Two recent news items lead me to the conclusion that I'm not paranoid -- that the Bush administration's handling of the Padillo, Hamdi, Moussaoui, Reid and Lindh cases is a harbinger of a looming battle over what are fundamental civil rights and why do they matter.
These are the items: first, the Department of Justice is considering a program known as Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System). In essence, the program encourages us to spy on each other. In the words of the TIPS website, "Operation TIPS will be a national system for reporting suspicious, and potentially terrorist-related activity. The program will involve the millions of American workers who, in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to see potentially unusual or suspicious activity in public places." In connection with TIPS, the Department of Justice will maintain a national database of information provided by informants, and parcel out that information to local and state authorities. Again, the website: "All it will take to volunteer is a telephone or access to the Internet as tips can be reported on the toll-free hotline or online. Information received will be entered into the national database and referred electronically to a point of contact in each state as appropriate." As a number of sources have pointed out, this system bears a striking resemblance to systems used by such paragons of democratic ideals as East Germany. [New York Times, Washington Post]. DoJ denies this is the case. [For an interesting essay on why all of this matters, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation essay "A Watched Populace Never Boils." Not directly on point, but close.]
The second item is the news that the Bush administration wants to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the armed forces (except in narrow circumstances) from being involved in domestic law enforcement. The law traces back to the Reconstruction era, and was proposed by Southern legislators who were tired of fifteen years of military occupation after the Civil War. Reconsideration of this limitation on the military is not a new idea -- in the more immediate aftermath of September 11, a number of senators and some senior Pentagon officials apparently made public their views that posse comitatus might be in order. But, according to the New York Times, as recently as May, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the Pentagon would not seek any changes in the law. Now, the administration has ordered DoJ and Defense Department lawyers to review the law. According to the Times, this change of heart "surprised" many senior military officers and Pentagon officials.
As in my previous posts, I am struck by the feeling that these items further demonstrate that the administration is making all of this up as it goes along. Nevertheless, I am beginning to see an underlying theme: centralizing power in the federal executive. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not spinning conspiracy theories about black helicopters or anything, but just noting that the Bush initiatives appear to have in common the idea of centralizing our security infrastructure into the federal executive as a way of avoiding messy questions about the Constitution. Military tribunals (answering ultimately to the President). A federal database of "suspicious activities". Military law enforcement. All of these things are ultimately answerable to the President himself; all of things they would replace are not.
[If anything, this power gathering is consistent with Bush's pledge to bring the mindset of the CEO to the Oval Office. I note for the record that Bush's timing in this regard is ironic, given the beating that CEOs are currently taking in the public mind, and will leave it for another time to ponder whether we can learn anything from the corporate governance flap that applies to Bush's White House].
In the end, I'm not sure where to go with this. One of the founding ethos of this country was that centralization of power was bad, and that in order to protect against despotism, it was necessary to distribute the power among the three branches of government, and to install all of the checks and balances that make our system both enduring and unique (even a bit quirky at times). By that measure, the Bush administration's tactics are indefensible, probably unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. At the same time, however, the justification offered by the Bush administration is compelling -- in these trying times, the old rules may indeed not apply. Any thoughts?
These are the items: first, the Department of Justice is considering a program known as Operation TIPS (Terrorism Information and Prevention System). In essence, the program encourages us to spy on each other. In the words of the TIPS website, "Operation TIPS will be a national system for reporting suspicious, and potentially terrorist-related activity. The program will involve the millions of American workers who, in the daily course of their work, are in a unique position to see potentially unusual or suspicious activity in public places." In connection with TIPS, the Department of Justice will maintain a national database of information provided by informants, and parcel out that information to local and state authorities. Again, the website: "All it will take to volunteer is a telephone or access to the Internet as tips can be reported on the toll-free hotline or online. Information received will be entered into the national database and referred electronically to a point of contact in each state as appropriate." As a number of sources have pointed out, this system bears a striking resemblance to systems used by such paragons of democratic ideals as East Germany. [New York Times, Washington Post]. DoJ denies this is the case. [For an interesting essay on why all of this matters, check out the Electronic Frontier Foundation essay "A Watched Populace Never Boils." Not directly on point, but close.]
The second item is the news that the Bush administration wants to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. This act prohibits the armed forces (except in narrow circumstances) from being involved in domestic law enforcement. The law traces back to the Reconstruction era, and was proposed by Southern legislators who were tired of fifteen years of military occupation after the Civil War. Reconsideration of this limitation on the military is not a new idea -- in the more immediate aftermath of September 11, a number of senators and some senior Pentagon officials apparently made public their views that posse comitatus might be in order. But, according to the New York Times, as recently as May, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the Pentagon would not seek any changes in the law. Now, the administration has ordered DoJ and Defense Department lawyers to review the law. According to the Times, this change of heart "surprised" many senior military officers and Pentagon officials.
As in my previous posts, I am struck by the feeling that these items further demonstrate that the administration is making all of this up as it goes along. Nevertheless, I am beginning to see an underlying theme: centralizing power in the federal executive. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not spinning conspiracy theories about black helicopters or anything, but just noting that the Bush initiatives appear to have in common the idea of centralizing our security infrastructure into the federal executive as a way of avoiding messy questions about the Constitution. Military tribunals (answering ultimately to the President). A federal database of "suspicious activities". Military law enforcement. All of these things are ultimately answerable to the President himself; all of things they would replace are not.
[If anything, this power gathering is consistent with Bush's pledge to bring the mindset of the CEO to the Oval Office. I note for the record that Bush's timing in this regard is ironic, given the beating that CEOs are currently taking in the public mind, and will leave it for another time to ponder whether we can learn anything from the corporate governance flap that applies to Bush's White House].
In the end, I'm not sure where to go with this. One of the founding ethos of this country was that centralization of power was bad, and that in order to protect against despotism, it was necessary to distribute the power among the three branches of government, and to install all of the checks and balances that make our system both enduring and unique (even a bit quirky at times). By that measure, the Bush administration's tactics are indefensible, probably unconstitutional, and just plain wrong. At the same time, however, the justification offered by the Bush administration is compelling -- in these trying times, the old rules may indeed not apply. Any thoughts?
posted by Daniel at 12:08 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home