Experts say Recently-Released US Intelligence Documents Still Relevant

By Gary Thomas Washington 29 June 2007

Download

The release of once-secret documents detailing past abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies opens a window into the sometimes dark history of the CIA. Most of the information in the documents, which date back more than 30 years, has long been publicly known. But, as VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, the revelations are of more than historical interest.

Central Intelligence Agency's secret documents of the agency's contacts with other US government agencies, shows some deleted portions in blank boxes, at the National Security Archives, 26 June 2007

Intelligence experts say the declassified documents known colloquially as the "family jewels" are significant for current policy debates on intelligence reform, secrecy, and presidential power in the post-9/11 era.

CIA director Michael Hayden said the documents, although unflattering, provide what he calls "a glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency." But David Barrett, an intelligence historian at Villanova University, says that in today's war on terror some things are not terribly different in the intelligence world.

"I think that there are parallels," he said. "I think that when some decades have passed, I think we will look back at the few years after September 11 and see that there were abuses and hat there were activities which were of questionable legality. And that's sort of the view that we tend to have of the early Cold War period, the pre-'Family Jewels' period."

The 700-page dossier of memos and reports details some of the questionable and, in many cases, possibly illegal activities of the CIA, the FBI and the National Security Agency in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s. They include plots to assassinate foreign leaders, including the use of mobsters to try to kill Cuban leader Fidel Castro, the domestic surveillance of political dissidents, the opening of mail, and the electronic wiretapping of American journalists.

Most of the information about the "family jewels" first came out in a New York Times report in December, 1974, which then sparked two congressional investigations and one presidential commission the following year. The dossier dealing with events some 30 to 40 years ago that was just released still has large portions blocked out.

Amy Zegart, professor of public policy and an intelligence specialist at the University of California at Los Angeles, says how a president wields the power of intelligence agencies remains as much an issue now as it was then.

"Democrats and Republicans, Cold War, terrorism - it doesn't matter," she said. "All presidents are tempted to go beyond the bound of what most Americans consider to be appropriate in their use of intelligence agencies. So there's this ongoing tension between what presidents see as protecting the national security interest, and what most Americans view as violating basic civil liberties. And we see that in the 1960s, and we see that today."

The original investigations of the "family jewels" led to the reforms, including the creation of permanent intelligence oversight committees in Congress. Britt Snider, who was counsel to the Senate committee investigation in 1975, says that oversight became somewhat lax in intervening years.

"Well, I think there certainly was a period here, a recent period, when there was more deference paid to the intelligence community and what they were doing, not as much oversight," he noted. "Certainly in terms of public oversight there was not a whole lot going on for, I don't know, almost probably 10-year period. But I think it's started to change now. I think both committees are becoming more active and getting back to the way they used to be."

There are those who say the changes imposed after the first revelations went too far. Former CIA officer Peter Earnest, who how heads the International Spy Museum in Washington, points out that barriers on information sharing that were erected between America's domestic and foreign intelligence agencies in the 1970s may have affected the chances of intercepting the 9/11 plot.

"When the 9/11 Commission met, they were concerned about, you remember the issue of the 'wall' came up. In other words, there was certain information that couldn't be shared. In other words, not only were we perhaps not collecting the right dots, we were unable to relate the dots to each other because of the so-called wall," he explained. "So it addresses that issue of did we go too far at times, and the pendulum swings back, and now we have to correct in the other direction."

However, David Barrett, who has written a book on the relationship between Congress and the CIA, doubts that the so-called "information wall" can be blamed for the failure of inter-agency cooperation before September 11, 2001.

"I think it had much more to do with the different cultures, the distinct cultures, each agency wanting to do things its way - FBI wanting to do things its way, CIA wanting to do things its way," he added. "So there are reasons why agencies didn't perform especially effectively in the lead-up to September 11th. But I don't think it had to do with these intelligence reforms of the 1970s. I just don't buy it."

UCLA's Amy Zegart applauds the release of the "family jewels," saying it is long overdue. But she says there is still much that the intelligence community is keeping locked up that should be aired.

"I think we have to be careful about congratulating the CIA too soon about its glasnost [openness]," she said. "There's a lot that remains locked up that could shed tremendous light on what led to 9/11 and how we could make the intelligence community work better."

The "family jewels" outline how the CIA and NSA engaged in electronic eavesdropping and wiretapping decades ago. The White House and Congress are currently locked in a struggle over documents - or, perhaps in these Internet days, emails as well - relating to the warrantless wiretapping program that the Bush administration ordered the National Security Agency to carry out after 9/11.

Kofi Annan Launches Global Humanitarian Forum

By Lisa Schlein Geneva 29 June 2007

Download

Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is launching a new organization to improve humanitarian assistance around the world. Mr. Annan says the new organization, called the Global Humanitarian Forum, will help people in poor countries play a greater role in finding solutions to their developmental and humanitarian problems. Lisa Schlein reports for VOA from Geneva, where the new organization will be based.

