Barack Obama on Charlie Rose
Appearing on the Charlie Rose show last night (6/17/13), Barack Obama said the NSA’s secret domestic surveillance program is “transparent” because all requests are reviewed by a secret court: “It is transparent. That’s why we set up the FISA court,” Obama told Rose.
A system in which a secret program is approved behind closed doors via classified rulings would be better described as “opaque,” though Rose failed to challenge Obama on the point.
The host did ask Obama a question predicated on the FISA court’s well-deserved reputation for being a rubber stamp for the NSA: “But has FISA court turned down any request?” But Rose failed to challenge the president’s disingenuous answer: “First of all Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small….” In fact, throughout its history the FISA court have turned down just 11 requests out of more than 33,000.
Rose also failed to push back when the president cited an NSA success story that had been discredited for days. As Obama told Rose:
The one thing people should understand about all these programs though is they have disrupted plots, not just here in the United States but overseas as well. And, you know, you’ve got a guy like Najibullah Zazi, who was driving cross-country trying to blow up a New York subway system….
Obama never directly says that the Zazi plot, which was successfully prosecuted, was stopped by one of the controversial NSA programs; instead, he becomes vague on the relationship between the Zazi plot and the NSA:
Now, we might have caught him some other way. We might have disrupted it because a New York cop saw he was suspicious. Maybe he turned out to be incompetent and the bomb didn’t go off. But at the margins we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that through these programs.
The Zazi plot had become the premiere pro-NSA talking point, widely repeated in the media after it was cited by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D.-Calif.) and Rep. Mike Rogers (R.-Mich.) According to the story, Afghan-born U.S. resident Najibullah Zazi’s plot to detonate suicide bombs in the New York City subway system was found out when the NSA discovered he had contacted a known Al-Qaeda bomb-maker in Pakistan.
But the talking point should have washed out when Associated Press writers Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo (6/11/13) found that the Al-Qaeda email in Pakistan, the key to the arrest and subsequent prosecution, had been discovered by British intelligence on a captured computer. Thus, even if PRISM was used to track that email after that, obtaining traditional warrants to monitor the address would have been a cinch, as the AP writers reported: “To get a warrant, the law requires that the government show that the target is a suspected member of a terrorist group or foreign government, something that had been well established at that point in the Zazi case.”
Was Obama’s strange and vague language about Zazi due to the fact that he was citing a washed-out talking point? And what might it say about the depth of NSA’s record of success stories that, even after its prime exhibit is debunked, the White House is still retailing the story, the second time around with muddled language?
After Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted he hadn’t exactly told the truth in March congressional testimony about domestic surveillance, but rather had furnished what he called the “least untruthful” answer he could think of, one might expect the press to approach official statements about this story with a small amount of skepticism.
But journalists like Charlie Rose aren’t just failing to ask tough questions; many, like CNN correspondent Athena Jones, continue to repeat the Zazi talking point as if the Associated Press story never happened. As Jones reported on June 16:
Well, some of the information about the kinds of plots these surveillance programs have helped thwart is already trickling out. We know the NSA wants to make more data available–broadly, of course, not operational details.
One thing we learned from a declassified document that was released just yesterday was one plot thwarted with the help of these programs was the plot to bomb the New York subway system back in 2009. We know the government was listening in to calls, or tracking calls, I should say, from Najibullah Zazi, the man who was ultimately convicted of that plot, which at the time [was] called one of the most serious threats to the United States on the homeland since 2001, Fred.
In a similar story, last Wednesday, when NSA chief Gen. Keith Alexander told Congress that his agency’s phone surveillance program had thwarted “dozens” of terrorism threats, his remarks received wide coverage. Alexander’s claims were challenged the next day by Senate Intelligence Committee members Ron Wyden (D.-Ore.) and Mark Udall (D.-Colo.) in a statement that began:
We have not yet seen any evidence showing that the NSA’s dragnet collection of Americans’ phone records has produced any uniquely valuable intelligence.
Wyden’s and Udall’s statements have received a fraction of that afforded Alexander’s, which continues to be repeated in several outlets as if Wyden and Udall didn’t exist (e.g., CBS News, 6/17/13; CNN, 6/16/13).
As of this writing, the NSA’s Alexander is claiming NSA programs also foiled a bomb plot targeting Wall Street, but has so far provided few details (AP, 6/18/13).
UPDATE:
The thwarted Wall Street bomb plot cited yesterday by NSA chief Alexander as an NSA surveillance success story didn’t even last a day before it was discredited by the Christian Science Monitor and other media outlets. As the Monitor (6/18/13) noted yesterday, the same day Alexander made his claim:
According to officials at the House Intelligence hearing, this plan was caught when the NSA was using its Internet intercept authority to monitor the communications of a known extremist in Yemen.
This suspect, in turn, was in contact with an individual in the United States named Khalid Ouazzani. Thus warned, the FBI investigated Mr. Ouazzani through traditional law enforcement methods, and discovered a burgeoning plot to bomb the NYSE.
“Ouazzani had been providing information and support to this plot,” FBI Deputy Director Sean Joyce told lawmakers.
However, Mr. Ouazzani pleaded guilty to providing material support–in his case, money–to Al-Qaeda, not to terror planning. His May 2010 plea agreement makes no mention of anything related to the New York Stock Exchange, or any bomb plot, notes David Kravets in Wired magazine.
Plus, Ouazzani’s defense attorney said Tuesday the stock market allegation was news to him.
“Khalid Ouazzani was not involved in any plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange,” attorney Robin Fowler told Wired.
A good roundup of other media takes on the NSA’s latest failed success story can be found at Washington’s Blog.
