The Washington Post is carrying this story in today’s paper:
The Bush administration could continue its policy of spying on targeted Americans without obtaining warrants, but only if it justifies the action to a small group of lawmakers, under legislation introduced yesterday by key Republican senators.[...]
The bill would allow the NSA to eavesdrop, without a warrant, for up to 45 days per case, at which point the Justice Department would have three options. It could drop the surveillance, seek a warrant from FISA’s court, or convince a handful of House and Senate members that although there is insufficient evidence for a warrant, continued surveillance “is necessary to protect the United States,”[...]
It’s about time. I’ve written before, and I’ll probably write again, that if the President needs authority to do something to protect the country, laws should be written that give him/her that authority albeit with appropriate checks. If the measure could be combined with a censure, it would go a long way towards correcting some of the mess revealed in recent months.
However, I do think the measure, as it is described in WaPo is too lax. Here’s a few items that I’d like to see included:
- A shorter free-look period. How about calling for Congressional oversight committee to meet every 2 weeks, and require a review of all unwarranted wiretaps underway at each meeting. The committee should be granted authority to require discontinuing inappropriate wiretaps.
- Speaking of the committee — it should either be a nonpartisan group of congresscritters (50/50 D&R under the duopoly, with tie+1 votes being required to continue monitoring), or even a judicial panel. Either way, it needs to be staffed so that it is unlikely to be a mere rubber-stamp for the President.
- I’d like to see explicit limitations on the use of data obtained during warrantless wiretaps, including a requirement that data be destroyed unless a retroactive warrant is issued, as well as criminalization of mis-use of that data.
- And did I mention that I’d like a censure resolution to be part of the bill? The President abusing his authority by doing an end-run around the law is bad, arguably to the point of being impeachable. I’ll think of the Congress as shirking its duties if it doesn’t either at least censure Bush, or provide some really good reason why it won’t do so.
I’ll take this opportunity to remind readers that we have a government that does not recognize a right to privacy. Shouldn’t there be pressure to make that right explicit, in the form of a Constitutional Amendment?