Another Look At FISA
There's a timely and very well-written op-ed by Julian Sanchez in today's Los Angeles Times. Mr. Sanchez suggests, and quite appropriately, that progressives would do well to reframe the issues surrounding this administration's domestic spying away from personal privacy toward the stifling of dissent. The average American doesn't quite see what all the fuss is about ("I've got nothing to hide"), but he might when it's explained that historically, governments have used such spying techniques to shut up the inconvenient voices.
As the battle over reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act rages in Congress, civil libertarians warn that legislation sought by the White House could enable spying on "ordinary Americans." Others, like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), counter that only those with an "irrational fear of government" believe that "our country's intelligence analysts are more concerned with random innocent Americans than foreign terrorists overseas."
But focusing on the privacy of the average Joe in this way obscures the deeper threat that warrantless wiretaps poses to a democratic society. Without meaningful oversight, presidents and intelligence agencies can -- and repeatedly have -- abused their surveillance authority to spy on political enemies and dissenters.
The original FISA law was passed in 1978 after a thorough congressional investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) revealed that for decades, intelligence analysts -- and the presidents they served -- had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices -- even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often "collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action." [Emphasis added]
Mr. Sanchez then runs through a history of abuses of information gathering by both Republicand and Democratic administrations, culminating in the outrages of the Nixon administration which ultimately led to the original FISA law. The recitation is chilling in its scope, and the results were even more chilling. His thesis that our concern should be cast in First Amendment terms rather than just Fourth Amendment terms makes great sense and adds a needed focus to the argument.
It's probably true that ordinary citizens uninvolved in political activism have little reason to fear being spied on, just as most Americans seldom need to invoke their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. But we understand that the 1st Amendment serves a dual role: It protects the private right to speak your mind, but it serves an even more important structural function, ensuring open debate about matters of public importance. You might not care about that first function if you don't plan to say anything controversial. But anyone who lives in a democracy, who is subject to its laws and affected by its policies, ought to care about the second.
Nicely done, Mr. Sanchez.
As the battle over reforms to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act rages in Congress, civil libertarians warn that legislation sought by the White House could enable spying on "ordinary Americans." Others, like Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), counter that only those with an "irrational fear of government" believe that "our country's intelligence analysts are more concerned with random innocent Americans than foreign terrorists overseas."
But focusing on the privacy of the average Joe in this way obscures the deeper threat that warrantless wiretaps poses to a democratic society. Without meaningful oversight, presidents and intelligence agencies can -- and repeatedly have -- abused their surveillance authority to spy on political enemies and dissenters.
The original FISA law was passed in 1978 after a thorough congressional investigation headed by Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) revealed that for decades, intelligence analysts -- and the presidents they served -- had spied on the letters and phone conversations of union chiefs, civil rights leaders, journalists, antiwar activists, lobbyists, members of Congress, Supreme Court justices -- even Eleanor Roosevelt and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. The Church Committee reports painstakingly documented how the information obtained was often "collected and disseminated in order to serve the purely political interests of an intelligence agency or the administration, and to influence social policy and political action." [Emphasis added]
Mr. Sanchez then runs through a history of abuses of information gathering by both Republicand and Democratic administrations, culminating in the outrages of the Nixon administration which ultimately led to the original FISA law. The recitation is chilling in its scope, and the results were even more chilling. His thesis that our concern should be cast in First Amendment terms rather than just Fourth Amendment terms makes great sense and adds a needed focus to the argument.
It's probably true that ordinary citizens uninvolved in political activism have little reason to fear being spied on, just as most Americans seldom need to invoke their 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. But we understand that the 1st Amendment serves a dual role: It protects the private right to speak your mind, but it serves an even more important structural function, ensuring open debate about matters of public importance. You might not care about that first function if you don't plan to say anything controversial. But anyone who lives in a democracy, who is subject to its laws and affected by its policies, ought to care about the second.
Nicely done, Mr. Sanchez.
Labels: Domestic Spying, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment
posted by Diane at 4:03 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home