See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Waxman's Latest Letter: White House Security A Joke All Around
Source:
Daily Kos
URL Source: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/26/131955/827
Published: Jun 26, 2007
Author: "Irfo"
Post Date: 2007-06-26 14:57:43 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 100
Comments: 5
Waxman's Latest Letter: White House Security A Joke All Around by Irfo [Subscribe] Our friend Rep. Henry Waxman has written another letter today, this time to Presidential counsel Fred Fielding (ahhh, memories of Watergate), and this time about the lax security that permeates the entire West Wing, not just Richard Bruce Cheney's curiously misplaced office. Here are some highlights: [...] During the previous administration, security specialists working for the White House Security Office were given access to all White House offices, including those in the West Wing. According to the security officers, this access was revoked by the Bush Administration. As a result, only the senior management of the White House Security Office (such as the Director and Deputy Director) retained the authority to enter the West Wing without advance notice to and assistance from West Wing personnel. The security officers objected to the loss of access, but Security Office management denied their requests to restore access to the West Wing. The denial of access to the West Wing has serious adverse effects, according to the security officers. The officers report that they and other security officers working in the White House Security Office do not have the ability to perform basic security functions, such as conducting unannounced inspections of West Wing offices. The result is that security violations are disclosed only when the incidents are self-reported by the violators or happen to be noticed and reported by Secret Service or other officials with access to the West Wing. [...] In another example described to my staff, a junior White House aide reported that a senior assistant to the President improperly disclosed "Sensitive Compartmented Information" to the junior aide, even though the aide had no security clearance. Although SCI is the highest level of security classification, the White House Security Office took no steps to investigate or take corrective action. In a third example, a security officer reported that a White House official left classified material behind in a hotel room during a foreign trip with the President. Although the CIA recovered the material and reported the incident, the White House Security Office did not investigate, seek remedial action, or discipline the responsible official. The security officers also described numerous examples of White House officials failing to physically secure classified information within the White House in accordance with applicable security requirements. The officers related that they had received numerous reports of White House officials leaving classified information out on their desks, rather than in secure locations. Yet according to the officers, the White House Security Office made no effort to investigate these violations or implement any remedial actions. [...] This renewal of Mr. Rove’s security clearance would appear to be another example of a questionable White House security practice. Under guidelines approved by President Bush in 2005, the "deliberate or negligent disclosure" of classified information can be a "disqualifying" condition. Moreover, these guidelines provide that an individual’s response to a potential security breach may be just as important as the breach itself. Under the guidelines, a lack of candor, even about unintentional breaches, can be grounds for terminating access to classified information. Under these standards, it is hard to see how Mr. Rove would qualify for a renewal of his security clearance. At a minimum, his disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s status as a CIA officer would appear to be a disqualifying "negligent" disclosure under the executive order. In addition, he told White House spokesman Scott McClellan in September 2003 that there was "no truth" to the allegations that he was involved in the disclosure of Ms. Plame’s identity. This misrepresentation would appear to be an independent ground under the President’s guidelines for denying his clearance renewal. [...] Another area of concern involves the management of the White House Security Office itself. The current and former security officials reported that James Knodell, who until recently was the Director of the White House Security Office, and Ken Greeson, the Deputy Director, routinely violated basic security guidelines. They also said that these officials were poor managers who were loath to assert authority over White House security practices or to take actions that could embarrass White House officials. One example cited by the officials involved security procedures in the White House sensitive compartmented information facility (SCIF). The security officers said that Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson habitually brought their Blackberry devices and cell phones into the SCIF in the White House Security Office in violation of the rules. The officials said that Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson also allowed others, such as visiting White House personnel, to bring their Blackberries and cell phones into the SCIF. According to the officials, these improper practices were allowed to continue even after security officers repeatedly informed Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson that the practices violated security rules and set a poor example. According to the security officers, the poor management and bad examples set by Mr. Knodell and Mr. Greeson caused extreme frustration and plummeting morale among White House security officers, resulting in the departure of more than half of the White House security officers within the last year. [...] I do not doubt your good faith in proposing that the Committee consider interviews with other White House officials before seeking testimony from Mr. Card. But it has now been over two months and the Committee still has not been able to arrange an interview with Alan Swendiman, the Director of the Office of Administration; Mark Frownfelter, a former White House security officer; and Jeff Thompson, the former Director of the White House Security Office. This continued delay is impeding the Committee’s inquiry and is not in the nation’s interest. I respectfully request that the interviews that the Committee has been seeking be scheduled without further delay. If this cannot be accomplished, I will recommend to the Committee the issuance of subpoenas at our next business meeting, which is currently scheduled for June 28. [...] Looks like you don't need to waterboard this crew to pry loose their most guarded secrets... just read the papers they leave lying around on their desks. (Although they do somehow manage to keep secret, at least for awhile, documents with names like "bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside the U.S.")
Tue Jun 26, 2007 at 11:00:02 AM PDT [Ms. Perino's] statements do not appear to be accurate. After the Committee’s hearing in March into the disclosure of the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, several former and current employees of the White House Security Office informed my staff of multiple White House violations of the rules for safeguarding classified information. If their statements are true, the White House has repeatedly disregarded basic requirements for protecting our national security secrets.
[...] What Ms. Perino did not mention is that former and current employees of the White House Security Office have informed my staff that they have been blocked from conducting inspections in the West Wing of the White House, where most of the President’s most senior advisors work.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
I think this flagrant and habitual flouting of the security regulations can almost certainly only be explained by a conspiracy to conceal a massive misuse of classified information.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Wow, Bush will have to sign a blanket pardon that "covers everyone in the attached database".
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)
If nothing is secure then it's almost impossible to blame one person for a leak of classified information.
Did you read the first installment of the Washington Post's current series of articles on Cheney? Already in Dec. 2001, Cheney and his people were blaming Powell and the State Department for a leak about the treatment of detainees. Since the leak appeared in a Washington Times article, and the article was unfriendly to Powell, the leak was much more probably from one of Cheney's people. And the reporters in the Washington Post seemed to me to be implying as much. Even earlier, in October 2001, shortly after 9/11, there was a leak about two NSA intercepts that, if they had been interpreted in time, could have stopped 9/11. The Bush administration blamed Congress, and used the leak as an excuse for severely limiting the extent to which it communicated classified information to Congress. The investigation could never determine who in Congress was guilty of the leak, and, after the fact, it looks much more likely that the Bush administration -- quite possibly Cheney's people -- did the leaking. There's been a pattern of the misuse of classified information in this administration. The leak of Plame's identity was just a more prominent example of the same thing. And who do you suppose told Chalabi that the NSA had broken the Iranian cyphers?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
#3. To: aristeides (#1)
#4. To: aristeides (#0)
Ron Paul for President
#5. To: ghostdogtxn (#3)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest