HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

... I'm actually agreeing with something that William Saffire is writing.

With great fanfare, the 9/11 commission amplified that call for a super-spymaster. This rush to "reform" is stampeding otherwise sensible senators into writing a czarist bill to combine the spying techniques of secret surveillance with the law-enforcement power of the F.B.I., invading the unsuspected citizen's privacy under the rubric of fighting terrorism. With this fear-driven new groupthink spurred, booted and in the saddle, nobody at this convention stops to ask: Would John Kerry, if elected, be well served by a fixed-term, "cabinet level official" who does not serve, as other members of the cabinet do, "at the pleasure of the president"? What if, in some crisis about pre-emption, they disagreed - would the unelected official prevail? Who would really be in charge? And suppose one person had budget authority over intelligence-gathering and evaluation as well as F.B.I. investigations - what would become of the rules of evidence that protect the innocent accused? What the czar wants, the czar gets - and one day he could just as easily be a John Ashcroft as a Lee Hamilton.

While I in general agree with the idea of a National Director of Intelligence, I think he's correct to criticize the idea of having this official serve a fixed term. In fact, if I understand the Commission correctly, so would they. For some reason, however, early indications from the Bush administration are that they are going to push for just that - a fixed term position that, like the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, has a term that does not overlap with the President.

I think Saffire is correct in his assessment that this could lead to TOO independent a person with too much power. On the other hand, there are dangers with a person who serves "at the pleasure of the President," as the commission suggested. In that case, a President could fire the person for any reason, including a disagreement over the handling and/or interpretation of intelligence. So perhaps more independence is not such a bad idea after all.

This is a tough one. Anyone else surprised that Bush is pushing for a position which the President will have LESS control over? And to take it several steps too far - could his hurry be that he wants to install someone favorable to his view of the world BEFORE he loses in the fall? --------