authorizes agencies to continue research on computerized terrorism surveillance projects formerly operated by the Defense Department. Those projects were widely criticized on civil liberties grounds, prompting Congress to remove them from the Pentagon.
That just means that after the uproar over the T.I.A. died down they're still going to go through with it anyways (they just won't talk about it this time). Part of the scheme might involve privatization of some T.I.A. functions. See
http://www.counterpunch.org/cassel10312003.html .
As to the rest, I wish I knew what "Most details of the bill are secret, including the total costs of the programs" really means. Does it mean that only some Bush misadministration officials know what's really in this? Does it mean that only the politicians in the intelligence committees know about the details? Or does it mean all the politicians voting on this can know, in principle (that is, if they bother to read the legislation), but are forbidden from disclosing certain information due to "national security" considerations?
And wouldn't all of these situations, if secrecy is abused, constitute taxation without representation? Sure, legislators would still represent us in theory; but in actual practice, if they cannot be held accountable by the electorate, even in principle, because the electorate is forbidden from even knowing what laws are being passed in its name, how can legislators truly be said to represent the electorate? I contend that, in this scenario, they cannot be said to represent the electorate.