“Several members of a government board appointed to guard privacy and civil liberties during the war on terror say they’re impressed with the protections built into the Bush administration’s electronic eavesdropping program,” the Associated Press assures us today.
Not so fast.
The panel in question, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, is a largely toothless effort. It has no real powers of investigation, such as subpoena power; its members are appointed by the President; and it’s not clear Congress has any control over what the group does or to whom they deliver their findings.
This is how the White House-selected panel executes oversight: They sit in a room. An expert (also chosen by the administration) gives a presentation on a given program’s constitutional protections. I would hope he entertains a few questions. Then he leaves.
The board can’t demand documents; it can’t force bureaucrats who actually implement the program — and who might be aware of malfeasance — to speak with them under oath. Instead, its sole and complete authority is to take the administration at its word.
How was it handed the power to pretend, rather than the power to probe?
The group is a bad mutation that began as a recommendation in the 9/11 Commission’s July 2004 final report. (A year before, the Gilmore Commission had recommended the creation of a similar panel, but it went nowhere.) “[T]here should be a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to. . . the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties,” the 9/11 commissioners advised.
Congress got busy developing a must-pass intelligence overhaul bill based on the panel’s recommendations. The White House sprung into action, and by the time Congress passed its bill in late 2004 the board was a runt, diminutized by its lack of authority, independence, and a tiny budget.
Even then, the White House didn’t stop its assault on the fledgling board. It refused to name members to the panel. Then it refused to properly fund it. Even after money and members were in place, the White House put off briefing the board on the NSA program because it was afraid of (pause for irony, sigh) “leaks.”
Indeed, the board seems to have been created to promulgate insulating stories like today’s AP piece. On days like today, when the White House faces criticism over an unconstitutional program, it can claim that its oversight panel has heard the facts and the panelists themselves can assure Americans that everything is okay.
As Kate Martin of the watchdog group Center for National Security Studies told me today: “They’re using this board for public window-dressing, which is what we were worried they would do.”
