« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Hayden vs. Helgerson: Who Has The Chilling Effect?
Ever since 9/11, the biggest epithet an outsider can hurl at the CIA is that it's "risk-averse." Nothing, but nothing, rankles agency officials and operatives more than hearing that they're not willing to do whatever it takes to defend the country. So when agency officials start throwing knives at one another, it's the charge that someone has contributed to risk-aversion, real or perceived, that cuts the deepest. Looking back, that's exactly what Mike Hayden did when he released Inspector General John Helgerson's report into the CIA and 9/11 in August.
Helgerson found compounding layers of incompetence and fault among senior agency officials, especially then-Director George Tenet, in a Congressionally-mandated review he completed in 2005. The report was only released to the public after Congress placed a provision mandating disclosure in this year's bill compelling the implementation of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. In releasing the report, Hayden blasted Helgerson for unfairly maligning the agency, and suggested that excessive criticism like Helgerson's would have a "chilling effect" on energetic CIA action against terrorism:
I thought the release of this report would distract officers serving their country on the frontlines of a global conflict. It will, at a minimum, consume time and attention revisiting ground that is already well plowed. I also remain deeply concerned about the chilling effect that may follow publication of the previously classified work, findings, and recommendations of the Office of Inspector General.
Helgerson criticized Tenet for failure to properly manage what he considered, in many cases, competent and innovative work against al-Qaeda. His chief recommendation, the creation of an accountability board to recommend potential punishment for Tenet and his top deputies, was declined by both Hayden and his predecessor, Porter Goss.
Now it's the turn of critics of Hayden's investigation into Helgerson to accuse someone of having a chilling effect -- in this case, a chilling effect on internal investigations of potential wrongdoing. Perhaps that's a counter-chilling effect, since outside or inside inquiry seems to be, to many at CIA, what's responsible for causing perceived aversion to risk. Either way, Hayden's move is likely to chip at one of the most powerful bulwarks against CIA misconduct. "The role of CIA IG is extremely important, at least potentially, because it entails a degree of access that surpasses even that of Congressional oversight committees," explains Steven Aftergood, an intelligence expert with the Federation of American Scientists. "In principle, the IG can go anywhere and see anything. If he is so inclined, he can be a voice of law and sanity in places where these are otherwise absent."
It's hard to know how powerful Helgerson is, Aftergood continues, "since almost all of his work product is classified and leaves no public trace." But one thing's for sure: after Hayden's inquiry, the inspector general is sure to be diminished. Whether that leads to a less risk-averse CIA remains to be seen.
Comments (9)
Crust wrote on October 12, 2007 12:00 PM:"But one thing's for sure: after Hayden's inquiry, the inspector general is sure to be diminished."
Why is that for sure? What if Hayden's inquiry backfires? Couldn't that strengthen the hand of the IG?
Investigating the IG for allegedly investigating too aggressively is a high risk path for Hayden and the Bush administration. Sure the Bushies have gotten away with an incredible amount, especially in terms of beating down critics, but it's a mistake to assume that history will repeat itself. (My guess is it will more likely will than not, but we shouldn't assume it. Who knows maybe our pliant press corps will wake up from their slumber.)
paul wrote on October 12, 2007 12:12 PM:Well, it depends how you define "risk-averse". If you mean something like "having senior managers like the executive director unwilling to pass piles of classified information tens of millions of dollars in illicit contracts to their friends", clobbering the IG's office might make the CIA much less risk-averse indeed.
Anonymous wrote on October 12, 2007 12:25 PM:>>Hayden blasted Helgerson for unfairly maligning the agency, and suggested that excessive criticism like Helgerson's would have a "chilling effect" on energetic CIA action against terrorism<<
My question is WHY does Hayden believe that??
Are the men and women of the CIA NOT professionals??
Comments like that, are the ones that disrespect the people that work for him. Are we to believe that the CIA agents' feelings will be so hurt, that the release of this report would distract officers serving their country on the frontlines of a global conflict.
How?!? These are professionals. Not school children. Some of them trained to endure "torture."
Now Hayden has done it! He has given our enemies the best weapon against us. REPORTS!
Carolyn wrote on October 12, 2007 12:37 PM:Crust: I agree. History may be a teacher this time. This could be just the path we want to follow. Sounds to me like Helgerson will be hard to intimidate (which I suspect is Hayden's intention).
Mary wrote on October 12, 2007 12:58 PM:I found the paragraph re: Tenet's mismanagement of Al-Qaeda info especially telling. Let's see, he got the freedom medal for what????
Wouldn't want to "chill" efforts to round up Canadians and send them into Syrian torture or Germans and keep them ourselves in blackholes of torture, all while letting Bin Laden move around more freely that George Bush does.
How is Hayden empowered to investigate the IG? Isn't the appropriate course for the CIA to ask the appropriate Congressional committee to investigate that IG? Otherwise, isn't it known as whistleblower retaliation?
Every time someone like Hayden puts on a uniform, souls that earned a right to heaven suffer a moment of hell.
Carolyn wrote on October 12, 2007 1:53 PM:Crust: I agree. History may be a teacher this time. This could be just the path we want to follow. Sounds to me like Helgerson will be hard to intimidate (which I suspect is Hayden's intention).
parrot wrote on October 12, 2007 4:05 PM:I found the paragraph re: Tenet's mismanagement of Al-Qaeda info especially telling. Let's see, he got the freedom medal for what????
I'd like a topping of Medal of Freedom with that.
Dindrane wrote on December 7, 2007 10:32 AM:And so there is now at last direct and unequivocal evidence that we are indeed a lawless nation with souls, intentions, and actions as dark and heinous as any of our supposed "enemies." The leaders of and functionaries within our government are authorized say and do anything to impose their will in the world so that Bush and Cheney and those who support them can continue to delude themselves that they are the manly-men of their sick imaginations. This is beyond disgusting. They know it is illegal and morally reprehensible, otherwise they would not need to cover it up.
cabalist wrote on December 25, 2007 9:16 AM:So Helgerson investigated, and Hayden didn't like it.
Hayden knows that his own bosses are not risk-averse; they are accountability-averse.
And Helgerson's finding of incompetence? All that means is that Tenet and co said what their bosses wanted them to say. Now that the CIA is not in tune with the political apparatus, expect more knives thrown till no one gets out alive.