Chris Hayes has the cover story in this week’s Nation with a case why we need a new Church Committee to investigate CIA abuses. Or rather, we need something even better than the Church Committee.
As historian Kathy Olmsted argues in her book Challenging the Secret Government, Church was never quite able to part with this conception of good Democrats/bad Republicans. Confronted with misdeeds under Kennedy and Johnson, he chose to view the CIA as a rogue agency, as opposed to one executing the president’s wishes. This characterization became the fulcrum of debate within the committee. At one point Church referred to the CIA as a “rogue elephant,” causing a media firestorm. But the final committee report shows that to the degree the agency and other parts of the secret government were operating with limited control from the White House, it was by design. Walter Mondale came around to the view that the problem wasn’t the agencies themselves but the accretion of secret executive power: “the grant of powers to the CIA and to these other agencies,” he said during a committee hearing, “is, above all, a grant of power to the president.”
A contemporary Church Committee would do well to follow Mondale’s approach and not Church’s.
Ackerman concurs, using the same pullquote citing Kathy and adding, “I don’t know how someone this perceptive and this insightful and this diligent is allowed to go on television.”
Have I mentioned how you should buy this book?


17 comments
August 27, 2009 at 9:25 am
kid bitzer
i certainly think the ackerman quote about insight and diligence *should* apply to kathy. but when i read the sentence there, it looks to me as though spencer intends it to apply to chris hayes instead.
i don’t know–maybe i’m misreading spencer. in any case, i myself endorse the sentiment with respect to both persons.
and since i hold her in such high regard, i want to ask kathy a question that is probably covered in her book:
what is the constitutional sanction for a c.i.a.?
i mean: where in the enumerated powers of the executive, or where in all of the mythical powers that otherwise strict constructionists suddenly invent for republican presidents, is there a license or grant of power that would describe or plausibly be extended to an agency like the c.i.a.?
is it simply a part of the army and navy, as authorized under article ii section 8?
maybe it’s part of a really, really expansive reading of the interstate commerce clause?
August 27, 2009 at 9:28 am
eric
spencer intends it to apply to chris hayes
I did know that. And the rest of you can stop emailing me. It was on purpose.
August 27, 2009 at 9:34 am
kid bitzer
i don’t know how someone this perceptive, insightful and diligent is allowed to run a blog.
August 27, 2009 at 9:37 am
ajay
kid: I’d guess it’s article I section 8, “providing for the common defence”.
(Incidentally, I notice the founding fathers knew how to spell “defence” properly. Clearly this means that the Department of Defense is unconstitutional. I also notice that Congress has power to punish offences against the Law of Nations – international law written into the constitution from the start.)
August 27, 2009 at 9:49 am
kid bitzer
yeah, sorry; i wrote “ii.8″ when i meant “i.8″.
maybe you’re right, ajay. i’ll be interested to hear kathy’s take on it.
about that “law of nations” stuff–that’s not part of the constitution we have to attend to anymore. you have to remember–parts of the thing were written by foreigners, who weren’t even born in the united states. so they don’t really count. pretty much the only part that is still good law is article ii, outlining the unlimited powers of the imperial presidency.
August 27, 2009 at 9:51 am
eric
I notice the founding fathers knew how to spell “defence” properly
That’s because they were all wig-wearing aristos. Everyone knows Andrew Jackson personally chased British orthography out of the country with a cutlass in each hand, swearing never again to see honour on his native shores.
August 27, 2009 at 10:01 am
Vance
As we’ve seen with the Office of the Vice President, it can be convenient for hierarchies and degrees of control to be unclear.
(Ajay, the founders unfortunately wrote before Noah Webster cleared away the cobwebs. They probably said “grimayce” too.)
August 27, 2009 at 10:10 am
kid bitzer
sorry, vance: noah webster advocated ratification of the constitution, misspellings and all.
if he had stuck to his orthographical guns, he would have been an anti-federalist, railing against the abhominations.
August 27, 2009 at 10:26 am
drip
Lots of people spell defence properly on Sundays, anyway. The just pronounce it wrong.
August 27, 2009 at 10:42 am
kevin
Everyone knows Andrew Jackson personally chased British orthography out of the country with a cutlass in each hand, swearing never again to see honour on his native shores
Hmm. That certainly explains the Trail of Tears.
August 27, 2009 at 10:45 am
Kathy
When first Roosevelt and then Truman proposed a centralized intelligence agency, it was the far right that denounced the proposal as unconstitutional, fascist, and communist, all at the same time. Headlines in the Chicago Trib say it all: “New Deal Plans Super Spy System” (February 9, 1945); “Super-Spy Idea Denounced as New Deal OGPU” (February 10, 1945); “U.S. Sets Up ‘Gestapo,’ 1500 Secret Agents” (June 15, 1947). Liberals were generally supportive of what was billed as an intelligence-gathering and analysis agency.
August 27, 2009 at 11:00 am
eric
Thanks, Kathy. And I’m sorry; this post really should have been titled “Rogue mahout.” Oh well, even Homer nods.
August 27, 2009 at 11:34 am
kid bitzer
keine ankust, eric.
August 27, 2009 at 12:30 pm
ben
Was bedeutet “Ankust”?
August 27, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Vance
I wasn’t brave enough to ask. Ankush? Ankunft?
August 27, 2009 at 2:11 pm
kid bitzer
it’s the kind of angst that mahouts feel when they forget their ankus, of course.
seemed selbstverständlich to me.
August 31, 2009 at 4:36 pm
The Tragically Flip
From a liberal perspective, since Congress has authorized the CIA to exist by statute, it falls under their “necessary and proper” powers rather than the President’s inherent authority.
Part of the idea here is to take intelligence gathering out of military hands. The CIA (and NSA for that matter) are civilian organizations by deliberate design, even though it would make a lot of pragmatic sense to fold their functions into the military.
So if the Executive set up its own CIA, it would be the DIA.
Incidentally, it bugs me that the NSA is led by a Lieutenant General.