The late Kenneth C. Bass, who helped draft the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and who was the first Counsel for Intelligence Policy at the Justice Department, later became a critic of its implementation and a proponent of remedial measures.
In a 1994 congressional hearing, he urged lawmakers to introduce elements of an adversarial process into the FISA Court, such as appointing an advocate for the proposed target, so that judges would have a more complete and nuanced record on which to base their decisions to approve surveillance and physical search. See “Amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” (pdf), hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, July 14, 1994.
In 2002 testimony, he reiterated this proposal and told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the FISA process that it should also “obtain more information and make it public.” Neither recommendation was acted upon, and the efficacy of the FISA as a legal constraint upon intelligence surveillance would soon be diminished by the Bush Administration’s circumvention of its procedural requirements.
Kenneth Bass was remembered in “Justice Official Helped Pen Surveillance Act” by Patricia Sullivan, Washington Post, May 2, 2009.
“Laws never prevent lawlessness,” Mr. Bass said at the 1994 hearing. “But they are designed to check it and give somebody else a second view of what to do with it.”
Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, who also testified at that hearing, told Committee members that Mr. Bass’ proposal for an adversarial review of FISA applications was unobjectionable but that by itself it would not cure the constitutional infirmities of FISA.
“The Constitution is not a perfect information gathering system for the government,” Ms. Martin said.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.
FAS is launching the Center for Regulatory Ingenuity (CRI) to build a new, transpartisan vision of government that works – that has the capacity to achieve ambitious goals while adeptly responding to people’s basic needs.