Categorical reporting of DOJ activities under questionable circumstances (i.e. possible terrorist activity) is at a minimum, a requirement. Expanding discretion without oversight has repeatedly failed. The saving and loans scandal of the mid 80's, banking services were given more leverage in selecting risk activity without complementary oversight mechanisms. Brokers and analyst were given blank checks to tell investors how rosy the sky was prior to the Internet bubble burst.

Does it ever really sink in--people will attempt to use the instruments of power to do other, more opportunistic things, if they can get away with it.

I would further suggest that the select committee on intelligence also perform random reviews of cases or actions (irrespective of status of case) periodically. Kind of like looking over your shoulder once in a while to see if the cookie jar still has the lid on it. Measurements can be made on the effectiveness of specific activities, i.e. electronic surveillance, wiretaps, or physical methods. In addition a relationship should be established between the number of cases brought, there outcomes, and the amount of resources allocated to reach positive or negative conclusions. It is ridiculous to give the DOJ powers exceeding constitutional authority in the name of national security without having to prove it works.

National security and public law should not be at opposite ends of the pole when it comes to policy or departmental prerogative, authority, or action. What I see is the DOJ wants to take the easy way in--just do everything possible and hope nothing goes wrong. Based on this conclusion I don't see how this can be sound public policy, specifically the Patriot Act, if representatives don't see the necessity to do some minor accounting.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/articles/5772/20471#20471