I was reading over the report in WaPo about documents that the DoJ doesn’t want to turn over to Congress regarding the firing of the USAs (Justice Department In New Fight Over Papers on Firings) and I was struck by what I think is a deep irony in this whole situation. To wit: many of the counter-terrorism programs that the DoJ has overseen and/or defended under Gonzales’ tenure have been predicated on the notion of gathering larges amounts of data from innocent persons to sort through for the purpose of finding terrorist-related behavior (such as domestic wiretaps without a warrant, massive phone call databases, the gathering of reams of financial data or the issuing of national security letters–to name a few). Many (myself included) have complained that such intrusions are unwarranted because it requires exposing large numbers of innocent citizens to unjustifiable scrutiny.
An oft-cited defense of these types of investigations has been “if you aren’t doing anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about.” Yet, when confronted with a request for information, the DoJ (and the AG, for that matter) aren’t exactly being as forthcoming as they could be.
C’mon, fellas: if you haven’t done anything wrong, what are you worried about?
Now, all flippancy aside, it is amazing that the DoJ and its defenders are all up in arms over the fact that this may be a political witch hunt, and therefore are reticent about handing over too much information for fear that it might be abused, but some of those same individuals will pat us on the head and tell us not to worry about the government collecting information from normal citizens to fight terrorism. After all, the government only wants to help, right? And as we all know, the government never abuses the power entrusted to it.
And I would note that citizens and bureaucracies are different things. Indeed, I would far rather see individual citizens protected than bureaucracies. And, given Congress’ legitimate oversight role here, they have a right to assume wrongdoing in a way that should never be assumed by the government vis-a-vis a private citizen. However, it seems that some members of the administration don’t see it that way (the AG being one).
Sphere: Related Content
[…] [Cross-posted from PoliBlog] […]
Pingback by Political Mavens » A Deep Irony in the USA Situation — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 11:36 am
[…] Steven Taylor observes A Deep Irony in the USA Situation […]
Pingback by More Stonewalling on US Attorney documents at politburo diktat 2.0 — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 1:10 pm
Prying to try to try to prevent terrorist attacks equated to prying for pretty obvious political advantage? Sorry, doesn’t work.
There’s a reason that the nation has hit the collective snooze button on this. The amount of sturm und drang over political appointees getting the boot just doesn’t resonate beyond the corridors of power and polisci classes. Political appointees serve at the pleasure of their sponsor. That’s the way it has always been and the way it should be. Dark motives aren’t necessary to explain it. The spilling of mass quantities of ink and pixels doesn’t change that.
Comment by Buckland — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 3:01 pm
You’re right, they aren’t the same: the prying en masse for the illusion of safety is far worse.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 3:55 pm
And really, you miss the most fundamental point. Indeed, there may be cause for concern that certain members of the government are playing politics about the USA situation.
However, there is nothing morally superior in the case of other persons (in some cases they may be the same persons) who have access to reams of information about wholly innocent citizens.
If one case is potential abuse why is the other to be treated as there are no potential problems whatsoever? Why is the answer in the latter cases always “trust us”?
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 4:25 pm
I would suggest that one reason the country isn’t all that worked up is that this must be the thirtieth time that Ted Kennedy is outraged over something Bush did. The thing is, if he really were outraged as often as he says he is, he would have died of a heart attack long ago.
When a whole sector of society is outraged at the drop of a hat, the rest of society often stops listening to them. They are either being drama queens or are hypersensitive.
In other words, if you don’t cry wolf every day, people might actually listen to you when you do.
Something about the US Attorney issue smells wrong. There’s no doubt there. However, I haven’t heard anything other than “it could be because of …” Well, that’s not enough. And you can’t be outraged over something that you’re not sure what happened.
Comment by Max Lybbert — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 4:49 pm
> And you can’t be outraged over something that you’re not sure what happened.
What I mean by that is you can say “if this hapened, I will be outraged,” but you can’t say “I’m outraged pending further details” or “I’m outraged until further notice.” Not if you’re using a normal definition of “outraged.”
Comment by Max Lybbert — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 4:51 pm
You could add to this post this quote from the Washington Post yesterday:
“Alberto R. Gonzales has retreated from public view this week in an intensive effort to save his job, spending hours practicing testimony and phoning lawmakers for support in preparation for pivotal appearances in the Senate this month, according to administration officials.”
So here we have the AG who claims either no knowledge of his underlings’ doings or that nothing untoward happened having to suspend his normal work schedule to rehearse his testimony?!?!
With Gooding resigning today, I am betting that Alberto probably won’t be around for those hearings. He might as well quit prepping and enjoy the weekend.
Next Friday’s late news will be the announcement of Alberto’s resignation.
Comment by Ratoe — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 4:52 pm
You’re right, they aren’t the same: the prying en masse for the illusion of safety is far worse.
Indeed, 3,000 people from the NY area would disagree with that assessment. Connecting the dots was once a hot topic, but it’s gone like cirrus clouds on a clear September morning.
However, there is nothing morally superior in the case of other persons (in some cases they may be the same persons) who have access to reams of information about wholly innocent citizens.
Morally superior? Where did that come from? We’re talking about How does access to information lend itself to moral judgements? Were there abuses or not? What level of access is acceptable for security matters. Those are policy questions, not moral ones. Off to the penal colonies with all actuaries and analysts!
But indeed the moral language of the critics of both of these “scandals” has marginalized the discussion. Morals are tricky things. Some prize the morals around privacy instead of security against a theoretical threat; some prize the morality of the attempting to “connect the dots” (remember that phrase) against a very real threat at the expense of theoretical privacy.
But indeed, in reviewing the last week or so here I can see you do see a lot of morals in play. That’s unfortunate. When it becomes a question of morality it becomes extremely difficult to discuss the policy involved.
Comment by Buckland — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 9:19 pm
You are assuming facts not in evidence–such as the efficacy of the programs in question.
And, I would be more comfortable with said programs if the administration were a bit more comfortable with reasonable oversight rather than disdaining such.
Policy is inherently about morality–how can it not be? How can policy–the direction of power to do and to not do by a government, not always be about morality?
Where is the amorality in the criminal code?
The very act of making laws and the spending of dollars is about values. To even state that one policy outcome is preferable to another is a question of value.
What else do you base it on?
Indeed, I find your assertion that policy can be discussed apart from these types of issues to rather odd. I further find it odd that you seem to address the notion that policy and morals are intertwined with disdain.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 10:11 pm
And btw, I never said anything about being opposed to “connecting the dots” or to counter-terrorism. My objections have been specific and to the way in which the administration has pursued certain policies.
And really: you are utterly missing, or avoiding, my point: which is why is it ok for DoJ officials to want information about me in their hunt for terrorists and I shouldn’t worry because I haven’t done anything wrong, but it isn’t okay for those selfsame DoJ officials to have to turn over documents about their official doings? It truly is an ironic situation, regardless of one’s position on the whole USA situation or on counter-terrorism policy.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 11:45 pm