The Imperial Presidency Strikes Back
The big news on the Executive Power front this week is the debacle over the FBI, and to a greater extent, the CIA, using so-called national security letters to investigate the bank activity of American citizens. The New York Times states flatly “Banks are not required to hand over the information, but Pentagon officials said that financial institutions usually complied.”
Cheney paints the issue in a slightly different light, saying
Which is it? Are the banks under no true obligation to turn over the information, or is the information considered quasi-subpoenaed, and institutions must go to court if they disagree with the request to turn it over?
What really irked me about the whole situation was Cheney’s invocation of the troops to defend such searches. “Mr. Cheney,” writes the Times, “said yesterday that the letters were valuable for protecting American forces stationed at hundreds of bases in the United States.” It’s a constant Administration scare tactic – any questionable constitutional action they take is merely in the defense of American lives, particularly American solidiers, despite their oaths to uphold constitutional principles above all. I personally don’t see the direct connection – bank records might be valuable in seeing who might be funneling money to terrorists, which in turn might lead to a breakup of a foreign terrorist cell, however unlikely. More likely, the information would be useful in rooting out American citizens who are funneling money to terrorists – not that this is a negative thing, but merely that it does not seem to hold that bank records will be useful in protecting American troops, merely prosecuting American citizens.
This week’s Jurisprudence Column in Slate sees an all-around conspiracy to rebuild the executive, post-Watergate.
Cheney paints the issue in a slightly different light, saying
There’s nothing wrong with it or illegal… …It doesn’t violate people’s civil rights. And if an institution that receives one of these national security letters disagrees with it, they’re free to go to court to try to stop its execution.”
Which is it? Are the banks under no true obligation to turn over the information, or is the information considered quasi-subpoenaed, and institutions must go to court if they disagree with the request to turn it over?
What really irked me about the whole situation was Cheney’s invocation of the troops to defend such searches. “Mr. Cheney,” writes the Times, “said yesterday that the letters were valuable for protecting American forces stationed at hundreds of bases in the United States.” It’s a constant Administration scare tactic – any questionable constitutional action they take is merely in the defense of American lives, particularly American solidiers, despite their oaths to uphold constitutional principles above all. I personally don’t see the direct connection – bank records might be valuable in seeing who might be funneling money to terrorists, which in turn might lead to a breakup of a foreign terrorist cell, however unlikely. More likely, the information would be useful in rooting out American citizens who are funneling money to terrorists – not that this is a negative thing, but merely that it does not seem to hold that bank records will be useful in protecting American troops, merely prosecuting American citizens.
This week’s Jurisprudence Column in Slate sees an all-around conspiracy to rebuild the executive, post-Watergate.
The true purpose [of Gitmo, Jose Padillia trial] is more abstract and more tragic: To establish a clunky post-Watergate dream of an imperial presidency, whatever the human cost may be.
