Tulsi Gabbard, President Trump’s choice to lead the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, has openly criticized America’s surveillance powers. During her Senate confirmation hearing, senators questioned her about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), particularly its misuse to spy on Americans and on Trump’s 2016 campaign. Section 702 of this law enables federal agencies to collect communications of noncitizens abroad without a warrant, while allegedly protecting Americans from surveillance. However, the CIA was caught using this law to spy on Americans in 2022.
While in Congress, Gabbard supported reforms to FISA and sought to revoke the Patriot Act. At the hearing, she faced pressure from senators to clarify her current stance on the law. When discussing FISA reforms, Senator Mark Warner interrupted her attempt to explain her views. Senators John Cornyn and Mike Rounds also pressured her to express support for FISA, emphasizing its role in national security while stressing the need for protections of civil liberties.
Gabbard was also questioned about Edward Snowden, who gained attention for leaking classified information in 2013. She stated that while Snowden broke the law, he also revealed illegal and unconstitutional government programs, which led to reforms. Gabbard, who has praised Snowden in the past, also indicated she would not push for his pardon if confirmed as DNI. Senators hounded her to label Snowden as a “traitor,” which she did not do.
The hearing highlighted concerns over the misuse of surveillance by U. S. agencies, which have shifted focus from foreign adversaries to domestic political opponents. The FBI's involvement in various controversies, including spying on Trump’s campaign and targeting specific groups, showed a pattern of politicization within intelligence agencies. Critics noted the lack of questioning from senators about how to prevent these abuses in the future, indicating a preference for protecting the current system rather than reforming it.
Gabbard's skepticism towards the surveillance powers of U. S. intelligence agencies is presented as justified given the documented abuses. The commentary suggests that any Republican who does not share this skepticism should not be in public office.
Comments
Post a Comment