Skip to main content

View Diary: MN-Sen: Al Franken (D) Introduces The Surveillance Transparency Act of 2013 (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I am not "reading too much into that". (4+ / 0-)

    Not at all.  The irony is that the Judiciary is probably going to be the most aggressive about pushback on such an idea because they know that if there has to be another party added to a warrant hearing, that's a pretty direct assertion that they are not doing their job properly.

    There are a lot of people who think, "Oh good.  A public advocate.  Sounds great."  But most don't think about important details like who appoints this person?  Who is this person?  Is there one or are there many?  Would this public advocate have adequate funding to mount a reasonable challenge?  Would this public advocate have access to all of the case files?

    One proposal suggests that this public advocate be selected by the committee that currently advises the Administration as to whether what they are doing now is Constitutional - seems to me that a public advocate selected by that committee would not be likely to challenge anything they've recommended.

    But whatever - don't think too much about how deep the wound may go - apply a bandaid and skip cleaning the wound - but don't complain when you find gangrene starting to take hold.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (148)
  • Community (68)
  • Elections (34)
  • Media (33)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (31)
  • Environment (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Culture (29)
  • Law (29)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Barack Obama (25)
  • Science (25)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Climate Change (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Labor (23)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (19)
  • Josh Duggar (19)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site