NYT: Who Will Keep an Eye on the Spies? (5 Letters) [on Bush's FISA bill]

[ProSense]

Who Will Keep an Eye on the Spies? (5 Letters)

Published: August 26, 2007

To the Editor:

Re “The Warrantless Debate Over Wiretapping,” by Philip Bobbitt (Op-Ed, Aug. 22):

<...>

Critics of the law are fashioned into straw men who “believe that there is in fact no real threat.” Recognition of the threats this country faces is not at odds with valuing our liberties and desiring cautious deliberation and vigorous oversight of the methods used to protect our country.

Mr. Bobbitt argues that instead of legislating oversight, it’s best for Congress (and the country) to trust this administration with broad powers and programs that remain undefined.

He says the defense-intelligence team of Robert M. Gates, Mike McConnell and Gen. Michael V. Hayden is “about as good a team as it is possible to imagine.” But he left out other team members — like President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales — who have proved themselves as untrustworthy as possible to imagine.

After years of lies and fear-mongering, I’d prefer oversight over blind trust.

Gregory Wright
Brooklyn, Aug. 22, 2007

<...>

•

To the Editor:

The changes to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act authorize Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to wiretap phone calls, intercept e-mail messages and, arguably, search the homes of Americans without a warrant, so long as the search “concerns” someone believed to be abroad.

Philip Bobbitt compares those activities to asking people questions or installing surveillance cameras on city streets. The difference, of course, is that you can refuse to answer questions and the government is not allowed to install cameras in your home.

The framers of the Constitution understood those fundamental principles, and so do the American people.

Mr. Bobbitt also suggests that critics of the law question whether we face a real threat or just White House “hype.” Virtually no one argues that there is no threat, but there’s no denying that this administration has exploited it to seize law enforcement powers that no modern president has claimed before — from warrantless surveillance to the erosion of habeas corpus, the detaining of American citizens as “enemy combatants” without charge or access to counsel and even torture.

The Bush power grab after 9/11 cuts at the heart of fundamental American values, and the recent Congressional stampede to expand FISA — which should be fixed as soon as Congress returns to session — has to be viewed in that light. And that’s why we need an A.C.L.U., I imagine.

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union
New York, Aug. 22, 2007

•

To the Editor:

FISA, passed during the cold war, sought to establish not only a Fourth Amendment standard for national security surveillance in the United States, but also a Fourth Amendment institution — the federal judiciary — that would oversee the use of this authority.

The goal was not to restrict, prohibit or even delay necessary investigations. It was to ensure a minimal amount of accountability so that the country’s huge surveillance powers would not be turned upon the American people.

The argument for “modernizing” FISA is much less about new technology and much more about the effort to diminish checks and balances during a period of public fear.

Good people should be concerned about this.

Marc Rotenberg
Washington, Aug. 22, 2007

The writer is president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center and teaches at Georgetown University Law Center.

more