I initially supported President Obama’s decision to create a cybersecurity czar position. Before, the work had been done by the Department of Homeland Security, but internal wrangling over territory proved it ineffective. Private networks could be secured under their jurisdiction, but security for public infrastructure was held on to tooth and nail by the NSA. The debate even forced out the supposed head of the program, Rod Beckstrom. Because of the bureaucratic mess blocking real and important progress, the President decided to go over the red tape and hurry up the process. Upon second look, however, this move is part of a too disturbing trend of the administration bypassing congressional oversight.
Rarely do I agree with Susan Collins, but the Senator is one of the few in Congress raising an appropriate complaint about the plan. The position takes the work of a clandestine service that still maintains a chain of command (NSA) and that of a Department designed specifically to do this sort of work (DHS) and puts them together right underneath the President’s thumb, and his alone.
It would be one thing if the position was under the authority of the President, but still had to answer to Congress like any other Department, Agency or other bureaucratic apparatus. The tipping point here is the insistence that the czar be a cabinet-level official, protecting him from almost all Congressional inquiries and oversight. Obama has taken the freedom of an advisor’s role and abused it by putting unprecedented power over national security into that one person’s hands.
Analysts aren’t even sure if the plan is going to work, due to the time lost in reshuffling the organization and allowing DHS and NSA to get used to the new authority. Stewart Baker, former assistant secretary at DHS, calls the plan a “recipe for treading water.” One must question the rationale for creating such a dubious post with outlandish power and autonomy on such shaky premises. However, Senator Collins seems to be one of the only members being circumvented, besides the hospitalized Robert Byrd, to stick up for themselves and for checks and balances.
This isn’t the first time, either. The new czar for climate change is already in a territorial dispute with the EPA. This is due, of course, to their having the same mandates, though the czar can do it with no questions asked. The newly announced Great Lakes czar can not have much difference in job description from a section of the EPA. But, because of their ability to offer the President direct power and authority, the czars will take over for the original agencies.
Clearly it’s not a problem with the agencies’ abilities themselves, or else the czars would more efficiently be used as administrators cracking down (under Congresses pushy eye) than duplicative one-man superagencies with steep learning curves. The moves taken together can only be explained by a desire to shield the administration’s decisions and mandates from any check on their authority and to enable it to act swiftly to consolidate this power. I absolutely believe that the government’s approach to cyberwarfare, and a whole host of other issues, needs to be addressed comprehensively as soon as possible, but I’m not willing to suffer a quasi-lordship for it. Hopefully other members of Congress begin to feel the same way, and soon.
Last 5 posts by Gideon D'Assandro
- The Reality of Racial Politics - August 17th, 2009
- Thank God Obama's President - August 3rd, 2009
- Health Care Coverup - July 23rd, 2009
- The Suppressed EPA Report’s Effect on Healthcare - July 12th, 2009
- Social Conservatism Going Forward - July 5th, 2009
