It goes without saying that the debate over the government’s surveillance powers that was set off by whistleblower Edward Snowden is an important one. Who is invited to take part in that discussion really determines the kind of debate we’re likely to get.
So it was interesting to see who the CBS Evening News broadcast on June 9 chose to assess the story: The network’s own national security analyst, Juan Zarate.
Zarate was generally dismissive of Snowden’s claims–“it strikes me that he may be overstating his access,” he explained, and also accused Snowden of “aggrandizing himself a bit.” But Zarate stressed that there are important safeguards in place: The system
also has checks on what can be done with that information, and the National Security Agency and other intelligence community agencies spend a lot of money to make sure that analysts and others who have access to it are not doing things that are illegal or improper.
Well, that’s a relief.
When asked about the significance of the information Snowden shared with the Guardian and Washington Post, Zarate said, “These are important counterterrorism programs to the intelligence community,” but he diminished the importance of the leaks; these particular programs were, according to Zarate, more like a program to track terrorist financing, “which was found to be legal and effective.”
So not much to see here would seem to be the network analyst’s point. But who is he? Viewers might have been interested in knowing that Zarate was a counterterrorism official in the George W. Bush administration–as his bio at the right-leaning Center for Strategic & International Studies explains, “Zarate served as the deputy assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism from 2005 to 2009.”
So he’s not just CBS‘s security analyst; Zarate worked, in the previous administration, in the policy areas where the controversial programs were developed. His take on Snowden, then, is not very surprising–he doesn’t think the programs he supervised were “illegal or improper.” But his direct connection to the issues at hand makes him a rather curious expert to interview as an impartial expert about the ramifications of Snowden’s whistleblowing.
That which the corpress can’t ignore
It ignobles
The legality of these data-collection/mining programs are not as clear cut as many of these pundits/analyst/strategists are making it out to be. This fog of fact needs to be addressed, and I hope FAIR can help tackle it as the debate continues. First of all, the legal authority for the data collection is based on a secret interpretation of the Patriot Act that remains classified. (- http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/05/secret-patriot-act/ -) So keep in mind that it’s perfectly legal, except it’s illegal to reveal why it’s legal. In addition to the legal authority of the program being kept from public scrutiny, it’s also been untested in federal court, as the states secrets privilege has been invoked (Clapper V. Amnesty International) to throw it out. But then you have the FISC, which is the single aspect of judicial oversight concerning this program. They’ve OK’d it, right? Wrong. They decided in 2011 that the program was unconstitutional. (- https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/government-says-secret-court-opinion-law-underlying-prism-program-needs-stay -) This decision also remains classified, even though Snowden’s revealtion has prompted the previously gagged Senators Wyden and Udall to demand the public release of the FISC’s decisions concerning the program. (- http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/nsa-dragnet-legalities/ -) The assumed legality of the NSA data collection is one of the most dishonest aspects of the MSM coverage on this issue.
Well that’s a nice tight closed circle. Power talks to power and, once again, their system is so secure, we are reassured, that no damage could possible have been done, and yet the damage was so severe that Snowden must be found guilty of treason and imprisoned or executed.
What has occurred, once again, is an embarrassment of the government before the people it supposedly represents. What must be understood by the people is the necessity of government’s power to embarrass, not to be embarrassed, so as to discredit political opposition.
I believe that in some Middle Eastern kingdoms insulting the king on Twitter is a crime that will be similar to those sought for Edward Snowden for his crime of embarrassment of the Unitary Executive.
that will have consequences similar to
You know the funny thing is, if your really pay attention to what the man was saying, it can be read that what the silly young man did was not even really illegal, since he didn’t have have access to any illegal activities, and what he said wasn’t really ‘classified’ then in fact he has not “disclosed vital secrets that would be reasonably expected to cause serious or grievous harm to the U.S. or it’s allies”. This is major definition of Treason and as so, is always the lynch pin in the argument. Pull it and they have to scramble just to keep the “Peace’s of the Puzzle” they do have from being lost.
If such is the case, they will have to end up tagging him with “breach of security” to get him punished, but that will be all they can hang on him.
