Reactions to Revelations of Ubiquitous Government Spying

On June 6, 2013 the Guardian and the Washington Post began reporting on disclosures by a former employee of a private security firm. Eric Snowden, a twenty nine year old with fewer than twelve years of formal schooling, had contacted several reporters from these venerable newspapers to arrange to give copies of top secret documents detailing surveillance programs of the National Security Agency (NSA). These documents showed a pattern of systematic and secret government surveillance of many millions of American citizens. Those Americans targeted by the Agency included everyone who uses a cell phone or the internet. The government has been secretly watching virtually every Americans, as well as any foreigners with whom we may have had electronic contact. All of the information obtained has been carefully stored for future use whenever bureaucrats of the NSA secretly deem using it good.

All of this activity used to be called spying, intruding, and snooping. No polite verb has yet been advanced to euphemize these secret intrusions, but I am betting that “surveilling” will become a household word soon. This activity has been justified as necessary to protect the persons whose privacy has been secretly invaded. The President has said as much. His administration has given every indication that it will go after Mr. Snowden as though he were public enemy number one. This is the same administration which has recently tried to dodge explaining why it has been secretly wiretapping the phones of dozens of news reporters.

The President reluctantly admits this might be a good time for the American people to finally have a discussion about the government secretly spying on them. So why just now? If the President acknowledges that we deserve an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, what possible excuse can he have for preventing our participation for half a decade? Apparently the executive branch of government is not willingly going to allow our participation at all. The White House assures us that a court and several congressional committees have been protecting us from any possibility of abuse. We are in effect being told the system of checks and balances our Constitution created is in operation to prevent any executive excesses. We are to look to the judiciary and to congress for effective actions which allay our fears of tyranny by the executive. I have looked but I have not found.

The court that is allegedly protecting us is the FISA Court, created after 9/11 to pass upon government applications for secret warrants to do to suspected foreign bad guys what it has been doing to all of us. FISA is the anagram for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I hasten to point out that I have had all of my internet use secretly recorded and my phone calls monitored, but I have never made a call, trip or email to any foreign place or person. The court that is supposed to protect me from abuse has approved this patent abuse of my privacy. But I do not feel that I have been singled out in any way. So far the government has applied for secret warrants over 33,000 times and failed to get the court’s approval only 11 times. For every three thousand requests to invade one or more person’s privacy in what would be an illegal manner without secret approval, all but one has been approved by the court. To call this court a government rubber stamp would be an understatement.

Well that still leaves the congressional watchdog committees that are presumably looking after citizen concerns for privacy. Senator Feinstein of California, a liberal Democrat from California and Chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, defended all of the secret spying by testily pronouncing that “It’s called protecting America.” That four word phrase is her response to any worries I might have about these intrusions; it also implies that I do not care about my country if I have qualms about the government spying on me. She has obviously known about this stuff for many years. So if she has been watching this go on for a long time and kept it secret, who am I to worry, right?

Maybe I am more comfortable with the idea that the Senate is looking after my privacy concerns if it has a vocal Republican member of one of these committees. So there is Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. He is a staunch NRA supporting conservative and about as anti-liberal as Ronald Reagan. Senator Graham is a member of another one of those Congressional committees (Defense) that is supposed to be watching the NSA and other intelligence-gathering agencies to make sure they are not doing improper things like secretly spying on innocent Americans. But he is already echoing the judgment of Dick Cheney that Robert Snowden is a criminal and a traitor. The conservative Senator has used this occasion to announce that it might be a good idea for the government to resume censoring our mail. He opines that censorship was good enough for World War II, so it just might be necessary for the War on Terror.

Come to think of it, I believe Lindsey Graham and Barbara Feinstein were members of watchdog committees in 2003 when national intelligence agencies misinformed them and the rest of us about alleged “weapons of mass destruction”. Both Senators used that faulty intelligence to justify votes for launching and continuing a disastrous war in Iraq. Presumably they both also have learned about such past dubious activities of the U.S. official intelligence services as the assassination program that secretly murdered tens of thousands of Vietnamese, the atrocious record of failure to alert this country to danger and the practice of secret operations which created greater danger, and the destruction of the democratic governments in Iran and Chile. All of these activities might have served as warnings to many currently concerned Americans, but they do not bother the likes of Senators Feinstein or Graham.

Americans deserve to know what their government is doing to Americans. The survival of their democratic society depends upon a citizenry that requires its government to disclose everything it is doing. Mr. Robert Snowden has taken a large step for the rest of us. His actions may also lead to greater protection for our privacy, which is another necessary condition for a free society. The recent disclosures will be the beginning of a renewed struggle for freedom only if we insist that he has acted as properly as he has acted courageously.

5 thoughts on “Reactions to Revelations of Ubiquitous Government Spying

  1. John Halford

    You certainly make good points, but my recent comments about having some faith in the Constitutional system of checks and balances should have included the fact that along with those Constitutional checks come a plethora of informal checks on many levels, this and many thousands of other public forums being examples.

    You wrote: “Americans deserve to know what their government is doing to Americans. The survival of their democratic society depends upon a citizenry that requires its government to disclose everything it is doing.” EVERYTHING? Really? Are you saying that ALL information — even highly classified — should be readily available? If so, then by extension why even have spy agencies at all? Maybe dismantle the CIA and NSA? I don’t mean to come across as naively trusting of the government, but in spite of your well-made arguments I am still inclined to think the unfortunate truth is that some “cloak and dagger” activity is a necessary evil, especially in today’s world. The admittedly difficult trick is in achieving a balance. But a further truth is that “the survival of their democratic society” also requires that that society not be blown apart by terrorists, who have destructive capabilities beyond anything imaginable in all of history.

    On a side but somewhat related note, I think you will find the following article interesting. It’s kind of an example of the public turning the tables on the NSA, courtesy of lawyers! — http://redtape.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/20/19061109-lawyers-eye-nsa-data-as-treasure-trove-for-evidence-in-murder-divorce-cases?lite

    Reply
    1. Stephen Dillard

      I find the lawyers’ logic elegant and fun to watch. This is a civil defense attorney’s dream stalling tactic. It’s already a standard request in discovery to ask the other side to turn over all phone records. I would now simply alter that to request that the plaintiff obtain and turn over the NSA’s version of the records. Of course, it’s too good to be true for too long. They’ll have to sort it out, but if I had a case right now, I’d give it a whirl.

      Reply
    1. Stephen Dillard

      “Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor charged with espionage, left Hong Kong on Sunday on his own accord for a third country “through a lawful and normal channel,” the Hong Kong government said.”

      http://on.cnn.com/QZYZDc

      Hehehe. Go Hong Kong!

      Reply
  2. Kelley Kidd

    For the moment the Supreme Court has become almost the exclusive focus of national concern. We have temporarily forgotten that we have a need for what the President calls a national conversation about national security and the individual rights of Americans to privacy. The only conversation I have seen about Mr Snowden’s actions has been on this blog. I am certain there are many others at the same citizen to citizen level. We must return to this topic soon. Our freedom and security depend upon a lively discussion at every level of American life. Apparently it will be a discussion closely watched by the National Security Administration and its supervisors–if indeed it has any.

    Reply

Comments are encouraged, though your first one on this blog must be approved by blog author before it appears. Thanks!