"Just Trust Us"
Senator Arlen Specter, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is opening hearings on the NSA issue of warrantless spying. He has already stated that at this point he believes spying on Americans without a warrant is illegal, but it's clear that he is open to having his mind changed. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will be the main witness at the hearings, and he has already stated that that warrantless spying is legal because the President has the inherent power to engage in such spying without a warrant.
Because the Senate Judiciary hearings are open, it is unlikely that the committee will learn anything about the spying plan at all: Gonzales will simply say that the program is so classified, so super-secret that he can't reveal anything. I suspect that the hearings will be nothing more than a dog and pony show in which the regime will tell the committee and the public that the program is legal because it tells us it is and that will be that.
Still, at least Sen. Specter is keeping the issue before the public. That means the mainstream media has to deal with it. The Washington Post contains an editorial this morning which just barely deals with the real underlying issue in this tussle: oversight.
THE SENATE Judiciary Committee, which has summoned Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to testify today about the administration's warrantless wiretapping, is likely to focus on questions of its legality. Those are crucial. But so is the question of whether it's possible to rework the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to accommodate the program. In other words, is there a way to have this intelligence, to the extent that it is useful, and outside oversight, too? Unfortunately, President Bush has peremptorily dismissed suggestions that the law be rewritten, asserting that doing so would risk revealing secret capabilities.
Without knowing the contours of the program, it's difficult to assess that risk. But al Qaeda certainly is aware that U.S. intelligence agencies monitor various forms of communications. Given that, why does it make sense to decide -- even before trying -- that there's no way to update the law without tipping off terrorists?
... If the administration is arguing that the law can't be rewritten with enough specificity without also revealing its details -- well, why not at least get behind closed doors with lawmakers and try?
The administration's answer seems to be: Why bother? But there are two good reasons to bother. First, outside oversight -- the kind of careful, reliable review that the FISA court has provided in other cases -- is critical. The administration assures the public that it has put ample safeguards in place. But history shows that, without outside oversight, surveillance tends to fall prey to sloppiness and insensitivity to civil liberties. Second, as much as this administration resists any incursion on its autonomy, a congressionally sanctioned, judicially reviewed program of warrantless surveillance would enjoy far more public confidence. Working to fix the law instead of evading it would put the administration in a stronger position, not a weaker one. [Emphasis added]
Why should either FISA or the Patriot Act be reworked so that this regime can spy on people in this country without oversight, even as lax an oversight as the FISA court tends to exercise? The Constitution is clear that we have a right to be secure in our lives and in our homes from government intrusion. No law enacted by Congress can take that right away. In that sense, and that sense only, the White House is correct: the laws do not need to be reworked.
Of course, that is not what the White House means at all. What it means is that it has the power anyway, and they don't need no steenking law to justify their activities. They are the administration, which means we not only should trust them, we have to.
No, thank you. I prefer to trust in the wise men who forsaw what could happen with unchecked government powers. I prefer to trust in the Constitution.
Because the Senate Judiciary hearings are open, it is unlikely that the committee will learn anything about the spying plan at all: Gonzales will simply say that the program is so classified, so super-secret that he can't reveal anything. I suspect that the hearings will be nothing more than a dog and pony show in which the regime will tell the committee and the public that the program is legal because it tells us it is and that will be that.
Still, at least Sen. Specter is keeping the issue before the public. That means the mainstream media has to deal with it. The Washington Post contains an editorial this morning which just barely deals with the real underlying issue in this tussle: oversight.
THE SENATE Judiciary Committee, which has summoned Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to testify today about the administration's warrantless wiretapping, is likely to focus on questions of its legality. Those are crucial. But so is the question of whether it's possible to rework the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to accommodate the program. In other words, is there a way to have this intelligence, to the extent that it is useful, and outside oversight, too? Unfortunately, President Bush has peremptorily dismissed suggestions that the law be rewritten, asserting that doing so would risk revealing secret capabilities.
Without knowing the contours of the program, it's difficult to assess that risk. But al Qaeda certainly is aware that U.S. intelligence agencies monitor various forms of communications. Given that, why does it make sense to decide -- even before trying -- that there's no way to update the law without tipping off terrorists?
... If the administration is arguing that the law can't be rewritten with enough specificity without also revealing its details -- well, why not at least get behind closed doors with lawmakers and try?
The administration's answer seems to be: Why bother? But there are two good reasons to bother. First, outside oversight -- the kind of careful, reliable review that the FISA court has provided in other cases -- is critical. The administration assures the public that it has put ample safeguards in place. But history shows that, without outside oversight, surveillance tends to fall prey to sloppiness and insensitivity to civil liberties. Second, as much as this administration resists any incursion on its autonomy, a congressionally sanctioned, judicially reviewed program of warrantless surveillance would enjoy far more public confidence. Working to fix the law instead of evading it would put the administration in a stronger position, not a weaker one. [Emphasis added]
Why should either FISA or the Patriot Act be reworked so that this regime can spy on people in this country without oversight, even as lax an oversight as the FISA court tends to exercise? The Constitution is clear that we have a right to be secure in our lives and in our homes from government intrusion. No law enacted by Congress can take that right away. In that sense, and that sense only, the White House is correct: the laws do not need to be reworked.
Of course, that is not what the White House means at all. What it means is that it has the power anyway, and they don't need no steenking law to justify their activities. They are the administration, which means we not only should trust them, we have to.
No, thank you. I prefer to trust in the wise men who forsaw what could happen with unchecked government powers. I prefer to trust in the Constitution.
posted by Diane at 4:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home