Congressional oversight committees, whistleblowers, inspectors general, and lawyers—so many lawyers—were the topics of conversation Monday night when the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security at the Schar School of Policy and Government presented a panel of former justice and intelligence veterans, and one attorney who specializes in suing the government, who dished on those who were charged with keeping them in check.
An audience of 200 attended the Hayden Center discussion, called “Spywatchers: Governing Intelligence in an Imperfect World,” at the National Press Club ballroom.
The panel was moderated by Michael Morell, former acting director and deputy director of the CIA, who was substituting for Michael Hayden. Hayden is recovering from a recent stroke.
Morell kept the pace brisk as the panelists, perhaps unshackled at last by secrecy oaths and possible retribution, recalled their experiences dealing with oversight commissions, blue ribbon panels, and those in power who might have competing views.
Oversight of secretive agencies is necessary, Morell said at the outset, because they operate in a democracy. “The ‘secret’ part of that makes it difficult to convince the public—the ‘democracy’ part of it—that the intelligence community is operating within the bounds of the Constitution and that it’s actually doing the job it’s supposed to do, and that it’s actually protecting the country and doing it in a way with the taxpayers’ money that makes sense.”
“The reason we have oversight is that over time, legal, regulatory, and policy requirements have increased,” said Lisa Monaco, former assistant to the President for Homeland Security and chief of staff for Robert Mueller when he led the FBI. “It’s healthy to have an apparatus within the executive branch to make sure the intelligence community are adhering to those requirements.”
While oversight is necessary, it’s not always congenial. “The second-guessing can get personal,” said John Rizzo, former acting general counsel to the CIA, where he served for 34 years.
“Social relationships that used to exist in Washington don’t exist anymore,” said George Little, former assistant to the Secretary of Defense and Pentagon Press Secretary. “[Former CIA director Leon] Panetta could have coffee with a member of Congress and discuss things. You can’t do that now.”
Mark Zaid, a lawyer who specializes in defending government whistleblowers, suggested a solution for heated debates: “I’d love to see another agency making impartial judgements on appeal. It could be Congress, it could be the judiciary.”
Even the top echelon of those who audit government agencies—the inspectors general—apparently have their weaknesses.
“I never learned anything [from an inspector general] that I didn’t already know,” said Morell, referring to the investigative side of the office. The audit side was more accomplished, he said.
While oversight of secretive agencies is important, so are forums such as the one presented by the Hayden Center, said Zaid after the event.
“It’s about education. It’s about ensuring the government is still connected to the outside, and that government doesn’t work in a vacuum,” he said.
“I found it interesting that the panelists agreed that the executive branch had the most effective oversight mechanism,” said Marcus Müller, a visiting research scholar at the Schar School and a doctoral candidate at the University of Kaiserslautern in Germany. “It was good to hear, but it was surprising to me as I work on these issues. I found it a really informative panel.”