Posted on 02/19/2002 12:15:47 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
The Central Intelligence Agency's ability to gather intelligence in the Middle East has been injured by reforms triggered in 1995 by then-Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), members of the House Intelligence Committee said last week.
In the wake of disclosures by Torricelli that a Guatemalan colonel linked to the murder of an American was on the CIA payroll, the agency fired one-third of its informants - roughly 1,000 "assets" - and instituted new rules on the recruitment of sources.
Some of the assets were fired because of poor production, but others were fired for criminal activity that could have proved embarrassing to the United States if uncovered.
"The focus of Congress at the time was on Mr. Torricelli's actions and whether he had violated ethics rules, not on the CIA," said Rep. Larry Combest (R-Texas), who chaired the Intelligence Committee at the time.
Nonetheless, voters and editorial boards across the country were outraged, and President Clinton joined the fray, threatening to fire "on the spot" any CIA agent who had failed to pass along information about the colonel, Julio Roberto Alpirez.
"Sen. Torricelli feels it is imperative in a democracy for there to be some accountability within the intelligence community," spokeswoman Debra DeShong said. "The directive merely made certain that, if the United States were to engage in a relationship with someone who has committed human rights abuses, the decision would be made by a senior official."
After conducting a review of his agency's operations, Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch fired informants - including Middle Easterners - who had dirty hands and directed his field operatives to clear questionable recruits with Washington.
The so-called "agent scrub" has had a "dampening effect" on the agency's ability to gather intelligence in Afghanistan, Iran and other nations that sponsor terrorism, said Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Goss was quick to note that the extent of the damage is hard to measure, since "you don't know what you don't know."
The vice chairman of the committee, Rep. Douglas Bereuter (R-Neb.), explicitly linked current intelligence shortcomings to the reforms.
"I think you can trace it back to the Deutch guidelines," Bereuter said. "The Deutch guidelines had a devastating effect on intelligence gathering. They've had a chilling effect on the recruiting efforts of field agents. While the chiefs say that no [recruitment] request has ever been denied, it's very clear from talking to agents that they don't want to risk their reputation or promotability by promoting the recruitment of someone with dirty hands. And it is nigh impossible to penetrate these organizations unless we have people who have been involved with them."
Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Defense, said that Deutch's reforms resulted from Torricelli's disclosures.
"The Guatemala revelations completely changed everything," Chambliss said. "They started a chain reaction that led directly to [the Deutch guidelines]."
Though Congress initially focused on Torricelli's actions, public opinion was strong enough to force several investigations into the matter.
"The pressure came from a lot of different sectors: from Congress, from the private sector, and from the intelligence community itself," said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who sits on the Intelligence Committee.
In the wake of the scandal, the station chief in Guatemala and the director of Latin American operations were fired, which critics say sent a message to operatives not to take recruitment risks.
Democrats on the Intelligence Committee weren't as quick to blame intelligence failures on guidelines intended to prevent human rights abuses.
"There is no one single thing they can point to and say, 'This has prevented us from recruiting,'" said Rep. Tim Roemer (D-Ind.), emphasizing that the CIA shouldn't have carte blanche. "The guidelines do need to be changed. But we can't give informants a 'get out of jail free' card. They can't be able to say, 'Hey, I'm working for the CIA' and then get away with rape, pillage and murder."
Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the Terrorism Subcommittee, wasn't sure whether intelligence gathering in the Middle East has been injured by the reforms.
"It's hard to say how it has been affected," Harman said. "The blame game is always a favorite around here. But the important thing is preventing [terrorist attacks] from happening again."
The CIA maintains that the guidelines haven't harmed recruiting, and Torricelli, now a senator, stands by the rules. But members of the Intelligence Committee plan to introduce legislation directing the CIA to rescind them.
"I was very much opposed to what Mr. Torricelli did," Combest said.
"Intelligence gathering is a nitty-gritty, dirty business, and you have to work with the kind of people you might not have over for dinner."
After conducting a review of his agency's operations, Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch fired informants - including Middle Easterners - who had dirty hands and directed his field operatives to clear questionable recruits with Washington.
The so-called "agent scrub" has had a "dampening effect" on the agency's ability to gather intelligence in Afghanistan, Iran and other nations that sponsor terrorism, said Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Ya think?
Criminal !!!! Maybe you ought to ping a few "key" people, if you get my drift.....hehehehehehe
No I'm not. Apparently you need to be less clever and tell me straight what you mean.
Well, just a second...While the chiefs say that no [recruitment] request has ever been denied, it's very clear from talking to agents that they don't want to risk their reputation or promotability by promoting the recruitment of someone with dirty hands. And it is nigh impossible to penetrate these organizations unless we have people who have been involved with them."
So only people with "dirty hands" can penetrate those organizations? All hands are clean until they get dirty. Nigh impossible, not impossble, which would indicate that it has been successful.
And I don't really see how an agent's "reputation or promotability" (at least we see personal priorities are in order) could be at risk by simply promoting the recruitment of someone with "dirty hands". It would seem that the person "giving the go ahead" for that person to be hired (...the decision would be made by a senior official.") would bear the brunt of the trouble, if there was any.
But like the man said..."you don't know what you don't know."
Goss was quick to note that the extent of the damage is hard to measure...
And apparently Mr. Goss doesn't really know anything either.
Getting deep...
And Torricelli is only part of what the Democrat party has done to our intelligence services.
And the Republicans have done nothing at all that might damage our intelligence services as you imply the Democrats have? Or can you simply not find anything which might cast a negative light on them? Seems like the Republicans are on the House Intelligence Committee in great numbers and watched all of this stuff transpire. They just couldn't do anything about it though eh? Outnumbered in votes and all that?
And don't go calling me no Dem shill in this either...I believe you know better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.