As every schoolchild knows, there are three check-and-balance branches of the U.S. government: the executive, Congress, and the judiciary. That\u2019s bedrock Americanism and the most basic high school civics material. Only one problem: it\u2019s just not so.<\/p>\n
During the Cold War years and far more strikingly in the twenty-first century, the U.S. government has evolved.\u00a0 It sprouted a fourth branch: the national security state, whose main characteristic may be an unquenchable urge to expand its power and reach.\u00a0 Admittedly, it still lacks certain formal prerogatives of governmental power.\u00a0 Nonetheless, at a time when Congress and the presidency are in a check-and-balance ballet of inactivity that would have been unimaginable to Americans of earlier eras, the Fourth Branch is an ever more unchecked and unbalanced power center in Washington.\u00a0 Curtained off from accountability by a penumbra of secrecy<\/a>, its leaders increasingly are making nitty-gritty policy decisions and largely doing what they want, a situation illuminated by a recent controversy over the possible release of a Senate report on CIA rendition and torture practices.<\/p>\n All of this is or should be obvious, but remains surprisingly unacknowledged in our American world. The rise of the Fourth Branch began at a moment of mobilization for a global conflict, World War II.\u00a0 It gained heft and staying power in the Cold War of the second half of the twentieth century, when that other superpower, the Soviet Union, provided the excuse for expansion of every sort.<\/p>\n Its officials bided their time in the years after the fall of the Soviet Union, when \u201cterrorism\u201d had yet to claim the landscape and enemies were in short supply.\u00a0 In the post-9\/11 era, in a phony \u201cwartime\u201d atmosphere, fed by trillions<\/a> of taxpayer dollars, and under the banner of American \u201csafety<\/a>,\u201d it has grown to unparalleled size and power.\u00a0 So much so that it sparked a building boom in and around the national capital (as well as elsewhere<\/a> in the country).\u00a0 In their 2010 Washington Post<\/em> series \u201cTop Secret America,\u201d Dana Priest and William Arkin offered this thumbnail summary<\/a> of the extent of that boom for the U.S. Intelligence Community: \u201cIn Washington and the surrounding area,\u201d they wrote, \u201c33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings — about 17 million square feet of space.\u201d\u00a0 And in 2014, the expansion is ongoing<\/a>.<\/p>\n In this century, a full-scale second \u201cDefense Department,\u201d the Department of Homeland Security, was created.\u00a0 Around it has grown up a mini-version<\/a> of the military-industrial complex, with the usual set of consultants,<\/a> K Street lobbyists, political contributions, and power relations: just the sort of edifice that President Eisenhower warned Americans about in his famed farewell address<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong> in 1961.\u00a0 In the meantime, the original military-industrial complex has only gained strength and influence.<\/p>\n Increasingly, post-9\/11, under the rubric of \u201cprivatization,\u201d though it should more accurately have been called \u201ccorporatization,\u201d the Pentagon took a series of crony companies<\/a> off to war with it.\u00a0 In the process, it gave \u201ccapitalist war\u201d a more literal meaning, thanks to its wholesale financial support of, and the shrugging off of previously military tasks onto, a series of warrior corporations<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, the 17 members of the U.S. Intelligence Community<\/a> — yes, there are 17 major intelligence outfits in the national security state — have been growing, some at prodigious rates.\u00a0 A number of them have undergone their own versions<\/a> of corporatization, outsourcing many of their operations to private contractors in staggering numbers<\/a>, so that we now have \u201ccapitalist intelligence\u201d as well.\u00a0 With the fears from 9\/11 injected into society and the wind of terrorism at their backs, the Intelligence Community has had a remarkably free hand to develop surveillance systems that are now essentially \u201cwatching\u201d everyone — including, it seems, other branches of the government.<\/p>\n Think of Edward Snowden, the former CIA employee who went over to the corporate side<\/a> of the developing national security economy, as the first blowback figure from and on the world of \u201ccapitalist intelligence.\u201d\u00a0 Thanks to him, we have an insider\u2019s view of the magnitude<\/a> of the ambitions and operations of the National Security Agency.\u00a0 The scope<\/a> of that agency’s surveillance operations and the range of global and domestic communications it now collects have proven breathtaking — with more information on its reach still coming out<\/a>.\u00a0 And keep in mind that it\u2019s only one agency.<\/p>\n We know as well that the secret world has developed its own secret body of law and its own secret judiciary, largely on the principle<\/a> of legalizing whatever it wanted to do.