I really honestly think he wasted his shot. This is not news in the least, not since I can recall (I used to be in the military and in some rather sensitive places). I mean pick up any info on the ‘spy networks’ and it’s like ready a dime story novel. If you tried to sell it in a book, it wouldn’t have any buyers. And this is from the late 70’s. They have gotten more sophisticated over time, and early as 2000, there were all kinds of Data Mining bots from all over. I was IT then and recall the software we had to be on the watch for.
Surprisingly no one ever stopped to think that it was the corporate world doing all the gathering and selling of data. The Government just picked up the bundles and examined them, just like any other client. That is what the Corpress doesn’t tell you; the corporations have no actual objection to handing over data to the government, for what ever reason it’s want to do with it, they just have a pissy fit when the Government isn’t paying for it. Believe me, take a look sometime at your browsers, OS and App’s and see what kind of “permissions they have”.
Unless you live in a cave in a mountain, with no entrance, and only drink water and eat handful of rice, the corporations are watching everything you do, 24/7. And have been for a several years now. And even then, the corporation would be sending you message somehow, asking if you like brown or white rice, and is your ‘Spring Artisan or normal’ so they can try and sell you something.
The most interesting thing is that so much of this work is being done by private corporations, like Booz Allen. That didn’t work out so well with the private corporation like Blackwater/Xe/Academi. Some of those people were stealing and selling US military arms. Did anything happen to them?
Then there was the KB company that locked the woman in a trailor after she was raped. I am beginning to wonder why the US seemed to have dropped so many federal employees and hired so many corporate ones.
I also read that US corporations want to change the visa rules so that more IT people can be hired from outside the country. Why? I can’t believe that there aren’t enough Americans to do these jobs. Is it just for tax breaks to the companies? How can there be security if all the new IT people are from outside the country?
The final thought is that so many talk about Mr. Snowden’s lack of traditional education. Does that matter? It didn’t for Bill Gates, and it didn’t matter for Issac Newton either.
I am most definitely in support of making our government more transparent. H.G. Wells’ books like 1984, and the Animal Farm are not just great literary books, and are PRESCENIC as well. There are others who under the pain of conscience open their hearts and exposed the danger of the POLICE STATE. Philip Agee in his book INSIDE THE COMPANY (Diary of the CIA), and others like him, showed to the American people what our government is doing secretly to us, and the world. One may call this a personal catharsis or a ‘blowback’ as Chalmers Johnson defines it;
“Blowback” is shorthand for saying that a nation reaps what it saws, even if it does not fully know what it has sown. Given its wealth and power, the United States will be a prime recipient in the foreseeable future of all the more expectable forms of blowback, in particularly terrorist attacks against Americans in and out of the armed forces anywhere on earth, including within the United States. But it is blowback in its larger aspect-the tangible costs of empire-that truly threatens it.” P.223. this book was published in 2000.
Animal Farm and 1984? Those books were written by George Orwell, not H.G. Wells.
mea culpa
I realize I made switch of the authors, I must have been absent minded, and never checked my writing. Excluding the error about the authors, my message stands as is. Further more, looking at the history of the abuses of our intelligence agencies, one can find so many international laws broken, so many civil wars fomented in various countries, installing of dictators and genocidal maniacs, that one should applaud when somebody dares to reveal to the world our wrong doings.
While I was in school, I met some students from foreign countries who referred to the CIA as ‘Cancer Inside America.’ I wander why?
Well I think you need to stop dumping on intel communities, or the military, or whomever.This is one man -Obama ,who is running all of this that you are talking about.He is the big cheese.Just as Bush was.The buck stops there.No military actions are taking place he has not ordered.No intel moves.These things are not working beyond his sight.They are his left and right arm.He is the one you should direct ALL your anger at.
Michael e,
You are right; the real head of the CIA is the President. FBI is a part of the Justice branch. I surmise that the NSA is also under the Executive branch. It is our President that can’t hide, or dump the blame on the intelligence agencies for their crimes. Plausible deniability is out of the question. If the perpetrators of violations are not brought to justice, and charged, the logical conclusion is that what they did was not only sanctioned by the President, but also ordered. I thank you for reminding me.
It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you. Give them instructions and care for them. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used.
Sun Tzu