Saturday, November 11, 2006
Regarding changes in the law, and policy, my first question is, do we really need, "a long term, systematic, comprehensive, institutionalized counterterrorism policy for the United States" as Kenneth Anderson suggests here? If anything, my preference is to reduce bureacratization. The constitution adequately provides for practically anything, we already have a gigantic court system, including a counter-terrorism or FISA court, and our policy toward terrorists and terrorism is very clear already if not constantly evolving. An "institutionalized" policy sounds too much like a new cabinet level or deputy level position, sort of like "drug czar" and I'm not convinced that Anderson's reasons are good ones. The political argument seems to be that once Congress has acted courts must lay off, and that is simply not the way we work. Or is it?