Show 10A Standard-Examin- Oct 28 1989 Saturday er Standard-Examine- Opinion r r Girls and soccer win for the Scots ReOCteSS DWTeR AID Congratulations to the Ben Lomond girl’s soccer team soccer and their coach Bonnie Burr for winning the weekend this past championship attention respect and pride to They bring themselves the soccer program and the school It is the first time girls across the state have been able to Association-sanctioned participate in a Utah High School Activities 3-- A well-deserv- ed we ueeD league It's a sanctioning that was long overdue and one that for by parents across the state for years was Just nine months ago everyone from UHSAA to school boards to high school principals were telling the parents that they couldn't afford girls soccer that the girls didn’t need to "letter' in the sport that girls didn’t need more sports to play and several other nonsense excuses used as reasons not to offer the sport All this despite the fact that boys have had sanctioned soccer since the early 1980s Parents were told to forget it despite the obvious unequal treatment Our elected school officials did not lead the way to bring equity for the girls USHAA finally did sanction soccer and softball and sports for girls last January But not because they thought it was a good idea or even that it was the fair thing to do They acted because one parent Joe Langeveld of Roy had enough of the discrimination He filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights the federal body that oversees compliance of the Civil Rights Amendments USHAA sanctioned the sports because the school districts were threatened with losing their federal funding if they did not comply It was obvious that the Utah school districts were out of compliance with Title IX which prohibits all schools that receive federal money from discriminating on the basis of sex The obviousness was this: Girls across the state wanted to play soccer and softball The state wouldn’t let hard-foug- ' - ReDCRoSSDlMsTeR A ht D weneeD DR ReDcRbSS AD WEST GUMMY them although they let boys play soccer and baseball But school officials still fought it for the same old "reasons” It wouldn’t have been a big deal if the issue was just money as the administrators argued But this issue is so important because of the message they were sending fecitizens and don’t demale athletes: You are second-clas- s serve the same opportunities as boys We hope Ben Lomond’s great victory will overshadow the fact that most school officials didn’t think the girls should have the same chances as boys All the girls who played soccer this fall and especially the Scots are here to tell those who hoped to put an end to their dream to play soccer for their high schools that they are here to stay They are here to win championships for their schools They’re here to have fun to learn teamwork and to gain the confidence that playing sports instills It is their right — CJM BlEWiSSISiaS 'fff’Xit I - ' ' V‘3H SfcteA PieP ecu - Hfoe AirtcwYopKer Failed Panama coup raises issue of CIA procedure Micromanagement burdens process of making decisions For Scripps Howard News Service In the aftermath of the failed Panamanian coup there has been much soul searching in the administration over how best to respond to the next crisis Over the last week a number of armchair quar- terbacks have insisted that the current prohibition - on assassination was somehow responsible for the perceived poor response of the US intelligence community to the Panamanian coup I don't believe the prohibition affected the CIA's response in Panama nor is a reassessment of the ban necessary I concur with Richard Kerr the deputy director for Central Intelligence who stated in the Washington Post on Oct 18: “The CIA had fulfilled its proper role in the Panama situation providing the White House with all the intelligence it needed to make a decision on whether and how far to get involved with Giroldi's coup attempt” The current ban does not prohibit the govern- ment from legitimate operations I intelligence collection So where’s the problem? The problem was created by the Pike and Church committee probes in the mid-197and the subsequent congressional micro- management of American foreign policy The executive branch agencies that conduct for- eign activities were repeatedly sensitized to ill-d- e- fined congressional expectations that the assassination ban would be broadly interpreted - The ban expanded subtly and unofficially through micromanagement by Congress to become a yoke around the president's neck This nation has important foreign policy interests around the world We need to protect those inter- csts Congress is notified by the CIA of covert ac- nvitics designed to support foreign policy initiatives that the president finds are cntical to na-- ’ lional interests The presidential “findings” which authorize covert actions are drafted to be consistent with the Executive Order banning assassinations Thus when the intelligence committees are informed that a finding has been signed they know full well that assassination issues have been throughly vetted The president is not about to submit a document to Congress which violates his own executive order Unfortunately all too often members of Congress - - Rep Henry J Hyde under the guise of oversight attempt to read assassination issues into a covert action plan where none exist I suppose some would say that we should not undertake any covert actions that are intended to support removal of a foreign adversary involving the use of force But surely they would not object to the use of our intelligence agencies to help remove a madman foreign leader or the head of a terrorist organization who intelligence sources learn is planning to use biological or chemical weapons to kill large numbers of innocent people Would they deny covert support to Latin governments that plan the arrest of drug smugglers because someone may be killed? I hope not And what reasonable person could object to hosmounting a mission to rescue terrorist-hel- d tages? Most Americans would agree with a president’s determination that the operation is clearly in our national interest The rescuers would be authorized to act in self defense including the use of deadly force if necessary to free the hostages Would authorizing the use of such force violate the assassination ban? Absolutely not To argue otherwise would be absurd Of course there will sometimes be complex and circumstances when the poperhaps tential applicability of the assassination ban entails very difficult judgments In those situations any president may find it tough to strike a fine balance between the importance of the national interests at stake and how close the means of protecting those interests come to the sometimes fuzzy line between the acceptable and the unacceptable The point is that in those hard cases and maybe in many others a habit of congressional microman-agmefurther burdens that decision-makin- g process This legislative branch sport is characterized fast-breaki- nt by the often second guessing self-righteo- of presi- dential decisions That second guessing flows from the fact that micromanagement fundamentally involves a capricious process of applying shifting standards to general rules of conduct Is it any wonder that this environment of habitual micromanagement encourages the executive branch in navigating to be hesitant and through the rocks and shoals of congressional "advice” when the sea of real world circumstances gets hyper-cautio- rough? (Rep Hyde Rlli is ranking Republican on the Home Select Comnjntee on Intelligence) Administration wants scapegoat for its foreign policy failure For Scripps Howard News Service Recent events in Panama have rekindled the debate over whether Congress through its intelligence oversight activities has hamstrung the CIA in using covert action as an effective element of foreign policy It appears that this argument is now being invoked to deflect the criticism leveled at executive branch policy toward Manuel Noriega I believe the issue has been vastly overblown by the administration and CIA Director William Webster The White House and Director Webster have invoked the recent Panama debacle to argue that the rules governing the CIA’s dealings with coup plotters must be Judge Webster has singled out the interpretation of an executive order prohibiting assassination as the central issue This suggestion is ridiculous The real issue is a poorly executed US policy The assassinations prohibition is an executive branch restriction — not a legislative one It is a prudent measure that has stood the test of both Democratic and Republican administrations ' In a 1985 exchange of letters between the then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Rep Lee Hamilton and then CIA Director William Casey some basic issues of interpretation were discussed concerning the assassinations prohibition It was clearly understood at the time that the order was never intended to prohibit activities that carry with them a possibility of the loss of life Moreover at no time has the CIA come to the House Intelligence Committee stating that its operations are hampered by this prohibition My own view is that the United States should not forego the option of involvement in or assistance to foreign coup attempts when they benefit vital US strategic interests promote democratic values and when the operation is well planned and executed consistent with stated US foreign policy objectives Judge Webster’s characterization that the current assassinations ban has been interpreted to prohibit American assistance to any coup that could lead to loss of life is inconsistent with the formal record of communications between the House Intelligence Committee and the CIA If there is ambiguity in how this order is intcr- - Rep Dave McCurdy preted by CIA personnel in the field or if their guidance is unclear this problem rests with the president and the CIA director — not Congress The Panama flap is but one recent manifestation of a larger problem where failures in US policy are blamed on Congress placing too many restrictions on our intelligence agencies In fact the only two legislative responses to the revelations of the Church Pike and Rockefeller inquiries of the 1970's — the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — do nothing to impose specific restric- tions on the conduct of intelligence activities In reality the CIA is one of the least encumbered agencies in the federal government when it comes to detailed restrictions on its activities Instead of being criticized inaccurately for nonexistent restrictions Congress should be praised for enacting legislation that has significantly increased the ability of the intelligence agencies to do their job Both intelligence committees have supported significant budgetary increases and special legislative authorities for the CIA and other intelligence agencies The record is clear that the intelligence committees and Congress have contributed immensely to the successful conduct of US intelligence activities over the past decade What Congress should not and will not contribute to is the perpetuation of poorly planned operations that can only harm the national security interests of the United States Intelligence will never be perfect and an clement of risk will always be involved The heat in this kitchen can get pretty hot but Congress can be as supportive as it can be critical if the president is convincing in defining vital US interests A president should not try to hide behind excessively restrictive interpretations of executive orders or the cliches of ‘micromanagement': or ’intelligence failure’ when his policy does not measure up The purpose of congressional oversight is not to inhibit initiative or stifle decisive action by a president when faced with a crisis but to assure that when action is taken it is done so in support of a clearly defined US policy and is effectively executed I believe that the existing oversight construction contributes to this goal is a member of the (Rep McCurdy House Select Committee on Intelhgemc) half-bak- ed |