posted by Damozel | So it seems that in an internal audit, the FBI has found that a number of its agents have repeatedly violated the FBI's own rules "while collecting data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial
transactions in recent years, far more than was documented in a Justice Department report in March that ignited bipartisan congressional criticism." The Washington Post (14 June 2007)(link in original). Since the audit in question covers only "10 percent of their national security investigations since 2002," WaPo deadpans, "so the mistakes in the FBI's domestic surveillance efforts probably number several thousand."
Well, several thousand little missteps in the effort to give us all that sense of security we Americans crave at any cost doesn't seem so terrible to me. After all, just imagine the paperwork involved! And in the too-much-information-age it's perhaps unrealistic to expect the agents of the executive branch not only to read everything but to keep track of the bureau's own picky little administrative rules for collecting and retaining data, am I right? Furthermore, it says right here that the bureau has found no evidence that any "agent knowingly or willingly violated the laws or that supervisors encouraged such violations," though they appear to be looking Furthermore, the agency is making "widespread changes" to keep these little missteps from recurring. The solution (of course): implement some "corporate-style" internal oversight and have the agents "surveille" each other!
- "implementing a corporate-style, continuous, internal compliance program to review the bureau's policies, procedures and training,
- "to provide regular monitoring of employees' work by supervisors in each office, and
- "to conduct frequent audits to track compliance across the bureau." The Washington Post (14 June 2007)(bullet points mine).
Furthermore, once the investigation is complete, they'll bring in lawyers to review extensively each potential violation to decide whether it must be reported to the panel of foxes who apparently guard the American civil liberties hen-house: the Intelligence Oversight Board, "a presidential panel of senior intelligence officials created to safeguard civil liberties." The Washington Post. (I don't know about you, but I know I sleep better at night knowing that my civil liberties are being safeguarded by a panel of intelligence officials appointed by the---or really any---president. Anyway, after they've assessed themselves and 'fessed up, some head somewhere might---or might not---roll. It all depends.
Oh, what does it matter anyway? We've clearly made our decision as a nation that having our privacy invaded by accident is less important to us than the feeling that something, somewhere is being done to protect us.
I think it's all a lot of nonsense, personally, and very unfair to the executive branch---as usual. They always get blamed when these things don't work out quite as perhaps we might have intended if we'd had any time to pay attention. In contrast, Congress always gets off scot-free and is clearly not even expected to read, much less to understand, the laws it enacts and then expects the executive branch to implement just like that. It's not that easy to interpret the texts that Congress churns out, you know---just consider for a moment the Tax Code. Consider also the Patriot Act and what those interfering whiners of the ACLU (who needs them anyway when we have an Intelligence Oversight Board to protect us?) claim it says and does. Consider the dearth of debate prior to its enactment among our very own elected representatives and the subsequent dearth of Congressional oversight. And of course, I didn't read it either. I just sort of assumed that they knew what they were doing. So, you know, I didn't write any letters or raise any questions or anything. Besides! My life is an open book; it's only the people with something to hide who need to worry about having their personal lives monitored, am I right?
Why do we always pick on the agents of executive branch? As Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly have asserted, we all expect them to be energetic and zealous and even just that little bit ruthlessly over-the-top and/or brutal (cf., Jack Bauer and 24) in implementing the laws that keep us feeling safe? Why do we always pick on W? Why? He's just being an executive. Instead, let's either accept that infringement of our freedom and right to privacy is the price of our sense of security (from terrorists, that is; you can't really expect W to control hurricanes and climate change or death from cancer because we don't have money for treatment while he's busy with the war on terror) or put the blame squarely where it belongs: on those enablers in Congress!
Comments