A couple diaries ago I wrote that I'm PCSing (permanent change of station) back to Fort Bragg, NC with the 82nd Airborne.

When you come right down to it, advocacy for the new FISA bill pretty much hinges on the provision that four inspectors general will investigate and report to Congress regularly on the warrantless surveillance programs. The problem which nobody wants to talk about is that the four IGs are not capable of policing these programs.

Inspectors general, contrary to popular belief, are not fully independent. Neither should anyone ever assume that they can uncover the full 'Truth' about any program. There are a range of institutional problems that IGs face. This excellent report from POGO summarizes the issues well. Inspectors General often are a surprisingly (and poorly understood) weak link in governmental oversight. Even when they're at the top of their game, inspectors general have to surmount daunting hurdles.

I spoke to POGO's lead investigator for that report, Beverley Lumpkin, who agrees that it's far from certain that any IG investigations will uncover the information needed to hold the government accountable for warrantless surveillance.

For one thing, as POGO documents, many IGs can be pressured by agency heads in various ways, even to the point of being investigated by the agency they're supposed to keep watch on.

Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael Hayden, in perhaps the most astonishing known infringement of an IG’s independence, launched an investigation of the agency’s Inspector General, John Helgerson...it appears the main complaint against the IG was that his subordinates had been too harsh in questioning CIA officers about their activities. The IG had earlier issued highly critical assessments of agency employees’ activities in pursuing terrorists, and it is hard to escape the appearance of retaliation in this launching of a “management review.”

With such tenuous independence, drafts of IG reports frequently go to the agency head for comment and 'correction' before being finalized.

In any case, IGs lack subpoena power. Outside their own agencies, they cannot force anybody to talk to them. In addition (as I'll discuss) their resources are limited and usually stretched to the breaking point. So it's naive to assume that they can in practice get to the bottom of a large issue.

Indeed, an inspector general doesn't know what he doesn't know. With classified programs that have many tentacles, what is the chance that an IG will happen upon somebody who's both able and willing to point to all the things that need to be investigated, and the people who ought ideally to be interviewed? With this massive program, IG investigators will truly be feeling their way in the dark.

The FISA bill presumes in any event that IG staffers will be given the security clearances they need to dig into the government's most closely guarded secrets. This is information that Congress has been denied! And yet George Bush denied the necessary security clearances to staffers at DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility specifically to thwart OPR's investigation of warrantless surveillance. Advocates of the FISA 'reform' bill just assume that cannot happen a second time. After all, we've seen many times with the Bush administration that history does not repeat itself.

Those are the larger problems that confront all inspectors general. In addition, there are specific problems with the four IGs in question (DNI, NSA, DOD, and DOJ). The first two are not statutorily independent. Rather, they're appointed by their own agency. The DNI and NSA IGs cannot and should not be trusted to render a truly independent verdict upon sensitive agency programs. Indeed last July, former DOD IG Eleanor Hill told a Senate Homeland Security hearing that the NSA IG should not be investigating the warrantless wiretapping program (PDF) because of this lack of independence (military IGs acknowledge that they serve "at the pleasure of the Directors of their agencies").

"All of those IGs recongnized that in investigations of very senior officials or in audits of programs dear to the agency head, the statutorily protected independence of the Departmental IG was critical to both the integrity of the inquiry and to the credibility of the findings in the Department, on Capitol Hill, and with the American public. I could not help but recall those conversations when I read reports last year that the oversight of what has been referred to as NSA's "terrorist surveillance program" had been handled by the NSA IG, who has limited resources and no statutory independence, and not by the Department of Defense IG."

So the involvement of the NSA and DNI IGs is not reassuring...if anything, the opposite. Their failure to investigate the programs before the NYT made them public speaks volumes about their credibility as whistleblowers on warrantless surveillance.

The DOD and DOJ IGs have their own problems. To begin with, the DOD OIG does not have its own legal counsel. As POGO's report highlights, the IG is forced to rely on the advice of the Pentagon's Office of General Counsel. With programs as sensitive and legally complex as these, that lack of legal independence is devastating to the DOD IG's ability to render an authoritative verdict. Indeed, the Pentagon Office of General Counsel repeatedly has been involved in exceptionally shady affairs, especially in facilitating Bush's torture regime.

