The affirmative focuses on the wrong area of government --- U.S. national security decisions are made by executive officials, separate from even the President . Glennon, 14 --- Professor of International Law at Tufts (Michael, Harvard National Security Journal, “National Security and Double Government,” , JMP) As it did in the early days of Britain’s monarchy, power in the U nited S tates lay initially in one set of institutions—the President, Congress, and the courts. These are America’s “dignified” institutions. Later , however, a second institution emerged to safeguard the nation’s security. This, America’s “efficient” institution (actually, as will be seen, more a network than an institution) consists of the several hundred executive officials who sit atop the military, intelligence, diplomatic, and law enforcement departments and agencies that have as their mission the protection of America’s international and internal security. Large segments of the public continue to believe that America’s constitutionally established, dignified institutions are the locus of governmental power; by promoting that impression, both sets of institutions maintain public support . But when it comes to defining and protecting national security, the public’s impression is mistaken. America’s efficient institution makes most of the key decisions concerning national security, removed from public view and from the constitutional restrictions that check America’s dignified institutions. The U nited S tates has , in short, moved beyond a mere imperial presidency to a bifurcated system—a structure of double government—in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of U.S. national security policy . Whereas Britain’s dual institutions evolved towards a concealed republic, America’s have evolved in the opposite direction, toward greater centralization, less accountability, and emergent autocracy.
--- XT: FBI Circumvents FBI surveillance continues even after restrictions on its activities Fisher, 4 --- Associate Professor of Law and Director, Center for Social Justice, Seton Hall Law School (Winter 2004, Linda E., Arizona Law Review, “Guilt by Expressive Association: Political Profiling, Surveillance and the Privacy of Groups,” 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 621, Lexis, JMP) The history of the FBI and other law enforcement surveillance gives scant comfort to those engaged in lawful political and religious activities who are [*623] concerned about becoming targets of surveillance . n5 From its inception until restrictions on its activities were imposed in the mid-1970s - and even sometimes thereafter - the FBI regularly conducted politically motivated surveillance, choosing targets based on their political or religious beliefs. As part of its investigations, it compiled and widely disseminated political dossiers, engaged in warrantless searches, and disrupted the lawful First Amendment activities of a wide array of groups opposed to government policy. n6 Local police "Red Squads" did the same. n7 During the war in
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 327 pages?
- Fall '13
- Federal Bureau of Investigation, Law enforcement agency, F.B.I.