110833821
I confess that for the last week, the controversy involving our government secretly collecting our telephone records, e-mails and the Internet records of foreign targets has consumed me.
On the one hand I sympathize with those who feel the massive program represents government intrusion into our privacy, yet I am also mindful that those whom we have placed in charge of our national security, who defend it as necessary to safeguard us from terrorist attacks. It is going on 12 years since 9/11 without a repeat of that horrific attack. From the time of President John Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts, our nation has struggled to reach that delicate balance between protecting our security and our right to privacy. To reach that balance, it is necessary to sort out the facts from the critics’ hyperbolic charges.
As of this writing no one, including Edward Snowden, 29, who leaked the surveillance program’s details “The Guardian,” has shown the Obama administration acted unconstitutionally (my opinion although there are many who disagree). Even though the program involved collecting data on dialed phone numbers and call lengths, the government did not monitor the calls’ contents. A secret surveillance court reviewed the program, which was conducted in accordance with the 2007 amendment to the Patriot Act, and Congress was briefed as required. Unlike the Richard Nixon administration’s surveillance program, no one has claimed the information was used against administration “enemies.” So, please, enough with comparing Obama to Nixon. That being said, I do agree with those who believe that the current oversight of our national security programs is inadequate.
The secret surveillance court was supposed to provide judicial oversight , but in actuality the court is a single judge who seemingly rubber stamps the requests of the government, which argues its case before the judge without any counterbalancing argument. One way to correct this one-sided presentation is to appoint an advocate to argue against the need to approve the government’s request. Other ways should also be explored. Our president, as a legal scholar, surely is aware of the need to improve the safeguards.
Another related problem is historically, the government tends to classify too many documents as top secret. At one time when I worked for the Department of Defense, I had a secret clearance. A common joke around the water cooler was the information we saw in classified documents already had appeared in the New York Times. Sometimes over classifying documents is a result of being overly cautious; other times it appears to be the result of an attempt to protect the government from embarrassing disclosures. Our classification program is long overdue for review.
While some want to proclaim the leaker a hero, I am troubled not only by his actions but the fact that the government allowed him access to the nation’s closely guarded secrets. Why is our government outsourcing crucial intelligence operations to private contractors?
After retiring from civil service, I worked as a private government contractor. Our authority and access were closely circumscribed. Snowden’s background was incredibly thin for him to be trusted with highly classified national security information. Who is he to decide the disclosure of our surveillance program served the greater good? How could he assess whether the “benefits” of leaking these secrets would not do more harm than good to our nation? In the act of civil disobedience, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed even when you disobey an unjust law, you must be willing to pay the penalty. The same standard should apply to Snowden, who is currently hiding in Hong Kong. He should be willing to stand trial in the United States and plead his case. I find a certain irony in the fact that Hong Kong itself is under the thumb of China, one of the most repressive governments in the world. Snowden will find precious little of the right to privacy there.
A word about some of the critics of the administration’s surveillance program: In the past, some on the right were quick to point out that our nation has not had a repeat of 9/11 because Obama has continued the measures of George W. Bush. Today they have abandoned that position for political opportunism. On the left, some of the critics have the virtue of consistency, their consistent opposition to most, if not all, of the 9/11 security measures. They act as if the worst thing that could happen to this country is the collection of telephone and Internet data, not another terrorist attack killing thousands. It is their obligation to provide real alternatives that would not only protect our privacy, but our security.
The administration’s surveillance operation has been criticized for not being transparent. The nature of national security obviously makes transparency difficult. In the end, we rely on our elected officials to find the right balance between protecting our country and our privacy. In an intensely partisan environment where trust is in short supply, maybe the real problem is finding that delicate balance.
Contact the South Philly Review at editor@southphillyreview.com.
110833821
110833831
