Blurring the Lines and Mission Creep

Two events occurred this week that reflect a troubling trend in American government.  They are both symptomatic of the quest that individuals in positions of power and authority have for more power and authority.  One of the more common maneuvers for attaining that additional power and authority is to publicly blur the lines between one’s assigned authority and another’s authority in an attempt to gain a portion of that other person’s or entity’s power.  Another practice that is often applied in today’s governmental environment is the expansion of a well-defined mission into one of an expanded nature that might better reflect the personal agenda goals of the individuals conducting the mission. 

In the case of the former, I am speaking of the FISA Reform legislation that came out of the House this week.  The content of that legislation is presented here: https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-hr-6172-houses-compromise-fisa-reform-bill .  I make no pretense to being an objective observer on this issue.  I have advocated repeatedly for the abolishment of the FISA entity due to its susceptibility regarding corruption and politics.  Because of the abuses that were uncovered in the fomenting of the Trump/Russia Collusion effort, there was a tension in the House between the two national parties when the recent subject of FISA reform came up on the schedule. 

The Republicans wanted to use the opportunity to emphasize the weaknesses of the system that were exploited by Democrats in the Obama DOJ to smear both candidate Trump and President Trump.  Plainly speaking, the Republicans wanted to expose the guilty parties of that travesty and hang their dirty laundry out for all to see.   The Democrats wanted to do all within their power (which is considerable due to their Majority status) to diminish the abuses that took place.  While not condoning the transgressions that had occurred, they attempted to leave room for rationalizing many of the improper actions that took place in order to lower the perception of severity.  Neither Party had the pure intent and focus that should have been present in a debate on a subject of national security and citizen liberties.  It is really quite surprising that the resulting legislation came out as benign as it is.  It appears neither party succeeded in fully accomplishing their selfish intent and that the bill reflects a true sense of bipartisanship.  Unfortunately, the bill does little to address the fundamental flaws of the FISA entity. 

The first flaw is the fact that even with the scotch tape reforms the bill contains, the subject that will be spied upon (be they foreign or domestic) under the FISA provisions has no real defense to the accusations that will lead the FISA court to approve that spying.  Just as candidate and President Trump had no advocate when the Obama DOJ requested to place him and his associates under surveillance; we will continue (with this reform) to have that same lack of fairness into the future proceedings before the FISA court (the new amicus provisions notwithstanding).  The opportunity for corrupt government officials with personal agendas will remain present in the FISA process and both national parties will inevitably be in a position to abuse the system.  Neither is sufficiently capable of eternally resisting that temptation. 

 

Another basic flaw in the FISA system is the intermingling of our justice and court systems with the realm of national security and intelligence.  Federal and FISA court judges do not have the background necessary to responsibly make surveillance decisions regarding mining and extrapolating the depths of national intelligence resources.  Blurring the lines between our justice arm of government and our foreign intelligence arm of government does not make any sense and will inevitably lead to both the hamstringing of operations and poor decisions or actions.  The system of justice that an American citizen should expect in this nation is not the same as that of a foreign national present in our country with evil intent.  The reforms that this bill makes in this area does nothing more that expand the concept of a globalized method that regards all people and their rights in the United States as world citizens.  It is a road fraught with peril and it weakens our national security.

The FISA entity is a political creation that had good intent but little foresight.  It is a dangerous weapon in the hands of individuals incapable of understanding that danger.   Federal Judges should focus on the law and the fair application of that law as promulgated by Congress and the President.  It is up to Congress to write the laws defining the reach and authority of our intelligence agencies.  Our elected representatives in Congress and the White House should stand accountable for both the successes and failures of those agencies. 

Don’t miss the next post!

 Follow on Twitter @ centerlineright or Just Google centerlineright.

Moving on to the next topic brings us to the recent House legislation that addresses the coronavirus pandemic in America.  Here is a summary of that action: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/13/congress-coronavirus-stimulus-package-deal-friday-128140 .  While it is a tribute to our elected officials both in the House and the Oval Office to have passed legislation to aid in our nation addressing such a severe national health threat; it is regrettable that this bill reflects another disturbing trend in how our government operates these days. 

A cursory reading of the legislation will demonstrate to any reasonable person that the Democratic Party in the House, led by Speaker Pelosi, sought to decorate the coronavirus aid package with many window dressings that had minor impact on that aid and were clearly part and parcel of their entitlement-driven political agenda.  Pelosi clearly understood that the President was anxious to get some Congressional action accomplished in reaction to this sweeping health concern.  In an election year, he no doubt was willing to give in to political demands in order to achieve quick results.  The opportunity was there for a trade-off victory.  Pelosi knew this and she got her pound, or two, of political flesh in the deal.

Both national parties are equally guilty of adding extraneous amendments and riders to legislation in an effort to further their personal agendas; this is nothing new.  They have both muddled up critical legislation with legislation having absolutely nothing to do with the original intent or purpose of the issue at hand.  Perhaps this is politics as usual in our government and is the accepted give and take of democracy.  But at some point, someone in a position of authority and influence should take a reckoning of the practice and conclude that it might be time to re-examine the wisdom of that direction. 

When national emergencies require immediate and targeted action by Congress and the President, we would like to think that our President, Senators, and Representatives are capable of temporarily putting aside their political concerns to serve the greater good.  A thoughtful examination of recent farm aid, weather-related disaster assistance, and now the coronavirus threat bills reveals that our faith and hope in those elected officials is ill-placed.  The good news about our government is that the system we employ guarantees the diversified interests of all parties involved and the majority opinion will eventually triumph.  The bad news about our government is that the system we employ guarantees the diversified interests of all parties involved and most times, those parties will employ every legislative trick in the book to achieve their preferred policies.  This method, more times than not, results in watered down solutions to serious problems, bloated expenditures contributing to an already shameful federal deficit, and half measures that accomplish little more than drops of water being showered on raging fires. 

Rahm Emanuel, a former White House Chief of Staff for Obama and Mayor of Chicago, said “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you could not do before”.  One would like to think that Emanuel was referring to the mighty spirit of the American people to rise above the devastation of tragedies and bond together to overcome even the greatest challenges.  Given his status as a career politician and his history in that arena, I think he was clearly referring to an attitude exhibited by our current national parties; the attitude that seizing the opportunity of mission creep in critical and emergency legislation to further political agendas is perfectly acceptable.  It seems that our long and wearisome search for statesmanship leadership in our nation’s capitol continues unabated.

Now in fairness, it should be pointed out that both pieces of legislation addressed in this post have yet to undergo deliberation by the Senate and gain the signature of the President.  Things may change there; but that is unlikely.  The scenario seems set for Senate passage of both bills in their current forms.