Chicago Tribune Editorial - Politics trump science
Chicago Tribune Editorial - Politics trump science
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published August 3, 2006
Ever since the federal government's secret domestic wiretapping program was exposed late last year, there's been no shortage of proposals suggesting what should be done about it. Shut it down, some Democrats said. Don't touch it, some Republicans replied. The problem with these prescriptions, and many others, is that almost all who were suggesting them had little if any idea exactly how the program works, or worked. It's secret, after all.
What we do know is that the National Security Agency has been intercepting telephone calls between people in the United States and individuals abroad who are suspected of being connected to terrorism. We know it's a wide-ranging program and doesn't fall neatly under the special court created by Congress in 1978 to grant warrants to intelligence agencies for such surveillance. And we know that President Bush is willing to go to great lengths to protect the program. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales recently revealed that Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the program.
Even without knowing the details of how the program works, however, almost everyone agrees that a court review of the program's constitutionality is imperative to reassure Americans that civil liberties are being protected.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) stepped in front of the microphones recently and announced that he and Bush had agreed to that. Specter described the deal as a compromise. The president would submit the program for a constitutional review to the special court that grants warrants for domestic wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's not actually in the bill, but it is part of the deal Specter reached with the president.
"It's an acknowledgment to the president that he can fight terrorism and still have the court review his program," Specter said. "And I think it allays a lot of concerns."
Well, not quite all concerns. The deal has come under heavy fire from critics, including some in Congress. They think the president rolled Specter. They claim, among other things, that the bill would expand the government's power to snoop without a warrant.
The Specter bill may pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, but its chances in the full Senate remain murky. That's too bad. A constitutional review of this controversial program is imperative. This deal, with a few changes, would accomplish that.
The bill does not give the president carte blanche to do whatever he pleases. Assuming the overall program passes the constitutional review, the bill requires the administration to return to the court within 90 days to ensure that it is running the program constitutionally. After that, the court has the power to determine how often it will review the program's constitutionality. The law directs the court to examine the program after a "reasonable" length of time.
That review process strikes some as insufficient. One legitimate concern: There is no provision for appeal to a higher court if the lower court finds the program is constitutional. That is, the Bush administration can appeal if it loses, but others cannot appeal if it wins.
That's a weakness that can easily be fixed. Any lower court ruling on the legality of this program should automatically be kicked up to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration, as former associate attorney general John Schmidt suggested in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Congress could further strengthen the bill by requiring that any court's conclusion, at least a capsule thumbs up or down, be made public.
The intense debate over this program has already yielded benefits, including greater briefings for congressional intelligence committee members. This bill is designed to aid robust congressional oversight, which is essential. It would require the U.S. attorney general to provide information to the intelligence committees at least every six months about what's being done and why.
Lawmakers have a chance to get a court review on the constitutionality of this highly secret, highly controversial program. They should take it.
Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
Published August 3, 2006
Ever since the federal government's secret domestic wiretapping program was exposed late last year, there's been no shortage of proposals suggesting what should be done about it. Shut it down, some Democrats said. Don't touch it, some Republicans replied. The problem with these prescriptions, and many others, is that almost all who were suggesting them had little if any idea exactly how the program works, or worked. It's secret, after all.
What we do know is that the National Security Agency has been intercepting telephone calls between people in the United States and individuals abroad who are suspected of being connected to terrorism. We know it's a wide-ranging program and doesn't fall neatly under the special court created by Congress in 1978 to grant warrants to intelligence agencies for such surveillance. And we know that President Bush is willing to go to great lengths to protect the program. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales recently revealed that Bush personally blocked a Justice Department investigation of the program.
Even without knowing the details of how the program works, however, almost everyone agrees that a court review of the program's constitutionality is imperative to reassure Americans that civil liberties are being protected.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) stepped in front of the microphones recently and announced that he and Bush had agreed to that. Specter described the deal as a compromise. The president would submit the program for a constitutional review to the special court that grants warrants for domestic wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That's not actually in the bill, but it is part of the deal Specter reached with the president.
"It's an acknowledgment to the president that he can fight terrorism and still have the court review his program," Specter said. "And I think it allays a lot of concerns."
Well, not quite all concerns. The deal has come under heavy fire from critics, including some in Congress. They think the president rolled Specter. They claim, among other things, that the bill would expand the government's power to snoop without a warrant.
The Specter bill may pass out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, but its chances in the full Senate remain murky. That's too bad. A constitutional review of this controversial program is imperative. This deal, with a few changes, would accomplish that.
The bill does not give the president carte blanche to do whatever he pleases. Assuming the overall program passes the constitutional review, the bill requires the administration to return to the court within 90 days to ensure that it is running the program constitutionally. After that, the court has the power to determine how often it will review the program's constitutionality. The law directs the court to examine the program after a "reasonable" length of time.
That review process strikes some as insufficient. One legitimate concern: There is no provision for appeal to a higher court if the lower court finds the program is constitutional. That is, the Bush administration can appeal if it loses, but others cannot appeal if it wins.
That's a weakness that can easily be fixed. Any lower court ruling on the legality of this program should automatically be kicked up to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration, as former associate attorney general John Schmidt suggested in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Congress could further strengthen the bill by requiring that any court's conclusion, at least a capsule thumbs up or down, be made public.
The intense debate over this program has already yielded benefits, including greater briefings for congressional intelligence committee members. This bill is designed to aid robust congressional oversight, which is essential. It would require the U.S. attorney general to provide information to the intelligence committees at least every six months about what's being done and why.
Lawmakers have a chance to get a court review on the constitutionality of this highly secret, highly controversial program. They should take it.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 6:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home