The Debate Obama Never Wanted

In the NSA math, two additions plus one abuse equals a defensive president.

The man who leaked highly classified information about government data-gathering efforts is 29-year-old Edward Snowden, seen here in a screenshot of an interview with The Guardian, which published his leaks along with The Washington Post.
National Journal
Major Garrett
Aug. 13, 2013, 3:30 p.m.

Ed­ward Snowden has put words in Pres­id­ent Obama’s mouth. Words like trans­par­ency, re­form, open­ness, and de­bate.

This is not ne­ces­sar­ily cause for cel­eb­ra­tion or con­dem­na­tion. It is, however, a fact. That the White House re­fuses to ac­know­ledge this is test­a­ment to the policy-al­ter­ing ef­fect of Snowden’s leaks of clas­si­fied doc­u­ments about the Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency’s wide-ran­ging In­ter­net and phone sur­veil­lance pro­grams.

In the East Room on Fri­day, Obama said he al­ways wanted what he is now awk­wardly jug­gling — a na­tion­al de­bate on coun­terter­ror­ism sur­veil­lance. This is demon­strably false. Obama did not want this de­bate, and he has been forced in­to nu­mer­ous lin­guist­ic con­tor­tions in avoid­ing it. He did not want a de­bate that forced him to em­brace a re­view pan­el to ex­am­ine his ad­min­is­tra­tion’s coun­ter­sur­veil­lance prac­tices and to call for a pri­vacy and civil-liber­ties ad­voc­ate be­fore the secret For­eign In­tel­li­gence Sur­veil­lance Court that ap­proves sur­veil­lance war­rants. On Fri­day, Obama sought to lim­it the fe­ro­city of the de­bate by as­sert­ing his role as calm, con­sti­tu­tion­al ar­bit­er of ex­ec­ut­ive power and re­form. “I be­lieve that there are steps we can take to give the Amer­ic­an people ad­di­tion­al con­fid­ence that there are ad­di­tion­al safe­guards against ab­use,” he said.

Obama au­thor­ized more sur­veil­lance than Pres­id­ent George W. Bush in part be­cause tech­no­logy and threat matrices con­vinced him it was ne­ces­sary. For two months since Snowden’s leaks, Obama has been hes­it­ant to en­gage in de­bate and call for re­forms, in part be­cause he was wait­ing for the Justice De­part­ment and in­tel­li­gence com­munity to cough up in­form­a­tion ex­plain­ing what the NSA was do­ing and its leg­al au­thor­ity. Obama re­leased much of that on Fri­day. It was a de­fens­ive move de­signed to prove he hasn’t ab­used powers and that the sur­veil­lance has defined and de­fens­ible lim­its. That as­ser­tion was un­der­cut by ad­di­tion­al — there is that word again — re­port­ing about the NSA’s pre­vi­ously un­known au­thor­ity to cull data about Amer­ic­ans in the gen­er­al neigh­bor­hood, elec­tron­ic­ally speak­ing, of sus­pec­ted ter­ror­ist com­mu­nic­a­tions. All of this has raised, des­pite Obama’s re­as­sur­ances, con­cern about the real-time hol­low­ing out of Fourth Amend­ment pro­tec­tions.

Back to the de­bate Obama says he wanted. What Obama al­ludes to is a puny ref­er­ence in his May 23 speech at the Na­tion­al De­fense Uni­versity on the new con­tours of the war on ter­ror. In that speech, Obama said many meaty and pro­voc­at­ive things — among them that the war on ter­ror had to even­tu­ally end in name and deed; that he uses drones ag­gress­ively and leth­ally and would con­tin­ue to do so, even against Amer­ic­ans; that he would work with Con­gress to re­write the 2001 Au­thor­iz­a­tion for Use of Mil­it­ary Force (the in­creas­ingly tattered leg­al um­brella cov­er­ing all an­ti­ter­ror­ism activ­it­ies now); and that he would speed up re­leases at the Guantanamo Bay mil­it­ary pris­on and re­new ef­forts to close it. The speech was by far the meat­i­est of his second term and a road map for his ad­min­is­tra­tion, and quite prob­ably, his suc­cessor’s, on how to deal with the mil­it­ary, leg­al, and polit­ic­al com­plex­it­ies of pro­sec­ut­ing a war that in­creas­ingly re­lies on shad­owy weapons of war — drones and sur­veil­lance — and less on troops and for­ward-op­er­at­ing bases. But all Obama had to say on the top­ic of sur­veil­lance was this piece of dan­deli­on fuzz:

“In the years to come, we will have to keep work­ing hard to strike the ap­pro­pri­ate bal­ance between our need for se­cur­ity and pre­serving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means re­view­ing the au­thor­it­ies of law en­force­ment, so we can in­ter­cept new types of com­mu­nic­a­tion, but also build in pri­vacy pro­tec­tions to pre­vent ab­use.”

The key phrases here: “years to come”; “in­ter­cept new types of com­mu­nic­a­tion”; and “pri­vacy pro­tec­tions to pre­vent ab­use.”

Obama fully em­braced the status quo in coun­terter­ror­ism sur­veil­lance, mean­ing all the pro­grams Snowden was about to dis­close, and called for a de­bate in some dis­tant fu­ture about more au­thor­it­ies to in­ter­cept “new types” of com­mu­nic­a­tion out­side of tele­phone and In­ter­net data. Any fair read­ing of this sur­veil­lance-speech wid­get shows that it poin­ted to ex­pand­ing the leg­al re­gime un­der which ex­ist­ing — but un­known — sur­veil­lance was already tak­ing place.