Kofi Annan

The Global Humanitarian Forum officially gets under way Monday. Mr. Annan, who left his U.N. post at the end of 2006, says the agenda and strategies of the Forum are still being developed. But certain things are clear.

He says the Forum does not intend to compete with other organizations. It aims to complement the work that is being done and to chart new ways of approaching humanitarian disasters so the victims can receive help in a more efficient and timely manner.

For example, he says the United Nations and other members of the humanitarian community would not have been able to deal with natural disasters such as the Indian Ocean tsunami and the earthquake in Kashmir without the help of the military.

"If the military had not come in and provided heavy logistical support … many more people would have died as we would not have been able to get to them," said the former U.N. chief. "And, so the military have become important players in humanitarian relief. And, yet, when we get together to discuss humanitarian issues, they are not around, they are not at the table."

"I think we would want to bring them to the table to discuss with humanitarian actors how we could cooperate. And, from my own previous experience, I know it is not an easy relationship," he added.

Mr. Annan says he recognizes private aid groups are not comfortable working with the military. He says he hopes the Forum can improve this relationship.

The Forum, according to Mr. Annan, will deal with such issues as the humanitarian consequences of climate change. He says more people are likely to flee their homes as natural resources, such as water and food become scarcer.

Yet, these so-called environmental refugees have no legal protections under international law. No one knows how to deal with them. This, he says, is an area of fruitful research for the Forum.

He says his group will also work to persuade developing countries they have an obligation to take carbon emissions and global warming seriously. Although industrialized countries are chiefly responsible for these emissions, he says China, India, Brazil. South Africa and other developing countries cannot afford to just sit back and do nothing.

"Not only should they begin now, they should take advantage and avoid the mistakes of earlier industrialization and frog leap some of the mistakes the others make and really begin to look for green [environmentally friendly] technology, even if it is a bit more expensive," he said.

"But there are reasonable technologies that can help them. I do not think they can sit back and say let those who are responsible for the bulk of it take care of it and pretend that stopping emission will slow their growth," he continued.

On the contrary, Mr. Annan says, failure to protect the environment may turn out to be the greatest constraint on growth and development around the world.

Bush, Putin to Meet in Attempt to Ease Tensions

By Peter Fedynsky Moscow 29 June 2007

Download

President Bush has invited Russian President Vladimir Putin to the Bush family home this weekend in Kennebunkport, Maine. The meeting, in a secluded and relaxed oceanside setting is designed to reduce recent tensions between Russia and the United States. VOA Moscow correspondent Peter Fedynsky looks at the Russian perspective on chances for success in Kennebunkport.

President Bush, center, chats with his mother, Barbara Bush, wearing hat, and others after arriving in Kennebunkport, Maine, 28 Jun 2007

Friday's edition of the Russian newspaper Izvestia devotes more than half a page not only to the Bush-Putin meeting, but also to the impact its location may have on the substance of the talks.

The article, complete with a color photograph of the Bush family home, quotes the first president Bush as saying former first lady Barbara Bush told her son, the current president, not to put his feet on the table.

That detail is used to suggest that the family home is neutral territory, unlike the Texas ranch of the American president or Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland. Izvestia says those venues have "exhausted their positive image" just as U.S.-Russian relations have taken a negative turn.

Alexander Khramchekhyn, research director at Moscow's Institute for Political and Military Analysis, told the VOA that the two presidents hope to prevent further deterioration of ties.

Khramchekhyn says neither president, because of the personal connection, wants to completely spoil Russian-American ties. The analyst notes that until recently, personal relations between Presidents Bush and Putin were good.

President Bush, (l), shakes hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin after their meeting at the G8 in Heiligendamm, Germany, 07 Jun 2007

A top priority on the Bush-Putin agenda is expected to be an American plan to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Washington says the system is designed to guard against a possible attack by Iran. The Kremlin says it threatens Russia's security. Alexander Khramchekhyn rejects such fears for now, but says the system could be converted later into an offensive instrument against Russia. The analyst also suspects that Kremlin leaders may be using the missile issue to maintain power.

Khramchekhyn says the issue is also a propaganda tool. In other words, we will stop talking about your missiles if you stop talking about our democracy.

And the democratization of Russia is a concern for Washington. Senior U.S. officials have highlighted Kremlin pressure on Russia's non-governmental organizations, as well as independent media and political parties.

Another issue likely to be discussed at Kennebunkport is Kosovo, the predominately ethnic Albanian province of Serbia. Washington supports a Western plan to grant supervised independence to Kosovo. Moscow, a traditional Serbian ally, is opposed. Some analysts say the Kremlin wants to avoid setting a precedent of internationally-supervised independence, which some of Russia's independence-minded regions could demand.

Whether any of these issues will be resolved in Kennebunkport is uncertain. Izvestia says the meeting is planned not so much to resolve problems, but to lower the tension around them. Alexander Khramchekhyn says that given the poor state of relations, the fact that the two leaders are meeting at all should be considered a success.

