Richard Clarke built his post-government career (after being the most senior counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration) as a critic of the way the "war on terror" had been prosecuted, and has been working on "cyberwar" subjects for over a decade.
I don't like Clarke much and I don't agree with everything Cass Sunstein proposes but your dismissive tone harms your argument.
Obama himself graduated magna cum laude with a masters degree in law from Harvard and then lectured on constitutional law for 12 years at the University of Chicago Law School. Expertise in constitutional law doesn't necessarily translate to skepticism here. The constitution is not a moral authority on privacy.
Richard Clarke
He wrote an interesting op-ed before he was named to this committee. It appears to be critical of the NSA's operation, but a closer reading suggests his problem is about the degree, he's fine with massive record keeping, he just wants it in the hands of the telcos.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/worry-nsa-article-1.13697...
I'm not sure where "moral authority on privacy" enters the picture. The question is how the program comports with the Constitution and the American system of governance.
The idea that Cass Sunstein is a "yes man" for Obama is laughable. If anything, it's the other way around.
You will also find in the work of most constitutional scholars something to upset any message board anarcho-libertarian, because very few of them believe in the black-letter absolutism that anarcho-libertarians choose to evaluate the Constitution in. You think there's nothing in Tribe's record to argue with? He's a gun control supporter, for one. You think pundits wouldn't be calling him an "Obama yes-man"?
But I'm still not convinced that the panel is anywhere near independent given the rest of the crew such as Morell and Richard Clarke.
(I appreciate how gracious your comment was. Thank you.)
The problem is that Sunstein has gone on record (and written a book) supporting governmental overreach. You're hiring yes-men to do your "independent review".
An issue at hand is whether the group will merely be researching means by which the ends can be maintained, that they are yes-men for the activities, the same way Obama appears to be. It's reasonable to question whether they have the same master, that they aren't truly independent.
No, wait, that's angels -- people can't really be trusted that way. If they could, we wouldn't need this panel in the first place.
He is a person who has expressed views supportive of an extremely active role of government in covertly surveilling and infiltrating with the intent of moderating domestic political groups whose views are unwelcome to the government.
This clearly makes him a extremely problematic pick for a review board whose role (as overtly stated by the President) is to instill confidence that the NSA is not taking an actions that are excessive, unconstitutional, and illegal under statute law in terms of covert domestic surveillance, no matter how "famous" he is.
It makes him problematic if you think that the panel has any purpose suitable to a public panel at all.
* If it is a PR effort, its problematic because Sunstein's known biases make it easy to discount his opinion when the underlying facts aren't reviewable.
* If it is a serious effort to get to the bottom of what is going on at the NSA, it is problematic because Sunstein's known biases make it unlikely that he will be interested in probing to deeply.
* If it is a private effort to reassure Obama about legality, that doesn't make sense for a public panel of this type at all, no matter what the composition is.
The reality, of course, is that hardly anyone knows who any of these people are.
Have you read much of Sunstein's stuff? What's the thing you found most problematic? Surely it isn't Nudge (a great book! but not particularly indicative of Sunstein's legal philosophy.)
Way to go! Replying to the grand parent's (revelation's) solid argument by using vague statements. Just what does the most famous living constitutional law scholar even mean? Besides being meaningless statement like the most beautiful woman in the world it is also almost irrelevant - almost nonsensical - to the current discussion. Just because a person has had a successful career - particularly in politics, bureaucracy and fields like that - doesn't mean the person doesn't have an agenda and vested interest. In fact some would argue it is quite the opposite as - unlike some tech/hard science luminaries, for example - their success is likely correlated with their other - rather nefarious - traits than pure merit alone.
Your next paragraph about Richard Clarke is in similar vein.
Deleted comment
There's no appeal to authority here. If the parent had actually made a strong argument, Thomas might have responded with an actual argument as well.