Slick challenged the utility and wisdom of recommendations for enhanced WH oversight of US intelligence activities.
In a response published in the most recent issue of the Harvard Law Review, ISP Director and LBJ School Clinical Professor Steve Slick challenged the utility and wisdom of recommendations for enhanced White House oversight of US intelligence activities put forward by NYU Law School Professor Samuel Rascoff in Presidential Intelligence.
Slick argued that existing mechanisms for review and approval of high-risk intelligence collection activities are fully adequate (when they are energetically exercised) and that adding more presidential appointees to the Intelligence Community would decrease effectiveness while significantly increasing the risk of “politicized” intelligence. A second critical response to the HLR article was submitted by UT Law School Distinguished Senior Lecturer Philip Bobbitt. This timely debate on intelligence oversight is summarized on Lawfare.