Amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
The Senate Intelligence Committee proposal to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is under consideration on the Senate floor today, “does not contain adequate protections to guard against the kind of Executive abuse that occurred with the [Terrorist Surveillance Program] and related programs,” according to a new Senate Judiciary Committee report.
“Congress is prepared to grant the Administration the authority it needs to surveil targets overseas. But the unilateral decision by the Executive in the years following 9/11 to surveil Americans’ communications contrary to FISA illustrates the need for Congress to provide clear statutory protections for surveillance that impacts Americans’ privacy rights.”
“Additional protections are of critical importance,” the Senate Judiciary Committee report said. “The rules governing electronic surveillance affect every American and remain the only buffer between the freedom of Americans to make private communications and the ability of the Government to listen in on those communications.”
“In the Committee’s view, the improvements contained in the Senate Intelligence bill do not go far enough in ensuring that Americans’ privacy rights are safeguarded. Additional protections can be added without interfering with the flexibility the Government needs to conduct overseas surveillance.”
See “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2007,” Senate Judiciary Committee, January 22.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
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.