UPDATE 2: Corrected to give Ron Wyden to the correct state.
Like “hope” and “change”, “transparency” means whatever Obama wants it to mean — usually nothing. One can see the appeal of Ron Paul: he may be a reactionary, but he seems to mean what he says.
I think that encroachment of ivil liberties may indeed prevent some terror plot but it will come at the cost of the loss of civil liberties and danger of government tyrany. It is wrong to agrue that we can have our cake and eat it too . Instead we have a clear choice: security from government or security from terrorists.
“First of all Charlie, the number of requests are surprisingly small….”
I believe the number of requests is so small because the FISA amendments law following the illegal Bush warrantless wiretapping sharply limited what surveillance even required one of these secret warrants. Feel free to find that as reassuring as Obama wants you to.
Show me EVEN ONE (!!!) CONVICTION OF A TERRORIST FROM A PUBLIC TRIAL with the accused’s corpus delecti still intact.
Better yet, NAME THE NAMES of the BS Stock Exchange plot.
Indeed. What’s really creepy is the use of the word “homeland” to describe the place known to most of us as the USA. I heard the president’s remarks on this, some of them excerpted from Rose’s show, and they are lame, to say the least.
I guess feedom is slavery and ignorance is strength, too.
FAIR examines and media reports particularly pointing out
misstatements and errors, and does it well. But as an Oregonian I was extremely dismayed that you confused Ron Wyden as the Sen. from WA. He has after all been our [Oregon] US Senator for many years and a long time member of the Sen Intelligence co. Looks like you should also take care before publishing “facts” in your reporting.
Im going to be blatant here.President Obama is not truthful in a thousand ways to Sunday.He is as slippery as an eel.Trying to wade through the confetti of his parsed words is always a daunting task.I don’t trust what he says.And I don’t trust what he does not say.Where can one go from there?
I think Obama understands his transient position as it relates to this seemingly permanent situation. In truth this entire “terrorism” bullshit was fully designed in some neocon lab, and just waiting for a 9/11 to be arranged for full implementation. We have arrived to a time where the greatest power belongs to the seedy side of government and related commerce, Obama is fully aware of this…he’s powerless to do anything about it without inviting tremendous unwanted personal consequences later.
@Tomm Pickles: Thanks for pointing that out–our apologies to you and to all Oregonians.
Daniel I agree Obama or any president- is to a degree trapped in the strategies of his predecessors.But in this case,to say this Muslim extremest threat is a bogey man made up for the purpose of expansion of US power base……………That is the three monkeys.See no evil ,hear no evil,speak no evil.The problem is worse than anything our presidents have ever shared with us.
@michael e
You said that the problem is bigger than anything our presidents shared with us. How would you know that?
Great question mirza,but it shows me that you have trusted far too much.It has become painfully obvious that this president tells us what he wants to tell us.Down the road we find out the truth.For instance…..He often talks of a dept of 17 trillion.The truth is our dept(when you realize the unfunded liabilities)is closer to 174 trillion!!!The president does not talk that….Or about what would result from a cyber attack against this country for instance.The nightmare scenario of all our computers going down.Fried!!!!Or a detonation of even one thermonuclear device.In New York City for instance.Yet these are things he sees in his briefings.i understand the level of panic that would ensue.But to answer your question why do I believe this president is with holding far worse than what he chooses to share?Have we not learned at least that that is his MO?
@michael e
Lack of evidence is not evidence. You cannot say “president has not said X therefore X has to be true”. If you make a claim than you have to directly prove it. The fact that President has not said more does not mean that there is more.
Well Mirza I get your point,in a sense.Let me put it this way.I was fortunate to spend a night with Richard Clarke(Clintons national security aid,head of cyber warfare)He said he would wake up in a sweat,worrying about nuclear detonation in this country.Of course he was talking about terrorist gaining that capability.He spoke of how fundumentally easy it would be to attack us on a cyber level.How unprepared the world is.He spoke of the worry of terrorist flying plains into buildings(something no president shared with us)I have heard Obama say that during his tenure we have thwarted over 60 terrorist plots.It is part and parcel that the president mans the towers through the night that we never see.And to avoid panic Im sure that is best.I think you are trying to “de escalate”the terrorist problem,by saying that it has in fact……..gone away?i see no proof of that what so ever.I do not sit in on the presidents NSA meetings.Or his daily briefings.I cant tell you in real time the next plot against our national security.I can promise you that those willing to hurt us are still out there,and that we must be vigilant.
@michael e
Yes terrorism is always possible. But there is someone staying awake at night thinking about next flu pandemic. There is someone worrying about the next killer asteroid. Truth is that the number of people who died in terrorist attacks is minuscule. Compare that to hundreds of millions who died from government tyranny in 20th century.
Mirza the damage one terrorist act can do, is sometimes incalculable.Before WW! the prince of Austria was assassinated by a terrorist.That begat WW1.And that begat WW2.From that came almost all the conflicts of our times.How 911 changed the world is also incalculable.What a nuclear blast in lets say a 50 gallon drum in New york harbor would do is beyond understanding.Terrorists know that we have to be on guard and right every time.They only need to succeed once to change the world.I saying that those who would push the kill button if they had that capability are out there.In the dark…waiting.Osama laughed at those in America who thought that by placating him that he would of relented.His war was for his God.Till his last breath.Begging for his mercy or giving him all he wanted would simply allow him to cut our throats in an easier manner.He stated as much.This is our enemy.our war has kept him off balance.But he waits
http://alternativesdenken.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/33199_31.jpg
think ahead
Thanks for this marvellous post, I am glad I noticed this web site on yahoo.