|
|
|
|
Steven Emerson,
Executive Director
|
November 30, 2015
|
|
|
Claims
Of CENTCOM Cooking The Books On ISIS Intel Show We Need New Whistleblower
Protections
by Pete Hoekstra
Newsmax
November 30, 2015
|
|
|
|
|
Share:  
|
  Be the
first of your friends to like this.
This article originally was published by Newsmax.
Proper intelligence can mean the difference between initiating and
preventing conflict, with potentially millions of lives in the balance.
Policy officials must always decide on courses of action with incomplete
information. The role of intelligence is to plug as many of those gaps as
possible.
The situation becomes exceedingly complicated when those tasked with
gathering data withhold critical elements or offer it in such a way as to
influence outcomes. A whistleblower claims to have uncovered disturbing
evidence of such an undertaking with recent analysis issued from Central
Command (CENTCOM) on ISIS.
Fabricating or manipulating findings is a serious charge with serious
consequences. Whoever brought the issue to attention did so without much –
if any – legal protection from possible repercussions.
Since my days as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, members
always agreed that professionals in the spycraft community needed to
present us with unvarnished knowledge as they discovered it. No fudging, no
withholding and never any cooking the books to favor one conclusion over
another.
We relied upon thousands of committed individuals – some risking their
lives – to provide information that better enabled us to make decisions
concerning international affairs and the future of innocent men, women and
children the world over.
Good intelligence does not distort facts to favor Republican or
Democratic positions on issues. Developing sound policy is a massive
challenge already without adding partisan imprints.
In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, all of Congress recognized that
partisan politics should be shelved as America faced a grave threat. We
subsequently passed the largest intelligence reform bill since Congress
created the CIA in 1947. We did so in the middle of a contentious
presidential election year by eliminating partisanship from deliberations.
We also consistently demanded the best analysis. We traveled the globe
to learn of events firsthand, to reference reports from field operatives
against analysts at headquarters. They understandably viewed the world from
different perspectives and held different information in their respective
fingertips.
We welcomed debate and dissent on the meaning of facts and how they might
impact analysis. It was important to engage different vantage points.
The raw details today might disclose the estimated amount of military
hardware at ISIS's disposal, whether it attracts popular support among
those in the region and the level of danger posed by a caliphate the size
of Indiana in the former Syria and Iraq. Based upon such information, good
and knowledgeable people might draw different conclusions as to whether it
poses a significant or insignificant threat.
Sometimes obtaining the necessary information was unnecessarily more
difficult than others. Acquiring a simple data point might mean asking 20
questions of certain professionals because they weren't always as
forthcoming as we would have desired. At times, we would have to dig.
On occasion we found that details had been withheld from the committee.
Management had hell to pay when that happened. Withholding facts from
Congress is not an option. Those engaged in such damaging activity need to
be held accountable and deserve harsh punishment.
Determining when that happens is a problem that is not so easily solved
within the current framework. The espionage community has the weakest
protections for responsible whistleblowers of any agency in the federal
government.
They must first address the inspectors general of their respective
agencies with complaints or observations of wrongdoing. That must change.
They instead need direct access to the proper House and Senate committees
to address their concerns and receive some level of indemnity.
Many times whistleblowers are among the most effective, and only, means
of notifying Congress of potential misconduct. It's very likely that the
person involved in the recent activities at CENTCOM came forward at great
personal risk.
Congress can solve the bipartisan problem immediately by providing the
same protections to those in the intelligence community that other federal
employees receive.
Skewed analysis from CENTCOM that could modify the approach to ISIS one
way or another is unacceptable. A whistleblower may have saved the U.S.
from terrible decisions that could haunt us well into the future.
Pete Hoekstra is the Shillman Senior Fellow with the Investigative
Project on Terrorism and the former Chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence
Committee.
|
The IPT accepts no funding from
outside the United States, or from any governmental agency or political or
religious institutions. Your support of The Investigative Project on
Terrorism is critical in winning a battle we cannot afford to lose. All
donations are tax-deductible. Click here to donate online. The
Investigative Project on Terrorism Foundation is a recognized 501(c)3
organization.
202-363-8602
- main
202-966-5191
- fax
|
|
Print
Send
Comment
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment