I am not one to get my panties in a twist thinking that the world will come to an end if a few of my personal communications are captured in a digital dragnet by some dumb brute of a super computer and then released back into the ether without any human on planet earth laying eyes or ears on what was contained in those messages.
It bothers me that the potential for abuse is there – as it should trouble any conservative worth their salt. But to exaggerate the threat to civil liberties by positing the notion that while my Auntie Midge is giving her famous recipe for fruit cake over the phone or via email to one of my nieces that NSA spies are avidly listening in and faithfully taking notes on exactly how much rum should be added to give her delicacy its enormous heft is silly.
Actually, given the weight of the damn thing, there’s a good chance the NSA would see it as a weapon of mass destruction and “disappear” dear Auntie by renditioning her to some dark hole of a prison in eastern Europe. Not that we do that kind of thing anymore, right?
This is the essence of the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” leaked by the New York Times in December of 2005. Here’s what I wrote about it at the time:
What good comes of insuring our survival at the expense of losing some of our liberty?If one of our cities was destroyed by a nuclear weapon smuggled into the country by al Qaeda, I daresay the relatives of the dead would answer that question much differently than the arm chair civil libertarians who so blithely condemn the Administration’s actions in the aftermath of 9/11. There are even those who say that there is no choice to make, that our survival as a nation is not at stake at all therefore any argument that includes a loss of privacy rights as a way to head off an al Qaeda attack is setting up a straw man to justify oppression.
I don’t have much sympathy for that argument but I am troubled that our government has skirted so close to the line involving spying on innocent American citizens and may have in fact crossed it. Ultimately, it must come down to a question of responsibility. You and I are not responsible for the safety and security of the United States. The Constitution has vested that awesome responsibility in the office of the President. In the end, where you come down on this controversy depends on how much you trust the occupant of that office not to abuse his authority nor misuse the frightening power our technological prowess has bestowed upon his government to invade our most private and personal spaces.
For if in fact we are in a war for the survival of our republic – and our enemies themselves have made it abundantly clear that this is what the War on Terror is all about – we are in grave danger if we give in to the temptation to turn the issue of liberty versus security into a political club in order to beat one’s political opponent for acting dictatorially or just as bad, unpatriotically. The issue is too important for the kind of lazy generalities being tossed about regarding an absolutist position on civil liberties or aiding and abetting the enemy in a time of war. In the end, we must trust each other or perish.
Those “lazy generalities” have supplanted thoughtful argument as each side in the debate has now established their own narrative about domestic spying by this Administration and will brook no change in the parameters of those narratives to reflect new information or an altered perception of the man in the White House who sits atop the national security ziggurat with the capability to do enormous violence to the very concepts of privacy and liberty.
New information such as this should give everyone pause and cause them to re-evaluate their positions:
The Bush administration’s chief intelligence official said yesterday that President Bush authorized a series of secret surveillance activities under a single executive order in late 2001. The disclosure makes clear that a controversial National Security Agency program was part of a much broader operation than the president previously described.The disclosure by Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, appears to be the first time that the administration has publicly acknowledged that Bush’s order included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of e-mails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.
In a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), McConnell wrote that the executive order following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks included “a number of . . . intelligence activities” and that a name routinely used by the administration—the Terrorist Surveillance Program—applied only to “one particular aspect of these activities, and nothing more.”
We’ve had other aspects to the overall surveillance program released in dribs and drabs over the past 2 years. Data mining and getting the cooperation of Telecom companies to monitor the “switching stations” where a lot of overseas phone traffic is channeled are evidently two of the elements that make up the “broader operations” connected to the TSP.
What else? Just what is the NSA up to?
There is no agency of the federal government with the potential to do more mischief to our liberty and privacy than the National Security Agency. Anyone who has read William Bamford’s The Puzzle Palace – which described NSA spying on Americans in the 60’s – should think long and hard about the monumental leaps in technology since that time which allow for even more intrusive and thorough efforts to invade our “private space” than ever before.
At the same time, reforms at the NSA have made it less likely that these abuses will take place. Procedures not even thought of back in the 60’s that relate to the way data is handled are supposed to protect American citizens from the kind of snooping done by the agency in the past.
But the reforms will not stop an aggressive executive if he is hell bent on pushing the outside of the envelope of constitutionality and legality by using the capabilities of the NSA to spy on Americans. All we can do is trust that oversight by the intelligence committees in Congress will prevent the President from crossing the line.
At this point, I am unsure if that oversight has been effective. Nor am I convinced that the Administration has been forthright with the intel committees (or the so called “Group of 8” made up the chair and vice chair of each committee plus the leaders of the House and Senate from both parties) in their description of all of the activities associated with the TSP.
I am fully cognizant of the fact that these intelligence activities represent the most closely held secrets of our government. And despite those on the left who dismiss the idea of giving the enemy an advantage by leaking the existence of these programs and their inner workings, I believe that al-Qaeda has benefited from the leaks which have revealed enough that they may be able to circumvent at least some of our efforts to keep track of them and discover their plans. (The idea that al-Qaeda already knew we’d try to keep track of them is true. What’s silly is the notion that they had much of a clue as to how we’d do it.) For this reason, the irresponsibility of the New York Times and other publications that continue to leak classified information should be condemned.
What all of this back and forth comes down to is the same thing it came down to 20 months ago when the existence of the TSP was leaked by the Times; how much do you trust the man in the White House to protect our civil liberties while carrying out domestic surveillance activities with the potential for harm?
I must admit to being a lot less sanguine today about the desire of those who wield such enormous power to view the balancing act between liberty and security with the seriousness that the rest of us do.
9:34 am
I think the Fourth amendment is pretty clear in that, you need probable cause and a warrant to listen in on a conversation that begins or terminates in this country. FISA is a reasonable ‘nod’ to current technology (requiring the warrant to be obtained up to 72 hours after the fact).
Data mining (IMO) clearly contravenes the Constitution since there is no ‘probable cause’, let alone a warrant.
I’d rather take a slight increase in risk than lose a single civil liberty to the GWOT (or whatever it’s being called this month).
9:36 am
Trust. Trust. Trust.
“Saddam has WMDs and is threatening us.”
“We’re totally taking care of the Gulf States after Katrina.”
“We didn’t have anything to do with firing the USAs.”
“The insurgency is in its last throes.”
“Pat Tillman died in a battle with terrorists.”
“Al Quida in Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9/11.”
“I don’t recall if I sent Gonzo and Card to pressure Ashcroft in the hospital.”
“Random soldiers at Abu Grahib spontaneously decided to perform a ‘Viet Nam’ on prisoners—we never suggested it.”
“We don’t torture.”
Comes a point, even if you trust a person, that they can (and should) lose that trust if they keep lying to you. Otherwise, we’re all just enablers.
9:36 am
Im not worried about the NSA spying on my aunt or even myself. I AM worried about spying on domestic political opposition. Given the history that this Administration has regarding inappropriate mixing of Government and Party its not hysterical to want assurances, beyond just their word, that this isn’t happening.
9:57 am
I disagree with you on this one.
FISA is a old law and just think of all the new technical means for communication today. IM’s , ICQ, Web base Email, File Sharing networks etc.
Another factor is how voice and data are routed physically on this globe we live on.
If a government wanted to spy on someone they would do it outside the government with more controlled small sized staffs regardless of the law.
The NSA program has strict safeguards, audits of all usage and review by the FISA courts of the audit quality.
Each probe has a designated tasking and scope limits.
I always laugh when I hear people say they are storing away everyones entire means of communication with full data.
Any idea how many server farms that would take and then how many people would you need to eyeball the data.
9:58 am
Stuff like this sounds really warm and fuzzy ..
Democratic leaders have expressed a new willingness to work with the White House to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to make it easier for the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on some purely foreign telephone calls and e-mail. Such a step now requires court approval.
.. but meanwhile back at the ranch, somebody is speaking with forked-tongue ..
House Democrats canceled Tuesday’s planned hearing with Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, prompting a rebuke from Republicans who want Congress to proceed quickly on updating a key surveillance law.
So is somebody going to tell me that they just don’t need to hearing the DNI or is it that they just don’t like the letter that the DNI sent to Arlen Specter.
More likely, the Democrats don’t want to supply a forum to clear up the confusion on intelligence activities that they managed to generate in the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
10:18 am
Rather astute observations. Maybe it’s self evident, but I’d add one more thing – the point you make about trusting the President is to me, the defining difference between his supporters and his detractors. As a confessed detractor of the President, I’ve often found myself baffled by those who defend and support warrentless wiretapping, secret prisons, and ambiguous torture policies. When I ask them where they’re coming from (a tactic that I feel is often forgotten in favor of childish namecalling and rancor – from both sides), they almost universally have responded with something similar to “I trust that the President is doing the right thing to make the world safer.”
Now I can agrue with their rationales for trusting the Prez, but you can’t argue with trust.
I’d like to think that I would hold a President that I agree with to the same standards of criticism that I hold when discussing Dubya’s policies, but I can’t say that I would for the simple reason that I would be more likely to trust someone that I agree with more.
11:38 am
@Slimguy:
“FISA is a old law and just think of all the new technical means for communication today. IM’s , ICQ, Web base Email, File Sharing networks etc.”
This assumes that FISA has been gathering dust since it was enacted in the 1970s. Its been updated, to keep pace with new and emerging technologies, roughly 50 times since it was passed. Its been reported that the law has been updated almost a dozen times since 9/11.
11:45 am
@ Slimguy:
“If a government wanted to spy on someone they would do it outside the government with more controlled small sized staffs regardless of the law.”
The fact the the government would break the law anyways means we should just let them do it under official coverage?
“The NSA program has strict safeguards, audits of all usage and review by the FISA courts of the audit quality.
Each probe has a designated tasking and scope limits.”
Since we (the citizens) haven’t the slightest idea what the heck they are doing, how can you assure me that the above two statements are true? The only thing that you can argue (I think) is “the Administration totally promised they aren’t breaking any rules.”
We know (per the FBI) that at least one of the publicly disclosed aspects of the program (NSA letters) were mishandled/abused. We also know that, when these facts came to light in the Administration, we were told “no worries” (see Gonzales assuring that there were no abuses under oath).
Why on Earth would I trust them to oversee themselves? Heck, why on Earth would I trust ANYBODY to police themselves? If self-policing was effective, we wouldn’t need oversight. Or police.
12:12 pm
Slimguy:
It doesn’t matter whether someone is using email or smoke signals to communicate: no probable cause, no warrant. No warrant no wiretap.
Technology hasn’t made the Constitution outdated.
12:26 pm
If the government is violating the Constitution of the United States, you don’t think a responsible news media should report on it? What was it you said about Conservatives worth their salt?
12:34 pm
@analogboy:
Dead on accurate. It seems like its gone beyond “liberal/conservative” to “Bush lovers/haters.” As you said, reason and debate can’t dent faith, on either side (I’m firmly in the “hater” category).
I suppose this is the fabled “Cult of Personality.”
3:49 pm
@Slimguy:
“FISA is a old law and just think of all the new technical means for communication today. IM’s , ICQ, Web base Email, File Sharing networks etc.â€
This assumes that FISA has been gathering dust since it was enacted in the 1970s. Its been updated, to keep pace with new and emerging technologies, roughly 50 times since it was passed. Its been reported that the law has been updated almost a dozen times since 9/11.
Not only has FISA been updated some 50+ times since it’s first inception, but after 9/11 GWB explicitly rebuffed Congressional offers to modify FISA, to make it more applicable to the GWOT, and stated that it was good enough as it was. Furthermore, he rebuffed these offers AFTER he had already decided to start conducting wiretaps without FISA warrants.
His previous actions show that this is a bad-faith argument on its face – he knows FISA gives him more than enough ability to track and stop terrorists and isn’t “too old” in any way. The REAL point he is trying to make is that FISA is an illegitimate infringement on presidential power. He refused the offer to modify FISA because accepting it would be seen as tacit admission of it’s legitimacy. Publicly denying it legitimacy risked a public debate, and possibly an eventual SC ruling, about presidential power that the Admin was certainly NOT certain of winning. Publicly pretending to abide by it while secretly violating it was the easiest way to get what they wanted without taking risks in the short-term.
4:20 pm
For this reason, the irresponsibility of the New York Times and other publications that continue to leak classified information should be condemned.
I’ve seen few real details about this hive of “programs” leaked. (Sure, there has been plenty, and probably too much IMO, of public speculation.) The main leakage by the NY Times re the NSA 1/2-domestic wiretapping program was that the program was listening to calls without probable cause, but with “reasonable basis”. And it was the administration itself that made this distinction clear (e.g. Michael Hayden).
Curiously, as Rick is perhaps suggesting, it’s descriptions by Bamford in his two books (Puzzle Palace and the more recent Body of Secrets) of the post-60s&70s culture at the NSA (and by others) that are far assuring than GWBush administration assurances – I believe (perhaps naively) that this organization really does not institutionally want to be involved in domestic politics. A leak of politically-motivated domestic spying would probably cause a painful level of defunding of the agency if it was directed against the party in control of congress.
7:08 pm
Rick Moran Said: “What’s silly is the notion that they had much of a clue as to how we’d do it.) For this reason, the irresponsibility of the New York Times and other publications that continue to leak classified information should be condemned.”
I completely disagree with this argument. What’s silly is the idea that hey are naive to our techniques. If they’re smart enough to enter our country, LEARN HOW TO FLY JETS, and bring down our pillars of commerce without us being able to do jack about it, then they’re smart enough to figure out how we might monitor them.
Furthermore, if the NYT and other publications know about it, it’s hardly classified anymore. The application of my argument can readily been seen in the computer industry. Security flaws are regularly posted in order to force companies like Microsoft to react immediately, as opposed to sitting on the info and doing nothing about it. You might argue that lives may not be at stake in the computer security business, but I’d argue differently. Lives and treasure. Publishing this information helps us more than it could ever help the terrorists. It forces the government to get it’s collective sh!t together at a much quicker rate.
4:15 pm
It’s James Bamford, and from the little I know about him, I wouldn’t take everything he writes at face value.
11:11 am
@Bill Arnold:
“I believe (perhaps naively) that this organization [the NSA] really does not institutionally want to be involved in domestic politics.”
For some inexplicabe reason, so do I. I try to rationalize it by believing if I had ultimate, 007, super-ninja-spy powers, I really wouldn’t give a damn what was going on in the White House—I’d just go off doing my super-spy thing in Kamchata or something.
BUT, wanting to do it and pushed to do it are two different things. As the GSA briefings (and, what, 15 others at this point? The frickin’ Peace Corps?) show, put a few key team players in a few key positions, and you can “re-direct” an agency. Then, if you can “re-direct” the Agency that is supposed to act as oversight for the first Agency, you’re home free.
I think this is my main problem with Dubyas House—the machinations they are clearly using to exert power can only be justified if you are trying to do something dirty.
“What can we do to help our people?”
“get back to me off-the-record.”
“oh, yeah, right—as long as we’re gonna do something about this.”
Amazingly, of the 8 or so people in the room who were present for the above conversation (not an exact transcript but IMO pretty damn close), the only two people who don’t remember the above comments were the two people speaking. How can you doubt that? Its the same behavorial logic I apply to Rep. Jefferson’s odd financial storage plan: You may have a good excuse (highly unlikely), but storing $90,000 in marked bills in your freezer is pretty much a good reason to doubt EVERYTHING about you.
Whether or not I trust the NSA, I feel compelled as a citizen at this point to simply assume wrongdoing under such suspicious circumstances. I used to trust the DoJ the same way, knowing that the “high priests” of the legal community were almost robotic in their (heavy) evenhandedness. Sure, you had a rogue ASUA here or there, but the agency overall stood for virtue. Ahhh, the good old days.
As r4d20 noted, Dubya has been playing FISA games for years, and so far all of them have been either (a) counterproductive (refusing offers to update) or (b) illegal (DoJ revolting over spying, recent secret ruling, etc.). Now the bad situation looks even suspicious and morally suspect.
btw, has anybody heard if Jefferson has offered an explanation for the money-in-the-freezer thing? I’m dying to hear this tapdance.
2:22 pm
Trust me. Even if I did, and I am not certain that I do: What about your successor? What is it said about power? Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely? When I think back to the Clinton years and the missing FBI files and juxtipose it with what I do not know about this administration and I project this image onto the future with the unknown variables of personality and blind ambition to gain power for powers sake, I shudder.
I agree with the commentor who state if self policing worked there would be no need for the police.
5:10 pm
free money pocher site…
acquits bleeds?seashores rock,principally Saud:...