QOTD: Amy Davidson
by digby
From her piece on the NSA speech in the New Yorker:
There is one more argument for Obama, and the rest of us, to avoid: the idea that running the N.S.A. differently, with real and not just mechanical respect for civil liberties and privacy, would just be too much trouble—that neither the agency nor the public could handle it. That argument was made in a letter from Judge John Bates, formerly of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, to the Senate and House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees. He urged them not to listen to the President’s review panel, which suggested dozens of changes, such as a more adversarial process and more transparency. “Releasing freestanding summaries of court opinions is likely to promote confusion and misunderstanding,” Bates wrote. Confusion tends to lead to questions, which one would think would be useful—especially when what is confusing are claims about safety and privacy in a democracy. Effectiveness in fighting terrorism and blind gliding are not the same thing. Bates also worried that “some of the proposed changes would profoundly increase the Courts’ workload.” Would that mean a large volume of cases? That’s work that we can do, and have to do.
Yes. If it’s a matter of straightening out confusion and misunderstanding and devoting necessary resources, I think we can find the time and money. There’s a gigantic black budget I’m quite sure has some extra dollars we can tap into.
.