In recent weeks, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has found herself the source of a whirlwind of contradictions. To the casual observer, Feinstein appears quick to defend the party-line position until it becomes inconvenient for her.
Take, for example, Feinstein’s interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday. During the interview, Feinstein recalled a June 15, 2013 incident in which CODEPINK — a women-initiated non-governmental organization that describes itself as a “grassroots peace and social justice movement” — flew a toy helicopter to the senator’s window at her home during a rally protesting the senator’s statement on drone use.
Earlier in the year, Feinstein made controversial comments about the nation’s drone use.
“For the past several years, this committee has done significant oversight of the government’s conduct of targeted strikes, and the figures we have obtained from the executive branch, which we have done our utmost to verify, confirm that the number of civilian casualties that have resulted from such strikes each year has typically been in the single digits,” Feinstein said during the confirmation hearings for CIA Director John Brennan.
Many, including CODEPINK, were equally upset that Feinstein denounced National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden as having committed an “act of treason.” Armed with several “Pink Patrol: Lady Sky Invaders” remote-controlled helicopters purchased from Toys”R”Us — each equipped with a non-operational decoy camera and magnifying glasses — the demonstration attempted to drive home the notion of unwanted surveillance to the senator, who is now 80 years old.
A drone by any other name…
What happened next is the subject of some dispute. CODEPINK insists that mocking up the $17.85 toy helicopters rendered them incapable of sustained flight, with most crashing after lifting off a few feet from the ground.
Feinstein asserts, however, that one of the pink “drones” was hovering outside her window. When she stuck her head out to investigate, the helicopter’s operator panicked, crashing the “drone.”
“I don’t think it actually happened at all,” Nancy Mancias, CODEPINK’s San Francisco-based campaign organizer, said of Feinstein’s confrontation with the drone. While Mancias admits that CODEPINK did protest in front of Feinstein’s mansion that day and did bring the “drone mock-ups,” she said she was unaware of anyone getting one to work, despite reports that at least one “drone” was strung up with string outside a window.
“But whatever… it’s the senator. So if it ‘happened,’ I guess ‘it happened,’” she said.
Many that have bore witness to this conversation noticed several curious things happen at once. First, the attention-grabbing headlines about the senator who was spied on with a drone replaced the headlines telling of the senator’s controversial stance on drone use and surveillance.
Second, prior to the “drone” incident, Feinstein had not expressed an opinion on commercial drone use. Afterwards, though, she called for caution.
“It’s going to have to come through regulation — perhaps regulation of size and type for private use,” she told “60 Minutes. “Some certification of the person that’s going to operate it … some specific regulation on the kinds of uses it can be put to.”
She has made no similar call for military drone use or for other forms of domestic surveillance.
“When is a drone picture a benefit to society? When does it become stalking? When does it invade privacy? How close to a home can a drone go?” Feinstein continued.
Finally, all of this was happening at the same time that Feinstein was supporting the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which would have granted tech companies immunity from lawsuits and prosecution for sharing cyber information with the federal government, including personal emails with personally-identifying information still in place.
This somewhat bipolar approach — “it’s okay if it happens to you, but not to me” — that Feinstein has manifested in regards to the surveillance issue has manifested elsewhere — namely, the Senate Intelligence Committee’s dealings with the CIA.
Dirty tricks at the CIA
On March 11, Feinstein blasted the CIA from the Senate floor. The senator indicated that in May 2010, CIA personnel operating outside of written orders or consent from Senate Intelligence Committee members removed nearly 950 documents from a segregated computer network set up by the Senate and the CIA to investigate the advanced interrogation program of the George W. Bush administration.
In a separate incident, the CIA allegedly searched the transmission logs of the segregated computers to determine how the Senate committee received a copy of the “Internal Panetta Review,” a draft copy of a requested review of the advanced interrogation program — ordered by then-director of the CIA Leon Panetta — which turned out to support the allegations of CIA wrongdoing.
Feinstein has insisted that the review was placed in the files on the segregated network drive by the CIA itself — accidentally or otherwise — and that the Senate Intelligence Committee staffers did not hack the CIA.
The CIA referred the issue to the Justice Department and the CIA’s general counsel for review.
“[Our] staff involved in this matter have the appropriate clearances, handled this sensitive material according to established procedures and practice to protect classified information, and were provided access to the Panetta Review by the CIA itself,” Feinstein told the Senate. “As a result, there is no legitimate reason to allege to the Justice Department that Senate staff may have committed a crime. I view the acting general counsel’s referral as a potential effort to intimidate this staff—and I am not taking it lightly.”
Righteous anger
The senator’s righteous anger over the CIA’s surveillance of a Senate committee may be justifiable, insofar as an executive branch agency was attempting to interfere with a legislative branch investigation. As the Senate Intelligence Committee is a superior authority to the CIA, such attempts to surveil against the committee should be taken seriously.
However, taken in view of Feinstein’s position that the government has the right to openly surveil as part of national security, her arguments ring somewhat hypocritical.
There is the hope that elected officials can see past partisan politics and do what is right for the average citizen without having a personal motive to do so. Feinstein’s actions reflect a party insider who is only capable of clashing with the mainstream when it suits her.