I hope it's just unwarranted cynicism that makes me worry that when historians look back on this period they'll see this is a pivotal moment.
A domestic spy agency exempt from FOIA and whistleblower protection, with hires and fires subject entirely to the whim of the president, and relatively immune from any outside scrutiny whatsoever can only be a monumentally bad thing. Anyone think otherwise? If so, just imagine this were Clinton/Reno doing this.
Part of any objections to government power has to do with the fear of the abuse of powers, rather than the powers themselves. This fear derives from distrust of those in power. Recognize these powers are not limited to this administration. So, for those on the other side -- would you be anything less than apoplectic if this were a Clinton initiative?
Glenn Reynold's modest proposal to correct this agency's potential abuse of power seems to involve citizens' rights of redress through civil suits against the agency. How one can sue an agency exempt from FOIA and which can refuse to answer subpoenas based on any national security justification admittedly escapes me. If congress isn't even granting itself oversight powers it's hard to see how it's going to grant them to us commoners.
In any case, there are times when I'm happy to be wrong. This is one of them.
