If hypocrisy were oil, Washington would be Saudi Arabia. But even by the standards of a town where
disingenuousness and moral falsity frame also every public discussion,
President Obama’s spokesman Jay Carney yesterday blew smoke fouler than the air
in a Chinese coal mine.
“We oppose the current effort in the House to hastily
dismantle one of our Intelligence Community’s counterterrorism tools,” said
Carney, specifically ignoring the zeal in the Democrat’s house, the Senate, to
demand changes, limits, and procedures that would certainly re-mantle the
Federal Government’s universal surveillance system.
But here’s the Big Hoot:
“This blunt approach,” Carney went on, “is not the product of an
informed, open or deliberative process.”
So true! But whose
fault is that? Why, I believe it is no
one other than the Press Secretary’s boss, President Barack Obama.
Until Edward Snowden spilled to Glen Greenwald in The Guardian,
and later, the Washington Post, the extent of telephone, snail and email,
cellphone, GPS record-keeping underway at the National Security Agency, President
Obama was zealously protecting keeping all the secrets of that cuddly “Intelligence
Community.” (Anybody ever hear
references to a Health and Welfare Community?
Even though they deal, literally, with community concerns. Education community? Housing community? Yes, it is common to invoke the Defense
Community, because, it, too, like Intelligence, benefits from painted on warm
and fuzzies.)
Before Snowden, all the American people were allowed to know
came from some, dare I call them “cryptic” hints from a couple of well-briefed
Senators, and important whistleblower coverage of phone-record-napping in the
NY Times and elsewhere. That should have
alerted the public that traceable digital systems, not just phones, but
computers, and GPS connectors could, and therefore were likely to be scanned
for Big Data.
That the snoops are also clocking postal communications
seems so “last century,” that it caught me by surprise. It shouldn’t have. Surveillance covers all, or it’s almost
nothing at all.
That’s why turning off parts of the surveillance machine won’t
work.
What will work is rule of law, covering the whole damn
surveillance system, what the people’s representatives will legislate as limits,
not on data collection – a blind eye sees no dangers, but on data selection:
what triggers actually examining a person’s collected data, and who gets to do
the examining? Is some form of warrant needed before selection can begin, and
what level of cause will be required to obtain one? Will anyone argue on behalf of privacy? What parts
of a person’s data can be examined? Who
monitors the process to see that set limits are respected, that every search
doesn’t simply strip-mine personal data? And who has oversight over the
monitors, and how much are they allowed to share with the public?
These are all difficult, subtle, and vitally important
questions. A Congress which having taken
its feet from their normal resting spot in their mouths, should not now use
them to out-run their brains. Carney and
his boss are right about that.
Information, deliberation and openness will all be required
if Americans are to exercise any influence on perhaps the most important legal
and political decisions of our time. But it ill behooves the man who has
smothered all of them, either because he uncritically trusts the men and
systems whose secrets he’s been hiding from voters, or because he mistrusts the
wisdom of those citizens and finds it safer compulsively to cover his ass, to
say so.
Let’s not forget that the most flagrant known examples of
abuse of surveillance data come from the Obama Justice Department’s pursuit of
phone records of journalists at Fox News, CBS News and the Associated Press who
were working on revelations, not of strategic secrets, but of undisclosed CIA
and State Department ineptitude and dishonesty.
You know the kind of thing, like that Attorney General Eric
Holder was Bill Clinton’s end-of-term-pardon go-between (and might one guess,
in the usually politically correct, indirect way, bagman?) with the convicted fugitive
billionaire Marc Rich. That was supposed
to be a secret, too.
This of the embarrassment President Clinton and then Deputy
AG Holder might have saved themselves with a little information, deliberation
and openness, even at the cost of a crook’s Get Out of Jail Free card, and
whatever it might have produced.
No comments:
Post a Comment