What does an education historian bring to the table on national security debates? Just this:
- When have we heard government officials assure the public that they’re competent and the public doesn’t need to have more information?
- When we have heard government officials assure the public that there is sufficient oversight of activities?
- When has security been used as a rationale for withholding information that is much broader than truly confidential information?
- When have government officials complained about the disclosure of information that pretty much everyone knew was going on?
Nope, no similarity there at all. For what it’s worth, I’d feel much better about FISC if there were a reasonably-funded office of 3-4 people whose jobs were to argue against every broad-scale order — a Citizens’ Advocate Office staffed with highly competent lawyers and other staff with clearance, as it were, triggered by surveillance that could touch a threshold number of Americans.