Civil rights watch

Being without the internet at home has left me feeling a little out of touch these days. Television was never my main source of news because it is uniformly of poor quality and because I just don’t care to watch it much. Mainly I read newspapers like the NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, and Washington Post online, websites like Drudge Report and quite a good number of blogs (personal and not), and subscribe to a ton of magazines (The Economist is my fav new mag). Without the net and my magazines (I let most lapse) my news consumption has dropped precipitously. However, what scraps of news I have been able to gather on my lunch break and when my boss isn’t looking have been really intriguing.

One thing I have noticed more and more of is the mention of the institution of all manner of things “federal”. Much of these changes stem from the findings of the 9/11 Commission as outlined in its final report last month. The Commission report (which I have not read) mentions the need for federal oversight of the civil rights implications of existing and proposed anti-terrorism and intelligence reform laws, for example. Also, the need for “consistent standards to ensure the integrity of both the document and the issuance process” of state identification cards like driver’s licenses, etc. Not to mention the call for the creation of a national intelligence chief to coordinate some 15 spy agencies at the federal level.

Lately, I have been getting a lot of flack for claiming to be a republican. It’s especially hard here in New York City where our Republican mayor maybe be the only person willing to openly state his party affiliation. When I talk to be others about my political beliefs they tell me that I am easily a Democrat and have no business calling myself anything else, unless that something else is a Libertarian. I find it difficult to articulate exactly why I don’t change my affiliation when I am in favor of progressive taxes, publicly financed mass transit, gay marriage, funding for the NEA and other ‘non-productive’ intellectual pursuits (more NASA anyone?), repeal of the PATRIOT Act, etc. But there are a few things that I hold onto as clearly Republican ideals, one of them is a natural skepticism of federal programs. So when I begin hearing about a federal commission on civil rights or what is tantamount to a national ID card I have to stop and think a little.

To be honest, my first reaction to the civil rights oversight board proposal was something along the lines of, “Thank the Lord, we need someone to watch out for John Ashcroft or that crazy will see us submitting to background checks to buy bananas.” After that though my mind started working out the whole scenario. The 9/11 report sees “a board within the executive branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties.”

We have recommended a great deal of government intervention and strengthening of government power over individual lives, and we think it’s necessary because of the threat, but you have to have some check on that expansion. No one agency can deal with this problem alone.

Lee Hamilton, vice chairman, 9/11 Commission

Do I really trust an office of the federal government to be an effective restraint on itself? The answer is, no. I want to see an independent agency at least, along the lines of the EPA, but without a presidential appointment or at least a super majority in congress for confirmation. The office would need to have real teeth too. If it can do nothing but advise the president and congress then it is useless.

NOTE: The president announced the formation of just such a pointless board this week. It is part of the Justice Department and it can only issue recommendations to the President and Congress. All it’s members are political appointments.