A tough balancing act

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Karl Auerbach <karl () cavebear com>
Date: June 23, 2006 9:20:28 PM EDT
To: Haiwatha Bray <h_bray () globe com>, dave () farber net
Subject: A tough balancing act

David Farber wrote:

> From: h_bray () globe com

> Once again, a secret intelligence program during wartime has been  
> exposed.

I understand your concern, and agree with you that it is a matter of  
much importance.

However, as has been discussed by others, the US Constitution strikes  
a balance.  Despite claims of the executive to the contrary, our  
Constitution does not vest sole discretion about war or military  
powers in the executive - in fact the Constitution enumerates rather  
more powers about war and military powers to the Legislative branch.   
And don't forget that under our Constitutional system, there are  
powers that are not given to the Federal government at all and are,  
instead, reserved to the States and the people themselves.

Thus it is my concern, as it seems to be the concern of many others,  
that this difficult balancing act not be done by one single branch of  
the government, especially if that balancing is done in secret where  
there is the corrective force of public review.

Speaking for myself, I'm somewhat pleased that my government has used  
its imagination to find ways to use relatively dilute information  
sources.  And I am pleased to read that this system of using SWIFT  
data does have mechanisms that recognize privacy concerns. If nobody  
else has yet said so I will: I thank the unknown person or persons in  
my government who did consider these issues and who did modify the  
system to reduce the risks.

Governments are composed of people.  And people make mistakes, have  
differences of opinion, or have different perceptions and values.   
There is no shame in being a fallible person or in having  
disagreements.  In fact those are the ingredients of experience; and  
it is lessons learned through experience that largely shape and  
improve our human condition.

Because of our fallibility and differing perceptions, it is often  
valuable to have someone else check our work.

I am concerned that any such system be use subject to a real system  
of oversight, and even potential veto, by a body that does not depend  
on the good will of the agency that is performing the program.

In this particular case we see that the requests are audited, after  
the fact, by an auditor.  I think that that is a whole lot better  
than nothing.  But is it sufficient?  I have seen auditors, who are,  
after all, doing it for money, make sometimes subtle, sometimes  
large, changes in their position in order to avoid displeasing their  
customer.

One way that this program could be improved would be to ensure that  
the auditor is truly independent.  And the public ought to be able to  
see at least the number of times the auditor has said "yea" and "nay"  
even if the public can't see all the details of what that nay or yea  
is about. An auditor that always says "yea" is possibly not  
adequately zealous.

But a larger question arises - and this is in conjunction with the  
recent statements, apparently approved leaks, about the capabilities  
of the North Korean rockets.  It strikes me that, as compared to  
information about the SWIFT data mining, that more information (or a  
more useful kind of information) about US capabilities has been  
released when the current administration leaked statements such as  
they couldn't tell whether it was a two or three stage rocket that's  
being prepared.

In other words, I perceive a situation in which our executive branch  
is engaging in selective leaks when it benefits their positions.

Why, for example, has Karl Rove not had his security clearance  
revoked?  And why has not Bush fired him as Bush said he would do of  
any person who was found to have leaked information?

In the largest scale, I am very concerned that we have been driven  
into a state of mindless panic - or rather that the Executive branch  
and to a lesser extent the Legislative branch are making the  
presumption that you and me and our fellow citizens are so deeply  
afraid of the terrorist bogyman that we have implicitly authorized a  
reduction of many of our Constitutional protections and liberties.

Is that a valid presumption?  Are we citizens to be treated as mere  
children, incapable of making choices for ourselves?  Might it be  
better if our government ought to let us have the information we need  
in order to make an informed and intelligent choice?

When I consider that the number of people dying on 9/11 - people who  
died horrific and terrible deaths - was roughly the same number of  
people who are killed in the US each month in automobile crashes -  
also often horrific and terrible deaths- then I wonder whether my  
government ought to be spending as much energy making roads and  
automobiles safer as it is in protecting me against some terrorist,  
and possibly imaginary, bogyman.

And worldwide, Malaria kills as many people every day - yes, every  
single day - as were killed in 9/11.

Might we have balanced our use of war powers with efforts to reduce  
some of the disease and poverty that fuels terrorism?  Maybe yes,  
maybe no. But we can't have a reasoned debate if we, the people, who  
are the real sovereigns in the US, are not adequately informed of the  
cost, no only in terms of money but also in terms of the cost to our  
freedom and liberty, of playing the war card.

I'm not saying "stop".  Rather I am saying that we need both balance  
and oversight.

And most importantly I'm saying that we can't have a working  
democracy if those who vote - you, me, and our fellow citizens - are  
not allowed to have the information we need to make informed and  
intelligent choices.

                --karl--








-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/