9
respond after the fact to charges of intelligence failure or malfeasance. The record discloses that
the frequency of intelligence police-patrolling and firefighting has fluctuated over the years.
Eras of Intelligence Oversight in Modern Times
In most nations, intelligence agencies are treated as exceptions from the rest of
government. They are cloaked in secrecy, allowed privileged access to policymakers, and given
leeway to get the job done—even if that means breaking laws overseas (almost always the case)
and engaging in unsavory activities that would be deemed inappropriate for other government
agencies. From the beginning the United States embraced this laissez faire philosophy for
intelligence operations. The Founders well understood the dangers from abroad to the new
Republic and were willing to grant broad discretionary powers to America’s intelligence officers
(Knott, 1996). As the nation matured and its intelligence service expanded in the aftermath of
World War II, this hands-off philosophy persisted.
In modern times, beginning with the creation of the CIA in 1947, intelligence oversight
has gone through five major phases on Capitol Hill: an Era of Trust (1947-74); an Era of Uneasy
Partnership (1975-86); an Era of Distrust (1987-91); an Era of Partisan Advocacy (1992-2001);
and now an Era of Ambivalence (2002- ). The eras reveal an ebb and flow in the attitudes of
lawmakers toward intelligence oversight and the tasks of police-patrolling and firefighting.
The norm from 1975-2004 has been a significant increase in patrolling, at least compared
to the long stretch of time from the nation’s founding until the revelations of CIA domestic
spying on the eve of 1975. Yet, in the same breath, it must be emphasized that the patrolling that
did take place from 1975-2004 has hardly been as robust as reformers in 1975 would have
wished. The patrolling has relied largely on the dedication of just a few members of the
Convention