Demanding Fealty From the CIA

Re “Partisan Spooks,” editorial, Nov. 18: On the one hand, The Times has criticized the “intelligence failures” of the CIA, yet on the other hand, criticized new Director Porter Goss for making changes by mischaracterizing them as “turmoil” and “needlessly antagonizing senior officials.” Had Goss done nothing different upon assuming leadership of the CIA, The Times would surely have been critical.

*

Meanwhile, you imply sinister intent in the admonition by Goss to CIA employees that the agency must “support the administration and its policies in our work.” What would you expect him, or any director, to say? Every officer of the United States takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

The administration is the constitutionally empowered executive branch of the government, charged with determining the government’s direction and policies. Policies that cannot help but impact the conduct of intelligence gathering. For a government official not to support, through the conduct of his duties, any administration and its (legal) policies (whether or not he personally agrees with those policies) is disloyal if not treasonous. Goss’ admonition does not politicize intelligence or preclude its objective production.

John Voss

Burke, Va.

*

Even as we attempt to impose democracy by force on Iraq, the Bush administration increasingly demands fealty at every level of government service here at home. Scientists serving on independent advisory boards are quizzed about their support for the administration and passed over if it is found to be wanting. The CIA director circulates a memo regarding adherence to administration policies and, not surprisingly, experienced intelligence officials are leaving the agency. The list goes on.

Demanding allegiance rather than fostering the free flow of information and vigorous debate of civic issues is the mark of an oligarchy, not a democracy. How sadly ironic.

Elizabeth Anthony

Malibu