tection of civil liberties. If the power is granted, there must be ade-
quate guidelines and oversight to properly confine its use.
actions we are taking to protect ourselves to ensure that liberty concerns are
appropriately considered. If, as we recommend, there is substantial change in
the way we collect and share intelligence, there should be a voice within the
executive branch for those concerns. Many agencies have privacy offices, albeit
of limited scope.The Intelligence Oversight Board of the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board has, in the past, had the job of overseeing certain
activities of the intelligence community.
ernment authority, there should be a board within the executive
branch to oversee adherence to the guidelines we recommend and
the commitment the government makes to defend our civil liberties.
choice, as nothing is more likely to endanger America's liberties than the suc-
cess of a terrorist attack at home. Our history has shown us that insecurity
threatens liberty.Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are
struggling to defend.
Before 9/11, no executive department had, as its first priority, the job of defend-
ing America from domestic attack.That changed with the 2002 creation of the
Department of Homeland Security.This department now has the lead respon-
sibility for problems that feature so prominently in the 9/11 story, such as pro-
tecting borders, securing transportation and other parts of our critical
infrastructure, organizing emergency assistance, and working with the private
sector to assess vulnerabilities.
limited resources.These difficulties have certainly afflicted the Department of
Homeland Security, hamstrung by its many congressional overseers. In deliv-
ering assistance to state and local governments, we heard--especially in New
York--about imbalances in the allocation of money. The argument concen-
trates on two questions.