US Supreme Court Reverses Decision, Agrees to Hear Guantanamo Detainee Appeal

By Gary Thomas Washington 29 June 2007

Download

The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed itself and agreed to hear the appeals of detainees held at the U.S. facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. As VOA correspondent Gary Thomas reports, legal scholars say it is a highly unusual move for the country's highest court.

A detainee sits behind a chain-linked fence on the grounds of Camp Delta detention facility, at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base, Cuba, Sep 2006)

On the last day of its current session, the Supreme Court changed its mind about two cases involving detainees in government custody. After denying earlier appeals by the Guantanamo detainees in April, the court said it will hear arguments in its next term about whether inmates whom the government deems to be enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention in a U.S. court.

There is some difference among legal scholars about exactly when the last time such a reversal occurred in the Supreme Court, but there is general agreement that it was about 40 years ago.

Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University and a legal advisor for the detainees, says the turnabout is a major victory for the Guantanamo inmates.

"It's a huge step forward for the detainees, and a serious, serious setback for the government's efforts to do anything except allow the independent judicial review which is at the bedrock of the separation of powers," said Freedman.

National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said the Bush administration does not believe any legal review of its detainee procedures is necessary, but added that it is confident about its legal position.

But even conservative legal scholars say the court decision to take the cases does not bode well for the administration's detainee policies.

David Rivkin, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, calls the court action unfortunate. He noted that it takes only four of the nine justices to deny a hearing before the high court, but five to order a rehearing as it did Friday.

"It tells me that four justices for certain, and possibly five justices, entertain some questions about the propriety and legal sufficiency of the Military Commissions Act, which is of course the key underlying legislation passed last November that governs all aspects of detention and prosecution of unlawful enemy combatants," he said.

The detainees seek the right to challenge their detention in a federal court. The Bush administration says they are enemy combatants and therefore not entitled to such rights. At the administration's urging, Congress last year passed the law denying them that legal avenue and setting up military commissions to try detainees.

Eric Freedman says the government must explain to a civilian court why it is holding people in detention indefinitely.

"It is simply inimical to our Constitution that our government can throw somebody into a prison, announce that they are a national security threat, and not explain to a court the factual and legal basis why they're doing that," he said.

David Rivkin is gloomy about the Supreme Court's about-face, but adds he does not believe the court will totally abandon the military commission system.

"The courts are not going to cleanly kill the system," said Rivkin. "I do not believe that at any point in time the courts are going to come out and say, the laws of war paradigm does not apply, these people are not enemy combatants, you've got to let them go. At least the Supreme Court is most unlikely to do that because, frankly, even they understand how insane that would be."

The cases will be heard sometime after the next court term begins in October.

VOASE0629_In the News

29 June 2007

A Recent Study Suggests Most Young Americans Plan to Vote for a Democrat in Next Year’s Presidential Election
Most young Americans consider themselves socially liberal.

Download
Download

This is IN THE NEWS in VOA Special English.

What do young Americans think about the presidential candidates and social issues? A new public opinion study shows that the majority of young people support Democrats over Republicans. The young people also have liberal positions on several social issues.

The results of the study were published earlier this week by the New York Times newspaper. The opinion study was a joint effort by the New York Times, CBS News, and MTV, the music television network. The study was based on telephone calls to six hundred fifty-nine young people earlier this month. They were between the ages of seventeen and twenty-nine.

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois at a Democratic presidential debate in June.

Fifty-four percent of the young Americans questioned said they plan to vote for a Democratic Party candidate for president in two thousand eight. They appeared to like two candidates the most -- Democratic Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

The study also found that many more young Americans are paying attention to the two thousand eight presidential race than the last one in two thousand four. They share with the general public a negative opinion of President Bush. Only twenty-eight percent of this group approve of the job he is doing as president.

Almost half of the young Americans questioned feel their generation will be worse off than their parents’ generation. But more than seventy-five percent of them believe the votes of their generation would make a difference in the next presidential election.

The study found that young adults share the same opinions as the general population on some issues. But they have different opinions on several issues. For example, young Americans are more likely than the general public to support a government-controlled health care system for all Americans. The young people are also more likely to support a liberal policy on immigration.

Forty-four percent of the young Americans said they believe couples of the same sex should be permitted to legally marry. Only twenty-eight percent of the general population approve of the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Young Americans are also more likely than the general public to support legalizing the possession of small amounts of the drug marijuana.

When asked about the war in Iraq, young adults appeared to be more hopeful than the population as a whole. Fifty-one percent of the young adults said the United States is likely to succeed in Iraq. This is compared with forty-five percent of the general population.

Young Americans share the same opinions as the general public on the issue of abortion to end a pregnancy. Seventy-five percent said abortion should be available, either as it is or with greater restrictions.

And the majority of young adults agrees with the general population that global warming is a serious problem that should be a top issue for government leaders.

And that’s IN THE NEWS in VOA Special English, written by Brianna Blake. Our reports can be found on our Web site, voaspecialenglish.com. I’m Steve Ember.