You are correct, but I am in favour of oversight. The purpose of the national security adviser would serve that purpose. It would be a form of oversight.
We're faced in this world of terrorism with a very...it's indescribable what the risk is. We have to be prepared to give authority to our government, to the enforcement officers, to try to fight that very difficult war. We have to rely on their good faith in some respects, and for lack of a better word, take a chance.
I say that taking a chance can be minimized if we have hindsight. The bill lacks hindsight. I use the words “national security adviser” only as a term to indicate oversight: some group or individual who can look at the activities of the various agencies, and where there's conflict, resolve it, or where there's abuse, stop it.
As it stands, I don't see those safeguards in the bill. They would not interfere with the efficiency of the bill in any manner. I may sound like a one-trick pony, but I think that's an essential part of what's missing.