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.
No comments:
Post a Comment