That's the office that will play a major role in framing the legal investigation of the warrantless wiretapping under the current FISA bill. Yes, it ought to shock you.

Furthermore, both DOD and DOJ OIGs have been complaining for years about their lack of resources. No IG can conduct careful investigations of this sort without applying major resources to them. And yet the 2 IGs that do at least have statutory independence cannot meet their offices' current needs. POGO has obtained a new report from DOD IG complaining that its resources are increasingly inadequate to keep on top of current, unclassified Pentagon programs. Indeed, this spring the GAO reported that known DOD problems keep getting worse, despite the IG's best efforts.

Not by chance, DOD Inspector General Claude Kicklighter announced last week he's resigning, though he'd originally promised to stay through the end of the Bush administration. Rumors are swirling in Washington that his reason for leaving early is that his office's profound lack of resources make it nearly impossible to do his job.

DOD OIG has been a huge embarrassment for years, what with one extremely shady IG who resigned in disgrace (Joseph Schmitz), and a nominee to replace him who was utterly unqualified (David Laufman). Now comes news that the man nominated to replace Kicklighter, Gordon Heddell, plans to do the job half time while continuing as IG for the Labor Department. That is some indication of how seriously the current administration treats the critical Office of Inspector General of the Pentagon; there ought to be half a dozen IGs at DOD, perhaps, whereas Bush & Co. are giving us one half of one.

From time to time I've had occasion to investigate the activities of federal inspectors general. Although I admire the work of some of these watchdogs, I've lost any illusions about what they're able to achieve within their institutional and fiscal restraints. That's one of the reasons why I find the FISA bill's dependence on IG investigations ridiculous, and Congressional advocates of it naive. No doubt they'd say the same of me. But I'm not the one who wants to suspend the Fourth Amendment over an abyss by the thin strand of an IG report.

Update [2008-7-9 13:28:25 by smintheus]: A correction: the DNI IG is in fact covered by the Inspector General statute. The more important point remains, however, that currently the position is filled by the agency Director without requiring approval by the President or Senate. My thanks to Beverley Lumpkin for setting me straight on that.

crossposted from unbossed

Only a true chickenhawk president and his chickenhawk advisors could have brought the US military so low. The story is just pouring out from GAO this week in report after report. Yep! It's the shame ol' shame'ol!

This could end up being the only redeeming part of this otherwise pernicious, democracy-killing legislation. But, just like most of the legislation coming out of Congress these days, the FISA bill is poorly written in general, and still could be considered ambiguous to all but the most erudite of government lawyers.

It is small concession then that the latest version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually contains within it a practical clarification of what’s been a perennial question and point of contention -- in particular since September 11, 2001 -– the definition of a WMD.

That’s right; amidst all the obligatory concessions and embarrassing capitulations to Mr. 28% contained in the new FISA bill, Congress offers a brand new definition of WMDS that’s actually a marked improvement over their past attempts.

But, despite their latest effort, did they just make it more difficult to define what a WMD is?

In their most recent campaign, right wingers are attacking Obama over a campaign sign that bears similar features to the US presidential seal

Leave it to the Republicans to find fault (or elitist intentions) in anything the Barack Obama campaign does between now and the general election. The latest in this series of indignations occurred at a meeting of Democratic governors in Chicago last Friday when a new campaign placard was affixed to the Illinois senator’s rostrum. This unveiling drew the ire of many conservatives across the blogosphere who believe Obama was belittling the seal that adorns the podium when the president speaks.

(Seriously, spot the lie, win a cupcake)

So this morning Secdef Gates decapitated the airforce command.

General Mosel and Secretary Wynne are tossed

now the official story is  http://news.lycos.com/...

The top military and civilian leaders of the U.S. Air Force were forced out Thursday over the handling of nuclear weapons, the Defense Department secretary said.

woah?  Since when did a bushe ever get fired for INCOMPETENCE (Mike Brown, condi rice, john bolton,
doug feith, paul bremer,,,,,,)

They have done it again:

The US military has awarded an $80 million contract to a prominent Saudi financier who has been indicted by the US Justice Department.

Need more facts to get sick?  How about, this guy, Gaith Pharaon, was an investor in Bush's first company.

Need more?  He is wanted in several countries, and has ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda.  

