “I have learned of some alleged intelligence community activities about which our committee has not been briefed,” Hoekstra wrote. “If these allegations are true, they may represent a breach of responsibility by the administration, a violation of the law, and, just as importantly to me, a direct affront to me and the members of this committee who have so ardently supported efforts to collect information on our enemies.”
Someone in the intel community had told the committee about a program of which it knew nothing–and whose nature Hoekstra refuses to discuss. After he complained, the administration did brief the committee. But Hoekstra isn’t satisfied. On Sunday, he asserted that “it is not optional for this president … not to keep the intelligence committees fully informed of what they are doing.”
As a matter of simple prudence, the administration does need to treat Congress as a partner in the war on terrorism. When it tries to centralize all information and decision-making in its own hands, it antagonizes not only the legislative branch but also the judicial branch.
In the Supreme Court’s recent decision rejecting the Pentagon’s plan to use special military tribunals for war crimes trials at Guantanamo, justices faulted the administration for failing to obtain clear congressional approval. Had the president asked Congress for authority to set up the tribunals in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, he probably would have gotten it.
Sometimes, the desire to expand presidential power has blinded the administration to the value of candid cooperation with Congress. But cooperating with Congress also has risks.
Early in the Iraq war, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) blurted out the tightly held fact that the U.S. had a source close to Saddam Hussein. And when USA Today recently backtracked on its May story about the NSA’s efforts to track millions of phone calls, the newspaper reported getting information from no fewer than 19 members of Congress who had been briefed on the program. That suggests a supremely cavalier attitude on Capitol Hill about intelligence secrecy.
Power-grabbing by the executive branch is a bad thing. But so is the spilling of secrets by Congress. If there is going to be new cooperation between the two, one side may have to say more. And one side may have to say less.
