The enablers

IN THE NEWS
My outrage about the domestic spying scandal is pretty big, as you might expect. However, I'm more angry at the press, Congress, and perhaps some people in the national security community than I am at George W. Bush. Nothing about the recently-revealed policy of bypassing the FISA courts is at all inconsistent with the Bush Administration's meat cleaver approach to counterterrorism. In fact, I would have been surprised if something like this wasn't revealed at some point. The penchant for secrecy, the eagerness to blow past long-established policies and procedures, the "cowboy" atmosphere that has pervaded sections of the CIA and NSA, all point to this outcome. (For a good summary of the warning signs, read this excellent short piece in Slate. And should anyone be surprised that the Department of Homeland Security is a massive, expensive debacle?)

If anyone out there remembers the TV detective series Columbo, you'll recall how different the structure of each episode was from the usual mystery story. We knew who committed the heinous deed from the very beginning. In fact, we watched the murderer perform the act, tidy up afterwards, and spend what's left of the remaining two hours bobbing and weaving. Meanwhile, Columbo circled his culprit, eyes open for the overlooked clue, until he could pounce on his suspect.

You'd think that's how the story of the Bush Administration's domestic spying programs would proceed. Once we know what the culprit did, we would eagerly watch the story of how the "detectives"--in this case, the press and Congress--discovered the misdeed, identified the suspects, and administered the justice the malefactors so richly deserved.

However, that's not the plot of the domestic spying story. Instead, we've learned that The New York Times sat on the story, which it learned prior to the 2004 election. (I think we may see a revival of the term mau-mau in reference to Sulzberger and the other executives at the Times.) We also have heard assertions that the Administration briefed Congress on the program--but it's not altogether clear how fully, or what objections legislators may have raised, or even if the meetings happened as described.

Meanwhile, other people in the executive branch knew what was going on. From the lawyers who reviewed the legality and Constitutionality of domestic espionage, to the intelligence professionals who actually did the surveillance, to the decision-makers presented with the intelligence reports, people in the national security knew. Perhaps some of them quietly protested or resigned, as one FISA judge already has. But clearly, none of them did anything that amounted to effective opposition.

In short, the domestic espionage scandal is like a perversion of the standard Columbo plot. It's as if Detective Columbo nabbed his suspect, and then, shrugging, told him, "Eh, what are you going to do? You must have had a good reason for what you did."

Whenever I visit Washington, DC, I'm always struck by the majesty and gravity of the city. It's hard to imagine public officials driving or walking past the Jefferson Memorial, the Lincoln Memorial, the National Archives, the Vietnam Memorial, and other public monuments to our own history, without being moved by them the way countless visitors every day to our nation's capitol are.

However, that's obviously the case, or things like domestic espionage wouldn't happen. In 229 short years, we've gone from a brave new nation fighting abusive policies like military courts, indefinite detentions, and yes, domestic spying, to a frightened country in which both leaders and their watchdogs have worked hard to make these misdeeds official policy. (In fact, at least one of them, Vice President Dick Cheney, explicitly referred to the safeguards put into place after the era of Watergate, COINTELPRO, and Vietnam as the "problem" that the domestic spying program somehow rectified.) The Framers saw obsessive secrecy and absolute executive privilege as the foundation of tyranny and corruption. Should we be surprised, therefore, that we're already hearing how secrecy and privilege have led to an FBI agent railing against "militant" librarians, or that the Pentagon spying on anti-war protestors and gay rights organizations?

Maybe we need a little more of the spirit of the 1970s, when Columbo and Lou Grant fit the American popular culture's notion of heroes. At the very least, we need the spirit of the 1770s, when Americans fought to keep their government from treating them like the enemy. The heroes of that story--George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, to cite only a few familiar names--were not the people who shrugged and said, "Eh, the King must have had a good reason, or else he wouldn't be the king."

Comments

[Matthew Shugart]

How could I forget Columbo? And you are right, we need more of the 1970s spirit in precisely the way you frame it.

And we also need more of the spirit of the '80s and '90s--the SEVENTEEN eighties and nineties, that is. (Please add Madison to your list!)

[aikibrewer]

Aaaargh! And now, this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/04/AR2006010400973.html?nav=rss_print/asection