The throwaway line “also build in pri­vacy pro­tec­tions to pre­vent ab­use” equates the po­ten­tial for wrong­do­ing only with new gov­ern­ment powers more broad than cur­rently ex­ist, as­sert­ing no ab­uses have or will oc­cur un­der ex­ist­ing sur­veil­lance schemes.

This is not kick­ing off a de­bate on do­mest­ic sur­veil­lance. It is kick­ing the can down the road of more sur­veil­lance that ad­apts to grow­ing gov­ern­ment­al cap­ab­il­it­ies to gath­er, sift, and ana­lyze data in coun­terter­ror­ism op­er­a­tions. Obama’s own words in the Na­tion­al De­fense Uni­versity speech re­veal per­fectly his pre-Snowden mind­set on coun­terter­ror­ism sur­veil­lance ma­chinery. It is vast. It works. It grows as the volume of data grows. I need it and will need to ex­pand it.

That truth is also found in Obama’s his­tory of ant­ag­on­ism to­ward con­gres­sion­al curi­os­ity about the sur­veil­lance pro­grams and in leg­al briefs in de­fense of data col­lec­tion that were already be­ing chal­lenged be­fore Snowden’s rev­el­a­tions.

Obama is not the first pres­id­ent se­duced by the vast mar­tial powers of com­mand­er in chief, and he won’t be the last. There is noth­ing con­dem­nable in the ap­plic­a­tion of pres­id­en­tial power to meet a per­ceived or known threat, es­pe­cially when, as with com­puter-sur­veil­lance op­er­a­tions, the tech­niques and tech­no­lo­gies ad­vance rap­idly and the depth and breadth of search­able data ex­pands ex­po­nen­tially. It is not naïve to as­sert that the coun­terter­ror­ism-sur­veil­lance tread­mill spins at max­im­um speed and no pres­id­ent, not even a self-avowed sur­veil­lance skep­tic like Obama, can keep pace.

Snowden’s clas­si­fied leaks sought to knock Obama off the tread­mill and, if pos­sible, slow the data col­lec­tion down. He leaked clas­si­fied doc­u­ments and must face the leg­al con­sequences. Words like pat­ri­ot, trait­or, and de­fect­or are now ban­died about to define Snowden. A court of law will de­cide if he’s a crim­in­al. In­di­vidu­al Amer­ic­ans, as they al­ways have, will de­term­ine if he’s a pat­ri­ot.

Those closest to Obama say he feels burned by Snowden’s leaks be­cause Obama has con­vinced him­self he ad­ded civil-liber­ties pro­tec­tions as he au­thor­ized more-ag­gress­ive sur­veil­lance data col­lec­tion. Obama is irked that Snowden didn’t use the pres­id­ent’s own ex­ec­ut­ive or­der giv­ing a whistle-blower power to pe­ti­tion au­thor­it­ies. Obama’s cent­ral con­ceit, chal­lenged by Snowden, was that he had im­proved sur­veil­lance, ad­ded pri­vacy pro­tec­tions, and kept the coun­try safe. What pres­id­ent wouldn’t want to pro­tect that leg­acy and en­large it on his terms?

Snowden’s leaks have forced Obama to de­fend his pro­grams in the clam­or­ous pub­lic square, where polit­ics runs rampant, op­pon­ents strike poses, and where “com­plex” de­tails can be con­fused, mis­in­ter­preted, or ig­nored.

Obama did not seek this de­bate. He does not par­tic­u­larly en­joy this de­bate. He’s grop­ing for words to pro­tect a sur­veil­lance re­gime many in his polit­ic­al base find re­pug­nant and that is un­der in­creas­ing leg­al as­sault.

The de­bate is very much alive and Obama is a re­luct­ant par­ti­cipant. He’s try­ing to out­man­euver crit­ics who find more trac­tion with each new dis­clos­ure. The pres­id­ent is try­ing to get ahead of that pro­cess by call­ing for trans­par­ency and hav­ing a re­view board of­fer re­com­mend­a­tions while Snowden’s new leaks are likely to keep sur­fa­cing. Obama is now in a cam­paign to pro­tect a sur­veil­lance ar­chi­tec­ture he be­lieves works — even if it raises alarms among civil liber­tari­ans on the right and left. He will have to ex­plain his ra­tionale for the sur­veil­lance su­per-state that now ex­ists.

Re­pub­lic­ans want Obama to de­fend the pro­grams more vig­or­ously. Many Demo­crats want him to dra­mat­ic­ally cur­tail sur­veil­lance. The pres­id­ent, for now, is hop­ing to buy time with sooth­ing non sequit­urs about “ad­di­tion­al con­fid­ence” and “ad­di­tion­al safe­guards.”

The de­bate is here to stay. Obama is now the cent­ral fig­ure that he, pos­sibly for the first time ever, nev­er wanted to be. Snowden’s leaks shoved Obama on the sur­veil­lance cen­ter stage. Act One is over.

Obama’s look­ing for bet­ter writers dur­ing in­ter­mis­sion, be­fore Act Two.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
6 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
6 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×