Via the NYT: Cheney Defends Efforts to Obtain Financial Records:

Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday defended efforts by the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency to obtain financial records of Americans suspected of terrorism or espionage, calling the practice a “perfectly legitimate activity” used partly to protect troops stationed on military bases in the United States.

[…]

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Mr. Cheney said “national security letters” issued to banks and credit agencies were an essential tool for investigating terrorism cases in the United States.

He said the Pentagon had crossed no legal boundaries in issuing the letters independent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

“There’s nothing wrong with it or illegal,” Mr. Cheney said. “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.”

Two things strike me here.  First, this is a stunningly familiar pattern:  a serious question is raised about information gathering activities on US soil and the the basic response from the administration is that it is legal, has no faults and is essential to the fight against terrorism and that is supposed to be a sufficient answer.  Now, certainly, one would expect any administration to believe that their actions were wholly legitimate.  However, I would like to have a fuller explanation as to exactly what is going on and why it is deemed necessary to use the military in this situation when the FBI is the appropriate institution for such actions.

The second thing is why should the financial institutions be put in the position of deciding whether or not to go to court to fight a request?  Why shouldn’t it be the government’s responsibility to demonstrate to a court that there is sufficient reason for it to acquire the private financial information of US citizens?  It seems to me that the administration continues to get that type of situation wholly out of order all the time.

All of this leads to:

1)  Government Deserves Skepticism.  I am made highly uncomfortable by the continued notion, constantly proffered by the administration, that everything they do is perfectly fine and that we shouldn’t worry our pretty little heads about it.  I mean, after all, they just want to protect us and all.  All fine and good, but there is always room for healthy skepticism when the government (run by either party) states that all they want to do is help, and, quite frankly, this administration has sufficiently demonstrated questionable judgment to the point that it is incumbent upon us to question what it does.

Ultimately I would note that persons in government are not inherently smarter, wiser or more virtuous than those of us not in government.  The only advantage they tend to have is information.  As such, they are not deserving of special dispensations concerning their actions.  If there is suspicion that they are over-reaching, they ought to be called on it and they should have to justify their actions.

2)  The Military Can’t (and Shouldn’t) Do Everything.  This administration’s over-reliance on the military is also disturbing.  Their solution for complex problems is often to look to the military to become more involved (as with the notion that after Katrina we should more greatly empower the military to deal with natural disasters).  While we have a very impressive military filled with any number of very fine people, it is an institution with a specific task.  If, for example, there is a need to investigate security risks in terms of domestic law enforcement, we have institutions that are tasked to deal with that area of policy.

3) Why the Aversion to the Courts?  I continue to be disturbed by the fact that the administration seems to want to execute a large number of investigatory powers sans oversight.  If all of this is so obviously necessary, then why not have an oversight process to determine if sufficient evidence exists to warrant the gathering of private data?  What is so wrong with that?

and,

4)  Terrorism/Security isn’t a “Get out of Scrutiny Free” Card.  Just because a policy is supposedly there to help make us safe, doesn’t mean that a)  it will do so, or b) that it is good policy.  Conversely, such policies may be good and necessary, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have vigorous public debate about them.