\u00a0 As the New York Times’s<\/em> Eric Lichtblau has reported<\/a>, it even has its own Supreme Court equivalent in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.\u00a0 And about all this, the other branches of government know only limited amounts and American citizens know next to nothing.<\/p>\n From the Pentagon to the Department of Homeland Security to the labyrinthine world of intelligence, the rise to power of the national security state has been a spectacle of our time.\u00a0 Whenever news of its secret operations begins to ooze out, threatening to unnerve the public, the White House and Congress discuss \u201creforms\u201d which will, at best, modestly impede<\/a> the expansive powers of that state within a state.\u00a0 Generally speaking, its powers and prerogatives remain beyond constraint by that third branch of government, the non-secret judiciary.\u00a0 It is deferred to with remarkable frequency by the executive branch and, with the rarest of exceptions, it has been supported handsomely with much obeisance and few doubts by Congress.<\/p>\n And also keep in mind that, of the four branches of government, only two of them — an activist Supreme Court and the national security state — seem capable of functioning in a genuine policymaking capacity at the moment.<\/p>\n \u201cMisleading\u201d Congress\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\n In that light, let\u2019s turn to a set of intertwined events in Washington that have largely been dealt with in the media as your typical tempest in a teapot, a catfight among the vested and powerful.\u00a0 I\u2019m talking about the various charges and countercharges, anger<\/a>, outrage, and irritation, as well as news of acts of seeming illegality now swirling around a 6,300-page CIA \u201ctorture report\u201d produced but not yet made public by the Senate Intelligence Committee.\u00a0 This ongoing controversy reveals a great deal about the nature of the checks and balances on the Fourth Branch of government in 2014.<\/p>\n One of the duties of Congress is to keep an eye on the functioning of the government using its powers of investigation and oversight.\u00a0 In the case of the CIA\u2019s program of Bush-era rendition<\/a>, black sites (offshore prisons), and \u201cenhanced interrogation techniques<\/a>\u201d (a.k.a. torture), the Senate Intelligence Committee launched an investigation in March 2009 into what exactly occurred when suspects in the war on terror were taken to those offshore prisons and brutally interrogated.\u00a0 \u201cMillions\u201d of CIA documents, handed over by the Agency, were analyzed by Intelligence Committee staffers at a \u201csecure” CIA location in Northern Virginia.<\/p>\n Among them was a partial copy of a document known as the \u201cInternal Panetta Review,\u201d evidently a report for the previous CIA director on what the Senate committee might find among those documents being handed over to its investigators.\u00a0 It reportedly reached some fairly strong conclusions of its own about the nature of the CIA\u2019s interrogation overreach in those years.\u00a0 According to<\/a> Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, the committee head, this document was among the mass of documentation the CIA turned over — whether purposely, inadvertently, or thanks to a whistleblower no one knows.\u00a0 (The CIA, on the other hand, claimed, until recently, that committee staffers had essentially stolen it from its computer system.)<\/p>\n The Agency or its private contractors (intelligence capitalism strikes again!) reportedly worked in various ways to obstruct the committee\u2019s investigation, including by secretly removing previously released documents from the committee’s “secure” computer system.\u00a0 Nonetheless, its report was completed in December 2012 and passed on to the White House \u201cfor comment\u201d — and then the fun began.<\/p>\n Though relatively few details about its specific contents have leaked out, word has it that it will prove devastating.\u00a0 It will supposedly show, among other things, that those \u201cenhanced interrogation techniques\u201d the CIA used were significantly more brutal than what was described to Congressional overseers; that they went well beyond what the \u201ctorture memo\u201d lawyers of the Bush administration had laid out (which, mind you, was brutal enough<\/a>); that no plots were broken up thanks to torture; and that top figures in the Agency, assumedly under oath, \u201cmisled<\/a>\u201d Congress (a polite word for \u201clied to,\u201d a potential criminal offense that goes by the name of perjury).\u00a0 Senators knowledgeable on the contents of the report have repeatedly insisted that when it goes public, Americans will be shocked by its contents.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s keep in mind as well that committee head Feinstein was previously known as one of the most loyal<\/a> and powerful supporters of the national security state and the CIA.\u00a0 Until recently, she has, in fact, essentially been the senator from the national security state.\u00a0 She and her colleagues, themselves shocked by what they had learned, understandably wanted their report declassified and released to the American people with all due speed.\u00a0 It naturally had to be vetted to ensure that it contained no names of active agents and the like.\u00a0 But two and a half years later, after endless reviews and a process of vetting by the CIA and the White House that gives the word \u201cglacial\u201d a bad name, it has yet to be released (though there are regular reports that this will — or will not — happen soon).<\/p>\n During this time, the CIA seemed to go to Def Con 2 and decided to turn its spying skills on the committee and its staffers.\u00a0 Claiming that those staffers had gotten the Panetta Internal Review by \u201chacking\u201d the CIA\u2019s computers, it essentially hacked the committee\u2019s computers and searched them.\u00a0 In the meantime, its acting general counsel, Robert Eatinger, who had been the chief lawyer for the counterterrorism unit out of which the CIA interrogation programs were run, and who was mentioned 1,600 times in the Senate report, filed (to quote Feinstein) a \u201ccrimes report to the Department of Justice on the actions of congressional staff — the same congressional staff who researched and drafted a report that details how CIA officers — including the acting general counsel himself — provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice about the program.\u201d<\/strong>\u00a0 (Back in 2005, Eatinger had also been one of two lawyers responsible for<\/a> not stopping the destruction<\/a> of CIA videotapes of the brutal interrogations of terror suspects in its secret prisons.)<\/p>\n In addition, according to Feinstein, CIA Director John Brennan met with her, lied<\/a> to her, and essentially tried to intimidate her by telling her \u201cthat the CIA had searched a \u2018walled-off committee network drive containing the committee\u2019s own internal work product and communications\u2019 and that he was going to \u2018order further forensic evidence of the committee network to learn more about activities of the committee\u2019s oversight staff.\u2019\u201d In other words, the overseen were spying upon and now out to get the overseers.\u00a0 And more than that, based on a single incident in which one of its greatest supporters in Congress stepped over the line, the Agency was specifically out to get the senator from the national security state.<\/p>\n There was a clear message here: oversight or not, don\u2019t tread on us.<\/p>\n By the way, since the CIA is the injuring, not the injured, party, there is no reason to take seriously the self-interested words of its officials, past or present, on any of this, or any account they offer of events or charges they make.\u00a0 We\u2019re talking, after all, about an outfit responsible for the initial brutal acts of interrogation, for false descriptions of them, for lying to Congress about them, for destroying evidence of the worst of what it had done, for spying on a Senate committee and its computer system, and for somehow obtaining<\/a> \u201clegally protected email and other unspecified communications between whistleblower officials and lawmakers this spring relating to the Agency and the committee\u2019s report.\u201d\u00a0 In addition, according to a recent front-page story<\/a> in the New York Times<\/em>, its former director from the Bush years, George Tenet, has been actively plotting \u201ca counterattack against the Senate committee\u2019s voluminous report\u201d with the present director and various past Agency officials. (And keep in mind that \u201croughly 200 people under [Tenet\u2019s] leadership [who] had at some point participated in the interrogation program\u201d are still working at the Agency.)\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n The Age of Impunity in Washington<\/strong><\/p>\n In December 2012, the report began to wend its way through a \u201creview and declassification\u201d process, which has yet to end.\u00a0 Once again, the CIA stepped in.\u00a0 The Senate was eager to declassify the report’s findings, conclusions, and its 600-page executive summary.\u00a0 The CIA, which had already done its damnedest to block the Senate investigation process, now ensured that the vetting would be interminable.<\/p>\n As a start, the White House vested the CIA as the lead agency in the review and vetting process, which meant that it was to be allowed to slow things to a crawl, stop them entirely, or alternatively remove crucial and damning material from the report via redaction.\u00a0 If you want a gauge of just how powerful the various outfits that make up the Fourth Branch have become in Washington (and what limits on them still remain), look no further.<\/p>\n Fourteen years into the twenty-first century, we\u2019re so used to this sort of thing that we seldom think about what it means to let the CIA — accused of a variety of crimes — be the agency to decide what exactly can be known by the public, in conjunction with a deferential White House.\u00a0 The Agency\u2019s present director, it should be noted, has been a close confidant<\/a> and friend of the president and was for years his key counterterrorism advisor<\/a>.\u00a0 To get a sense of what all this really means, you need perhaps to imagine that, in 2004, the 9\/11 Commission was forced to turn its report<\/a> over to Osama bin Laden for vetting and redaction before releasing it to the public.\u00a0 Extreme as that may sound, the CIA is no less a self-interested party. And this interminable process has yet to end, although the White House is supposed to release something, possibly heavily redacted, as early as this coming week<\/a> or perhaps in the dog days of August.<\/p>\n Keep in mind again that we\u2019re still only talking about the overwhelming sense of power of one of the 17 agencies that make up the Intelligence Community, which itself is but part of the far vaster national security state.\u00a0 Just one.\u00a0 Think of this, nonetheless, as a kind of litmus test for the shifting state <\/a>of power relations in the new Washington.\u00a0 Or think of it this way: on the basis of a single negative Senate report about its past operations, the CIA was willing to go after one of the national security state\u2019s most fervent congressional supporters.\u00a0 It attempted to intimidate her, tried to bring charges against her staffers, and so drove her \u201creluctantly\u201d and in a kind of desperation to the Senate floor, where she offered a remarkable denunciation of the agency she had long supported.\u00a0 In its wake, last week, the CIA director dramatically backed off somewhat, perhaps sensing that there was a bridge too far<\/a> even in Washington in 2014.\u00a0 Amid Senate\u00a0calls<\/a> for his resignation, he offered an “apology”<\/a> for the extreme actions of lower level Agency employees. (But don’t hold your breath waiting for real reform at the CIA.)<\/p>\n In her Senate speech, Feinstein accused the Agency of potentially breaching both the law and the Constitution. \u201cI have grave concerns,\u201d she said, \u201cthat the CIA\u2019s search [of the committee\u2019s computer system] may well have violated the separation of powers principles embodied in the United States Constitution, including the Speech and Debate clause. It may have undermined the constitutional framework essential to effective congressional oversight of intelligence activities or any other government function… Besides the constitutional implications, the CIA\u2019s search may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as Executive Order 12333, which prohibits the CIA from conducting domestic searches or surveillance.\u201d<\/p>\n In the process, she anatomized an agency covering its tail and its trail, unwilling to admit to error of any sort or volunteer crucial information, while it attempted to block or even dismantle the oversight power of Congress.\u00a0 Her sobering speech<\/a> should be read by every American, especially as it comes not from a critic but a perennial supporter of the Fourth Branch.<\/p>\n In retrospect, this \u201cincident\u201d may be seen as a critical moment in the still-unsettled evolution of governing power in America.\u00a0 Her speech was covered briefly as a kind of kerfuffle in Washington and then largely dropped for other, more important stories.\u00a0 In the meantime, the so-called vetting process on the Senate report continued for yet more months in the White House and in Langley, Virginia, as if nothing whatsoever had occurred; the White House refused to act or commit itself on the subject; and the Justice Department refused<\/a> to press charges of any sort.\u00a0 While a few<\/a> senators threatened<\/a> to invoke Senate Resolution 400<\/a> — a 40-year-old unused power of that body to declassify information on its own — it was something of an idle threat.\u00a0 (A majority of the Senate would have to agree to vote against the CIA and the White House to put it into effect, which is unlikely indeed.)<\/p>\n Whatever happens with the report itself and despite the recent CIA apology, don\u2019t expect the Senate to bring perjury charges against former CIA leaders for any lies to Congress.\u00a0 (It didn\u2019t do so<\/a>, after all, in the earlier case of Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.)\u00a0 And don\u2019t expect prosecutions of significant figures from a Justice Department that, in the Obama years, refused to prosecute<\/a> even those in the CIA responsible for the deaths of prisoners.<\/p>\n The fact is that, for the Fourth Branch, this<\/a> remains the age of impunity<\/a>.\u00a0 Hidden in a veil of secrecy, bolstered by secret law and secret courts, surrounded by its chosen corporations and politicians, its power to define policy and act as it sees fit in the name of American safety is visibly on the rise.\u00a0 No matter what setbacks it experiences along the way, its urge to expand and control seems, at the moment, beyond staunching.\u00a0 In the context of the Senate\u2019s torture report, the question at hand remains: Who rules Washington?<\/p>\n ______________________________<\/p>\n Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the <\/em>American Empire Project<\/em><\/a> and author of <\/em>The United States of Fear<\/a> as well as a history of the Cold War, <\/em>The End of Victory Culture<\/a>. He runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. His latest book, to be published in September, is <\/em>Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single Superpower World<\/a> (Haymarket Books).<\/em><\/p>\n