Speaker addresses role of CIA
Lecturer discusses intelligence and executive power
By Kim Chi Ha, staff writer
Posted on January 29, 2007

The U.S. Congress has played a large role in crippling American intelligence, according to Stephen F. Knott from the University of Virginia’s Miller Center of Public Affairs.

Knott, an associate professor and co-chair of the Miller Center’s Presidential Oral History program, spoke last week as a part of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs’ Guardian Lecture Series.

“I’m not surprised by what happened on 9/11,” Knott said to an audience of more than 100 students, faculty and members of the community.  “[In our covert operations], we don’t have sources in places where we should because we rely on technical means because they’re safer.”

The creation of the Central Intelligence Agency during the Cold War was an unheard of event in American history.

“The American office had lost its way,  becoming more like a police state, which threatened the basic principles this country was founded on,” said Knott, who has authored several books on the history of the American presidency.  “To make sure they didn’t become a threat to what we’re about, as a remedy, we selected a few key members of Congress who’d be given regular briefings about the activities of the CIA and other intelligence.”

Knott said as a result of intelligence handling with Vietnam and Watergate, though, it seemed Congress needed additional oversight over the CIA.

In 1975, the Church Commission, which studied governmental operations with respect to intelligence, revised the way the United States supervised and conducted its covert operations with the creation of a permanent Senate and House intelligence committee.
 
Knott disagreed with this arrangement. Though he said he was well aware of the dangers of putting all the power in the hands of the executive, he believed it was necessary in order to be a superpower.

Some members of the audience disagreed.

“Less oversight is a threat to our civil liberties,” said sophomore political science major Paul Arsenovic. “I think [greater Congressional oversight over the CIA] is worth the sacrifice. I believe in the words of Ben Franklin when he said those who want security over freedom deserve neither.”

Knott said: “I believe the creation of the Senate and House committees did a number on the CIA because of the split pressures between the demands of the executive and the senate and house. The U.S. has more oversight over intelligence than any other nation.”

He continued to say that with Congress’ additional oversight over the CIA, it was difficult for anyone to be held directly accountable for intelligence errors.

“George Bush should’ve been held responsible for the horrific intelligence error on weapons of mass destruction in 2004,” Knott said.

Knott’s opinions generated mixed reactions from his audience.

“He had a very provocative thesis and certainly there will be people who agree and disagree,” said J. Peter Pham, director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs. Pham became acquainted with Knott two years ago while taking a counter-terrorism course in Israel.

Arsenovic was one who did not completely agree with Knott’s presentation.

“I thought his history was very well presented and honest, though I disagreed with his conclusion,” he said.

Knott concluded with the idea that creating more regulatory bodies and committees will not improve the United States’ intelligence.

“The CIA and NSA shouldn’t be treated like just another democracy,” Knott said.  “The House last week voted to create another new intelligence subcommittee and that is not the answer.  You need a new approach, a new way of thinking, not new agencies or departments.”