More below the fold:

Help wanted: enthusiastic, professional IT engineer willing to work long hours sifting and sorting through gazillions of terabytes of subscriber internet data. Qualified applicants shall receive a competitive salary (plus commission) based on experience and full benefits package including healthcare, 401k and [tentative] immunity from prosecution. Applicants should be inherently soulless and harbor no compunctions at all regarding the violation of subscribers' First & Fourth Amendment rights on a regular basis. (snark)

Back in October 2007, the Secrecy News website disclosed Comcast’s participation in a Defense Department program in which the Nation’s 2nd largest telecom giant was/is contracted to intercept "subscriber intelligence" (supposedly by FISA warrant) for a fee of $1,000 per request.

Sounds about like telling someone who is having a heart attack to take an Aspirin and call back in the morning.

Or how about first being afraid to ask for help when you had dreams of being choked at night. Followed by just feeling that you were brushed aside when you finally got the courage to seek that help?

The third story is one of a Vet dying of an over-dose while in a VA hospital. And there's more.

18 Vets EVERY DAY are committing suicide. I don't believe all of them are preventable. But, when the 'system' is playing

Once again the old say "A picture speaks a thousand words" can pop into ones mind.

Thomas, over at G.I. Special - Military Project starts out his latest News Letter with the following recent photo of 'The War pResident'.

crossposted from unbossed

On April 30, Bush received a plan for developing a modern system for security clearances, Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team, Security and Suitability Process Reform Initial Report. Before you click on it, this is a short report short of real solutions, that somehow creates a pdf file that is huge and bloated. I regard that as a metaphor for the substance of the report itself.

In an article in the L.A. Times, Julian Barnes brings an increase in the use of stop-loss orders to our attention.

The number of soldiers forced to remain in the Army involuntarily under the military's controversial "stop-loss" program has risen sharply since the Pentagon extended combat tours last year, officials said Thursday.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was briefed about the program by Army officials who said that thousands of new stop-loss orders were issued to keep soldiers from leaving the service after Gates ordered combat tours extended from 12 to 15 months last spring.

The Army has resorted to involuntary extensions of soldiers' enlistment terms to prevent them from leaving immediately before a combat tour or in the middle of a deployment.

Though the article is a good one, Barnes is actually missing the point here a bit.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation lawsuit against the Department of Defense got some long overdue mainstream media coverage this weekend, in print and on network TV.

Arf! Arf! Arf!  OK, not exactly in the window, but go to Craig's List or e-bay, and you can buy enough stolen US military equipment to make your own F-14 or credibly pose as a US officer. Among the items for sale are F-14 components, Night vision goggles containing an image intensifier tube made to military specifications, Army Combat Uniform (ACU) and uniform accessories,  Body armor vests and Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI), including advanced Enhanced SAPI (E-SAPI) plates, Kevlar helmets, flak jackets, gas masks, and military meals ready-to-eat (MRE).

crossposted from unbossed

The ACLU has forced the release of a 2003 DOJ memo which lays out  "a 'complete' legal framework for detentions and interrogations, based on the Constitution, the UN Convention Against Torture (CAT), US war crimes statutes, and other laws..."  The 81 page document is basically a complicated series of legal opinions justifying the use of torture.  Balkinization calls it what it is,"the torture memo to top all torture memos."

The mind behind it will never be the same.

The Troubled Homecoming Of The Marlboro Marine

Only one face, of the tens of thousands, radically changed by their experiance in a War Of Choice, Choice by those who don't fight them, not Absolutely The Last Resort! In Wars Of Choice most start questioning the Why? of their being ordered there, Survival becomes the 'Nobel Cause', theirs and those around them, and Survival comes with Deep Costs! Once having normal trained minds, absorbing more knowledge and experiances, the Nightmares of Death and Destruction take over, haughting many for the rest of their lives!

Wait. Pastor Agnostic has to take a deep breath before screaming on.
Ok.

Whew, now I feel better.
Here is the story:

For more than two years, the Pentagon delayed screening troops returning from Iraq for mild brain injuries because officials feared veterans would blame vague ailments on the little-understood wound caused by exposure to bomb blasts, says the military's director of medical assessments.

More ranting and raving below the fold.

crossposted from unbossed

Yes, it is definitely a government of the contractors, by the contractors, and maybe even for the contractors. At least that is a concern GAO shares, according to a new report issued yesterday.