A former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judge and a former deputy assistant attorney general both argued Tuesday that it was off base to judge the National Security Agency’s phone-call data-collection program by how many specific terrorist threats it helped thwart.
Rather than judging the NSA program’s success based on individual terrorist threats, the public needs to view bulk-data collection as gathering the “building blocks” that start investigations into terrorist activity, said Steven Bradbury, who was deputy assistant attorney general from 2004 to 2009.
“It’s the beginning of an investigation,” Bradbury said at a panel discussion at the State of the Net conference Tuesday. “It’s in order to get the building blocks to find evidence that you put together when later you may get a search warrant, for example. So the question is, is it an input, an important input into counterterrorism investigations?”
Bradbury’s emphasis on reframing the debate over data collection came in response to a report by the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board that the NSA’s phone-records program authorized by Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act is illegal.
The report, published on Jan. 23, said there was “not a single instance involving a threat to the United States in which the telephone records program made a concrete difference.”
But Bradbury said that looking for those concrete results misses the point. James Carr, a former Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court judge, agreed, saying the program provides “precursor information.”
“Don’t ask the question, ‘Show us the case, the building that didn’t get knocked down, the city that didn’t go up in flames,’ ” Carr said.
The board’s report found that the NSA phone-records program has been valuable in offering leads on contacts of terrorism suspects. But it said many of those leads are duplicated by FBI intelligence-gathering efforts, and that many of the tips gleaned from the metadata sweeps simply corroborate the FBI’s information.
The board ultimately deemed the program illegal just a week after President Obama embraced some structural reforms to the NSA while insisting that the agency must maintain its ability to mine millions of phone records.
Bradbury’s and Carr’s insistence that it is irrelevant to tie the phone program’s success to concrete results did not sit well with Michelle Richardson, legislative counsel for the ACLU.
Richardson said that the program had to be evaluated somehow. When Bradbury and Carr criticized the question of whether specific terrorist threats had been stopped, Richardson responded, “I’m sorry, but what other question could there be?”
What We're Following See More »
The Supreme Court announced "that it would consider a challenge to President Trump’s latest effort to limit travel from countries said to pose a threat to the nation’s security." The case concerns Trump's most recent attempt to make good on a campaign promise "tainted by religious animus" and only questionably justified by national security concerns. The decision to take the case, called Trump v. Hawaii, comes almost exactly a year after Trump issued the first travel ban. The ban under consideration affects Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Chad and North Korea.
Trump wants to move the two grants, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas grant and the Drug Free Communities Act, to the Justice and Health and Human Services departments, respectively. This would result in a $300 million plus reduction in funding, about 95 percent of the cost of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. "'I’m baffled at the idea of cutting the office or reducing it significantly and taking away its programs in the middle of an epidemic,'" said Regina LaBelle, who served as ONDCP chief of staff during the Obama administration. This is the second time the Trump Administration has proposed gutting the agency.
A new report assembled by the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has identified more than 500 potential conflicts of interest in President Trump's first year. First, the report notes, Trump spent 122 days at his properties during his first year. He has been accompanied by 70 federal officials and 30 members of Congress. "Second, far from this signaled access to power being an empty promise, those who patronize President Trump’s businesses have, in fact, gained access to the president and his inner circle." Lastly, about 40 special interest groups and 11 foreign governments have held events at Trump properties.