After Slow Start, Obama Administration Finds its Voice on Surveillance

After a stunned, fumbling response to Edward Snowden's leaks, a clearer defense of NSA and FBI programs.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Charles Dharapak / AP

Gen. Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency testifies before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence regarding NSA surveillance in Washington, June 18, 2013.

After a week of mostly ad hoc, often cryptic and generally ineffectual responses to leaked details about its anti-terror surveillance programs, the Obama administration has finally begun articulating a clearer defense of those programs. It amounts to a two pronged-message: The snooping isn’t as bad as it sounds, and your civil liberties are scrupulously protected.

President Obama kicked off the counteroffensive in a Monday night interview with PBS’s Charlie Rose. The president–who’d been criticized last week for not more directly defending his surveillance policies in the wake of Edward Snowden‘s bombshell leaks–insisted that he wrestles with the balance between national security and civil liberties. And at a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Tuesday afternoon, top intelligence and law enforcement officials testified that their snooping has prevented specific terror attacks, and refuted some important misconceptions about their covert work.

Speaking with Charlie Rose, Obama portrayed himself–as he did in his recent address on his drone and detention policies–as copiously working to strike a balance. “[W]e don’t have to sacrifice our freedom in order to achieve security. That’s a false choice,” Obama told Rose. “And so every program that we engage in, what I’ve said is, ‘Let’s examine and make sure that we’re making the right tradeoffs.'” Obama also clarified key points that may be lost on people who only follow the surveillance debate casually–namely that “if you are a U.S. person, the NSA cannot listen to your telephone calls, and the NSA cannot target your emails,” as he put it.

A longtime critic of fear-mongering about terrorism, Obama was tonally measured about the threat. (Where George W. Bush liked to refer to “the evildoers,” Obama told Rose about “folks who are trying to do us harm.”) But real and present danger was the thrust at the House hearing, where a crew of top officials–including NSA chief Keith Alexander and deputy FBI director Sean Joyce–said that U.S. surveillance had prevented more than 50 terror plots since 9/11, including at least 10 “homeland-based threats.” Among those were two cases the officials discussed publicly for the first time: a foiled plan to bomb the New York Stock Exchange and the arrest of a San Diego man planning to send financial support to an al Qaeda-affiliated group in Somalia.

The officials also presented a detailed litany about the legal restrictions and judicial and congressional oversight limiting their surveillance activities. They also clarified a commonly misunderstood point, namely that the government’s collection of phone records does not include the location from which cell phone calls are made. And Alexander refuted one of the most sensational claims made by the fugitive leaker Edward Snowden. “Does the technology exist for any individual…at the NSA to flip a switch, to listen to Americans’ phone calls or read their emails,” the committee chairman, Mike Rogers, asked Alexander. “No,” replied the NSA chief.

The hearing won’t satisfy critics of the surveillance programs, who contend they are subject to abuse or to looser parameters under future presidents. Nor did the officials present many details about the dozens of terrorist plots they claim to have stopped with their programs, and whether they could have been disrupted through more conventional means, or if their surveillance powers were even more closely restricted. But the officials won a sympathetic hearing from a House committee whose members lack the expertise of their Senate counterparts with a clarity that was often on painful display. (One of the never-fulfilled reforms proposed by the 2004 9/11 Commission was to combine the House and Senate Intelligence Committees into a single, relatively small, high-expertise joint panel.) That sympathy, and the ability to coherently defend the programs, was surely a goal Rogers, a former FBI agent who left no doubt about own sympathies. “It is at times like these where our enemies within become almost as damaging as our enemies on the outside,” Rogers said.

That’s a few notches harsher than Obama’s official line on the Snowden leaks. But it also serves the purpose of an administration, initially caught completely off-guard by the explosive return of the surveillance debate, that is figuring out how to explain itself. It remains to be seen which side a still-divided public will ultimately take.


I am sure that there are plenty of "safeguards" built into the surveillance laws--FISA courts, Congressional briefings, etc.  These are the "safeguards" that are being trumpeted by Administration officials lately.  These officials are supposedly providing the "adult supervision" for the bureaucrats executing the programs.

These are the same "adult leaders" who have recently shown incompetence in the following:

1.  ability to restrain the IRS and GSA from wasting millions of Taxpayer dollars for extravagent wing-dings

2.  ability to prevent IRS officials from targeting political enemies

3.  ability of prevent the rise of sexual assaults and gang activities within the military ranks

4.  abililty to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars that are spent on crony projects such as Solyndra, Fisker, etc.

5. ability to maintain discipline of the Secret Service and prevent whoring around while on duty.

Until such time as we have adult leadership in Washington, I can no longer support giving Washington bureaucrats so much authority to spy on our domestic activities, regardless of the number of terrorist attacks that these bureaucrats profess to interdict.


After a week of the MSM jumping on the James Okeefe-ish leak the headline might read:   After A Slow Start, the MSM Finds It's Voice on Surveillance.  Good Job.   


Until Michael and/or any of his colleagues can provide independent verification of any of the claims or defenses coming from the administration, congress or the intelligence community. I'm not buying any of it.


I'm going to keep harping on the same point. Google and Yahoo operate all over the world. Everywhere they operate they are under the jurisdiction of the governments in those countries. If they are cooperating with the NSA because they are compelled to by law and they are only providing information on "non-US" persons, what's stopping them from cooperating with the UK to provide information on US persons? And since Google is now in the business of spying (as if they weren't already) what's stopping them from providing any information anywhere "as required by law" to foreign governments?


Please be precise: NSA did NOT provide details of the purported success stories; it simply made unsubstantiated claims. This is exactly why secret police power without public scrutiny is so toxic: it is so easy to hide abuse, and rest assured, cases of abuse do happen.

According to CNN, the stock exchange bombing idea was just an idea; it was never acted on. As for "a San Diego man planning to send financial support to an al Qaeda-affiliated group", is this the best that NSA can claim as the excuse to take away citizens' broad civil liberty? If it is and the American public actually let it get away with it, I can only think of the word "pathetic" to describe this nation.


Fascinating article, Mr. Crowley.

Now, where were all of those articles of support for the Bush Administration when it came under fire for the Patriot Act?


@mrbomb13 : Perhaps because the Obama administration is doing a better job:

"Frankly, the Obama administration was more transparent than we were in the Bush administration," Hayden told CNN on Wednesday. "They made this metadata collection activity available to all the members of Congress, not just all the members of the intelligence committees." [June 2013]

Perhaps radical militant librarians like me had an influence.

"While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us," read the e-mail message, which was sent by an unidentified F.B.I. official. "This should be an OIPR priority!!!" [December 2005]