washingtonpost.com
Monday, August 19, 2002; Page A12
IN THE AFTERMATH of Sept. 11, the Justice Department received substantial new powers to combat terrorism and to beef up information sharing between intelligence and law enforcement. Questions concerning how these powers are being used -- whether they are working, what effect they are having on civil liberties, whether they are sufficient -- are critical, and congressional oversight is a chief means to answer such questions. So it is no small matter that the Justice Department is being so stingy about sharing with Congress precisely the information that would inform reasonable judgments. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) has complained that repeated letters seeking information concerning the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- the law under which suspected spies and terrorists in this country are wiretapped and searched -- have elicited no response from the Justice Department.
Nor is Mr. Leahy alone in his frustration. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) asked Attorney General John Ashcroft at an oversight hearing last month, "How do we communicate with you?" The very next day, the department refused to answer questions on FISA posed by the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee. The questions were part of a list submitted jointly by Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.). While the Justice Department addressed a number of the queries, it declined to provide answers pertaining to the changes to the FISA enacted as part of the so-called USA Patriot Act last year. It did not, for example, address how often "roving" wiretaps had been conducted, how many times phone-tracing devices had been used against American citizens and resident aliens, how often libraries and bookstores have had to produce materials or even how many times citizens or resident aliens had been subject to new surveillance since the passage of the legislation. The department said that it would give such information to the intelligence committees, but the intelligence committees are not conducting similar oversight at this time and have not sought it.
The department contends it is merely concerned about the security of classified information and wants to deal with the committees with established procedures for handling sensitive data. But even if the sort of aggregate data the House Judiciary Committee is seeking is legitimately classified -- and we have our doubts -- it is not for the department to decide which committee should investigate. The interests of the judiciary committees differ profoundly from those of the intelligence committees, which have not in any event always been the most zealous overseers. The intelligence committees are chiefly concerned with whether the intelligence agencies are doing their job effectively, while the judiciary committees focus on the domestic legal system. The implementation of the USA Patriot Act is of concern to both. Consequently, basic information needs to be forthcoming to both groups.
The administration's reflexive distaste for accountability to other branches of government is not healthy. There is nothing hostile or dangerous in responsible oversight; to the contrary, it is a critical check and balance in our system. Already, the administration is endorsing new enhancements to its powers. A prerequisite for even considering these suggestions should be a full and complete understanding of how the previous round of new authorities is being used.
© 2002 The Washington Post Company