Permanent Secrecy

The spy who wouldn't leave


Civil libertarians have anxiously awaited an accounting of George W. Bush's encroachments on American privacy. On July 10 a new report wrapped up some loose ends.

The inspectors general of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Defense granted that Bush's domestic warrantless wiretaps "may have" assisted in successful counter-terrorism operations. But the bureaucrats were decidedly critical of the president's actions, arguing that the program's "extraordinary and inappropriate secrecy" crippled its effectiveness. 

Bush critics quickly hailed the report as both a vindication and a victory. "I am glad the American people can finally see for themselves what happens when a handful of senior officials—who think they know better than the courts, the U.S. Justice Department and Congress—decide to rewrite the law in secret," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement. But such celebrations are premature. In April, Barack Obama's Justice Department adopted the Bush position that the federal courts should not hear challenges to the surveillance program because it would require the government to reveal state secrets. "Presidents by their nature like to have power because they feel they need it to keep the country safe," Yale legal scholar Jack Balkin argued on his blog Balkinization. "Obama is no exception to this rule….The Obama Administration is continuing a long term bipartisan project of constructing our National Surveillance State."


NEXT: Hiding Online

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Thanks to the author,This really very nice,Thanks very much

  2. My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I’m sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won’t get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there’s more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I’m not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It’s just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight…the Bible’s books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on…the Bible’s books were written by people with very different mindsets…in order to really get the Books of the Bible, you have to cultivate such a mindset, it’s literally a labyrinth, that’s no joke

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.