This is one of those issues where there's really no right solution.
On the one hand, I can't help but agree that this is WAY too much power for any one person to have. We live in an age where, perhaps more than ever before, information is power. I'd argue that this is far more power than Hoover ever had, and we all know how that turned out.
But on the other hand, we have to accept that a result of the information age is that there is just endless amounts of data to collect, track, organize, and utilize. To make matters worse, anyone with half a brain realizes that our "War Against Terror" is fundamentally a conflict in which intelligence agencies (rather than the military) should take the lead. i.e., Destroying organized groups of ostensibly non-state actors requires gathering of intelligence across countless state borders, requiring a sophisticated intelligence system and the help of foreign nations. Groups need to be identified and, when necessary, eliminated quietly (as opposed to invading countries for no reason in particular). (And as a side note, I acknowledge your inevitable opposition to such an idea. I respect your values and simply ask that you respect my belief that assassination is simply one of many tools of statecraft and is generally far more preferable to ill-advised invasions with no exit strategies.) Additionally, funds -- often in electronic form -- need to be located and seized/frozen. No one agency could, or even should, be placed in charge of foreign intelligence, military intelligence, and domestic counter-intelligence. But as the 9/11 Commission rightly pointed out, it doesn't do the country a whole lot of good if the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Someone has to be in charge of collating data gathered by 16 different agencies. I suppose that a small group (inevitably a star chamber) would be ideal, so at least there's the hope that the interests of the individuals would balance each other out, but small groups aren't as efficient as one person; and if there's a serious threat (I hate to sound like Cheney, but there are plausible scenarios wherein non-state actors could smuggle a nuke within our borders), having one person in charge might help catch it and react in time.
What I guess I really want to know is this: 1) what kind of Congressional oversight is provided for by the order, and 2) if there's another crisis like 9/11, is Congress going to have the balls to step up and do its damned job in the face of any future administrations that loudly equate questions to either cowardice or a lack of patriotism?
Like I said, I agree that this isn't a really good thing, but I don't see many great alternatives, either. Any thoughts?
(As an additional matter, this actually concerns me less than when Hayden was appointed as director of the CIA. I abhorred the idea of yet another active-duty military man overseeing what is ostensibly an independent, civilian agency. And while he's turned out to be quite good, and he has finally retired from active duty, I'm still uncomfortable with so many voices in the national intelligence briefings having similar military backgrounds that color their world-views and shape their responses to threats/crises. Then again, if Michael Brown is the kind of civilian Bush is going to tap for critical directorships, maybe we're far better off to have a bunch of generals running intelligence.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-07-31 02:24 pm (UTC)On the one hand, I can't help but agree that this is WAY too much power for any one person to have. We live in an age where, perhaps more than ever before, information is power. I'd argue that this is far more power than Hoover ever had, and we all know how that turned out.
But on the other hand, we have to accept that a result of the information age is that there is just endless amounts of data to collect, track, organize, and utilize. To make matters worse, anyone with half a brain realizes that our "War Against Terror" is fundamentally a conflict in which intelligence agencies (rather than the military) should take the lead. i.e., Destroying organized groups of ostensibly non-state actors requires gathering of intelligence across countless state borders, requiring a sophisticated intelligence system and the help of foreign nations. Groups need to be identified and, when necessary, eliminated quietly (as opposed to invading countries for no reason in particular). (And as a side note, I acknowledge your inevitable opposition to such an idea. I respect your values and simply ask that you respect my belief that assassination is simply one of many tools of statecraft and is generally far more preferable to ill-advised invasions with no exit strategies.) Additionally, funds -- often in electronic form -- need to be located and seized/frozen. No one agency could, or even should, be placed in charge of foreign intelligence, military intelligence, and domestic counter-intelligence. But as the 9/11 Commission rightly pointed out, it doesn't do the country a whole lot of good if the right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Someone has to be in charge of collating data gathered by 16 different agencies. I suppose that a small group (inevitably a star chamber) would be ideal, so at least there's the hope that the interests of the individuals would balance each other out, but small groups aren't as efficient as one person; and if there's a serious threat (I hate to sound like Cheney, but there are plausible scenarios wherein non-state actors could smuggle a nuke within our borders), having one person in charge might help catch it and react in time.
What I guess I really want to know is this: 1) what kind of Congressional oversight is provided for by the order, and 2) if there's another crisis like 9/11, is Congress going to have the balls to step up and do its damned job in the face of any future administrations that loudly equate questions to either cowardice or a lack of patriotism?
Like I said, I agree that this isn't a really good thing, but I don't see many great alternatives, either. Any thoughts?
(As an additional matter, this actually concerns me less than when Hayden was appointed as director of the CIA. I abhorred the idea of yet another active-duty military man overseeing what is ostensibly an independent, civilian agency. And while he's turned out to be quite good, and he has finally retired from active duty, I'm still uncomfortable with so many voices in the national intelligence briefings having similar military backgrounds that color their world-views and shape their responses to threats/crises. Then again, if Michael Brown is the kind of civilian Bush is going to tap for critical directorships, maybe we're far better off to have a bunch of generals running intelligence.)