A lengthy article in today's Washington Post descibes the FBI's expanded use of National Security Letters in terms, and with examples, not likely to win friends at the FBI -- though it will likely influence them.
There seem to be one basic question:
Should the FBI specifically, and the government generally, have the authority to acquire and keep detailed information about anyone, based solely on their stated belief that they need it?
Such information can include data of any kind deemed desirable by the person issuing the NSL. The agency is not required to tell the target that information is being acquired, and will in fact explicitly tell the keepers of the information that they are legally prohibited from informing the target. And the agency can keep the information found forever, whether or not it proves relevant to a specific investigation.
The argument in favor of allowing such authority seems to be in two parts: ..
a) It's necessary to defend against terrorist attacks
b) If you have nothing to hide, nothing will be found, so whats to worry? And if you do, but it isn't used against you, so ditto.
It's difficult to be against what these people are trying to do. Their methods are another story.
4 comments:
Thats my problem -- I can't say that its not necessary. I can't even say that extraordinary measures aren't needed. I don't know the breadth or depth of the threat; I suspect it would make wet myself if I found out. I can just say that a government that relies on secrecy isn't to be trusted. And governmental power without effective constraints scares me more than terrorists do.
To which, I suspect, they'd reply "You're either with us or with the terrorists." And strike up the band.
You mean they are NOT keeping a dossier on each and every one of us? What the heck are we paying them for?
My problem is that if anyone with that type of power had an issue with me, they could pretty much destroy my life as I know it. It's a little too close to absolute power for my liking - and you know what they say about absolute power. Might be tempted myself.
Me, too. For one thing, I'd be able to retrieve the original response that I wrote a bit ago, which seems to have vanished into the aether.
Okay, so thats a strange way to spell it. I think it's classy. Makes me think of old time science fiction.
The truth is, the concept of people like me handling problems such as they handle -- well, it terrifies me. I'm reminded of a disaster movie that I saw years ago where a mid-level Cabinet functionary becomes the president after a disaster and is being harangued by extraordinarily bright people, each with their own agenda. His facial expression is one of muted terror, of 'now, what did that last word he used mean? And what are we talking about, again?"
I don't think that ordinary people of good intent can handle tremendous power. I think that right now we have in office mostly ordinary people. We need better. Whether they need us is another question.
I want grownups to fix all of this.
And Stag? For you, they've reserved not a dossier but a whole wing of filing cabinets.
Post a Comment