Interesting People mailing list archives
NYTimes: How to Watch the Watchers
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 08:34 -0400
. Forwarded Message ....... From: Bob Rosenberg <bob () bobrosenberg phoenix az us> To: dave () farber net Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 04:50:28 -0700 Subj: NYTimes: How to Watch the Watchers Dave Why does anyone wonder why some of us are concerned about our civil rights? Bob ***************** OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR How to Watch the Watchers By RICHARD BEN-VENISTE and LANCE COLE The president's new civil liberties oversight board falls short of the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07benveniste.html?th -- Bob Rosenberg, Principal R.G. Rosenberg & Assoc. Public Policy Consulting & Advocacy P.O. Box 33023 Phoenix, AZ 85067-3023 LandLine: 602-274-3012 Mobile: 602-206-2856 bob () bobrosenberg phoenix az us "A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular." --Adlai Stevenson ************************ NYTimes OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR How to Watch the Watchers By RICHARD BEN-VENISTE and LANCE COLE Published: September 7, 2004 Last week President Bush issued four executive orders addressing matters that were subjects of recommendations by the 9/11 commission. One of the four orders created a President's Board on Safeguarding Americans' Civil Liberties. While it is laudable that a civil liberties board was included in the first set of presidential actions in response to the commission's recommendations, the new board falls short of addressing the concerns that led the commission to recommend the creation of a meaningful oversight board in the first place. Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the government has acquired powerful new legal tools, including those provided by the Patriot Act, to collect intelligence on Americans. Government agencies are using "data mining" and other techniques to identify potential terrorists and cut off sources of terrorist financing. As the commission's report noted, the shift of power and authority to government must be tempered by an enhanced system of checks and balances to protect the personal liberties that define our way of life. One of the ways the commission sought to balance these competing objectives was to recommend the creation of a board within the executive branch to protect civil liberties and privacy rights. Unfortunately, the board created by the president has neither the right makeup nor the right powers to accomplish this objective. For starters, the large size of the president's board is a problem. With 20 or more people, individual members won't feel personally accountable or responsible, a fatal flaw for an effective civil liberties oversight body. But a more fundamental problem with the president's panel is the people who will serve on it. All its members are from within government and almost all are from the very agencies and departments whose actions are likely to be the subject of civil liberties challenges and complaints. The 9/11 commission demonstrated the value of a review of government actions by disinterested individuals from outside government. Only outsiders can supply both the independence and the skepticism that are essential to evaluate the merits of governmental assertions of power that intrude on personal privacy. In fact, the president's board seems especially unlikely to prevent one of the most serious potential problems brought on by the government's new powers - the possibility of applying them in areas that have nothing to do with terrorism. Already, the Patriot Act has been used to investigate official corruption, money-laundering and computer hacking. A properly functioning civil liberties oversight board should also be nonpartisan, and the way to achieve that is through a balanced appointments process. The president's panel is made up almost entirely of presidential appointees and senior staff members who serve presidential appointees. But the public must have confidence that the board transcends the partisan interests of whatever administration is in power. A far better model would be a board that is chosen through an appointments process that provides not only balance along party lines, but also participation by both the executive and legislative branches. For example, a nine-member board could be created with a requirement that no more than five of its members be from the same political party. The chairman and vice chairman could be required to come from different parties. What's more, the president's nominees would be subject to Senate confirmation. This is similar to the model that has been shown to work well for independent regulatory agencies. There's another problem. While the commission recommended a board that would provide oversight, the president's board is only an advisory board, which means that it will simply provide advice and information. It has no obligation to disclose its findings to the public. That's a mistake. For such a board to be effective, it must be transparent. To that end, any panel should be required to provide quarterly reports of its findings to Congress and the public. As the 9/11 commission showed with its report, it is possible to remove references to sources and methods of intelligence collection and still provide an informative public accounting. In addition to the specifics set out in the commission report, there's another step that should be considered: departments and agencies that have responsibility for domestic intelligence collection and homeland security should put in place a kind of "civil liberties ombudsman" who would be responsible for bringing complaints and challenges before the board. The individuals in those positions must have full access to the surveillance techniques and domestic intelligence collection practices their departments and agencies employ. There must also be confidentiality and whistleblower protections to ensure that complaints are reported without fear of reprisal. While the president's proposal is a welcome acknowledgment of the need for civil liberties protections, it seems that it will now be up to Congress to carry out the commission's recommendation for a genuine, effective oversight board. Only a truly independent board with real powers can help strike the right balance between enhanced powers to combat terrorism and adequate protection of our cherished civil liberties. Richard Ben-Veniste, a lawyer, is a former member of the 9/11 commission. Lance Cole, a professor at Penn State Dickinson School of Law, is a former consultant to the commission. ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- NYTimes: How to Watch the Watchers Dave Farber (Sep 07)