The United States of America faces a difficult and ongoing issue that was brought into dramatic focus on 11 September 2001: agents of foreign enemies are operating on American soil with the intention of killing American citizens, and in great part, the government does not know who they are.
Whether or not the current struggle represents the beginning of a long war against fundamentalist Muslim jihadism or a short-term fight against a flare-up of terrorist activity by the same, the United States has a problem: First, it has enemies on its own soil. Second, its laws are not adequate to deal with the existing threat.
In 2001, President Bush decided to address part of that problem by authorizing warrantless surveillance in order to discover who the enemies were and then pursue lawful actions to stop them. This authority was derived from well-established and historical precedent established by many previous administrations and in is in keeping with the actions of administrations throughout American history in dealing with crises that threaten the Republic.
This authority also represents a temporary and constitutionally difficult solution that is far better resolved by better-crafted laws targeted at dealing with the nature of the issues at hand. If there is any mistake in the administration’s handling of these issues, it has been that it did not aggressively pursue legislative remedies to these issues far sooner.
Now, the administration and Congress have no choice. The methods the administration was using have been compromised and legally challenged. In order to resolve these issues, the administration and Congress must craft laws that simultaneously protect the American people from potential abuse and also grant the intelligence agencies the ability to discover who the enemies are so those enemies can be stopped.
Unfortunately, it seems that the politicians and thinkers responsible for crafting such solutions are too fixated on politics to fulfill their obligations. This fixation seems to be a national infection, which results in no solutions being presented even as the threat continues and, perhaps, even grows.
In an effort to counter that infection and help guide the national discussion in a direction that may lead to solutions, here are presented several ideas that can form the basis of those solutions.
First, any law that is created must ensure that the liberty of the American people is preserved to the greatest extent possible and that the Republic is defended so that this liberty can be enjoyed. Therefore, the intelligence agencies must be granted the ability to establish causal evidence against enemies of the United States, but they must be constrained from using that evidence for any other purpose than cause by continual and practical oversight. The most effective way to accomplish this end is to create a function, probably judicial, that reviews gathered evidence and certifies it for legitimate use as causal evidence against agents working militarily against the United States on behalf of foreign enemies.
Second, any law that is created must protect intelligence sources, methods, and means from disclosure to protect intelligence agents and those cooperating with them. Specifically, this law must exempt those who cooperate from civil liability over the collection of causal intelligence in order to ensure continued cooperation for that purpose.
Third, the law must clearly state that any punitive action requires the securing of warranted surveillance and authority to act as clearly established by the Constitution. Due to the sensitive nature of these warrants and resulting cases, federal jurisdiction must be clearly established over them, the FISA court must be greatly expanded to accommodate the legal function of the intelligence services in this capacity, and a parallel court must be established to handle cases resulting from this activity.
Fourth, any law must be clearly set to expire on a regular basis, forcing the existing administration and Congress to review the law for applicability and flaws.
Finally, any law must specifically and explicitly apply only to the gathering of causal intelligence against agents of foreign enemies acting on American soil; however, this law must apply to the activities of both foreign nationals and natural citizens acting in this capacity.
This list is neither exhaustive nor complete. Such a law is very complex due to the nature of the problems it deals with and must be carefully crafted before it is implemented. This list simply gives a place to start the conversation, one that will hopefully happen quickly and for the benefit of the United States and its citizens.
Cross-posted on Dennis L Hitzeman’s Worldview Weblog
3 comments:
It might interest everyone to read this letter:
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/032806robertson.html
The link will take you to an open letter written by James Robertson, Federal District Court Judge for the District of Columbia and is addressed to Arlen Specter regarding his take on the current attempts to regulate the program through modification of the FISA. Robertson was a sitting member of the FISA court until he apparently quit in protest when the New York Times article exposing the NSA program was confirmed by the administration.
Despite this fact, I encourage you not to assume you'll disagree with him ere you click the link, you might be surprised.
Scott, I find Judge Robertson's proposals reasonable and sound. I think the language I used is different, but the goal is much the same.
Interesting.
Post a Comment