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 »
WILL ANNOUNCE PICK BEFORE CONVENTION
Trump to Name VP Search Committee
42 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he expected to reveal his vice presidential pick sometime in July—before the Republican National Convention in Cleveland—but added that he would soon announce a committee to handle the selection process, which would include Dr. Ben Carson." He said he's inclined to name a traditional political figure, unlike himself.

Source:
AFFECTS WORKERS EARNING MORE THAN $50K
Business, Nonprofits Panicking Over Labor’s New Overtime Rules
45 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"Groups have flocked to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs to ask for last-minute changes" to the Department of Labor's new overtime rules, which would require that businesses pay overtime to any salaried employee making more than $50,440 per year, up from the current $23,660. Business interests, as well as some nonprofits, say the move could lead to mass change in workers' statuses, from salaried to hourly. "The White House office held 22 meetings on the proposal in April, according to its calendar, and groups say more meetings are planned this week." Last month, National Journal's Alex Brown reported on how the change might affect Washington.

Source:
KAUFMAN, HUNTSMAN ALSO MAY JUMP ON BOARD
Ed Rollins Joins Pro-Trump Super PAC
50 minutes ago
THE LATEST

Republican gun-for-hire Ed Rollins is hopping on the bandwagon, er, the Great America PAC, "an outside group that’s supporting Trump. ... Rollins isn’t the only GOP mainstay coming around to Trump. In recent days, Republican veterans including Republican National Committeeman Ron Kaufman and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman have expressed an openness to him."

Source:
PRESSER IN OHIO THIS AFTERNOON
Report: Kasich Is Bowing Out
1 hours ago
THE LATEST

John Kasich is apparently the last domino to fall on the GOP side. NBC is reporting he's suspending his presidential campaign. His path to the Republican nomination seemed all but impossible—even at a contested convention—but he may have finally given up. The Washington Examiner reports Kasich has canceled a press conference at Dulles Airport, "and will instead hold one in Columbus, Ohio, at 5 p.m."

Source:
CNN/ORC
Clinton Ahead by 13 in Early Going
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"As Donald Trump captures the mantle of presumptive Republican nominee, a new poll finds he begins his general election campaign well behind Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. The new CNN/ORC Poll, completed ahead of Trump's victory last night, found Clinton leads 54% to 41%, a 13-point edge over the New York businessman, her largest lead since last July. Clinton is also more trusted than Trump on many issues voters rank as critically important, with one big exception. By a 50% to 45% margin, voters say Trump would do a better job handling the economy than Clinton would."

Source:
×