The cry now is for:

1. a terrorism czar with cabinet-level powers (“many dukes, but no king”); this means a full-time spook in the white house with effectively  power that rivals the executive, since just as in Iraq-gate, Iran-Contra, China-gate, the even executive can be accused, and possibly circumvented in the name of national security. In other words – this is a step in the advancement of the security state. And one knows which organizations would dictate his ideology, where the eschelons of power would be.
2. “unshackling” the CIA (which means – initially – removing the restriction against assassination – something that’s never hindered them at all – so is obviously meant to achieve both symbolic and incremental ends) Later, this will undoubtedly mean the removal of the restriction against domestic spying, which with the way the eschelon system works, hasn’t inhibited their electronic domestic spying; this is why I think they are crying for:
3. dramatically increased ‘human intelligence-gathering’; in otherwords, the “unshackling” plea is a plea to remove restrictions and barriers against human (not merely electronic) spying on American citizens. In other words, it is for the advancements of the security state.

There is an amazing amount of discussion of intel matters in the public media now, and this follows not merely in the wake of recent events, but also in the wake of a dramatically increased presentation of intelligence information (primarily terminology and lingo) by television and Hollywood, and in the wake of a plethora of intel expose’s from dissident agents and self-expose’s which bear a resemblance to propaganda and recruitment videos – in the wake, in short, of the legitimization of intel as a fixture in daily public life, of its pragmatic mode of operation (‘whatever it takes’), and of the subordination of the individual to the collective as symbolized by its investment in the intel apparatus.